Part 2 (1/2)
SECTION III.--EVIDENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (continued)
We must now briefly refer to those pa.s.sages, by which Roman Catholic writers have endeavoured to maintain that religious adoration was paid to angels by the faithful sons of G.o.d. The two princ.i.p.al instances cited are, first, the case of Abraham bowing down before three men, whom he recognizes as messengers from heaven; and, secondly, the words of Jacob when he gave his benediction to his grandsons.
With regard to the first instance, how very far the prostration of Abraham was in itself from implying an act of religious wors.h.i.+p, being as it was the ordinary mode of paying respect to a fellow mortal, is evident from the very words of Scripture. The Hebrew word, which we translate by ”bowed himself,” and which the Vulgate unhappily renders ”adoravit” (”adored”), is, letter for letter, the same in the case of Abraham saluting his three heavenly visitors, and in the case of Jacob saluting his brother Esau. The parallelism of the two pa.s.sages is very striking.
GEN. xviii. 2. GEN. x.x.xiii. 1 and 3.
And he [Abraham] lift up his And Jacob lifted up his eyes, eyes, and lo! three men stood and looked, and behold! Esau by him; and when he saw them, came ... And he pa.s.sed over, and he ran to meet them from the _bowed himself to the ground_ seven tent door; and _bowed himself_ times until he came near to his _toward the ground_. brother. {39}
By rendering the Hebrew word[10], which means to ”bow or bend oneself,”
by the word ”adoravit,” which is literally ”to pray to,” the Latin Vulgate has laid the foundation for much unsound and misleading criticism. But suppose the word had meant, what it does not mean, an act of solemn religious wors.h.i.+p; and let it be granted (as I am not only ready to grant, but prepared to maintain) that Abraham paid religious adoration at that time, what inference can fairly and honestly be drawn from that circ.u.mstance in favour of the invocation of angels? The ancient writers of the Christian Church, and those whom the Church of Rome habitually holds in great respect, are full and clear in maintaining that the person whom Abraham then addressed, was no created being, neither angel nor seraph; but the Angel of the Covenant; the Word, the eternal Son of G.o.d, Himself G.o.d[11]. Before the visible and miraculous presence of the G.o.d of heaven, who for his own glory and in carrying on the work of man's salvation, sometimes deigned so to reveal Himself, the patriarchs of old bowed themselves to the earth. Can this, with any shadow of {40} reason, be employed to sanction the invocation of Michael and all the myriads of angels who fill the court of heaven?
[Footnote 10: Not only is the Hebrew word precisely the same, letter for letter, and point for point, [Hebrew: shahah], but the Septuagint in each case employs the same, [Greek: prosekunaesen]; and the Vulgate in each case renders it by the same word, ”adoravit.” The Roman Catholic commentator De Sacy renders it in each case, ”se prosternavit,” which corresponds exactly with our English version. The Douay Bible in each case renders it ”adored.”]
[Footnote 11: Many early Christian writers may be cited to the same purpose: it is enough, however, to refer to Justin Martyr and to Athanasius; who are very full and elaborate in maintaining, that the angel here mentioned was no created being, but was the Angel of the Covenant, G.o.d, in the fulness of time manifested in the flesh. The pa.s.sage from Athanasius will be quoted at some length, when we come to examine that father's testimony. For Justin Martyr, see Dial. c.u.m Tryph. ch. 56, &c.
p. 150, &c. (Paris, 1742.)]
The only other instance to which it will be necessary to call your attention, occurs in the forty-eighth chapter of Genesis. The pa.s.sage, however, is so palpably and on the very face of it inapplicable, that its examination needs not detain us long. ”And he [Jacob] blessed Joseph, and said, G.o.d, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the G.o.d who fed me all my life long unto this day, the ANGEL which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.” [Gen. xlviii. 15.] Here the patriarch speaks of G.o.d as the Angel, and the Angel as G.o.d: being the Angel or Messenger of the Covenant--G.o.d manifested to man. He speaks not of Michael or Gabriel, or archangel or seraph, or any created being; but of the Lord Himself, who appeared to him, agreeably to the revelation of G.o.d Himself recorded in a previous chapter, and thus communicated by the patriarch to Rachel and Leah: ”And the ANGEL of G.o.d spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob; and I said, Here am I. And he said ... _I_ am the G.o.d of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and vowedst a vow unto me.” [Gen. x.x.xi. 11.] The Angel whose blessing he desired for the lads was the G.o.d[12], to whom he had vowed a vow in Bethel, the Lord Himself.
[Footnote 12: It may not be superfluous to add, that this is the interpretation of the pa.s.sage adopted by primitive writers, Among others see Eusebius Demonstr. Evan. lib. v. ch. 10: who declares that the Angel spoken of by Jacob was G.o.d the Son.]
