n

cl325~

•jsmm-jimx

:.t.siK.'..i'.j:'.vA vu.,i^vjui:f.v.iL':u-i w^juLeijm^v

LECTURES

ON THE

INYOCATION OF SAINTS,

VENEEATION OF SACKED IMAGES,

AND

PURGATORY.

BY THE

REV. CHARLES CONSTANTINE PISE, D. D.

NEW -YORK:
PUBLISHED BY HENRY G. DAGGERS,
No. 30 ANN-STREET.

1845.

¦a««.:^^«-^.-.^^.-..-^

:mMmssmM,iLsii^.!^.,^m^-r,^,,^

THE BEST AND

5T MUSIC EVER PUBLISHEl

' HENRY G. DAO€}£RS, 30 Attn Street,
have just published new editions of the following popular and elegant

THE BEETHOVEN COLLECTION,
¦Edited by e. ives, Jr. w. alpers, and henry c. timm.
Price $\ a. single copy ; $9 a dozen to choirs of churches — with a further liberal
discount to music and booksellers. This collection — the result of the joint labors
of three eminent professors and composers of music — is acknowledged to be the
best extant, and is used in the choirs of the principal churches in New York.
Copies presented gratis to teachers and leaders of choirs, who introduce this work.

^11

ONE HUNDRED SONGS FOR THE PLINO.
With original words by J. G. Perciral and othereminent American Poets.

^'^s

len completed, this will be by far the cheapest and most beautiful collection
of songs to be found. Two numbers, containing 32 pages, are now ready, and
are ofiered for sale for less than tlie poorest and cheapest music in the shops, viz :
26 cents a number — not two cents a page, and as handsome as steel-engraving.

THE MUSICAL ALBUM.

is is a collection of concerted pieces, especially adapted to be sung in families
and schools of young ladies. The pieces are arranged from the most charming
compositions of Belini, Bertini, Mozart, die. Three parts have been published
and will be sold for 26 cents each part. Seventy two pages of beautifully
printed music for less than one dollar !

TTCiE

WILHEM'S CELEBRATED METHOD OE TEACH
ING SINGING IN CLASSES.
Translated from the French Edition by S. A. Hamilton.

lis work is adopted throughout Europe in all of the elementary schools of music
and should become a text-book in the United States. In consequence of the large
demand for it and the necessity of placing it in the hands of every pupil, an edition
has been issued on the best paper for the unprecedently low price of 25 cents
single copy ; or $2,50 for twelve copies.
TO THE TRADE,
the abov» works, which introduce a new era into music-publications, will be sold
at a very liberal discount. They are increasing in reputation every day.

LECTURES

ON

PE INVOCATION OF SAINTS,

¦TlNERATION OF SACKED IMAGES.

PURGATORY.

BY THE

REV. CHARLES CONSTANTINE PISE, D. D.

NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED BY H. G. DAGGERS,
No.'SOAnn-Stkeet. 1845.

Entered according to Act of Congress,
BT FABMES & DAdSERS,
In the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New York, A. D. 1845.

"*?

P674

YALE

ADVERTISEMENT

At the solicitation of many whose opinions I much value., I am induced to
publish the" following Lectures, delivered, . during the past winter, in St.
Peter's Church. They have already been spread before the public, but with
out my supervision or correction.' The present edition has been carefully
revised and prepared by myself, and, I hope, will be found worthy of perusal
and study, not only by Catholics, but likewise by other denominations. The
subjects treated of are of great interest, and worthy a fair and dispassionate
investigation. The American people are of an inquiring and honorable
character ; and when they discover the solid arguments by which the Catholic
tenets are proved and sustained, they will not fail to do them justice, and to
make this acknowledgment, at least, that we have every right and every
reason to adhere with reverential affection to the religion of all past ages.

TO THE
VERY REV. doctor POWER, V. G., &c. &c.
THESE LECTURES,
DELIVERED IN ST. PETER'S OHUROfi,
. ARE RESPECTFULLY
INSCRIBED,
BY HIS FAITHFUL FRIEND, THE AUTHpR.

LECTURES.

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.

And when they hod bound him wj,th thongs, Paul saith to the Centurion that stood by him : Is it lawful for
you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned -?
Which the Centurion hearing, went to the tribune and told him, saying : What art then about to do % For
this man is a Roman citizen.
And the tribune coming said to him : Tell me art thou a Roman 1 But he said, yea.
And the tribune answered : I obtained the being free ofthis city with a great sum. And Paul said, but 1 was
born so. Acts ofthe Apostles, xxii. 25, 6, 7, 8.

It was, indeed, the greatest of privileges
in the time of St. Paul, to be numbered
among Roman citizens : and I believe I
can with justice remark, thatit is an equal
privilege, at the' present day, to be a citi
zen of this republic. And as the tribune
earned his citizenship with a great sum of
money, so there are those who have earned
the rights and privileges of citizenship in
this proud country, by the sweat of their
brows, and the labor of their hands — many
who a,re willing apd ready to fight the
battles, if necessary, of that land of which
they have become citizens, and to die in
so glorious a cause.
But I, in the language of St. Paul, have
been " born so." And yet is it not aston
ishing that citizens, wheth* they have
earned the right of citizenship with " a
great sum," according to the expression
of the Acts of the Apostles, or whether
they have been " born so," find it necessary
to stand forth in vindication of that religi
ous creed which they conscientiously pro
fess,: and thus to claim for themselves the
right which citizenship confers upon all,
the right of worshipping God according to
the dictates of their consciences ? But

such is the spirit of the present times, and
such are the prejudices of the present
generation, even in this republic, that it
becomes my duty, as it was the duty in
Pagan times — in the dawn of Christianity,
of Augustine, of Athanagoras, of Tertullian,
to expound the doctrines of Christiamty,
and to vindicate the claims of Catholicity,
to the attributes of truth. In taking this
great subject into consideration, I find my
self obliged to contend with three strong ob
stacles in the way ofour religious belief:
First, we have to contend against secia~
rian influence; secondly, against popular
prejudice ; and, thirdly, against what! may
style dogmatic misrepresentation.
Under the heiad of sectarian intolerance,
I would signify that we have to contend
with the intolerance which has been exer
cised and enforced from the pulpits and
through the press by those sectarians who
have presumed to make the assertion, and
who have attempted to prove it, that our
religion is incompatible with free institu
tions ;, and that it, therefore, should not be
tolerated in this our own republic, of which
we are citizens, either having purchased
our citizenship with a>great sum, or having

LECTURES ON THE

been " born so." Under the head of popu
lar prejudice, I will take briefly into con
sideration that strong and universal preju
dice propogated against us with regard to
the reading and use of the scriptures. Un
der the head of dogmatic misrepresentation,
I will cast my eye, cursorily, in this intro
ductory lecture, upon the extraordinary
misrepresentations of the doctrines of our
creed, misrepresentations which have gone
abroad not merely from vulgar sources, but
have recently been confirmed and settled,
as far as it could be, by the autSorityiof
no less an assemblage of individuals than
those who composed the Episcopal Con
vention in the city of Philadelphia. They
who know me are fully aware of the man
ner in which I conduct these lectures :
without any disposition whatever to injure
the feelings of any individual — without any
intention to attack any other creed — with
the most perfect respect for the convictions
of those who may diiFer >from me, but at
the same tirae with a candid purpose, and
manful determination, to vindicate my doc
trine, and prove them to this community as
far as my abilities will allow me, and my
privileges as a citizen, having been " born
so," will warrant me.
Now, the (question is, on what grounds
has been founded that extraordinary preju
dice against our church, as stated and be
lieved by many, that that church is incom
patible with free institutions ? There are
here two things to be' taken into considera
tion. First, did the Reformation give lib
erty ; and secondly, did the Catholic
Church, since the days of the Reformation,
attempt to destroy it ? It is generally be
lieved by those who have taken but a su
perficial view of history, and much more
so by those who derive their views from
the declamation which they hear from the
pulpits of those opposed to us, that at the
dawn of the reformation, liberty of con
science, liberty of speech, liberty of the
press — nay, universal liberty, beamed with
its radiance upon a benighted earth : and
that the Catholic religion stood always
opposed to that light, and that wherever
the Catholic religion had means and influ-
ence, it attempted to extinguish, or if it
could not totally extinguish it, to diminish
that light. ' ''
With regard to the question, did the Re
formation give and auliorise this universal
liberty of conscience, I will not have re
course, in furnishing a reply, to any Cath
olic author. ' I will have recourse^to an
author universally known — ^to an author
whose authority is everywhere respected,
not merely on account of his general ac- '

curacy as an historian, on account of his
philosophy as a critic, of his candor as a
narrator of events, but likewise on ac
count of his popularity as a man of extra
ordinary talents and of beautiful and con
rect taste ; Mr. Roscoe — whose pen has
glowingly depicted the bright age of Leo
the Tenth. In his " Life and Pontificate
of Leo X." 4 vols, octavo, he censures in
these words — "the severity with which
Luther treated those who unfortunately
happened to believe too much on the one
hand, or too littlq on the other, and could
not walk steadily on the hair-breadth line
which he had presented." Again " while
Luther was engaged in his opposition to
the Church of Rome, he asserted th? right
of private judgment with the confidence
and courage of a martyr, but no sooner
had he freed his followers from the chains
of papal delusion than he forged for them
others, in many respects equally intolera.-
ble." Thus we have the confession of
Roscoe, that Luther, who is generally con
sidered the great patriarch of liberty, be
cause he was the first of the Reformers,
was as intolerant toward those who differ
ed fromhim,-as the Church of Ronie is
accused to have been with regard to him
and his associates. Again, passing to the
domination which Calvin exercised^^go-
ing from one Reformer to another — we
find that more than one thousand Lutheran
ministers were proscribed with their wives
and children, and reduced to beg tbebreadi
ot charity. Thus we see Luther waging
war against those who differed from him,
and Calvin proscribing, on the authority of
an almost contemporaneous writer, thou
sands of Lutheran ministers with their
wives and children ! As it is not my inten
tion to enter at length into this all-impor
tant subject, but mergly to give a cursory
view of it, let us very briefly examine what
has been the character of Catholics with
regard to toleration, and a disposition to
extend freedom of conscience and liberty
everywhere. We find that in Belgium,
which is essentially a Catholic country,
the people have submitted to be governed
by a Protestant King, and there has been
no attempt t^ rebel against his authority.
We find that Poland never persecuted, yet
there the Catholic religion was principally
dominant. We find that no Catholic gov
ernment ever united the King and the
Church, making the King head of both
Church and State. No. - This was the
effect of the liberty, as it is so tei'med, of
the Reformation: for we find that afiter
that event, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark,'
JEJoUand, and England established this con.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

nection, and made the teraporal sovereign
at the same time their spiritual ruler ; tiie
King ift these countries, or the Queen as
it may be, being the head of government
both temporal and spiritual. Rome has
opened her gates even to the Jews. Rome
{las given protection to the unfortunate
captives of Judea. Since the days when
they were brought captive, after the siege
and destruction of the venerable city by
Vespasian — from that period down to the
present they have been protected — more
than tolerated — by all sovereign pontiffs :
and so sensible are tlipy of the privileges
which the Roman pontiffs have ever ex
tended to their race in Rome, that every
year it is customary for them to present
an offering of gratitude and respect to the
Pope. *
Here I would with great respect remark,
that when an Hebrew orator, in his private
character amiable and social, was treating,
on a recent occasion, of the restoration of his
people to the Holy Land, it surprised me
much, that while he spoke of the light of
the Reformation beaming over Christiani
ty, he forgot to state that his nation were
indebted, in no little degree, for their rights
and privileges, and protection,, to that
church, which he, it seeras, with others, is
not willing to acknowledge as worthy even
of a passing tribute of respect and vener
ation. Now, what shall I say of Maryland,
my native State T What shall I say of
that band of Catholic pilgrims, who, when
they planted the cross for the first time on
the barren shores of the St. Mary's River,
unfurled, at the same, time the banner of
universal liberty, proclaiming freedom of
conscience even to their persecutors who
had driven them across the Atlantic ? Be
it ever remembered that Maryland — a Ca
tholic colony — was the first in this land to
proclaim universal freedom and liberty of
conscience. Does this look' like carry
ing Qut principles of intolerance? —
Does this present justifiable grounds
for embittering the minds of the people
with the assertion, baseless and' calum
nious, that the inhabitants of Maryland,
Catholic and free Maryland, were not fit
to enjoy the privileges and liberties of citi
zens of the tfnited States ¦!
So much for the first part — sectarian in
tolerance. What shall I say of the sec-
vond — ^popular prejudice? Popular preju
dice, which bases itself in a great measure on
the falsehood that the Roman Catholic
people are prohibited the use of the sacred
scriptures ? Now how often, in the course
of the last winter, in lecturing upon these
snli^ects, did I not insist upon the fallacy

of this assertion ? Over and over again
do -the ministers of the Catholic religion
contend and declare that the use of the
sacred scriptures never was forbidden —
that the abuse of the ?acred scriptures
was and is forbidden. And here is the
great distinction. If you use the sacred
scriptures properly, then are you entitled
to an indiscriminate perusal of .them. -If
you abuse them, then it is evident to any
man of common sense that the Bible shodld
be closed against your abuse. And this
is the wise system of the Catholic reli
gion which has brought upon us so much
abuse ; and in the languag^ of the author
of the Acts of the Apostles has " caused
people to throw dust into the air." But it
is said — " you will not allow the Bible to
go into the hands of the people without
note and comment." Well, we do ndt
allow the Bible to go into the hands of the '
people without note and comment, because
we believe that they cannot understand it
unless they have an explanation. Recol
lect that there is no book more ditficult to
be understood than the sacred scriptures.
Now, if I place in the hands of a youth
the works of an ancient classic writer, he
may perfectly understand the words — ^he
may comprehend thq substance — therefore,
I might argue it is utterly unnecessary for
any classic critic to annex notes and com
ments to such a work. We have notes
and comments to the sacred scriptures on
the very same principle. And if you' take
the trouble to enter on a dispassionate ex- ¦
amination of the necessity of such notes
and comments, I believe that you will all,
whether Catholics or otherwise, agree with
me that as far as an indiscriminate perusal
of the Bible goes, it would be proper that
people should be guided by landmarks, as
it were — ^by notes and comments. Let
me give you a few instances. On reading
the Acts of the Apostles, you find in tbe
xxii. chap.- and 19th v., this passage:
"And they that were with me saw, indeed,
the light, but heard not the voice of him
that spoke with me." Then, pass to the
ix. chap, and 7th v. of the same book, and
you read — " Ahd the Lord said unto him,
arise, and go into the city, and there it will
be told thou what thou must do : — liow the
men stood amazed, hearing, indeed, i voice
but seeing no man." Now, here is appa
rently a flat contradiction, vvhich would
puzzle any young reader of the Bible.
What, then, dpes the church do "i The
Church says, piiblish the Bible in the lan
guage of the people, but give notes, so that
the yOung mind may not be perplexed —
explain these apparent contradictions, so

8

LECTURES ON THE

that tljeymay not give up Christianity al-
together,ion the ground uf contradictions
in the sacred scriptures. We have, then,
in our Bible, a note on the passage just
.. qupted, and vve recur to it as we would to
the explanatory comment appended to- the
; tqxt of a; classic vvriter, and we find thi^
explanation — " They .heard npt the .voice,
that, is, they distinguished not the words,
though they heard the voice." ¦ This at
once reconciles the apparent contradiction.
lo another place— the 6th chapter of Ro
mans,; 20th v. — a youjig man reading the
chapter falls upon this text, which to him
.must appear, very contradictory — "Now
the law entered in that sin might abound."
When the young mind pauses on this text,
it will naturally become bewildered. What!
was ,the law given in order that we might
commit more sin ? He would present it
¦ to his neighbor and, find him equally be
wildered, but the church has forseen and
prqvided for this difliculty. ' The reader
finds an explanatory note, appended to the
text— "lUot .as if the. law were given on
purpose that sin might abound, but that it
,so happened, through man's perversity,
taking occasion to, sin more from' the pro
hibition of sin." .¦ I merely adduce these
texts,, with the accompanying coraraent, to
,¥how, you the, character of the notes, and
to sho\t? you.at the sarae timethe propriety,
iS.s ^e conceive, of having these notes and
, comments for theiexplanation and under-
.st3.nding of those .<3t{ierwise diflicult and
t obscure passages.
But is .it true — ras.our enemies assert — that
' the Catholic church has ever proscribed the
proper use of the Bible ? Was not the
Bible permitted toi be read by the people
after the Reformation ? Wi'as this not the
.spring of liberty in England? Was not
thig thei cavise of the .discovery of the
"¦ errors, superstitions, and abominations of
Popery i" ? . VYas it not inconsequence of
this universal; indulgence, that all the
heresies which preceded that event were
discoyered? It is indeed i generally be
lieved by those who have not investigated
this matter, that as soon as Henry yill.
declared himself head of the churchi.the
Bible was opened ;tp the perusal of every
body indiscriijniiiately, .But this is by no
meaiia the case., ,1 quote from the History
of England by, Dr., Lingard, 4th chap. 6
vol. " Some yqarg had passed sinoe;
William Tyndall, a tutor in a family in
Gloucestershire, but of suspicious ortho
doxy, fled into the Netherlands, and there
printed a translation ofthe Holy Scriptures
which, speedily attracted the attention of
the i^rchbishop of Canterbury, who ordered

all copies of dt to be seized and burned, on
the, ground that it was a false translation,
interpolated with all sorts of: heresies.
This only increased the sale., The King
interposed, having previously consulted
the Bishops and a deputation of ^divines
from each university, and issued a pro
clamation advising -all persons to give 'up
their Bibles, declaring that in respect of
the malignity of the times, it . was" better
thatthe scriptures should be explained. by
the learned, than be exposed to the misap
prehension' of the vulgar, promising that
after the false an ci;!-rupt .translation had
been destroyed, tiiere would be one pro
duced by the joint labors ,of several Catho-
ic and learned persons." Thus we find
that on the ground of error in the transla
tion, England, immediately after the Re
formation prohibited, the general and in
discriminate use of the Bible. And it
was in the same spirit that the Catholic
church in the Council of Trent assembled,
finding that the Christian world was tom
into pieces by the Bible, that is to say. by
the abuse of it, declared that it was neces
sary that there should be some restriction
upon the reading of it : and Henry VIII
issued; a similar decree with /Tegard to the
translation of Tyndall. The promise of
.anpther translation was not forgotten. . It
was urged by Cranmer, and finally on a
petition ofthe convocation, a, translation
composed partly of that by. Tyndall and
others was issued, under the fictitious name
of " Thomas Matthew," a« printer, by the
royal license. An injunction was issued
ordering a copy to be placed in every
church, and allowing permission to all to
consult it provided .they did not disturb the
preacher during service. This was after
the perrnission was extended to private
houses. " But again," says Dr. Lingard,
' he had formerly sanctioned the publication
of an Englisli version, and gave permission
.of all his subjects to read it ; but on its bgirig
.represented to hira that even this authoriz
ed version was filled with corrupt readings
calculated to mislead the unwary,iand had
thus not only generated false teafchers, but
led to angry discussions araong the vulgar
in ale-houses, and other places of resort,
which had often ended in blows and
breaches of the peace. To reraedy the
first of these evils, it vvas recommended
that the version of Tyndall be condemned
altogether ^s crafty, Mise and untrue, and
that there should be an authorized transla
tion, without liote or coraraent ; — to stop
the second, a permission to read others
was recommended to be conferred on lords
and gentlemen, but only in secret to their

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

9

households, and to females of noble and
gentle birth. (And now bear the next
sentence in your minds !) Any other
woman, or any artificer, apprentice or
journeyman, or laborer, if found guilty of
opening the Bible was liable to one raonth's
imprisonment." This was the. liberty of
the Reformation in England !
I pass now to the third and most important
point, that is, the dogmatic misrepresenta
tion ofour creed. It has always been to rae
a matter of astonishment, that men, erudite,
eloquent, amiable, adorned with social vir
tues, lights and ornaments of the country,
if you choose, could, nevertheless, persist
in these misrepresentations of our holy re
ligion. Now, ara I making too harsh an
assertion — am I forgetting the charitable
character of a religious lecturer ? — ^by no
means. For instance, over and over again
it has been repeated, apd published, and it
is believed by raany, that we attribute such
infallibility to the Pope or to the church —
that even if the church should tell us to be
lieve that whioh is false, we are to obey.
This isan article ofour faith which is gross
ly misrepresented. We do believe in the
infallibility of the church ; according to
our conviction, the cliurch was establish
ed by Jesus Christ with the promise that
the faith committed to her would be trans
mitted to all generations. We believe
that the church is infallible only in testify
ing to the truth of that deposite — as hand
ing down unimpaired and unchanged that
deposite frora generation to generation,
and that the church of the I9th century
testifies infallibly to the doctrines of the
first century, during the time of the Apos
tles themselves. But if a saint, for instance,
be canonized, the church may not be in
fallibly right. The church may have upon
the calendar the narae of sorae extraor
dinary personage, who raay have been
thought fit to be presented as a model ; but
the church does not infallibly decide that
he is in heaven — merely that Be may be
presented to the admiration and venera
tion of the faithful, on account of the vir
tues which we believed he displayed while
on earth. I merely allude, just now, to
one article of our faith ; I shall ha.vc am
ple opportunity of noticing many during
the course of these lectures.
But there is one denunciation, which I
feel — as one " born so," in the language of
St. Paul — bound to deprecate and cast
back, in all due charity, whence it canie. -
For, as long as I have a voice and a mind,
so long shall I stand before this commu
nity and declare that I am no idolator —
that my church ,is pot guilty of iciojatry,

no matter what may be the decision of a
Convention in Philadelphia or elsewhere.
The authors ofthe famous "Pastoral Let^
ter," say in allusion to the Jews : " The
Jews for this sin were rejected of God, and ,
ever since have become outcasts frora the
divine favor. They leaned on the false
principle, that broken reed, that dangerous
supposition, in believing that their sacri
fices and ritual observances atoned for sin ;
and, in consequence of this, they rejected
their true Messiah, and'^^ere, and are still
rejected of Him. In this condition of ex
citeraent they will remain until they re
pent and believe the gospel, unto Abraham
their Father — viz : that by the blood ofthe
' Larab^ of God, slain from the foundation
of the world, and once for all poured out
upon the cross, is the atoneraent raade
and sinful raan justified.' Till they be
lieve in this true foundation of all true re
ligion, they remain in their sins. The
same may be said of those who believe in
the false atonement set forth by the Ro
mish mass in the decrees of the Council
of Trent. By these decrees that whole
communion was thrown into a condition
similar to that of the Jews ; both the one
and the other held and still hold that the
sacrifice itself and the ritual soleranity do
atone for sin. The articles of our church
afford us stable ground on which to stand
in guarding you from these errors of the
Church of Rome. Take these articles in
the sense of their fraraers, and as set forth
and investigated by the most distinguish
ed divines, and there .can be no raistake."
Now we are requested by the Right Rev.
authors of this pastoral letter, to take the
meaning of the thirty-nine articles accord
ing to the exposition given of thera by the
ablest and raost distinguished divines of
the Church of England. I will take them
at their word. I will take the explanation
of the most learned divines of the Church
of England, and these will stand in direct
opposition to their false assertions, and at
once rescue our church from the charge
of idolatry thundered out against us in
their anathemas. But before I quote these
extracts, I cannot but make ope remark
with regard to the charge of idolatry.
They say, not in a very Christian manner,
for I Kfust use that expression, that we
Roman Catholics are no better than Hot
tentots or Mahomedans, if we are, idolaters.
Were this true, I contend that the great ob
ject which Jesus Christ had in view has not
been effected on the earth. How so ? If
the Roman Catholics are idolaters because
they believe in, the real presen-ge of Christ,
and adore him in tlie Eti9h§fjgt, then, g,t,

10

LECTURES OI^ THE

least, according to their own admission,
from the third century to the sixteenth,
all the idolaters, Pagans, Chinese, and
others — all the Catholics who separated
from the Church of Rome,, the whole
world was plunged into idolatry ; and where
was the efficacy of the cross, when we
are taught to believe' that Christ came to
destroy idolatry and to establish a pure
and holy worship, upon the ruins of idola
try ? Since the days of the reformatiqn
many Catholics have separated themselves
from the church, but still believe that doc
trine ? The separated Greek church —
the Russian Church, and all these count
less multitudes, separated from the See of
Rome, and the millions still attached — all
are idolators, and the professors of the pure
Christian religion are reduced to the con
vention in Philadelphia ! And let them
beware, for the Unitarian calls out to
them, " You also are idolators, adoring a
man whom you call a God." Thus we see
to what Christianity is reduced by the pre
sumption of raan.
But they say tjiat transubstantiation is
idolatry, and yet they allow us to take on
this point the explanations of the most
" distinguished divines " of the Church of
England. Then I take Bishop Andrews in
reply to' Cardinal Bellarmine. " The King
acknowledges Jesus Christ truly present
and truly adorable in the Eucharist."
Therefore, the King was an idolator, and
Bishop Andrews explains the article alto
gether opposite to that attempted to be
given in the council of a neighboring city.
Again, Bishop Forbes in his " Treatise on
the Eucharist," Book ii. ch. ii. page 9,
says, " We adore, with St. Ambrose, the
flesh of Jesus Christ in these mysteries."
Therefore, if the Catholics are idolators,
Bishop Forbes, one of the fathers of the
Episcopal Church, is an idolator also !
Again, I take the explanation of another
of those "distinguished divines " — that of
Thorndyke in his "Epilogue," book vii.
ch. 30, p. 356, where he says, " I suppose
the body and blood of Christ may be adored
wherever they are, and must be adored by
a good Christian, where the custom of the
church with which he communicates so
requires. And is not the sacrament of the
Eucharist a proper occasion to express
thaf inward honor which we always bear
to Jesus Christ or God ?" It is clear that
Thorndyke is an idolator, and recommends
idolatry according to the decision given by
his bishops — more modern, however, than
those of his times. So much for transub
stantiation, and the " explanation " given
of .'i by the '• mose distinguished divifies *'
Of the CliUrch of England".

Purgaitory, they alsft affirm in their " Pas
toral Letter," is likwise' a practice lead
ing to idolatry, according, of course, to
the " explanSition of the most distinguished
divines." Here again the same learned
Bishop Forbes rises up before me, and thus,
in his " Discourse on Purgatory," pro
claims : " Let not the ancient practice of
prayer and making oblations for the dead,,
received throughout the universal church
of Christ, almost from the very time of the
apostles, be any more rejected by Protest
ants as unlawful and vain. Let them re
vere the judgment of the priraitive church,
and admit a practice sanctioned by the
uninterrupted profession of so many ages,
and in public as well as in private attend
to this duty, not as especially recom
mended by the divine law, but as profit
able and always approved by the church,
that at last a peace so earnestly desired by
all saintly and pious men raay be restored
to the Christian Church." Here, again,
placing hiraself and all his school in direct
opposition to the assertion that we are
idolaters, the bishop explains the article in
question, Again, they exclaim against us
for the invocation of the saints. And again
they say, look at this article in connection
with the " explanation of the most distin
guished divines." Well, then, let us do
so. Dr. Montage, Bishop of Chichester
and Norwich, in his " Antidote," page 20,
says, " I do not deny that the saints are
mediators of prayers ; but that in general,
arid for all in general, they interpose with
God by their supplications and mediate by
their prayers." Thus, then. Dr. Montague '
explains the article in question, in direct
opposition to the Philadelphia convention.
Again, in his treatise on the " Invocation
of Saints," page 103, he says, "It is no
irapiety to say, ' Holy Mstry ! pray for us !
Holy Peter ! pray for us !' " And yet his
bishops, assgmbled in council, declare that
it is wrong — that it is the grossest impiety
—that it is idolatry. I dS not now go into
or at all enter upon, any examination of the
doctrines just alluded to. The absurdity
of accusing us of idolatry, because we
worship Christ in the Eucharist, is, how
ever, very manifest. If we admit that
Christ ought to be adored, it is impossible-
that we can commit idolatry in worshipping
him wherever he may manifest himself.
On this account it was, that when Boswell
questioned Dr. Johnson, " Pray, Doctor,
what do you think of the idolatry of the
mass ?" " Call it not idolatry," answered
the doctor, '' for the Catholics believe that
Jesiis Christ is present, arid they adore

INVo'^ATION op SAINTS.

11

him." These are the remarks which I
purposed to offer in this introducto^ lec
ture. In the succeeding lectures I shall

enter at length on the vindication of the
doctrines of the invocation of Saints, the
veneration ofsacred images, and Purgatory.

LECTUEE II

I speak as to wise men : judge ye yourselves what I say. I Cor. x. 15.

In entering on my subject, this evening,
the question that naturally presents itself
to us is this : What is idolatry 'i And the
answer is at hand : Idolatry is giving to a
creature the adoration due only to the Su
preme Creatoi'. 'Now, we Catholics can
not be charged with this crime in reference
to the invocaition of saints : because we
merely respect them — merely ask their
prayers and assistance — but deprecate of
fering them any adoration which belongs
to God alone.
The doctrine of our Church on this sub
ject, is -•learly set forth by the Council of
Trent, y< hich states in the Catechism, page
436 : " We do not address God and the
saints in the same manner : God we im
plore to grant us the blessings of which we
stand in need, and to deliver us from the
dangers to. which we are exposed : but the
saints, because they are the friends of God,
we solicit to undertake ^the advocacy of
our cause with him, to obtain for us, from
him, all necessaries of soul and body.
Hence, we make use of two different forms
of prayer : to God w,e say have mercy on
us ; hear us ; but to the saints, pray for us,"
&c'. This is nothing more or less than
that blessed "coramunion of saints," in
which all denominations raust believe who
recite the Apostles Creed. There are two
points that offer themselves to our consid
eration, and the elucidation of which will
constitute the subject of the following Lec
ture :
I. Can the saints hear us ?
II. Does our invoking tliem detract from
the mediation of Jesus Christ 7

Our opponents, who profess to be scan
dalized at our practice of praying to the
saints, can never succeed in proving that
the saints cannot hear us. For, where is
heaven ? Is it not wherever God mani
fests himself to their vision \ God is om
nipresent. He may be likened lo an in
finite rairror in which everything occurring
in the' world is reflected to the spirits whose
privilege it is to look upon it.
And yet, of their own nature, we grant
that the saints could not hear us. Still,
God can coraraunicate to them all know
ledge — and frora the arguments which I
will adduce, the fact that he does so, will
be made apparent.
In vain do our opponents — in vain, but
the other day, did a very eloquent divine
of the Protestant Episcopal Church — urge
as a difficulty, that if the saints can hear
the prayers of Christians in the four quar
ters of the world, they must be posses
sed of the attribute of ubiquity. This
is an old and obsolete objection ; it was
first adduced, I believe, by Brentius, a Lu
theran minister. But all the fathers of the
ancient church — both by their writings and
their practice — have confuted this objec
tion : and, indeed, to the believer in the
power of Satan, which is exerted in all parts
of tlie world, this difficulty vanishes away
For, the^ devil is not gifted with the attri
bute of ubiquity, and nevertheless, he can
and does exercise his infernal influence
everywhere, and at all tiraes. If, then,
that created and damned spirit can exert
his dark and baneful influence -wherever
men are existing, vi'hy cannot the blessed'
spirits in hea,ven exert their bright ancf

12

LECTURES ON THE

benevolent influence-r-without claiming the >
character of ubiquity — ^in every region of
the world ? This, it seems to me, is an
unanswerable refutation of the oft-repeated-
and very unphilosophical objection against
invoking the saints'.
But, that God has communicated — even
on earth — the knowledge of events to his
favorite servants, which were occurring at
a great distance off, will appear certain
from the fourth book of Kings, chap, v., v.
24, 25, 26 : " But Giezi, the servant of the
man of God, said : my master hath spared
Naaman the Syrian, in not receiving of him
that which he brought ; as the Lord liveth,
I will run after him and take something of
him .... But he went and stood before his
master. And Elisha said : Whence com-
est thou, Geizi ? He answered : Thy ser
vant sent me whither. But he said : Was
not my heart present when'the man turned
back from his chariot to meet thee V
Here we find the prophet Elisha saw —
though far removed from the scene — what
w'as taking place, when Geizi was running
after the chariot of Naaman.
A similar knowledge, was given by Al
mighty God, on another occasion, to the
same prophet, as may be seen in fourth
Kings, chap, vi., v. 31, 32.
In the New Testament, the same privi
lege has been communicated by Heaven.
See the case of Ananias and Sapphira, as
related in the Acts of the Apostles, chap.
v., v. 3. There it is related that Peter read
the secrets of their hearts, and inflicted on
them a terrible punishment for the com
mission of a crime, which he knew only by
inspiration. Now, I argue, if such knowledge can be
bestowed upon individuals yet on earth, in
their mortal frames, and cumbered with
the sluggish impediments of the mortal
body, surely it can, a fortiori, be granted
to the blessed spirits that are freed from the
trammels of flesh, and crowned with tha
prerogatives of imiHortality and bliss. Who
will presume to call this in question ?
None, certainly, who' adraits divine reve
lation, and recognizes the infinite power of
God. This is the doctrine expressly taught
by St. Paul, when he declares that now
" we see in part, and we prophecy in part :
but when that which is perfect is come,
that which is in part shall be done away."
¦i. Cor., chap, xiii., v. 9, 10.
But we are more directly sustained in
this our doctrine by the fact that Abraham,
in whose bosom Lazarus was reposing,
heard the langjiage of the rich man who
appealed tg him from tbe abyss of hell.

