Part 4 (2/2)
7, the testimony of Minutius Felix, that the Christians had no kind of simulachres in their temples, as well as the indignation of St Epiphanius at an attempt to introduce them into the churches, p. 68, and for which there would have been no occasion if it had been an established custom.
The most important part of his defence of the use of images is, however, the paragraph ent.i.tled, ”_No virtue resident in images themselves_,”
containing what follows:-
”Not only are Catholics not exposed to such dangers (_i.e._, idolatry), but they are expressly prohibited by the church (_Concilium Tridentinum_, sess. xxv.) to believe that there is any divinity or virtue resident in images for which they should be reverenced, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence placed in them, but that the honour given should be referred to those whom they represent; and so particular are their religious instructors in impressing this truth upon the minds of their congregations, that if a Catholic child, who had learned its first catechism, were asked if it were permitted to pray to images, the child would answer, 'No, by no means; for they have no life nor sense to help us;' and the pastor who discovered any one rendering any portion of the respect which belongs to G.o.d alone to a crucifix or to a picture, would have no hesitation in breaking the one and tearing the other into shreds, and throwing the fragments into the flames, in imitation of Ezechias, who broke the brazen serpent on account of the superst.i.tious reverence which the Israelites manifested towards it.”-(_Hierurgia_, p. 382.)
It is perfectly true that the Council of Trent has declared that the images of Christ, of the virgin, and of other saints, are to be honoured and venerated, not because it is believed that there is any divinity or virtue inherent in them, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence placed in images, as had been done by Pagans, who put their trust in idols (Psalm cx.x.xv. 15-18), but that ”the honour given should be referred to those whom they represent, so that by the images which we kiss, before which we uncover our heads, or prostrate ourselves (_proc.u.mbimus_), we wors.h.i.+p Christ and the saints whose likeness those images represent.”(84) But if there is ”no divinity or virtue resident in images,” as is declared by the Council of Trent, what is to become of all those miraculous images which are the subject of pilgrimage in so many Roman Catholic countries, and the existence of whose miraculous powers has been solemnly acknowledged by the highest ecclesiastical authorities? I shall not attempt to enumerate those miraculous images, because their number is legion, but I shall only ask the rev. doctor whether he considers the image of the virgin of Loretto, which is the object of so many pilgrimages, and to which so many miracles are ascribed, as having some virtue resident in it or not? and would he break it in pieces on account of the miraculous powers ascribed to it? Is he prepared to act in such a manner with the celebrated _Bambino_(85) of Rome? and are the miraculous powers ascribed to it, as well as to the virgin of Loretto, and other images of this kind, a reality or an imposture? and, finally, what will he do with the winking Madonna of Rimini, which has lately made so much noise, and which, instead of being broken to pieces or torn to shreds by the priests or the bishop of the place, has been approved by ecclesiastical authority? I can a.s.sure the rev. doctor, that by breaking into pieces the miraculous images, carved as well as painted, he will break down many barriers which now separate the Protestant Christians from those who belong to his own church. I am, however, afraid that he will find many difficulties in attempting such a thing; and I must remind him, that in quoting the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, he forgot an essential part of it, which greatly modifies the declaration that there is _no divinity or virtue resident in images_, saying, ”That the holy synod ordains that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any _unusual_ image(86) in any place or church, howsoever exempted, except that the image be approved by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognised, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof, who, as soon as he has obtained certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety.”-(Sess. xxviii., &c.)
The real meaning of the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent is therefore, I think, that there is no divinity or virtue resident in the images which are not authorised by the bishop to work miracles, and that _unlicensed_ images are not allowed to have any such divinity or virtue in them, but that such _unusual_ carved or painted images, as those which I have mentioned above, having obtained the required authorization, may work as many miracles as they please, or as their wors.h.i.+ppers will believe.
It has been observed by a writer, who certainly cannot be accused of violent opinions, the learned and pious Melancthon, ”that it was impious and idolatrous to address statues or bones, and to suppose that either the Divinity or the saints were attached to a certain place or to a certain statue more than to other places; and that there was no difference between the prayers which are addressed to the Virgin of Aix la Chapelle, or to that of Ratisbon, and the Pagan invocations of the Ephesian Diana, or the Platean Juno, or any other statue.”(87) To these observations I shall only add those of M. Beugnot, which I have given p. 27, on the marvellous facility with which the wors.h.i.+p of the virgin, established by the Council of Ephesus, 431, has superseded that of the Pagan deities in many countries.
There is scarcely any ceremony in the Western as well as in the Eastern church, the origin of which cannot be traced to the Pagan wors.h.i.+p. I shall limit my observations on this subject to the three following objects, which const.i.tute the most important elements in the divine service performed in those churches, namely,-1. The consecrated water; 2. Lamps and candles; and, 3. Incense; giving the Roman Catholic explanation of their origin, as well as that which I believe to be true.
With regard to the consecrated water, it is described by the author of ”Hierurgia” in the following manner:-
”The ordinance of Almighty G.o.d, promulgated by the lips of Moses, concerning the _water of separation_, and the mode of sprinkling it, are minutely noticed in the nineteenth chapter of the book of Numbers. In the book of Exodus, we read that the Lord issued the following declarations to Moses:-'Thou shalt make a brazen laver, with its foot, to wash in; and thou shalt set it between the tabernacle of the testimony and the altar.
And the water being put into it, Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet in it when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony, and when they are to come to the altar to offer incense on it to the Lord.'-(Exod. x.x.x. 18-20.)