Independently, however, of this conclusive consideration, if the latter member of this sentence had merely expressed a wish, that an angel might be employed as {41} an instrument of good in behalf of Ephraim and Mana.s.seh, I could readily offer such a prayer for a blessing on my own children. My prayer would be addressed to the angel neither immediately nor transitively, but exclusively to G.o.d alone, supplicating Him graciously to employ the service of those ministering spirits for our good. Such a prayer every Catholic in communion with the Church of England is taught and directed to offer. Such a prayer is primitive and scriptural; and such is offered in the Church on the anniversary of Saint Michael and all angels:
”O Everlasting G.o.d, who hast ordained and const.i.tuted the services of angels and men in a wonderful order, mercifully grant that as Thy holy angels alway do Thee service in heaven, so by Thy appointment they may succour and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
Such is the prayer of the Church Catholic, whether of the Roman or the Anglican branch; it is in spirit and in truth a Christian prayer, fit for faithful mortals to offer on earth to the Lord of men and of angels in heaven. Would that the Church of Rome, preserving, as she has preserved, this prayer in all its original purity, had never been successfully tempted to mingle in the same service, supplications, which rob the one only G.o.d of his exclusive honour and glory, as the G.o.d ”who heareth prayer;” and to rob Christ of his exclusive honour and glory, as our only Mediator and Advocate!
Here, though unwilling, by departing from the order of our argument, to antic.i.p.ate our examination in its place of the Roman ritual, I cannot refrain from contrasting this prayer, the genuine offspring of Christian faith, with some forms of invocation contained in {42} the Roman service on St. Michael's day, in which I could not join, and the adoption of which I deeply lament. The first is appointed to be said at the part of the Ma.s.s called ”The Secret:” ”We offer to Thee, O Lord, the sacrifice of praise, humbly beseeching Thee, That by the intervention of the prayers of the angels for us, Thou, being appeased, mayest both accept the same, and make them profitable for our salvation. Through ...” The second is offered at the Post Communion: ”Supported [propped up, suffulti] by the intercession of Thy blessed archangel Michael, we humbly beseech Thee, O Lord, that what with honour we follow[13], we may obtain also in mind. Through ...”
[Footnote 13: I do not understand the exact meaning of these words, which however contain no portion of that sentiment, the presence of which in this prayer I deplore. The original is this: ”Beati archangeli tui Michaelis intercessione suffulti, supplices te Domine deprecamur, ut quod honore prosequimur, contingamus et in mente. Per ...” Probably the general sense is, that what we reverently seek we may actually realize.]
Still, though here the Christian seems to be taught to rest on a broken reed, to support and prop himself up by a staff which must bend and break; yet I acknowledge that so much violence is not done to my Christian principles, nor do my feelings, as a believer in G.o.d and his ever-blessed Son, meet with so severe a shock by either of these prayers, as by the invocation addressed to the archangel himself in the ”Gradual” on that same day:
”O holy Michael, O archangel, defend us in battle, that we perish not in the dreadful judgment.”
Christians of the Church of Rome! for one moment meditate, I beseech you, on this prayer. It is not addressed to G.o.d; in it there is no mention made of {43} Christ: having called upon the angels, and on your own soul in the words of the psalmist, to praise the Lord, you address your supplication to Michael himself; not even invoking him for his intercession, but imploring of him his protection. If it be said, that his intercession is all that is meant, with most unfeigned sincerity I request you to judge for yourselves, whether any prayer from poor sinful man, putting his whole trust in the Lord and imploring his help, could be addressed to our G.o.d and Saviour more immediate and direct than this?
In the place of the name of his servant Michael, subst.i.tute the highest and the holiest name ever uttered in heaven or on earth, and can words form a prayer more direct to G.o.d? ”O Lord G.o.d Almighty, O Lord Jesus our only Saviour, defend us in battle, that we perish not in the dreadful judgment. Hallelujah!”--Can this be right? Were the archangel allowed now, by his Lord and ours, to make his voice heard upon earth by Christians offering to him this prayer, would he utter any other words, than the angel, his fellow-servant and ours, once addressed to Saint John, when he fell down to wors.h.i.+p before him, ”See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant: wors.h.i.+p G.o.d.”
Such then is the evidence borne by the writers of the Old Testament. No prayer to angel or beatified spirit occurs from its first to its last page. The theory which would have us account for the absence of all prayer to the saints before the advent of Messiah, by reason of their not having been then admitted into their everlasting habitations, and the immediate presence of G.o.d proves to be utterly groundless. The holy angels were confessedly in heaven [Matt. xviii. 10.], beholding the face of {44} G.o.d; but no invocation was ever addressed to them, by patriarch, or prophet, or people, as mediators or intercessors. G.o.d, and G.o.d alone, the one eternal Jehovah, is proclaimed by Himself throughout, and is acknowledged throughout to be the only object of any kind of spiritual wors.h.i.+p; the only Being who heareth prayer, to whom alone therefore all mankind should approach with the words and with the spirit of invocation. It has been argued by some writers, that in the times of the Old Testament, prayer was not offered to G.o.d through a mediator at all; and that as the one Mediator was not then revealed in his person and his offices, the subsidiary intercessors could not of course act; and therefore could not be invoked by man. The answer to this remark is conclusive. That Mediator has been revealed in his person and his offices; and has been expressly declared to be the one Mediator between G.o.d and man: we therefore seek G.o.d's covenanted mercies through Him.
