{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32136/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32136","id":"gutenberg_32136","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32136","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Relics","Reliquaries"],"text":"A Treatise on Relics\n\n                                    By\n\n                               John Calvin\n\n                   Translated from the French Original\n\n                                 With An\n\n                        Introductory Dissertation\n\n  On the Miraculous Images, as Well as Other Superstitions, of the Roman\n                    Catholic and Russo-Greek Churches.\n\n                               By the Late\n\n                        Count Valerian Krasinski,\n\n     Author of \u201cThe Religious History of the Slavonic Nations,\u201d etc.\n\n                             Second Edition.\n\n                                Edinburgh:\n\n                         Johnstone, Hunter & Co.\n\n                                   1870\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface.\nPreface To The Second Edition.\nIntroductory Dissertation.\n   Chapter I. Origin Of The Worship Of Relics And Images In The Christian\n   Church.\n   Chapter II. Compromise Of The Church With Paganism.\n   Chapter III. Position Of The First Christian Emperors Towards Paganism,\n   And Their Policy In This Respect.\n   Chapter IV. Infection Of The Christian Church By Pagan Ideas And\n   Practices During The Fourth And Fifth Centuries.\n   Chapter V. Reaction Against The Worship Of Images And Other\n   Superstitious Practices By The Iconoclast Emperors Of The East.\n   Chapter VI. Origin And Development Of The Pious Legends, Or Lives Of\n   Saints, During The Middle Ages.\n   Chapter VII. Analysis Of The Pagan Rites And Practices Which Have Been\n   Retained By The Roman Catholic As Well As The Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church.\n   Chapter VIII. Image-Worship And Other Superstitious Practices Of The\n   Graeco-Russian Church.\nCalvin\u2019s Treatise On Relics, With Notes By The Translator.\nPostscript.\nList Of Works Published By Johnstone, Hunter, & Co., Edinburgh.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe Treatise on Relics by the great Reformer of Geneva is not so generally\nknown as it deserves, though at the time of its publication it enjoyed a\nconsiderable popularity.(1) The probable reason of this is: the absurdity\nof the relics described in the Treatise has since the Reformation\ngradually become so obvious, that their exhibitors make as little noise as\npossible about their miraculous wares, whose virtues are no longer\nbelieved except by the most ignorant part of the population of countries\nwherein the education of the inferior classes is neglected. And, indeed,\nnot only Protestants, but many enlightened Roman Catholics believed that\nall the miracles of relics, images, and other superstitions with which\nChristianity were infected during the times of medi\u00e6val ignorance would be\nsoon, by the progress of knowledge, consigned for ever to the oblivion of\nthe dark ages, and only recorded in the history of the aberrations of the\nhuman mind, together with the superstitions of ancient Egypt, Greece, and\nRome. Unfortunately these hopes have not been realised, and are still\nremaining amongst the _pia desideria_. The Roman Catholic reaction, which\ncommenced about half a century ago by works of a philosophical nature,\nadapted to the wants of the most intellectual classes of society, has,\nemboldened by success, gradually assumed a more and more material\ntendency, and at length has begun to manifest itself by such results as\nthe exhibition of the holy coat at Treves, which produced a great noise\nover all Germany,(2) the apparition of the Virgin at La Salette, the\nwinking Madonna of Rimini, and, what is perhaps more important than all,\nthe solemn installation of the relics of St Theodosia at Amiens; whilst\nworks of a description similar to the Life of St Francis of Assisi, by M.\nChavin de Malan, and the Lives of the English Saints, which I have\nmentioned on pp. 113 and 115 of my Introduction are produced by writers of\nconsiderable talent and learning. These are significant facts, and prove,\nat all events, that in spite of the progress of intellect and knowledge,\nwhich is the boast of our century, we seem to be fast returning to a state\nof things similar to the time when Calvin wrote his Treatise. I therefore\nbelieve that its reproduction in a new English translation will not be out\nof date.\n\nOn the other side, the politico-religious system of aggression followed by\nRussia has now taken such a rapid development, that the dangers which\nthreaten the liberties and civilization of Europe from that quarter have\nbecome more imminent than those which may be apprehended from the Roman\nCatholic reaction. Fortunately England and France have taken up arms\nagainst the impious crusade proclaimed by the Imperial Pope of Russia. I\nthink that the term _impious_, which I am advisedly using on this\noccasion, is by no means exaggerated; because, how can we otherwise\ndesignate the proceedings adopted by the Czar for exciting the religious\nfanaticism of the Russians, as, for instance, the letter of the Archbishop\nof Georgia, addressed to that of Moscow, and published in the official\nGazette of St Petersburg, stating, on the authority of the Russian\nGeneral, Prince Bagration Mukhranski, that during an engagement between\nthe Russians and the Turks, which recently took place in Asia, the Blessed\nVirgin appeared in the air and frightened the Turks to such a degree that\nthey took to flight!(3) I have developed this subject in the last chapter\nof my Introduction, in order to show my readers the religious condition of\nthe Russian people, because I think that without it a knowledge of the\npolicy now followed by their Government cannot be well understood, or its\nconsequences fully appreciated.\n\nEDINBURGH, _May 1854_.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\n\nThe valuable Dissertation which forms such a fitting commentary upon John\nCalvin\u2019s Treatise on Relics, was written by the late lamented author on\nthe eve of the Crimean War, in 1854. It has been out of print for several\nyears, but in these days of Popish assumption and claims to Infallibility,\nit has been thought that a new edition would prove acceptable, and be\nfound useful in directing attention to the mummeries and absurdities\nengrafted on the True Christian Faith, by the false and corrupt Church of\nRome.\n\nEDINBURGH, _January 1870_.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. Origin Of The Worship Of Relics And Images In The Christian\nChurch.\n\n\nHero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our\nnoblest feelings,\u2014gratitude, love, and admiration.\u2014but which, like all\nother feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily\ndegenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous\nconsequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that\nPaganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods,\u2014elevating to this rank\nmen who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by\nsome signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by\nhaving performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of\nmental and physical powers. The same cause obtained for the Christian\nmartyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and\nfinally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly\nthe case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with\nPaganism, which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly\nintroduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and\nceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the\ndivinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of\nwhom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.(4) The church in\nthe beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was\nafterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly\nduring the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended\nby legalising, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink\nat first. I shall endeavour to give my readers a rapid sketch of the rise,\nprogress, and final establishment of the Pagan practices which not only\ncontinue to prevail in the Western as well as in the Eastern church, but\nhave been of late, notwithstanding the boasted progress of intellect in\nour days, manifested in as bold as successful a manner.\n\nNothing, indeed, can be more deserving of our admiration than the conduct\nof the Christian martyrs, who cheerfully submitted to an ignominious\ndeath, inflicted by the most atrocious torments, rather than deny their\nfaith even by the mere performance of an apparently insignificant rite of\nPaganism. Their persecutors were often affected by seeing examples of an\nheroic fortitude, such as they admired in a Sc\u00e6vola or a Regulus,\ndisplayed not only by men, but by women, and even children, and became\nconverted to a faith which could inspire its confessors with such a\ndevotion to its tenets. It has been justly said that the blood of the\nmartyrs was the glory and the seed of the church, because the constancy of\nher confessors has, perhaps, given her more converts than the eloquence\nand learning of her doctors. It was, therefore, very natural that the\nmemory of those noble champions of Christianity should be held in great\nveneration by their brethren in the faith. The bodies of the martyrs, or\ntheir remnants, were always, whenever it was possible, purchased from\ntheir judges or executioners, and decently buried by the Christians. The\nday on which the martyr had suffered was generally marked in the registers\nof his church, in order to commemorate this glorious event on its\nanniversaries. These commemorations usually consisted in the eulogy of the\nmartyr, delivered in an assembly of the church, for the edification of the\nfaithful, the strengthening of the weak, and the stimulating of the\nlukewarm, by setting before them the noble example of the above-mentioned\nmartyr. It was very natural that the objects of the commemoration received\non such an occasion the greatest praises, not unfrequently expressed in\nthe most exaggerated terms, but there was no question about invoking the\naid or intercession of the confessors whose example was thus held out for\nthe imitation of the church.\n\nWe know from the Acts that neither St Stephen, the first Christian martyr,\nnor St James, who was killed by Herod, were invoked in any manner by the\napostolic church, because, had this been the case, the inspired writer of\nthis first record of the ancient church would not have omitted such an\nimportant circumstance, having mentioned facts of much lesser consequence.\nHad such a practice been in conformity with the apostolic doctrine, it\nwould have certainly been brought forward in the epistles of St Paul, or\nin those of other apostles. There is also sufficient evidence that the\nfathers of the primitive church knew nothing of the invocation, or any\nother kind of worship rendered to departed saints. The limits of this\nessay allow me not to adduce evidences of this fact, which may be\nabundantly drawn from the writings of those fathers, and I shall content\nmyself with the following few but conclusive instances of this kind.\n\nSt Clement, bishop of Rome, who is supposed to have been instituted by St\nPaul, and to be the same of whom he speaks in his Epistle to the\nPhilippians iv. 3, addressed a letter to the Corinthians on account of\ncertain dissensions by which their church was disturbed. He recommends to\nthem, with great praises, the Epistles of St Paul, who had suffered\nmartyrdom under Nero, but he does not say a word about invoking the aid or\nintercession of the martyr, who was the founder of their church, and which\nwould have been most suitable on that occasion, if such a practice had\nalready been admitted by the Christians of his time. On the contrary, he\nprays God for them, \u201c_because it is He who gives to the soul that invokes\nHim, faith, grace, peace, patience, and wisdom_.\u201d St Polycarp, bishop of\nSmyrna, who lived in the second century, addressed a letter to the\nPhilippians, but he says nothing in it to recommend the invocation of St\nPaul, who was the founder of their church, and as such would have been\nconsidered as its patron saint, had the worship of the saints been at that\ntime already introduced amongst the Christians. The most important and\npositive proof that the primitive Christians, not only did not pay any\nadoration to the martyrs, but decidedly rejected it, is the epistle which\nwas issued by the church of Smyrna after the martyrdom of its bishop, whom\nI have just mentioned. It states that the Pagans had, at the instigation\nof the Jews, closely watched the Christians, imagining that they would\nendeavour to carry away the ashes of Polycarp in order to worship him\nafter his death, because these idolaters knew not that the Christians\ncannot abandon Jesus Christ, _or worship any one else_. \u201c_We worship_,\u201d\nsays the same document, \u201c_Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God_; but with\nregard to the martyrs, the disciples of Christ and imitators of his\nvirtues, _we love them, as they deserve it, on account of the\nunconquerable love which they had for their Master and King; and would to\nGod that we should become their disciples and partakers of their zeal_.\u201d\n\nI could multiply proofs of this kind without end, but I shall only\nobserve, that even in the fourth century the orthodox Christians\nconsidered the worship of every created being as idolatry, because the\nopponents of the Arians, who considered Jesus Christ as created and not\nco-essential with God the Father, employed the following argument to\ncombat this dogma:\u2014\u201cIf you consider Jesus Christ a created being, you\ncommit idolatry by worshipping him.\u201d\n\nAdmiration is, however, akin to adoration, and it was no wonder that those\nwhose memory was constantly praised, and frequently in the most\nexaggerated terms, gradually began to be considered as something more than\nsimple mortals, and treated accordingly. It was also very natural that\nvarious objects which had belonged to the martyrs were carefully preserved\nas interesting mementoes, since it is continually done with persons who\nhave acquired some kind of celebrity, and that this should be the case\nwith their bodies, which have often been embalmed. It is, however,\nimpossible, as Calvin has justly observed,(5) to preserve such objects\nwithout honouring them in a certain manner, and this must soon degenerate\ninto adoration. This was the origin of the worship of relics, which went\non increasing in the same ratio as the purity of Christian doctrines was\ngiving way to the superstitions of Paganism.\n\nThe worship of images is intimately connected with that of the saints.\nThey were rejected by the primitive Christians; but St Iren\u00e6us, who lived\nin the second century, relates that there was a sect of heretics, the\nCarpocratians, who worshipped, in the manner of Pagans, different images\nrepresenting Jesus Christ, St Paul, and others. The Gnostics had also\nimages; but the church rejected their use in a positive manner, and a\nChristian writer of the third century, Minutius Felix, says that \u201cthe\nPagans reproached the Christians for having neither temples nor\nsimulachres;\u201d and I could quote many other evidences that the primitive\nChristians entertained a great horror against every kind of images,\nconsidering them as the work of demons.\n\nIt appears, however, that the use of pictures was creeping into the church\nalready in the third century, because the council of Elvira in Spain, held\nin 305, especially forbids to have any picture in the Christian churches.\nThese pictures were generally representations of some events, either of\nthe New or of the Old Testament, and their object was to instruct the\ncommon and illiterate people in sacred history, whilst others were\nemblems, representing some ideas connected with the doctrines of\nChristianity. It was certainly a powerful means of producing an impression\nupon the senses and the imagination of the vulgar, who believe without\nreasoning, and admit without reflection; it was also the most easy way of\nconverting rude and ignorant nations, because, looking constantly on the\nrepresentations of some fact, people usually end by believing it. This\niconographic teaching was, therefore, recommended by the rulers of the\nchurch, as being useful to the ignorant, who had only the understanding of\neyes, and could not read writings.(6) Such a practice was, however,\nfraught with the greatest danger, as experience has but too much proved.\nIt was replacing intellect by sight.(7) Instead of elevating man towards\nGod, it was bringing down the Deity to the level of his finite intellect,\nand it could not but powerfully contribute to the rapid spread of a pagan\nanthropomorphism in the church.\n\nThere was also another cause which seems to have greatly contributed to\nthe propagation of the abovementioned anthropomorphism amongst the\nChristians, namely, the contemplative life of the hermits, particularly of\nthose who inhabited the burning deserts of Egypt. It has been observed of\nthese monks, by Zimmerman, in his celebrated work on Solitude, that \u201cmen\nof extraordinary characters, and actuated by strange and uncommon\npassions, have shrunk from the pleasures of the world into joyless gloom\nand desolation. In savage and dreary deserts they have lived a solitary\nand destitute life, subjecting themselves to voluntary self-denials and\nmortifications almost incredible; sometimes exposed in nakedness to the\nchilling blasts of the winter cold, or the scorching breath of summer\u2019s\nheat, till their brains, distempered by the joint operation of tortured\nsenses and overstrained imagination, swarmed with the wildest and most\nfrantic visions.\u201d(8) The same writer relates, on the authority of\nSulpicius Severus, that an individual had been roving about Mount Sinai\nnearly during fifty years, entirely naked, and avoiding all intercourse\nwith men. Once, however, being inquired about the motives of his strange\nconduct, he answered, that, \u201cenjoying as he did the society of seraphim\nand cherubim, he felt aversion to intercourse with men.\u201d(9)\n\nMany of these enthusiasts imagined, in their hallucinations, they had a\ndirect intercourse with God himself, who, as well as the subordinate\nspirits, appeared to them in a human shape. The monks of Egypt were,\nindeed, the most zealous defenders of the corporeality of God. They\nviolently hated Origines for his maintaining that He was spiritual.\nTheophilus, bishop of Alexandria, opposed this error; but the monks\nassembled in great force, with the intention of murdering him; and he\nescaped this danger by addressing them in the words which Jacob used to\nEsau, \u201cI have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God.\u201d\u2014(Gen.\nxxxiii 10.) This compliment, which could be interpreted as an\nacknowledgment of a corporeal God, appeased the wrath of the monks, but\nthey compelled Theophilus to anathematise the writings of Origines.\n\nThe following anecdote is characteristic of the strong tendency of human\nnature towards anthropomorphism. An old monk, called Serapion, having been\nconvinced by the arguments of a friend that it was an error to believe God\ncorporeal, exclaimed, weeping, \u201cAlas, my God was taken from me, and I do\nnot know whom I am now worshipping!\u201d(10) I shall have, in the course of\nthis essay, opportunities to show that the monks have always been the most\nzealous and efficient promoters of image-worship.\n\nThe following rapid sketch of the introduction of image-worship into the\nChristian church, and of its consequences, has been drawn by a French\nliving writer, whose religious views I do not share, but whose profound\nerudition, fairness, and sincerity, are deserving of the greatest praise:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe aversion of the first Christians to the images, inspired by the Pagan\nsimulachres, made room, during the centuries which followed the period of\nthe persecutions, to a feeling of an entirely different kind, and the\nimages gradually gained their favour. Reappearing at the end of the fourth\nand during the course of the fifth centuries, simply as emblems, they soon\nbecame images, in the true acceptation of this word; and the respect which\nwas entertained by the Christians for the persons and ideas represented by\nthose images, was afterwards converted into a real worship.\nRepresentations of the sufferings which the Christians had endured for the\nsake of their religion, were at first exhibited to the people in order to\nstimulate by such a sight the faith of the masses, always lukewarm and\nindifferent. With regard to the images of divine persons of entirely\nimmaterial beings, it must be remarked, that they did not originate from\nthe most spiritualised and pure doctrines of the Christian society, but\nwere rejected by the severe orthodoxy of the primitive church. These\nsimulachres appear to have been spread at first by the Gnostics,\u2014_i.e._,\nby those Christian sects which adopted the most of the beliefs of Persia\nand India. Thus it was a Christianity which was not purified by its\ncontact with the school of Plato,\u2014a Christianity which entirely rejected\nthe Mosaic tradition, in order to attach itself to the most strange and\nattractive myths of Persia and India,\u2014that gave birth to the images. And\nit was a return to the spiritualism of the first ages, and a revival of\nthe spirit of aversion to what has a tendency of lowering Divinity to the\nnarrow proportions of a human creature, that produced war against those\nimages. But the manners and the beliefs had been changed. Whole nations\nhad received Christianity, when it was already escorted by that idolatrous\ntrain of carved and painted images. Only those populations amongst whom\nthe ancient traditions were preserved could favour this reaction. The\nclergy were, moreover, interested in maintaining one of their most\npowerful means of teaching. The long and persevering efforts of the\nIconoclasts proved therefore ineffective; and the Waldenses were not more\nfortunate. Wickliffe, the Hussites, and Carlostad, attacked the images;\nbut it was reserved only to the Calvinists to establish in some parts of\nEurope the triumph of the ideas of the Iconoclasts. The shock was\nterrible. The Religionists frequently committed acts of a fanatical and\nsenseless vandalism; and art had many losses to deplore. But the\nidolatrous tendency was struck at its very root; and Catholicism itself\nfound, after the struggle, more purity and idealism in its own\nworship.