?' And he cried and said : Father Abraham
have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that
he may dip the tip of his finger in water
to cool my tongue, for I am tormented in
this flame. And Abraham said to him,"
&c. Luke, xiii., 24, &c. Here, even
across the " great chaos," that was " fixed,"
between the soul in hell and the Patriarch
in Limbo, a conversation is carried on,
which evidently shows that spirits in the
eternal world may know what is going on
in this life. Abraham, besides, speaks of
Moses : of whom he could have known
nothing — who lived so long previously to
that captain of God's peoplf — unless by a
special, revelation ; which revelation was
undoubtedly raade to him, as the sacred
text assures us, when he mentions ' the
name of Moses, Luke iii. 29. And lest it
should be objected that this is a mere para
ble, still as a parable it is intended to con
vey practical instruction, and is founded
upon the truth of things as they exist in
the spiritual world. But many of tlie an
cient Fathers of the Church refuse to con
sider it a mere parable, and regard the
whole scene as haying been founded on
reality : among them I may name Origen,
St. Ambrose, &c.
Another almost indisputable argument
is derived from the celebrated text of L-uke
XV. 7. "I say to you that even so there
shall be joy in heaven before the angels of
God upon one sinner doing penance."
How, I ask, could the host of heaven re
joice at the sinner's conversibn, unless
they are aware of the fact? how pould
they be aware of it, if they knew not what
was taking place below. Beyond all doubt,
therefore, the angels and blessed spirits
in heaven are cognizant of the events of
this life ; anil not only of public and noto
rious occurrences, but even of the secret
workings of the human heart. For, as
a sinner may express his conversion by a
silent, and hidden emotion of his penitent
soiil — and as the angels rejoice at his con
version, it follows that they can penetrate
the deep, and, under other circumstances,
unfathomable recesses of the human heart.
If the saints ^n heaven were deaf to our
prayers and exhortations, how is it that St.
John in the apocalypse, having described
the desolation to which Babylon was re
duced, calls upon the inhabitants of the
heavenly Jerusalem to rejoice over her
downfall. " Rejoice over her, thou heaven,
and yo holy apcstles and prophets !" chap.
xviii. 20. . ,
The angel that appeared to Cornelius
certarinly was not ignorant of the manner
of life that csnturion waa leading, or of

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

13

the merit which he obtained in the sight
of God ! Acts X. 4.
What more proofs can be required by
the most incredulous to convince them
that the inhabitants of Heaven may and do
interest themselves concerning us poor
mortals on earth ; that they can hear the
prayer we send up to them as we journey
on through our weary pilgrimage. Cer
tainly none who seriously reflect on this
subject and consider the ^criptual argu
ments by which it is supported, could ex
act, more — or would not be satisfied with
tjiose abduced. The only question that
now remains to be answared is :
II. Does our invoking the saints detract
from ihe mediation of Jesus Christ ?
That there is but one mediator, properly
speaking, we yvell know and fully' believe.
Our holy religion keeps this cardinal truth
constantly before our minds. It is incul
cated in all catechisms, and particularly in
thai standard one formed on the decisions
of the Council of Trent. " True there is
but one mediator, Christ the Lord, who
alone has reconciled us through his blood,
(1 Tim. xi, 5,) and who, liaving accom
plished our redemption, and having entered
into the Holy of Holies, ceases not to in
tercede for us. But, it by no means fol
lows, that itis, therefore, unlawful to have
recourse to the intercession of the saints.
If, because we have one Mediator, Christ
Jesus, it'were unlawful to ask the inter
cession of the saints, the apostle would not
have recommended himself with so much
earnestness to the prayers of his brethren on
earth. (Rom xv. 30., Heb. xiii, 18.) In his
capacity as Mediator, the prayers of tfie
living would derogate from the glory and
dignity of Christ, not less than the inter
cession of the saints in heaven." — Cate
chism of the Council of Trent, page 231.
The protestant does not deem it deroga
tory to Christ's mediatorship to recommend
himself to the prayers of his congrega
tion, or by asking those of his minister.
"The prayer of the just availeth much."
Whether that just being is in Heaven or
on earth.. If the minister of the church
militant can pray for his people, surely the
ministers of the church triumphant — who
are the Elect in heaven — will not be de
prived of that privilege ; nor will the priv
ilege of the latter conflict more with the
mediatorship of Jesus, than that of the'
former. But all admit that the former does
not detract from it, or conflict with it ;
therefore, on the same grounds, the prayer
of the saints, whom we invoke, will not.
Consequently it is lawful to invoke thom.

. This doctrine is not recent — no ; it was
taught, believed, and practised by the raost
ancient Fathers of the Christian Church.
Hear Saint Augustine : " Christians," he
says, "recommend themselves to each
others prayers ; but he who intercedes for
us all, without standing in need of being
interceded for by any orie, he is the only
and tr(ie Mediator." — Lib. 2, Contr. Parm.
cap. vi.
" The, holy raartyrs," writes St. Grego
ry of Nazianzum, " are the mediators of
this elevation ^hich .renders us divine."
Oral, xxxvi. He styles the martyrs me
diators in a secondary meaning, fully aware
that in the sense of the apestle and of the
church, there was but one divine Media
tor, through whom the prayer of all the
saints ' obtain their efficacy and produce
their effect.
St. Chrysostom calls the saints " de
fenders and patrons of the masters of the
world, who invoke their intercession at their
tombs." 'St. Basil calls thera " our de
fence, our refuge, the protectors and guar
dians of the huraan race." This is not the
language of a few of the fathers raerely,
"but of all antiquity proclaiming to us, in
the nineteenth century, the universal be
lief and practice of the golden days of
Christianity. It becomes us, seeing the strong grounds
on which this dogma rests, to accept it, to
cherish it, and to practice it. Should any
abuses chance to mingle with the pure
doctrine, they must 'not only not be de
fended, but reprobated and condemned.
The Church cannot tolerate thera ; as the
guardian of truth she can hold no inter
course even with the ejfcesses that may be
found in individuals apparently growing
out of tbe truth. This the Council of
Trent has solemnly asserted : and in terms
of the plainest and most explicit charac
ter, warns the faithful against all error on
on this point, as may be seen in /Session
xxv. Another striking view of this subject is
presented to our minds in the prayer styled
tbe Confileor, with vvhich the priest com
mences the Mass. These are the terras :
" I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary,
blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed
John the Baptist, the holy apostles, Peter
and Pauh and all the Saints, and you my
brethren, to pray to the Lord our God for
rae." Here, in the clearest manner, the
dogma of invoking the saints is set forth.
All are called upon i as creatures — all are
placed, in their subordinate characters,
upon an equality — ^the blessed Virgin|the
apostles, the saints, the faithful present at

14

LECTURES ON THE

the sacrifice — ^all are requested, in the same
form and in the same category of mere
inMrcessors, to offer their prayers to God
for him, who, on entering upon the cele
bration of the adorable mysteries; stands
among them as their fellowcreature and
brother in Christ, offering all supreme
homage, all divine adoration to their com
mon Master, Saviour, and Lord, the Creator
of all things visible and invisible.
The spirit of this prayer breathes through
all our collects and Liturgy. Whatever
, saint, whatever angel may be invoked, the
oration invariably terminates by acknow
ledging all power to reside in the Omnipo
tent, and all graces to be derived through
the merits of the Redeemer : hence the
concluding form — Through Our Lord Je
sus Christ.
Thus far I have given bufca very brief
exposition of this tenet of the. Catholic
Church. Viewed in this manner, how
different does it not appear from the strange

system that exists in the popular mind.
'The people, who have never had an oppor
tunity of studying this subject, imagine it
to be anything but what it really is. They
who have been educated in prejudices
against it, are blinded and terrified by the
most singular , and absurd misrepresenta
tions. But I trust that when the dograa is
seen in its genuine light, when its true
pharacter is understood, it will be regarded
as a warrantable, nay, an admirable carry
ing into 'effect of that communion of saints'
which forms an article in the apoStles"
creed, held sacred by all denominations.
Away then, from this enlightened and in
quiring community, with the vain charge
of superstition which is so unceremo-
nisusly alleged against us, for prayi ng to
the saints. For, I believe I have made
good in the two-fold proposition, that they
can hear our prayers ; and that our invo
king them does not detract from the' me
diatorship of Jesus Christ.

LECTUEE III.

But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there
is no God but one. , '^
For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth, (for there be gods many, and lords
many.) Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him ; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom art all things, and we by him. — 1 Cor. chap. 8, vs. 4, 5, 6.

The Christians of Corinth were sur
rounded by innumerable Pagans ; and in
order that they might be preserved from
the worship of idols, ;nto which the" ex
ample of those around them was calcula
ted to lea,d the unwary, St. Paul, in his
epistles to them, takes especial care often
to warn them, in the most emphatic terms,
against that great sin. He repeatedly re
minded them that there was and is but one
God, and but one Saviour, Christ his son ;
that in the midst of the sacrifices that were
offered to him whose throne was on 01yn\-
pus, and the more humble rites of idolatry
paid fe the Lares and Penates of the fire
side, they were carefully to abstain from

any participation in thera. For to them
there was only one object of adoration—'
the true God, and one mediator, through
whose infinite atonement alone they could
obtain mercy. The same truth the Catho- ¦
lie church every where inculcates. The
same ministry which St. Paul discharged
in warning the primitive Christians against
the idolatrous worship of the heathen is
discharged by the Catholic ministry at all
tiraes, and in every part of the world.
And, therefore, it is that I, whilst vindica
ting the aqcient and venerable doctrine
of the invocation Saints, earnestly call upon
all my brethren to beware : in all their
veneratien paid to the saints, to recol-

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

15

lect that'there is but one God, to whom
alone all worship is due ; and that there is
• but one mediator through whom alone, and
through Whose passion and death, we have
the firm hope of escaping that perdition
to which in consequence of our sins we
had been doomed. But that, at the same
time, we may call upon others to intercede
for us. We are perfectly aware that there
is but one mediator, and that it is only
through him that the prayers of saints
avail. It is in order that this cardinal truth
of Christianity may ever be impressed upon
your rainds and kept before your eyes, that
we have over our altars the image of our
crucified Saviour. When the eye ofthe
Catholic fixes itself upon that image —
when it dwells upon the crown of thorns
that pierce his venerable brows — or upon
the nails that transfix his sacred hands —
when it contemplates the blood that gush
es from his sides — when it sees the wood
of the cross upon which he expired for the
salvation of man, the Catholic feels that
there is no other name under heaven given
unto man whereby he may be saved.
In my last lecture, I believe I made
clear and indisputable those two proposi
tions ; first, that the saints in heaven can
hear my prayers, and secondly, that by
praying for me they do not derogate in
any manner from the mediation or raerits
of Jesus Christ. Now there spreads before
rae a great question — the question is, whe
ther it has always been customary from
the earliest period of Christianity down to
our own days, to invoke the saints'! If I
have proved that the saints in heaven can
hear me — if I have proved that their pray
ing for me does not degorate frora the me
diation of Jesus Christ, and if I can make
manifest the proposition that it has always
been custoraary, from the earliest times of
Christianity, to pray to the saints, then I
believe there will be no difficulty in ac
knowledging my appeal from that sen
tence passed upon us by a feonvention
which denounced us as idolatrous ; the
doctrine of the invocation of the saints,
has been justified, and the anathema re
turns upon those frora wbbm it proceed
ed — It becomes me then this evening to
prove to you this proposition — that the cus*
tora of praying to the saints prevailed in
the earliest periods of Christianity — that
it has always been continued.in every age
and country — in the Latin Church — in the
separated Greek Church; — among the Ja
cobites — and among the Nestorians— and
that therefore a practice which we can trace
up even to the days of the apostles them-
selves.

St. Augustine, whose authority will be
disputed by no true Christian of the pres
ent day, laid down a maxim with which I
would premise my argument. " There are
many things," he says, " which are not
found in th£ writings of the Apostles, or
in the counCTis of their successors, and yet
because they are authorized by the uni
versal Church, must be believed to have
been communicated from the apostles
themselves." This is found in his 1 1th book
" on baptism," chap. vii. vol. xi. If then
I can make it appear that the doctrine of
the invocation of saints^as never been in
troduced by any particular council, but has
notwithstanding been received and prac
ticed by the universal Christian Church,
then, according to the raaxira of St. Augus
tine — a most venerable authority — I ' have
eve^ right to hold this doctrine, and prac
tice this cusfbm, the denunciations of our
opponents to the contrary notwithstanding.
Now, this practice of praying to the saints
prevails at the present day among the Jaco
bites and the Nestorians. This proposi
tion must, however, be pi-oved, and after
I have proved it, then I will argue from it.,
In 1671 a French arabassador was sent to
Constantinople for the purpose of discov
ering at the fountain-head whether or
not this dbctrine was universally adraitted
and practiced by the separated Greeks.
Methodius, the patriarch of Constantinople,
gave the following decision, signed on the
10th of July, 1671 : " We cfeclare that
Christians, praying to the Virgin Mother
of God and the saints, do not derogate from
the sufferings of Jesus Christ." The same
illustrious arabassador having applied to
James, the patriarch of the Armenians, re
ceived this answer from hira : " We coh-^
demn, as teaching an impious doctrine,
those who say that the Virgin Mother of
God and the saints, who are in heaven,
cannot be invoked without doing an injus
tice to the mediatorship of Jesus Christ."
Another arabassador frora the same great
nation, applied to Joseph, the patriarch of
the Nestorians,.and he declared as follows :
" We regard as unfortunate those who- do
not pray to or invoke the Virgin Mary and
tSe saints."
With regard, then, to the proposition that
throughout the universal Catholic Church
this practice has prevailed, there can be no
question. Now, what argument do I de
rive from this fact? I derive this argu--
raent — that, therefore, the doctrine and the
custom of invoking the saints is traceable .
far back into antiquity. It is not to be
imagined that the Greeks and Nestorians,
separating from the Latin Church, would

16

LECTURES ON THE

have adopted the doctrine of that Church
after their secession from it ; consequent
ly the Greeks and Nestorians must have
carried with them the doctrine which had
existed prior to their separation frora the
Church. Therefore this proves that it was
the universal custom and dotwine of the
whole Church of the East and West, at
the time of those Greeks or Orientals sep
arated themselves from the pale of the
Latin Church. Then it seems to me«that
this truth is made clear, that this doctrine,
according to the testiraony of all in con
nection with the See of Rome, and of all
the ancient schismatics who had separated
from that See, prevailed throughout all
Christendom in the fifth century. Cid it
originate theni Who introduced it 1 Tell
me the author — tell me the council — ^tell
me the part of the world in which it was

The Catholic church of the present day
does the sarae. Eusebius did not affirm
that he alone did it, or that it was custom
ary with any portion of the faithful who
might have erred from the truth — but he
says that is the universal custom — " it is
our practice " to pray to the saints. And
so it is our practice at this day. We are,
therefore, in comraunion with Eusebius of
CsBsarea. But if his name be not suffi
cient, I will, appeal to another. I appeal
to perhaps the most eloquent father of the
Greek church in the fourth century — St.
Chrysostom. I ask that venerable father
of the church what was the custom ih his
day. Tell me, was it customary for Chris
tians in thy day to pray to the saints, or
was the practice denounced by pure Chris
tians as idolatrous ? Because, if custom
ary in thy day, I am in communion with

first introduced — tell me the Bame of the ¦ thee : but if thou didst denounce it, and the

great originator of this heresy — this idola
try. Can our opponents do this ? They
can deny it. They can call rae very ig
norant and very stupid for holding, ih this
the' nineteenth century, such an antiquated
dograa ; but can they prove that it is re
pugnant to the ancient spirit of Christiani
ty ? Can they prove that it is contrary to
the sacred Scripture ? Can they show .rae
a text in which it is condemned ? I have
i,shown texts, in my last lecture, which con
firm and vindicate the doctrine. But I
need not have recourse to declamation. I
am with you in search of the development
of the truth. I corae to instruct those vs/ho
believe, and to endeavor to shed some light
upon the darkness of Ihose who frora edu
cation or prejudice, have been led to imag
ine that we are almost — they will hardly
in their charity say that we are entirely —
idolaters. This dark thunderbolt of alleg
ed idolatry has been often hurled against
the battlements of our Church, but the
bolt has always fallen innocuously to the
ground, and  but I must not declaim.
Let Us proceed with the argument.
If I am accused of idolatry in praying to
the saints, I appeal to the testimony of Eu
sebius of Caisarea, who flourished in the 4th
century. In his treatise on the truths of
evangelical Christianity, book xiii. chap. 3j,
he says : " Plato observes that those who
nobly die in battle, shall be venerated, as
heroes, and their mQnuraents be regarded
with enduring respect. How does this ap
ply to the death of those friends of God,
who are justly called the soldiers of true
piety ? Por it is our practice to honor
their sepulchre — there to utter our prayers
and our voices, and to venerate their bles
sed souls, and this we. say ,i§ justly 4one,"

church of thy day denounced it, then I
plead guilty of idolatry. The voice of St.
'Chrysostora, sounding from the past, utters
these words — whioh I find in a panegyric
pronounced by the venerable Bishop of'
Constantinople on the'raartyrs St. Cyprian
and Basil. ' Where, theri," says this elo
quent man, " where, then, is the tomb of
Alexander the Great ? Tell me, if you
can, the day of his death ? But the tombs
of the servants of Jesus Christ are illus
trious in the' city 'which is the mistress of
the world. The days of their deaths are
known to us all, and are become festival
days throughout the world. The tombs
of the servants of Hira that was crucified
are more magnificent than the palaces of
kings ; not so much for the beauty of their
structure — ^though that is not wanting — as
for the concourse of people, tor even he
who wears the purple comes to embrace
these tombs, and, laying aside his pageant
ry aud pomp, prays to the saints to assist
him by their prayers. He who wears the
diadem chooses a fisherman and a maker
of tents, even after their deaths, for his
patrons. Who will say that Jesus Christ
is dead, when his servants, even after they
ara laid in the tomb, are the patrons and
protectors of the kings of the earth ? "
Now who is there in this day, that can re
echo this lofty language of the sainted
Chrysostora ? Who besides the Catholic ?
None. But we are thus by this practice
Unked with the days of Chrysostom, and
hold comraunion with the faithful of that
remote and early age. , But even before
the daysof Eusebius or Chrysostora, the ve
ry same Basil from whose panegyric I have
just quoted this eloquent and convincing
passage, teaches the doctrine as clearly'

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES.

17

and as unequivocally as Chrysostom. St.
Basil uses the following language : " He
who is oppressed by care, flies to their aid
for deliverance. To these the mother is
found praying for her children, and the
wife for the return and health of her hus
band. Oh ! " he exclaims, " ye guardians
of the human race — oh ! ye powerful mes
sengers before God, let us join our prayers
with yours ! " Now if we be guilty of su
perstition and idolatry in invoking the as
sistance and intercession of the saints, we
are guilty in common with no lefes a, per
sonage than the saintly Basil — the light,
the ornaraent, the ^acle of the primitive
church. St. Basil was born in 326, and
had consequently been taught by and had
conversed with Christians of the preceding
age, therefore St. Basil must have prac-
' tisod the doctrine universal in the church
of the preceding age. Now we cannot
find any document whatever by which it
can be proved that in that age was the
doctrine introduced ; consequently it must
be traced still farther back, even to the
very dawn of Christianity itself The ques
tion naturally presents itself whether I am
authorised in taking the acknowledgment,
the practice, the custora of the primitive
times, as transmitted to us through those
great and venerable authorities, or whe
ther we are to take the testimony of the
16th century, and only a sraall fragment
cut off from the ancient body of the
church. Down to that period, we have
indisputable authority that this dograa pre
vailed over all Christendom. How was it
then that by a sudden gleam of inspiration,
that which lrnd been practiced and taught
by the early fathers was found to be super
stition and idolatry ? How was it that the
whple Christian world, with the exception
of Martin Luther, hai gone astray ? and
even he, as I swill hereafter show, had a
great struggle in getting rid of all these
early impressions.
There is a very strong additional con
firmation of the antiquity of tliis doctrine.
It is related by Eusebius, St. Augustine,
and by St. Cyril of Alexandria, that the pa
gans in their time and in the tirae preced
ing this epoch, charged the Christians with
adoring demigods, and thereby attempted
to charge them with gross inconsistency in
condemning the splendid worship of Pa
ganism, and at the sarae time adopting the
worship of obscure saints. This furnishes
very strong, indeed irresistible evidence,
that the early Christians were in the habit
of invoking the saints. It is thus apparent
that the Catholic church of the 19th cen
tury retains the same practice and the

sarae dogma which prevailed at the very
origin of Christianity araong the disciples
of its founder. And yet we know and
fully believe that there is to us but one
God and one Mediator, though there be
"gods raany, and lords many," though there
be many saints. We pray to the saints,
but we know how to venerate them. We
ask them to intercede for' us, but we know
that they rnust supplicate a higher source,
and that they can bestow upon us no good,
either natural or supernatural, except
through the medium, and merits, and
goodness of Christ. I ask the saints to
pray for me just as I ask you to pray for
me. And as the prayer of the just man,
which the scripture tells us " availeth
much,' , does not detract from the merits of
the mediation of Jesus Christ, so neither
does the invocation or prayer of the
saints. This is the whole simple doc
trine of the invocation of saints.
But it is said — " You pay too much ven-
eratjon to the saints. It is superstition,
and if ever there was a period when it
was necessary for you to guard against this
superstition, it is now, because we are in
a great republic, ajid this is in the enlight
ened 19th century. All this is very true.
But, because this is the 19th century and
this is a great republic, must we discard
an institution of Jesus Christ, and abandon
an ancient practice of the church ? I will
answer in the words of the Christians who
witnessed the martyrdom of St. Polycarp.
Venerating his relics, they were charged,
even by the Pagans, with paying thera un
due homage. They said—" Our subtle
enemy, the devil, did his utmost that we
should not take away the body, as many qf
us wished. It was insinuated that we
should desert our crucified master and be
gin to worship Polycarp " — and this is the
identical insinuation, in the nineteenth cen
tury, in this great republic, that we are
deserting our Divine Master and worship
ping Polycarp and the saints. But they
go on — " Foolish men, who know • not that
we never can desert Christ, who died for
the salvation of all men, nor worship any
others Him we adore as the Son of God,
but we show deserved respect to the mar
tyrs and his disciples and followers. The
Centurion, therefore, caused the body to be
burned. We then gathered his bones,
more precious than pearls, Mid more tried
than gold, and buried thein. In this
place, God willing, we will raeet and cele
brate with joy and gladness the birth-day
of his martyrdom, as well in raeraory of
those who, have been crowned before, as
by his example to prepare and sanctify

18

LECTURES ON THE

others.'' Now, just as the Pagans accused
those primitive Christians of idolatry in
paying respect to the relics of Polycarp,'so
do many at the present day accuse us of
idolatry in invoking the saints. But with
these venerable followers of Christ we
say — Foolish men, we adore no Polycarp
— we adore no saint— -we adore Jesus
Christ, and look to him alone for salvation,
because there is no other name under
heaven given by which men may be saved.
It may be said, " this is plausible — itnever
struck me ; before — but I cannot do that
which I ara not commanded to do in the
sacred scriptures — now, the sacred scrip
tures do not command me to pray to the
saints; therefore, as I take the Bible in
preference to any other authority, I cannot
yet consent to pray to the saints." Now,
1 deny that any christian, at least ot the
great Protestant denomination, acts up to
this rule.' There are certain practices ob
served which are considered by' some as
essential, for whicli I defy them to ^ow
me any positive command in the sacred
scriptures. Why, for instance, I ask them,
do they keep Sunday holy as the Sabbath.
and not the seventh day of the week, as is
prescribed in the scripture ? There is no
text that can be found authorising the
change. Again, they celebrate Easter not
in the way prescribed in the Book of Deu
teronomy. Instead of celebrating it on the
full moon, they celebrate it on the first Sun
day 'after the full raoon. Where is their
scriptural authority in doing so? This argu
ment then falls entirely to theground. But
do I admit that there is no direct scriptural
authority for invoking the saints ? By no
means. In my last lecture I adduced raany
texts both frora the old and Nevir Testaraent
which directly inculcated this doctrine.
And now I turn your attention ,to another.
It is to be found in the 48th chap, of Gene-
sis', 16th verse. "May the angel of the
Lord who preserved me from many dan
gers, bless these children." How could
the angel have delivered hira unless he had
foreseen the changes, and knew what was
occurring on the earth ; and why did the
patriarch invoke his blessing if it were
idolatrous to do so ¦! And in the sarae pas
sage from which the text is taken, the pa
triarch desires the names of Abraham, of
Isaac, and of Jacob to be invoked. Whv

invoked if it was unlawful to do so ? Why
invoked if they could not give assistance ?
This fext alone affords the most convincing
evidence of the scriptural authority ofthis
practice of the church.
And here I beg to repeat that it is not
true to assert, as many do, that we do not
recur to the sacred scripture for proofs of
our doctrines. We always do. We open
the sacred volume, and not only our own
translation but fhat of other denominations ;
and for myself I am ready, on most points
of doctrihe, to assume the Protestant ver
sion, and from that vindicate the Catholic
creed. But let us go<^ck again to one of
the early fathers of the " church, to St.
Ireneus, who declares that the Virgin Mary
becarae the advocate of Eve." St. Ambrose,
too, announces the sarae doctrine of invo
king the saints in the most emphatic terms.
He says, " I implore the intercession of
the Apostles-^the assistance of the mar
tyrs — the supJDlications of the confessors.''
And so do I. So do we instruct the Cath.
olic people to do. Are we then not ii?
coraraunidn with St. Ambrose ? Yes. We
invoke the saints in common with, the
early fathers — with the primitive church,
consequently we are not guilty of idolatry ;
and am I not now justified in saying that
it was a rash and unfortunate decision to
pronounce an anathema against the uni
versal church of Christ, because she has
ever held the doctrine of venerating and
invoking the saintsl In closing this lecture,-
I may add that another very powerful argu
ment for this practice, is that if it be idola
trous, then the whole ehristian world was
plunged into the depths of idolatry in the
16th century, with the exception of Martin
Luther, aifter he quarrelled with the Pope;
for he says : " I stand against the Pope
and against the whole world." He cried'
out against the fathers and agajnst the
church. Why ? Because they condemn
ed him.
Thus far I trust I have succeeded in dis
pelling the cloud which, in the estimation of
many, has been hanging over this venera
ble doctrine. But I have not yet conclu- '
ded tho argument. There is another point
of view in which it raay be regarded : and
it is my purpose to resume the subject, if
you will again favor me with your atten
tion next Sunday evening.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

19

LECTUEE IV.

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee, knowing
of whom thou hast learned them.— 2nd Timothy, 3rd chapter, 14th verse.

Tms exhortation addressed by the Apos
tle to Timothy, is given to the ministers
of the church in all ages. Its solemn
warning comes horae to me and to all my
brethren who minister at the altar. We are
bound to hold the truth, and transrait it
with the strictest fidelity to remotest gen
erations. Among the dogmas which we
are thus to teach and guard with the most
zealous care, is that;' of the invocation of
the saints. In the forraer part of my ar
gument in support of this dogma, I have
proved, that the practice of invoking the
saints has prevailed from the days of the
Apostles. It is necessary, in proceeding
to another branch of tho argument, to re-
move every doubt and obscurity which
may exist in limine! The church does
not absolutely oblige the faithful, under
the penalty of being regarded as heretics,
to'pray to the saints ; but the church has
merely decided, that to pray to the saints
is a useful and salutary act of devotion.
Again, the church does not prescribe to
what saint you shall, and to what saint
you shall not, pray. You may pray to all
the just in heaven — not merely to a can
onized saint— not merely to a person who
has been placed on the register of saints,
and exhibited as a model for your imita
tion — but the church teaches you that,
with similar propriety, you may offer up
your prayer to your mother in heaven, to
your brother, your wife, your husband,
your friend, your child ; and that they, if
they be in heaven, can hear and aid you.
What a beautiful, consolatory, and sublime
doctrine is this ! This is what is meant in
the Apostles' creed by " the Communion
of Saints." Lest some might regard ine
as not rigid enough in my doctrine, I will
cite in vindication of my view, the words j
of one of the beat modern authorities in

the church — the Bishop of Strasbourg.
" The Council of Trent," says this great
divine and standard author, "does not teach
that ,it is necessary, but simply that it is
go.od and useful, to invoke the saints. It
noes not impose upon us, as a general. pre
cept, to invoke them, but merely establishes
the utility of praying to them ; but he who
does not invoke them is not therefore a
heretic." This then is the explanation of
this tenet by one of the best authorities in
the church. I have already appealed to
the leading fathers of antiquity, and cited
their individual opinions ; I will now con
sult them in convocation, and ask thera what
they declare on this dogma» I call then
upon the Council of Nice, where three
hundred bishops assembled, and the Coun
cil of Chalcedon, coraposed of six hundred
bishops. First I interrogate the Council of Nice.
When I raention that council, I mention a
council whose authority is respected and
admitted by Christians at the present day,
of almost every denoraination — by the Lu
therans, by the Calvinists, and certainly
by the Church of England, which has in
corporated in her creed the very doctrines
adopted by this council — ^the " Nicene
creed." This council was convened in the
fourth century, and was the first general
council, not taking into consideration the
Council at Jerusalem, held by the Apostles
themselves. The object of the Council of
Nice was to vindicate the divinity of Jesus
Christ against the Arians, who called it in
question. It assembled at the city of Nice,
and was convoked by the auth"6rity of Pope
Sylvester, with the approbation of Constan
tine the Great. Three hundred bishops
attended, of whom one of the most vene
rable was St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alex
andria. After they had decided the great

20

LECTURES ON THE

dogma of the divinity of CSirist, St. Cyril
arose in the midst of those veneraible per
sonages, and appealing to the Holy Evan
gelist St. John, has left upon record a tes
timony, not to be called in question, to the
propriety of invoking the saints, and which
was agreed to and concurred in by all the
bishops assembled in that famous council.
These are his words : " Open this mystery,
Holy Evangelist! Tell us something
grand and sublirae ! You. who are called
the Son of Thunder, commissioned to sehd
the truth throughout the world, see this
assembly^-this multitude of persons con
voked to seek truth from the well of life ;
enable us to draw from it after your ex
ample, or rather conduct us to your own
spring !" Thus we find St. Cyril address
ing this. solemn prayer to the Evangelist —
calling on him to assist in revealing the
doctrine which they had met to establish.
Now how could this great bishop have in
voked St. John, if St. John could not hear
him? How could he have invoked St.
John, if to invoke him had not been a use
ful and salutary practice of the universal
church ? Hew could he have invoked him,
if to do so were superstitious and idola
trous ? Were they who had raet to vindi
cate the divinity of Christ, likely to 'fall
into idolatry ? Were they who had vin
dicated the prerogatives of the only rae
diator likely to derogate from his merits?
Thus, then, we have the example of St.
Cyril, to prove that this practice is proper'
and salutary, and hot at. all superstitious.
But to strengthen this argument in the
minds, of those belonging to other denomi
nations, I will refer to John Calvin.
Even he admits the authority of the Coun
cil of Nice — he adraits that it was held in
the " golden days of Christianity," and re
cognises the decisions ' and decrees of
that assemblage. " These ancient sy
nods," he says, ",of Nice, Ephesus, Chal
cedon, and other such, assembled to com
bat errors, I willingly embrace." Institu
tes, Book iv. ch. 9. Unless, then, the au
thority of the Council of Nice, be set al
together aside, we must believe thatit vin
dicated the dograa of invoking the saints.
I come now to the Council of Chalcedon,
at which six hundred bishops, attended.
In their midst there was also one, who
arose, and thus prayed to a saint : " The
marytr'lives after his death — may Flavian
pray for us ?" Calvin and all his fol
lowers, if they be consistent, must admit
the authority of this council likewise. Now
I would, with all possible respect, place on
one side a certain convention, held in the
city of Philadelphia, and on the other side

the gerleral councils of Nice and Chalce
don, and while one hurls the thunderbolt of
anathema against the church, the others
approve of the doctrine, and therefore con
demn the useless and innocuous anathe-
,ma. I appeal again from that decision and
sentence to the three hundred bishops of
Nice, a nd six hundred bishops of Chalce
don. The one tribunal was held in the
".golden days of Christianity," the other
in our modern days. I am sustained by
the councils of the primitive times of
Christianity, and what care I then if I be
so incautiously condemned as guilty of
leading all who hear me into idolatry ? I
pass now from ancient Rome — from Egypt
— from Syria — ^from Greece — to England,'
and find myself there amongst the Anglo-
Saxons, the ancestry of many who now
inhabit the new world at this late period.
Did they pray to the saints? They did.
The doctrine carried by missionaries' from
the city of the Seven Hiils, I find planted
among the ancient Anglo-Saxons, and
they also' practised this doghia of the
church. In proof of this I refer you to
the History of the Anglo-Saxon Church,
by Dr. Lingard, page 164, where it is sta
ted, that after the Blessed Virgin, the first
place Was occupied by St. Peter. A hymn
was sung in honor of the former every eve
ning. Araong the Homilies, there are
some for the festival of Mary. The feast
of St. Peter was kept during eight days,
the last of which was celebrated with great
soleranity. (Bed. martyr., p. 39.) Their
devotion, however, ^as enlightened and
holy. God alone was adored. " Him alone
shall we adore," these are the words of the
Homily: He alone is true Lord and true
God. We beg the intercession of holy men,
but we do not *pray to them as to Godi
I now enter on another argument that
may seem, extraordinary. It may appear
to some, that the whole fabric of my pre
vious reasoning will be upset by recurring
to such a proof as that which I am now
about to submit. But all I ask is to be
heard fully, ingenuously, dispassionately;
and after the argument is concluded, it
may not be regarded quite so ridiculous in
the 19th century to have recourse' to
MIRACLES in order to prove the tenet of pray
ing to the saints. , If die saints have ever
wrought rairacles after their death, it is
evident that they do hear the prayers ad
dressed to thera by those in whose behalf
those miracles were wrought. It is, then,
evident that God stamps with his eternal
seal of approbation the dogma of invoking
the saints^ But if miracles have raoi been
so wrought, theh, I only fail in this one

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

21

branch of the argument-^7all the other
branches of it remain unimpaired and in
full force. If they have been so wrought,
the controversy is at end. Perhaps it may
not be improper here to make some gene
ral remarks in reference to miracles. As
for myself, I am free to acknowledge that
with regard to extraordinary things, I am
among the most incredulous. But at the
same time, when I have testimony — when
I have authority — when I have evidence,
it is impossible for me not to assent. For
instance, when read^pg the Scriptures, I
find it stated that miracles were wrought
by the Saviour, if I have [recourse to
mere reason to explain them, all will ap
pear ridiculous. For instance, when I'
read that ap extraordinary personage ar
rived on the shores of a lake, and wad
there met by a man possessed by many
thousands of devils, which kept him runn
ing from place to place — living araong
the tombs — ^beating himself- — ^but \ who, as
soon as he sees this personage is quiet,
and earnestly implores him to have mercy
upon him — that the devils theraselves cry
out, and beg that they raay at least be per
mitted, if they- are to be driven out of the
man, to enter into a herd of two thousand
swine — and that on this request being
granted, the swine immediately rushed
down a steep place into the lake and per
ished, the infidel says it is most pre
posterous that the devil , should propose
such a condition. But the christian who
recognizes the authority on which the
statement' is made, at once receives it and
believes it. So when I hear of rairacles
wrought by the saints, I enquire — I ask
for the testimony — I ask for the witnesses
— and when they are forthcoraing, I have
no alternative but to believe,— -mere reason
has nothing to do with it. If in such a
case I were to depend on reason, woe
to me ! Now, if I have the most indisputa
ble authority — if I have witnesses who
would not and could not deceive me — if I
find it recorded by most venerable authors
— if it was believed by all their contem
poraries — if it was believed and transmit
ted by all down to the present day among
the most enlightened, learned, religious
and pious of men, would you or any one
of you be justified in calling me a fool for
at least suspending my judgment ? Nay,
I would indeed be guilty of folly did I not
suspend it. Do you admit the authority
of St.^Augustine ? Well, he relates that
"the relics of St. Stephen have wrought
several miracles" [St. Augustine in the
" City of God," B. XXII, Ch. 8.] • Was St.
Awgustine deceived liVii he himself mean

to deceive us ? Was he a credulous man 1
Was he not one pf the most enlightened —
one of the best critics, as well as one of
the ablest philosophers of any period of
the church ? ,
Here, you have a philosopher and a father
endowed with extraordinary virtue, pos
sessed of wonderful perspicacity, declaring
in a book which has been recommended
as a master-piece in every point of view,
that miracles did occur in his own days,
and were believed by tl^e people. If
so, there is certainly, great ground — ^there
is, I would say, indisputable ground offered
on which to establish the truth for which
I contend. And, therefore, if these mira
cles were wrought, they were wrought by
the saint, and consequently they go to
show beyond all doubt, the efficacy of pray
ers to the saint. I would not have recourse
to this mode of argument if it rested on
less respectable authority — an authority
admitted by all our separated brethren.
This rests on an authority admitted by
Calvin — by Luther — by all Protestants.
Either, then, St. Augustine was an im
postor, wished to deceive us, and was no
father of the church — no oracle of religion ;
or, St. Augustine has told ^hat really oc
curred. But all admit that St. Augustine
was no impostor — that he was too wise to
be deceived. Therefore, I conclude that
the miracle was wrought. At least I ara
not to be reputeii an ignoramus — I cannot
be regarded as an unwise man for believ
ing a stateraent upon the testimony of
such an oracle as St. Augustine. But
there is, also, the authority of St. Ambrose
the instructor of St. Augustine. He tells
us that when the relics of certain martyrs
were removed from one place to another, a
blind man recovered his sight miraculous
ly. Now, when I read this, I raight ex-
clafm " this is fanciful," " this is absurd !"
But do you suppose that St. Ambrose
would be guilty of fancy,rof absurdity ?
He was the Cicero of the church. His
authority, is of the highest and purest
character among all denominations, for he
lived in that age which Calvin denomina
ted i the " golden age of Christianity."
When it was rumored abroad that this
blind man recovered his sight, the Arians
unanimously declared that it was ^false —
that no such thing had occurred. But in
the midst of all the outcries hear St. Am
brose. He arose and thus addressed the
multitude : " They deny that the blind raan
was restored to sight, but he himself does
not deny that he, had been cured. He
says that he, was blind, but that now he
^eej, His name is Severus, by profession|a

2Ji

LECTURES ON THE

butcher. He professes to have touched
the linen which covered the sacred relics,
and that his sight was immediately re
stored to him." Now is not this enough ?
Was St. Ambrose a simpleton^ — ayeak,
a' credulous man ¦? Was he ani individual
who could be imposed upon by apparent
facts which never existed? On the con
trary, the evidence is the stronger when
we find that he takes upon himself to vin
dicate the fact, while the Arians only con
tradicted it. '
Snch are the proofs of the truth of this
dogma. It may be all very well to talk
of the dark ages of the world — of the
¦ wonderful light that dawned upon the hu
man mind when Luther appeared. This
is very .^pretty eloquence, if you will, for a
festival speech against the Catholic faith.
But let us appeal to Martin Luther him
self, and if we find that after his sepera-
tion from the church he still adhered to
the truth that miracles had been wrought
by, the saints, then, those who revere the
authority of Martin Luther may add this
tenet to their creed. The original now be
fore ' me, is thus translated : " Who can
deny (after he became a reformer) but that
God at this very day works miracles by
the saints,' at tneir tombs and in presence
of their relics — miracles which appear in
the eyes of all the world ?" Therefore, if
the Catholic is a pool' deluded creature for
believing in miracles — not in pretended
miracles, which we discard — but in real
rairacles, be it so. But remember that
Martin Luther must be regarded' in the
same light, for he also believed in them. .

