In Defense of Relics

 As an Anglican, it is incumbent upon me to hold to the tradition of the 39 articles of religion.  However one may hold to a tradition, while accepting that this text, which inspired may be; is not beyond reproach nor infallible or inerrant, since only the written Word of God holds that distinction.  As such, it is entirely possible to disagree with and oppose certain aspects of the articles, when they touch upon matters that the articles describe as repugnant to Scripture; which are in fact scripturally evident and proven matters. 

Case in point:  Article 22 describes the veneration of relics (in a list of other items) as being "vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."   A rather serious indictment, were it only true.  I would submit, for your consideration; that the preservation and veneration of relics is actually not only scriptural, but that scripture itself contains evidences that (contrary to what evangelical Christians might claim) relics are in fact capable of retaining within themselves power that has been granted by the hand of God, to heal or other work. 

From the earliest parts of Scripture, we are told of objects which are given to the use of certain holy people; which hold the ability to perform wonders of God.  In Exodus 4, we are given the story of Moses speaking to God; and God transforms Moses' staff into a serpent, and back into a staff again when he picks it up by the tail.  This he repeats before Pharaoh in Egypt.  Further, when the Pharaoh's heart was hardened; Aaron took Moses' staff and struck the waters of the Nile, and they turned to blood.   Beyond the staff of Moses, we read in Numbers 17, that the staff that had been given to and inscribed with Aaron's name budded and blossomed and brought forth Almonds; as a sign that God had chosen  him.  This was placed inside the ark of the covenant with the golden pot of manna and the tablets of the commandments, as testimony to God's power and the covenant between God and Man.

The ark of the covenant itself was an ancient reliquary, in which the relics of the covenant were kept, adored, and venerated by the people of Israel.  The ark itself, though made by human hands; was of such sacredness and divine blessing; that no one was permitted to look up on it except the high priest, and no one permitted to touch it, except for the priests of the temple.  Indeed we read in 2 Samuel 6 that when the priests were transporting the ark of the covenant in a wagon (in violation of the rules for transporting it), the ark began to fall and a man put forth his hand to prevent this; and he was struck dead.  In the words of the scripture "There he died by the ark".  So the ark of the covenant, a man-made object, though divinely blessed; held within itself the power to strike dead any who dared to violate it.  Indeed, in 1 Samuel 5, we read that even the pagan deities cannot stand in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and it caused a statue of the Philistine idol to not only fall on its face before the Ark; but also caused the idols hands and head to be severed from the statue.  Rather intriguing for a gilded wooden box that, by evangelical standards, should have no innate power within it; is it not? 

Beyond these, we have further evidence of relics and their power in the life and death of the prophet Elisha.  As successor to the prophet Elijah, Elisha took up Elijah's own mantle which he had worn on earth, following his assumption into heaven by the fiery chariot.   When Elijah came to the river Jordan, he struck the waters with the mantle of Elijah and called on God; and the waters parted.  If mere prayer alone were enough, why did he need strike the waters with the mantle of Elijah?  Furthermore; he invoked the name of Elijah when doing so, giving us likewise an example of intercessory prayer before the Advent of the Christ. 2 Kings 2:14- "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?"  Elisha would go on to perform many signs and wonders in the name of God during his life; yet after his death his own relics would perform miracles too.  As we read in 2 Kings 13, after Elisha had died and his body entombed; some men were carrying a deceased man out to the cemetery to bury him.  Upon catching sight of an approaching army, they hurriedly tossed the man's body into a nearby sepulchre and ran off to safety.  That sepulchre was where Elisha's bones were resting, and as the scripture tells us; the moment this man's body touched Elisha's bones, the dead man immediately revived and stood up on his own feet again.

One might make the argument that all of this goes away after the birth of Christ, yet does it really? In the Gospel of St. Mark 5, we are told of a woman who had a hemorrhage of blood for 12 years; only to be healed at the slightest touch of Christ's garment.  Of course it was not the garment itself which healed the woman; but her faith in who's garment it was, and that God held the power to heal her.  Yet we read further in the Gospel of Matthew 14, that those who merely touched the hem of his garment were healed of their afflictions.  One might make the argument that this is only so because Christ is Lord; yet would that then not likewise endue any item Our Blessed Savior's body came into contact with, with Divine blessing as well?  Such as his Burial shroud, or crown of thorns?  If Christ's body and presence could make holy an everyday garment; I would submit that it is beyond possible, dare I say mandatory; that even the burial shroud and crown of thorns would likewise be so sacred, holy, and hold the ability to heal.

Furthermore; we read in the Acts of the Apostles (19:12) that humble napkins and other pieces of clothing of the Apostle Paul were able to heal the sick and dispel evil spirits.  If the pieces of cloth touched by Saint Paul could perform such wonders by the hand of God as we are told in Scripture; who else can doubt that he may well do so by Holy men and women of later years?

The point is thus: relics and their use/ veneration are not only proved by scripture; their use is actually endorsed by scripture.  However it must be noted that no relic holds any true power apart from that which God permits.  The power that relics hold is found in the faith of those who hold to them and make use of them; as it has always been.  The use of relics is not for their own sake, that one might believe or say that "Saint such and such" healed my by their own power; but rather that one may seek assistance from saints and blessed persons who are in the nearer presence of God than we ourselves are in this present world, constrained by the flesh.  

Yes the scripture saith that there is but one mediator between God and man; but the scripture also gives examples of how the prayer and intercession of the Apostles and other holy men and women have brought blessings that otherwise would not have been given.  So the use and veneration of relics is not only an integral part of Scripture and the story of our salvation; they are also, contrary to article 22, NOT repugnant to the Word of God or "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture".  In a historical and scriptural view: yes, article 22's guidance on relics and the prayer of saints is WRONG.  That may be anathema to some of my fellow Anglicans; however I will invite you to recall, that the only infallible text is that of Scripture.  The articles CAN be wrong, given that they are a product of their time and place, and written in a reactionary manner rather than one inspired as were the Gospels of our Lord.