(11) The Reformed perceived afterwards the exaggeration of their\nprinciples; and though they continued to defend the entrance of their\ntemples to the simulachres, condemned by God on Mount Sinai, they spared\nthose which had been bequeathed by the less severe and more material faith\nof their fathers.\u201d(12)\n\nThe principal cause of the corruption of the Christian church, by the\nintroduction of the Pagan ideas and practices alluded to above, was,\nhowever, chiefly the lamentable policy of compromise with Paganism which\nthat church adopted soon after her sudden triumph by the conversion of\nConstantine. The object of this policy was to lead into her pale the\nPagans as rapidly as possible; and, therefore, instead of making them\nenter by the strait gate, she widened it in such a manner, that the rush\nof Paganism had almost driven Christianity out of her pale. The example of\nthe emperors, who, professing Christianity, were, or considered themselves\nto be, obliged, by the necessities of their position, to act on some\noccasions as Pagans, may have been not without influence on the church. I\nshall endeavour to develop this important subject in the following\nchapters; and, in order to remove every suspicion of partiality, I shall\ndo it almost entirely on the authority of an eminent Roman Catholic writer\nof our day.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. Compromise Of The Church With Paganism.\n\n\nI have described, in the preceding chapter, the causes which made\nChristian worship gradually to deviate from its primitive purity, and to\nassume a character more adapted to the ideas of the heathen\npopulation,\u2014numbers of whom were continually joining the church. It was,\nparticularly since the time of Constantine, because its festivals,\nbecoming every day more numerous, and its sanctuaries more solemn,\nspacious, and adorned with greater splendour,\u2014its ceremonies more\ncomplicated,\u2014its emblems more diversified,\u2014offered to the Pagans an ample\ncompensation for the artistic pomp of their ancient worship. \u201cThe\nfrankincense,\u201d says an eminent Roman Catholic writer of our time, \u201cthe\nflowers, the golden and silver vessels, the lamps, the crowns, the\nluminaries, the linen, the silk, the chaunts, the processions, the\nfestivals, recurring at certain fixed days, passed from the vanquished\naltars to the triumphant one. Paganism tried to borrow from Christianity\nits dogmas and its morals; Christianity took from Paganism its\nornaments.\u201d(13) Christianity would have become triumphant without these\ntransformations. It would have done it later than it did, but its triumph\nwould have been of a different kind from that which it has obtained by the\nassistance of these auxiliaries. \u201cChristianity,\u201d says the author quoted\nabove, \u201c_retrograded_; but it was this which made its force.\u201d It would be\nmore correct to say, that it advanced its external progress at the expence\nof its purity; it gained thus the favour of the crowd, but it was by other\nmeans that it obtained the approbation of the cultivated minds.(14)\n\nThe church made a compromise with Paganism in order to convert more easily\nits adherents,\u2014forgetting the precepts of the apostle, to beware of\nphilosophy and vain traditions, (Col. ii. 8,) as well as to refuse profane\nand old wives\u2019 fables, (1 Tim. iv. 7.) And it cannot be doubted that St\nPaul knew well that a toleration of these things would have rapidly\nextended the new churches, had the quantity of the converts been more\nimportant than the quality of their belief and morals.\n\nThis subject has been amply developed by one of the most distinguished\nFrench writers of our day, who, belonging himself to the Roman Catholic\nChurch, seeks to justify her conduct in this respect, though he admits\nwith the greatest sincerity that she had introduced into her polity a\nlarge share of Pagan elements. I shall give my readers this curious piece\nof special pleading in favour of the line of policy which the church had\nfollowed on that occasion, as it forms a precious document, proving, in an\nunanswerable manner, the extent of Pagan rites and ideas contained in the\nRoman Catholic Church, particularly as it proceeds, not from an opponent\nof that church, but from a dutiful son of hers. The work from which I am\nmaking this extract is, moreover, considered as one of the master-pieces\nof modern French literature, and it was crowned by one of the most learned\nbodies of Europe\u2014the _Academie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres_ of\nParis.(15)\n\n\u201cThe fundamental idea of Christianity,\u201d says our author, \u201cwas a new,\npowerful idea, and independent of all those by which it had been preceded.\nHowever, the men by whom the Christian system was extended and developed,\nhaving been formed in the school of Paganism, could not resist the desire\nof connecting it with the former systems. St Justin, St Clement (of\nAlexandria), Athenagoras, Tatian, Origenes, Synesius, &c., considered\nPagan philosophy as a preparation to Christianity. It was, indeed, making\na large concession to the spirit of the ancient times; but they believed\nthat they could conceal its inconveniences by maintaining in all its\npurity the form of Christian worship, and rejecting with disdain the\nusages and ceremonies of polytheism. When Christianity became the dominant\nreligion, its doctors perceived that they would be compelled to give way\nequally in respect to the external form of worship, and that they would\nnot be sufficiently strong to constrain the multitude of Pagans, who were\nembracing Christianity with a kind of enthusiasm as unreasoning as it was\nof little duration, to forget a system of acts, ceremonies, and festivals,\nwhich had such an immense power over their ideas and manners. The church\nadmitted, therefore, into her discipline, many usages evidently pagan. She\nundoubtedly has endeavoured to purify them, but she never could obliterate\nthe impression of their original stamp.\n\n\u201cThis new spirit of Christianity\u2014this eclectism, which extended even to\nmaterial things\u2014has in modern times given rise to passionate discussions;\nthese borrowings from the old religion were condemned, as having been\nsuggested to the Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries by the\nremnants of that old love of idolatry which was lurking at the bottom of\ntheir hearts. It was easy for the modern reformers to condemn, by an\nunjust blame, the leaders of the church; they should, however, have\nacknowledged, that the principal interest of Christianity was to wrest\nfrom error the greatest number of its partisans, and that it was\nimpossible to attain this object without providing for the obstinate\nadherents of the false gods an easy passage from the temple to the church.\nIf we consider that, notwithstanding all these concessions, the ruin of\nPaganism was accomplished only by degrees and imperceptibly,\u2014that during\nmore than two centuries it was necessary to combat, over the whole of\nEurope, an error which, although continually overthrown, was incessantly\nrising again,\u2014we shall understand that the conciliatory spirit of the\nleaders of the church was true wisdom.\n\n\u201cSt John Chrysostom says, that the devil, having perceived that he could\ngain nothing with the Christians by pushing them in a direct way into\nidolatry, adopted for the purpose an indirect one.(16) If the devil, that\nis to say, the pagan spirit, was changing its plan of attack, the church\nwas also obliged to modify her system of defence, and not to affect an\ninflexibility which would have kept from her a great number of people\nwhose irresolute conscience was fluctuating between falsehood and truth.\n\n\u201cAlready, at the beginning of the fifth century, some haughty spirits,\nChristians who were making a display of the rigidity of their virtues, and\nwho were raising an outcry against the profanation of holy things, began\nto preach a pretended reform; they were recalling the Christians to the\napostolic doctrine; they demanded what they were calling a true\nChristianity. Vigilantius, a Spanish priest, sustained on this subject an\nanimated contest with St Jerome. He opposed the worship of the saints and\nthe custom of placing candles on their sepulchres; he condemned, as a\nsource of scandal, the vigils in the basilics of the martyrs,(17) and many\nother usages, which were, it is true, derived from the ancient worship. We\nmay judge by the warmth with which St Jerome refuted the doctrines of this\nheresiarch of the importance which he attached to those usages.(18) He\nforesaw that the mission of the Christian doctrine would be to adapt\nitself to the manners of all times, and to oppose them only when they\nwould tend towards depravity. Far from desiring to deprive the Romans of\ncertain ceremonial practices which were dear to them, and whose influence\nhad nothing dangerous to the Christian dogmas, he openly took their part,\nand his conduct was approved by the whole church.\n\n\u201cIf St Jerome and St Augustinus had shared the opinions of Vigilantius,\nwould they have had the necessary power successfully to oppose the\nintroduction of pagan usages into the ceremonies of the Christian church?\nI don\u2019t believe that they would. After the fall of Rome, whole populations\npassed under the standards of Christianity, but they did it with their\nbaggage of senseless beliefs and superstitious practices. The church could\nnot repulse this crowd of self-styled Christians, and still less summon\nthem immediately to abandon all their ancient errors; she therefore made\nconcessions to circumstances, concessions which were not entirely\nvoluntary. They may be considered as calculations full of wisdom on the\npart of the leaders of the church, as well as the consequence of that kind\nof irruption which was made at the beginning of the fifth century into the\nChristian society by populations, who, notwithstanding their abjuration,\nwere Pagans by their manners, their tastes, their prejudices, and their\nignorance.(19)\n\n\u201cLet us now calculate the extent of these concessions, and examine whether\nit was right to say that they injured the purity of the Christian dogmas.\n\n\u201cThe Romans had derived from their religion an excessive love of public\nfestivals. They were unable to conceive a worship without the pompous\napparel of ceremonies. They considered the long processions, the\nharmonious chaunts, the splendour of dresses, the light of tapers, the\nperfume of frankincense, as the essential part of religion. Christianity,\nfar from opposing a disposition which required only to be directed with\nmore wisdom, adopted a part of the ceremonial system of the ancient\nworship. It changed the object of its ceremonies, it cleansed them from\ntheir old impurities, but it preserved the days upon which many of them\nwere celebrated, and the multitude found thus in the new religion, as much\nas in the old one, the means of satisfying its dominant passion.(20)\n\n\u201cThe neophytes felt for the pagan temples an involuntary respect. They\ncould not pass at once from veneration to a contempt for the monuments of\ntheir ancestors\u2019 piety; and in ascending the steps of the church, they\nwere casting a longing look on those temples which a short time before had\nbeen resplendent with magnificence, but were now deserted. Christianity\nunderstood the power of this feeling, and desired to appropriate it to its\nown service; it consented, therefore, to establish the solemnities of its\nworship in the edifices which it had disdained for a long time.(21) Its\ncare not to offend pagan habits was such, that it often respected even the\npagan names of those edifices.(22) In short, its policy, which, since the\ntimes of Constantine, was always to facilitate the conversion of the\nPagans, assumed, after the fall of Rome, a more decided character, and the\nsystem of useful concessions became general in all the churches of Europe;\nand it cannot be doubted that its results have been favourable to the\npropagation of Christian ideas.(23)\n\n\u201cThere is, moreover, a peculiar cause to which the rapid decline of the\npagan doctrines in the west must be ascribed, and I shall endeavour to\nplace this powerful cause in its true light, carefully avoiding mixing up\nwith a subject of this importance all considerations foreign to the object\nof my researches.\n\n\u201cNestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, after having defended a long time\nthe true faith, strayed from it on a subject which proved a\nstumbling-stone to so many theologians\u2014I mean, the nature of Jesus Christ.\nNestorius distinguished in the Son of God two natures, a divine and a\nhuman one; and he maintained that the Virgin Mary was not the mother of\nGod (\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2), but the mother of the man (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2). This doctrine,\nwhich was a new and bolder form given to Arianism, spread in the two\nempires, and gained a great number of partisans amongst the monasteries of\nEgypt. Many monks could not almost suffer that Jesus Christ should be\nacknowledged as God, and considered him only as an instrument of the\nDivinity, or a vessel which bore it (\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2).\n\n\u201cThe celebrated St Cyrillus, bishop of Alexandria, wrote an epistle to\nthose monks, in order to call them back to respect for the traditions\nestablished in the church, if not by the apostles\u2014who, in speaking of the\nholy virgin, never made use of the expression, _mother of God_\u2014at least by\nthe fathers who succeeded them. The quarrel became general and violent;\nthe Christians came to blows everywhere. Nestorius seemingly wished to\ndraw back, being frightened by the storm which he had himself raised. \u2018I\nhave found,\u2019 said he, \u2018the church a prey to dissensions. Some call the\nholy virgin the _mother of God_; others only the _mother of a man_. In\norder to reunite them, I have called her the _mother of Christ_. Remain,\ntherefore, at peace about this question, and be convinced that my\nsentiments on the true faith are always the same.\u2019 But his obstinacy and\nthe ardour of his partisans did not allow him to go beyond this false\nretraction. The necessity of a general council was felt, and the Emperor\nTheodosius II. ordered in 431 its convocation at Ephesus. On the 21st June\n431, two hundred bishops condemned Nestorius, and declared that the Virgin\nMary should be honoured as the _mother of God_. This decision was\naccepted, notwithstanding some vain protestations, by the universal\nchurch. The fathers of the council of Ephesus had no thought of\nintroducing into the church a new dogma or worship. The Virgin Mary had\nalways been considered by them as the _mother of God_, and they made now a\nsolemn declaration of this belief, in order to reply to the attack of\nNestorius, and to remove every incertitude about a dogma which had not\nhitherto been opposed. But these great assemblies of Christians,\nnotwithstanding the particular motive of their meeting, were always\nproduced by some general necessity which was felt by the Christian\nsociety, and the results of their decrees went often beyond the provisions\nof those by whom they were framed.\n\n\u201cThough I am far from believing that it is allowable to weigh in the\nscales of human reason the dogmas of Christianity, I do not think that it\nis prohibited to examine which of these dogmas has been the most\ninstrumental in detaching the Pagans from their errors.\n\n\u201cWe have several times penetrated, in the course of our researches, into\nthe conscience of the leaders of Paganism, and we have always found that\nit was entirely under the influence of political views and interests.\nThese interests, which so powerfully acted upon the politician\u2019s mind, had\nbut a feeble hold upon that of the inhabitants of the country. And,\nindeed, what interest could the agriculturists, the artisans, and the\nproletarians, have in maintaining the integrity of the Roman constitution,\nor in preserving the rights of the senate, as well as the privileges,\nhonours, and riches of the aristocracy? Being destined, as they were under\nany religion whatever, for a life of labour and privation, they might\nchoose between Christianity and Paganism, without having their choice\nactuated by any personal interest. It is therefore necessary to seek for\nanother cause of that obstinate attachment which the lower classes of the\ntown and country population showed for the practices of a worship whose\nexistence was for a century reduced to such a miserable state.\n\n\u201cI shall not dwell on what has been said about the tyranny of habit, which\nis always more severe wherever minds are less enlightened. I shall\nindicate another cause of the obstinacy of the Pagans, which was founded\nat least upon an operation of the mind\u2014upon a judgment\u2014and was,\nconsequently, more deserving of fixing the attention of the church than\nthat respect of custom against which the weapons of reason are powerless.\n\n\u201cThe Christian dogmas, penetrating into a soul corrupted and weakened by\nidolatry, must have, in the first moment, filled it with a kind of terror.\nAnd, indeed, how was it possible that the Pagans, accustomed as they were\nto their profligate gods and goddesses, should not have trembled when they\nheard for the first time the voice of God, the just but inexorable\nrewarder of good and evil? Should not a solemn and grave worship, whose\nceremonies were a constant and direct excitation to the practice of every\nvirtue, appear an intolerable yoke to men who were accustomed to find in\ntheir sacred rites a legitimate occasion to indulge in every kind of\ndebauchery? The fear of submitting their lives to the rule of a too rigid\nmorality, and to bow their heads before a God whose greatness terrified\nthem, kept for many years a multitude of Pagans from the church.\n\n\u201cIf it has entered the designs of Providence to temper the severe dogmas\nof Christianity by the consecration of some mild, tender, and consoling\nideas, and by the same adapted to the fragile human nature, it is evident\nthat, whatever may have been their aim, they must have assisted in\ndetaching the last Pagans from their errors. The worship of Mary, the\nmother of God, seems to have been the means which Providence has employed\nfor completing Christianity.(24)\n\n\u201cAfter the council of Ephesus the churches of the East and of the West\noffered the worship of the faithful to the Virgin Mary, who had\nvictoriously issued from a violent attack. The nations were as if dazzled\nby the image of this divine mother, who united in her person the two most\ntender feelings of nature, the pudicity of the virgin and the love of the\nmother; an emblem of mildness, of resignation, and of all that is sublime\nin virtue; one who weeps with the afflicted, intercedes for the guilty,\nand never appears otherwise than as the messenger of pardon or of\nassistance. They accepted this new worship with an enthusiasm sometimes\ntoo great, because with many Christians it became the whole Christianity.\nThe Pagans did not even try to defend their altars against the progress of\nthe worship of the mother of God; they opened to Mary the temples which\nthey kept closed to Jesus Christ, and confessed their defeat.(25) It is\ntrue, that they often mixed with the worship of Mary those pagan ideas,\nthose vain practices, those ridiculous superstitions, from which they\nseemed unable to detach themselves; but the church rejoiced, nevertheless,\nat their entering into her pale, because she well knew that it would be\neasy to her to purge of its alloy, with the help of time, a worship whose\nessence was purity itself.(26) Thus, some prudent concessions, temporarily\nmade to the pagan manners and the worship of Mary, were two elements of\nforce which the church employed in order to conquer the resistance of the\nlast Pagans,\u2014a resistance which was feeble enough in Italy, but violent\nbeyond the Alps.\u201d(27)\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. Position Of The First Christian Emperors Towards Paganism,\nAnd Their Policy In This Respect.\n\n\nI have given in the preceding chapter a description, traced by one of the\nmost learned Roman Catholic writers of our day, of the compromise between\nChristianity and Paganism, by which the church has endeavoured to\nestablish her dominion over the adherents of the latter. I shall now try\nto give a rapid sketch of the circumstances which undoubtedly have\ninfluenced the church, to a considerable degree, in the adoption of a line\nof policy which, though it certainly has much contributed to the extension\nof her external dominion, has introduced into her pale those very errors\nand superstitions which it was her mission to destroy, and to deliver\nmankind from their baneful influence.\n\nThere is a widely-spread but erroneous opinion, that the conversion of\nConstantine was followed by an immediate destruction of Paganism in the\nRoman empire. This opinion originated from the incorrect statements of\nsome ecclesiastical writers; but historical criticism has proved, beyond\nevery doubt, that, even a century after the conversion of that monarch,\nPaganism was by no means extinct, and counted many adherents, even amongst\nthe highest classes of Roman society.\n\nWhen Constantine proclaimed his conversion to the religion of the Cross,\nits adherents formed but a minority of the population of the Roman\nempire.(28) The deficiency of their numbers was, however, compensated by\ntheir moral advantages; for they were united by the worship of the one\ntrue God, and ardently devoted to a religion which they had voluntarily\nembraced, and for which they had suffered so much. The Pagans were, on the\ncontrary, disunited, and in a great measure indifferent to a religion\nwhose doctrines were derided by the more enlightened of them, though,\nconsidering it as a political institution necessary for the maintenance of\nthe empire, they often displayed great zeal in its defence. The Christians\nof that time may be compared to the Greeks when they combated the Persians\non the field of Marathon and at Thermopyl\u00e6; but, alas! their victory under\nConstantine proved as fatal to the purity of their religion as that of the\nGreeks under Alexander to their political and military virtues. Both of\nthem became corrupted by adopting the ideas and manners of their conquered\nadversaries.