Calvin, who' ridicules the saints j at the
same time admits that fbr 1300 years it was
customary to invoke them. ' I, for one,-
would certainly rather follow the example
of the Christians of 1300 years, than the
solitary example of Calvin ! Again : hear
the' language of Martin Luther, ih his ser
mon on the Festival of John the Baptist :
" Some one of you might ask, of what use
the saints can be to you ? Make the same
use of them as you would of your neigh
bors. You say to them, pray to God for
;me. You say to tbem as you say to St.
;Peter, pray for me ! You do not sin by
|not asking them to pray for you, neither do'
you sin by asking them." Thus, I may
jreraark, he very nicely vindicates himself,
both when he did, and when he did not,
invoke them — he was sure never to do
wrong. I have now gone through the'argnment.
Iin conclusion, I would beg those who un
dertake to dispute the truths of our doc
trines, to take those doctrines as we an
nounce and hold them ; and let the ignorant
and profane beware. When a secular or
ator, especially, assumes to leave the arena
of his profession, whether it be politics of !
law, and plunges into the midst of theo
logical disputation, he ought to remember
the fate of that individual who dared tb
stretch forth his unconsecrated hand and
grasp the sacred censor. Let him leave
theology to us. He can ' treat of all other
subjects as he pleases, but he should not
pretend to give explanations even of the
catechism of the church, of which he is
entirely ignorant.

PECTIJEE V.

ExodnE,SO chapter, 1, 3, 3, 4, and part ofthe 5th verses.
And the Lord spake all these words ;
] am the Lord'thy God, who brought thee out of tlie land of Egypt, and out of the'house of bondage:
Thou shalt not nave strange gods before- me.
Tboa,shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, nor the likeness of anythmg in the heaven above, nor in the
earth beneath, nor in the wafers under theiearth.
Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.

Intimately connected with the subject
which I have just concluded — the venera
tion of the saints — ie that upon which it is
my purpose to enter this evening, namely,
the respect which the church authorizes
her members to pay to sacred images; But

I do not mean to defend the usage, as mis
represented either by prejudice or, by ig
norance. In defending thp usage of vene
rating sacred images, 1 am far fropi intend
ing to,vindicat;e tlie vulgar notions enter-
taitied by many of those sects of Christians

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES.

23

opposed to Our church — that in i them we
believe to be contained any inherent or
intrinsic virtue — that we are accustomed
to kneel before them as before.so many dei
ties. These are the distorted and strange
misrepresentations which have been and
are circulated about from one end of this
country to the other ; as much as to say
that we Catholics are so lost to all sense. of
shame and propriety, so perfectly inconsis
tent with the first principles of Christianity,
as to transfer the homage we owe to the
Supreme Being to stocks and stones, or any
other materials by which those sacred im-(
ages may be composed. In vindicating
the usage of the church with regard to the
veneration paid to sacred iraages, I shall
confine myself exclusively to the doctrine
which has been taught, and is, to this day,
in every part of the Catholic world, taught
on the subject.
There has just occured to me the idea,
and one which I have often heard repeated
in society by persons utterly unacquainted
with our doctrines — by individuals who
have never given themselves the trouble
to investigate onr do,ctrines or our Bible,
that we suppress the second command
ment, in order that we may blind the eyes
of our poor people to the idolatry incul
cated by our church. Now, I have read
for you the text as contained in the Cath
olic version of the Ancient Testament,
where you find we inculcate that there is
but one God ; that it is unlawful to make
any image — any graven thing, either in the
heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or,
in the waters under the earth, for the pur
pose of adoring or serving those images or
graven things. In order, therefore, that
we may begin with a proper under
standing of this subject, that we may in
the commencement thoroughly understand
the real nature of this doctrine, I will not
undertake to define it, but as usual will
have recourse to our standard Catechism,
the doctrine held by the Council of Trent.
The (jatechism of the Council of Trent, on
" the honor and veneration of the saints,"
page 332, says : " This commandment (the
one I have just read,) does not prohibit the
arts of painting or sculpture. The con
clusion, therefore, at which we must ar
rive, is that images are prohibited only
because they may be instruments of trans
ferring the worship of God to so many
other gods." And in the 25th session of the
same council, we read the following de-
cisien : " The images of Christ, the Virgin
Mary, the apostles and saints, are kept and
retained, particularly in our churches —
not that we believe in the divinity or pow

er of them, or that anything is to be asked
pf them, or that any virtue is to be placed
in them, as did the heathens of old." This
passage is direct and positive, and a mani
fest, refutation of the vulgar prejudices
and misrepresentations, which have gone
abroad on this point of our doctrine.
If I may be allowed before. I enter into
the argument, to speak — perhaps as may
be considered by sorae egotistically — yet,
to show how prevalent is the absurd no
tion that we pay undue respect to iraages,
even in the upper classes qf society, among
those who have never exarained our doc
trines — I will beg leave to say from this
place that when I had the honor of offici
ating as chaplain of the Senate of the
United States, this question was put to me
by a member of Congress : " Do you 'pre
tend to vindicate-image worship ?" I an
swered, " according to your acceptation of
the term I do not." "What! do you -not
adore images? Why in some parts ofthe
world I have read of statues of the Virgin
Mary, which were dressed in white in the
raorning, brown in the afternoon, and black
at night, and the people fell prostrate before
it like idolaters." I asked, " in what part
of the world does this happen, and who are
the witnesses ? Again, if it Were possible^
for this to take place, I, as a rainister of
the true religion, instead of tolerating such
superstition, would be bound by my relig
ion to condemn them ; for while we are
always willing to defend the doctrines of
our faith, we are the first to reform any
abuses which may have existed." And
where have abuses not existed? The
Christian religion has often served as a
cloak, but is the Christian religion there
fore idolatroiis ? Consequently, as relig
ion itself has been abused, I am not afraid
to stand by the dogmas as taught by the
holy Catholic church.
It has struck me as extraordinary, that
enlightened men object to our paying a
meed of religious respect to images, while
they themselves do not hesitate to pay
alraost an unbounded respect to images of
another kind. And yetif we be superstiti
ous for,entertaining a respect for the images
of "distinguished champions of the faith,
or of illustrious martyrs, raust not the
sarae blame fall on the patriot who honors
the pictures of Washington or any other
of the many great personages whose names
shine so brightly on the rolls of our,country ? ,
What you blame me for, you permit be
fore the iraage of Washington. I venerate
the iraages of saints, not that I have a re
gard for the cold raarble, or the lifeless
oanvasSj^or the materials of which they

S4

LECTURES ON THfc

raay be composed, btit because they repre-^
sents great and good men. It is the same
feeling as that which prompts rae to fall
on my knees before an image which re
presents our Lord and Saviour, who died
an ignominious death for our salvation.
We entertain a just, and, may I not say,
an almost sacred veneration for the flag of
our country ; and whenever we behold it
fluttering in the breeze, we hail it with
reverence ; and he who would lay hands
upon it would not fail to suffer. Now,
is it the materials of which that flag is
composed that are respected ? It is not ;
but it is respected because it represents
our country, and the fathers of our repub
lic, and all the great and excellent virtues
that yet exist, notwithstanding the perver
sity of the times, in this great common
wealth. "But the ignorant do not understand it ;
children are apt to be led into superstitious
notions on the subject. Now, when the
most ignorant Catholic, or the most simple
child, enters this church, if I ask him would
he be willing to adore that ^picture, what,
would be the answer 7 " No, by no means,"
says the catechism, " because it has no life,
nor sense, nor feeling." But if I ask the
most ignorant person in the church why
he kneels before it, he will answer because
it represents Him who died for all, and
through whom he "hopes for life everlast
ing ; and there is not an individfial here,
whatever may be his belief, but would re
sent an insult offered to the representation
of Jesus Christ," come from who it might.
Now, taking this view of the subject, is it
not extraordinary — almost incredible — that
there should exist such strange and viru
lent prejudices against this beautififl and
inspiring usage of venerating sacred pic
tures so far as to possess them in our
churches and our parlors, if you please.
And yet igainst this usage there has exist
ed from the eighth century, with some
alternations, the most unfounded prejudice,
and which is kept up now on the part of
men who never investigated the matter, or
else I must be allowed to say, by interested
politicians, or national prejudices.' It ap
peared in England, for the first time, where,
after the reformation, men opposed this
doctrine as Superstitious and idolatrous.
The first persons to rise against the gene
ral usage of the church were the Icono
clasts, and any classical scholar will easily
perceive the meaning and etymblogy of
the term, which means " war-makers
against images." But those Iconoclasts
derived their notions from the Mahometans,
and certainly it ia in favor of any Catholic

doctrine to have been first attacked by the
barbarism of the Mahometans . The E rape-
ror Leo was the'^rst to persecute those who
clung to the usage of the church in vene
rating sacred images. A great number of
Bishops were compelled to assemble in
conventicle, and under the influence 'of
intimidation and threats they drew up a'
declaration, that " td venera:te sacred ima
ges was an error, and no better than idol
atry." The sarae spirit of oppo.=itionto
this sacred usage was kept up by Constan-
tine Coprony rau s. But if we have recourse
to Eeclesiastic'al History, we will find that
they did hot stop at veherating, but forbade
ithe making of sacred images at all ; and if
this council had been directed — as the
enemies of the church will have it, by the
spirit of God — then the spirit of God has
condemned the beautiful art of paintmg.
Iramediately they began the work of des
truction under the pretence of vindicating
the purity of the faith : and we find that the
first iraage that fell a victira to the fanati
cism of the Isarians, was a beautiful ima^^e
representing the crucifixion of Christ, said
to have been executed by the command'
of Constantino the Great. If, then. Con- '
stantine the Great ordered to be made and
venerated an image of Christ, which w^
continued down to the age 6f Constantine
Copronyraus, it may be asked who 'was
right — the latter,- deriving his errors from '
the Mahonietans, and causing the 'destruc
tion of the iraage, 'or "Constantine the
Great, who, instructed in the truth's of
Christianity, caused it to be inade and
venerated. Iramediately the Pope address
ed a letter to Leo, the Patriarch of Con
stantinople, frora which the following' lan
guage is selected, which will go lar to
prove the real doctrine of the church, a!nd ,
show how the sovereign Pontiffs were the '
protectors of the fine arts and of the 'truth.
" The church agrees with you— ahd who '
would accuse, her of adolalry ? since that "
only is idolatry which o;ffers ' adoration to
things without existence', and bends before ,
thera as so many Gods.'* From this .letter
of the Pope, it clearly appears that they
were not in the habit of worshipping sacred
images, and bowing before them as' so,
many Gods. On the authority of Spon-
danus, we are informed of some of the
excesses of which these raen were guilty,
under the pretext of defending the purity
of the faith. They proclaimed the respect
paid to sacred images as idolatrous ; and
in order to sustain this, they 'had recourse
to acts of Vandalism which certainly every
lover of the fine arts, whether Protestant
or Catholic, will condemn, and feel grate-

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES.

25

ful tothe SovereignPontiff for condemning.
To show the decree of the conventicle of
the Iconoclasts, and the excesses'lo which
they went in their opposition to the doc
trine I am now explaining, the following
resolution was passed by them : — " That
painting is an abominable and idolatrous
art, forbidden by heaven, and the invention
of a diabolical spirit, and that it should be
exterminated from the church." Thi? was
the doctrine of those Bishops who pretend
ed merely to vindicate the purity of Chris
tianity, but who, driven so far by their
fanaticism and the mepaces and tyrannical
threats of the Eraperor, declared it not only
unlawful to venerate iraages, but that the
man who should be guilty of graving or
painting the image of the Virgin Mary, or
any of the Saints, was promoting a diabo
lic*! art, which should be exterminated.
Now, suppose this spirit had prevailed at
that tirae. V/liat would have been the
consequence? Would vve have overseen
the noble creations of Michael Angelo, or
the splendid productions of Raphael, or
those great and immortal artists who have
dehghted the world by their genius, en
couraged and fostered by the influence of
the Popes and of the Church?
Iramediately another Council was as
sembled of Othodox Bishops, called to
gether by the Sovereign Pontiff Pope
Adrian, under the protection of the Em
press Irene. This Council passed another
decree which, taken in contrast with that
I have stated, cannot but be hailed, by all
denominations of the present day. They
declared that " paintings and iraages were
set up in the churches, and other places,
that ;at the' sight of thera the faithful might
remember what they reprepnt, and the
honor passed to the archetype of what is
represented.". This is the counter decree
of an Orthodox Council, convened for the
purpose of counteracting the influence of
the enemies of the arts and the church —
those degenerate Bishops who had yielded
to th^ acts and the threats ofa tyrant. This
council then set the'matter at rest. Those
Bishops, who by threats of exile, and with
death staring them in the face, had erred, ac
knowledged and recanted their error. Noth
ing more was heard against sacred usages
until the time of Peter De Bruis, 300 years
later. He made sorae little noise in renew
ing the errors of the Iconoclasts, but it
shortly died away, and until the sixteenth
century, nothing more was broached against
this venerable practice. Luther raised
his voice against doing away with this
usage of the ancient church ; and any
one conversant with the true history of the

time — not such a history as that of d'Au
bigny, or of partial writers— knows how
far Luther carried his persecution against
a fellow-reformer on account of this tenet.
In England, we find the spirit of Iconoclasm
about the same period ; but there it did
Qot so drive men mad as to issue a decree
against painting and sculpture. But still,
in some degree, the spirit of destruction
raged : I do not mean to be severe, or to ex
press myself with any degree of illiberal-
ity, but to have recourse to soleran truth :
and Protestant writers will bear me out
inthe assertion that Iconoclasm did pre
vail in England to some extent after the
reign of Henry VIII. I will raake no allu
sion to a more 'recent exhibition pf Icono
clasm whioh we have witnessed in our own
day. I will not speak of the cross turab
ling down araidst the lurid flaines'of St. Au
gustine's church. But why can there be
any prejudice against decorating chapels or
altars with pictures of the ''.hampions
of the truth, while we know that there
are now standing 'in the - niches of St.
'Paul's, in London, tiie statues of poets and
orators and distinguished statesraen. And
how can raen in their consciences con
deran their Catholic ancestors for carving
on the roofs and walls- of Westminster
Abbey the images of saints and distin
guished fathers of the church, while they
adorn their churches with those of their
great men ? But let us enter mo^e par- i
ticularly and theologically into this ques
tion. Let us now examine the first of the
Commandments. Let us see whether the
Catholic violates that coramandment of the
Almighty, as recorded in the Book of Exo
dus. This commandment forbids the Jews,
and forbids us, to make any " graven thing,
or the likeness of any thing, in the heav
ens above or in the earth beneath, or in the
waters under the earth." Why? Because,
" thou shalt not adore thera or serve them."
They were forbidden to raake them, not as
representations, not to recall to their mem
ories great achievements, memorable
deeds, noble characters, if you please ; but
they were forbidden to make them for the-
purpose of adoring thera. Now, do we
not act in conformity with this precept?'
We have statues — so has the sculptor; we
have pictures — so have you, of your fa--
thers, mothers, friends, and ancestors. la
this forbidden to you ? No — you do- wot
adore them. We have images of Christ,
of the Virgin Mary, of saints-; and is it
forbidden to us any raore than to you to
have them ? No— but it is forbidden to
adore them ; and this is the pith and forca

'se

LECTURES ON THE

of the commandment. Now, that 1.. may
make no assertion without recourse to the
\ solid proof, remeraber that this is found in
the 20th chapter of Exodus ; and in the 26th
chapter of the sarae book, 10th verse, we
" Frame an ark of Setim-wood, the length
whereof shall be of two cubits and a half,
the breadth a cubit and a half, the height
likewise a cubit and a half" . Again, in
the eighteenth verse — " And thou shalt
make two cherubiras of beaten gold, on
the two sides of the oracle. Let no
one cherub," &c. Now if the command
ment — " Thou shalt not make any gra
ven image," &c., literally means that
we are not to make any graven or sacred
image — then the Almighty has contra
dicted himself; for we see by the text I
have read, that he has given directions to
make the cherubira for the ark ; conse
quently it never was intended that the like
ness of anything should not be made, but
that it should not be adored. These
images were set before the eyes of the peo-
- pie. Yet the people knew and adored the
true God, and never would transfer their
worship from him. And" again in chap.
31, v. 1, of Exodus, we read — " And the
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, See, I
have called hy name Beseleel, the son of
Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah :
And I have filled him with the spirit of
God, in wisdom and in understanding, in
knowledge, and in all manner of workr-
manship, to devise cunning works, to work
in silv^er, in gold, and in brass, and in cut
ting of stones, to set them, and in carving
of timber, to work in all manner of work
manship. And behold, I have. given with
him Ooiiab, the spn of Ahcisamach, of the
tribe of Dan : and in the hearts of all that
are wise-hearted I ha've put wisdom, that
they may make all I have commanded
thee." (Protestant version.)
Consequently, the decree of the Council
of the Iconoclasts, who declared the art of
painting to be diabolical, is in direct oppo
sition to the word of God, who put his
spirit info Bezaleel to devise those images
of the cherubira, and the art is therefore
not a diabolical art, but one ordered by the
Alraighty himself In Numbers, 2lst
chapter, 6th verse, we read, "And the
Lord sent among the people fiery ser
pents and they bit the people ; and much
people of Israel died. And the Lord said
unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpentand
set it upon a pole ; and it shall come to
pass that every one that is bitten, when he
looketh upon it, shall live." Here, then,
again w& have the positive command of
the Alihighty, given to Moses after the

first idolatry of Israel, lo make and raise
upon a pole a brazen serpent, and that il
should have, through the power of God, an
extraordinary virtue and power, and that
the people were to pay to it an ex
ternal veneration. Consequently, this
tenet ot our church to venerate sacred
images stands confirraed by the approba
tion, and, I may say, the positive command
of the Almighty himself In Joshua,
chapter 7, verse 6, we read : " And Joshua
rent his clothes and fell to the earth upon
his face before the ark of the Lord, iintil
eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and
put dust upon their heads." Here we
find the prophet faUing prostrate before the
work of the artificer's hands, before the
ark. Was this idolatry ? When, then, in
a moment of devotion we fall on our knees
before the crucifiix, we are no raore guilty
of idolatry than Joshua, for we know that
it cannot hear or help us, but the prayer
will ascend to heaven and become more
lively by the representation before us. In
the second book of Kings, 6th chapter and
14th verse, it' is written — "And David
danced before the Lord with all his might;
and David was girded with a, linen ephod.
So David, and all the house of Israel
brought up the Ark of the Lord with
shouting and with the sound of the trum
pet. And as the Ark of the Lord came
into the city of David, Michel, Saul's
daughter, looked through a window and
saw King David leaping and dancing be
fore the Lord, and she despised him in her
heart." Was David guilty of idolatry be
cause he was despised by a woman look
ing through a window ? And because
ignorant people feel a conterapt for me for
kneeling before a crucifix, as David danced
before the Ark, am I guilty ot idolatry ?
It is not because they feel a contempt
for me, that I ara therefore guilty of idola
try, in doing' that which they would re
gard far differently, if they rightly un
derstood the spirit and character of onr
religion. I will not enter farther into this subject
this evening. But is it not on record, as
the comraand of Queen. Elizabeth, and is
it not the practice of Protestant worship
pers of the present day, that when they
hear the name of Jesus Christ pronounced
they bend their heads. To what do they
bend them ? To. the sound. If, then,
they be so superstitious as to bend to what
strikes the ear, why not, as vve do, bend
before that which strikes the sight ? I am
actuated by the same motive in the case —
veneration for the name of Jesus. In fact,
whenever you pray there is a representa-

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES.

27

tion inthe imagination ; but do you commit
idolatry in entertaining that ? When you
pray, God is imagined in your mind, and
you cannot prevent it. Daniel describes
the Eternal as vested with a human form.
Certainly it can be no superstition to be
lieve the Scripture given by Daniel ; and
if so, where is the superstition of embody
ing them on the canvas ? I do not adore
the object of the fancy or the imagination,
but the reality. I do not kneel to the
picture, as a mere composition of art,
much less adore it — but to the Being it rep
resents; just as that Being is worshipped
in my imagination; and the one is no
greater act of superstition than the other.
Thus far I have merely opened to you the
subject which it is my intention to pursue
next Sunday. But let rae leave you with

the impression — that the cry of idolatry as
lo the usages of the ancient Catholic
church, is at once unjust, uncourteous,
and unkind. It is unfair to involve us in
one svyeeping charge of idolatry. We
know vvhat we are doing. We know we
cannot worship pictures — that we do not ;
yet still we hear the outcry against us.
We hear it said, " poor deluded Catholics !
we will not let them consult the Bible, nor
the second commandment; they are de
ceived by their priests — crafty raen, who,
leading people by the nose, will not let them
think ; and who, perhaps, are engaged in
plotting the destruction of the republic."
Is it not time to raise our vojces manfully
and boldly to let the public know what
we believe ? In order to carry this out, I
will resume the subject on next Sunday.

LECTURE VI.

You shall not not make to yourselves any idol or graven thing, neither shall you erect pillars nor set up a re
markable stone in your land to adore it, for I am the Lord your God."— Lkviticcs, 26 c. 1st v.

If the first and second commandments
which say " thou shalt not make to thyself
any graven thing, or the likeness of any
thing in the heavens above, or in the earth
beneath," &c. required any farther expla
nation than that which I gave in my pre
ceding lecture, the words I have just quoted
wiir be a clear and sufficient explanation
of the other text. In the former com
mandment I proved to you there could be
but one sense, naraely : that of the Catho
lic acceptation, which is : thou shalt not
make to thyself any graven thing for the
purpose of adoring or serving it. So in
the present instance God forbids the erec
tion of a stone, but forbids it in order that
the stone may not lead the people into idol
atry. If there be any other meaning than
that of the Catholic church vvith regard to
this commandment, then, as I trust, I have
sufficiently proved to you, there is frora
God himself a prohibition for the painter
and sculptor to exercise their beautiful art ;
then God himself has contradicted his own

commandment : for he ordered Cherubim
to be fashioned, as religious images to ac
corapany the Ark. Then Moses himself
was guilty of a direct violation of this cora
mandment, because Moses erected a bra
zen serpent in the heart of the wilderness,
and to that serpent, be it remarked, was
attached an extraordinary kind of virtue ;
bscause the scripture plainly says that all
the children of Israel who were bitten by
the fiery serpents were cured by casting
their eyes upon it. Therefore, it never
was intended by the Almighty to prohibit
the use of images or statues, either for na
tional, or social, or religious purposes.
This will appear still more clearly ^nd
strongly when you take into consideration
the conduct of Joshua after the command
ment in Leviticus was given — not lo erect
a graven thing or pillar, or set up any re
markable stone ; for we find thatiJoshua
acted in direct contradiction to this com
mandment, if it be forbidden to make any
stone or other image. In the 4th chap.

28

LECTURES ON THE

of Joshua, (Protestant version,) we read :
" And it came to pass when all the peo
ple were clean passed over Jordan, that
the Lord spake unto Joshua, laying, Take
ye twelve men out of the people, out of
every tribe a man, and command thera,
saying, take ye hence out of the, raidst of
Jordan, out of the place where the priests
first stood firm, twelve stones ; and ye
shall carry them over with you, and leave
thera in the lodging-place, where you shall
lodge this night. Then Joshua called the
twelve raen whora he had prepared of the
children of Israel, out of every tribe a,
man ; and Joshua said unto thera, pass
over before the ark of the Lord your God
into the raidst of Jordan, and take you up
every man of you a stone upon his shoul
der, according unto the tribes of the chil
dren of Israel ; that this raay be a sign
among you, that when your children ask
their fathers in time to come, saying —
what raean you by these stones ? Then
ye shall answer them, that the waters of
Jordan were cut off before the ark of the
covenant of the Lord : when it passed over
Jordan the waters of Jordan were cut off;
and these stones shall be for a meraorial
unto the children of Israel forever. And
the children of Jsrael did as Joshua cora
raanded, and took up twelve stones out of
the midst of Jordan, as tlie' Lord spake tinto
Joshua, according to the nuraber of the
tribes of the children of Israel, and carried
them over with them unto the place where
they lodged, and laid thera down there."
The conclusion to be drawn frora these
texts raust strike every observer — that if
the coraraandraent raeant that no stone
commemorative of any extraordinary event
should be erected, then Joshua acted in
direct violation of this coraraandraent. But
who will charge Joshua with acting in
contradiction to the Almighty? There
fore the meaning ofthis commandment is
not to be confined to the first part of it, but
must be extended to the conclusion, name
ly — thou shalt not raake any iraage or erect
any stone, for the purpose of adoring ' it.
The church, ' therefore, when she erects
images of Jesus Christ, of his glorious
mother, of the saints, of the champions of
religion, does not act in violation of the
coraraandraent ; because she erects them
merely for the purpose of bringing before
the rainds of the faithful the events con
nected with the history of those person
ages — not to be guilty, as we are frequent- .
ly charged, of committing idolatry.
Again, in the 24th chap, of Joshua, frora
the 25th verse — " So Joshua raade a cov
enant with the people that day, and set

thera a statute and an ordinance in' Sche-
chera. , And Joshua wrote' these words in
the Book of the Lord of God, and took a
great stonei and ' set it up there ! And
Joshua'said unto all the people, behold,
this stone shall be a witness unto us ; for
it hath heard all the words of the Lord
"which he spake unto us ; it shall be there
fore a witness unto you, but you deny your
God." "Here .again we find Joshua erecting
another stone, after having brought before
the peojile the commandment ; consequent-
y, Joshua could not in the face of this
commandment violate the prohibition and
erect a stone if it had been prohibited
by the Supreme Legislator ; and it is pre
cisely on the same principles that the
Catholic Church has acted from the
earliest ages — acts at this da'y, and ever
will act, in future. She has her sacred
images and venerable statues, but who
will dare to assert that I or any enlightened
Christian, or good and faithful Catholic,
should be so silly, so lost to common sense
as to fall down and pay adoratioton to these
statues that are respected only as they com
raeraorate great events and illustrious
personages ?
We find that Samuel imitated likewise
the example of Joshua. . In the First Book
of Kings, 7th chap, 10th verse, we read : —
" And as Sarauel was offering up the burnt
offering, the Philistines drew near battle-
against Israel ; but the Lord thundered
with a great thunder on that day upon
the Philistines, and discorafited them ; and
they were sraitten before Israel. And the
men of Israel went out of Mizneh, and
pursued the Philistines, and smote them,
until they came under Bethcar. Then
Samnel took a stone, and 4et it between
Mizneh and Shen, and called the name of
it Ebenezer, saying, hitherto hath the Lord
helped us." Here, an-ain, we find Samuel
erected a stone in commemoration of the
assistance which the people had received
from him, and this notwithstanding: the
first part of the commandment prohibiting
the erection of a stone or graven .image ;
because the Prophels — these leaders of
the people, knew too well the meaning of
the commandment to be prevented from
erecting a monuraent co;nraemorative of
tlie great and prevailing assistance they
received froni the Omnipotent. But if the
commandment as understood by tliose who ,
style us idolaters, bear them out in their
explanation, then they must not only con.
demn me, and the whole Catholic Church,
but they must condemn all Israel and the
leaders ofthe people of' God. Because
they judge me guilty p? idolatry for erect-

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES.

