sick, that the shadow of Peter might relieve them; and that those persons, and others tormented with evil spirits, received the benefit of a cure1. In the next passage it is related, by the same sacred historian, that the handkerchiefs and aprons, which had touched the body of St. Paul, removed diseases and expelled devils. Here let me ask the catechist and all his friends, in convocation assembled, as they dislike the name of a general council; if by any extraordinary combination of circumstances, any of these handkerchiefs or aprons, which had touched the body of St. Paul, had been preserved, amidst the general wreck of ancient monuments, and should be in their possession, with what eyes they would view such relics? Would they deem it superstitious to retain them with reverence, to treat them with honour and respect, because they had been applied to the body of St. Paul, and because God had honoured them with such signal marks of approbation? The answer is too obvious to be waited for: they treat the tokens of regard, left them by their friend, with affection and respect; and would their religious feelings be less awakened in the case here supposed? I am justified in saying, that their conduct would rival the practice of the Catholic church, in reverencing whatever belongs to God and to holy things; and that they would thus sanction the principle of Acts v. 15, 16.

2 Ibid. xix. 12.

the question under discussion. Let us now proceed to solve the idle objections of our theological brother.

I. It is said, that if no religious honour is to be given to the saints departed, none is to be given to their relics. The way to furnish a complete answer to this difficulty, is to lay down the converse of the proposition, with its consequence. If the saints are entitled to a relative honour and religious veneration, and this has been amply proved in the preceding article, there is no reason for withholding due respect from their relics.

II. It is alleged, that there is no precept for honouring relics to be found in the Scripture, nor is there any example of such veneration. To this we reply, that there is no precept by which we are enjoined to move a hat, or to show any mark of external reverence to a fellow-creature who merits peculiar consideration. But yet this is fully justified by the general principle of giving honour to all to whom honour is due-a principle strongly enforced by St. Paul1. In the same manner the Catholic considers himself as justified in honouring the friends of God, as such, and in testifying his respect for their venerated remains. If regard and consideration can be daily and hourly manifested for the

1 Rom. xiii. 7.

remains of a departed friend, what principle of religion, piety, or common sense, prevents the Catholic from honouring the remains of those, whom God has honoured in a peculiar manner, in consequence of superior sanctity? As to the gross ignorance or wilful misrepresentation manifested in saying, that there is no example of this relative veneration due to relics, let those stigmatise this assertion, as it deserves, who have examined, in the passages before referred to, the unparalleled reverence both paid to the ark by the children of Israel, and occasionally enforced by awful visitations of an unusual nature. Let the reader attend to the history of Elijah's mantle, to the effect produced by Elisha's bones, or the sudden operations resulting from the aprons, which had been applied to the body of St. Paul.

III. It is asserted, that the practice of honouring relics is a novelty, because it was not known till near four hundred years after Christ. What an objection! what an admission! what blindness is here displayed, in using a weapon which can be turned against the assailant with so much facility! Here it is clearly admitted, that the practice of venerating relics, contumeliously called the trade of relics, has been known in the church for more than one thousand four hundred years-and yet this is termed a novelty! If this be deemed a novelty, what are we to think of the

whole system of Protestantism, which was not heard of in the world till more than one thousand five hundred years after Christ, and which, at this day, can boast only, under any of its forms, the duration of three centuries. But the assertion, that the veneration of relics was not known till near four hundred years after Christ, is manifestly untrue, and proves the catéchist to be as deficient in the knowledge of ecclesiastical antiquity, as he has shown himself, by the preceding objections, ignorant of the plainest facts recorded in Scripture.

In the year 166 of the Christian era, St. Polycarp, the illustrious bishop of Smyrna, suffered a glorious martyrdom for the name of Christ; a distinct account of which was published in a circular letter, addressed to the churches established in various parts of the Christian world, and particularly to the church of Philadelphia1. Scaliger, speaking of this remarkable document, declares, that he knows nothing more truly affecting in the whole compass of Christian antiquity. In this celebrated performance, the authors say3: " We adore him, (meaning Christ our Lord) as the Son of God; but as to the martyrs, we bear them a deserved affection, as the disciples and imitators of our Lord, in con

1 See Russel Patr. Apostol. tom. ii. 322-369.

2 Animad. Euseb. No. 2183.

3 No. 17 et 18. p. 361, 362.

sequence of their unparalleled benevolence towards their King and their Master; and may we become their associates and fellow disciples. The centurion, seeing a commotion arise among the Jews, placed the martyr in the midst of the fire, and consigned him to the flames. Thus we afterwards took up his bones, more precious than the most precious stones, and more valued than gold, and deposited them in a proper place. On that spot shall we assemble, and by the bounty of the Lord, celebrate the birth-day of his martyrdom, both in remembrance of the departed combatant, as well for the instruction and trial of future ages." If this quotation, from the illustrious document under consideration, does not excite in the catechist some feeling of shame, we may safely pronounce that all delicacy is extinguished in his breast.

IV. The next objection, that there is no mention made in the Acts of the Apostles, of the manner in which the relics of St. Stephen were disposed of, is worthy of its author. This is barely a negative argument, and by no means destroys the force of the positive demonstration, drawn from the miracles, with which God honoured the shade of Peter, or the aprons that had touched the body of Paul. Though St. Luke is silent as to the precaution taken about the relics of St. Stephen, they were unquestionably honoured and preserved with care; for at a subsequent period, they were