\n\nSome writers have suspected that the conversion of Constantine was more\ndue to political than religious motives; but though great and many were\nthe faults of that monarch, his sincerity in embracing the Christian\nreligion cannot be doubted, because it was a step more contrary than\nfavourable to his political interests. The Christians formed, as I have\nsaid above, only a minority of the population of the empire, and\nparticularly so in its western provinces. There was not a single Christian\nin the Roman senate; and the aristocracy of Rome, whose privileges and\ninterests were intimately connected with the religious institutions of the\nempire, were most zealous in their defence. The municipal bodies of the\nprincipal cities were also blindly devoted to the national religion, whose\nexistence was considered by many as inseparable from that of the empire\nitself; and these bodies were generally the chief promoters of those\nterrible persecutions to which the Christians had been so many times\nsubjected. The Pagan clergy, rich, powerful, and numerous, were ever\nzealous in exciting public hatred against the Christians; and the legions\nwere chiefly commanded by those officers who had united with Galerius in\ncompelling Diocletian to persecute the Christians. The capital of the\nempire was the particular stronghold of the ancient creed. \u201cRome,\u201d says\nBeugnot, in the work from which I have so largely drawn, \u201cwas the cradle\nand the focus of the national belief. Many traditions, elevated to the\nrank of dogmas, were born within her pale, and impressed upon her a\nreligious character, which still was vividly shining in the times of\nConstantine. The Pagans of the west considered Rome as the sacred city,\nthe sanctuary of their hopes, the point towards which all their thoughts\nwere to be directed; and the Greeks, in their usual exaggeration,\nacknowledged in her, not a part of the earth, but of heaven.\u201d\u2014(_Libanii\nEpistol\u00e6_, epist. 1083, p. 816.) \u201cThe aristocracy, endowed with its many\nsacerdotal dignities, and dragging in its train a crowd of clients and\nfreedmen, to whom it imparted its passions and its attachment to the\nerror, furnished, by the help of its immense riches, the means of\nsubsistence to a greedy, turbulent, and superstitious populace, amongst\nwhom it could easily maintain the most odious prejudices against\nChristianity. The hope of acquiring a name, a fortune, or simply to take a\npart in the public distributions, attracted to that city from the\nprovinces all those who had no condition, or, what is still worse, those\nwho were dissatisfied with theirs. Italy, Spain, Africa, and Gallia sent\nto Rome the _elite_ of their children, in order to be instructed in a\nschool, the principal merit of whose professors was, an envious hatred of\nevery new idea, and who had acquired a melancholy reputation during the\npersecutions of the Christians. The standard of Paganism was waving in\nfull liberty on the walls of the Capitol. Public and private sacrifices,\nsacred games, and the consultation of the augurs, were prevailing to the\nutmost in that _sink of all the superstitions_.(29) The name of Christ was\ncursed, and the speedy ruin of his worshippers announced, in every part of\nthat place, whilst the glory of the gods was celebrated, and their\nassistance invoked. How cruel must have been the situation of the\nChristians, left in the midst of that city, where, at every step, a\ntemple, an altar, a statue, and horrible blasphemies were revealing to\nthem the ever active power of the Lie! They dared not either to found\nchurches, to open schools, or even publicly to reply to what was spoken\nagainst them, at the theatres, at the forum, or at the baths: so that they\nseemed to exist at Rome only in order to give a greater _eclat_ to the\ndominion of idolatry.\u201d\u2014(Vol. i., p. 75.) It was no wonder that such a\nreligious disposition of Rome had placed it in a continual and strenuous\nopposition to Constantine, and his Christian successors; and this\ncircumstance may be considered as an additional motive which induced\nConstantine to transfer the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium,\nthough this measure may have been chiefly brought about by political\nconsiderations. In removing his residence to a more central point of the\nempire, he at the same time drew nearer to the eastern provinces, where\nChristianity had many devoted adherents. Constantinople became the capital\nof the Christian party, whence it gradually developed its sway over the\nother parts of the empire, but the Pagans maintained meanwhile their\nground at Rome, in such a manner, that it seems to have been uninhabitable\nto the Christian emperors; because we see even those of them who ruled the\nwestern provinces fixing their residence either at Milan or Ravenna, and\nvisiting only on some occasions the city of the C\u00e6sars, which had become,\nsince the foundation of Constantinople, the fortified camp of\nPaganism.(30)\n\nConstantine proclaimed full religious liberty to all his subjects. This\nmeasure, dictated by a sound policy, and in perfect harmony with the true\nspirit of his new religion, was not, however, sufficient to relieve him\nfrom the difficulties of his personal position, as he united in his person\ntwo characters diametrically opposed one to another. Being a Christian, he\nwas at the same time, as the emperor of Rome, the head and the\nrepresentant, not only of its political, but also of its religious\ninstitutions. This circumstance forced him into a double line of policy,\nwhich I shall describe in the words of M. Beugnot:\u2014\n\n\u201cThere were in Constantine, so to say, two persons,\u2014the Christian and the\nemperor. If that monarch had not been endowed with a rare intellect, he\nwould have, by confounding these two characters, raised in his way\nobstacles which he could not overcome. As a Christian, he showed\neverywhere his contempt for the vain superstitions of the ancient worship,\nand his enthusiasm for the new ideas. He conferred with the bishops; he\nassisted _standing_ at their long homilies; he presided at the councils;\nhe deeply meditated the mysteries of Christianity; and he struggled\nagainst the heresiarchs with the ardour of a Christian soldier and the\ngrief of a profoundly convinced soul. As emperor, he submitted to the\nnecessities of a difficult position, and conformed, in all grave matters,\nto the manners and beliefs which he did not feel sufficiently strong\nopenly to shock. On endowing the purple, he became the heir of that long\nseries of emperors who had all remained faithful to the worship of the\nfather-land; and he wrapt himself, so to say, in the ancient traditions\nand recollections of pagan Rome; for it was an inheritance which he could\nnot renounce, without danger to himself as well as to the empire.\n\n\u201cWhen we observe some actions of Constantine, evidently tinged with\nPaganism, we must consider less their external form than the relation in\nwhich they stood towards the constitution of Rome, which that emperor had\nno desire to destroy. We shall then become convinced that his conduct was\nthe result of necessity, and not that of a crooked policy. As an\nindividual, he was free; as an emperor, he was a slave; and his greatest\nmerit, according to our opinion, was to have soundly judged the\nembarrassments of this situation. Animated as he was with a lively zeal\nfor the truths of Christianity, it was very natural that he should employ\nthe imperial power in order to break down all the obstacles to its\nprogress. But this would have involved him in an open war with a nation,\nthe majority of whom were composed of Pagans; and it is very likely that\nhe would have succumbed in such a contest. He understood this; and it\nprevented him giving way to the entreaties, and even complaints, of\nover-zealous Christians.\u201d\u2014Vol. i., p. 88.\n\nConstantine was, notwithstanding his conversion to Christianity, the\nsupreme pontiff of pagan Rome. The title of this dignity was given him on\nthe public monuments, and he performed its functions on several occasions;\nas, for instance, in 321, several years after his conversion, he wrote to\nMaximus, prefect of Rome, as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cIf our palace or any public monument shall be struck by lightning, the\nauguries are to be consulted, according to the ancient rites (_retento\nmore veteris observanti\u00e6_), in order to know what this event indicates;\nand the accounts of these proceedings are immediately to be sent to us.\nPrivate individuals may make similar consultations, provided they abstain\nfrom secret sacrifices, which are particularly prohibited. With regard to\nthe accounts stating that the amphitheatre was recently struck by\nlightning, and which thou hast sent to Heraclianus the tribune, and master\nof offices, know that they must be delivered to us.\u201d\n\nThis is undoubtedly a very strange document for a Christian monarch, who\nofficially commands to consult the Pagan oracles, and, as its concluding\nwords seem to imply, is anxious to maintain, on similar occasions, his\nrights as the supreme pontiff of Paganism.\n\nIt was also in his quality of supreme pontiff that Constantine instituted,\nsoon after his accession, the Francic games, for the commemoration of his\nvictory over the Franks, and which were celebrated, during a considerable\ntime, on the 18th of the kalends of August; and, in 321, the Sarmatic\ngames, on the occasion of his victory over the Sarmatians, and celebrated\non the 6th of the same month. These games were real Pagan ceremonies, and\nreprobated on this account by the Christian writers of that time.(31)\n\nI could quote other instances of a similar kind; but I shall conclude this\nsubject by observing, that a medal has been preserved, upon which\nConstantine is represented in the dress of the supreme pontiff,\u2014_i.e._,\nwith a veil covering his head.\n\nConstantine was, indeed, very anxious not to offend the Pagan party. In\n319 he published a very severe law against the soothsayers; expressing,\nhowever, that this prohibition did not extend to the public consultations\nof the _Haruspices_, according to the established rites. And a short time\nafterwards he proclaimed another law on the same subject, in which he\nstill more explicitly declares that he does not interfere with the rites\nof the Pagan worship.(32)\n\nIt must be observed, that the Romans, as well as the Greeks, had two kinds\nof divination: the public, which were considered as legitimate; and the\nsecret, which were generally forbidden. This last had been prohibited by\nsome former emperors; and the laws of the Twelve Tables declared them\npunishable with death. Constantine seems to have been very anxious that\nhis intention on this subject should not be mistaken; and he published in\n321 an edict, by which he positively allows the practice of a certain kind\nof magic, by the following remarkable expressions:\u2014\n\n\u201cIt is right to repress and to punish, by laws justly severe, those who\npractise, or try to practise, the magical arts, and seek to seduce pure\nsouls into profligacy; but those who employ this art in order to find\nremedies against diseases, or who, in the country, make use of it in order\nto prevent the snow, the wind, and the hail from destroying the crops,\nmust not be prosecuted. Neither the welfare nor the reputation of any one\nare endangered by acts whose object is to insure to men the benefits of\nthe _divinity_ and the fruits of their labour.\u201d\u2014_Codex Theodosianus_, lib.\nix., f. 16, _apud_ Beugnot.\n\nThis was, undoubtedly, a very large concession to the superstitions of\nPaganism made by a Christian monarch, and from which he was, perhaps,\nhimself not entirely free. It is well known that Constantine, after his\npublic declaration of Christianity, introduced the _labarum_,(33) as a\nsign of the dominion of the new faith; but it was generally placed on his\ncoins in the hands of the winged statue of the Pagan goddess of Victory.\nBesides these coins of Constantine, there are many others of the same\nmonarch, having inscriptions in honour of Jupiter, Mars, and other Pagan\ndivinities. The Pagan aristocracy of Rome seem to have been resolved to\nignore the fact that the head of the empire had become a Christian, and to\nconsider him, in spite of himself, as one of their own. Thus, after his\ndeath, the senate placed him, according to the usual custom, among the\ngods; and a calendar has been preserved where the festivals in honour of\nthis strange divinity are indicated. The name of _Divus_ is given to him\non several coins; and, what is very odd, this Pagan god is represented on\nthe above-mentioned medals holding in his hand the Christian sign of the\n_labarum_.\n\nWe thus see that Constantine, instead of persecuting the adherents of the\nnational Paganism, was following a policy of compromise between the two\ncharacters united in his person, that of a Christian and of a Roman\nemperor. This did not, however, prevent him from heaping favours of every\nkind upon the Christian church,\u2014favours which proved to her much more\ninjurious than all the persecutions of the former emperors. And, indeed,\nthe Christians, who had nobly stood the test of adversity, were not proof\nagainst the more dangerous trial of a sudden and unexpected prosperity.\n\nThe first favour granted by Constantine to the Christians, and which he\ndid even before his public confession of their faith, was the extension to\ntheir clergy of the exemption from various municipal charges enjoyed by\nthe Pagan priests, on account of their being obliged to give at their\nexpense certain public games. The Christian clergy were thus placed in a\nmore favourable position than the Pagan priests, because, though admitted\nto equal immunities, they were not subjected to the same charges; and\nthus, for the first time, a bribe was offered for conversion to a religion\nwhich had hitherto generally exposed its disciples to persecution.\n\u201cNumbers of people, actuated less by conviction than by the hope of a\nreward, were crowding from all parts to the churches, and the first favour\ngranted to the Christians introduced amongst them guilty passions, to\nwhich they had hitherto remained strangers, and whose action was so rapid\nand so melancholy. The complaints of the municipal bodies, and the\ndisorder which it was producing in the provincial administration, induced\nConstantine to put some restrictions on a favour which, being granted\nperhaps somewhat inconsiderately, did more harm than good to the interests\nof the Christian religion.\u201d\u2014_Beugnot_, vol. i., p. 78.\n\nConstantine increased his favours to the Christians after he had publicly\nembraced their faith. \u201cThe ecclesiastical historians,\u201d says the author\nwhom I have just quoted, \u201cenumerate with a feeling of pride the proofs of\nhis generosity. They say, that the revenues of the empire were employed to\nerect everywhere magnificent churches, and to enrich the bishops. They\ncannot be, on this occasion, accused of exaggeration. Constantine\nintroduced amongst the Christians a taste for riches and luxury; and the\ndisappearance of their frugal and simple manners, which had been the glory\nof the church during the three preceding centuries, may be dated from his\nreign.\u201d\u2014_Ibid._, p. 87.\n\nThe ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, a great admirer of Constantine,\nwhose personal friend he was, admits himself, that the favours shown by\nthat monarch to the church have not been always conducive to her purity.\n\nIn short, the sudden triumph of the church under Constantine was one of\nthe principal causes of her corruption, and the beginning of that\ncompromise with Paganism, described in the preceding chapter. Paganism,\nthough weakened through its abandonment by the head of the state, was by\nno means broken down at the time of Constantine\u2019s death. Many of its\nzealous adherents were occupying the principal dignities of the state, as\nwell as the most important civil and military offices; but its chief\nstronghold was Rome, where its partisans were so powerful, that the\nunfortunate dissensions which divided the Christians were publicly exposed\nto ridicule in the theatres of that city. The Arian writer Philostorgus\nsays that Constantine was worshipped after his death, not as a saint, but\nas a god, by the orthodox Christians, who offered sacrifices to the statue\nof that monarch placed upon a column of porphyry, and addressed prayers to\nhim as to God himself. It is impossible to ascertain whether examples of\nsuch mad extravagance had ever taken place amongst Christians or not; but\nthe Western church has not bestowed upon his memory the honours of\nsaintship, though she has been generally very lavish of them.(34) Thus the\nfirst Christian emperor was canonised only by the Pagans.\n\nThe sons of Constantine followed the religious policy of their father; and\nthe facility with which his nephew, Julian the Apostate, had restored\nPaganism to the rank of the dominant religion, twenty-four years after his\ndeath, proves how strong its party was even at that time. Julian\u2019s reign\nof eighteen months was too short to produce any considerable effect upon\nthe religious parties into which the Roman empire was then divided. After\nhis death, the imperial crown was offered by the army to Sallust, a Pagan\ngeneral, who having refused it on account of his great age, it was\nbestowed upon Jovian, a Christian, who reigned only three months. The\nlegions elected, after Jovian\u2019s death, Valentinian, who, though a sincere\nChristian, strictly maintained the religious liberty of his subjects; and\nthe same policy was followed by his brother and colleague Valens, who\ngoverned the eastern part of the empire, and was an Arian. Valentinian\u2019s\nson and successor, Gratian, though educated by the celebrated poet\nAusonius, who adhered to the ancient worship, was a zealous Christian. He\npublished, immediately after his accession, an edict allowing perfect\nreligious liberty to all his subjects, with the exception of the\nManicheans and some other sects. He granted several new privileges to\nChristians, but he continued to conform for some time to the duties\ninherited from his Pagan predecessors, of which the most remarkable\ninstance was, that he caused his father to be placed amongst the gods,\naccording to the general custom followed at the death of the Roman\nemperors.(35)\n\nThough greatly enfeebled by the continual advance of Christianity,\nPaganism was still the established religion of the state. Its rites were\nstill observed with their wonted solemnity, and its power was still so\ngreat at Rome, that a vestal virgin was executed in that city for the\nbreach of her vow of chastity, subsequently to the reign of Gratian. These\ncircumstances induced, probably, the above-mentioned emperor to respect\nthe religious institutions of Rome during the first years of his reign,\nbut (382), acting under the advice of St Ambrose, he confiscated the\nproperty belonging to the Pagan temples, and the incomes of which served\nfor the maintenance of priests and the celebration of sacrifices. He\nabolished, at the same time, all the privileges and immunities of the\nPagan priests, and ordered the altar and statue of the goddess of Victory\nto be removed from the hall of the senate, the presence of which gave to\nthat assembly, though it already contained many Christian members, the\ncharacter of a Pagan institution.\n\nThe senate sent a deputation to Gallia, where Gratian was at that time, in\norder to remonstrate against these measures, and to present to him, at the\nsame time, the insignia of the supreme pontificate of Rome, which none of\nhis Christian predecessors had yet refused. But Gratian rejected these\nemblems of Paganism, saying that it was not meet for a Christian to accept\nthem. This would have been probably followed by other more decided\nmeasures, had he not perished a short time afterwards in a rebellion.\nTheodosius the Great, whom Gratian had associated with him, adopted a\ndecidedly hostile policy towards Paganism, and proclaimed a series of laws\nagainst it. Thus, in 381, he ordered that those Christians who returned to\nPaganism should forfeit the right of making wills; but as these apostasies\ncontinued, he ordered, in 383, that the apostates should not inherit any\nkind of property, either left by will or descended by natural order of\nsuccession, unless it were left by their parents or a brother. In 385 he\nproclaimed the penalty of death against all those who should inquire into\nfuturity by consulting the entrails of the victims, or try to obtain the\nsame object by _execrable_ and _magic_ consultations, which evidently\nreferred to those secret divinations that had been prohibited by\nConstantine, as well as his Pagan predecessors. In the course of the year\n391, he published a series of edicts, prohibiting under pain of death\nevery immolation, and all other acts of idolatry under that of\nconfiscation of the houses or lands where they had been performed.\n\nTheodosius died in 395, but had his life been prolonged, he would probably\nhave developed still farther his policy against Paganism, which was\ngreatly weakened in the course of his reign. Many Pagan temples,\nparticularly in the Eastern provinces, were destroyed during his reign by\nthe Christians, acting without the orders of the emperor, but not punished\nby him for these acts of violence. He did not, however, constrain the\nPagans to embrace Christianity; and, notwithstanding that he proclaimed\nseveral laws against their worship, he employed many of them even in the\nhighest offices of the state.(36) Notwithstanding the severe laws\npublished by Theodosius against idolatry, Rome still contained a great\nnumber of pagan temples, and the polytheist party continued to be strong\nin the senate, as well as in the army, which is evident from the two\nfollowing facts. When Alaric elected in 409 Attalus emperor of Rome, the\nnew monarch distributed the first dignities of the state to Pagans, and\nrestored the public solemnities of the ancient worship, in order to\nmaintain himself on the throne by the support of the Pagan party; which\nproves that, though a century had already elapsed since the conversion of\nConstantine, this party was not yet considered quite insignificant. About\nthe same time, Honorius having proclaimed a law which excluded from the\noffices of the imperial palace all those who did not profess his religion,\nwas obliged to revoke it, because it gave offence to the Pagan officers of\nthe army. Arcadius, who succeeded Theodosius on the throne of the Eastern\nempire, proclaimed, immediately after his accession in 398, that he would\nstrictly enforce the laws of his father against Paganism, and he issued in\nthe following year new and more severe ordinances of the same kind. The\nblow which may be said to have overturned Paganism in the Roman empire did\nnot, however, come from its Christian monarchs, but from the same hand\nwhich destroyed its ancient capital, and inflicted upon the Western empire\na mortal wound which it did not survive many years.\n\nThe Goths, whom the energy and wise policy of Theodosius had maintained in\ntheir allegiance to the empire, being offended by Arcadius, revolted, and\ninvaded his dominions under Alaric, in 396. They ravaged the provinces\nsituated between the Adriatic and the Black Seas, and penetrated into\nGreece, where Paganism, notwithstanding all the enactments of Theodosius,\nwas still prevailing to a very great extent. The principal cities of\nGreece were devastated by the Goths, who, recently converted to Arianism,\nand having no taste for arts, destroyed all the temples, statues, and\nother pagan monuments, with which they met. Athens escaped the fury of the\ninvaders, but the celebrated temple of Eleusis, whose mysteries continued\nin full vigour in spite of all the laws which had been published against\npolytheism, was destroyed, whilst its priests either perished or fled.