29

our
now

mg tliese st*tues ; then- all those who
have erected statues have been guilty of
the grossest idolatry ; and there is surely
no man, however widely he may differ
from the old church, or find fault with rae
for teaching the doctrines ofthe Catholic
Church, who will venture to assert that
Joshua and Samuel were guilty of idolatry.
If they say these 'great men, and leaders of
the people are not, they will labor in vain to
prove that in doing what they did, I am an
idolater, little above those who worshipped
pagan idols or the beasts of the field.
Having thus established the plain com
raon sense acceptation of the comraand
ment, and having shown to the satis
faction, it must appear to rae, of every
ingenuous mind, that we, have neither
retrenched nor expunged frOm our Bible,
the second coramandment ; that we have
not drawn a black mark over it in
catechisms, but that we explain it,
let us proceed to consider some popular
abjections that, are made to venerating
sacred statues or images. In the first
alace, I have often been accosted — not in
ifulgar — but in intellectual society, with
:his objection — " It is all very well for you
Ilatholios to maintain in an enlightened
sense of the word the dogma of venerating
sacred images ; but can, you ever bring
j^ourselves to approve of burning incense
md lights before thesp pictures? this is
mperstition ;" and very'often before they
;ould have time to receive an answer, they
retired, satisfied possibly of having accom-
jlished a triuraph, and regarding their ob-
ection as unanswerable. But if. these
lersons' wonld only listen to the reply, it
vould be this : — Incense is burned before
lacred images, and tapers do glimmer
lot unfrequently, even in the day time,
pecially in Catholic countries, before
tatues, and neither in one case or the other
3 there the least alloy of superstition or
dolatry in it. In the first place, with
egard to burning lights in the day time.
Tbe sun shines and sheds his light on
11 ; where then is the use of having lights
urning in candlesticks ?" It was cus-
jmai-y, in ansjver to this question, tp refer
3 the custom of the Jews and Pagans,
fho burned lighted candles in their tera-
les. .Persius, in oneof his satires, re-
larks that among the Jews the burning of
indies was always the sign of exultation
nd joy. It was objected by Vigilantius
gainst St. Jerorae, as against us at the
resent day, that it ia altogether wrong to
urn lights before' our altars, because
ght^ were , buniijed, before their idols in

gilantius quoted Seneca, 'who mentions
this fact.. To this St. Jerome answered,
that although the lights were . burned by
the Jews, where is the impropriety
in a Christian lo take as it were i the
sparks from the heathen temples, and
dedicate them to he worship ofthe true God
but particularly, he, contended, as the
ancient people of God used their lights
in their sacred temples, why|can they not be
transferred and made use of in honor of
the images of Jesus Christ ? This is the
reasoning of no less a personage then the
illustrious St. Jerome. And what answer
can be given to it at tbe present day ?
We Catholics understand what the doctrine
is. We know that there is no virtue,
no inherent power, nor merit, nor
efficacy, in there statues or paintings. The
sirapliestchildof common sense who enters
a church will tell you that they are com
posed of materials without spirit or vitality,
not to be adored but that they represent
some illustrious character — Christ the,
word made man, or the Virgin Mary, or
soma of the Apostles, Martyrs, or dis-
guished lights of the Catholic Church.
Now with regard to the second objec
tion. I do not admit because a statue
is incensed, it is intendedi that thei-e
should bethe least idolatry. How do I
prove this ? Very easily. I prove it
because in the venerable and august
ceremonial of our church, as all Christians
know who have witnessed it, it is custom
ary for the officiating . clergyjnan to in
cense the altar, and the members of the
sanctuary, but certainly it is not intended
by that to adore them ; and besides this,
it is customary to incense the sacred re
mains of the dead ; and who will dare
venture a supposition that when the priest
deposits in the earth, with- the burning of
incense, the mortal remains of the dead,
to repose until the last day, he is guilty
of paying adoration to that dead body ?
Therefore, until it can be proved that the
priest is guilty of idolatry in incensing the
dead, his brethren, in the sanctuary, or the
altar, it never can be asseAed by any sen
sible man, that he is guilty of idolatry in
incensing the crucifix.
I will not here dissert upon the introduc
tion of lights or incense into the service
of the church. This might be properly a
topic for some future lecture, and perhaps
at some other . tirae it raay constitute the
subject for one ; but in the meanwhile, I
may remark, in passing, that the custom of
incensing, if we believe very high and very
generally admitted authority, was custom-

leir temples by the Pagans; and so Vi- 'ary among the primitive Christians. Inth^i

30

LECTURES ON THE

dark places of the earth, whither they fled
from the sword of persecution, it was cus
tomary in order not to inhale the fetid and
unwholesome air, to cast abroad the fra
grance of incense, in those secluded pla
ces ; and as a memorial of those dark days
of trial and persecution, the custom has
prevailed through the uniyersal church,
and has been perpetuated down to this day.
Perhaps, too, upon the same authority, it
may be believed that the first introduction
of lights on our altars, was the conse
quence of the banishment of the Chris
tians to those caverns where they were
deprived of the light of the sun — where,
on the tombs of their martyred brethren,
they might read the solemn liturgy ; and, in
remembrance of that fact, these lights are
still seen gliraraering on our altars.' And
who will charge the church with supersti
tion for this observance at solemn and
stated times ? And is not the incense a
beautiful and touching image or represen
tation of the aspirations of a devout soul ?
for as it sends its fragrance to blend with
the air, so does the prayer of the Chris
tian go up in the odor of sweetness until
it mixes itself as it were, in the skies, and
joins and blends with the prayers of
those holy souls who are there, in the lan
guage of the Apocalypse, pouring out
their vials before the lamb that was slain.
But to return to the spirit and bearing
of the commandment itself, and to the in
tention of the suprerae legislator with re
gard to the raeaning of the commandment
recorded in the book of Exodus, and that
which I read for you this evening in
t Leviticus and Deuteronomy, " Turn ye
not to idols ^ nor raake to ' yourselves
¦any molten or graven thing, &c." This
is a sublime and magnificent explana
tion of the coraraandraent. The people
of God were cautioned against the idol
atry of their i neighbors. When they
were coraraanded not to make to them
selves the iraage of anything in the hea
vens above, what was the raeanir^ of this ?
The Chaldeans, when they cast their eyes
to the stars, saw in them so raany deities,
and adored thera ; and it was to caution
the Jews pot to iraitate their example, that
the first commandment was given. They
saw the stars with idolatrous intent, they
represented them inthe work of their hands,
and it was forbidden to the Jews to repre
sent the stars of heaven with that intent ;
and this is the meaning of the first part of
the commandraent, not to adore the hosts
of heaven as the Chaldeans—" Thou shalt
not make to thyfeelf any graven thing,
^c ;" and the concluding part was meant

to deter them from the idolatry ofthe
Egyptians, for they adored the beasts of
the field, and the Egyptians erected statues
and graven images of those deities, and it
was in order to prevent the people of God
from falling into the idolatry of the Egyp
tians that the second was given, " or the
likeness of anything in the heavens above,
or in the earth beneath, or in the waters un
der the earth." This part of the com
mandment was given in order to prevent
the people of God from adoring — like the
Egyptians — the inhabitants of rivers, the
fishes and serpents of the deep ; and they
were forbidden to make a graven image of
these things for the purpose of adoring
them — ^like the Egyptians — and estrange'
their hearts from the true God. " I am
the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other
gods but rae ;" and this is the meaning of
the third clause. of this precept, which,
perhaps, the youth who prides himself
upon Reading the bible without note or
comment, never once thought of, that St.
Paul says "an idol is nothing in the world."
What were the idols of Jove and the stat
ues of Juno, and all the Greek and Ro-
raan deities 1 They were chiraeras, beau
tiful to the iraagination, if you will, " but
nothing in the world." The deities of
Greece and Rbme never had an existence,
and were therefore " nothing in the world."
And it was by adoripg statues representing-
beings that either never did exist, or cer
tainly never existed as divinities, that they
were guilty of the grossest and raost in
credible idolatry. Now, what are the stat
ues that are erected and placed before the
people by the genius and faith of the
Catholic Church ? Are they idols ? do
they represent nothing? are they no
thing in the world ? The representa
tion of Jesus Christ who was divine, or the
representation of his blessed mother — and
she was certainly worthy of veneration —
or of the apostles and other good and great
men, the distinguished champions ot the
faith — these statues and pictures receive
no homage. The homage gops back to
the originals, is in reference to'the origin
als, and therefore it is impossible that the
charge against us of idolatry on this
ground can be sustained, or enter into the
mind of any candid or sensible man.
Again, the Pagans, even the most en
lightened, brought themselves to the con
viction that their gods were real, apd verily
present in the Statues ; that they heard
and saw, and could extend their influence
to their votaries ; and this was held 'not
only among the vulgar, but among their
sages, philosophers, and greatest' men.

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES

31

Hence we find Arnobius, after he became
a convert to Christianity, in the primitive
times, has left, in his work against the
Gentiles, his testimony on this subject ;
and this opinion of Arnobius may be re
garded as that of the most enlightened
Romans. Lot us, then, corapare their
regard for their idols with the religious
respect we pay to our images. Arnobius
exclaims, " O blindness ! I was adoring
images that carae from the hands of the
workmen, that were fashioned by the ham
mer, as if the divinity were present in thera.
I spoke to them, and ;v-'1;ed favors of them ;
1 thought that wood a.Ki stone were gods,
or that gods dwelt in these different ma
terials." Here is idolatry. Now, think
you, would the siraplest child in our Sun
day schools believe that the divinity is pre
sent in thfit picture over our altar ; or that
God, the Creator of all things, dwells in tlie
materials of such a representation ? And
is it possible that such an idea can go
abroad in this community — in this other
wise noble and enlightened coraraunity?
Certainly it is the most astonishing cir
cumstance that there could be men found
so ignorant or so malicious as to repeat
what has been confuted so often already^-
that the Catholics ai-e guilty of adoring
sticks and stones, language often used
when perhaps the reply is not listened to.
The' Pagans offered their vows to their
statues, the work of their own hands ; and
when the workman, with his tool in his
hand, labored on the log which he was
fa.shioning, hesitated whether he would
raake a god or a beast, perchance the deity
prevailed, and a Priapus sprang forth.
This was idolatry. But will any Christian
think that when he is forming a statue or
picture, he can infuse divinity into it ?
Absurd. The church believes there is no
more harm in sacred pictures, than in the
likeness of your friends or great men in
your parlors. Why then conderan her for
encouraging this usage? In this church
we have but one striking, speaking, though
silent picture ; and I am firmly under the
conviction that there is no person so fool
ish, so far forgetful of common sense, as
to be willing to adore that sacred image.
What is that picture intended for? It
speaks volumes, and it would require vol
umes to detail that picture's uses. It is,
if I may so speak, a sacred hieroglyphic,
which, if translated into ordinary language,
would require many volumes ; but which,
when the eye is flxed upon it, unveils its
history, tells of the passion, death and cru
cifixion of our Saviour That picture tells
at once, without the necessity of recurring

to the Bible, of the infinite love .exhibited
toward the world ; that picture tells how
the Lamb was led to the altar and immola
ted for out salvation ; that picture tells ofthe
tremendous circumstances connected with
that event; it tells of the darkness that
shrouded the world ; it tells how the earth
shook araid the last screaras of- the dy
ing Son of God. It developes the whole
secret of the redemption of raankind, and
that at one glance, and not only to those
who are learned, not only to those who have
read and studied the history of that dark
draraa, but to those who know n^t the use
of letters. Tho Catholic who cannot read,
reads there a lesson of love and feels that
Christ,. and' he alone, is his redemption.
The genius of the church points to an im
age like that, and the moral sinks deep
into the heart of the raost insensible. And
is this idolatry ? and is this superstition ?
and is this keeping the second coramand
ment from the people, and closing hermeti
cally the sacred volume against their in
vestigation and perusal ? It seeras to me
that what may be represented on paper
certainly may be represented in a painting.
If I take a pen in my hand and describe
the passion of Christ, I surely can take the
brush and depict it raoreivividly on canvass.
Where is the difference ? If it be idolatry
to depict it on paper, it is to annul or ques
tion the sacred volurae in which the pas
sion of Jesus Christ is written. And itis
for this same reason that we have fre
quently, though not in this church, the re
presentation of the Virgin Mary, the mother
of Christ, to present to the admiration and
veneration of the faithful the purest model
of a mother, and to remind all that as Eve
degenerated, Mary was in some sense the
regeneratrix of our fallen race, not through
her own raerits, but those of Jesus Christ.
We represent her whom the Archangel
Gabriel declared was " full of grace ;" and
cannot we imitate his exaraple in saying,
" Hail Mary, full of grace," and blessed, as
we find it written in that beautiful canticle
called the Magiiificat ? - Where then is the
superstition i I i he Catholic, in the language
of Gabriel, calls her blessed ? This is all
we mean — itHs to commemorate her pure
character and to remind us, that if by
one WOI I nil death was brought into the
world, by another, life was restored to it.
I wS not here enter into the particulars
of the respect paid to sacred iraages
throughout the various nations of the earth
at all times ; that will constitute a part of
ray concluding lecture next Sunday even
ing. But as I am on this topic, I cannot but
advert to the glorious race of the Anglo

32

LECTURES ON THE

Saxons — as they are styled. From their
oracle, the venerable Bede, we learn that
it was the custom throughout the Island,
lo use sacred images, and statues in their
Churches. Lingard, in his " Anglo Saxon
Church," pages 172 and 173, is full on
this point. 'There haye been objections
made against representing on canvass the
Eternal Father ; and I have some faint re
collection of a great deal of noise made about
a certain picture of the Trinity, which was
exhibited in the Chapel of Georgetown
College. People said, "it was really, a
subject of pity to the visitor to see inge
nuous young boys' kneeling [down before
this image." I believe there was a repre
sentation of the Trinity there when I was
at that College ; but if I can judge of
other ingenuous boys by myself — there
-vvas no worship of that iraage among tliem.
But I can see no reasonable objection to
rapresenting on canvass what has been da-
scribed on paper by the Prophet. Daniel,
vii. chap, and 9th verse, describes the An
cient of days, as a -{"enerable old raan, with
a hoaiy beard. Now, either you must not
read that — as the representation will ob
trude itself on the iraagination, for you
must admit it can be made on the mind by
letters as -well as canvass. Daniel repre-
sented/God in that form. Why, then, tak
ing the Bible as your guide, why cannot
the painter be permitted to select some
beautiful passage of scripture and depict
it in colors ? Were I to take the above pas
sage of Daniel, and place it in large and
brilliant characters over the altar, wbuld
that be idolatory 1 And where is the dif
ference iri having the representation on
canvass or on stone of tlie identical figure
described by Daniel ? No man will find
fault with me for reading tiie scripture as
written by Daniel, and still it would be
impossible for me, after reading it, not to
have that venerable representation in my
mind. If then, by so doing, 1 am guil
ty of idolatry, so was the Prophet. I cannot,
therefore, see what objection there should
be to make a representation on canvass,
which is given by Daniel. We know that
. the Eternal cannot be described, nor paint
ed ; we know that he is a spirit, and can
not be seen. But if he has ever conde
scended to make , his appearance in any
form whatsoever, in that form we can re

present him ; and, therefore, on the basis
of the sacred scriptures, the painter can
establish his right to represent on canvass
the Eternal Father. The Holy Ghost ap
peared, we read also, in the shape of a
dove. We Catholics, however, little as we
read the sacred scriptures — read that at
leastj! The Holy Ghost descended in
the form of a dove over the waters of Jor
dan, when Christ was baptised. Now, no
objection is made to represent the Holy
Ghost in this form, for it is very usual
among Protestants to do so ; and- as this
is no idolatry in their church, so there
is none whatever in displaying sacred
images in our '¦ churches." And if
there be danger in our ingenuous youths
being led into error by these images — is
there no danger of the sarae happening in
the case of the Protestant ? They do not
consider there is. Besides, we take good
care to instruct our children how far their
veneration may extend to these iraaget^.
As to representation of Christ, it is not at
all necessary for me to advert to it, for it
is to be found in all places. There is an
other very strong argument which forces
itself upon my mind in the conclusion - of
this lecture^it is this ; the Protestant does
not belie'-'o in the real presence of Christ
in the Lord's Supper, but believes that the
bread and wine are the mere figures and
representatives of Jesus Christ. Yet,
notwithstanding this, does not the devout
Protestant, on approaching the holy table,
kneel and venerate this erablera ? If,
then, he can kneel to bread and to wine, be
cause they are representations of Jesus
Christ, certainly I can evince some re
spect to an iraage for the same reason,
and until it can be proved that there is
super.stilion in the first case, it can never
be proved in the second. But I have al
ready trespassed too long on your patient
attention. With regard to the objection
that is made to this practice of the Catho
lic Church, -on the ground of its tendency
to lead the simple and uninstructed into
idolatry, which 1 have already alluded to,
' this will be further examined in my lecture,
next Sunday evening, when I shall have
many extremely important remarks to
throw out : and I trust you will hear me in
reply to the objections made against our
usages, with your customary patience.

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES

33

LECTUEEVII

" And tliey clmnged the glory of the incorruptible God into an image'like to corruptible man, and to birds,
and four-footed beasts and creeping things." — Romans, ^Ist chap. 22d verse.

If the fact were not well authenticated,
it would seem incredible 'that men could
be so corapletely buried in idolatry as were
the ancient Romans, according to the de
scription given of them by the inspired
apostle. That it was not an obscure and bar
barous people who bent their knees to cor
ruptible things, but that the most enlight
ened, the most powerful of all nations have
been guilty ofthis idolatry, is v.'hat strikes
us with astonishment. They forgot the
Creatot of man and beast — they forgot hira
by whose power all things were called into
existence.' j They did away with his provi
dence, and attributed all their events, whe
ther of a prosperous or adverse nature,
whether in peace or in war, to mere chance
or blind fatality. They set aside the infinite
intelligence, and having thus swerved from
the truth which nature herself must have
taught them, they bent before material
things ; they adored as their gods the stars
of the firraament, the beasts of the field,
the raonsters of the deep, and the worst
passions personified in their demi-gods, and
even the great deities which they wor
shipped. The perfection of their worship
consisted in forming to themselves iraages
of beautiful woraen — vigorous, powerful,
well-proportioned men — ^having the facul
ties, sometimes, of enveloping themselves
in dense mists, sometimes of breaking upon
the world in glorious and dazzling light,
and sometiraes in rapid unearthly chariots,
darting, like the wind,froin space to space ;
and these imaginary deities were personi
fied and rendered, as it were, visible in the
marble fashioned by the cunning of their
artists ; and these statues wer? considered
b;^them as participating o ' '' e divine na
ture. They believed that .ve\-e not
flaere representations of th-,:;r ^,=if,;is, but

that thosc deities dwelt in thera, and that
they possessed divine power, as in the
case of the faraous statue of Diana, accord
ing to the testimony of Tully himself, who,
when thundering against Verres for hav
ing removed that statue frora the senate-
house, declared it had fallen from the
heavens, and was worthy of divine adora
tion. The great statue of Jupiter Olym
pus, which had been fashioned in the most
noble proportions by Phidias, was said by
Quintillian to be more adorable than the
deity which it represented. This, indeed,
was idolatry. No wonder that the apostle of
the nations should assert that God' in con
sequence of this idolatry, gave over the
most enlightened people of the world tp
darkness and to their disgraceful passions.
" Wherefore," he says, " God gave the
people over to the desires of their hearts,
and professing to be wise they became
fools." But how different is the respect
which we, as Catholics, pay to our sacred
images t To us they are- the mere repre
sentations of great and distinguished per
sonages.' They are books which all can
read, which at once strike upon the eye,
and upon the heart, of every individual»
Take a picture representing any portion
or passage ofthe sacred scriptures, or of the
life of Christ, and what irapressions will it
not raise in the conteraplative mind. If I
behold Christ depicted on canvass, stand
ing with his benign and amiable features,
shedding his heavenly smiles upon a lit
tle child, and calling to his disciples, " suf
fer little f-liildren to come unto rae and
forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom
of heaven " — v/ill not the child when he
casts his eyes upon such a representation,
learn a, lesson which sinks deeply into, his
oang and susQeptible. heart •? while his

34

LECTURES ON THE

parents in pointing his attention to the
image, remember that " unless they them
selves become as little ones, they cannot
enter into the -kingdom of heaven," and
are thus taught a lesson of infinite«harity.
If a Magdalen is presented to the pubhc
eye, at once the people there behold the
image of the most sincere penitent. That
feraale with dishevelled hair, her hands
crossed and fixed upon her heaving bo
sora, her eyes fixed intently on the skies
— is she out of whom the Saviour cast
seven dewls; is she who anointed his
sacred feet with precious ointment,' and
bathed them with her penitential lears. ^
At the sight of that image tjiey #.dmire
her penitence and at opce melt with sym
pathy for her and contrition for tlieir own
sins. If a picture of one of the primitive
martyrs be placed before our consideration,
the days of sufi'ering, persecution and trial
come to our memory ; they were hunted to
death, driven from their homes and their
families, even into the caverns of the
earth, rather than let a single fragment of
their incense burn before the gods of Pa
ganism, they suffered theraselves to be cut
to pieces, and have left a bright example
for all posterity. And all true Catholics,
rather than kneel in adoration to any sta
tue, either of Christ hiraself, or the saints,
would sufier death : because that would be
idolatry. In the conclusion of ray last lecture, I
promised' to answer sorae objections which
are raised against the practice of venerat
ing sacred images — not by the intellectual
classes, it is said, because there is no dan
ger of their falling into idolatry, but on
account of the danger resulting to little
children and the uneducated. Is there not
every danger that ihey may at least be led
into a superstitious practices and idolatry
by these sacred images .' In answer to
that objection we raust refer to the siraple
eleraents of our religious creed ; vve must
question the tenderest child under our care
ink our Sunday schools. We must open
for hira, not — the Council of Trent, or the
writings of the ancient fathers, bul the little
catechism ; and if it teaches thera clearly,
siraply and intelligibly, to do their duty in
regard lo the use of images, then there is
no danger of their falling into idolatry.
Here is a plain little catechism adapted to
the instruction of our children. The ques-
tion_ is asked — after the first commandment
is given, "what are we coraraanded by the
first-commandment ?" The answer is this :
¦" To believe in, adore, and serve one true
and liWag God." The second questioniis :
*' Wliat is forbidden by this cprhniand-

ment ?" Answer : '".To worship false
gods or idols ; or tb give to anything else
vvhatsoever, the honor which belongs to
God." Third question : " Does this cora
mandment forbid the making of images ?"
Answer : " It forbids makijjig them so as
to adore or serve them ;" that is, forbids
making them our gods. "Does the com
mandment forbid all veneration of saints
or angels ?" Answer : " No ; we are tO'
honor them as God's friends and servantSV
but not with the honor which belongs to
God." " Is it allowed to honor crucifixes and
holy pictures ? Ahswer : " Yes, with an
inferior and relative'.! honor as they relate to
Christ and his saints, and are mere memo
rials of them." Then this question is put :
" May we pray to relics or iraages 1" The
answer is explicit: "No, by no means j for
they have neither life nor sense to help-
us." I'hese are the eleraents of our Chris
tian doctrine, whith are taught every child'
in our Sunday schools ; and the raost ig
norant in our congregations mu^t be ac-,
quaintasl with. And if so, how can it be
possible they could be led into superstition
or idolatrous worship of iraages, relics,,
crucifixes, or statues ? Now, would it not
be well for those who are so fluent in
calumnies and denunciations against, the
Catholic church to consult sometimes, not
our standard authors, or voluminous works
— but this little catechism — and ' instruct
themselves in our religion, before they be
come so dogmatic in their accusations
against it ?
And here, before I close this Catechism,
I cannot let this opportunity pass by, with
out adverting to a circumstance, which
not long since occurred in this city before a
numerous, and, I believe, respectable audi
ence: when a lay orator took into his
hands a>Catechism, and attempted to turn
into ridicule that portion of it which re
lates to the " Hail, Mary ;" and without
atterapting to give the slightest explana
tion, put this isolated question, as found in
the Catechism, "Who made the Hail,
Mary ?" and it was really painful to find
that in the attempt to turn into ridicule the
Catholic doctrine, he exposed to ridicule
Christianity itself — although 1 am perfectly
confident he did not| know what he was
doing. Our prayer for such a one is " Fa-,
ther, forgive hira, for he knoweth not what
be doeth.' It is my duty as a teacher of
the Catholic religion, ami my pride as a
free-born ' citizen I of this republic, to
speak out, and explain to the whole commu
nity, if it could hear me', that very point
which was so disingenously turned into
ridicule on so great and soleriin an occasion.

VENERATION OF SACRED ^IMAGES.

35

To understand the question in the cate
chism, we will repeat the hail Mary —
"Hail, Mary, full of Grace ; blessed art
thou among women, and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb, Jesus." This is what
is called the first part of it, and which
gives the name to it from the first words
—as is usual in other cases, for instance in
the " Magnificat," the "Gloria Patri," &,c.'
The catechism then asks, " who made this
first- part?" and the answer, which was
held to be so ridiculous, is ; " The angel
Gabriel and Saint Elizabeth raade the first
part." And how is this proved ? Look to
the first chapter of Luke, and 28th verse, and
you will thus read :, " And the angel carae
in unto her, and said. Hail, full of grace, the
Lord is with thee ; blessed art thou araong
women." And again in the 42d verse,
Elizabeth continues it; "Blessed art thou
araong women, and blessed is the fruit of
thy womb." Tl^grefore, it is true as holy
\vrll itself, that the angel Gabriel . and St.
Elizabeth composed the first part of the
" Hail, Mary !" and we must believe this,
if we believe Scripture at all ; and, there
fore, if -the Archangel Gabriel, arrayed in
celestial light, descending on a cloud, the
messenger of the court of heaven, to a
woman, could address her in these words,
1 should like to know what superstition it
is in rae, an humble creature, to ad
dress her in the same words of Gabriel.
When this point was brought before
that audience, and when il was so brought
before il as lo make the audience suppose
it was superstition — a speciraen of what
the poor Cathslics believe, arjd a proof
of their ignorance and of their perfect want
of knowledge of scripture — it was not per
haps understood at the "Time by those ad-
dressed, that this part was really cornposed
bv Gabriel and Ehzabeth. The second
part of Hail Mary is this : — " Holy Mary,
mother of God, pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death." According- to
all the arguments I have adduced in my
- preceding lectures, it is useful, proper, and
scriptural, to pray to Saints and the mother
o^ our Saviour. But the mafn objection is
this : that we call her the raother of God.
Now, why do we call a woraan the mother-
of God ¦? Do we not believe that Christ j
was God made raan, and that Mary was [ enlightened doctrine and a confirmation of
the mother of Christ? But, if Mary v/as {all'thal I have stated. Can it be an objec-
the raother of Christ, and if Christ was j tion to by any man who appreciates the
God made man, therefore Mary was the i works of art, or knows how to feel pro

by every child, il is manifest that children
well instructed, k'now how to distinguish
between the worship of God and the mere
external reverence we pay to sacred images.
Again, it is impossible that any Catholic,
instructed in the principles of his religion,
can soffar forget his instruction, as to offer
adoration to mere statues — to mere images,
when he remembers what is constantly
inculcated by the Council of Trent, which
forbids any favor to be asked of the images
of the Saints ; forbids any confidence to be
placed in them, and asserts that in images
there is no inherent virtue. All this is to
be found in the Catechism of that Council ;
as also in the second council of Nice which
expressly states that "it is good and useful
to have and keep in churches images of
Jesus Christ and the saints."
The Catholic church at all times has
been sedulous in watchinn- over the pure
faith of her members. The Popes, who
have been so long and so frequently mis
represented, and whose naraes have be
come, even in this enlightened country, so
many bugbears, will be found frora his
tory, always the first to explain the doc
trines of the church, particularly the doc
trine relating lo sacred images. We may
refer to the epistle of Gregory the Great
to Serenus,' in 699. That Bishop of Mar
seilles had, inconsiderately ordered some
of the sacred images to be removed frora
certain churches of his diccess, for unfor
tunately he was tainted with Iconoclasm.
The Pope immediately addressed him a
elter, which raust be regarded by persons
of all creeds as full of good sense and
worthy the purest days of Christianity —
"If," said he, "you forbid them lo be
adored, we should only have to approve
you ; but v/e blame j'ou for having broken
them. Tell me, my brother, have you
ever heard that any other priest did attempt
what ypu have done 1 If by nothing else,
you should have been restrained by the
consideration that you are not the only pru
dent person among your brethren ; for it is •
one thing to adore the painting, and another
to learn from it what we should adore.
What scripture shows to those who can
read, the paintings show to the illiterate
who cannot."' Now is this not the most

mother of God made man ; therefore there
can be no possible objection by those who
believe in the divinity of Christ, to the
title we confer on Mary. From the elements
of the catechism,- then, which are learned

Iperly ih regarding a national, social, or
religious picture? Besides, if by paying
respect to sacred images we be in dan ger of
falling into idolatry, the church would
have been the first to raise her voice

LECTURES ON THE

against the abuse. The church has
within her bosora a conservative principle
of truth; for the /ihurcb was established
by Christ and fortified with infallibility —
that is to teach the truths which her divine
founder committed to her lo be handed
down from generation to generation, to
the end of lirae. If they, who under pre
text of reforraing abuses, had only listened
to the sage counsels of Gregory the Great,
there would have been na necessity for
them to destroy the most venerable images
of antiquity. The painters and sculptors
of the present day must be, indeed, thank
ful to the ancient church for having per
petuated these beautiful and instructive
arts ; for, if the spirit of heresy ^nd revolt
as it displayed itself in the 9th century,
had succeeded, there would have been an
end to all, the beautiful eraanations of
genius that have inspired the canvass and
the raarble ; because, as I have showed
you, when those who opposed' the sacred
iraages in the days of Constantine Co
pronyraus, who declared painting to be a
diabolical and black art, the church raised
her voice and condemned the errors and
the vandalism of the Iconoclasts. Who
does not feel the charm of painting as well
as the charms of rausic 1 He that is in
sensible lo the One is -j-ust as fit for trea
son, as he who is insensible to the other.
Hear that venerable father of the ancient
church — St. Basil, in a discourse on one of
the martrys, breaking forth with his usual
eloquence into this strain : "Appear, ye ad
mirable painters, let your pencils give the
last finish to the subject I have been feebly
sketching — ^by the magic of your colors,
bring forth on'the canvass those charms I
have so feebly described ; I shall cheerful
ly yield the palm." Thus, we find St..
Basil, one of the ancient fathers and can
onized saints of the church, doing justice
to the painter, and showing the utility of
representing on canvass some martyr, or
great champion of the Chr'stian faith.
Another ancient father speaking of a, stri
king iraage, says — "I have often seen it, but
never without shedding tears ; because it
represented, so accurately to the eyes, that
terrible scene, that none ,that once sees
it," &c. TeU me, after this, that there is.no
utility in sabred images. St. Augustine
speaks in high terras of a beautifi,il cora-
pgSition of the same kind. But why
should I continue to descant on this sub
ject, or continue to bring before you those
burning passages of the eloquence of the
pri mitive times. There never yet was a
Christian — -no matt.er what his creed,
wh 0 on beholding in St. Peter's Church

that master-piece of Michael Angelo of the
Last Judgment, did not feel all the ter
rors of that awful catastrophe? Tell
me, then, is there no utility in such pain-
lings, which place in terrific colors before
the eyes, as well ?is the imagination, that
dread day, when the supreme judge of the
living and dead shall appear with his angels
coming with great glory to judge the
quick and the dead; when the archangel
seizing his trumpet, whose sounds we al
raost hear, by looking at the living canvass,
proclaims abroad : " arise ye dead and come
to judgraent." Tell rae that sinners are not
awakened at that awful sight — ^that they
wiU not be roused at the contemplation of
that scene-T-and be induced and moved to
prepare for the coming of the Son of Man.
And can there be any so stupid as to suppose
that the use of such representations would
lead rae or any Catholic to comrait idola
try? 4,
It really seems astonishing, that it should
become necessary for rae before an eplight-
ened coraraunity, to vindicate this doctrine.
And yet enlightened as we are, I very much
apprehend, after all I haye said, perhaps
some one sweeping assertion about the
idolatry of the church of Rorae, will re
raove all the good impressions I may have
made. There is nothing more easy, or that'
forms a raore ready subject of popular elo
quence, than what a vvell-known preacher
in England once used to, call his Cheshire
cheese. When he had nothing else to
preach about, he took up Popery ; and it is
astonishing that such cheese could be ac
ceptable always to the audience to which
he preached.
With regard to the character of our
iraages, it certainly is very rauch to be
regretted that paintings, not very elegant
or well executed, nor such as are suitable
to excite religious sentiment, should be dis
played. The church has provided against
this abuse. The council held under St.
Charles Borroraeo, has declared that it is
their duty " to exclude every representa
tion frora the churches that does not cor-^
respond with the dignity of the origi
nals, and is not adapted to excite devo
tion in the spectators ? Pope' Urban in
the year 1630, issued a solemn brief, com
mencing with the words, " Celestis Jerusa
lem," in which he forbids any picture to be
exposed in the churches without the posi
tive approbation 6f the Bishop of the place,
in order to prevent the possibility of intro
ducing images or- pictures not suitable to
sacred places.
Yoii may ask me, when tho custora was
first introduced into the church of iiging

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES.

37

images and statues ? In the very com
mencement of the church, certainly we
cannol expeet to find many pictures or
statues in the Christian temples ; and why?
because in those days the Christians had
no temples. How could it be expected
that the walls of churches should be
adorned with images, when there were no
churches to be adorned ? We know that
the Christians were obliged to fly into caves
and secret places, and dungeons of the
earth. We know that not until the reign
of Constantine the Great were the ancient
Pagan temples consecrated as christian
churches. But we know frora the testimony
of Tertulian, who wrote in the Aird cen
tury, that in those days of persecution and
blood it was the custora to have an image
of the Good Shepherd engraven on the
chalice and sacred vessels. And Theodoret
in the first book of his History, says
that the Empress Eudoxia sent to Pulcheria
¦ an image of the Virgin Mary, which shows
that-, the Christians of his times vener
ated sacred images and pictures. But
there is upon record what really may
be considered an extraordinary testimony,
that in the remotest period of Christianity
images and statues were introduced for the
respect of the people. Eusebius, who is
styled the father of ecclesiastical history,
in the days of Constantine the Great, re
lates what, if it did not stand upon the tes
timony of so great a raan, might also be
ridiculed. Here is his testiraony, ih the
7th Book of his " History of the Church:"
" It is said that the woman miraculously
cured by our Saviour, as we read in the
gospel, 'was a native of CiEsarea ; that her
house is still shown there ; and that to
perpetuate the benefit she had received,
she had placed , before her door a bronze
statue of a woraan stretching forth her
hands. Il i^ positively asserted that this
represents Jesus Christ ; and we can tes
tify lo its present existence, having seen it
when on a journey to Caesarea. There is
nothing surprising in people born among
the heathens, raising statues, &c." Con
sequently it was customary in the earliest
ages to honor those images, for he says ho
had seen those of Peter and Paul, &c.
Now these statues existed until the days
of Julian the Apostate, and Julia-n who
had abjured the Christian faith and reverted
to the idolatry of his ancient Pagan fore
fathers, ordered the statue to be broken
into pieces, under the impression that it
was a statue of Jesus Christ. But the
Christians of that early period collected
up the "broken fragments of the sacred
image which the Apostate Julian had or

dered to be broken. Now, the Iconoclasts
imitated the conduct of Julian, while the
Catholics collected the fragments and
placed them as memorials in their churches.
I must detain you soraewhat longer than
I intended, because it is my intention
to conclude this subject this evening. I
shall therefore bring before you the testi
mony of sorae of the most distinguished
fathers ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church,
approving of this practice. And when I
shall have adduced only one or two, by their
testimony added to that of all preceding
Christians beyond the sixteenth century,
and a majority down from the sixteenth
century, it will be made evident to any
mind that ilwas theiisage of all primitive
tiraes and based upon the sacred scriptures,
that it is not anti-scriptural, but consistent
and agreeable with the spirii pf scripture.
It will, therefore, be the duty of every
one, when he hears any voice raised
to decry the Catholic religipn as idolatrous,
to deny the charge. And although he does
not become a Catholic, when he has heard
what I have adduced, he must, however
reluctantly, acknowledge that our doc
trines are misrepresented, arid that when
properly understijiod, they are vindicated by
the best possible authority. I will bring
before you the testimony of Montague,
that pious and learned Bishop of the Epis
copal Church. He declares of sacred im
ages that " they are of very great use in
exciting emotions of piety ; the pictures
of Christ, and of the blessed Virgin, and
the Saints may be had and used by the
church. The Protestants use them, &c."
That is to say, the Protestants of his day ;
not the Protestants who have said on a
recent occasion in soleran Convention, that
the Catholics are guilty of idolatry in their
use of images ; bul those who belong
to the same church with Bishop Montague,
who stands here the vindicator bf this doc
trine, and hurls back upon his own breth
ren the insults they have cast upon the
venerable institutions of the Catholic
church. Thus far the authority of Mon
tague's testimony corroborates all I have
said ; we find him raising his voice against
the objections, and sustaining this tenet of
the ancient church.
Archbishop Laud, in a speech before the
star chamber in 1637, expresses himself to
the whole court there assembled thus ;
" I hope a poor priest will be allowed to
worship God wilh as lowly reverence as
you do ; since you are bound by your or
der and by the constitution of Henry V.
to give due honor and adoration to your
God and to his altar, though that comes

38

LECTURES ON'THE

far short of divine worship."- Now I ar
gue that if it be lawful 'to pay honor and
respect to the altar, it is lawful and proper
to pay respect to sacred iraages. In ven
erating the altar, we venerate not the sub
stance of marble or wood, or any other
materials ; they are insensible — they can
not aid us, much less do they possess any
of the attributes of the deity. We pay re
spect to Sacred images — not to the canvas,
not to the art, but to what is represented.
If I can venerate the statue of Washington
so far as to accord it national honor — in
such a manner that, if an enemy were to
raise his hand against it, my resentraent
would be excited — itis because it represents
- the sage, and the honor is paid to the father
of his country. It is upon the same prin
ciple, that if a sacred image were in
jured, I should not for the sake of the pic
ture itself, merely, feel rayself as a Chris
tian insulted ; but if it be coraraendable lo
feel thus towards the statue of Washington,
how much more should it be so in relation
to the, image of Jesus Christ expiring for
our salvation. Remember that it is the
easiest possible thing lo ridicule ; and
when I hear iliy religion ridiculed and ca
lumniated, a saying bf antiquity comes
into ray mind, which, fdr the benefit of all,
I will translate : " The fool can deny
more than the wise man can prove." The
weapons of Rousseau against revelation
were ridicule. The weapons of Voltaire
against Christianity were ridicule ; and so
are the weapons used to-day against Cath
olics. For it is impossible that, if our doc
trines were only investigated they could
be decried. No; you raust inquire and ask
this question — "Are these Catholics so
bhnd, are their clergy such slaves to super
stition as they are said to be ? " That is a
question thht every candid and fair raan
shouldlput to himself and answer it. Were
this done, there would be more re
spect for the ancient religion. Then the
faith of a Thomas k Kempis and of a Fen
elon would not be considered quite so idol-
trous ; or, it you please, the religion of a
Lafayette, whose raemory clairas our re
spect. And yet, when we hear, the asser
tion attributed to him that if the liberties
of America ever fall, it will be through
the intrigues of Romish priests, "raa,y we
not ask howthen could that sarjc Lafayette
have recommended, after the revolution,
the late venerable Bishop of this Diocess,
theri a young French priest, to seek a
home in this country. He carae, recora-
mended by Lafayette, who woUld neverhave

befriended him, had he feared that from
Romish priests the liberties of this coun
try, which he loved, were in danger. On
the strength of this letter of introduction,
the young French priest was adraitted to
the friendship, the society, the confidence,
of Washington himself ; ef Randolph, and
of Patrick Henry whom he taught the
French language, being taught by that re
vered man, the English in return. And
how does the subsequent conduct of Lafay
ette comport with that axiom ? In his de
cline he becarfie a pious Catholic, and be
fore breathing his last received the conso
lations of religion from the hands of^ a
Romish priest, as they choose to style us.
Why should not this instance be brought
before the people, when they are told of
the intrigrres of Romish priests against the
(jjountry, to show that' he who battled^ for
and loved the one, died in the arras of the
other-? Why not respect the religion of
that brave raan, and of others born upon the
soil 1 Of Carroll of Carrolton; who risked
his millions of dollars, as well as his life,
in signing the Declaration of Independ
ence, and he was a Catholic ? Why not
respect the religion of the present Chief
Justice of lh3 United States, 'who is a
Catholic "! Why not respect the religion •
of the amiable, the accomplished, the elo
quent Judge Gaston, who was also a Catho
lic ? Is it to be supposed thatithey were
all idolaters and conspirators againsti this
country ? Yet if we take the statements
that have gone abroad, it is impossible not
to regard the Catholic religion as unfit to-
produce anything great, or noble, or per
fect. I do not think that Washington
himself objected to sacred images, when
I find that in the very room where he ex- ^
pired, there is to this .day an image
of the' Madonna. Perhaps in his dying
hour' he threw his closing teyes upon it.
Why then, should there not be more
of charity, more of benevolence at this pe
riod of peace — more " glory to God in
the highest, and on earth peace and good
will to raan." Why not at this Christinas
season put aside all prejudice and discord,
and learn to respect and live in charity
with one another ; and learn this lesson —
that if all will not be Catholics, we cannot
be Protestants ; but that our religion
teaches us all practical religious, social,
and domestic duties, and that the cry
against it must have originated either in
io-norance or (bull hope not) raalice. The
next lecture, will be on the subject of the
Cross.

