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 God 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 worship of the Supreme Being, who declares Himself to be a jealous God, ought we to suffer any refinements of casuistry to entice us from the broad, clear light of revelation?  If it were God’s good pleasure to make exceptions to his rule—­a rule so repeatedly, and so positively enacted and enforced—­surely the analogy 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 God alone.

Let us first look to the language and conduct of our blessed Lord, whose prayers to his Father are upon record for our instruction and comfort, and whose precepts and example form the best rule of a Christian’s {48} life.  So far from repealing the ancient law, he repeats in his own person its solemn announcement, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” [Mark xii. 29.] While the same heavenly Teacher commands us with authority, “When thou prayest, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.” [Matt. vi. 6.] No allusion in any word of His do we find to any prayer from a mortal on this earth to an angel or saint in heaven.  And yet occasions were multiplied on which a reference to the invocation of angels would have been natural, and apparently called for.  He again and again places beyond all doubt the reality of their good services towards mankind, but it is as God’s servants, and at God’s bidding; not in answer to any supplication or invoking of ours.  The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has been cited [Bellarmin, p. 895.] to bear contrary evidence; but, in the first place, that parable does not offer a case in point; in the second place, were it in point, it might be fairly and strongly urged against the practice of invoking the spirit of any departed mortal, even the father of the faithful himself.  For what are the circumstances of the parabolic representation?  A lost spirit in the regions of torment prays to Abraham in the regions of the blessed, and the spirit of the departed patriarch professes himself to have no power to grant the request of the departed and condemned spirit. [Luke xvi. 19.] The practice indeed of our Roman Catholic brethren would have been exemplified, had our blessed Lord represented the rich man’s five brethren still on earth as pious men, and as supplicating Abraham in heaven to pray for themselves, or to mitigate {49} their lost brother’s punishment and his woes.