\nThis catastrophe was so much felt by the adherents of the ancient worship\nin Greece, that many of them are said to have committed suicide from\ngrief. \u201cSince the defeat of Cheronea, and the capture of Corinth, the\nGreek nationality had never experienced a severer blow than the\ndestruction of its temples and of its gods by Alaric,\u201d says an eminent\nGerman writer of our day.(37) It was, indeed, a mortal blow to a religion\nwhich maintained its sway by acting upon the senses and the imagination,\nas well as upon the feelings of national pride or vanity, because it\ndestroyed all the means by which such feelings were produced. Alaric and\nhis Goths seem to have been destined by Providence to precipitate the fall\nof Paganism at Rome, as well as in Greece, because the capture and sack of\nthe eternal city by these barbarians, in 410, accelerated the ruin of its\nancient worship more than all the laws proclaimed against it by the\nChristian emperors. The particulars of this terrible catastrophe have been\namply described by Gibbon, and I shall only observe, that though\nChristians had suffered on that occasion as much as Pagans, the worship of\nthe latter was struck at the very root of its existence by the complete\nruin of the Roman aristocracy, who, although frequently indifferent about\nthe tenets of the national polytheism, supported it with all their\ninfluence as a political institution, which could not be abolished without\ninjuring the most vital interests of their order.(38) The decline of\nPaganism from that time was very rapid. It is true that we have sufficient\nhistorical evidence to show that pagan temples were still to be found at\nRome after its sack by the Goths, and that many Pagans were employed, in\nthe Western as well as in the Eastern empires, in some of the most\nimportant offices of the state; but their number was fast disappearing,\nand the exercise of their religion was generally confined to the domestic\nhearth, to the worship of the _Lares_ and _Penates_. It seems to have been\nparticularly prevalent amongst the rustic population of the provinces, and\nit was not entirely extinct in Italy even at the beginning of the sixth\ncentury; because the Goth, Theodoric the Great, who reigned over that\ncountry from 493 to 526, published an edict forbidding, under pain of\ndeath, to sacrifice according to the Pagan rites, as well as other\nsuperstitious practices remaining from the ancient polytheism.\n\nI have given this sketch of the state of Paganism after the conversion of\nConstantine, and of the policy which was followed towards it by the first\nChristian emperors, because it seems to explain, at least to a certain\ndegree, the manner in which Christianity was rapidly corrupted in the\nfourth and fifth centuries by the Pagan ideas and practices which I shall\nendeavour to trace in my next chapter.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. Infection Of The Christian Church By Pagan Ideas And Practices\nDuring The Fourth And Fifth Centuries.\n\n\nI have said that the council of Elvira, in Spain, held in 305, prohibited\nthe use of images in the churches. Other canons of the same council show\nthat even then Christians were but too prone to relapse into the practices\nand customs of Paganism; because they enact very severe ecclesiastical\npenances against those Christians who took part in the rites and festivals\nof the Pagan worship.(39)\n\nIf such enactments were required to maintain the purity of Christian\ndoctrine, at a time when its converts, instead of expecting any worldly\nadvantages, were often exposed to severe persecution, and consequently had\nno other motives for embracing it than a mere conviction of its truth, how\nmuch more was this purity endangered when conversion to Christianity led\nto the favour of the sovereign, and when the church, instead of severely\nrepressing the idolatrous propensities of her children, endeavoured to\nfacilitate as much as possible the entrance of the Pagans into her pale!\nLet me add, that the mixture of Christianity with Paganism in various\npublic acts of the first Christian emperors, which I have described in the\npreceding chapter, could not but contribute to the general confusion of\nideas amongst those Christians whom the church was continually receiving\ninto her pale, with all their pagan notions. I have described, in the\nsecond chapter of this essay, the policy of compromise adopted by the\nchurch after the conversion of Constantine. I shall now describe the\nconsequences of this policy, by giving a sketch of the Christian society\nwhich it produced, and which has been drawn, on the authority of\necclesiastical writers, by the same author whose description and defence\nof that policy I have given in the above-mentioned chapter.\n\n\u201cTowards the beginning of the fifth century, the propagation of\nChristianity amongst the upper classes of Roman society met still with\nmany obstacles; but the influential persons who had broken with the error,\nremained at least faithful to their new creed, and did not scandalise\nsociety by their apostasy. The senatorial families which had embraced\nChristianity gave, at Rome, the unfortunately too rare example of piety\nand of all the Christian virtues; the case was different with the converts\nbelonging to the lower, and even the middle classes of Roman society. The\ncorruption of manners had made rapid progress amongst them during the last\nfifty years of the fourth century; and things arrived at such a pass, that\nthe choice of a religion was considered by the people as an act of the\ngreatest indifference. The new religion was embraced from interest, from\ncuriosity, or by fashion, and afterwards abandoned on the first occasion.\nIt was, in fact, not indifference, because indifference induces people to\nremain in the religion in which they were born; it was a complete atheism,\na revolting depravity, an openly-expressed contempt of all that is most\nsacred. How many times the church, which struggled, but in vain, against\nthe progress of the evil, had occasion to lament the too easy recruits\nwhom she was making amongst the inferior ranks of society!(40) People\ndisgracefully ignorant, without honour, without a shadow of piety,\npolluted by their presence the assemblies of the faithful. They are those\nwhom the fathers of the church designated by the name of the _mali\nChristiani_\u2014_ficti Christiani_, and against whom their eloquent voices\nwere often resounding. The heretics, the promoters of troubles and\nseditions, always counted upon those men, who seemed to enter the church\nonly in order to disturb her by their turbulent spirit, or who consented\nto remain in the true faith only on condition of introducing into the\nusages of Christian worship, a crowd of superstitions whose influence was\nfelt but too long;(41) whilst the slightest sign of Paganism was\nsufficient to call back to it those servants of all the parties.\n\n\u201cIt was then, unfortunately, a too common thing to see men who made a\nprofession of passing, without any difficulty, from one religion to\nanother, as many times as it was required by their interests. The\nprinciple of that inconceivable corruption in the bosom of a religion\nwhich was not yet completely developed, dated from a period anterior to\nthat which we are describing.(42) The councils and the emperors had\nstruggled in vain against apostasy, which the multitude of heresies, and\nthe vices of the times, had placed amongst legitimate actions.\n\n\u201cTheodosius began in 381 to punish the apostates by depriving them of the\nright to make wills. In 383, he modified this law in respect to the\napostate catechumens; but the general principle maintained all the\napostates _absque jure Romano_. Valentinian II. followed the example of\nhis colleague, and applied the before-mentioned dispositions to those\nChristians who became Jews or Manicheans. We know, from a law of 391, that\nthe nobility was infected by the general spirit of the age, because\nValentinian enacted, by this law, that those nobles who became apostates\nwere to be degraded in such a manner that they should not count even _in\nvulgi ignobilis parte_. In 396, Arcadius deprived again of the right to\nmake wills those Christians _qui se idolorum superstitione impia\nmaculaverint_.(43) The political authorities, therefore, cannot be accused\nof having remained indifferent to the progress of the evil. We must now\nshow how little power the laws had in a time like that which we are\ndescribing.\n\n\u201cOne day, St Augustinus presented to the assembly of the Christians of\nHippona, a man who was to become celebrated amongst renegades; born a\nPagan, he embraced Christianity, but returned again to the idols, and\nexercised the lucrative profession of an astrologer; he now demanded to be\nreadmitted into the church, that is to say, to change for the third time\nhis religion. St Augustinus addressed, on that occasion, the\nabove-mentioned assembly in the following manner:\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018This former Christian, terrified by the power of God, is now repenting.\nIn the days of his faithfulness, he was enticed by the enemy, and became\nan astrologer; seduced and deceived himself, he was seducing and deceiving\nothers; he uttered many lies against God, who gave men the power to do\ngood, and to do no evil; he said that it was not the will of men which\nmade men adulterers, but Venus; that it was Mars who rendered people\nmurderers; that justice was not inspired by God, but by Jupiter; and he\nadded to it many other sacrileges. How much money he has swindled from\nself-styled Christians! How many people have purchased the lie from him!\nBut now, if we are to believe him, he hates the error, he laments the loss\nof many souls; and feeling himself caught by the demon, he returns toward\nGod full of repentance. Let us believe, brethren, that it is fear which\nproduces this change. What shall we say? perhaps we must not rejoice so\nmuch at the conversion of this pagan astrologer, because once being\nconverted, he may seek to obtain the clerical office; he is penitent,\nbrethren, and asks only for mercy. I recommend him to your hearts, and to\nyour eyes. Let your hearts love him, but let your eyes watch him. Mark him\nwell; and wherever you shall meet him, show him to those of your brethren\nwho are not present here. This will be an act of mercy, because we must\nfear that his seductive soul should change again, and recommence to do\nmischief. Watch him; know what he says, and where he goes, in order that\nyour testimony may confirm us in the opinion that he is really converted.\nHe was perishing, but now he is found again. He has brought with him the\nbooks which have burnt him, in order to throw them into the fire; he\nwishes to be refreshed by the flames which shall consume them. You must\nknow, brethren, that he had knocked at the door of the church before\nEaster, but that the profession which he had followed, rendering him\nsuspected of lies and fraud, he was kept back, but shortly afterwards\nreceived. We are afraid of leaving him exposed to new temptations. Pray to\nChrist for him.\u2019\n\n\u201cSocrates(44) speaks of a sophist of Constantinople, called Ecebolus, who\nconformed with a marvellous facility to all the changes of fortune which\nChristianity was undergoing. During the reign of Constantine, he affected\nthe greatest zeal for the new belief; but when Julian became emperor, he\nresumed his ancient devotion to the gods of Paganism. After the death of\nthat monarch, he gave great publicity to his repentance, and prostrated\nhimself before the churches, crying to the Christians, \u2018Tread me under\nyour feet, as the salt which has lost its savour!\u2019 Socrates\nadds:\u2014\u2018Ecebolus remained what he has always been,\u2014_i.e._, a fickle and\ninconstant man.\u2019 St Augustinus could certainly say the same of his\nastrologer. Is it not surprising to find apostasy still prevalent at a\ntime when no sensible man could believe in the restoration of the ancient\nworship? The appearance of Julian must have upset many a mind, shaken many\na conscience, and given to the triumph of Christianity the character of a\ntransitory event. But, at the end of the fourth century, it was impossible\nto abandon the church and return to the idols, except by a feeling which\ncould not but excite profound pity. I therefore understand why St\nAugustinus had consented to plead with the Christians in favour of a\nwretch already charged with three apostasies: he wished, above all, to\ntake from him the name of a Pagan, being convinced that whoever consented\nno longer to sacrifice to the false gods would finally belong to the true\nreligion. A neophyte, restrained by the leaven of all the pagan passions,\nmight remain more or less time on the threshold of the church, but sooner\nor later he was sure to cross it.(45) The leaders of the church considered\nit always a favourable presumption when a citizen consented to call\nhimself no longer a Pagan. This first victory appeared to them a sure\npresage of a true conversion; and they recommended to the Christians that\nthey should not apply the dangerous epithet of _Pagan_ to those of their\nbrethren who had failed, but simply to call them _sinners_. They\nendeavoured, in short, to make them forget Paganism; and in order to\nattain this object, they even forbade to pronounce its name.(46)\n\n\u201cThe ancient worship was not only obstructing the development of\nChristianity by covert and insidious attacks, but it was also vitiating\nthe discipline of the church, because its sway upon the manners of the\nconverts was something more like a real tyranny than the natural remnant\nof its former influence. It is, indeed, surprising with what facility it\nintroduced into the sanctuary of the true God its superstitious spirit,\nits relaxed morals, and its love of disorder. How little the church was\nthen,\u2014_i.e._, seventy years after the conversion of\nConstantine,\u2014resembling what she ought to have been, or what she became\nafterwards!(47) St Jerome had intended, towards the end of his life, to\nwrite an ecclesiastical history; but it was in order to show that the\nchurch, under the Christian emperors, went on continually declining.\n_Divitiis major, virtutibus minor_ (Greater in wealth, smaller in virtue),\nwas the severe sentence which St Jerome must have pronounced with regret,\nbut the justice of which is proved by all the historical documents of that\nperiod. This illustrious leader of Christianity, whose mind was more\ninclined to enthusiasm than dejection, frequently lost all energy, by\nreflecting on the deplorable condition of the church, declaring that he\nfelt no longer any power to write. A sufficient number of historians have\nrepresented in vivid colours the excessive luxury of the bishops during\nthat time, as well as the greediness, the ignorance, and the misconduct of\nthe clergy; I shall therefore choose from this melancholy picture only\nthose parts which refer to the history of Paganism.\n\n\u201cAll the arts of divination remained still in the highest favour amongst\nChristians, even when the grave men of the Pagan party had been, for a\nlong time, showing for these practices of idolatry either a conventional\nrespect or an open contempt.(48) They swore by the false gods,\u2014they\nobserved the fifth day, dedicated to Jupiter,\u2014and they took a part in the\nsacred games, feasts, and festivals of the Pagans. Christian ceremonies\ndid not preserve almost any thing of their ancient majesty. It was not a\nrare occurrence to hear pagan hymns chanted at Christian solemnities, or\nto see Christians dancing before their churches, according to the custom\nof Paganism. There was no more decency observed in the interior of those\nchurches: people went there to speak about business, or to amuse\nthemselves; the noise was so great, and the bursts of laughter so loud,\nthat it was impossible to hear the reading of the Scriptures; the\ncongregation quarrelled, fought, and sometimes interfered with the\nofficiating priest, pressing him to end, or compelling him to sing,\naccording to their taste. St Augustinus was therefore warranted in calling\nthis so powerful influence of the ancient worship a persecution of the\ndemon, more covert and insidious than that which the primitive church had\nsuffered.\n\n\u201cAll these scandalous facts are attested by the bishop of Hippona (St\nAugustinus) and by that of Milan (St Ambrose); it is therefore impossible\nto doubt their authenticity. It may, however, be said, that such a state\nof corruption was local, and peculiar to the churches of Africa and Milan;\nI must therefore produce new evidence, in order to show that the\ncalamitous effect of the pagan manners was felt in all the provinces.\n\n\u201cSt Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, a contemporary of St Augustinus,\nvigorously combated idolatry in his diocese; and the following is an\nextract from one of his sermons:\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018You neophytes, who have been called to the feast of this salutary and\nmystical Easter, look how you preserve your souls from those aliments\nwhich have been defiled by the superstition of the Pagans. It is not\nenough for a true Christian to reject the poisoned food of the demons; he\nmust also fly from all the abominations of the Pagans,\u2014from all the frauds\nof the idolaters, as from venom ejected by the serpent of the devil.\nIdolatry is composed of poisonings, of enchantments, ligatures, presages,\naugurs, sorceries, as well as of all kinds of vain observances, and,\nmoreover, of the festival called _Parentales_; by means of which idolatry\nis reanimating error; and indeed men, giving way to their gluttony, began\nto eat the viands which had been prepared for the dead; afterwards they\nwere not afraid of celebrating in their honour sacrilegious\nsacrifices,\u2014although it is difficult to believe that a duty towards their\ndead is discharged by those who, with a hand shaking from the effects of\ndrunkenness, place tables on sepulchres, and say, with an unintelligible\nvoice, _The spirit is thirsty_.(49) I beseech you, take heed of these\nthings, in case God should deliver to the flames of hell his contemners\nand enemies, who have refused to wear his yoke.\u2019\n\n\u201cWho may wonder that such Christians allowed the pagan idols, temples, and\naltars to remain, and to be honoured on their estates, as is attested by\nthe same bishop? St Augustinus, whom I am not tired of quoting, because no\nother doctor of that time expressed so vividly the true Christian ideas,\nlamented this monstrous worship, which was neither Paganism nor\nChristianity. \u2018Many a man,\u2019 says he, \u2018who enters the church a Christian,\nleaves it a Pagan,\u2019 However, far from despairing, he wrote to the virgin\nFelicia, \u2018I advise thee not to be affected too much by these offences;\nthey were predicted, in order that, when they should come, we might\nremember that they had been announced, and consequently not be hurt by\nthem.\u2019 But the Pagans, for whom this premature corruption of Christianity\nwas not a predicted thing, rejoiced in contemplating the extent of its\nprogress; they would not believe the duration of a worship which had so\nrapidly arrived at the period of its decline, and they were repeating in\ntheir delusion this celebrated saying, \u2018Christians are only for awhile;\nthey will afterwards perish, and the idols will return.\u2019 \u201d\u2014_Beugnot_, vol.\nii. p. 97, _et seq._\n\nThis melancholy picture of Christian society, at the beginning of the\nfifth century, drawn by M. Beugnot, on the authority of the ecclesiastical\nwriters, is, indeed, as gloomy as that of Roman society in general, which\nhad been so graphically described about the same time by the pagan author\nAmmianus Marcellinus, and reproduced by Gibbon. It was very natural that\nsuch a corrupted soil should produce the rankest growth of superstition,\nand rapidly bring about that melancholy reaction which was not inaptly\nstyled by Gibbon, \u201cthe revival of polytheism in the Christian church.\u201d\nThis wretched state of things was, as I have said before, chiefly due to\nthat policy of compromise by which the leaders of the church sought to get\nas many Pagans as possible into her pale, and who consequently were\nbaptised without being converted. This compromise with Paganism was often\ncarried to great extremes; and the history of the conversion of Florence,\nwhich I have extracted from M. Beugnot\u2019s work, gives one of the most\nstriking instances of those unprincipled proceedings:\u2014\u201cFlorence paid\nparticular honours to the god Mars. It was not without regret that it\nabandoned the worship of this divinity. The time of its conversion had\nbeen assigned to the second or the third century, but the vagueness of\nthis date deprives it of all authority. Yet, whatever may have been the\ncentury in which the conversion of Florence took place, it could not be a\nsubject of edification and joy to the Christians. The traditions of that\ncity predicted to it great calamities if the statue of Mars was either\nsullied, or put into a place unworthy of it. The Florentines stipulated,\ntherefore, on accepting the new religion, that Mars should be respected.\nHis statue was consequently neither broken nor sullied, but it was\ncarefully taken from his temple, and placed on a pedestal near the river,\nwhich flows through the city. Many years after this, the new Christians\nfeared and invoked that god who was dethroned only by halves. When almost\nall the pagan temples had fallen either by the stroke of time, or under\nthe blows of the Christians, the heathen palladium of Florence stood still\nerect on the banks of the Arno; and, according to one of the most\nenlightened historians that Italy has produced during the middle ages (G.\nVillani, lib. i., cap. 60), the demon who had remained in the statue\nrealised, in the thirteenth century, the old prediction of the\nEtruscans.(50) Compromises of the kind which took place at Florence became\nvery common during the fifth century, and when, at a later period,\nChristianity wished to annul them, it met with great obstacles.\u201d\u2014(BEUGNOT,\nvol. i., p. 286.)\n\nThe Jews had been brought up in the knowledge of the true God, and their\nfaith could not but be strengthened by the miracles with which their\nexodus from Egypt was accompanied, and yet a short absence of Moses from\ntheir camp was sufficient to make them call for gods that would go before\nthem, and to induce them to worship an image evidently borrowed from the\nidolatry of those very Egyptians by whom they had been so much oppressed.