VENERATION »0F SACRED IMAGES

39

LilCTTIRE YIII

¦'But God forbid that I ahould glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is cruci
fied to me, and 1 to the world.— Galatians, 6th chap. 14th verse.

There are peculiar characteristics by
which the Catholic religion is distinguish
ed from that of other denorainations. One
is the raaking on our persons the sign
of the cross, as 'I have just done ; and
the second is the custom which prevails
of erecting crosijes on the steeples of
churches, on the lop of sacred edifices, on
our altars, and our temples of worship of
every kind. The question is very fre
quently put by individuals who have never
made themselves acquainted with the na
ture — much less the religious- intent of
those two characteristics — " What is the
meaning of that external form with which
the Roman Catholic priest commences all
his official ceremonies ? and why is it that
the cross is held in such exiernal and gen
eral veneration by all persons belonging
to that pecuUar denomination of Chris
tians ?" And it is lo answer these two
questions that I now direct Eyour attention
to the topic which sliall constitute the sub
ject of this evenjng's lecture — the Cross.
The Catholic, in adopting these char
acteristics, is animated by the spirit con
tained in the text I have just quoted from
the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Cath
olics, far from being guilty of superstition
in one way or the other, are governed by
the same principle of true religion that
warraed and animated the breast of the
great Apostle of the Gentiles. For as he
declared that hc gloried only in the cross
of our Lord Jesus Christ — so is it upon
the same principle of glorying in that syra
bol of rederaption of the human race, that
the Catholics arm themselves with that
sign, and pay external respect and vene
ration to it wherever it displays itself
St. Paul ¦wp.s not asharaed of the cross —
the Catholic is by no means ashamed of

that instruraent of his salvation. St.
Paul was deeply versed in the knowledge
and spirit of true religion. He declares
that the cross was and ever should be to
him an object of glory, and consequently
of veneration. That cross, which was
once the instrument of shame and ignominy
was converted into the symbol of giory and
Christianity ; that cross, on which so many
thousands of malefactors died to expiate
their enormous crimes — was made the
altar on which the' Lamb was slain for
the redemption of the human race. We
glory in that cross, because by that cross
we hiive been redeemed.. We glory with
St. Paul in that cross, because on the'
wood of that cross the hand-writing of
death was nailed and destroyed; we glory in
that cross, because — in the words of St.
Augustine — it is that instruraent by which,
instead of the sword, the world was con
quered lo Christianity. And from the days
of St. Paul down to the sixteenth century,
the cross always had been held in most sa
cred veneration. The cross was always
venerated inthe various agesof Christianity.
In every country into which the light of
the Gospel was ever introduced by the
zeal and holy adventures of christian Mis
sionaries, the cross was the symbol of re
demption and the glory of Christianity, and
inseparably found with the promulgation
of the Gospel ; insorauch that in every age
preceding the period of what is styled the
reforraation, we have no docuraent lo prove
to ue that there ever was the slightest, ob- -
jection made to the respect which was
paid to the cross. On the contrary, the
cross was always placed as a remarkable
sign upon the spires of churches, edifices
and innumerable monuments, in all coun
tries ; on the continent, in the Eastern

40

LECTURES ON THE

Church ; in England under the Anglo Sax
ons, as an object of respect, of venera
tion — and I may add in the language of
St. Paul — of glory ; and it is a remarkable
fact, that even in the 9th century, when,
as I have already stated, the spirit of Icon
oclasm raged so high against sacred ira
ages and statues — that spirit never dared
to question the propriety of respect to the
cross. Apd even in that council of recre
ant Bishops, to which I referred in a for
mer lecture, who \Vere assembled by the
tyrant Constantine Copronyraus, and who
declared the arts of painting and sculpture
to be diabolical, as black arts, which were
to be condemned ; even there, by an ex
traordinary inconsistency, these very Bish
ops made all who bound themselves lo de
stroy and put an end to sacred iraages,
swear upon the crucifix, as well as upon
the gospel. Thus in the very act of break
ing and destroying, sacred images, they
affixed the seal and stamp of their ven
eration on the crucifix. I heed but 6pen
the annals of history to convince the
most incredulous of the fact, that the cross
was held in- universal respect in England,
as upon the continent, before the days of the
reformation. But there is one circurastance
which deserves to be pointed out lo this
audience. It is this : that the individual
who first look away the crucifix from
Queen Elizabeth's Chapel, after the refor-
njation — for she still adhered to many of
the usages of the church, even as it were
in spite of herself — was no less a person
age than the celebrated fool, whose name
was Patch. This fact is related by Hey-
len, who adds that it was done at the so
licitation of Sir Francis Knolls. Ward,
in his cantos, thus rhymes this remarka
ble event :
''Thus Patch the foo], and Knolls tlie knave.
Did neither cross nor candle leave,
Nor anything besides that might
Grace represent, or gospel light.*'
Now it is certainly an argument in favor
of the wisdom of the ancient church, that
this symbol was attacked by — not a phi
losopher—not a sage^but by the court-
fool. In order to show you again soraewhat
more seriously and to the point, that the
cross was held in the highest veneration
by the ancestors of those who, in the days
of Elizabeth, broke it in pieces, I will
quote sorae authorities. A cross was
borne in the front of the missionaries, Bede
informs us, when they announced the doc
trine of the gospel tb Ethelbert. A cross
was erected by Oswald, and venerated by
hi* followers, Alciiin w^s always accus

tomed to bow to the cross : but he did it
in the true spirit of the church, according
to ' the Saxon homily, " We bow lo the
cross, not indeed to the wood, but to the
Almighty Lordwhp hung upon it." This
is really the spirit and character of the
Catholic religion, in bowing to the cruci
fix, in paying external veneration to it,
amid all the processions in which it may
be borne, no raatter with what porap it
may be displayed, privately or publicly,
whether it be painted on canvass or
carved in wood, or any other raaterial —
whether we impress it on our foreheads or
our persons, it amounts only to this, that
we pay no kind of worship to that cross —
that is, worship taken in the acceptation
of adoration, vvhich. is due lo God alone ;
bul that we adore hira, through that cross,
whora we believe to be a Divine Being —
God raade raan, who hung and bled for us
on that once ignorainioiis, but now glori
ous tree. And that the objections against
us, particularly against the ignorant part
of our- community, thaf the cross is lo '
them an object of superstition — that they
loqk upon il as a charm — that they bow in
blind worship to the wood, especially of
the cross ; all these are charges, unfair
charges, and invented for purposes not re
ligious ; but charges which have been re
futed over and over again ; which are in
direct opposition to the true spirit of St.
Paul, who gloried in the cross ; for the
Catholic religion regards it as a symbol of
respect, not of blind adoration. " There
fore, we say, that if in the raost enlight
ened—or that which styles itself the raost
eplightened— nation in the world, venera
ted the cro.ss, how was it discovered in the
reign of Henry the Eighth, or a little la'-
ter, that their ancestors were all idolaters,
and Covered wilh superstition ; and that it
was the will of God, and, consistent with
true religion to break the cross in pieces,
and not transmit il down to posterity.
The Catholic Church, at all times, and
in all places retained that ancient symbol ;
and we find that in so doing, the Catholic'
Church was right ; because there is now a
strong disposition in the descendants of
those who were so much opposed lo the
cross to- restore it to its high place, and
give it proper veneration and respect.
These are merely preliminary remarks to
the great question to be deliberated upon,
and the argument I ara tr bring before
you this evening.
We know that imraediately after the
conversion of the first Christian Emperor,
the cross was raised and displayed to the
regard and veneration pf hig suVeqts,

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES— THE CROSS.

41

ponstantine the Great, having determined
to free Rome frora the tyranpy of Maxen-
tius, presented himself at the head of the
Roman legions, with confidence in the
God of battles that he should overcome
Maxentius. Just before engaging the en
emy — if we can believe Eusebius, in his
life of Constantine the Great — there ap
peared in the clear heavens a cross, with
this inscription blazing with light — " In
this ^ign thou shalt conquer." Now, in
obedience to this voice, Constantine or
dered the same sign to be raised before his
legions and carried in the van of his army
— and the result was, that though opposed
by countless numbers, yet with that invin
cible courage, which is the effect of con
fidence in the God of Battles, he met the
enemy on the bridge over the Tiber, and
routed their hosts — the body of the tyrant
Blaxentius falling inlo the streara, never
again to rise. Here -we find, in the very
beginning of Chri.stianity, the cross held
in veneration, adopted as the standard of
the Roraan legions and the Christian ar
mies. Here we find that the cross was ta
ken, in the language of one of the holy
fathers of the Christian church, " from the
hill of Calvary and made to glitter in the
diadem of princes." Here we find that
ever since that eventful but glorious day
for Christianity, the symbol of the cross
has been displayed, respected, and vener
ated, and in coraraeraoration of the victory
obtained under il, and, as il were by its
influence : so that, even at the present day,
amid the ruins of Roman splendor,^ we find
on a monuraent raised by Constantine, the
inscription to the effeot' that it was under
that sign he had obtained victory, delivered
the Roman Senate and people from tyr
anny, and achieved the restoration of
liberty and glory.
The custora qf raaking the sign of the
cross is no recent thing, not invented in
modern days ; and if I am asked why I
commence our religious services and all my
lectures by making the sign of the cross,
I answer because it was the custora of the
earliest ages of Christianity, and prac
tised by all Christians in the purest tiraes
of the church, as we can prove. Those
who object to making the sign of the
cross, never can have examined the re
cords of the church, because St. Augus
tine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, Lactantius,
Tertullian and others, approve and recom
mend it, as well as St. Chrysostora, Greg
ory of Nanfeianzuin, and all the fathers of

couraging to friends and an obstruction to
enemies ; by it commences the instruc
tion of the catechumens ; by it baptismal
founts are consecrated, and the baptized
receive all the benefit of the holy spirit ;
by it our altars are consecrated, and the
sacraments administered ; in a word, there
is no sacrament or rite of the church,
but is administered by this illustrious
sign." Therefore, when the Catholic
Church enforces this observance, she does
it becapse it is sanctioned by the custom
I and usage of the primitive ages. Now in
what church is this custom followed up but
in ours 1 And if we believe in the authority
of the cross in the golden days of Chris
tianity, we cannot change that church with
superstition, much less idolatry, in prac
tising this observance.
Now, is there any Christian people ex
cept the Catholics, who can repeat the
beautiful passage of St. Augustine, and
apply it to themselves 1 and is it possible
that the Cathohcs, in applying il, can be
considered superstitious, a^d unfit for the
enlightenment and education of modern
times ? The Catholics of the present day
respect and adopt the language of St. Au
gustine. We have our crosses in] every
place — in our temples, on the spires of our
churches, on our hills, in our valleys, and
raountain tops ; and this is only follow
ing the example ofthe primitive Christians, ,
and as they were enlightened and knew
what kind of veneration to give this cross,
so do we. We understand that there is
no inherent virtue, no charm, or talisman,
in making the sign of the cross ; b.ut that
we are, by the spirit of true religion,
thereby reminded of tlie death and passion
of Jesus Christ ; and when we make it on
our persons, we are only perpetuating the
custom of the primitive ages of. the Latin
and Greek churches. In the instructions of
St. Cyril of Jerusalera, to his Catechu-
raens, converts frora Paganism^ he tells
them what they must follow and practice —
that they musf not be ashamed of the cross,
bul raake that sign openly, &c. This is
our custom. We do not say it is necessary
or indispensable ; but when practised with
a goo^ disposition; it is a sacred and praise
worthy usage without any alloy of stiper-
stilion. Thus, while sitting down to our
meals, we make the sign of the cross ;
when we enter the church, in kneeling
down, we do it ; and in this we conform
to the instructions of St. Cyril, when
j he tells his converts lo make the sign of

the eastern church. St. Augustine in his thp cross, and if any. raan questioned it, to
sermon, De Sanctis, has this reraarkable glory in it, and impress it on their fore>
' The sign of the cross is en- I heads.

421

LECTURES ON THE

But it is said the Catholic Church
believes that the wood of the true cross
is so multiplied, that it is inconceivable
what a number of crosses there should
be, if all these fragments of the true
cross were collected : and that there is an
immense deal of superstition with regard
lo the true cross throughout the world.
There is a great deal of sarcasm and
sneering prevalent upon this subject. But
in. the first place, it must be clearly under
stood that the church has nothing to do in
pronouncing, as a matter of faith, on what
is the true cross or not. The church
does not pretend lo be infallible in this
matter; consequently it is not fair to charge
it on the church. You may charge it
upon individuals, but not on the church ;
because the church never has decided,
nor never will decide, upon any such mat
ters. But as lo the distribution, through
out the world, of what is regarded as the
wood of the true cross, in so many thou
sands and tens of thousands of pieces, I ask
where are those pieces ? Of the thousands
of Catholics in tliis city, how many are
there who profess to have any such thing?
certainly, in all my travels in this country,
as well as in E urope, I have not seen, I am
sure, a dozen such pieces. But that there
may exist certain pieces of the true cross,
I do not regard beyond the reach of credi
bility. If an individual comfes to me and
says — " this is a piece of the Imp cross"
I should be as incredulous as any one in
this community. I would ask him for his
proofs, and until he gave them satisfactori
ly, I would not believe it. It is not because
an individual says so, you are to believe
il. Still, that there raay be portions of the
true cross in existence, I believe and I ara
not superstitious. And one of the grounds
upon which I do believe it is the au
thorily of a contemporary historian of
the Empress Helena, who made a voyage
lo the Holy Land, and there discovered
the cross upon which our .Saviour died.
This is related by Eusebius in his " Life of
Constantine the Great ;" and Eusebius was
neither weak nor superstitious, but araong
the greatest men of his day in philosophy
and theological learning.'' Yet he says that
the Empress Helena discovered the true
cross at Jerusalem, and sent a part of it
to Rome to Constantine the Great, her
son ; another portion she reserved in the
Holy City. Now if it be true, that a
portion of the real cross was sent lo Rome,
it was undoubtedly preserved ; and there
fore it is not irapossible fhat portions of it
may have been distributed throughQut the
world. I say it is not impossible, but we

require in every case, rigid authentication.
We dojibt, until, we have proper evidence to-
convince any man on the subject ; so that
we wilj never admit there is. a piece ofthe
true cross among us, unless we have evi
dence enough to satisfy the raost intelli
gent. Perhaps what I, have brought for
ward in vindication of the cross, this eve
ning, may tend to dispel some prejudice,
and confirm the Catholic in his faith'. Even
the Protestantism of the present day seems
disposed'to pay due respect to the cross.
We find, therefore, that the Catholic re
ligion was not lo he condemned in main
taining and I perpetuating the cross, and
that, as it is about to be again adopted so
generally, there is no superstition in the
practice. , It is a glorious thing, when we
enter a village or large capital, lo be able
at once lo distinguish the temple of the true
God — the edifice consecrated to- the Re
deemer of Sinners. And why should not
Christians of cdl denominations rally around
that ^acred instrument. They are not
asharaed of it, certainly — they glory in it,
otherwise they would not believe in the
text of St. Paul, which I have read. The
cross is surely not opposed to christianiT
ty; and they are bound, then, to unite
with us in vindicating this erablem of our
salvation. And no enlightened, just, or
ingenuous raind can charge me or my re
ligion with superstition, for adhering to
and inculcating this tenet in the present ,
age. The Catholic rears it aloft on the tall
spires of his temples : you find it sculptur
ed on his torab, where he lies in the still
slumbers of the grave ; for, having been
initiated by the sign of /the cross into the
Christian religion, he hopes by the merits
of Him who died thereon to be accepted,
into glory ? This is the spirit, these are
the sentiments we inculcate with regard
to the veneration of the crucifix ; aijd it is
to be deplored that we should be so much
misunderstood and misrepresented in this
country, where all ought especially to ex
amine ; where a man should not malign
his brother. For here we forra orie republi
can family; if we differ on points of religion,
we should be the last to enter into a war
fare, or keep up prejudice in society, be
cause Catholics cannot conscientiously a-
bandon the usages found on the pages of
the most ancient writers.
1 know there have been some objections
produced by distinguished men since the
days of the Reforraation against having cru
cifixes ; and one of thera, no less a person
age than Beza, when asked why he did so,
did not quote the fathers or antiquity agaipst
it, but said that he could not look upon the

VENERATION OF SACRED IMAGES— THE CROSS.

43

croSs ; it struck him with fear and terror,
and reminded him of the dreadful cruelty
of the Jews in putting the innocent one to
death. Beza should have remembered that
if by it the cruelly of the Jews is brought
before us, so is the raercy of the victira ;
and that he there might have contemplated
the infinite iPve and merit of the Saviour,
by which we are excited to repentance and
contrition for our sins. And again, this
objection of Beza falls to the ground power
less, and seems to be ridiculous in its na
ture, when contrasted with the religious
and eloquent strains which the holy fathers
of the church have lavished upon the cru
cifix, and the usage of that sacred erablera
displayed for the veneration of the people.
Origen, one of the raost ancient fathers of
the Greek church, says that, " By placing
il before our eyes, it fixes our attention on
the death ofthe Saviour; passion will not
prevail against us, and carnal desires take
flight." Eusebius, who lived in the fourth
century, and who is styled the father of
ecclesiastical history, has transmitted to
us, beyond a doubt, the custom of his day.
He tells us that all who lived before him,
and those who flourished at that epoch,
practised the same ; consequently we must
be in coramunion with all Christians in
every age, because we practise what they
did. We raake the sign of the cross as
they did, and we hope with the sarae spirit
that animated our ancestors in primitive
tiraes. Were I to produce all the authori
ties that present themselves in vindication
of this usage, I should have to read vol
uraes lo you, and I must not trespas?! on
your time loo long. But it is important
that we should ascertain who was the
first individual on record who objected to
the cross. Constantine the Great, the first
Christian emperor, was the first who raised
the symbol of rederaption ; and it ¦ was
Julian, the Apostate, who first declared
against it. " Why," said he to some dis
tinguished Christians of his day, "why
can you so far degenerate from the glory
of your fathers, that instead of bowing to
the shield, you bow to that symbol on
which the Nazarene died ?" and he order
ed it to be broken. Bul he was answered
by those enlighted and hply men : " You
charge us with adoring the wood of the
cross, and paying real adoration to it.
We neither adore il nor desire to adore."
And we make the same declaration : we
naither adore it in the true acceptation of
the term, nor desire to do so. We know
that adoration is due to the Supreme Being
alone ; that no creature is worthy of such
adoration.

Another proof of the propriety of this
usage is, that it is found in all liturgies of
the eastern and western churches ; wher
ever the Christian religion was established
this custom was found just as we practise
it. And though it raay appear singular
to persons differently 'educated, we have
it ill all ancient litVirgies, both of the east
and west ; and as these were composed by
the most enlightened fathers of the Chris
tian religion, it is not to be supposed that
they would b-ave iniroduced anything super
stitious into the solernnities of the church.
But it is said, " The Catholics go much
too far in their respect for the cross. We
do not object to the cross being displayed,
nor exactly lo raaking the sign of the
cross, provided it be- done with a proper
understanding ; bul the adoration of the
cross we object to." If by adoration is
raeant latria, or supreme adoration, it can
not be vindicated. But the question its,
what isthe meaningof the word adoration'!
The adoration used to the cross is that sort
of adoration whidi is specified in the ser
vice of the church; but in this sense it
only means a respect, or reverence, or if
you cheose, veneration ; and this we can
pro'/e. I'he word adorare, in Latin, is
translated soraetimes, to bow down ; sorae
times, to " adore ;" soraetiraes, to worship.
We find in tho Douay Bible, throughout,
that wherever the word adorare occurs it
is translated "to adore." Whether applied
lo the Supreme Being, or not, the same
word is adopted, and that because the
same word, both in Greek and Latin, is
always used. Now, when Catholics read
the word adoration, they understand what
the translators meant. They know that
when adoration applies to God, it raeans
supreme worship ; bnt when applied to a
human being, it means raere respect. Do
we not in coramon language say of a man
that he is loved — that he is adored ? And
in saying so, do we mean that we pay ad
oration to hira ? So in the language of
the missal adoratio crucis, we take the same
meaning as when applied lo human beings
— that is, mere respect. These explana
tions are simple, but they are necessary,
in order that when it is asserted, as is the
case every day, that we adore the cross
on Good Friday, you may be enabled to un
derstand that Catholics pay only external
respect or veneration to it If the Episco
palians, in the administration of the sacra
raent of baptisra, retain the custom of
raaking tfie sign off the cross on the child,
and there is no superstition in it, where is
the superstition in the Catholic making
the sign of the cross on his forehead % And

44

LECTURES ON

if there be no superstition in making the
sign of the cross, once, can you prove there
is, superstition in making it two, three, or
IvVenty tiraes ? Therefore, if it be proper
to make the sign of the cross in the ad-

ministratibn of baptism, certainly there is
no impropriety in making it in other sacra
ments ; and if it is proper to makedt once,
certainly it is not iraproper to raake it as
often as the liturgy of the chuteh directs.

LECT'fUEE IX

And making n gathering, he sent twelve tfao'usand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for
the sins ofthe dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
(For if he had not hoped that they that v/ere slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous, and
vain to pray for the dead,)
And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for
them. ' ' - , ,
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that theyjnay be loosed from their
sins. — 2d Maccabees xii. 43, 44, 45, 46. .

I iENTER this evening on the subject of
Purgatory : a subject, to the Catholic who
properly understands and appreciates it,
fraught wilh solemnity and filled with
sublimity: but a subject to those who are
opposed to us, and who have derived their
ideas of it from misrepresentation and ig
norance, covered with deformity and ab
surdity. I, therefore, stand between these
two positions — in a dilemma which I feel
fraught with responsibility. For either I
am vindicating, this evening, a pure and
holy doctrine — a doctrine taught by the
founder of Christianity himself, and trans
mitted from the apostles down to the days
in whioh we live ; or, I am undertaking to
vindicate a doctrine long since exploded
frora pure Christianity, and, lo the enlight
ened and well educated, nothing more nor
less, than the invention ofthe middle ages,
or perhaps sorae earlier period, for the
purpose of sordid avarice, or the worst
kind of superstition. The Catholic church
is the only church on this continent teach
ing the doctrine of purgatory ; all other
deriominations have exploded it, and there
fore I feel that I stand in a position of
great responsibility-^and I feel all the ira
portance of the position when, before this
nuraerous audience, I undertake to prove
the truth and divinity of the doctrine of
purgatory. For if the church could not
sustain this doctrine, by very high and or
thodox arguments and monuments of past

history, the church would deserve to be
censured and condemned for attempting to
palm it.on the credulity and superstition
of the Catholics. But if she can prove she
derives it frora Christ himself, that it has
been taught by the apostles and their suc
cessors, and that it has always been re
garded as a canonical dogma in' the (catho
lic church — then I am right ; I am justifl
able not only in delivering this doctrine,
but in vindicating and inculcating it before
this coraraunity.
We believe that sin will be punished in
another world, , unless it be sufficiently
atoned for in this. We believe that lo
the sin there is always attached a tempo
ral punishment, which raust be either ex
piated in this life or in the lile to come,
and this belief we establish upon w'hat is
adraitted by all denorainations.. For it
was in conseqence of sin— ralthough that
sin was forgiven — that all the evils which '
have descended on the posterity of Adam
have been iniflicted on us ; there are
therefore, . temporal punishments, c6nse-
quent on sin. We believe, likewise, as
taught in the sacred Scripturas, that al
though David's sin was remitted, still he
was compelled to undergo a teraporal pun
ishment in consequence of it, which was
the loss ofthe child, the issueof his crime.
And the/ child born in original sin, though
innocent of ..every other, after it is purified .
by the waters of regeneration — even: that

PURGATORY.

45

child is heir to the temporal punish
ments consequent on sin, although that
sin may be forgiven. Now if the punish
ment due to sin be riot forgiven in this
life, we believe there is a place beyond the
tomb where the soul must undergo a tem
porary expiation. We contend there is
therefore a middle place ; neither heaven
nor hell, because we believe of course that
this middle state is to cease to exist ; and,
consequently when we say this raiddle
place exists, it is not contrafty to the
te.xt ; "where the tree falls, there it lies."
With regard to the name of purgatory,
it matters not by what name it- may be
styled. We contend not for names ; we
contend for the substance, i Whether you
call it purgatory, or a middle state, or a
middle place of temporary punishment in
a future life, we care not. But it is es
sential to believe that there is such a
place, no matter by what terra that place
may be designated. I ara also perfectly
aware that the word purgatory is not
found in the sacred Scriptures. But
what does this prove ? Because we can
not find the identical term pttrgatpry in the
sacred Scriptures, does it follow that the
doctrine is not found in them. ¦ -Nei
ther can I discover the word trinity in
the sacred scriptures ; and yet this term
has been adopted by the church raerely to
express the substance of that doctrine of
Christianity which almost all denomina
tions believe to be contained in the scrip
tures. Therefore it is not for the name
we contend, but for the substance, the
doctrine. With regard to its locality, any
objection which might be made lo it on that
ground would be perfectly unphilosophical
and ridiculous : because if I cannot desig
nate the locality of purgatory, neither Can
the believer in eternal punishments do so
of hell ; nor the believer in future rewards
do so of heaven ; and yet we believe hell
and heaven exist. He cannot define the
position of either one or the other, nor can I
of purgatory or the middle state ; but this is
no more an objection to it than ;not being
able to tell the location of heaven or hell.
We know that there has existed a raiddle
state, and that this raiddle state has been
revealed to us in the sacred scriptures.
We know that there was, -a place before
'the ascension of Jesus Christ, which was
neither heaven nor hell, where the souls
of certain persons who died previously to
his crucifixion were detained, and that
place is hy the Catholic church terraed
Limbo. But how can we prove there
existed such a place ? Frora the first
Epistle of Peter, chapter 3, 18th and 19th

verses. " Because Christ also died once
for our sins, the jVist for the unjust, that
he raight offer us to God, being put
to death in the flesh, but enlivened in the
spirit : In which also coming he preached
to those spirts that were in prison." Now
where was this prison ? He certainly did
not preach to the spirits in hell, for out of
hell there is no redemption ; then he de
scended into a middle state ; it was not
heaven, for he afterjvard ascended into
heaven ; but he descended into hell, in the
words of the creed, and St. Peter tells
what was the place into which he descend
ed, "to preach unto the spirits in prison."
Now what you may call it I care not ; but
there is a middle place pointed out by St.
Peter, and if there could exist a middle
place in those days, there is no absurdity —
no impossibility, in saying there is at the
present day a middle place. If, then,
there might exist such a place, then those
Christians who are opposed to our doc
trine must admit that it might be true;
then they are not authorised in charg
ing us with holding an abominable doc
trine : for what might be true is not sub
ject to the charge of abominable or anti
christian. The question then forces itself upon us :
" Can we pray for the spirits of the de
parted ? " The Catholic church says " Yes ;
go and bend over the bier of your departed
brother, and while you shed the tear of sor--
row, breathe for the repose of his departed
spirii a devout prayer ; for, in the lan
guage' of Judas Maccabeus, ' It is there
fore a holy and wholesome thought to pray
for the dead, that they raay be loosed from
their sins.' " According to all other denom
inations, it is unlawful to pray for departed
spirits ; prayer cannot, they say, follow
Ihera^ beyond the precincts of this world ;
all cdmraunication with them is cut off on
this side the grave. One therefore con
tradicts the other, and it behoves us seri
ously to examine on what grounds the
Catholic church holds this beautiful and
consoling doctrine of praying for the souls
of the departed, in the hope of benefiting
them'; because if it be true that you can
pray fpr a departed wife, a departed friend,
oil brother, any denomination who would
attempt to, deprive you of that holy plea
sure and consolati-jn, would deprive you of
what you value rauch : and therefore, as we
believe that we are authorised in praying
for the dead ; that the Catholic church al
ways adraitted the doctrine, although the
doctrine may be misrepresented, and con
sidered superstitious ; I must vindicate
and adhere to it, and deem it as worthy

46

LECTURES ON

of pay regard as any other doctrine of , the
Chris.tian religion.
when was the doctrine first introduced
into the church ? If you believe the 22d
and 23d of King Edward's and Queen
Elizabeth's articles on purgMory, you will
be led to the conclusion, in the first place,
that " it is doctrine of the schoolmen, and
of priests, vainly invented, ' and grounded
on no warrant of scripture, but repugnant
to the word of God." By the article of
Edward, it is merely said, that " the doc-
/trine of purgatory is a doctrine of the
schoolmen," but by the article of Eliza
beth, it is stated to be a doctrine of " the
Romish church." At all events, by these
two articles, it is inculcated that the doc
trine of purgatory was invented by the
" Romish " church, that it has no warrant
in Scripture, and is repugnant to the word
of God. Now if these articles be true, I
ara preaching a forbidden doctrine, and
one repugnant to the Holy Scriptures: and
the Catholic church, that authorizes me to
preach it, must be false, and I, as a sin
cere Christian, would be bound immedi
ately to abandon that church, because I
could not reraain in her comraunion.
Therefore it becomes me to examine, and
convince myself and others that it is
grounded on Scripture, and not repugnant,
but altogether conformable tothe teaching
of the ancient and the new Testaments.
The text which I quo,ted was taken from
the second book of the Maccabees. Now I
am aware I am raet on the very threshold
of the subject wilh the remark " You have
no right whatever to quote that book."
And why ? " Because that book is not
reputed a portion of the inspired writings,
or the canonical writings ; or in other
words, that book belongs to those called
Apochryphal. The question, then, is this :
" Have I a right to quote in vindication of
this doctrine the passage I have read
from the book of Maccabees ?" In answer
to this, I reply: either these books are
canonical or they are not canonical ; there
can be no objection to this position, for any
Christian who listens to rae will assent to
this proposition — either Ihey are a portion
of the divinely-inspired Scripture, or they
are not. If they are to be accounted a
portion of the sacred writings, then my
argument may cease-^my end' is obtained,
and the doctrine of praying for the dead is
beyond all dispute, for they assert that " it
is a good and wholesome thought to pray
for the dead," &c. If this Scripture is
proved to be canonical, there is an end to
the controversy ; there must exist a mid
dle place, for if 1 can pray for the^dead, as

did Judas Kaccabeus, it cannot be for the
damned, neither can it be for those ill eter
nal felicity. Therefore I may pray for
those in a middle place, and if I pray for
those in a middle place, then I adrait that
middle place ; and if I admit that middle
place, I adrait purgatory. So that if this book
is inspired, I am right, and all others who
oppose the doctrine are teaching error.
" Well ; do not triumph. They are not
canonical books ; the books are not of divine
inspiration." Who told you so ? This
is the first question ,1 shall put lo you :
" Upon what authority do you know they
are not inspired ?" I say they are divinely
inspired ; you say they ave not, and I have
as much right lo assert as you have to deny
that they are divinely inspired. Conse
quently we are at once upon an ocean of
difficulty. You say, " Yes ; but my church
tells me they are not." Well, but mine
tells me they are. " But mine is right."
But mine is right, I reply. To whom ap
peal ? "I appeal to the intrinsic charac
ter of the book." Ji^ell, so do I, and after
doing so I am only the more convinced.
Therefore we may go on thus in adding
difliculfy to difficulty. I address myself to
any Bible reader I can find, and it is im
possible that he can give a reason why they
are not canonical ; but I can give reasons
why they are. You have no right to regard
them as apocryphal merely because of their
being so designated by certain denomina-,
tions — because, since the reforraation, by
some Ihey are rejected. But we will not
reject them, because we held them before
the reformation — because they were held
by all Christians in the purest ages of
Christianity — because they were held by a
great majority of Christians after the re
formation, even to the present day — and be
cause they are recognized by the most an
cient writers and distinguished fathers ofthe
church as canonical and divinely inspired.
First, then, I am to prove that these books
are canonical ; and bear in mind, that if I '
do that, I gain my point. My first proof
that these hooks are of divine inspiration,
will be taken upon the authority of one
whose name is held in veneration by all
denominations of the present day ; of one
who stands among the greatest fathers of
the church ; who, as well by Luther as Cal
vin, and all the reformers was respeotei ;
of one who flourished in what Calvin styled
" tha golden age of Christianity ;" that ig,
in the fourth century — I mean St. Augus
tine. If I can produce in favor of the doc
trine the testimony of St. Augustine, that
in his day the universal church adraitted
these books as divinely inspired and canon-

PURGATORY.