”That it was a practice with the Jews, not only peculiar to the members of the priesthood, but observed amongst the people, for each individual to wash his hands before he presumed to pray, is a well-attested fact. The church adopted this as well as several other Jewish ceremonies, which she engrafted on her ritual; and St Paul apparently borrows from such ablution the metaphor which he employs while thus admonis.h.i.+ng his disciple Timothy:-'I will that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands.'-(1 Timothy ii. 8.) That in the early ages the faithful used to wash their hands at the threshold of the church before they entered, is expressly mentioned by a number of writers.”
As to the use of holy water being of apostolic origin, he says:-
”The introduction of holy or blessed water must be referred to the times of the apostles. That it was the custom, in the very first ages of the church, not only to deposit vessels of water at the entrance of those places where the Christians a.s.sembled for the celebration of divine wors.h.i.+p, but also to have vases containing water mingled with salt, both of which had been separated from common use, and blessed by the prayers and invocations of the priest, is certain. A particular mention of it is made in the const.i.tution of the apostles; and the pontiff Alexander, the first of that name, but the sixth in succession from St Peter, whose chair he mounted in the year 109, issued a decree by which the use of holy water was permitted to the faithful in their houses.”-(_Hierurgia_, pp.
461-463.)
It is rather a strange thing for Christians to imitate the religious rites of the Jews, whose ceremonial law,-”which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers _was.h.i.+ngs_, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. ix. 10),-was abolished by the New Testament.
However, if this is to be done, why is not the holy water adopted by the Roman Catholic Church prepared in the same manner, and used for the same object, as the Jewish _water of separation_, described in Numbers xix., but, on the contrary, composed in the same manner, and employed for the same purpose, as the _l.u.s.tral_ water of the Pagans? The fact is, that it has been borrowed from the Pagan wors.h.i.+p and not from the Jewish ceremonial law, the truth of which is honestly acknowledged by the Jesuit La Cerda, who, in a note on the following pa.s.sage of Virgil,-
”Idem ter socios pura circ.u.mtulit unda, Spargens rore levi, et ramo felicis olivae, l.u.s.travitque viros”
-_aeneid_, lib. vi. 229-
says, ”_Hence was derived the custom of the holy church to provide purifying or holy water at the entrance of their churches_.”(88) The same custom was observed in the Pagan temples, at the entrance of which there was a vase containing the holy or _l.u.s.tral_ water, for the people to sprinkle themselves with, just as is now done at the entrance of the Roman Catholic churches. The author of ”Hierurgia” mentions, as quoted above, that Pope Alexander I. authorised, in the beginning of the second century, the use of holy water; and yet Justin Martyr, who wrote about that time, says ”that it was invented by demons, in imitation of the true baptism signified by the prophets, that their votaries might also have their pretended purification by water.”(89) And the Emperor Julian, in order to vex the Christians, caused the victuals in the markets to be sprinkled with holy water, with the intention of either starving them or compelling them to eat what they considered as impure.(90)
To these evidences of the abomination in which the primitive Christians held the Pagan rite of sprinkling with holy water, I may add the following anecdote, characteristic of the intensity of this feeling:-
When Julian the Apostate was one day going to sacrifice in the temple of Fortune, accompanied by the usual train of the emperors, the Pagan priests, standing on both sides of the temple gate, sprinkled those who were entering it with the l.u.s.tral or holy water in order to purify them according to the rites of their wors.h.i.+p. A Christian tribune, or superior officer of the imperial guards (_scutarii_), who, being on duty, preceded the monarch, received some drops of this holy water on his _chlamys_ or coat, which made him so indignant, that, notwithstanding the presence of the emperor, he struck the priest who had thus sprinkled him, exclaiming that he did not purify but pollute him. Julian ordered the arrest of the officer who had thus insulted the rites of his religion, giving him the choice either to sacrifice to the G.o.ds or to leave the army. The bold Christian chose the latter, but was soon restored to his rank on account of his great military talents, and raised, after the death of Julian and the short reign of Jovian, to the imperial throne as Valentinian I.(91)
This monarch was, however, by no means a bigot; on the contrary, we have the unsuspected testimony of the contemporary Pagan writer Ammia.n.u.s Marcellinus that he maintained a strict impartiality between the Christians and Pagans, and did not trouble any one on account of his religion. He even regulated and confirmed, by a law in 391, the privileges of the Pagan clergy in a more favourable manner than had been done by many of his predecessors; and yet this monarch, who treated his Pagan subjects with such an extreme liberality, committed, when a private individual, an act of violence against their wors.h.i.+p which exposed him to considerable danger. This, I think, is a strong proof of the horror which the Christians felt for a rite which const.i.tutes now an indispensable part of the service in the Western as well as in the Eastern churches, and is most profusely used by them.
With regard to the candles and lamps, which form a no less important and indispensable part of the wors.h.i.+p adopted by the above-mentioned churches, the author of ”Hierurgia” defends their use in the following manner:-
After having described the candlesticks employed in the Jewish temple, he says:-”But without referring to the ceremonial of the Jewish temple, we have an authority for the employment of light in the functions of religion presented to us in the Apocalypse. In the first chapter of that mystic book, St John particularly mentions the golden candlesticks which he beheld in his prophetic vision in the isle of Patmos. By commentators on the sacred Scripture, it is generally supposed that the Evangelist, in his book of the Apocalypse, adopted the imagery with which he represents his mystic revelations from the ceremonial observed in his days by the church for offering up the ma.s.s, or eucharistic sacrifice of the Lamb of G.o.d, Christ Jesus.
<script>