\nIt was, therefore, no wonder that society, educated for many centuries\nunder the influence of Paganism, were continually returning to their\nancient rites, superstitions, and manners, though under a new name, and in\na modified form. If we consider further, that such a man as Aaron had not\nsufficient strength to resist the senseless demands of the multitude, and\neven consented to mould an object for their idolatry, how could the\nleaders of the church oppose the pressure of Paganism, which they had\nincautiously admitted into her pale, and which, under the assumed name of\nChristianity, was establishing its dominion over the church? There was no\ninspired prophet amongst the Christians of that time, to restore the\npurity of their faith in the same manner as Moses did amongst the Jews,\nafter his return from Mount Sinai. The Christian church was therefore left\nfor centuries under the oppression of pagan superstitions, from which, as\nyet, only a small portion of her has been emancipated, though I firmly\nbelieve that she will be one day entirely restored to her pristine purity.\nThis hope, however, is not founded upon the mere advance of human\nintellect, because, in spite of its boasted progress, it seems now to be\npowerless against the daily growing reaction of the above-mentioned\nsuperstitions, even in places whence they apparently had been banished for\never, but because Christianity is of a divine and not human origin.\n\nThere was no lack of opposition to this universal corruption of the church\non the part of several true Christians, and there were undoubtedly many\nmore instances of this noble conduct than those which have reached us, but\nthe records of them were probably either lost in the lapse of ages, or\ndestroyed by their opponents. I have already mentioned the prohibition of\nthe use of images in the churches by the council of Elvira in 305. The\ncouncil of Laodicea, held about 363, declared, in its seventy-fifth canon,\n\u201c_That Christians ought not to abandon the church, and retire elsewhere in\norder to invoke angels, and form private assemblies, because it is\nprohibited. If, therefore, any one is attached to this secret idolatry,\nlet him be anathema, because he has left our Lord Jesus Christ, and has\nbecome an idolater._\u201d It is therefore evident that this superstition,\nexpressly prohibited by St Paul, Col. ii. 18, was then secretly practised\nin some private assemblies, though it was afterwards introduced into the\nWestern as well as the Eastern church. The council of Carthage, held\ntowards the end of the fourth century, condemned the abuse of the honours\nwhich were paid to the memory of the martyrs by the Christians of Africa,\nand ordered the bishops to repress them, _if the thing might be done, but\nif it could not be done on account of the popular emotions_, to warn at\nleast the people. This proves how weak the bishops felt their authority to\nbe against the prevailing superstitions amongst their flocks, and that\nthey preferred suffering the latter to risking the former.\n\nThere were, however, Christians who opposed, in a bold and uncompromising\nmanner, the pagan errors and abuses which had infected the church. St\nEpiphanius, archbishop of Salamis, in the fourth century, celebrated for\nhis learning, and whose virtues St Jerome extols in the most glowing\nterms, explicitly condemned the worship of created beings, \u201cbecause,\u201d he\nobserved, \u201cthe devil was creeping into men\u2019s minds under the pretence of\ndevotion and justice, and, consecrating human nature by divine honours,\npresented to their eyes various fine images, in order to separate the mind\nfrom the one God by an infamous adultery. Therefore, though those who are\nworshipped are dead, people adore their images, which never had any life\nin them.\u201d He further remarked, \u201cthat there was not a prophet who would\nhave suffered a man or a woman to be worshipped; that neither the prophet\nElias, nor St John the beloved disciple of the Lord, nor St Thecla (who\nhad received the most extravagant praises from the fathers), were ever\nworshipped; and that, consequently, the virgin was neither to be invoked\nnor worshipped.\u201d \u201c_The old superstition_,\u201d says he, \u201c_shall not have such\npower over us as to oblige us to abandon the living God, and worship his\ncreature._\u201d(51)\n\nThe same St Epiphanius relates, in a letter addressed to John, bishop of\nJerusalem, that having arrived during a journey at a village called\nAnablatta, he found in its church a veil suspended over the door, with a\nfigure representing _Christ or some saint_. He was so indignant at this\nsight that he immediately tore the veil to pieces, and advised the wardens\nof that church to employ it as a shroud to bury a dead body. As the people\nof the place complained that the veil of their church was destroyed,\nwithout giving them in its place another, Epiphanius sent them one; but he\nexhorted in his letter the above-mentioned bishop of Jerusalem, in whose\ndiocese Anablatta was situated, to order the priests of that place not to\nsuspend any more such veils in the church of Christ, _because they are\ncontrary to our religion_.\n\nThe authenticity of this letter, which bears such strong evidence against\nthe use of images in churches, was rejected by Bellarmine and the\necclesiastical historian Baronius, but it has been admitted by Petau and\nsome of the ablest writers of the Roman Catholic Church. It was translated\ninto Latin by St Jerome, and is found in all the collections of his works.\n\nThe most celebrated opponent of the abuses with which the church had been\nalready infected at that time was Vigilantius. His writings have not been\npreserved, and we know his opinions only from their refutation by St\nJerome, and from which we may conclude that this reformer of the fifth\ncentury maintained the same doctrines which were afterwards defended by\nthe Waldensians, Wycliffe, the Hussites, and which are now professed by\nthe Protestant Christians. He was born at Calagorris in Gallia; he became\na priest at Barcelona, and contracted in that place an intimate friendship\nwith St Paulinus, afterwards bishop of Nola. Vigilantius went to Italy in\norder to see this friend of his, and having an intention to visit\nPalestine and Egypt, took from him an introduction to St Jerome. They\nbecame great friends with St Jerome, who was much pleased with the marks\nof approbation shown by Vigilantius during a sermon which he preached. He\nalso acknowledges that he, as well as several others, would have died from\nstarvation, if Vigilantius had not assisted them with his own and his\nfriends\u2019 money; and he says, in his answer to Paulinus, \u201cYou will learn\nfrom the mouth of _the holy priest, Vigilantius_, with what affection I\nhave received him.\u201d This affection disappeared, however, as soon as Jerome\nlearned that Vigilantius had accused him in Egypt of being too partial to\nOrigenes, and the _holy priest_ became an _impertinent_, whose silly\nspeeches he had observed during their first interview. He made use of\nseveral injurious expressions in speaking of the former object of his\nadmiration, and which do not well accord with the gravity of his\ncharacter, as, for instance, calling him often _Dormitantius_ instead of\n_Vigilantius_. His indignation knew no bounds when he heard, in 404, that\nVigilantius, who was then in Gallia, had attacked several practices which\nhad crept into the church, and he dictated in one single night a vehement\nanswer to the opinions of Vigilantius, who, according to this writer,\ntaught as follows:\u2014\n\nThat the honours paid to the rotten bones and dust of the saints and\nmartyrs, by adoring, kissing, wrapping them in silver, and enclosing them\nin vessels of gold, placing them in churches, and lighting wax candles\nbefore them, was idolatry.\n\nThat the celibacy of the clergy was heresy, and their vows of chastity a\nseminary of lewdness.\n\nThat to pray for the dead, or desire their prayers, was superstition, and\nthat we can pray one for another only as long as we are alive.\n\nThat the souls of the departed apostles and martyrs were at rest in some\nparticular place, and could not leave it, in order to be present in\nvarious places, for hearing the prayers addressed to them.\n\nThat the sepulchres of the martyrs should not be venerated; that vigils\nheld in churches should be abolished, with the exception of that at\nEaster; that to enter monastic life was to become useless to society, &c.\n&c.\n\nThe answer of Jerome to the above-mentioned opinions of Vigilantius is a\ncurious mixture of violence and casuistry. He declared his _quondam_\nfriend and _holy priest_, Vigilantius, a greater monster than all those\nwhich nature had ever produced, the Centaurs, the Behemoths, the Syrens,\nthe triple-bodied Gerion of Spain; that he was a most detestable heretic,\nventing foul blasphemies against the relics of the martyrs, who were\nworking miracles everyday. \u201cGo,\u201d says he to Vigilantius, \u201cinto the\nchurches of those martyrs, and thou shalt be cleansed from the evil spirit\nby which thou art now possessed, and feel thyself burning, not by those\nwax candles which offend thee, but by invisible flames, which will force\nthat demon who talks within thee to confess that he is the same as that\nwho had personated, perhaps a Mercury, a Bacchus, or some other of the\nheathen gods, amongst their followers,\u201d &c. He is unable, however, to\nproduce any other argument in support of the worship of relics than the\nexample of those who had practised it. \u201cWas it wrong,\u201d he exclaims, \u201cof\nthe bishops of Rome to celebrate divine service on the graves containing\nthe bones of St Peter and St Paul, which, according to Vigilantius, were\nnothing better than dust? The Emperor Constantius must then have committed\na sacrilege by translating the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy,\nto Constantinople; the Emperor Arcadius must be then also considered\nsacrilegious, as he has translated the bones of the blessed Samuel from\nJudea to Thrace; then all those bishops who consented to preserve mere\ndust in vessels of gold or wrapt in silk, were not only sacrilegious, but\nwere fools; and, finally, that all these people must have been fools who\nwent out to meet these relics, and received them with as much joy as if\nthey were the prophet himself alive, because the procession which carried\nthem was attended by crowds of people from Palestine to Chalcedon, singing\nthe praises of Christ, whose servant Samuel was.\u201d\n\nThere is no abuse in the world which cannot be justified, if the example\nof persons occupying a high station or that of great numbers is sufficient\nfor it. The advocates of the adoration of relics in our own days may\ndefend it by the fact that about half a million of people went in 1845 to\nworship the holy coat of Treves, and that still more recently great\nhonours were paid to the relics of St Theodosia at Amiens, by a number of\ndistinguished persons,\u2014bishops, archbishops, and even cardinals. The\n_autos da f\u00e9_ of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions could not be\nwrong, since kings, queens, and the most eminent persons of the state,\napproved them by their presence. Idolatry cannot be an error, since so\nmany monarchs, statesmen, and learned men, had conformed to its rites;\nwhilst, on the other side, the same reason may be pleaded for the penal\nlaws of Ireland, and other enactments against the Roman Catholics, because\nthey were established and maintained by so many parliaments. Jerome\nmaintained that it was a calumny of Vigilantius to say that the Christians\nburnt candles in daylight, though he admitted that it was done by some men\nand women in order to honour the martyrs. He did not approve of it,\nbecause their zeal was without knowledge; but he thought that on account\nof their good intention, they would be rewarded according to their faith,\nlike the woman who had anointed the feet of our Lord. He also tried to\njustify the use of candles by those passages of the Scriptures where an\nallusion was made to _lamps and lights_; as, for instance, the parable of\nthe virgins, the expression of the Psalm cxix. 105, \u201cThy word is a lamp\nunto my feet, and a light unto my path.\u201d\n\nThe rest of the arguments which St Jerome employs in refuting what he\ncalls the errors and heresies of Vigilantius are of a similar nature to\nthose which have been given above; and it is really astonishing to see\nthat a man like this celebrated father, who is generally considered as one\nof the great luminaries of the church, not only by Roman Catholics, but\nalso by some Protestants, could descend to such miserable shifts, and\nindulge in such violent language as he did, in his answer to Vigilantius,\nwhich bears a strong mark of having been dictated more by his personal\nfeelings against his former friend and benefactor, than by a conviction of\nthe justice of the cause which he was defending on that occasion. It is,\nhowever, evident from the other writings of the same father of the church,\nthat his imagination was much more powerful than his reasoning faculties,\nand that he had entirely forgotten the precept of St Paul, to \u201c_refuse\nprofane and old wives\u2019 fables_\u201d\u2014(1 Timothy iv. 7)\u2014because no one has ever\nindulged in more absurd fables than this good father did, in his lives of\nSt Hilarion and St Paul, two celebrated monks, and of which the following\nis a fair specimen:\u2014\n\n\u201cA Christian citizen of Majuma, called Italicus, kept horses for racing,\nbut was continually beaten by his rival, a pagan ducumvir of Gaza, who, by\nusing certain charms and diabolical incantations, contrived always to damp\nthe spirits of the Christian\u2019s horses, and to give vigour to his own.\nItalicus applied, therefore, for help to St Hilarion, who, thinking that\nit was improper to make prayers for such a frivolous object, advised\nItalicus to sell his horses, and to give their price to the poor, for the\nsalvation of his soul. Italicus represented, however, that he was\ndischarging against his inclination the duties of a public office, and\nthat as a Christian could not resort to magical means, he addressed\nhimself to a servant of God, particularly as it was important to defeat\nthe inhabitants of Gaza, who were known as enemies of Christ, and that it\nwas not so much for his own interests as for those of the church that he\nwished to overcome his rival. Hilarion, convinced by these reasons, filled\nwith water an earthen vessel, from which he usually drank, and delivered\nit to Italicus, who sprinkled with the water his horses, his chariots and\ncharioteers, his stables, and even the barriers of the racing ground. The\nwhole city was in a great excitement, the idolaters deriding the\nChristians, who loudly expressed their confidence of victory. The signal\nbeing given, the Christian\u2019s horses flew with an extreme rapidity, and\nleft those of his rival far behind. This miracle produced a very great\neffect upon the spectators, and many persons, including the beaten party,\nbecame converts to Christianity.\u201d\n\nThe above-mentioned work is filled with fables still more extravagant than\nthe one which I have related, and which entirely throw into the shade the\ncelebrated tales of Munchausen. Jerome complained that many people, whom,\nin his Christian meekness, he calls _Scyllean dogs_, were laughing at the\nstories related in those works, and which he begins by invoking the\nassistance of the Holy Ghost. Was it then a wonder that a Christianity,\ndefended by such wretched superstitions, was frequently abandoned by\nindividuals, who, comparing the Christian legends of the kind quoted above\nwith the fictions of Pagan mythology, preferred the latter as being more\npoetical? and, indeed, we have instances of the ridicule which the Pagans\nattempted to throw upon Christianity, by comparing its saints with their\nown gods and demigods.\n\nI must, however, return once more to Vigilantius.(52) The Roman Catholic\nhistorian of the church, Baronius, who calls him \u201c_a horned beast, a fool,\nand furious, who had reached the last degree of folly and fury_,\u201d &c.,\n&c., maintains that his heresy was solemnly condemned by the Pope Innocent\nI., whom the bishops of Gallia had addressed on this subject. He also says\nthat the same heresy produced terrible consequences; because two years\nafter Vigilantius had spread his doctrines, the Vandals and other\nbarbarians invaded Gallia, and destroyed all his adherents. Admitting even\nwith Baronius that Vigilantius was a damnable heretic, it cannot be denied\nthat this learned historian had a very strange notion of divine justice,\nbecause the barbarians alluded to above destroyed a great number of\nchurches and relics, as well as those who prayed at their shrines, whilst\nVigilantius died quietly, and, notwithstanding the assertion of Baronius,\nnever was excluded from the communion of the church, or even condemned by\nher legal authorities.\n\nWe know from Vigilantius\u2019 opponents that his opinions were approved by\nmany, and there can be no doubt that there was, not only in his days, but\nlong after him, a good number of witnesses for the truth, who opposed the\nrapid spread of Pagan ideas and practices in the church. Thus, at the end\nof the sixth century, Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, removed all the\nimages from his church, because the people worshipped them. This produced\na great discontent amongst many people of his diocese, who appealed to\nPope Gregory I. in favour of the images. The Pope advised a middle course,\n_i.e._, that the images should remain in the church, but that it should\nnot be allowed to worship them. Serenus, however, who well knew that the\none infallibly led to the other, refused to comply with the papal\ninjunctions, upon which Gregory wrote to him again, saying that he praised\nhis zeal in not suffering the worship of any thing that was made by the\nhand of man; but that images should not be destroyed, because pictures\nwere used in churches to teach the ignorant by sight what they could not\nread in books, &c.(53)\n\nWe therefore see that at the end of the sixth century, the celebrated Pope\nGregory I., surnamed the Great, considered the worship of images as an\nabuse to be prohibited, but which was afterwards legalised by his\nsuccessors, and an opposition to it declared heresy.\n\nI could produce other evidences to show that the worship of images was\ncondemned by many bishops and priests of the period which I have\ndescribed, though they approved their use as a means of teaching the\nilliterate, or tolerated them as an unavoidable evil. The limits of this\nessay allow me not, however, to extend my researches on this subject, and\nI shall endeavour to give in the next chapter a rapid sketch of the\nviolent reaction against the worship of images in the east by the\niconoclast emperors, and of the more moderate, but no less decided,\nopposition to the same practice in the west by Charlemagne.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V. Reaction Against The Worship Of Images And Other Superstitious\nPractices By The Iconoclast Emperors Of The East.\n\n\nThe worship of images, as well as other Pagan practices, introduced into\nthe church during the fourth and fifth centuries, were prevailing in the\neast as much as in the west; and I have mentioned, p. 9, that the monks,\nparticularly those of Egypt, had greatly contributed to the introduction\nof anthropomorphism into the Christian church. A great blow to\nimage-worship was given in the east by the rise and rapid progress of\nMahometanism, whose followers, considering it as idolatry, destroyed many\nobjects to which certain miraculous virtues had been ascribed, and they\nconstantly taunted the Christians with their belief in such superstitions.\nThe Jews addressed the same reproaches to the Christians; \u201cyet,\u201d as Gibbon\nhas justly observed, \u201ctheir servitude might curb their zeal and depreciate\ntheir authority; but the triumphant Mussulman, who reigned at Damascus,\nand threatened Constantinople, cast into the scale of reproach the\naccumulated weight of truth and victory.\u201d(54) And, indeed, there could not\nbe a stronger argument against the efficacy of images than the rapid\nconquest by the Mahometans of many Christian cities which relied upon a\nmiraculous defence by some images preserved in their churches. This\ncircumstance could not but produce, in the minds of many thinking\nChristians, a conviction of the absurdity of image-worship, and the spread\nof such opinions must have been promoted by congregations who had\npreserved the purity of primitive worship, and of whom it appears that\nthere were several still extant in the eighth century, as well as by the\ninfluence of Armenia, a country with which the eastern empire had frequent\nintercourse of a political and commercial nature, and whose church\nrejected at that time the worship of images. This party wanted only a\nleader and favourable circumstances in order publicly to assert their\ncondemnation of the prevailing practice, which they considered as sinful\nidolatry. The accession of Leo III., the Isaurian, in 717, who, from an\ninferior condition, rose by his talents and military prowess to the\nimperial throne, gave to that party what they required, for he shared\ntheir opinions, and was a man of great energy and ability. The troubles of\nthe state, which the valour and political wisdom of Leo saved from\nimpending ruin, occupied too much the first years of that emperor\u2019s reign\nto allow him to undertake a reform of the church. But in 727 he assembled\na council of senators and bishops, and decided, with their consent, that\nall the images should be removed in the churches from the sanctuary and\nthe altar, to a height where they might be seen, but not worshipped, by\nthe congregation.(55) It was, however, impossible to follow long this\nmiddle course, as the adherents of the images contrived to worship them in\nspite of their elevation, while their opponents taxed the emperor with\nwant of zeal, holding out to him the example of the Jewish monarch, who\nhad caused the brazen serpent to be broken. Leo therefore ordered all\nkinds of images to be destroyed; and though his edict met with some\nopposition,(56) it was put into execution throughout the whole empire,\nwith the exception of the Italian provinces, which, instigated by Pope\nGregory II., a zealous defender of images, revolted against the emperor,\nand resisted all his efforts to regain his dominion over them. This\nmonarch died in 741, after a not inglorious reign of twenty-four years,\nand was succeeded on the throne by his son Constantine VIII., surnamed\nCopronymus. All the information which we possess about this monarch, as\nwell as the other iconoclast emperors, is derived from historians\nviolently opposed to their religious views. These writers represent\nConstantine VIII. as one of the greatest monsters that ever disgraced\nhumanity, stained by every imaginable vice; and having exhausted all the\nusual terms of opprobrium, they invent some such ridiculous expressions as\na \u201c_leopard generated by a lion, an aspic born from the seeds of a\nserpent, a flying dragon_,\u201d &c.; but they do not adduce in confirmation of\nthese epithets any of those criminal acts which have disgraced the reigns\nof many Byzantine emperors, whose piety is extolled by the same writers.