4T

ical, then I have produced a yery strong
argument, and, I must say, one that can
not be overturned, in favor of their canon-
icity. St. Augustine, in the 18th book of
his work " on the city of God," chap. 36,
distinctly says on the subject of the canon
ical writings, "Among thera are the books
of the Maccabees, which the Jews reject,
but which the Catholics consider as ca
nonical." Here then is the testiraony of
St. Augustine, not merely as an individ
ual, not merely as a learned theologian,
not raerely expressing his own convictions,
not merely inculcating his own opinions
on the subject ; but here St. Augustine
distinctly states that all the church — Eccle-
sia Catholica pro Canonicis habet — the uni-
, versal church in the fourth century held
thera as canonical ; consequently we who
claim them in this the 19th century as di
vinely inspired, only believe the same as
was held by the entire church in the 4lh
¦century, and say with it that " it is a good
and who.lesome thought to pray for tbe
dead ;" therefore we admit with St. Augus
tine, and the whole church, that they teach
prayer for the dead, and therefore' there is
a middle state or place for the dead, if we
helieve the Holy Scripture and the testi
mony of St. Augustine. Now is there an
individual of the present day, no matter
how learned, who would confront St. Au
gustine and tell him he had no right to
believe, in the canonicity of -these books ?
This would be an absurdity, and worse
than teraerity.
The second proof of the canonicity of
the books of the Maccabees ' I take frora
the decision of the council of Carthage,
sn the year 394 ; a council held in the
" golden " period of Christianity, as ad
mitted by all denominations ; a council
composed of many bishops representing
the Catholic church. Now these Bishops
expressly declare that Ihe books of the
Maccabees should be accounted araong the
books divinely inspired. " These are the
bookSj" they say, " which our fathers
taught us to read, and also the church
¦under the title of divine and canonical]
scriptures." Here then the Bishops as
sembled al the council of Carthage, in 394,
aflSrm that their fathers, their ancestors,
back to the days of the. Apostles, handed
down the tradition that these books were
and should be read in the church as divine
ly inspired and canonical scriptures. Con-
seq^pntly il is very easy lo trace up from
394 to the days of the Apostles them
selves, according to the assertion of the
fathers in Council, their conviction of the
canonicity of these books. And when you ¦

consider that their immediate ancestors
lake you into the second century, and their
predecessors to a period touching the first
century, such a conviction must have come
from the Apostles — raust have been handed
down to the Bishops in the Council of Car
thage, and frora them lo us. And we in
the present day are assured, in the lan
guage of these Bishops, that the books of
the Maccabees constituted a portion of the
divine scriptures ; consequently we quote
them, and teach that " it is a good and
wholesome thought to pray for the de.ad,"
&c. ; that therefore there is a middle stale,
or, in other words, a Purgatory. Here
then are two authorities — the earliest and
raost venerable in character. Now I
have a third, that is Pope Innocent the
First, who, in the year 405, a very short
time after the Council of Carthage, in re
ply to the Bishop of Toulouse, expressly
asserts that the books of the Maccabees
constitute a portion of the sacred scrip
tures ; and in raaking this assertion he
raerely repeated that of the Bishops in
council assembled, which we shall soon
see was founded upon earlier and equally
explicit authority, to which I shall shortly
refer. But before referring to that more
ancient authority — ^this doctrine of a mid
dle stale was believed not merely in the
Latin Church, but by all communions who
were or had ever been united to the See
of Rome : "by the separated Greeks, and
every other coramunion. The Patriarch
of the Armenians declared to the French
Ambassador, who was sent from France lo
ascertain their doctrine, that "it was a
very bad thing and a presuraptuous error,
to reject the books of the Maccabees, and
tliose other books." Consequently we
possess additional proof in the authori
ty even of those gone out of the See
of Rome. 'Now where did they get their
doctrine ? Not after they left the Catholic
church : they brought it down from their
ancestors ; and this corroborates in a sin.
gular manner, the testimony of the Latin
church, to the existence of a middle state,
lo the usefulness of prayer for those de
parted, and therefore to the doctrine of
Purgatory. The Patriarch Methodius in
the year 1671, declared on the part of the
Greek church, that they received the books
of the Maccabees as a portion of the sacred
Scriptures. Again, in 1439, when the ques
tion arose of uniting the Greek with the
Latin church, a council was convened at
the city of Ferrara, in Italy, which was
attended by the Emperor John Paleologus,
and the patriarch of the Greek church ;
and when among o^ier doctrines, that of

48

LECTURES ON

Purgatory was brought up, they assented
to it; declared that it was always admitted by
them, and transmitted from immembrial
ages. Now, I ask any sincere inquirer,
whether upon this authority, I have not a
right to believe the books of. the Macca
bees to be a portion of the inspired and
canonical Scriptures, when I am so assured
by St. Augustine and the whole church as
sembled in the Council of Ckrthaige, in the
fourth century ; when I am so taught by
Pope Innocent in his Epistle to the Bishop
of Toulouse, and by all who separated from
the See of Rome 1 Have I not a right,
nay, am I not bound to believe in the au
thority, in the canonicity, in the divine in
spiration of these books ? and are my con
victions to be sacrificed lo misapprehen
sion, to calumny and ignorance ? Certain
ly riot. If there can be brought forward
as much testiraony against these books,
then my argument raight be shaken, but
until this can be produced, I am bound to
believe with St. Au-gustine and all the
primitive church ; and it seems to me my
argument thus far must be triumphant.
I know that there are objections alleged
against the books of the Maccabees, btitl
,also know that there are objections made
by infidels against every book esteemed
canonical ; and raust I reject Genesis be
cause the infidel sneers at sorae passages
in it ? Therefore, when 1 find objections
brought against the books ofthe Macca
bees, I view them in the same light as
those made against all the other bo5is of
the Sacred Scriptures. There is one,
however, lo which I shall allude. It is urged
that ih the second book of the Maccabees,
the author apologises for iraperfections of
style — ^therefore they could not be inspired,
otherwise there could be no necessity for
an apology. He sajrs, "Which if I have
done well, and as becometh a history, it is
what I desire, bpt if not, it must be par
doned me." Now, it is stated that if they
are inspired they would be done perfectly,
and therefore there would be no necessity
to claim pardon for the writer. This can
be easily answered by referring to 11th
chapter of Paul's 2d Epistle lo the Corin
thians, which all admit to be divinely in
spired; and yet St. 'Paul here complains
of not being perfectly acquainted with the
languages. ¦ He says, " if 1 am rude in
speech, 1 ain not in knowledge ;" there
fore, if the argument is good against the
Maccabees, the same will be good against
the Writings of St. Paul, because the for
mer apologises for an imperfection of
style, and St. Paul for rudeness of speech.
Thus as to the first point of the dilem

ma — that they are or are not inspired — it
seems to me that I have adduced sufficient
authority to satisfy any candid inquirer,
that^ these books of the Maccabees, are en
titled to a place among the canonjcal
Scriptures ; and consequently, that the
doctrine they teach must be a true and
holy dbclrine ; and as they teach a middle
place or purgatory, it must be a pure, and
a holy, and an inspired doctrine. If this
be the case, I repeat there is no ne-cessity
for proceeding.fartherin this argument.
But I will now take the other side. I
suppose and will grant for the' sake of ar
gument, that these books are not canoni-
Cal ;, and still, taking then as such, I can
prove from their authority that it is useful,,
and proper, and good, to pray for the deail,
and that, therefore, there exists a pur
gatory. On this second hypothesis —
namely, that they are i^ot' canonical,
they are not inspired — I propose to
found the concluding part of this argu
ment. When I take up the article bf
Queen Elizabeth, "of the names and
nuraber of the canonical bobks," I find
they do not include those they style Apoc
ryphal books, and of course araong them
the bobks of the Maccabees. The article
says — " The other books, as St. Jerome
saith, the church doth read for example of
life and instruction of manners, yet doth
not put thera as authority for any doc
trine." Now I take the book of Macca
bees in this point of view, admitted by the
reformers — that we raay read these books
called Apocryphal for example of life and
instruction of manners, Copsequently I
do so. I read the passage I have quoted as
my text, for the instruction of mymanners,
and I at once comply with that precept of
the great Judas Maccabeus, " it is there
fore a holy and a wholesome thought to
pray for the dead, that they may be loosed
from their sins." Even, then, taking it as
does the Church of England, as well as
other religious denominations, as an ex
ample of life- and instruction of manners,
I say that -example of life may be fol
lowed. Whatever in'culcates mdrals or
practice, is intended for my imitation,
and certainly may be adopted for instruc
tion of my manners by me ; and therefore
if I choose to pray as Judas Maccabeus
prayed for the dead,! cannot be condemned.
If I do not take it as an essential doctrine,
I may as a good example of life, and there
fore all the ' hue and cry we hear against
p-argatory must be hushed into silence.
But this is not all : Are not the books
of the Maccabees at least a most venera
ble history? Why are they bound up in

PURGATORY.

49

the Bible, although they are considered
Apocryphal T Because they are a vener
able and most excellent history, at least.
They are a history more valuable than
that of Livy, or of Thucidides, and the
most ancient profane historians. Now, I
read them as a mere history, and what do
they inform rae as such ? They tell me
that it was the custom in those early ages
to pray for the dead among the Jews, and
they were the true people of God and re
ceived the doctrine from the Oranipotent
himself, through their inspired legislator.
Consequently it is a true doctrine, as we
learn from the most indisputable history.
Again, I learn from it that a most en
lightened raan and valiant general — he
who fought for the liberties of his country,
prayed for the dead. Judas Maccabeus
sent money to the teraple in order to have
prayers for the dead, " and it isjtherefore a
holy and wholesome Ihought, lo pray for
the dead, that they may be loosed from
their sins." These books were written an
teriorly to the birth of Christ, before the very
eyes of the Jews, and at least with the
sanction of the Sandhedrim itself ; and as
they never contradicted but always ad
raitted them, I therefore learn that the
people of God prayed for the dead, and ad
mitted a raiddle st-ate, and that this middle
state was what we style Purgatory.
This subject is copious and inexhausti
ble. But before I conclude the present
lecture on this doctrine, it is necessary to
answer one question. We know from all
I have said, that this doctrine comes from
the days of the apostles, if we believe the
testimony of the earliest and most venera
ble writers of the church. When was
purgatory first introduced ? Ask rae not
when it was first introduced, because we
know before the time of Christ it was a
custom of the ancient Jewish people, and
frora them admitted into the Christian reli
gion. The church can introduce nothing,
or invent no articles of faith, but can only
hand down those received from the Apos
tles ; and we believe nothing unless we are

satisfied the Apostles taught them.'' I
know that there is abroad a strange idea
that we think the church can invent a
doctrine one day and explode it the next,
and that we are bound to believe all such
doctrine. We believe no such thing —
this is an absurdity. We believe that the
church has received a fixed and certain
code of doctrines frora the Apostles, to ba
handed down to the latest generation, and
all the doctrines we believe are contained
in that code ; that they were not intro
duced by men, but taught by Christ hira
self — and among these, Purgatory stands
' prorainent. But who was the first individual who at
tacked the doctrine of purgatory 1 The
first tirae it was directly and openly at
tacked was in the fourth century, in the
lifetirae of St. Augustine and St. Epiphani
us, by a priest naraed Aerius, who asserted
that it was not lawful to pray for the dead.
What was the consequence ? He was in
stantaneously conderaned as a heretic by
St. Augustine, Epiphanius, and all his
conleraporaries, because he taught a doc
trine in opposition to that received from the
days of the Apostles. And this is a strong
and irrefragaljle arguraent when we find
such Fathers as St. Augustine, and Tertul
lian, and Epiphanius, reputing this man
among the number ofthe heretics, because
he invented his doctrine, which has been
numbered among the heresies by all the
great doctors of that day.
I will conclude this evening with one
quotation from St. Isidore of Seville, in the
fourth century , who thus expresses himself:
" Since the people sacrifice for the repose
of the faithful departed, in all parts ofthe
world, we believe the Apostles left us this
custom by tradilion ; for the church, in all
places, observes it, and if she did not be
lieve that the faithful could obtain pardon
for their sins, why would she sacrifice for
them ?" I will continue next Sundaj
evening this sarae subject, and produce, in
vindication of it, several very important
texts of sacred scripture.

50

LECTURES ON

LECTURE X.

Else wliat shall tliey do who are baptized for the dead, if the dend rise not at all "! Why are Ihey then bap
tized tor them 1 — 1st Corinthians, 15th chap. 29th verse.

C It was not my intention this evening to
have entered upon the scriptural 'krgu-
ments vindicating and confirming the doc
trine of praying for the dead ; but on in
vestigating the subject, I find there still
remains so much traditionary proof, that it
would not be doing justice lo the impor
tance of the subject, were I to pass it over
in silence. But what do I say? Have I
not been arguing in all my preceding lec
tures, especially frora the authority of the
sacred Scriptures ? I contend that the
whole frame of my preceding arguments
has been established and founded upon the
authority of the sacred scriptures ; for
when I quoted the second book of Macca
bees, where it is distinctly stated, that " it
is a good and wholesome thought to pray
for the dead, that they may be loosed from
their sins" — I contend that I quoted can
onical Scripture. For I adduced a mass of
evidence, it appears lo me, sufficient to
satisfy the raost incredulous, that we have
ample testimony on which to found the
canonicity of the books of the Maccabees ;
and that all the arguments I have brought
in vindication of the books of the Macca
bees, are precisely the same that any Chris
tian must use in vindication of any portion
of the inspired Scripture. Por if I ask any
Christian why he believes in the book of
Genesis, or Exodus, or any other, as of
divine inspiration, he certainly must have
recourse tothe same mode of argument as
I have used in relation to the books of
the Maccabees. In order to establish their
canonicity — they raust have recourse to
tradition, and enquire whether their prede
cessors believed them — whether the lathers
of the church in primitive ages admitted
them, and whether the universal churchjn
the brightest agesof Christianity held they

were of divine inspiration ; and if we find
this evidence to corroborate the canonicity
of the books of the Maccabees, I contend
then I have every right to argue from them
as canonical and inspired ; and no individ
ual of any other religious denomination
has a just right to dispute my claim, and
my arguments founded upon thera, as di
vinely inspired books.
Bul it is said that there are insuperable
objections to the canonicity of these books.
In like manner the infidel raises his voice
and proclairas that there are insuperable
objections against the other books of the
holy Scriptures. Not, therefore, because
objections can be offered, are we to reject
— much less repudiate their authorily. Yet
the objections of the infidel against those
books recognized as canonical by all, are
much stronger thanjthose advanced against
the divine inspiration of the books of the
Maccabees. What though they rre not
found in the Canon of Esdras, and are re
jected by the authority of the Synagogue?
How could they be found in the Canon of
Esdras, when they were composed after
that Canon was written ? 'And if they
were rejected by the Synagogue, it waa
because they are not in that Canon.
I contend, therefore, that it is raore pru
dent and more consistent with the princi
ples of Christianity to admit these books
on the authority of the church, than to re
ject them on the authorily of the Syna
gogue. And I have proved from the testi
mony of St. Augustine, from the testimony
of the third Council of Carthage, and
others of unquestioned veracity, that these
books were adraitted, that they were read
and taught, as of Divine authority, by the
whole primitive church ; and therefore, in
following the example of the early church,

PURGATORY.

51

I am adhering to a doctrine and a usage
to which I am entitled and bound to adhere
at the present day.
But let us pass over their canonicity,
and let us take them again, as I said before,
as mere books of historic evidence, and I
believe I can produce sufficient argument,
to satisfy any one that, as historic evidence,
they were, and are to be accounted as of
most exalted authority, and that they were
held in the highest veneration frora the
earliest times ; that they are now of au
thority — ^to use the language of the arti
cles of Elizabeth upon the Canonical
Books — with regard to life and raanners,
and so respected by Protestants of every
denomination. But if I can show that
they were respected by St. Paul hiraself —
nay more, by the Son of God, Jesus Christ,
then there is no christian who will hesitate
to agree with me that their authority is of
the most venerable kind, and should not
be rejected, at least as high historic evi
dence. St. Paul, in the lllh chapter of
the epistle to the Hebrews, coraraencing
with the 36th verse, raakes raention of
certain martyrs, and enters inlo the particu
lars of the tortures those martyrs endured,
and in so doing, makes use of the very
ttr.n in the Greek, which refers lo the nar
rative only to be found in the books of the
Maccabees. " Others were racked," ho
says, " not accepting deliverance ; that
they might find a better resurrection,"
&c. ; " and other» had trial of mockeries
and stripes, moreover also of bands and
prisons. They were stoned, they were
cut asunder," &c." Now, if you refer
to the second book of Maccabees, 6 chap
ter, 27 verse, you will find St. Paul alludes
to the martyrdom of the venerable Elea-
7.er, which is mentioned in the 6lh chapter,
30th verse of 2d Maccabees. And this is
no far fetched attempt at an argument, you
may be satisfied, for even the editors of the
ancient Geneva edition of the Bible admit
the reference of St. Paul to the passage in
Maccabees, and place them together, ac
knowledging that St. Paul did here really
refer to the event and circumstances of
the martyrdom of Eleazar on the authority
of the book of the Maccabees. Conse
quently we find St. Paul quoting histori
cally the books of the Maccabees. If this
be so, if we find St. Paul citing them, and
applauding the conduct of Eleazar, what
will prevent me from quoting the books of
the Maccabees, applauding the conduct of
Judas Maccabees ; and he, I am informed
in that book, ordered sacrifice to be of-
ered for the repose of the dead vvho had
fought valiently in the cause of their coun

try. And the author of these books, after
narrating that important and memorable
circumstance, declares " that it is a good
and wholesome Ihought lo pray for the
dead, that they may be loosed from their
sins ;" and therefore, on this authorily,
merely as an historic reference alone, I
urge the argument that " it is a good and
wholesome thought to pray for the dead,"
&c. And if il be so, it cannot be for the
dead in heaven we pray, nor can it be
for the dead in hell we pray, but for the
dead in a middle slate — consequently there
must be a raiddle state — or what we style
by the narae of Purgatory.
But I said that not only Saint Paul made
a reference to these books, but that our
divine Saviour hiraself established their
authority, and vindicated, by his own ex
ample, the propriety of complying with
certain institutions or ordinances which
were prescribed only in the books of the
Maccabees. I refer you tp the first book
of the Maccabees, to different portions of
the 4th chapter, coraraencing with the 44th
verse. It alludes, first, to the profanation
of the altar by the Gentiles. Secondly, to
the purification of that altar by the rites
and ceremonies of religion.. Thirdly, by a
new dedication of^the altar. And lastly,
to the establishing an anniversary festival
in honor of that event. And then I will
show you frora the New Testament that our
divine Saviour, Jesus Christ, went in per
son to the teraple, and celebrated that an
niversary, established by no authority but
that of the books of the Maccabees. Here,
then, there is a festival established and to be
celebrated for ever by the Jewish people :
and nowhere do we find an account of the
establishment of this festival but in the
books of the Maccabees. Now, if we find '
that the Jews, even before the subversion
of the synagogue, observed this celebra
tion, and that our divine Saviour was pre
sent at it, must it not follow that these books
were respected by thera, and even our Lord
himself thought proper to coraply with the
injunction nowhere prescribed but in thete
books, which are now deeraed by all other
denorainations as of no authority. Turn
to the lOth chapter of St. John's Gospel,
22d and 23d verses,where the Evangelist
says : " And it was at Jerusalera the feast
of the dedication, and it was winter. And
Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's
porch ?" This feast of the dedication was
the festival founded, and recorded, as I
have shewn, and perpetuated upon no other
authority 'than that of the Maccabees.
The festival, then, continued lo be ob
served, and we see our ^divine Saviour

52

LECTURES ON

condescending to celebrate it ; and where
do we learn it was established ? Not in
any of those books admitted as, inspired, by
those who differ from us ; but in the Mac
cabees ; and therefore the conclusion must
strike every candid mind, and convince
every true inquirer, that the books of the
Maccabees were of the highest respecta
bility, of the gravest authority, and referred
to by St. Paul, and our Saviour himself.
Now these books which record the dedi-
ication of the altar, and made this fes
tival so sacred and obligatory as to be per
petuated — these books, I say, inform me
that Judas Maccabeus, the brave and en
lightened general of the Jewish people,
who knewVell that his religion would dis
dain superstition ; he, true to his country
and to nis God, sent to the temple and
had sacrifices offered for the spirits of those
warriors who had fallen in battle around
hira ; for " it is a good and wholesorae
thought lo pray for the dead, that they may
be loosed from their sins." Therefore, we
contend upon all these authorities, that this
practice of the Catholic Church stands
upon most firm, if you will not admit, in
spired, authority. And no raatter who
thinks he cannot do il, he has no right to
say that I cannot pray for the souls of those
in purgatory ; " for it is a good and
wholesome thought," according to the
books of the Maccahees " lo pray for the
dead, that they may be loosed frora their
sins." I know that a great many learned phi
losophers, and distinguished theologians of
other denorainations, have traced, or at
tempted lo trace up this doctrine and usage
to another and very different source. I am
aware that Mosheim in his ecclesiastical
history, asserts that it derives its origin
frora the irapure source of the ^Platonic
philosophy. But I take the authority of
Judas Maccabeus before that of Mosheim ;
and who will blame me ? I take the de
cision of the Council of Carthage before
him ; I lake the whole primitive church
before hira ; and certainly I cannot be
charged with superstition for following the
practice of the primitive churcjj instead of
the invention of Mosheim 1
But the text with which 1 commenced my
remarks this evening, presents itself again
before me ; and after I have perused fhe
books of the Maccabees, and satisfied my
self sufficiently what they taught — and I
haye the right to follow what they taught
— in reference to purgatory or praying for
the dead, then coming down imraediately
to St. Paul, who was divinely instructed, I
hear that apostle exclaiming, " What shall I

they do who are baptised for the dead V
&c. Now I produce this text, and I stand
by its import, and contend that from it I
can prove that during the life-time of St.
Paul, there were some [ceremonies, some
rites, and some religious usages perform
ed for the dead. The passage is ex
tremely obscure, I admit— and where is
the Bible reader who can explain it to me,
especially without note or comment, and
show that my meaning is not the proper
one. St. Paul says they were baptized for
the dead, and that the dead should rise
again. Now until you can prove to me
that St. Paul meant something else, you
have no right to say St. Paul does not
teach the doctrine of praying for the dead.
I take it in its obscurity, and apply it to
my doctrine. Can you give rae a more
satisfactory meaning, or show that St. Paul
condemned the doctrine. This concession,
at least, must be made — that neither St.
Paul nor the fathers of the ancient church,
nor the synagogue, are against us. They
are for us ; and we hold and contend that
they are for us, until you can prove they
are against us ; and I think that will
be a very difficult raatter. It is, then, no
superstition to pray for the dead. We
repudiate and reject every spurious and
superstitious practice. Much less is it — al
though the great Tillotson will so have
it — an invention for raercenary purposes,
and intended to carry out the deceptive
and interested views of the clergy. I would
ask him where this invention was first in
troduced ? In what country ? Was it in
England, among his own Anglo-Saxon an
cestors, that it was first introduced ? Cer
tainly not ; for we trace it up to the days
of Bede, and from him, back to the ven
erable missionary from Rome who preach
ed Christianity, and gave light and liberty
to England. We can, lurther, trace it
to Rome — to the Seven Hills — the centre
and source of light and life— 'once the cen
tre of Pagan superstition. Certainly St.
Augustine would have found- out, if this
had been a superstitious practice and con
deraned it. St. Augustine would have
marked the inventor of it, if such an indi
vidual could have been found ; for there can
be no doubt in the mind of any Christian
whatever that the practice cari be traced
up to St. Augustine. In St. Augus
tine's thirty-second sermon — "de Verbis
Apostolicis " — we read, (and recollect he
flourished in the fourth century, in what
was styled the golden age of Christianity
by Calvin, and is respected by all the re
formers, and every Christian, even at this
day,) that ""the church universally prao.

PURGATORY,

53

tices that which she has learned from tra
dition, which is, to make sacrifice in com
memoration of those who have departed in
the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and
declares, that for them she offers these
sacrifices. St. Augustine, as I remark
ed before, does not here give his own
individual opinion — does not speak as a
theologian — does not say it is a good
practice which may or may not be observ
ed ; but he explicitly says " it is the uni
versal practice of the whole church lo pray
for the dead." Then the whole Christian
church, in its brightest era, must have been
tainted and disfigured by universal su
perstition, if to pray for the dead be regard
ed among the superstitions.
I staled in my last lecture — and it is
necessary that I should give references for
every authority which I quote — that the
individual who first raised his voice against
praying for the dead, or against p°urga-
tory, lived contemporaneously with St.
Augustine in the fourth century ; that he
was a priest called Aerius, who St. Au
gustine says became disaffected, and began
to preach, among other heresies, this one
— that it was unlawful to pray for the
dead. St. Epiphanius says, that this pro
position of Aerius is a heresy, and he ranks
it as the thirty-fifth in his " Book of Here
sies." St. Augustine also designates it
as a notorious heresy, and so does St. John
Damascene. Here then we have St Au
gustine, St. Epiphanius, St. John Damas
cene, all contemporaries wilh Aerius, and
among the brightest ornaments of the
church, exclaiming against this heresy,
and branding its author as a heretic for
preaching this novelty. Consequently it
must have been regarded as a heresy by
the whole church ; consequently the doc
trine must have existed before Aerius,
else he could not have denied it. We
thus trace it up beyond Aerius — to the
days of Tertullian, and he touched very
n early upon the apostolic times. Now, what
conclusion must we arrive at? Not that
I mean to indulge in any sentiment of un
charitableness — far be it from me ; I have
too great a respect for the convictions of
all. I. am only pleading my own cause,
and I only claim for myself in this free
land a perfect liberty of belief, for we can
give the most conclusive and brilliant au
thority for every article of our faith. Now
who are the followers of Aerius, and who
are the followers of St. Augustine, in our
day ? All those who deny praying for the
dead must be followers of Aerius, and all
those who believe in that doctrine mtist be
followers of the fathers of the church ; we

who believe in purgatory are connected
and in communion with the primitive
church, and this point of doctrine alone is
quite sufficient to prove our claim to cath
olicity. If this had been superstition in
the days of St. Augustine, he would have
conderaned it; the Council of Carthage
would have condemed it, because it did
condemn certain prevailing superstitions,
but defended and vindicated the doctrine
of praying for the dead. There were cer
tain superstitions in Africa, by which per
sons were baptized not for -the dead, but
baptized the dead, and portions of the Eu
charist were buried with the dead. The
Council of Carthage raised its voice against
thera, and denounced them, but in doing
so declared that it was useful and proper
to pray for the dead.
One great objection which is urged by
men of great learning against this doctrine,
is this — that the fathers of the church
mention that prayers were offered up for
the dead during the sacrifice, but that it
was not their raeaning that by such pray
ers souls could be benefited, but raerely
in commemoration, and in sympathetic re
raembrance of the departed. In order lo
ascertain the fact, whether the fathers
raeant merely lo commemorate the dead,
or lo pray for them, as we do, in order to
benefit their souls in a middle state, we
raust ask the fathers themselves what
they believed ; we must quote their own
words, and then we can arrive at a proper
conclusion. Now there are none who can
object to the authority of Tertullian, who
flourished in the third century ; and Ter
tullian, in his book "De Monogamia," is
explicit: he recommends the widow lo
pray for the soul of her departed husband,
in order that he raight obtain refuge, so
lace, comfort; therefore he meant some
thing beyond making mere commemora
tion for the dead.
St. Cyril, in his catechism, written ex
pressly for the instruction of the faithful
who were converted from Paganism — to
give them a correct knowledge of what
they were to believe, and what they were
not to believe, expressly declares, that " the
souls of the faithful receive much assist
ance — (juxamen) — frora the venerble sa-
criflces offered for them." This, then, is
more than mere commemoration, for they
receive aid. This was the belief of St.
Cyril, and the lesson he taught those he
was instructing. The dead here spoken
of, and prayed for, cannot be in heaven —
neither can they he in hell — for in neither
place could they receive assistance ; con
sequently they must be in a middle state.

54

LECTURES ON

Call it what you likei — ^but Istyle il, in the
language of the church. Purgatory. The
beautiful prayer which St. Augustine of
fered up for his departed mother, Monica,
proves that in his time Christians prayed for
the souls of the departed, not merely in
commemoration of them, but to procure
them a benefit. " And now, oh God of my
heart ! I become a petitioner to thee for
the sake of ray raother : hear me, I be
seech thee, by that cure of our wounds
which hung upon the cross and now sit
ting at thy right hand intetcedes for us. I
know she dealt! raercifully, and from her
heart forgave her debtors their trespasses ;
do thou likewise rerait her debts, if she
also contracted any in those many years
she lived after her baptism. Forgive thera,
oh Lord ! forgive them, Ibeseeclithee, and
enter not inlo judgment, because thy words
are true, and thou hast promired mercy to
merciful. Inspire, oh Lord ! thy servants
my brethren, thy children, my raasters,
whom I serve both with my heart, and
voice, and with my pen ; that as many of
them as shall read these things may re
member at thy altar Monica, thy handmaid,
and Patricius, her husband," &c. — Con
fessions, lib. ix. chap. 13. And is not this
the language of a Catholic of the present
day ? If it be superstition in him, it was
the same in Monica. If il was supersti
tion in her, it was still worse for St. Au
gustine to coraply with her request. But
if it was a " good and wholesome thought"
for St. Augustine " to pray for the dead,"
it is the same for us, in order to give aid
and assistance to the poor souls not yet
fully at rest. Hear his corapliance with
the dying request of his mother, and then
judge for yourselves whether he did so in
commemoration of her, or to procure aid
for her deaarled soul. Read the prayer of
St. Augustine. Is not this the language
of prayer for the benefit of her soul, " that
God would forgive her any debt not suffi
ciently liquidated in this world ;" and does
he not call upon all in the present day to
pray for her ? We comply with his in
struction, and remember those who are
departed, in our prayers. If they are in
heaven, our prayers will be accepted by
the Almighty for some other purpose ; if
they are in hell, the same will be the case.
But if they are in a middle state, they will
be benefited, as the prayers of the church
benefited Peter when in prison. And
surely, if in this world we can pray
for each other — as Peter was prayed
for in prison — why can we not pray for
those in another world? Where is the
diflference ? If the prayers of the faithful

ware offered for a prisoner here, why can
they not benefit him if in prison hereafter ?
But still it is urged that St. Augustine
in other places speaks in a doubtful man-
ner upon this subject, and therefore in
validates the force of this arguraent, and
entirely subverts this proof in vindica
tion of the doctrine. This must be exam
ined. Now if I say on any subject " there
is no doubt of this — there can be no doubt
of this — we must not deny this," my ex
pressions are so explicit that whatever
other phrase might escape me, it cannot
affect these positive declarations. But, in
three passages St. Augustine uses these
words : " There is no doubt — there can be
no doubt — it cannot be denied," that the
soul is benefited by prayer. In his 32d
sermon, " de Verbis Apostolicis," he says,
" Twn abnegandum est." Again, in ano
ther work he says, " neque rtegandum est,"
and in another place, "quis dubitat;" and
in his work "de Cura pro 'Mortuis,"
he uses the same terms. Consequent
ly, St. Augustine expressing himself
thus, ^leaves no roora to doubt, nor any
ground for the most ingenious critic
to quote hira against himself But if
any of his expressions should appear
somewhat doubtful, it is not in regard to
the doctrine itself, but as to the nature of
the punishment, and this is altogether a
free question in the church at the present
day. I can say the church never has pro
nounced as an article of faith what kind of
punishment exists in this middle state ;
and if I am led to believe as a theologian,
that it must be fire, the question is still
debateable and free, and I speak without
affecting in any degree the freedom granted
by the church as to the nature of the pun
ishraent. St. Augustine always admitted
the tenet, but made use of dubious expres
sions with regard to the punishment, and
this is a right possessed by all Cathohcs,'
because the church never has decided on
this question.
It may be asked, are we bound to take
the doctrine of Purgatory as an article of
faith on the ¦authority of these Fathers ? I
say, not because St. Augustine, and St.
Epiphanius, and St. John Damascene be
lieved it, but because they taughtit is an ar
ticle of faith, delivered by their predecessors,
and transmitted by the Apostles lo them ; we
are bound to admit it as an article of faith,
because they show it to have been such
previous to their times. I said it would be
raore than even Tillotson could prove, to
narae the individual by whom, and when
this superstition, as they style it, was first
introduced. Where was it ! By whom

PURGATORY.

55

was it introduced ? If that cannot be sub
stantiated, then it must have come down
from the days of the Apostles and taught
by Christ himself Certainly it was not
invented by Tillotson's Anglo Saxon an
cestors ; then why should he condemn so
many good raen who practised it. For
we read that in the days of the vener
able Bede in the eighth centuiy, there
were established certain forms by which in
dividuals bound themselves to pray for their
departed brethren ; and the venerable Bede
in his Ijfe of St. Cuthbert, has left a note
written to the monks of fhe Abbey of Lin-
desfarn, asking them to pray for his soul.
This then was the practice of the Anglo
Saxon Church in the days of the venerable
Bede, which tliey received from the first

missionaries who came from Rome to pro
claim the great truths of Christianity. The
people of Rome learned it from their ances
tors ; it was preached in the east and the
west — it was traced up to the earliest fa
thers of the church, and from thera by a
concatenation of unhroken testiraony, back
to the days of the Apostles, and frora them
back again to the people of God thera
selves, the Jews ; for we find the valiant
Judas Maccabeus, sending gold and silver
lo the temple to obtain prayers for the re
pose of the souls of his brave men, who
had fought and died in the cause of theur
country. With these remarks, I will
put an end to the present lecture, re
serving many important arguments for the
next.