Those subsidiary intercessors have never been revealed; and therefore we do not seek their aid. To a.s.sure us that it was the mind and will of our Heavenly Father that we should approach Him by secondary and subsidiary mediators and intercessors, the same clear and unquestionable revelation of their persons and their offices as mediators would have been required, as He has vouchsafed of the mediation of his Son. Had G.o.d willed that the faithful should approach Him by the intercessions of the saints and martyrs, is it conceivable that He would not have given some intimation of his will in this respect? If believers in the Gospel were to have unnumbered mediators of intercession in heaven, as well as the one Mediator of redemption, would not the {45} Gospel itself have announced it? Could such declarations as these have remained on record without any qualifying or limiting expression, ”He[14] is able also to save to the uttermost them who come unto G.o.d by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” ”There is one G.o.d, and one Mediator between G.o.d and men, the man Christ Jesus.” But this involves the question to which the next section must be devoted. All I would antic.i.p.ate here is, that if the irresistible argument from the Old Testament is sought to be evaded on the ground that no mediator at all was then revealed, we must require a distinct revelation of the existence and offices of other mediators and intercessors, before we can be justified in applying to them for their intervention in our behalf.
And the question now is. Are they so revealed?
[Footnote 14: Heb. vii. 25. I Tim. ii. 5.--Unde et salvare in perpetuum potest accedentes per semetipsum ad Deum, semper vivens ad interpellandum pro n.o.bis.--_Vulg._]
SECTION IV.--EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Though such is the evidence borne against the invocation of saints and angels by the Old Testament, yet it has been said that we are living neither under the patriarchal, nor the Mosaic dispensation, but under the Gospel, to whom therefore as Christians neither the precepts nor the examples of those ancient times are applicable: {46} the injunctions consequently given of old to preserve the chosen people from idolatry and paganism, cannot be held to prohibit Christians from seeking the aid of those departed saints who are now reigning with Christ. But, surely, those precepts, and denunciations, and commands, are still most strictly applicable, as conveying to us a knowledge of the will of our Heavenly Father, that his sons and daughters on earth should a.s.sociate no name, however exalted among the princ.i.p.alities and powers in heavenly places, with his own holy name in prayer, and spiritual invocation. I am throughout this address supposing myself to be speaking to those whose heart's desire is to fulfil the will of G.o.d in all things; not those who are contented to depart from the spirit of that will, whenever they can devise plausible arguments to countenance such departure.
The cases both of precept and example through the Old Testament affording so stringent and so universal a rule against the a.s.sociation of any name with the name of the Almighty in our prayers; before we can conclude that Christians have a liberty denied to believers under the former dispensations, we must surely produce a declaration to that effect, clear, unequivocal, and precisely in point. Nothing short of an enactment, rescinding in terms the former prohibitory law, and positively sanctioning supplications and prayers to saints and angels, seems capable of satisfying any Christian bent on discovering the will of G.o.d, and resolved to wors.h.i.+p Him agreeably to the spirit of that will as it has been revealed. But let us read the New Testament from its first to its very last word, and we shall find, that the doctrines, the precepts, and the examples, the pervading reigning spirit of the entire {47} volume, combine in addressing us with voices loud and clear. Pray to G.o.d Almighty solely in the name and for the sake of his dear and only Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and offer no prayer, no supplication, no intreaty, to any other being or power, saint or angel, though it be only to ask for their intercession with the great G.o.d. But this involves the whole question, and must be sifted thoroughly. Let us then review the entire volume with close and minute scrutiny, and ask ourselves, Is there a single pa.s.sage, interpreted to the best of our skill, with the aid of those on whose integrity and learning we can rely, which directly and unequivocally sanctions any religious invocation of whatever kind to any being except G.o.d alone? And then let us calmly and deliberately resolve this point: In a matter of so vital importance, of so immense interest, and of so sacred a character as the wors.h.i.+p of the Supreme Being, who declares Himself to be a jealous G.o.d, ought we to suffer any refinements of casuistry to entice us from the broad, clear light of revelation? If it were G.o.d's good pleasure to make exceptions to his rule--a rule so repeatedly, and so positively enacted and enforced--surely the a.n.a.logy of his gracious dealings with mankind would have taught us to look for an announcement of the exceptions in terms equally forcible and explicit. Instead, however, of this, we find no single act, no single word, nothing which even by implication can be forced to sanction any prayer or religious invocation, of whatever kind, to any other being save to G.o.d alone.