\nWe know, moreover, by the evidence of those very historians who have\nbespattered with all those opprobrious terms the memory of Constantine,\nthat he was a brave and skilful leader, who defeated the Arabs, the most\nformidable enemies of the empire, and restored several of its lost\nprovinces, and that the country was prosperous under his reign of\nthirty-four years\u2014741 to 775.\n\nThe beginning of Constantine\u2019s reign was disturbed by his own\nbrother-in-law, Artabasdes, who, supported by the adherents of the images,\ncompeted for the imperial throne, but was defeated, and his party crushed.\nConstantine, desiring to abolish the abuse, which he regarded as idolatry,\nby a solemn decision of the church declared, in 753, his intention to\nconvoke for this object a general council; and in order that the question\nat issue should be thoroughly sifted, he enjoined all the bishops of the\nempire to assemble local synods, and to examine the subject, previously to\nits being debated by the general council. This council, composed of three\nhundred and thirty-eight bishops, met at Constantinople in 754, and, after\nhaving deliberated for six months, decided that, _conformably to Holy Writ\nand the testimony of the fathers, all images were to be removed from the\nchurches, and whoever would dare to make an image, in order to place it in\na church, to worship it, or to keep it concealed in his house, was, if a\nclerk, to be deposed, if a layman, to be anathematised_. The council\nadded, that those who adhered to the images were to be punished by the\nimperial authorities as _enemies of the doctrine of the fathers, and\nbreakers of the law of God_. This decision was pronounced by the assembled\nbishops unanimously, and without a single dissentient voice, which had\nnever been the case before. This assembly took the title of the Seventh\nEcumenical Council, and the emperor ordered its decision to be put into\nexecution throughout all his dominions. The images were removed from the\nchurches, and those which were painted on the walls covered with\nwhitewash. The principal opposition to the imperial order was offered by\nthe monks, who were always the chief promoters of image-worship; and\nConstantine is accused of having repressed this opposition with a violence\ncommon to that barbarous age. He is said to have entertained the greatest\nhatred against these monks, calling them idolaters, and their dresses the\n_dress of darkness_\u2014an opinion with which many persons will be found to\nchime, I think, even in our own time. Constantine died in 775, and was\nfollowed on the throne by his son, Leo IV., who inherited the religious\nviews of his father; whilst his wife, Irene, a beautiful and talented, but\nambitious and unprincipled woman, was a secret worshipper of images. Leo,\nwho was of a weak constitution, died after a reign of five years,\nappointing Irene the guardian of his minor son Constantine, who was then\nten years old. Irene governed the empire with great ability, but was too\nfond of power to surrender it to her son at his coming of age, and he\ntried to obtain by force what was due to him by right. The party of Irene\nproved, however, the stronger; and young Constantine was taken prisoner,\nand his mother caused him to be deprived of sight. Irene\u2019s orders were\nexecuted in such an atrocious manner, that the unfortunate prince died in\nconsequence.(57) Irene governed the empire with great splendour, but her\nfirst object was to restore the worship of images; and the machinations by\nwhich she accomplished this object have been so well related by Gibbon,\nthat I cannot do better than copy his account of them:\u2014\n\n\u201cUnder the reign of Constantine VIII., the union of the civil and\necclesiastical power had overthrown the tree, without extirpating the root\nof superstition. The idols, for such they were now held, were secretly\ncherished by the order and the sex most prone to devotion; and the fond\nalliance of the monks and females obtained a final victory over the reason\nand authority of man. Leo IV. maintained with less rigour the religion of\nhis father and grandfather, but his wife, the fair and ambitious Irene,\nhad imbibed the zeal of the Athenians,(58) the heirs of the idolatry\nrather than philosophy of their ancestors. During the life of her husband,\nthese sentiments were inflamed by danger and dissimulation, and she could\nonly labour to protect and promote some favourite monks, whom she drew\nfrom their caverns, and seated on the metropolitan thrones of the east.\nBut as soon as she reigned in her own name, and in that of her son, Irene\nmore seriously undertook the ruin of the iconoclasts, and the first step\nof her future persecution was a general edict for liberty of conscience.\nIn the restoration of the monks, a thousand images were exposed to the\npublic veneration; a thousand legends were invented of their sufferings\nand miracles. By the opportunities of death and removal, the episcopal\nseats were judiciously filled; the most eager competitors for celestial or\nearthly favour anticipated and flattered the judgment of their sovereign;\nand the promotion of her secretary Tarasius gave Irene the patriarch of\nConstantinople, and the command of the Oriental church. But the decrees of\na general council could only be repealed by a similar assembly; the\niconoclasts, whom she convened, were bold in possession, and averse to\ndebate; and the feeble voice of the bishops was re-echoed by the more\nformidable clamour of the soldiers and the people of Constantinople. The\ndelay and intrigues of a year, the separation of the disaffected troops,\nand the choice of Nice for a second orthodox synod, removed these\nobstacles; and the episcopal conscience was again, after the Greek\nfashion, in the hands of the prince.\u201d\u2014_Gibbon\u2019s Roman Empire_, chap. xlix.\nThis council, held in 786, restored the worship of images by the unanimous\nsentence of three hundred and fifty bishops. The acts of this synod have\nbeen preserved, and they are stated by Gibbon to be \u201ca curious monument of\nsuperstition and ignorance, of falsehood and folly.\u201d I am afraid that\nthere is but too much truth in this severe judgment of Gibbon; and the\nfollowing passage relating to the same council, which I have extracted,\nnot from Gibbon, or any writer of the school to which he belonged, but\nfrom the celebrated Roman Catholic historian of the church, Abb\u00e9 Fleury,\nwill enable the reader to form his own judgment on this subject.\n\nAfter describing the confession of faith signed by that council, which\ndeclared that the images of the saints are to be worshipped, because they\nremind us of those whom they represent, and make us participators in their\nmerits, he says:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe last passages showed that God was making miracles by means of images;\nand in order to confirm it, a discourse, ascribed to St Athanasius, was\nread. It contained the account of a pretended miracle, which happened at\nBeryt, with an image of Christ, which, having been pierced by the Jews,\nemitted blood, which healed many sick persons. The fathers of the council\nwere so much moved by this account that they shed tears. It is, however,\ncertain, that this discourse is not by St Athanasius, and it is even very\ndoubtful whether the story which it contains is true. Thus it appears that\namongst all the bishops present at this council, there was not a single\none versed in the science of criticism, because many other false documents\nwere produced in that assembly. This proves nothing against the decision\nof the council, because it is sufficiently supported by true documents. It\nonly proves the ignorance of the times, as well as the necessity of\nknowing history, chronology, the difference of manners and styles, in\norder to discern real documents from spurious ones.\u201d(59)\n\nThus, according to the authority of one of the most eminent writers of the\nRoman Catholic Church, the second Council of Nice, the first synod which\nhas given an explicit and solemn sanction to one of the most important\ntenets of the Western and the Eastern churches, was composed of such\nignorant and silly prelates, that an absurd fable, contained in a forged\npaper, could sway their minds and hearts in such a manner as to make them\nshed tears of emotion, and that there was not a single individual amongst\nthese venerable fathers sufficiently informed to be able to discover a\nfabrication so gross that it did not escape the attention of scholars who\nlived many centuries afterwards.\n\nIrene rigorously enforced the decrees of this council against the\nopponents of images; and that woman, guilty of the death of her own son,\nand suspected of that of her husband, is extolled by ecclesiastical\nwriters as a most pious princess. A contemporary Greek writer, and a\nzealous defender of image-worship, the monk Theodore Studites, places her\nabove Moses, and says that \u201cshe had delivered the people from the Egyptian\nbondage of impiety;\u201d and the historian of the Roman Catholic Church,\nBaronius, justifies her conduct by the following argument: that the hands\nof the fathers were raised by a just command of God against their\nchildren, who followed strange gods, and that Moses had ordered them to\nconsecrate themselves to the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon\nhis brother, Exod. xxxii. 29, so that it was a high degree of piety to be\ncruel to one\u2019s own son; consequently Irene deserved on this account the\nfirst crown of paradise; and that if she had committed the murder of her\nson from motives of ambition, she would be worse than Agrippina, mother of\nNero; but if she did it through zeal for religion, as it appears by the\nencomium which she had received from very holy men who lived at that time,\nshe deserves to be praised for her piety.\n\nIrene\u2019s piety, shown by the restoration of images, and the persecution of\ntheir opponents, was indeed so much appreciated by the church, that she\nreceived a place amongst the saints of the Greek calendar. She was,\nhowever, less fortunate in her worldly affairs; because she was deposed in\n802 by Nicephorus, who occupied the imperial throne, and exiled to Lesbos,\nwhere she died in great poverty. He did not abolish the images, nor allow\nthe persecution of their opponents; and the ecclesiastical writers\nrepresent him, on account of this liberal policy, as a perfect monster.\nNicephorus perished in a battle against the Bulgarians in 811, and his\nsuccessor Michael, who persecuted the iconoclasts, unable to maintain\nhimself on the throne, retired into a convent, after a reign of about two\nyears, and the imperial crown was assumed by Leo V., a native of Armenia,\nand one of the most eminent leaders of the army, which elevated him to\nthis dignity.\n\nThough all that we know about Leo V. is derived from authors zealously\nopposed to his religious views, yet, notwithstanding all their _odium\ntheologicum_, they are obliged to admit that he was gallant in the field,\nand just and careful in the administration of civil affairs. Being the\nnative of a country whose church still resisted the introduction of\nimages, he was naturally adverse to their worship, and the manner in which\nhe abolished it in his empire deserves a particular notice; because,\nthough related by his enemies, it proves that he was a sincere scriptural\nChristian.\n\nAccording to their relation, Leo believed that the victories obtained by\nthe barbarians, and other calamities to which the empire was exposed, were\na visitation of God in punishment of the worship of images; that he\ndemanded that a precept for adoring the images should be shown to him in\nthe gospels, and as the thing was impossible, he rejected them as idols\ncondemned by the Word of God. They also say, that the attention of Leo\nbeing once drawn to this passage of the prophet Isaiah, \u201c_To whom then\nwill you liken God? or what likeness will you compare unto him? The\nworkman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with\ngold and casteth silver chains_,\u201d (xl. 18, 19,) this circumstance\nirritated him more than any thing else against the images. He communicated\nhis sentiments to the patriarch, and requested him either to remove the\nimages, or to show a reason why they were worshipped, _since __ the\nScriptures did not order it_. The patriarch, who was an adherent of the\nimages, tried to elude this demand by various sophisms, which, not having\nsatisfied the emperor, he ordered divines of both parties to assemble in\nhis palace, and represented to them that Moses, who had received the law,\nwritten with the hand of God, condemned, in the most explicit terms, those\nwho adored the works of men\u2019s hands; that it was idolatry to worship them,\nand great folly to attempt to confine the Infinite in a picture of the\nsize of an ell. It is said that the defenders of the images refused to\nspeak for the three following reasons:\u20141. That the canons prohibited to\ndoubt what had been determined by the second Council of Nice; 2. That the\nclergy could not deliberate upon such matters in the imperial palace, but\nin a church; and, 3. That the emperor was not a competent judge on this\noccasion, because he was resolved to abolish the images. The emperor\ndeposed the patriarch, who defended the images, replacing him by another\nwho shared his own sentiments, and convened a council, which, with the\nexception of a few of its members, decided for the abolition of the\nimages. The emperor ordered their removal, and sent several of their\ndefenders into exile; he soon, however, allowed them to return, and only\nsome few of the most zealous of them died in exile. The most celebrated of\nthese sufferers was Theodore Studites; and as he has obtained on this\naccount the honour of saintship, his opinions on the nature of images\ndeserve a particular notice. He maintained that as the shadow cannot be\nseparated from the body, as the rays of the sun are inseparable from that\nplanet, so the images are inseparable from the subjects which they\nrepresent. He pretended that an image of Christ should be treated as if it\nwere Christ himself, saying, \u201c_The image is nothing else than Christ\nhimself, except the difference of their essence; therefore, the worship of\nthe image is the worship of Jesus Christ_.\u201d He considered those who were\nremoving images as \u201c_destroyers of the incarnation of Christ, because he\ndoes not exist if he cannot be painted_. We renounce Christ if we reject\nhis image; and refuse to worship him, if we refuse to adore his\nimage.\u201d(60)\n\nThis defence of image-worship is, I think, a faithful exposition of the\nanthropomorphistic ideas, which, as I have mentioned before, p. 9, had\nbeen chiefly generated by the morbid imagination of the Egyptian monks,\nand were supported by that numerous class, which formed the most zealous\nand efficient defenders of the images. Leo V. was murdered in a church in\n820; and Michael II., surnamed the Stammerer, whom the conspirators placed\non the throne, did not allow the images to be restored, though he was\nmoderate in his religious views. He recalled the defenders of the images\nfrom exile, and seemed to steer a middle course between the enemies and\nthe defenders of images, though he shared the opinions of the former. He\nwas succeeded in 829 by his son, Theophilus,\u2014a most decided opponent of\nimages,\u2014and whose valour and love of justice are acknowledged by his\nreligious adversaries. He died in 841, leaving a minor son, Michael III.,\nunder the regency of his wife, Theodora. This princess, whose personal\ncharacter was irreproachable, governed the empire during thirteen years,\nwith considerable wisdom; but being an adherent of images, she restored\ntheir worship,(61) which has since that time continued in the Greek Church\nin perhaps even a more exaggerated form than in the Roman Catholic one,\nand which can be without any impropriety called _iconolatry_, since\n_idolatry_ may be perhaps considered as an expression too strong for ears\npolite.\n\nThe struggle between the iconoclasts and the iconolaters, of which I have\ngiven a mere outline, but which agitated the Eastern empire for nearly a\ncentury and a half, ending in the complete triumph of the latter, deserves\nthe particular attention of all thinking Protestants; because it is\nvirtually the same contest that has been waged for more than three\ncenturies between Protestantism and Rome,(62) and which seems now to\nassume a new phasis. I do not think that the ignorance of those times may\nbe considered as the principal cause of the triumph of the iconolatric\nparty, and that the spread of knowledge in our own day is a sufficient\nsafeguard against the recurrence of a similar contingency. There was in\nthe eighth and ninth centuries a considerable amount of learning at\nConstantinople, where the treasures of classical literature, many of which\nhave since been lost, were preserved and studied.(63) The Greeks of that\ntime, though no doubt greatly inferior to the modern Europeans in physical\nscience, were not so in metaphysics and letters, whilst the gospel could\nbe read by all the educated classes in its original tongue, which was the\nofficial, literary, and ecclesiastical language of the Eastern empire. The\nByzantine art was, moreover, very inferior to that of modern Europe, and\ncould not produce, except on some coarse and rustic intellects, that\nbewitching effect, which the works of great modern painters and sculptors\noften produce upon many refined and imaginative minds. It has been justly\nremarked, by an accomplished writer of our day, that \u201cthe all-emancipating\npress is occasionally neutralised by the soul-subduing miracles of\nart.\u201d(64)\n\nThe Roman Catholic Church perfectly understands this _soul-subduing_ power\nof art, and the following is the exposition of her views on this subject\nby one of her own writers, whom I have already quoted on a similar\nsubject, p. 51.\n\n\u201cThat pictures and images in churches are particularly serviceable in\ninforming the minds of the humbler classes, and for such a purpose possess\na superiority over words themselves, is certain.\n\n\n    \u201cSegnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,\n    Quam qu\u00e6 sunt oculis subjecta fldelibus et qu\u00e6\n    Ipse sibi tradit spectator.\u201d\n\n    \u2014_Horace de Arte Poetica_, v. 180.\n\n    \u201cWhat\u2019s through the ear conveyed will never find\n    Its way with so much quickness to the mind,\n    As that, when faithful eyes are messengers,\n    Unto himself the fixed spectator bears.\u201d\n\n\n\u201cThe remark of a heathen poet is corroborated by the observations of the\nmost celebrated amongst ancient and modern Christian writers. So persuaded\nwas St Paulinus of Nola, fourteen hundred years ago, of the efficacy\npossessed by paintings for conveying useful lessons of instruction, that\nhe adorned with a variety of sacred subjects the walls of a church which\nhe erected, and dedicated to God in honour of St Felix.\n\n\u201cPrudentius assures us how much his devotion was enkindled, as he gazed\nupon the sufferings of martyrs, so feelingly depicted around their tombs\nand in their churches. On his way to Rome, about the year 405, the poet\npaid a visit to the shrine of St Cassianus, at Forum Cornelii, the modern\nImola, where the body of that Christian hero reposed, under a splendid\naltar, over which were represented, in an expressive picture, all the\nsufferings of his cruel martyrdom.(65) So moved was Prudentius, that he\nthrew himself upon the pavement, kissed the altar with religious\nreverence, and numbering up with many a tear those wounds that sin had\ninflicted upon his soul, concluded by exhorting every one to unite with\nhimself in intrusting their petitions for the divine clemency to the\nsolicitude of the holy martyr Cassianus, who will not only hear our\nrequest, but will afford us the benefit of his patronage.\u201d(66)\n\nThe anecdote of Prudentius evidently proves that what originally had been\nintended for the instruction of the people, may very easily become an\nobject of their adoration. If a man of a superior education, like\nPrudentius,(67) could be carried away by his feelings in such a manner as\nto address his prayers to a dead man, how much greater must be the effect\nof images upon less cultivated minds! and I have related, p. 88, on the\nauthority of the great Roman Catholic historian, Fleury, that the fathers\nof the second Council of Nice, who, according to the same authority, were\na very ignorant set, shed tears at the sight of an image represented in an\nabsurd and fictitious story.\n\nSuch are the effects produced in teaching religion by means of images.\nThere can be no doubt about the truth of the observations contained in the\nlines of Horace, which the author of \u201cHierurgia\u201d quotes in defence of\nimages; but these observations refer to the theatre, and it appears to me\nthat the application of purely scenic precepts to the house of God is\nsomething very like converting divine service into a comedy.\n\nThe limits of this essay allow me not to discuss the chances of an\niconolatric reaction in our days. I shall only observe, that in several\ncountries where the iconoclasts of the Reformation had gained a\npredominant position, they were entirely crushed by the iconolatric\nreaction, and that a _fond alliance of females and monks_, supported by\nthe ruling powers of the state, achieved in these parts as great a victory\nas that which it obtained in the east under Irene and Theodora, not only\nover the reason of man, but even over the authority of the Word of God;\nand I believe that the only human means of preventing similar\ncontingencies are free institutions, which allow the fullest liberty of\ndiscussion in regard to all religious opinions.