LECTURE XL

Therefore, it is a good aud a wholesome thouglit to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.
Second Boos op thb Maccabees.

Those who have followed me in the
course of my two proceeding lectures on
purgatory must see manifestly, from all
the proofs I adduced on the subject, that
the dogma of purgatory reaches up to the
apostolic times ; that the custom of pray
ing for the dead has prevailed throughout
the whole Christian Church, as well in the
East as in the West ; that this custom
was not merely a solemn or melancholy
commemoration of departed friends, but a
custom of recommentling the souls of the
departed to the mercy of God, in order that
they might obtain, iu the language of the
fathers — rest, refuge, relief, and consola
tion. What now reraains — after having
brought down this chain of evidence frora
the days of Christ himself to the 16lh
century — what now remains to be ac
complished ? I may be told that, having
arrived at this memorable epoch, it becoraes
me to question those extraordinary men
who were raised up, it is said, by Divine

Providence for the purpose of purifying the
church, and that I should have recourse to
those oracles of pure Christianity, as they
are entitled. Well, in order to satisfy all
parties, and do araple justice to the theme
of my discourse, the dogma of purgatory,
I shall briefly, before entering on the scrip
tural arguments in its favor, this evening,
question the great oracles of the reforma
tion ; and if I find after questioning
them, thai their testiraony is contradictory
that testimony will pass for nothing ; for
every sensible man will agree wilh rae in
saying, that where there are contradictory
testimonies on the same subject, they must
be considered null and void ; and, there
fore, that if these great oracles of the six
teenth century directly contradict them
selves on this very subject which I am
vindicating, it will no longer be required of
me, by men of reason, to stop the career
of my argument in order lo consult those
men who made war against that church

53

LECTURES ON

which has existed since the apostolic times.
Whioh, then, shall I consuh? Any of
them I am ready to question. I will con
sult the oracle of Germany, Martin Lu
ther ; then I will consult the oracle of
Geneva, John Calvin ; and then, to leave
nothing undone, I will consult the Church
of England at the period of the reforma
tion. If, then, in consulting Luther, I find
that in his testimony he contradicts him
self, he is no authority for me or any sen
sible man. If I find, likewise, the testi
mony of John Calvin contradictory in it
self, it must likewise be put aside — it can
have no weight with any sincere inquirer
after truth. And the same I assert of the
homilies of the Church of England, put
forth in the earliest days of the reforma
tion — if I find them contradictory on this,
as well as almost every other subject con
nected with the history of Christianity,
then I put it aside, as of no weight with
any intelligent and sincere raind. I have
only to show that they are contradictory —
that Martin Luther contradicts himself —
that John Calvin contradicts himself — and
likewise that the homilies of the Church
of England contradict themselves on the
doctrine of purgatory — in order to put
aside, and that forever, the testimony of
these vaunted and wondrous oracles of the
sixteenth century.
First, then, shall I consult Luther ? Lu
ther, what was thy opinion regarding [pur
gatory after thou didst abandon the ancient
church ? I ask not thy testimony before
thou didst forsake that religion, but afler
thy departure frora the ancient fold. He
answers me, in the first instance, in the
following language : " As for me, who be
lieve strongly, I might even say, who
know that purgatory exists, I can readily
be persuaded that it exists in the sacred
scriptures. All I know is, that souls are
there in a state of suffering, and may be
relieved by our works and prayers." This
is the first testimony of Luther — ^testimony
quite in conformity with all I have brought
forward frora the ancient fathers ; and if
he broke asunder the bonds of his union
with that ancient church, still, as the doc
trine of purgatory was found in scripture
so raanifestly by him, he could not bul be
lieve it. But then, again, in a very short
time after, in writing to some of the reform
ers, he says : " I applaud you, because
when you condemn purgatory, you con
demn all these cloisters, monasteries, &c."
Here is Luther in direct contradiction to
hiraself; first asserting thathe believed in
purgatory, and again saying, as clearly,
that those who denied purgatory were right.

Now, i appeal to any sensible man if, on
any subject connected with his interests,
he would take the testimony of an individ
ual who palpably and directly contradicts
himself, as Luther has done. Therefore,
he must be put aside, and all he ever as
serted on the subject raust go for nothing;
for where there is contradiction in the tes
timony every tyro in equity knows it is not
worth a straw. So much for Martin Lu
ther. Let us now have recourse to the testi
mony of John Calvin, and see whrther he
was more consistent with hiraself than
the first refori; r .^'. as on this subject
Calvin, as in one of my former lectures I
observed to you — asserted that the fourth
century, the age of St. Augustine, of
the Council of Nice, and of Chalcedon —
was " the golden age of Christianity."
This is one of his declarations Calvin
declares again, in his 3d book of Institutes,
chapter the 5th, that " fur over 1300 years
the doctrine of purgatory had been believed
and preached in the Christian Church"—
that is to say, 1300 years before his day.
Now Calvin uttered this in the 16th cen
tury. Go back 1300 years before the 16th
century, and you get into what he styled
the golden age of the church, and conse
quently, according even to him, purgatory
was'ta'ught in the days he styles " the
golden age." " All the ancients," he
says, " were led into error on this subject."
Here is his contradiction — the fathers who
lived in the 4th century, in " the golden
age" — must have taught the truth, other
wise it could not be the golden age ; but
he asserts it was the golden period, and
yet that in that golden period purgatory
was believed — thus contradicting himself.
At the same time he leaves the reluctant
testimony that, for 1300 years before his
day purgatory was believed and taught by
all the Christian world. Therefore, I find
the testimony of Calvin on this subject no
better — no more valuable — no more con
sistent, than that of the arch-reformer to
whom I first referred.
But perhaps there is more consistency,
in the homilies of the Church of England.
I attack no creed. I mean not to utter a
single sentiment that would give the
slightest offence to any individual. But
it becomes my duly to show, firmly, when
we are misrepresented, the grounds on
which we establish the truth of this doc
trine ; and if this is done openly and frank
ly, it is not raeant certainly unkindly or un
charitably. Take then the second homily of
the Chnrch of England, entitled " against
peril of idolatry," and listen attentively to

PURGATORY.

57

what itsays — " The laity and clergy, learn
ed and unlearned, all ages and sexes and de
grees of men, women and children, of all
Christendom have been at once drrwned in
.abominable and daranable idolatry for the
space of 800 years and more." Thus they
declare thatforSOOyears before the promul
gation of this edict, not one of their ances
tors, however learned, however pious,
however sincere, not one but was a victim
of an abominable and damnable idolatry.
That all Ihe great men who flourished — ^^all
the Bedes — the Anselms — all the venerable
and illustrious names that sparkle on the
rolls of ancient England, were plunged in
damnable idolatry without oue single,
solitary exception — that there were " none
found to do good, no, not one." Now is
there a single individual here prepared to
assert that such a state of things prevailed,
not only in England — but in all parts of the
Christian World ? that all those great raen
who flourished in that period — the Bernards,
the Bonaventures, .the Thoraas Aquinas,
Thoraas A Kempis, we're buried in idolatry.
Tliose great men and immortal philosophers
who have won the adrairation of the world
by their discoveries — Galileo, Copernicus,
etc. even Columbus hiraself, who -naviga
ted an unknown ocean and first planted
the cross of Christ on these wild shores —
only spread more widely, the abominati,an,s
of idolatry. Are you preparedto aclinjtthis ¦!
But the genius pf the Church of ISngland
immediately recants and contradicts her-'
self: for, ii isstatedin the 16th.hoftiily,'
entitled " Of the gifts of the- Holy Ghost,"
that the Spirit qf Truth , has been and
always will be present with the Church,
counselling and ,d irectjing- .herj-tha-t she
never waists anfl iiever yvjU \yant the pure
and sacred doctrine, and the holy .f.acra-
mepts, according to, Christ's institptipp.and
Cathpljo discijpline." Her? .ip,,, the first
homily I quoted,, the Church,, itjs said, was
plunged into abom-inabje , apd , damnable
idolatry; i,n tlie.pecond, th,at she. has and al
ways willha^ve pure doctrine and the sacra- i
ments administered... Now I appeal agam
to all sensible men if these homilies of the
Church of England can have any weight
whatever, in the inyestigati.on qi any sub- ,
ject connected with the. .deep interests of |
the.'hum3.n race ? , I- vvwS. therefore, thpse|
reformers— I pa^s, ,by, Lpther, I .P^ss.by |
Calvin, and I pass by, even, the,, Chijrchpt
,Encrland— because I find, the testimony, ot
one" and all directly and palpably . contra-]
rlictory. And I, go, at once,, as I promised,
to the sacred scriptures,, apd there 1 refresh
myself by drinkif^ of, the, pure vy.a-ters .qti
truth, which i,tru?J,wiU.flQ,Wri.ot pnlypnto

me, but spread themselves abroad and lead
raany to conviction and life eternal.
Let us examine, then, whether our doc
trine of Purgatory is anti-scriptural — that
is, whether it is opposed to the sacred
scriptures, or they to it ; and let us see
whether or not our doctrine is not founded
on the authorily of these scriptures — or if
I cannot quote a text sufficiently plain,
satisfactory, and to the point, lo satisfy rae
that ray doctrine is inculcated and taught
by the sacred volurae. Here let it not be
imagined for a moment that I will yield
my privilege of having recourse to the
sacred scriptures, or give up my right of in
terpretation for rayself as well as other
Christians who claira that right, particular
ly when I interpret them in a manner not al
together my own, but consistently with the
highest authorily of the Christian fathers.
The first text I shall subrait to you is one
I had occasion to cite before, but vvhich I
cannot orait among those proving our doc
trine. It is taken from St. i'aurs Epis.tle
to the Corinthians, 15th chapter and 29th
verse: " What shall they do who are bap
tised for, the dead, if the de/ai rise not al
all? why are they then baptised for the
.dead ?" St. Paul here make? mention of
icertain, practices, or usages, performed in
honor of the dead, and for the benefit of
the <3e^d, in view, of a future resurrection-
¦what these usages. were we cannot per
fectly ascertain at the present da;y ; but we
'believe there is an analogy between this
text and that jn the , Maccabees,- where it
,is said, that, Judas M.^ccabeus ordered sac
rifice to be .offered on account of the dead :
whilst this text speaks also of these
,psao-e,s, Therefore, we suppose St. Paul
ailu'Ses tQ the sacriffce of the ancient Jevvs,
,an3,,that this texth^ars strongly on the
point,. and maybe..,?i,dduced, in proof of. thp
dpctfine qf purgatory. The second text
is talsen.from the 1st Corinthians, 3d chap
ter, cpmmencipg at, the, l ith yerse-r"..Fpr
ether foundation no man can, lay but that
.¦sv^ich.isiaii which is Jesus Christ. , Now
if any man build upon the foundation, gold,
silver,'precious stppes, wood, h^y ^n!3;Btnb-
ble ;,, every iraan's work .shall be ijianifest,
for fte day pf the. Lord, .shall declare, it, bp-
caps.e it shall he'revesiJed.by fire ; and the fire
shall try every ,mw's wqr^ of what sflrj it i.s.
If any man's work abide which hg ha-Jh-built
thereopj he ?hall receive a reward. If aijy
man's work shs^llhe '.burnt,. he shall, suffer
loss,, but he himsftlf ^hall, be saved,; yet so
as by fire." Let us ppw analyse thp
rneanjpg of the Apostle. ,He,here presents
to us two Christians, bpth,baying.thfi;saij)e
Ifiundfttion,' Christ Jesus^that is, the sarae

58

LECTURES ON

foundation of faith and charity. One Chris
tian builds on that foundation, precious
stones, gold, silver — pure and perfect
works. Another Christian, although hav
ing the same perfect foundation, still, un
fortunately, strews over it "wood, hay,
stubble"^-that is to say,'imperfections and
frailties. The Apostle says, " that both
one and the other shall be tried by fire in
that day." In what day ? In the day of
each one's particular judgment. If, then,
the Christian who has all good and perfect
works appears before his judge, he is saved ;
but if the Christian, with the same foun
dation, but with wood, hay and stubble — i e.
venial sins — comes before his judge, he is
to be expiated by fire — and that is to take
place after the judgment. Consequently in
the other world. Consequently these ira
perfections — wood, hay and stubble shall
be destroyed by fire. Yet this Christian,
who has still a perfect foundation, shall be
saved " yet so as by fire," that is, he shall
be obliged to suffer expiation. Where
then shall it be suffered ? Not in heaven.
Not in hell. Consequently it raust be suf
fered in sorae middle state or place ; con
sequently there is a middle place ; call il
by what name you please, there raust be
a place of purgation, where the hay and
stubble will be consumed, and the imper
fections and frailties expiated, and this
place we style purgatory. Yet that I may
not be suspected of being too ingenious or
of giving way lo fancy in bearing out these
expositions of the doctrine of St. Paul, and
in their application lo purgatory^ I appeal
to the ancient fathers of the Christian
Church, who gave the sarae explication of
it ; and therefore it is nothing new, bul
the meaning that was given to the t.ext
since the day it was first written down to
those we live in. Consult St. Augustine
on the 37th Psalm, and you will hear him
asserting that " We do not give ourselves
much trouble about this tire, because it is
said, he who passeth through this fire will ul
timately be saved ; but we should know that
the pain of this fire will be greater than
any raan can suffer in this life" — and then
he cries out, " purify me, O Lord, in this
Hfe, that it may not be necessary for me to
pass through fire so as to purify my soul."
This is the doctrine inculcated b^the text.
This text speaks of a fire ; I believe this fire
is destined to expiate certain venial sins
or imperfections. This is the raeaning
given to it by St.f Ambrose on the 108th
Psalm, by St. Jerome on Isaiah, by Greg.
ory the Great on the 4th book of chap. 39.
We have therefore, the testimony of the
raost ancient fathers corroborating the

raeaning I have given to the text of St.
Paul, and vindicating with me this dogma.
It is not therefore true, that there is no text
of scripture which proves this doctrine ;
much less is it true that the scriptures
raise their voice against il, as against
some absurd and miserable superstition.
The next proof irom the sacred scriputures
we shall take, is found in the 12th chap, of
Mathew, 32d ver. " And whosoever shall
speak a word against the Son of man it shall
be forgiven him, but he that shall speak a
word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be
forgiven him, neither in this world, nor
in the world to come." Hence we argue,
thai if this peculiar sin cannot be forgiven
in this world, nor in the world to come,
there are others which can be forgiven in
this world, and in the world to come.
This is the natural meaning of the text,
and it appears to me that it is impossible-
to find any other for it. I know that St.
Mark, in the 3d chapter 29th veise of his
Gospel, asserts that this sin shall never be
forgiven. This is taue ; but this is not
doing away with the force of the text.
Certainly we must perceive that a sin
which cannot be forgiven never will be ;
but it does not follow that St. Mark meant
to contradict the other Evangelist. Take
the expression of St. Peter at the last sup
per — "thou shall not wash ray feet forev
er"^— that is ray feet shall never he washed
by thee — a very natural expression. But
suppose he should have said, " thou shalt
not wash ray feet, neither in this world nor
in the world to come," would it not be
soraething ridiculous to talk of the feet
being washed beyond the tomb ? Yet the
Evangelist uses the expression, " cannot
be forgiven in this world nor in the world
lo come."
The next arguraent is taken from St.
Luke, 12th chap., 58th and 59th verses —
" When thou goest with thine adversary to
the Prince, whilst thou art on the way, en
deavor to be delivered from hira ; lest per
haps he draw thee to the Judge, and the
Judge deliver thee to the exacter, and the
exacter cast thee into prison. I say to
thee thou shalt not depart thence, until
thou pay the very last mite !" Here our
Saviour declares that if a debtor be con-
demned to this prison he shall remain there
until the last mite is paid. Consequently
he is not to remain there forever, because
the last mite will be paid. Now of what
prison does our Saviour here speak T Of
an earthly one ? By no means. The
whole context proves that he was speaking
of a spiritual subject. He was telling his
Aposties to be on their guard, for unless

PURGATORY.

59

they were perfectly prepared they would
fall into the hand of the judge, and that
judge would sentence them ; and if they
were not perfectly free from debt they
should be cast into prison. Now is this
the natural course of those condemned lo
punishment ! By no raeans. Is it such
as is undergone from eternal fire ? Cer
tainly not, because from that there is no
emancipation. Where then, is that prison?
That prison must be the raiddle place or
state calleil purgatory, whicli I have been
explaining and enforcing, as taught by the
scriptures. Another proof may be derived from
Paul's 2d Epistle to Timothv, 1st chapter,
16th, 17lh and 18th verses.' "The Lord
give mercy to the house of Oneisphorus,
because he hath often refreshed me,
and hath not been ashamed of ray
chain. But when he, was come to
Rome, he carefully sought me and
found me. The Lord grant unto him
that he may flnd mercy of the Lord in that
day; and iu how raany things he rainis
tered nnto me at Ephesus thou very well
knowest." Here, then, are two distinct
prayers of the Apostle ; one, in the first
instance, for the household of Oneisphorus,
in the next, for Oneisphorus himself. Now
it is very certain that the household of
Oneisphorus was living, but afe probable
that Oneisphorus himself was dead, when
Paul thus prayed for him ; and until you
can prove he was alive I am free to say he
was dead, and that Paul prayed for the
Lord to have mercy upon him. And what
grounds have we to believe he was dead ?
^Turn to the 4th chapter and 19th verse of
Second Timothy : " Salute Prisca and
Aquila and the household of Oneisphorus."
Here St. Paul wishes to be remembered to
the house of Oneisphorus, but mentions
not Oneisphorus himself; therefore there
is every reason to believe he had departed
this life — otherwise St. Paul would have
remembered hira ; for there is no jjroba-
bility that he would salute his household
and not say one word about Oneisphorus,
had he not been dead. Consequently, I
have every reason to sustain rae in my
position that Oneisphorus had gone into
the world of spirits, that he had ^.departed
from this life when Paul prayed to the
Lord to have mercy on him " in that day."
What day ? In the day of judgraent — the
great and terrible day of retribution. If
this be true — that Oneisphorus was dead —
there is a direct, indisputable, incontro
vertible evidence frora the sacred scrip
tures in favor of praying for the dead. St.
Paul has given us the example, and it

would be ridiculous, and a work of su
perstition to pray for the dead if they
could not be benefited ; and they could
not be benefited unless there wasa middle
stale — and, therefore, a purgatory. And,
therefore, we have reason to believe that
we can substantiate, and derive great
consolation from, the doctrine of purga
tory. One more scriptural arguraent for this
evening and I conclude. By referring to
the 2lst chapter of the Apocalypse, and
27th verse, we find it expressly declared
that " there shall not enter into it (heaven)
anything' defiled," &c. How few, may T
not ask, leave this world undefiled, and flt
for heaven I There raay be some excep-
,tions ; therefore, we do not say all will go
to purgatory. But we merely assert that
if persons depart who havo,,not atoned
sufficiently for their sins, God, instead of
condemning thera to eternal punishraent,
will condemn them to a temporary punish
raent where there sins will be ultimately
expiated. Now, with regard to venial sins,
and iraperfections — by which we may be
defiled, either they will be effaced by the
mercy of God at the hour of death,
or they will be visited with eternal
punishraent without distinction, or there
will be a place of purgatory. Now,
can you prove from scripture — have you
any valid evidence that God forgives every
venial transgression — every venial defile
ment — every earthly desire which you may
cherish in your hearts at your dying hour?
Where is your proof of this ? Because
on this subject you require proof of me, and
I will require proof of you — not assertion,
nor theory, nor imagination — but proofs.
All the proofs I have given go lo show the
contrary. All vindicate the belief that
God will not forgive these minor imper
fections of his own goodness, no matter
how unworthy the disposition of our hearts
at the hour of death. Now, will you tell
rae thaf God condemns to everlasting pun
ishment for these sins ? You cannot up
hold this theory. Ft is repugnant even to
lo all sense of human justice — contrary lo
every admitted notion of equity, law,
order and government. When, be
fore Ihe^ bench of human justice is brought
up some poor wretch, whose hands are
yet reeking with the blood of his fellow
man — when every evidence is against him
— when it is manifest that he is guilty of
his brother's blood — what sentence is pro
nounced against him ? The sentence of
death — an eternal sentence, t.because he
eternally sent out of existence, and cut off
from the enjoyment of this beautiful earth,

60

LECTURES ON

his' hapless fellow being. So il is at the
tribunal of God. The sinner reeking with
his crimes, not repentant, but on the con
trary persisting to the last hour in his sins,
willhave inflicted upon him the irrevocable
sentence of punishment. But the soul,
stained only by some slight imperfections,
some venia'l faults, not sufficiently atoned
for — shall it be condemned to eternal woe?
is there no gradation in sins ? Is a trifling
deviation from truth, for instance, to be
punished as rigoriously as murder ? Cer
tainly not. But what is human jus
tice but an eraanation from divine jus-
lice, and as tiiere is in this, so must
there be in divine justice, a grada
tion of crimes. Therefore it is not pos
sible that these minor sins should be visi
ted by the inexorable wrath of God, and
consequently there must be a purga
tory. There are very few Christians who
do not commit in thought, word, or action,
some faults in the sight of Almighty
God. Are we not told that the just man
falls seven times a day. If then we go
before the judgment seat of God not being
guilty of heinous crimes, in a repentant

state, or merely with some human imper
fections on our souls — is it possible he will
damn us to all eternity ? Certainly not.
Yet we cannot enter thoso blissful man
sions — those pure regions where the divin
ity is enthroned in all his infinite per
fection. What then is to become of us ?
Must there not be a place of purgation — a
middle place ? and that place is ptirgaitory.
These few arguments will suffice for this
evening. But still the subject is not finish
ed. It seems'to extend before me more copi
ously the. raore least myeyes upon it. Ihave
yet to adduce authority of another kind —
the authority of those great and distinguish
ed divines of the church of England who,
from conviction, were driven to the necessi
ty of admitting the doctrine of Purgatory.
And then I will spread before you extracts
from the liturgies of the ancient church,
Latin and Oriental. My argument will
then be concluded. You will then have
every testimony vindicating it — tradition,
scripture, reason : testimony, strong, un
equivocal, satisfactory; which, if it will
not convince all, must, at least, ensure
their respect.

LECTURE XIL

For the Son of Man shall conie in the ^lory of his Father, with his angels, and then will he render to every
man according to his works. — Matthew xvi. 27. -M

In my lecture on last Sunday night, I
quoted at least six texts of scripture bear
ing upon the doctrine of purgatory, the
subject on which I have been treating.
Let it not be said that these six texts prove
nothing with regard to this dogma, because
1 certainly have every possible right, by
my own private understanding of scripture,
if I think proper, lo prove the doctrine of
purgatory from the texts in question ; and
no reader of the Bible— no stickler for the
universal perusal of the scriptures without

note or comment — can presu me to'Jcall my
right on this subject in question ; because,
by so doing, he would not only trench on
my privileges, but also act in hostility to
one of the very first principles of Protest
antism, which authorizes us to search the
scriptures for ourselves, and discover ac
cording to the best of our understandings,
and our own interpretation, what they
teach and what they do not teach. _.,
When our blessed Lord declared in the
text whichj have -ust read, that he would

PURGATORY.

render unto every man according to his
works, it is evident that when every raan
is suramoned before the judgment-seat of
God, immediately after death, he will have
the sentence inflicted upon him " accord
ing to his works," for " God will render lo
every raan according to his works." Now,
there are perfect works— --there are iraper
fect works — and there are works perfectly
evil. God will, therefore, judge of all these
three characters of works. - If your works,
when summoned to appear before the su
preme tribunal, be perfectly good, then
will God render unto you a perfect re
ward, in rerauneration of those good works.
If on appearing before hira, your works
should be perfectly evil, theu will the sen
tence of eternal punishraent be pronounced
upon you, in consequence of these evil
Works. But if your works be but imper
fectly good, or not perfectly evil, and in
this condition you appear before the Su
preme Judge, "then must you be judged
accordingly. Then there, is, as it were,
an intermediate judgment ; and it would
appear from this text that there Ikewise
must be an intermediate place of atone
ment, where works not perfectly good nor
perfectly evil may be expiated. But -that
place cannot be in hell, nor can that place
be heaven; consequently, as "God shall
render unto every man according lo his
works," there must be an intermediate
place of expiation — which place, in the
language of the church, we style purga
tory ; and this doctrine is not raerely held
by me as my own, but held in perfect con
formity with the doctrine of the most ven
erable fathers of the church. Among
others, I will quote from St. Augustine,
in an answer he wrote to a Roman Sena
tor named Laurentius, who had proposed
certain questions to him. He says, "We
cannot but believe that the souls of the
departed shall be solaced by the piety of
their neighbors, when they offer for them
the sacrifice of mediation, and distribute
for them alms in the church ; but we should
remember that these things are profitable
only to thosB who have lived in such a
manner as not to render themselves un
worthy of profiting by them ; for there is
no manner of life so good as not to stand
in need of them after death." This is the
language of St. Augustine, in which he
corroborates ray exposition of the doctrine
in question, when I say there are different
kinds of works— that is to say, works per
fectly evil, and others between these two
kinds, -and which must be punished by an
intermediate judgment. In quoting, on a
previous occasion, the text from bt. Mat-

61 • t

thew, 12th chapter, 32nd verse, where i
says that the sin against the Holy Ghost
cannot not be forgiven in this world nor
in the world to come, I argued that as this
particular sin could not be forgiven in this
world nor in the world lo corae, there are
sins which can be forgiven in this world
as well as in the world to corae, and added
in proof of this. the authority of sorae of the
most ancient fathers of the church, who
have interpreted these texts precisely, as I
have done. Among others, for instance,
St. Augustine in the 21sl book of his work
on " the City of God ;" St. Gregory, in the
4th book of discipline, cap. 39 ; St. Ber
nard, in the 66th homily on the Canticle of
Canticles ; the venerable and learned Bede ;
all these fathers of the church have given
to the text the sarae raeaning, and deduced
from it, as I have done, the doctrine of
Purgatory. Likewise the text found in
St. Luke, 12lo chapter, 69th verse, where
il is said that there is a prison out of which
those who are indebted will not be permit
ted lo pass until they pay the last mile —
this text, I say, is interpreted as I. have
done, and quoted in vindication of .the doc
trine of Purgatory by St. Cyril, Tertullian,
and other most ancient fathers of the
church. St. Cyril, .4tli book of Epistles,^ says, " it
is one thing to wail for pardon, it is ano
ther thing lo arrive imtaediately in glory ;
it is one thing not to go forth from the
prison until we have paid the last farthing,
and it is another thing to receive our re
ward and recorapense for our faith and
virtue ; it is one thing to suffer long tor
ments frora fire, it is another thing to be
found pure, &o." This is St. Cyril's in
terpretation of that verse in St. Luke which
I have just referred to, relating to that
prison out of which we cannot pass with
out paying the very last farthing. Now,
if it be said that the authority of these
fathers is not decisive— that they speak
raerely their own sentiraents, and cannot
pass with us for authority at the present
day  I will merely make this remark :
Suppose it were possible that the fathers
whom I have quoted — St. Cyril in the third
century, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in
the fourth century, and all the other illus
trious fathers of the primitive church —
suppose they were now present, convened
in council before, us ; and if there were a
controversy with regard- lo the doctrine of
purgatory, which could not be decided by
the sacred Scriptures, suppose I should ask
St..-Cyprian if he believed in it, and he
should answer yes — suppose I should ask
St. Ambrose, and he should answer in the

62

LECTURES ON

same raanner, and so [on with all these
illustrious names ; would it not be suffi
cient authority for me, or for any Catholic
of the present day, to establish the doctrine
of purgatory, when he finds it in conform
ity with the belief of these high authorities,
and practiced and believed by all Chris
tians in the primitive ages of Christianity.
In order to convince you of the authority
of the ancient fathers in the estimation of
the reformers themselves, hear the lan
guage of Martin Luther, who, in the 6th
volume of the Werleraberg edition of his
works, in speaking of the authority of these
great fathers to whora I have referred in
my preceding lectures, says : "These Pa
pists urge us every day by this argument,
'do you believe that these fathers have
erred V It is hard to say that such men
as Ambrose, Augustine, and all those great
personages, whose memories we cherish
and whose piety we admire, should have
erred." This is the language of Luther,
who in another mood, declared that the
testimony of these fathers was not worth a
straw. But as I before remarked, I do not
bring forward as deciding the controversy
on their own authorily, but as evidence of
the general belief of all Christians of those
limes ; because what they assert as doc
trines of faith, they assert lo have existed
and to have been believed by all Christians
at the period in which they flourished.
Let us now see whether we can find the
doctrine of purgatory in the various litur
gies of the Oriental churches, of those
churches raany of which have long since
separated frora the See of Rome. Let us
exaraine whether these Orientals have re
tained the doctrine of purgatory, and incor
porated it in their liturgies and believe it
at the present day as transmitted from
the apostolic tiraes. And if we find that
these various communions still raaintain
this doctrine, then we have the testimony
of the millions upon millions of Catho
lics ofthe present day, as well of our an
cestors up to the apostohc tiraes, added to
the concurring testimony of those opposed
lo us on many other doctrines, in favor of
the dogma of purgatory. The liturgy bf
the Nestorians of lilalabar, says : " Let us
be mindful of our fathers and brethren, and
of the faithful who are departed out of this
world in the Orthodox faith — let us pray
the Lord to absolve them, lo remit their
sins and their transgressions, to make them
worthy lo partake of eternal felicity, with
the jnat who conforraed themselves to the
divine will." The liturgy of the Chaldean
Nestorians : " Receive this oblation, O my
God, for all those who weep, who are sick,

who suflfer under oppression, calamities,
and infirmities : and for all those whom
death has separated from us.'' Here, then,
we havfe the testimony of the Chaldean
Nestorians in favor of the practice of pray
ing for the dead ; we have them incorpo
rating it in their liturgy, and I will here
reraark that the Rev. Horatio Southgate,
in his travels in Mesopotamia, is compell
ed to adrait that the best inforraed among
the Chaldean Nestorians in that country,
beheve in purgatory, and pray for the dead.
The Armenians when they celebrate for
a soul departed, say — "Remember, oh
Lord ! be merciful and propitious to the
souls of tho dead, and in particular to
those for whora we offer this holy sacri
fice" — thus proving that they believe in
the doctrine of Purgatory. The Greeks of
the patriarchate -of Constantinople have
used, for raore than eleven hundred years*
two liturgies, under the names of St. Basil
and St. Chrysostom, which contain the fol
lowing coraraeraoration of the dead : " We
offer thee also for the repose and the
full reraission of the sonl of thy ser
vant departed, in a place of light, from
which grief and lamentation are far re
moved ; and make hira to rest where he
raay see around him the light of thy coun
tenance." Thus these Greeks likewise,
in the solemn services of religion, ,pray for
the dead, beheving in the doctrine of Pur
gatory ; and this liturgy is followed, not
only in the Greek churches of the Ottoman
erapire, which are dependent upon the pa
triarchate of Constantinople, but, also, by
those in the west, at Rome, in Calabria,
Apulia, Georgia, Mingrelia, Bulgaria, and
the whole of Russia. Also, in the ortho
dox confession of the Russians, in 1643,
we find the following reraarkable passage :
" On the seventh article of the creed we
read that souls, after death, cannot obtain
salvation and reraission of their sins by
their repentance, or any act on their part ;
but by the good works and prayers of the
faithful, and above all, by the unbloody
sacrifice which the church offers daily for
the living and de.id." The liturgy of Al-
e'xandria, or of the Jacobite Cophts, raakes
a commemoration of the dead as follows :
" Be mindful, also, O Lord ! of all who
have slept and reposed in the priesthood,
and in every rank of the secular stale.
Vouchsafe, O Lord ! to grant rest to the
souls of them all, in the bosora of the
saints, Abrahara, Isaac and.j Jacob," &c.
The liturgy of the AbyssinianIS or Ethiop
ians ; " Have mercy, O my God ! on the
souls of thy servants, men and women, who
have been fed with thy body and blood, and

PURGATORY.

