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 they may be loosed from their sins.' 991

Let us consider for one moment the circumstances that originated the prayers and sacrifices referred to in this text. A few of the Jews had been slain in battle, fighting on the side of the Most High. They had been slain for a violation of the law. "And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain."3 Their crime, which consisted in carrying off a few votive offerings, consecrated to idols, would not appear very grievous; nor was it judged to be so by Judas, who, this crime notwithstanding, "considered," the writer tells us, "that they had fallen asleep with godliness." Their salvation, therefore, was not to be despaired of. And, under these circumstances, what does this most holy man, thoroughly learned in the law? 1st. He joins with the army in prayer that their sin may be forgotten. 2nd. He sends money to Jerusalem with the view of having sacrifice offered for their sins. Clearly he believed that they were not in hell or heaven, but in some middle state, where they could be helped by the suffrages of their brethren on earth. This state can be no other than purgatory. Judas believed in the existence of purgatory; and to the authority of his name is added that of the sacred compiler of his exploits, who did not hesitate to affirm, in the widest sense, a doctrine, which, if false, he durst not insert in this book. "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins."

So the early Church, instructed by the Old and New Testaments, could not be insensible to a sort of idea that was running through the sacred writings-that, one time,

1 2 Machabees xii. 41-46.

3 2 Machabees xii. 40.

22 Machabees xii. 34.

came above the surface, and disappeared almost before it was apprehended, as when it is said: "Lay out thy bread and wine upon the burial (super sepulturam) of a just man "that anon appeared to the eye in its integrity, but surrounded by a haze of conflicting interpretations, as when Paul teaches that, "In the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth"-but that sometimes came out of the deep waters of sacred truth, so plain, so transparent, that no one could deny its evidence, as when Paul told the Corinthians that some persons shall be saved by fire, or Judas commanded the Jewish priest to offer sacrifice for the remission of the dead.

DIVISION IX.

THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.

§ 1. Veneration of Saints.-If St. Francis Xavier appeared upon earth, a well-disciplined Catholic would most assuredly take off his hat in passing or meeting him, in testimony of respect for his zeal for the salvation of souls. If St. Paul came down amongst us he would go farther, and he would consider himself perfectly blameless before the world in kissing through a religious motive that mouth which confessed Christ, or those feet which carried him to martyrdom. If St. Rose of Lima, sweet soul, was allowed to revisit the militant Church, which she had so much edified in her day, would the Catholic be regarded as superstitious, if with his hand to his heart he bowed most profoundly in her presence in testimony of his profound veneration for her innocence without blemish, and the unspotted purity of her life?

As a Catholic he would be rational and consistent with

his principles in so demeaning himself in presence of sanctity confirmed and crowned. Yet who on this earth renders more homage to superior qualities than the Protestant? Protestant countries are in most cases highly aristocratic. Protestants are worshippers of nobility and rank. Protestants, in fact, in common with Catholics, are prepared to give civil respect to civil qualities, be they internal, as genius, talent, acquirements in literature or science, or external, as nobility, rank, official position. They esteem it an honour to be allowed to kiss the hand of royalty, and they are but too happy to "salaam " to its representative in the person of a viceroy. Among them every man has his rank, and according to its grade he takes up his position, and receives more or less deference on public official occasions. Prostration is out of fashion in the courtly usages of the West at the present day, but marks of respect, humiliating enough, are still the order of the day at Potsdam and St. James's, as well as at the Tuileries or Vienna. Civil qualities deserving of respect, receive respect. So it ought to be; common sense so dictates; genius is worshipped, and valour receives its ovation; royalty is revered; -quite reasonable and just. But what about Paul, or Francis, or Rose of Lima? This much, that if Protestants feel themselves justified in venerating and literally worshipping civil qualities, they ought to feel themselves justified in worshipping religious qualities; for if the favour of the king gives a claim to respect, the favour of God ought to give a claim to respect; if an official position in an earthly court entitles the possessor to be saluted, reverenced, a position in the court of heaven ought to entitle its possessor to be saluted, reverenced. If talent be a foundation for esteem, grace is a foundation for esteem; if genius legitimately demands veneration, glory legitimately demands veneration. And hence it would appear that it is practically illogical in the Protestant to grant to Alexander or Frederick William what he would refuse to Francis or Paul.

So that, standing on rational grounds, there is no escape from saint veneration, unless one be disposed to shuffle off

on the plea of inconsistency. The general principle is, that all superior qualities are to be respected. Can it be denied that confirmed sanctity is a superior quality? or that the possession of the glory of heaven is a superior quality? Hence, in the supposition of their being known to exist in a given individual, this individual ought to be venerated; or what amounts to the same, in the supposition that St. Paul or St. Francis visited the scene of their former labours, every Christian sound at heart and rational in principle, ought to love and worship them in a manner proportioned to their rank. But to come to realities. Paul and Francis Xavier do not appear upon earth, but they assist continually before the throne of God. The question is, Are they and others like them, who "have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," to be venerated by the faithful upon earth, though they exist and be in heaven only? If they were among us, holy and blessed as they are now, it would be reasonable to venerate them. Does it become unreasonable to venerate them because they are located in the Kingdom of God? It would appear to me that there can be only two objections made against the veneration of the saints in heaven. The first should arise from the existence of a positive divine law prohibiting such veneration, and this should be found in the Sacred Scriptures. The second should arise from the inutility of this devotion, in consequence of the inability of the saints in heaven to witness the devotional acts of the faithful on earth. In other words, if we cannot exhibit to the glorified servants of God that respect which we are allowed to show to the king, to the representatives of government, to our superiors in authority, to men of talent, to warriors, to those, in a word, who are distinguished by any great quality, innate or adventitious, the prohibition must arise from the nature of the case as between the living and the dead, or from the positive decree of God.

There was no positive ordination to prevent the members of the Primitive Church from venerating the saints.

If they looked to the inspired writings of the Old Testament there was no prohibition there. If angels in human form, as narrated in the historic books, sometimes prevented the servants of God from worshipping them, it was because the form of worship tendered was suited only to the Deity, or because it was offered under the false impression that God himself was present in their persons. If they examined the relations between the Essential Being and His creatures there was still no objection; for, from the nature of the case, the worship of God and the worship of His creatures must be fundamentally and radically different. To worship God is to render unlimited homage to infinity. To worship a saint or angel is to do homage to the works of God in a finite degree, proportioned to their excellence or value. Abstracting from the consideration that the worship rendered to the gifts of grace essentially redounds to the honour of God, and naturally ascends to the giver of them, there can be no more conceivable collision between Divine worship and the religious veneration of a saint, than there is between the acts of Divine and of kingly allegiance. But, secondly, devotion to the saints must be a useless practice even in the supposition of its not being positively prohibited in the Sacred Scriptures? The saints are at a distance. They can neither see nor hear their clients, nor be conscious of the praises of the Church on earth. So argue the opponents of Catholicity; but the Revealed Word is plainly opposed to them. St. Paul informed the primitive Christians that they were very near the saints. They were not to regard the saints as separated from them by a vast chasm, but as united to them by the closest bonds. In coming to the Church and embracing the Christian faith they entered the society of the saints and angels: they associated themselves as effectually with the spirits of the just in heaven as they did with the first-born of the Church upon earth. The words of the Apostle are conclusive on this point. He told the Hebrew Christians that as their ancestors, when Moses received the law, approached to the "tangible mountain" (Sinah) and the "burning fire," the "whirl