\n\nI have said before, p. 82, that the Pope opposed the abolition of images\nproclaimed by the Emperor Leo III., and that this opposition was shared by\nthe imperial provinces of Italy, which revolted on that occasion against\ntheir sovereign, and separated from the Byzantine empire. It was therefore\nnatural that the second Council of Nice, which restored the worship of\nimages, should obtain the approbation of Pope Hadrian I.; but his desire\nto impose the enactments of that council upon the churches of the West met\nwith a decided opposition on the part of Charlemagne. This great monarch,\nwho is so celebrated by his efforts to convert the Pagan Saxons,\nprosecuted with all the barbarity of his age, and whom the church has\nplaced amongst her saints, was so offended by the enactments of the second\nCouncil of Nice in favour of the worship of images, that he composed, or\nwhat is more probable, ordered to be composed in his name, a book against\nthat worship, and sent it to Pope Hadrian I., as an exposition of his own\nsentiments, as well as of those of his bishops, on the subject in\nquestion. This work, though written in violent language, contains many\nvery rational views about images, and unanswerable arguments against all\nkinds of adoration offered to them. The substance of this celebrated\nprotest is as follows:\u2014\n\nCharlemagne says, that there is no harm in having images in a church,\nprovided they are not worshipped; and that the Greeks had fallen into two\nextremes, one of which was to destroy the images, as had been ordained by\nthe Council of Constantinople, under Constantine Copronymus, and the other\nto worship them, as was decided by the second Council of Nice under Irene.\nHe censures much more severely this latter extreme than the former,\nbecause those who destroyed images had merely acted with levity and\nignorance, whilst it was a wicked and profane action to worship them. He\ncompared the first to such as mix water with wine, and the others to those\nwho infuse a deadly poison into it; in short, there could be no comparison\nbetween the two cases. He marks, with great precision, the different kinds\nof worship offered to the images, rejecting all of them. The second\nCouncil of Nice decided that this worship should consist of kisses and\ngenuflexions, as well as of burning incense and wax candles before them.\nAll these practices are condemned by Charlemagne, as so many acts of\nworship offered to a created being. He addresses the defenders of the\nworship of images in the following manner:\u2014\n\n\u201cYou who establish the purity of your faith upon images, go, if you like,\n_and fall upon your knees and burn incense before them_; but with regard\nto ourselves we shall seek the precepts of God in his Holy Writ. _Light\nluminaries before your pictures_, whilst we shall read the Scriptures.\n_Venerate, if you like, colours_; but we shall worship divine mysteries.\n_Enjoy the agreeable sight of your pictures_; but we shall find our\ndelight in the Word of God. _Seek after figures which cannot either see,\nor hear, or __ taste_; but we shall diligently seek after the law of God,\nwhich is irreprehensible.\u201d He further says:\u2014\u201cI see images which have such\ninscriptions, as for instance St Paul, and I ask, therefore, those who are\ninvolved in this great error, why they do call images _holy (sanctus)_,\nand why they do not say, conformably to the tradition of the fathers, that\nthese are images of the _saints_? Let them say in what consists the\nsanctity of the images? Is it in the wood which had been brought from a\nforest in order to make them? Is it in the colours with which they are\npainted, and which are often composed of impure substances? Is it in the\nwax, which gets dirty?\u201d He taunts the worshippers of images, pointing out\nan abuse which even now is as inevitable as it was then. \u201cIf,\u201d says he,\n\u201ctwo pictures perfectly alike, but of which one is meant for the Virgin\nand the other for Venus, are presented to you, you will inquire which of\nthem is the image of the Virgin and which is that of Venus, because you\ncannot distinguish them. The painter will call one of these pictures the\nimage of the Virgin, and it will be immediately put up in a _high place,\nhonoured, and kissed_; whilst the other, representing Venus, will be\nthrown away with horror. These two pictures are, however, made by the same\nhand, with the same brush, with the same colours; they have the same\nfeatures, and the whole difference between them lies in their\ninscriptions. Why is the one received and the other rejected? It is not on\naccount of the sanctity which one of them has, and the other has not; it\nis, then, on account of its inscription; and yet certain letters attached\nto a picture cannot give it a sanctity which it otherwise had not.\u201d\n\nThis work was published for the first time in 1549, by Tillet, Roman\nCatholic bishop of Meaux in France, though under an assumed name, and it\nhas been reprinted several times. Its authenticity, which had been at\nfirst impugned by some Roman Catholic writers, was finally established\nbeyond every dispute, and acknowledged by the most eminent writers of the\nRoman Catholic Church, such as Mabillon, Sirmond, &c. It is a very\nremarkable production, for it most positively rejects every kind of\nworship offered to images, without making any difference between _Latria_\nand _Dulia_, and I think that its republication might be of considerable\nservice at the present time.(68)\n\nThe Pope sent a long letter in answer to the protest of Charlemagne, which\ndid not, however, satisfy that monarch, because he convened in 794 a\ncouncil at Frankfort, at which he presided himself. This synod, composed\nof three hundred bishops of France, Germany, and Spain, and at which two\nlegates of the Pope were present, condemned the enactment of the second\nCouncil of Nice respecting the worship of images.\n\nThis decree of the Council of Frankfort is very important, because it not\nonly condemned the worship of images, but it virtually rejected the\ninfallibility of the Popes, as well as of the General Councils, since it\ncondemned what they had established.\n\nThe opposition to the worship of images continued amongst the Western\nchurches for some time after the death of Charlemagne. Thus an assembly of\nthe French clergy, held at Paris in 825, condemned the decree of the\nsecond Council of Nice as decidedly as it was done by the work of\nCharlemagne and the Council of Frankfort. Claudius, bishop of Turin, who\nlived about that time, opposed the worship of images, which he removed\nfrom his churches, calling those idolaters who adhered to this practice;\nhe also condemned the adoration of relics, of the figure of the cross,\n&c.; and he was not inaptly called, on this account, by the Jesuit\nhistorian Maimbourg, the first Protestant minister.\n\nThere are other traces of a similar opposition during the ninth century,\nbut it seems to have entirely disappeared in the tenth, and it was again\nrenewed by the Albigenses in the eleventh century. Their history, however,\nis foreign to the object of the present essay; and I shall endeavour to\ngive in my next chapter a short sketch of the legends of the saints,\ncomposed during the middle ages.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI. Origin And Development Of The Pious Legends, Or Lives Of\nSaints, During The Middle Ages.\n\n\nA collection of the lives of the saints of the Roman Catholic calendar has\nbeen accomplished by the Jesuits, and is well known as that of the\nBollandists, from the name of its first originator Bollandus. It extends\nto fifty-three huge folios, though it has reached only to the middle of\nOctober,(69) each day having a number of saints assigned to it for\ncommemoration. It contains, among a mass of the greatest absurdities, a\ngood deal of valuable information relating to the history of the middle\nages, particularly in respect to the customs and prevailing ideas of that\nperiod. A great, if not the greatest part of the saints whose lives are\ndescribed in that collection have never existed, except in the imagination\nof their biographers; and the best proof of this is that the learned\nBenedictine monk, Dom Ruinart, an intimate friend and collaborator of the\ncelebrated Mabillon, has reduced the acts of martyrs, whom he considers as\ntrue, to one moderate quarto, though the same work contains a refutation\nof the Protestant Dodwell, who maintained that the number of the primitive\nmartyrs had been greatly exaggerated by their historians.(70)\n\nThe Christian church was already, at an early period of her existence,\ndisturbed by a great number of forgeries, relating to the history and\ndoctrine of our Lord and his disciples;(71) but the spirit in which they\nwere written, so contrary to that of the true Gospel, and the gross\nabsurdities which they contain, were convincing proofs of the apocryphal\ncharacter of those writings, which, consequently, were rejected as such\nfrom the canon of Scripture. If the church could not escape such abuses at\na time when she was not yet infected by Pagan ideas and practices, she\nbecame still more exposed to them after the abovementioned corruptions,\nand when, as has already been said, p. 20, the Christian society was\ninvaded by whole populations, who, notwithstanding their abjuration of\nheathenism, were Pagans in their manners, their tastes, their prejudices,\nand their ignorance. There were, moreover, very great difficulties in\nobtaining authentic information about the lives of the martyrs. I have\nsaid, p. 3, that their memory was usually preserved in the churches to\nwhich they had belonged. This was, however, entirely a local affair, and\nthough the report of such events had undoubtedly circulated amongst other\nChristian congregations, there was no general register of martyrs\npreserved by the whole church, which had no central point of union. The\nmeans of communication between various places were, moreover, at that time\nvery imperfect, and this difficulty was increased by the persecutions to\nwhich the primitive churches were often exposed. These persecutions\ndispersed many churches, destroying their registers and other documents\nbelonging to them, whilst even a much greater number of them experienced a\nsimilar calamity from the barbarian nations who successively invaded the\nRoman empire. The accounts of the sufferings and death of the martyrs\nrest, therefore, with the exception of some comparatively few\nwell-authenticated cases, upon the authority of vague and uncertain\ntraditions. These traditions were generally collected and put in writing\nonly centuries after the time when the event to which they relate had, or\nis supposed to have taken place. It was therefore no wonder that the\nsubjects of many such accounts are purely imaginary. The nature of the\ngenerality of these legends, or lives of martyrs and other saints, may be\njudged of best from the following opinion expressed on this subject by a\nRoman Catholic clergyman of unsuspected orthodoxy:\u2014\n\n\u201cWhat shall I say of those saints of whose life we don\u2019t know either the\nbeginning or the progress,\u2014of those saints to whom so many praises are\ngiven, though nobody knows anything about their end? Who may pray to them\nto intercede for him, when it is impossible to know what degree of credit\nthey enjoy with God? We shall be obliged, indeed, to consider the most\npart of the acts of martyrs, which are now produced with so much\nconfidence, as so many fables, and reject them as nothing better than\nromances. It is true that their lives are written, like that of St\nOvidius, St Felicissimus, and St Victor! But, O God! what lives! what\nlibels! lives deserving a place in the Index of the Prohibited Books,\nsince they are filled with falsehoods, vain conjectures, or, to say the\nleast, are ascribing to unknown and apocryphal saints the true acts of the\nmost illustrious martyrs. Such things cannot but bring about a great\nconfusion in the history of the church, not to say in religion itself. It\nis in this manner that the actions of St Felicissimus, who is generally\nbelieved to have been a deacon to St Sixtus, are ascribed to a new\nFelicissimus; and the virtues of St Victor of Milan are now given to a new\nVictor, who has been recently brought to Paris. As regards the life of St\nOvidius, is there anything in it more than words and words? and can we\nfind in it anything solid? This little book speaks of a leaden plate upon\nwhich the senatorial dignity and the year of this saint\u2019s martyrdom are\ninscribed. Why is not this inscription given? Why is not at least the\nprecise date of his martyrdom named? It is said that St Ovidius suffered\ntowards the end of the second century; is this the manner of fixing the\nyear of his death? No, no; the ancients did not mark the time in such a\nmanner; they did not take an uncertain century for the certain epoch of a\nyear. I am much afraid that this inscription is by no means so authentic\nas people wish to persuade us. But there was found in his grave a little\nglass vessel; a palm is engraved upon his sepulchre; and his skull has the\nappearance of being pierced with a lance. Well, these marks may prove that\nSt Ovidius was a martyr; but are they sufficient to establish the truth of\nhis life, such as it has been published?\u201d(72)\n\nI would, however, observe, that many writers of the lives of saints,\nwithout excepting those who are considered legitimate, have rendered\nthemselves guilty of something worse than the plagiarism of which the\nlearned Mabillon complains in the passage given above. They may be accused\nof having blasphemously parodied the Scriptures, and particularly the\nGospels, by ascribing many of the miracles recorded in the Bible to the\nsubjects of their biographies. M. Maury, the French savant whom I have\nalready quoted (p. 11), has traced a great number of miracles ascribed to\nvarious saints, which are nothing but imitations of this kind. This\nsacrilegious plagiarism is not confined to the middle ages, but has been\npractised in modern times, as is evident from the two following miracles\nascribed to the celebrated Jesuit saint, Francis Xavier, who died in 1552.\nIt is said that during his residence in Japan a woman of his acquaintance\nlost her daughter, after having sought in vain during her illness for St\nFrancis, who was absent on some journey. At his return the bereaved mother\nfell at his feet, and said, weeping, like Martha to our Saviour, \u201cLord, if\nthou hadst been here, my daughter had not died,\u201d\u2014(John xi. 21.) The saint,\nmoved by the entreaties of the mother, ordered her to open the grave of\nher daughter, and restored her to life. Another time the same saint said\nto a father whose daughter had died, in the same manner as Jesus Christ\nsaid to the centurion whose servant was sick, \u201cGo thy way; thy daughter is\nhealed.\u201d(73)\n\nHad these miracles been performed in our part of the world, they would\nhave converted crowds of Protestants, and thus greatly advanced the\nprincipal object of the order to which St Francis Xavier belonged; but the\nair of Europe seems to have been unfavourable for such wonderful\nexperiments, since the good saint was obliged to betake himself to Japan\nin order successfully to perform them.\n\nIt is true that the legend writers make no attempt at concealing these\nimitations, but, on the contrary, insist upon the likeness of the miracles\nperformed by their saint to those of our Saviour, as a proof of the high\ndegree of sanctity attained by the former. No saint, however, of the Roman\nCatholic or Gr\u00e6co-Russian calendar had so many miracles ascribed to him,\nparticularly of the kind mentioned above, as St Francis of Assisi, the\ncelebrated founder of the mendicant monks, and who, considering the\nimmense influence which his disciples have exercised on the Catholic\nworld, was perhaps one of the most extraordinary characters which the\nmiddle ages produced.\n\nIt has been frequently observed, that genius is akin to madness, and that\nthe partition by which the two are separated is so thin that it\noccasionally becomes quite imperceptible. Such a condition of the human\nmind has perhaps never been exemplified in a more striking manner than by\nthe life of this famous saint, which presents a strange mixture of the\nnoblest acts of charity and self-devotion, the wildest freaks of a madman,\nand of genial conceptions worthy of the most eminent statesman and\nphilosopher. The best proof of his genius is the great influence which the\norder instituted by him has exercised during several centuries in many\ncountries, and which even now has not yet lost its vitality. It must also\nbe admitted, that neither St Francis nor his disciples can be charged with\nany of those atrocities by which the life of his contemporary St Dominic,\nof bloody memory, the founder of the inquisition, and the preacher of the\ncrusade against the Albigenses, as well as the annals of his order, are\nstained. Neither can it be denied that Francis, as well as his followers,\nhave on many occasions mitigated the barbarity of their age. His immense\npopularity is, however, as I think, chiefly due to the circumstance that\nhis order, principally destined to act upon the lower classes, was\nrecruited from the most numerous and most ignorant part of the population;\nand is it necessary to observe that the less men are educated, the more\nthey are prone to credulity and exaggeration? Much learning was not\nrequired for the admission to this democratic order, and its ranks were\nincreased by the creation of a class whose members remained in the world,\nbinding themselves only to the observation of some devotional practices\nand moral precepts. All this contributed to spread the order of St\nFrancis, to which both sexes are admitted, with a marvellous rapidity over\nmany countries; at the same time its members were extolling the virtues\nand supposed miracles of their founder in the most exaggerated and often\nludicrous manner, of which the following anecdote may serve as a\nspecimen:\u2014A Franciscan monk, who was one day preaching about the merits of\nthe founder of his order, began his sermon in the following manner: \u201cWhere\nshall I place the great St Francis? Amongst the saints? This is not enough\nfor his merits. Amongst the angels? no, \u2019tis not enough. Amongst the\narchangels? \u2019tis not enough. Amongst the seraphims? \u2019tis not enough.\nAmongst the cherubims? \u2019tis not enough.\u201d He was, however, on a sudden\nreleased, by one of his hearers, from his perplexity about a proper\nlocation for his saint, who, rising from his seat, said, \u201cReverend father,\nas I see that you cannot find for St Francis a proper place in heaven, I\nshall give up to him mine on this bench;\u201d which having said, he left the\nchurch.\n\nThe story does not say whether this good monk was satisfied with the place\nso unexpectedly offered to his saint, or where he would have stopped\nwithout this timely interruption; but we know, from many other cases, that\nSt Francis was compared by his disciples to our Saviour. Thus, in a work\npublished by the Father Bartholomeus of Pisa, and entitled \u201cThe Golden\nBook of the Conformities of the Life of St Francis with that of Jesus\nChrist,\u201d(74) the author maintains that the birth of St Francis was\nannounced by prophets; that he had twelve disciples, one of whom, called\nJohn Capella, was rejected by him, like Judas Iscariot by our Lord; that\nhe had been tempted by the devil, but without success; that he was\ntransfigured; that he had suffered the same passion as our Saviour, though\nhe never was subject to any persecution or ill-usage, but died quietly, in\n1218, amidst his devoted admirers. Other writers pushed even farther the\nblasphemous comparison, boasting that St Francis had performed many more\nmiracles than our Lord, because Christ changed water into wine but once,\nwhilst St Francis did it thrice; and that instead of the few miraculous\ncures mentioned in the Gospels, St Francis and his disciples had opened\nthe eyes of more than a thousand blind, cured more than a thousand lame,\nand restored to life more than a thousand dead.\n\nThe greatest miracle, however, that has ever been wrought by St Francis\nhas taken place in our own days, and its authenticity admits of no doubt\nwhatever. It is a life of this famous saint, published by M. Chavin de\nMalan; and my readers may form an adequate idea of its contents by the\nfollowing extract from an admirable article in the \u201cEdinburgh Review\u201d for\nJuly 1847:\u2014\u201cThough amongst the most passionate and uncompromising devotees\nof the Church of Rome, M. Chavin de Malan also is in one sense a\nProtestant. He protests against any exercise of human reason in examining\nany dogma which that church inculcates, or any fact which she alleges. The\nmost merciless of her cruelties affect him with no indignation, the\nsilliest of her prodigies with no shame, the basest of her superstitions\nwith no contempt. Her veriest dotage is venerable in his eyes. Even the\natrocities of Innocent III. seem to this all-extolling eulogist but to\naugment the triumph and the glories of his reign. If the soul of the\nconfessor of Simon de Montfort, retaining all the passions and all the\nprejudices of that era, should transmigrate into a doctor of the Sorbonne,\nconversant with the arts and literature of our own times, the result might\nbe the production of such an ecclesiastical history as that of which we\nhave here a specimen,\u2014elaborate in research, glowing in style, vivid in\nportraiture, utterly reckless and indiscriminate in belief, extravagant up\nto the very verge of idolatry in applause, and familiar far beyond the\nverge of indecorum with the most awful topics and objects of the Christian\nfaith.\u201d\u2014(Pp. 1, 2.)(75)\n\nNow, I ask my reader whether the publication of such a work, in the year\nof grace 1845, at Paris, is not a perfect miracle, and undoubtedly much\nmore genuine than all those which it describes?\n\nWe live indeed in an age of wonders, physical as well as moral, and\nneither of them have escaped the all-powerful influence of the great\nmoving spring of our time, and the principal cause of its rapid\nadvance,\u2014_i.e._, competition. England, which is foremost in many, and not\nbehind in any, inventions and discoveries of the day, has maintained her\nrank, and even perhaps gone ahead, in the production of such moral\nmiracles as that of which I have given a specimen above. And, indeed, the\nlives of the English saints, published in the years 1844 and 1845, in the\ncapital of this Protestant country, may fearlessly challenge a comparison\nwith the work of M. Chavin de Malan. They are, moreover, ascribed to a\nclergyman of the Church of England, who, though he has since gone over to\nRome, was at that time receiving the wages of the Protestant Establishment\nof this country as one of its servants and defenders.(76) The few\nfollowing extracts from this curious work will enable my readers to judge\nwhether I have over-estimated the capabilities of this work for a\nsuccessful competition with its French rival:\u2014\n\n\u201cMany of these (legends) are so well fitted to illustrate certain\nprinciples which should be borne in mind in considering medi\u00e6val miracles,\nthat they deserve some attention. Not that any thing here said is intended\nto _prove_ that the stories of miracles, said to be wrought in the middle\nages, are true. Men will always believe or disbelieve their truth, in\nproportion as they are disposed to admit or reject the antecedent\nprobability of the existence of a perpetual church, endowed with unfailing\ndivine powers. And the reason of this is plain. Ecclesiastical miracles\npresuppose Catholic faith, just as Scripture miracles, and Scripture\nitself, presuppose the existence of God. Men, therefore, who disbelieve\nthe faith, will of course disbelieve the story of the miracles, which, if\nit is not appealed to as a proof of the faith, at least takes it for\ngranted. For instance, the real reason for rejecting the account of the\nvision which appeared to St Waltheof in the holy Eucharist, must be\ndisbelief of the Catholic doctrine.