63

have slept at death m thy faith." The lit
urgy of the Orthodox Syrians and Jacob
ites : " Again and again we commemorate
all the faithful departed — those who are
departed in the true faith from this holy
altar, and from this town, and from every
country — those who in the true faith have
slept and are come lo thee, the God and
Lord of spirits, and of all flesh. We pray,
we beseech, we entreat Christ our God,
who has taken their souls and spirits to
himself, that through the innumerable acts
of his mercy, he would render them wor
thy to receive pardon of their offences, and
the remission of their ' sins, and would
bring us and them to his kingdom in Hea
ven. Wherefore, let us cry aloud, andsay
thrice Kyrie-eleison." In the ancient litur
gy known by the name of St. James, and
explained in the fourth century by St. Cy
ril, of Jerusalem, the priest prays thus for
the dead : " O Load our God, be mindful
of all the souls whora we have commemo
rated, and those whom we have omitted to
comraeraorate, of all those who have de
parted in the true faith, from Abel the
just, till the present time," &c. St. Cyril
in his Mystigogical Catechism, written
expressly for the instruction of those who
were converts from Paganism, in which
he tells them as explicitly and clearly as he
possibly can, those doctrines of the faith
they were to hold, says : " When we cele
brate the sacrifice, we pray in the last
place for those who are departed from
among us, considering that their souls re
ceive great assistance frora the tremend
ous sacrifice of our altars." Thus, there
fore, St. Cyril, in teaching those whora he
was appointed to instruct, taught thera the
doctrines of that Church, of which he was
an authorized and ordained minister. But
St. Cyril taught them purgatory, as we
evidently flnd from his explaining to them
the above liturgy ; -therefore it must have
been taught by the whole Church, and be
lieved as a doctrine of faith by all Chris
tians of his time. In the Mozarabic liturgy
in Spain, we read : " Assemble in the
cemeteries ; read there the sacred books ;
sing there psalms for the raartyrs, for all
the saints, and for your brethren who are
dead in the Lord, and afterwards offer the
Christian Eucharist."
Thus we find that all the liturgies of
the universal churches, whether connected
with the See of Rome or not, have incor
porated inlo them the doctrine of praying
fjr the dead, and? consequently that of
Purgatory. Now the question arises — did
these Oriental Churches receive this doc
trine before they separated from the Catho

lic Church, or did they adopt it afler their
secession ? it is not lo be supposed that
after iheir separation from the See of
Rorae they would have adopted the doc
trine of Purgatory, if they had not adopted
it before they seceded. Then, they raust
have taken it from tbe church frora which
they separated ; then, ilmust have existed
before this secession ; then, that doctrine,
until we find the age in which it was first
promulgated, or the individual -who was
the first to propagate the imposition — raust
be necessarily traced up to the earliest
ages of Christianity, lo the very days of
the Apostles — to the tiraes of" the Jews
who were the people of God, before the
suppression of the Synagogue. These
arguments were so irresistable, and these
authorities so insuperable to the mind of
the late excellent and learned Bishop Hor-
barl that he was compelled either to ad
mit what he styles " Papal- Purgatory," or
driven to the necessity of believing in an
intermediate state, where the souls ofthe
just, as well as the unjust, were detained
until the day of judgment : and rather than
adopt Purgatory, he was compelled to ad
vance this theory, and not only adopt, but
insist upon it as an essential point of be
lief in the Protestant Episcopal Church.
I hold in my hand a " Dissertation on the
State of Departed Spirits," by Bishop H.
in which he proposes to show that this in
termediate state is the belief of the Church
of England, that it can be traced to the
Apostolic .age, and Dial il is authorized
and vindicated by Holy Scripture. Recol
lect that this is stated upon the authority
of Bishop Horbart, as a necessary doctrine
of the church of England — that souls do
not go lo hell nor to heaven, after death,
but to a third place, where the departed
remain until the last day. He says this
doctrine can be traced up to the Apostolic
times. Now this must be by tradition —
therefore we must cite the fathers of the
Church ; and accordingly, on looking over
his volume, I do not find a single testirao
ny ot these venerable authorities, which,
by any construction, could go lo establish
his theory. On the contrary, all the au
thorities I have quoted in the whole course
of ray pteceding lectures, are so clear, so
evident, as to overthrow this theory of that
prelate of the Church of Fngland.
He says it is in conformity to the~saci'ed
Scriptures — but to ray mind it is in direct
contradiction to thera. In the 7th chapter
and 9th verse of the Apocalypse, where St.
John sees heaven opened before his view,
he says, "After thie I saw a gi-eat multi-
titude; which ho man could number, oi

64

LECTURES ON

all nations, and jtribes, and peoples, and
tongues, standing before the throne, and
in light of the larab, clothed with white
robes, and palms in their hands, &c. Con
sequently, as St. John places this great
multitude of the departed, who had " wash
ed their robes and made them white in the
blood of the Lamb," in heaven, there was
no intermediate place for them. They
were then before the Lamb, and before His
throne, with the holy angels, and therefore
not in that iraaginary place, which is styled
an interraediate place by this prelate. They
were in heaven ; they had already entered
into their reward — into that blissful region
where they shall for ever enjoy the pres
ence of their God. From this text it would
appear that the just are imraediately ad
mitted into heaven ; therefore, the theory
of an intermediate place is manifestly in
contradiction to the sacred Scriptures.
With regard to the wicked, you raay refer
to Luke, 16th chapter, 19th verse, where
it is written that " There was a certain
rich man who was clothed in purple and
fine linen, and fared sumptuously every
day; and there was a certain beggar
naraed Lazarus who lay at his gate full of
sores, and desiring to be fed with the
crumbs that fell frora the rich raan's ta
ble ; moreover, the dogs carae and licked
his sores. And it came to pass that the
beggar died, and was carried by the angels
into Abraham's bosom; the rich raan also
died and|he was buried, in [hell; and lift
ing up his eyes, when he was in torments,
he saw Abraham afar off an I Lazarus in his
bosom. And he cried and said — Father
Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus that he raay dip the tip of his fin
ger in water and cool ray tongue, for I am
tormented in this flarae. And Abraham
said. Son, remeraber that thou didst re
ceive good things in thy life-time, and like
wise Lazarus evil things ; but now he is
comforted and thou art torraented. And
besides all this, between us and you there
is fixed a great chaos, so that they who
would pass frora' hence to you cannol ; nor
frora ' thence come hither." If spirits
could tiot be taken into heaven before
the ascension of Christ, bpt ipto limbus
'patrum, which was destroyed after the re
surrection of Jesus Christ — so the wiflked
were imraedietely copdemned to hell pven
before the birth of Christ; "the rich man
died and was buried, and in hell he lifted
up his eyes;" and in that hell he called
out to Abraham to give one drop of water
to cool his parched tongue. Consequently
he must have been in,hell— *Bot in an in
termediate place. ' Thereforeit seems the

doctrine of an intermediate place — as rep
resented by no common individual, asserted
to be conformable with tho doctrine of the
ancient ¦ fathers, the prirailive*church, and
the holy scriptures, is opposed to the whole ;
and all the arguments he has adduced in
vindication of his theory go to prove the
existence of, not Papal, but Christian, pur
gatory. He says this doctrine oi his has
not the most remote connection with the
dodrine of Papal purgatory ; then he gives
a definition of what he calls Papal purga
tory — which, by the way, is an epithet we
do not admit ; for it intimates that the doc
trine was first introduced by some Pope.
Now, I have proved that it is so ancient
as to be lost in the remotest! antiqui
ty. I have traced it up to Judas Macca
beus — ^I have shown it was believed by all
the Orientals, whether separated or not
from the sovereign Pontiff; and, therefore.
Papal purgatory is an improper title for it.
He says that the Papal doctrine is, that
those who die not perfectly clear of sin go
to purgatory, and there suffer a certain in
describable punishment till God's justice
is satisfied, or until they are released by
masses said for their souls. This is not a
proper definition. The Catholic church
never yet decided whether there was ma
terial fire employed in this punishment or
not ; nor did the Council of Trent ever
define one word on the subject ; tiierefore
it is not true that the Catholic is bound to
believe in this as an article of faith — and
so the definition given by Bishop Hobart
is incorrect. Then he says that we believe
these souls will pass free by masses — no
very charitable insinuation, as I take it —
for it is not by masses alone, which I have
proved were always offered for the dead^^
that we can benefit our brethren in purga
tory : good works, alms, prayers-r-or if you
chose, " baptism for the dead," lo use
the language of St. Paul— or any, oilier
pious act will be beneficial to your friend,
if in purgatory ; for the prayer of the just
man availeth much. , , -, .
, Other very distinguished divines, both, of
the Lutheran and Protestant Episcopal
churches,, seeing, the strength of the argu
ments which'the church wields in vindiea-
liwi I of the [ dograa of ptirgatory, , prove
themselves more consistent. 3iari,th3 other
whom I, have just examined, and acknow
ledged it established on the most indis
putable, evidences.. In the first place, by
the .mosti learned Lutheran, the Abbe.lVIo-
lanuB. " We are very glad to learn from
M. Molanus,' ; says Bossuet, ", that one
portion of the Lutherans not only approves
but, practices, this kind. of prayer for the

PURGATORY.

65

dead. This is a remnant of those ancient
sentiments which we honor in Lutheran-
ism." This is the concession made by the
Lutherans. I will quote another illustri
ous name in the annals of ecclesiastical
history ; particularly that of the Church of
England, Bishop Forbes, in his "Discourse
on Purgatory. And this quotation, taken
from such a source, is worthy of the most
particular attention of all Christians ; for
Catholics 'of the present day could not
speak more effectually, or vindicate raore
explicitly the dogma of purgatory than is
here done by this eminent and learned pre
late of the Protestant Church. These are
his words, " Let not the ancieni practice
of praying and making oblations for the
dead, received throughout the universal
church of Christ, alraost frora the very
tirae of the apostles, be any more rejected
by Protestants as unlawful or vain. Let
them reverence the judgment of the prim
itive Church, and admit a practise strength
ened by the uninterrupted profession of so
many ages ; and let them, as well in pub
lic as in private, observe this rite, although
not as absolutely necessary, or commanded
by the divine law, yet as lawful and like
wise profitable, and as always approved by
the universal church — that by this means
at length a peace so earnestly desired by
all learned and honest raen may be re
stored to the Christian world." In another
place he adds, " So we may maintain the
prayers of the church for the souls de
parted, to be beneficial, and not in vain, in
asmuch as that practice of the church of
praying for the dead, is derived as Chrys
ostom confesses, and is very probable, from
the institution of the apostles." See then
this important concession of an illustrious
bishop, not of our communion — first, that
the practice of praying for the dead is an
cient, beneficial, and derived from the
apostles ; that it is noti in vain, but
founded on the judgraent of the primitive
church, that it is a profitable thing, al
though — as he will have it — not absolutely
necessary ; that it was practised by the
universal church. Therefore, I say, what
was practised by the whole primitive
church- is the true faith, and that which
traces up to the days of the apostles can
not be an error, cannot be a superstition,
but must be a true and genuine doctrine
of Christianity. This distinguished bishop
of the Protestant Episcopal Church ac
knowledges that St. Chrysostom bears
witness that this doctrine came from the
days of the apostles ; and, therefore, com
ing from their times, must have been taught
by Jesus Christ hiraself; and, conse

quently, the doctrine of purgatory, instead
of being an invention or superstitious
practice, is a doctrine revealed to the
church — held in high esliraation by past
ages, and one which we Catholics cherish
wilh all our hearts and souls, as well as all
our minds and intellects at the present
day. 1 have before me two epitaphs of two of
the most illustrious raembers of the Church
of England, in which the doctrine of pur
gatory is incorporated, and these epitaphs
were written by themselves. The first is
the epitaph of Isaac Barrow, Bishop of St.
Asaph's : " The remains of Isaac Barrow,
Bishop of St. Asaph's, deposited in the
hands of the Lord, in the hopes of a joyful
resurrection, solely by the merits of Christ.
O all ye that pass unto the house of the
Lord, the house of prayer, pray for your
fellow servant, that he may find mercy in
the day of the Lord." Thus this illustri
ous bishop called upon every indivindual
who passed by unto the house of the
Lord to offer up suppKcalions for the re
pose of his departed spirit, thus believing
in, and leaving on record his high author
ity in vindication of the doctrine of purga
tory. The second epitaph reads as follows :
" Here lies the body of Herbert Thorndike,
formerly a prebendary of this Collegiate
Church, (Westminster,) who in his life
time endeavored by prayer and study lo
discover the right method of reforming the
church. Do thou, reader, implore for him
rest and a happy resurrection in Christ."
Thus he calls upon the reader in all after
limes, in years long subsequent, to remem
ber his departed spirii and to pray to God
lo have'mercy on him, and he was not a
Catholic, nor under the influence of what
is styled " Papal Purgatory ;" but he was,
in admitting the efficacy of prayers for his
departed spirit, and consequently purgato
ry, under the influence of his own profound
and discriminating intellect, and could not
reject it.
I have before me another very interest
ing testimony in behalf of this doctrine —
that of the Duchess of York in the days of
Charles II. Her dying raoraents are thus
described by Dr. Lingard : " For a long
time the health of the Duchess of York
had visibly declined, and she died at St.
James's in her thirty-fourth year, having
been the mother of eight children, of whom
only two daughters survived her, Mary and
Anne, both afterwards queens of England.
She had been in the regular performance
of all those devotional exercises, which
were practised in the Church of England
before the civil war. She attended at the

66

LECTURES ON

canonical hour of prayer ; she publicly re
ceived the sacraraent in the royal chapel on
every holiday, and once every month; and
she always prepared herself for that rite
by auricular confession and the absolution
of the minister.
After the birth of her last child, she be
came slill more religious, spending rauch
of her tirae in her private oratory, and in
conversation with divines ; and for several
months before her death it was observed
that she had ceased to receive the sacra
ment, and began lo speak with tenderness
of the alleged errors of the church of
Rome. Suspicion was excited, and her.
brother, Lord Carnbury, in person, her fa
ther, the exiled Earl of Clarendon, by let
ter, endeavored lo confirm her in the pro
fession of the established doctrines. Bul
she had already been reconciled, in August,
to the church of Rome, and in her last ill
ness received the sacrament from the hands
of Hunt, a Franciscan friar. Blandford,
bishop of Oxford, her Protestant confessor,
visited her on her deathbed ; but the Duke
informed him of her change of religion,
and he contentedJiimself wilh speaking to
her a few words of consolation and ad
vice. Her conversion was known only to
five persons ; but the secret gradually
transpired, and its publication served to
confirm the suspicion that the Duke him
self was also a Catholic. He attended,
indeed, occasionally on the king during
the service in the chapel, but two years
had elapsed since he received the sacra
ment." This is an authentic history of the
last moments of Duchess of York. But
this duchess left behind her a declaration,
in which she reveals the conversation she
had in the oratory, during her sickness,
with some of the greatest divines of the
church of England, in which she relates
her doubts and their answers ; and that
particularly on purgatory and confession
she. conversed with two of the most dis
tinguished divines of that day — one, her
confessor, Blandford, bishop of Oxford,
and Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury,
" Who," she says, " both told me that there
were many things in the church of Rorae,
we had better have kept, as confession, and
praying for the dead, of which there could
be no doubt ; and for their parts, they did
it daily, although they did not deera it pro
per to own it." The duchess practised it,
and was confirraed therein by the example
of the most erainent and elevated prelates
of the Established Church. Would to
God that all who have had an opportunity
of instructing themselves on these import
ant subjects, would not satisfy theraselves

with putting aside their prejildices, but
have the courage to foIlo\y the example of
the Duchess of York.
Have we not, then, every evidence on
which to found, and establish the doctrine
of purgatory? Take the Books of the
Maccabees, whether as canonical or his
torical. If they are canonical, their testi-'
mony is so clear that it is impossible to
call it in question, and the controversy is
at once at an end. Take them as mere
historical books, then they are the most
ancient and venerable , testimony of the
fact, that the Jews observed the practice
of praying for the dead ; thatthe most en
lightened man, and greatest ^hero among
the ancient people of God in that period,
ordered sacrifice to be oflfered in the tem
ple for the souls of his brave soldiers, who
had fallen on the battle field by his side.
Then did I not quote a large number of the
testimonies of the raost notable fathers of
the church in favor of the doctrine up to
the apostolic tiraes ? Did I not prove it
from the testimony of the sacred scrip
tures themselves ? Did I not prove it from
the various liturgies of those comraunities
who had separated from the ancient church ?
Did I not prove it from the most illustrious
and distinguished individuals, who were
the lights and ornaments of the Protestant
Episcopal Church ? What more remains
to be said or argued on the subject? It
seems to me that every ground has been
exhausted. I have a right to appeal to
tradition ; I have done so, and tradition is
in my favor. I have a right to appeal to
the history of the Jews as the true people
of God ; thEt I have done, and I flnd them
praying for the dead. I have appealed to
the sacred scriptures, and claiming my
right of interpretation, which I will not
yield on any account, I ara eonvinced that
in this sacred volume the doctrine of pur
gatory is established and taught. And if
any Christian who has followed rae in the
course of this arguraent will not consent to -
agree with me, let him at least acknow-
ledge that the Catholic has a right to be
lieve it, and can produce the raost excel
lent authorities in its favor : therefore there
is no longer any excuse for the hue and
cry about the nonsense, and superstition,
and folly, of the doctrine of purgatory.
This is a doctrine which we cherish : for
when a friend departs we are not eternally
separated. After we have watched him in
his illness, and soothed him in his agony,
and flnally closed his eyes in death, the
Catholic religion does not forsake him.
The genius of tlie Catholic church still
follows in sympathy the departed spirit,

PURGATORY.

67

and beseeches God to exercise his raercy.
Not so with Protestantism- The Protest
ant will, indeed — and perhaps often with
fervor, wifh charily, and il raay be with
devotion — attend lo all the wants spiritual
and teraporal of the dying ; but after death
has set his seal, the genius of Protestant-
. ism withdraws for ever — forbidden lo offer
one prayer or utter one word to the throne
of grace, in behalf of a brother departed
into the world of spirits. When the cold
earth covers him, the genius of Protest
antism retires sadly and silently away,
while the genius of the Catholic religion
sends up, mingled with tears, a fervent
prayer lo the great Judge of all, still to
extend his bountiful mercy towards the

soul of him who has been laid in his
consecrated grave. This, then, is a doc
trine to which we cleave with all our
hearts, understandings, and minds ; it is a
doctrine, therefore, which we feel no dispo
sition to forego. Let us, then, Catholics,
cherish this consoling doctrine ; and all
we ask of those not of our religion is, that-
they will at least acknowledge that in be
lieving this doctrine, the Catholic is not
blinded by ignorance, superstition, or pre
judice, but animated by authorhies, sus
tained by arguments, corroborated by evi
dences, which are of the highest and most
convincing character.
This lecture closes the subject of Pur
gatory.

THE END.

OF
INTERESTING BOOKS.

Just Publisbed aud for Sale by
HENRY G. DAGGERS, No. 30 Ann-street, New-York.
Who takes this occasion to assure Agents and Dealers that no one of his
publications will ever, in any case, be sold for less than the first prices men
tioned in this Catalogue. There will be but one uniform retail and whole
sale price.

THE NUN ; Ob, Life w a Convent—
By one of the Siaterhood. This is a romance of
great beauty and i-emarltable interest, being the genu
ine production of a young lady who witnessed the
scenes she so vividly describes. It will be read with
the greatest interest by both the religious and secular
classes, 35 cents. II.
LAWRIE TODD ; Or, The Settlers m
THE Woods. Sy John Galt, Esq. Author of
the Ayrshire Legatees, Southenan, &c., with an origi
nal Preface by Grant Thorburn, Esq., the original
Lawrie Todd. This is pronounced on all sides the
most excellent novel of its distinguished author. Mr.
Thorburn's preface is quaint and curious. 25 cents.
III.
POOR JACK. By Captain Mabkyat,
Author of Peter Siraple, Jacob Faithful, Midshipman
Easy, &c., with several appropriate engravings. But a
few copies are left ofthis popular and thrilling story of
a sailor's life. It is its author's latest novel. 25 cents.
rv.
IVrOUNT SOREL ; Ob, The Heiress of
THE De Veres, by the Author of Two Old
Men's Tales, Tales of the Woods and Fields, &c. A
romance of the purest character, which every father
should recommend to his children, and husbands to
their wives. 12^ cents. V.
i THE WONDERFUL ADVENTURES
OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN.— To which
is added an acconnt of his veracious visit to America.
This most mendacious of travelling-boolis— which is
universally quoted, and without reading which no
scholar can be considered to have completed his classi
cal education— is running over with fun. laj cents

VI.
THE MYSTERIES OF PARIS, Iransla-
ted by Henry C. Demino, Esq. — This is a
new edition of this correct, complete, elegant, nnd elo
quent version of Eugene Sue's greatest romance. The
price is the same as Town's incomplete, abridged, and
faulty translation, published by the Harpers. 50 cents.

THE BOOK OF BRITISH BALLADS,
edited by S. C. li^ALL, Esq., with an original
introduction and preliminaiy remarks to each
ballad by Park Benjamin. — This neat and
elegant collection comprises all the, ballads (all the
6nest in the language) contained in the two large and
very expensive volumes published in England. It is a
book without which no library can be considered com
plete, since it comprises a most important department
of English romantic literature. 37J cents.
VIII.
FOREST LIFE. By Mr3. Mary Claveks,
(C. M. Kirkland,) Author of " A New Home,"
&.C. &c. Few writers have elicited more sincere ad
miration than this lady. Her sketches of Western life
in all its phases are admirable. There is a quiet vein
of mingled humor and simplicity pervading her books, '
which has seldom been surpassed. The present book
was originally published at $1.25. This is an elegant
though cheap edition, in two volumes. 50 cents.
IX.
A PLEA FOR WOMAN. By Mrs. Huso
Reid. With an Original Introduction, by
Mrs. C. M. Kirkland (Mary Clavers.) A
more impressive and sensible exposition of the true
claims ofthe female sex than this, has never been pub
lished. Every woman, who has a heart and mind too,
should possess it ; and every man, who loves and re
spects the better and brighter half of creation, should
commend this admirable work. 35 cents. ,

A NEW AND ELEGANT EDITION OF

FROISSART'S CHRONICLES.

SANDBOmSI,!! BOUND, AND STAVaFED AND Z.ETTBBZ:D IN GOLD.

Price Three Dollars.

8tf- This is a super-royal octavo, elegantly printed on fine paper, and containing
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SPLENDID ENGRAVINGS,
' Which were executed expressly for this edition, at great cost, by one of the beet
engravers in America, B. B. LOSSING. It is one of the most distinguished of the
English classics, and should command a place in all libraries. The present is ihe
only American edition ever printed.

COMMENDATORY NOTICE.
This erent w,)ik hii3 stood the lest of nearly five centu
ries, and comprises a history of tlie most interesting peri
od of the Middle Ages. Froissart has presented a living
picture ot Europe in its boisterous spring-time, with all its
tumultuous pleasures, its chivalrous glories, and its mag
nificent superstitions. He has given us a type both ofthe
splendor and the decliue of the heroic world. He has
traasmitted to posterity brilliiint examples of dauntless
heroism, and perfect models of rep mach less chivalry.
With the sympathy and spirit of an eye-witness, and with
the frankness of an old priest anxious to entertain his noble
patron with as good a story as was consistent with truth,
he has detailed the most interesting periods of English
history, and one of the most exciting epochs in the pro
gress of civilization. He has described, wiih a most charm
ing simplicity, even with dramatic power, all that can ex
cite curiosity in the usap.es of warfare, inthe lives and

fortunes of nobles, In the squabbles of priests, and the
amusements of that class with whom he associated.
'*In selecting Froissart'e Chrouicles," says Earl Spen
cer's librarian, the greatest book- man ofthe age, " let me
press strongly upon the reader's attention the importance,
the instructiveness, and the never failing source of amuse
ment of his History, wliich has alike endeared the author
to the antiquary, the man of taste, and even to tbe lover
of romantic lore! The pages of Froissart exhibit a per-
lect, natural and pleasing picture. Conversation^, skirm
ishes, battles— the country— the town— scenes within the
tent, the palace, or the church— the quiet of pastoral oc
cupations, or the tumult of a popular assembly— these,
and overselling which lie touches, are hit off in a manner
the most simple and striking -imaginable ; and severe in
deed must be that taste, and fastidious tljat feeling, which
shall deny to the pages of this historian the merit of gret t
interest, candor, and apparent iideiity.'"

0^ All orders in all cases from dealers and others should be a(Jdressed
to the sole proprietor of the work, namely
HENRY G. DAGGERS,
30 Ann-strbet, NiEw-York.

•t"

CATALOGUE.

X.

THE ADVENTURES OF LITTLE
MARY. By Uncle Peter Parley. This is
ZL most chaimiog story for grown people as well as chil
dren. It is pronounced delightful by all wlio ha\e
read it. 13^ cents. XI.
MESMERISM AND ITS OPPONENTS,
with a Narrative of Casea. By George Sand.
BY, Jr., M. A. Now that the subject of Human
Magnetism is attracting universal attention, a book of
so high and true a character as this must be read with
great interest. No fact is better established than that
of the jjeneficial influence exercised by Mesmerism in
many cases of disease. Several interesting and remark
able cures are related in this book, the authenticity of
which does not admit of a doubt. 25 cents.
XII.
LIFE IN THE NEW WORLD.— Thia ia
by far the best work of the celebrated Seatsfield,
who is spoken of in a late number of Blackwood's Ma
gazine, as one of the greatest authors of modern Ger
many. 50 ets. XIII.
PUSS IN BOOTS, versified by Mrs.
Francis Osgood, with beautiful Lithographic
Illustrations by George EwDicorT ; after de-
signs by Otto Speckter. — This is by far the
most beautiful picture-book for the young ever pub
lished in the United States. It is pronounced on all
hands quite equal, if not superior, to the English edi
tion issued by John Murray. Neatly bound in sitk and
gold, and stamped. 50 cents.
XIV.
HANS OF ICELAND, translated from the
French of Victor Hugo, Author of the Hunch.
back of Notre Dame, &-c. tfec. — A more briK
liant, exciting and powerful romance than this has sel
dom appeared even in France. 95 cents.
XV.
THE POEMS OF SIR EDWARD BUL-
WER LYTTON, Author of Pelham, Zanoni,
The Lady of Lyons, Slc. This is Ihe only
collection extant of the beautiful poetical productions
of this distinguished novelist, dramatist and poet.
They are eminently worthy of his genius. A very neat
volume, suitable for a presgnt to a friend or lover — neat
ly bound. 50 cents. XVI.
MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT, by Charles
Dickens, Esq., author of the Pickwick Pftpers, Nich
olas Nicklebv, the Christmas Carol. Complete ill one
volume. 35 cents. I XVII.
RICHLIEU IN LOVE, a comedy in five
acts. — This comedy is very interesting : it was prohib
ited to be played by the Lord Chancellor in London on
account of its political allusions. Printed very neatly
ISi cents. I XVIII.
FAMILIAR LETTERS ON CHEMIS-
TRY, by Justin Liebig, author of Animal
Magnetiam, &c. — This little vrork Js replete

with 'the most important elen^entary instructions, and
should be read by every one who desires to possess a
general acquaintance with this most interesting science.
64: cents. XX.
THE BIBLE IN SPAIN, by the Rev
George Borrow — A more charming book of
travels than this— one more replete with good feeling,
wit, and the emanations of a happy and brilliant spirit,
canuot be found in the whole range of English letters.
25 cents, XIX.
ZINCALI, by the Rev. George Borrow,
author of the Bible in Spain. — The interest of
this work is much much greater than that of a romance,
being full of the most thrilling and heart-touching sto
ries of the gipsey race. 25 cents.
XXI.
FATHER GORTOT; Or, Scenes of Life
IN Paris. By H. de Balzac Translated
from the French by Edward S.Gould. De
Balzac is one of the greatest of modern French novel
ists — and there is no story of his extant, more charac
teristic of his strange and fascinating style. 25 cents.
XXII.
KATE IN SEARCH OF A HUSBAND.
No lady should venture to accept a lover without first
having read this delightful and instructive story. 12J
cents. XXIII.
PHILIP IN SEARCH OF A WIFE.—
No gentleman should dream of choosing a wife without
attentively studying the adventures of Piiilip. ISA
cents. XXIV.
THE EMIGRANT'S TRUE. GUIDE.—
This valuable little work comprises advice and instruc
tion in every stage of the voyage to America ; such as
choice of a ship ; provisions and clothing for the voy
age ; hints during the voyage ; custom house laws ;
what to do on landing; interesting anecdotes, &c.
Also, information which the emigrant needs on arrival,
&c. 8ni. 25 cents. XXV.
A MEMOIR OF MRS. JUDITH S.
GRANT, late Missionary to Persia, by the
Hon. W. W. Campbell. — This is a biography
of one, whose life was beautiful, and whose death was
worthy of a Christian. 25 cents.
XXVI.
WILHEM»S CELEBRATED METHOD
OF TEACHING SINGING IN CLASSES.
This work is a standard in Great Britain, and univer
sally approved of by musicians. It must become a text
book in our schools. 25 cents.
XXVIL
GRIMALDI, THE CLOWN, by Charles
Dickens, Esq. (Boz.) author of Pickwick Pa-
pere, Oliver Twist, Christmas Carol, &c. Boz never
wrote a more funny and diverting book than these hu
mors in the life ofa comic actor. 25 cents.

TO LEADERS OF CHOIRS, MUSICAL SOCIETIES, PRO-
FESSORS AND AMATEURS OF MUSIC THROUGHOUT THE U.' 8., '<
THE BEETHOYEN COLLECTION

OF

SACRED MUSIC
IS WARMLY RECOMMENDED AS
THE VERY BEST MUSIC-BOOK EXTANT.
This great work is the result of the joint labors of three eminent
composers and teachers, viz :
E. IVES, Jr., W. ALPERS, and HENRY C. TIMM.
This collection is entirely new — containing the largest number eve _
published in one volume of fine and solid Church Tunes, beautifully har
monized. There is a separate Organ-part, together with antiiems, te
deums, chants, &c., arranged expressly for this work.
Letters from the most distinguished, artists in all parts ofthe country,
speaking in unqualified terms of approbation, have been received. The
more the collection is known, the better it is appreciated. It has already
superseded Ihe old collection in the principal churches of New York, and
it is always introduced into choirs when its great merits are under
stood. The work comprises one hundred and ninety-two pages of music, with
the words ofthe various hymns, which are of the highest character, and
never doctrinal — so that they may be s«ng by'all denominations.
It is sold for f 1 a single copy and #9 for a dozen copies. Copies pre
sented gratis to choristers by whom the work is adapted. All orders should
be addressed to the only ptoprietor and publisher  namely
HENRY G. DAGGERS, 30 ANN.STREET, N. Y.
N, B, — The Beethoven Collection is for sale by all Periodical Agents.

«5.*j-.i^'^w»»'.-

NEW AND VALUABLE WORK
RECENTLY PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY
HENRY G. DAGGERS, 80 ANN-STREET, NEW-YORK.

EtJOEin: SUE'S best and most FOFtTLAR
NOVELS.
MYSTERIES OF PARIS, (tenth edition,) translated
from the French of Eugene Sue, by Henry C. Deming.
Complete in one volume, neatly printed, for 50 cents.
THE ORPHAN ; or the Memoirs of Matilda, (sixth
edition.) Translated from the French of Eugene
Sue, by Henry William Herbert. Complete in one
volume ibr 75 cents, handsome octavo.
THE SALAMANDER. Translated from the French
of Eugene Sue, by Henry W. Herbert. Price 95 cents.
THE FEMALE BLUEBEARD. Translated from
tbe French of Eugene Sue. Price 25 cents.
THERESE DUNOYER. Translated from the French
of Eugene Sue. Price 12i cents.
COLONEL DE SURVILLE. Price 12i cents.

SBATSFIBLD'S ROMANCES.
LIFE IN THE NEW WORLD. Translated from
the German of Seatsfield. Price 50 cents, complete.
THE CABIN' BOOK. Translated from the German
of Seatsfield. Price 25 cents, complete.
NORTH AND SOUTH. Translated from the Ger
man of Seatsfield. Price 25 cents, complete.
IMPOHTANT AND STANDARD HISTORI
CAL WORKS.
sm JOHN FROISSART'S CHRONICLES of Eng
land, Scotland, France, fcc. Printed on handsome
paper in one super-royal octavo, and superbly em-
belished with hundreds of illustrative engravings.
Tlu only American Editim. In elegant binding,
complete for $3.
MEXICO AS IT WAS AND IS. By Brantz Mayer,
late Secretary of Legation to Mexico. Embellished
with numerous splendid engravings, in handsome
binding, pomplete for $1,50.
SOIENTlftO WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE.
ANCIENT EGYPT, with numerous engravings, illus
trative ofthe monuments, hieroglyphics, &c., of that
scriptural land, with numerous pictures, by George
K. Gliddon, Arch»ulogist. Price 35 cents— new and
handsome edition.
FAMILIAR LETTERS ON CHEMISTRY. By
Justus Liebig, author of Animal Chemistry, to. In
tended fot universal dbtributlon. Price H oents.

HERBERT'S NOVELS.
MARMADOKE WYVIL. By Henry William Her
bert, author of The Brothers, Cromwell, &c. Pric«
37^ cents.
THE ROMAN TRAITOR. A true Tale of the Re
public, by the same autlior, is in the press and will
shortly be published.
BULWER'S MOST BEAUTIFUL POEMS.
Just published in a very neat duodecimo volume—
THE POEMS OF SIR EDWARD BULWER LYT-
TON. Collected and arranged with an original in
troduction, by C. D. Macleod.
MISOELLANEO US INTERESTING WORKS.
KATE IN SEARCH OF A HUSBAND. Price 12i
cents.
PHILIP IN SEARCH OF A WIFE. Price ]8i
cents.
THE BIBLE IN SPAIN. By George Borrow. Price
35 cents.
THE ZINCALI. By George Borrow. Price 23 cents.
THE FORTUNE HUNTER. By Mrs. A. C. Mowatt.
Price 25 cents.
THE CRUISE or THB SOMERS. By William
Sturges. Price 12i cents.
THE EMIGRANT'S TRUE GUIDE. Price 25 cenU.
LAWRIE TODD ; or. The Settlers in the Woods. By
John Gall, Esq. With an Introduction bj Grant
Thorburn. Price 25 cents.
POOR JACK. By Capt. Marryat. Embellished with
line wood cuts. Price 25 cents.
UNCLE PETER'S FAIRY TALES. The History
and Adventures of Little Mary, Queen of Brakara-
kakaka. Price 124 c^n's-
FATHER GOBIOT ; or, Scenes of Life in Paris. By
H. De Balzac. Price 25 cents.
THE BANKING HOUSE. First American Edition.
Price ISJ cents.
THE REFUGEE, and JONATHAN FROCK. From
the Gerraan of Henrich Zschokke. Price 12J cents.
THE CROCK OF GOLD. A Rural Novel. By Mar
tin Farquhar Tupper. Price 12J cents.
HANS OF ICELAND ; or. The Demon ofthe North.
From the French of Victor Hugo. Price 25 cenU.
FIRESIDE RECOLLECTIONS, and THE YOUNG
SCULPTOR. By Mn. Ellis. Price 12J cents.
JOHN MANESTY, the Liverpool Merchant. By Dr.
Maginn. Price 12i cents.

Jfm |)ublications Jnat Ewbg.

A PLEA FOR WOMAN BY MRS. HUGO ]x__
WITH AN ORIGINAL PREFACE BY MRS. MARY CLAVERS,
AVIHOR OP A " StV/ HOME," " FOREST LIFE," ETC.
pbice: as ckvts.
POOR JACK, BY CAPT. MARRYAT,
AUTHOR OF " PETER SIMPLE," " MIDSHIPMAN EASY," " IAC03 PAITBITTL," STC
PRICB as CBNT8.
III.
LAWRIE TODD, BY JOHN GALT, FSa.
WITH AN ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION BY GRANT THORBURN, ESQ.
THE ORIGINAL OF " LAWRIE TODD."
FRICB US CKNTB.
UNCLE PETER'S" FAIRY TALES,
THE ADVENTURES OF LITTLE MARY, THE YOUNG QUEM.
BY UNCLE PETER PARLEY.
PRICB lUi CBNVS.
V.
THE POEMS OF SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON,
Vhi» collection l« an elegant Utile volume, and comprlMi all of the
beat Poetical productions of the dutitigulghed
Author of >' Pelham."
PRICB ea CENTS.
THE BOOK OF BRITISH BALLiius,
BY S. C. HALL, ESQ.
WITH AN ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY REMARKS TO iJCH
BALLAD, BY PARK BENJAMIN, ESQ.
PRICB 3ti CKKTS.

VALE UNIVERSITY

10 1 U9963b