\u201d(77)\n\nThe miracle alluded to above, and which cannot be rejected without\ndisbelief in the Catholic doctrine, is as follows:\u2014\u201cOn Christmas-day, when\nthe convent was celebrating the nativity of our Lord, as the friar was\nelevating the host, in the blessed sacrifice of the mass, he saw in his\nhand a child fairer than the children of men, having on his head a crown\nof gold studded with jewels. His eyes beamed with light, and his face was\nmore radiant than the whitest snow; and so ineffably sweet was his\ncountenance, that the friar kissed the feet and the hands of the heavenly\nchild. After this the divine vision disappeared, and Waltheof found in his\nhands the consecrated water.\u201d(78)\n\nThe whole collection is full of similar stories, some of which are really\noutrageous; as, for instance, that which it relates about St Augustine,\nthe great apostle of England.\n\nThis saint was, during his peregrinations about the country, received with\ngreat honours in the north of England; \u201cbut,\u201d says the work in question,\n\u201cvery different from this are the accounts of his travels in Dorsetshire.\nWhile there, we hear of his having come to one village, where he was\nreceived with every species of insult. The wretched people, not content\nwith heaping abusive words upon the holy visitors, assailed them with\nmissiles, in which work, the place being probably a sea-port, the sellers\nof fish are related to have been peculiarly active. Hands, too, were laid\nupon the archbishop and his company. Finding all efforts useless, the\ngodly company shook the dust from their feet, and withdrew. The\ninhabitants are said to have suffered the penalty of their impieties, even\nto distant generations. All the children born from that time bore and\ntransmitted the traces of their parents\u2019 sins in the shape of a loathsome\ndeformity.\u201d(79)\n\nThe writer who relates this story had not the courage or the honesty of M.\nChavin de Malan to tell that the insult offered to the holy visitors\nconsisted in attaching tails of fish to their robes, and that the\nloathsome deformity, with which the children of the perpetrators of that\ninsult were born during many generations, was a tail.\n\nAbsurd as this monkish story is, it is nevertheless characteristic of the\nspirit of the sacerdotal pride and vindictiveness which would punish a\nsilly joke, by which the dignity of the priestly order was offended, with\na heavy calamity, entailed upon the innocent descendants of its\nperpetrators through many generations; and yet the fables of this modern\nmythology cannot be, according to our author, rejected _without disbelief\nof the Catholic doctrine_. This is not, however, his personal opinion; and\nhe has only asserted, in a more decisive manner than it has been done for\na considerable time, a principle which the Roman Catholic Church cannot\ndisavow, though it may place her in an embarrassing position; and as an\nillustration of this, I shall give the following anecdote:\u2014\n\nUnder the reign of Frederic II., a Prussian soldier stole a costly\nornament from an image of the Virgin, which enjoyed a great reputation for\nits miraculous powers. The theft being discovered, the culprit pleaded in\nhis defence that, having addressed a fervent prayer to the above-mentioned\nimage for help in his poverty, it gave him this ornament to relieve him\nfrom his distress. This affair was reported to the king, who, being much\namused by the soldier\u2019s device, required the Roman Catholic bishop in\nwhose diocese this theft was committed to give a positive opinion whether\nthe image in question could work miracles of this kind or not? The bishop\ncould not, without showing _disbelief in the Catholic doctrine_, deny the\npossibility of the miracle, and was therefore obliged to give an\naffirmative reply. The king, therefore, pardoned the soldier, on condition\nof never accepting presents from this or any other image or saint\nwhatever.\n\nThe author of this essay, though a firm believer in the existence of God\nand the truth of the Scriptures, has not the advantage of being inspired\nwith faith in the Catholic doctrine; he therefore will continue his\nresearches in the same manner as before.\n\nMany legends originated from misunderstanding the emblematic character of\nsome pictures. Thus the celebrated Spanish lady saint and authoress, St\nTheresa, was, on account of her eloquent and impassioned effusions of love\naddressed to the Deity, painted by a Spanish artist having her heart\npierced with an arrow, in allusion to the words of the Psalmist, \u201cFor\nthine arrows stick fast in me,\u201d &c.\u2014(Ps. xxxviii. 2.) She died quietly in\nher convent towards the end of the sixteenth century, and though the\nparticulars of her life and death are generally known, there were some\nlegend writers who related that she died a martyr, pierced by an arrow. If\nsuch confusion of ideas could happen in a time when literature and science\nhad made considerable progress, and when the art of printing was already\nuniversally known, how much more frequently such things must have occurred\nduring the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages! And, indeed, there are\nmany wild legends which have originated from a similar source, and of\nwhich the most celebrated is that of St Denis, which has been also related\nof other saints. This martyr, supposed to have been beheaded, was\nrepresented holding his head in his hand, as an emblem of the manner of\nhis death. The writer of his legend took this emblem for the\nrepresentation of a real fact, and loosening the reins of his imagination,\nrelated that the saint, after having been beheaded, took up his head,\nkissed it, and walked away with it.(80)\n\nIt is a general tendency of a gross and unenlightened mind to materialise\nthe most abstract and spiritual ideas, and then what is simply an allegory\nbecomes with him a reality. It was this tendency which, during the\nmedi\u00e6val ignorance, gave often a literal sense to what is only typical,\nand it was carried so far that even the parables of our Lord were\nconstructed into real stories. Thus, Lazarus was a poor saint who lived in\ngreat want, and was made after his death the patron of beggars and lepers.\nThe parable of the prodigal son has furnished materials for many a legend;\nand to crown all these pious parodies, a monk has shown to the well-known\nEastern traveller Hasselquist, the very spot upon which the good Samaritan\nassisted the wounded man, who had been left unheeded by the priest and the\nLevite. Future rewards and punishments, heaven and hell, were also\nrepresented in a grossly material manner, that gave rise to many absurd\nlegends, generally invented with the object of supporting the pretensions\nof the church, to have the power of sending at pleasure the souls of the\ndeparted to either of these places.(81)\n\nI have already spoken of the effects which the solitary and ascetic life\nof the early monks produced upon their imagination. The same thing took\nplace amongst the recluses of the convents, but particularly nunneries.\n\u201cThe imaginations of women,\u201d says a celebrated author whom I have already\nquoted, \u201cas their feelings are more keen and exquisite, are more\nsusceptible and ungovernable than those of men; more obnoxious to the\ninjurious influence of solitude; more easily won upon by the arts of\ndelusion, and inflamed by the contagion of the passions.\u201d Hence we may\naccount for the rapidity with which in orphan houses, cloisters, and other\ninstitutions, where numbers of the sex are intimately connected with each\nother, the sickness, humour, habits, of one, if conspicuous and\ndistinguished, become those of all. I remember to have read in a medical\nwriter of considerable merit, that in a French convent of nuns, of more\nthan common magnitude, one of the sisters was seized with a strange\nimpulse to mew like a cat, in which singular propensity she was shortly\nimitated by several other sisters, and finally, without a solitary\nexception, by the whole convent, who all joined at regular periods in a\ngeneral mew that lasted several hours. The neighbourhood heard, with more\nastonishment than edification, the daily return of this celestial\nsymphony, which was silenced, after many ineffectual measures, by\nterrifying the modesty of the sex with the menace, that, on any future\nrepetition of their concert, a body of soldiers, pretended to be stationed\nat the gates of the monastery, would be called in to inflict upon them a\ndiscipline at once shameful and severe.\n\n\u201cAmong all the epidemic fancies of the sex I have found upon record, none\nequals that related by Cardan to have displayed itself in the fifteenth\ncentury,\u2014which forcibly illustrates what has been remarked of the\nintuitive contagion by which fantastic affection is propagated among\nwomen. A nun in a certain German convent was urged by an unaccountable\nimpulse to bite all her companions; and her strange caprice gradually\nspread to others, till the whole body was infected by the same fury. Nor\ndid the evil confine itself within these limits: the report of this\nstrange mania travelled from one province to another, and every where\nconveyed with it the infectious folly, from cloister to cloister, through\nthe German empire; from thence extending itself on each side to Holland\nand Italy, the nuns at length worried one another from Rome to Amsterdam.\n\n\u201cNumberless instances might be quoted to demonstrate the force with which\nthe strangest and most wild propensities fasten themselves on the\nimagination, and conquer and tyrannise over the will, when the soul is\ndebarred from a free intercourse with its species, and left too\nuninterruptedly to its own unbridled musings. But those which we have\nrelated may be sufficient to show the danger into which he runs who\ndelivers himself unconditionally to the custody of solitude, and does not\narm himself against its faithless hospitality. Shut up in a barren and\nmonotonous leisure, without studies to occupy curiosity, without objects\nto amuse the senses, or to interest and to attract the affections to any\nthing human, fancy will escape into the worlds of chimerical existence,\nthere to seek amusement and exercise. How fondly does it then embrace and\ncherish angelical visions, or infernal phantoms, prodigies, or miracles!\nor should its reveries take another direction, with what increasing\neagerness and confidence do its hopes hunt after the delusions of alchemy,\nthe fictions of philosophy, and the delirium of metaphysics! In cases\nwhere the mind is less capacious, and its stores less copious, it will\nattach itself to some absurd notion, the child of its languid and\nexhausted powers; and bestowing its fondest confidence on this darling of\nits dotage, will abandon reason and outrage common sense.\u201d(82)\n\nI have given this lengthened extract from Zimmerman, because I think it\nsatisfactorily explains those mystic _visions_ as well as _infernal\nphantoms_, with which the medi\u00e6val legends and chronicles, generally\ncomposed by monks, abound, and which are often unjustly ascribed to fraud\nand wilful deception. Medical science, as well as all the branches of\nnatural philosophy, being then in a very imperfect condition, such\nphenomena as those of nuns mewing like cats or biting like dogs, which are\nmentioned by Zimmerman, were not explained as nervous diseases, but\nascribed to the possession of evil spirits; and I frankly confess that I\nam by no means sure, that if cases like those mentioned above were to\nhappen in our enlightened age, there would not be found many good folks\nascribing them to a similar agency. It must be also remembered that, if\nnotwithstanding the extreme rapidity and regularity of communications in\nour own time, reports of various events are often exaggerated and even\ncompletely altered in passing from one place to another; how much more\nmust it have been the case during the time of such defective communication\nas existed previous to the invention of printing and the introduction of\nthe post! It was therefore no wonder if occurrences of such an\nextraordinary nature as those alluded to were immensely magnified by\nreport, and if it had, at least in many places, converted the mewing and\nbiting nuns into as many cats and dogs. It is, moreover, now generally\nadmitted that what is called mesmerism, but whose real nature science has\nnot yet explained, was known and practised during the middle ages, as well\nas in remote antiquity, and that many thaumaturgic operations, described\nby the medi\u00e6val legends, as well as by ancient writers, were produced by\nmeans of this still mysterious agency.\n\nI have dwelt perhaps too long on this subject, because I am afraid that\nthe observations relating to it are not confined to a distant period, but\nmay become but too often applicable to our own times. And, indeed, when we\nreflect on the rapid increase of convents and nunneries, particularly in\nthis country, and that notwithstanding the present state of civilization\nthese establishments must be filled chiefly by individuals whose\nimaginations are stronger than their reasoning powers, there can be little\ndoubt that they may again become the stage of those extraordinary\nmanifestations, the cause of which had been too exclusively ascribed to\nmedi\u00e6val darkness. It cannot be doubted, that designing individuals of\nboth sexes, possessed of superior talents and knowledge, but particularly\nendowed with a strong will, may exercise not only an undue influence, but\neven an absolute power over the inmates of the above-mentioned monastic\nestablishments; and that a skilful application of mesmerism may\nefficiently promote such unlawful ends.\n\nMany local superstitious remains of Paganism,\u2014as, for instance, miraculous\npowers ascribed to certain wells, stones, caverns,\u2014stories about various\nkinds of fairies, &c.\u2014have furnished ample materials to the medi\u00e6val\nlegend writers, who arranged them according to their own views. They\ngenerally retained the miraculous part of the story, frequently\nembellishing it by their own additions, but substituting the agency of the\nChristian saint, the hero of their tale, for that of the Pagan deity, to\nwhom it had originally been ascribed. It was thus that the localities\nconsidered by the Pagans as possessed of some supernatural properties, and\nresorted to by them on this account, were converted into places of\nChristian pilgrimages, with the only difference that the Pagan _genius\nloci_ was baptised with the name of a Christian saint, whose existence can\noften be no more proved than that of his heathen predecessor. Many\nhagiographers seem to have indulged their humour as much as their fancy in\ncomposing these legends, which appears from such ludicrous stories as, for\ninstance, that of St Fechin, whose piety was so fervent that when he was\nbathing in cold water it became almost boiling hot. This warm-hearted or\nhot-headed saint is said to have belonged to the Emerald isle, though,\nconsidering that his ardent piety was so very much like a manifestation of\nthe _perfervidum Scotorum ingenium_, in a somewhat exaggerated form, I am\nmuch inclined to believe him a native of the north country. There are many\ninstances of such humorous miracles, but I shall quote only that of\nLaurenthios, a famous Greek saint, and worker of miracles. Having one day\nsome business with the Patriarch of Constantinople, he was kept waiting in\nthe prelate\u2019s ante-chamber, and feeling very warm he wanted to take off\nhis cloak. But as there was not any piece of furniture in the room, nor\neven a peg on its walls, St Laurenthios, embarrassed what to do with his\ncloak, threw it upon a ray of the sun, which was entering the room through\na hole in the shutter, and which immediately acquired the firmness of a\nrope, so that the saint\u2019s cloak remained hanging upon it. It must not,\nhowever, be believed that the hot sun and fervid imagination of Greece\nwere absolutely requisite for the performance of such wonderful tricks;\nfor we have sufficient legendary evidence to prove that they were\nsuccessfully reproduced under the less brilliant sky of Germany and\nFrance, because St Goar of Treves suspended his cap, and St Aicadrus,\nabbot of Jumieges, his gloves upon the same piece of furniture that had\nbeen used by St Laurenthios to hang his cloak, though probably,\nconsidering that the sun is not so powerful in those countries as it is at\nConstantinople, the western saints did not venture to try its rays with\nsuch a heavy load, as had been successfully done by their eastern\ncolleague.\n\nSome miracles were invented in order to inculcate implicit obedience to\nthe ecclesiastical authorities, which is considered by the Roman Catholic\nChurch as one of, if not the most important virtue to be practised by her\nchildren. Thus it is related that when the Spanish Dominican monk, St\nVincent Ferrerius, celebrated for the great number of his miracles, was\none day walking along a street in Barcelona, a mason, falling from a high\nroof, called for his assistance. The saint answered that he could not\nperform a miracle without the permission of his superior, but that he\nwould go and ask for it. The mason remained, therefore, suspended in the\nair until St Vincent, returning with the permission, got him safely down\non the ground.\n\nIt must be admitted, that many saints, whose lives are disfigured by\nabsurd stories of their miracles, were men of great piety, adorned with\nthe noblest virtues, and who gave proofs of the most exalted charity and\nself-devotion. Unfortunately the honours of saintship have been often\nbestowed upon such sanguinary monsters as St Dominic, whose shrine would\nbe the most appropriately placed in a temple where human sacrifices are\noffered, or upon madmen who have outraged every feeling of humanity. Thus\nit is related that St Alexius left his home on the day of his wedding,\nand, having exchanged his clothes for the rags of a beggar, adopted his\nmode of life. After some time, when his appearance had become so wretched\nthat he could no longer be recognised by his friends, he returned to his\nparental house, asking for shelter. He obtained a place under the\nstaircase, and lived there by alms for seventeen years, continually\nwitnessing the distress and lamentations of his wife, mother, and aged\nfather about his loss, and was recognised only after his death by a book\nof prayers which had been given him by his mother. And it was for this\nunfeeling and even cruel treatment of his own family that he was\ncanonised! It is supposed, however, that all this story is but a fiction,\nand, for the sake of humanity, I sincerely hope that it is so.\n\nThe limits of this essay allow me not farther to extend my researches\nabout the legends of medi\u00e6val saints, and their miracles; and I shall try\nto give in my next chapter a short analysis of several practices which the\nRoman Catholic as well as the Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church have retained from\nPaganism.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII. Analysis Of The Pagan Rites And Practices Which Have Been\nRetained By The Roman Catholic As Well As The Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church.\n\n\nI have given (p. 14) the opinion of an eminent Roman Catholic modern\nauthor (Chateaubriand) about the introduction of Pagan usages into the\nChristian worship, and a long extract (pp. 16-28) from another no less\ndistinguished Roman Catholic writer of our day, describing the cause of\nthis corruption. The Roman Catholic writers of this country do not,\nhowever, treat this subject with the same sincerity as the illustrious\nauthor of the \u201cGenie du Christianisme,\u201d and the learned French Academician\nfrom whose work I have so largely drawn; but they try hard to deny that\nmany usages of their church bear the stamp of Paganism.(83) This is\nparticularly the case with the author of \u201cHierurgia,\u201d a work which I have\nalready quoted, and which may be considered as the fairest expression of\nwhat the Roman Catholic Church teaches on the subject in question. Thus\nthe use of images in churches is represented as being authorised by\nScripture, by the following curious arguments:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe practice of employing images as ornaments and memorials to decorate\nthe temple of the Lord is in a most especial manner approved by the Word\nof God himself. Moses was commanded to place two cherubim upon the ark,\nand to set up a brazen figure of the fiery serpent, that those of the\nmurmuring Israelites who had been bitten might recover from the poison of\ntheir wounds by looking on the image. In the description of Solomon\u2019s\ntemple, we read of that prince, not only that he made in the oracle two\ncherubim of olive tree, of ten cubits in height, but that \u2018all the walls\nof the temple round about he carved with divers figures and carvings.\u2019\n\n\u201cIn the first book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles) we observe that when\nDavid imposed his injunction upon Solomon to realise his intention of\nbuilding a house to the Lord, he delivered to him a description of the\nporch and temple, and concluded by thus assuring him: \u2018All these things\ncame to me written by the hand of the Lord, that I may understand the\nworks of the pattern.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe isolated fact that images were not only directed by the Almighty God\nto be placed in the Mosaic tabernacle, and in the more sumptuous temple of\nJerusalem, but that he himself exhibited the pattern of them, will be\nalone sufficient to authorise the practice of the Catholic Church in\nregard to a similar observance.\u201d\u2014(_Hierurgia_, p. 371.)\n\nAll this may be briefly answered. There was no representation of the\nJewish patriarchs or saints either in the tabernacle or in the temple of\nSolomon, as is the case with the Christian saints in the Roman Catholic\nand Gr\u00e6co-Russian Churches; and the brazen serpent, to which the author\nalludes, was broken into pieces by order of King Hezekiah as soon as the\nIsraelites began to worship it.\n\nThe author tries to prove, with considerable learning and ingenuity, that\nthe primitive Christians ornamented their churches with images, and I have\nalready given, p. 51, his explanation of the Council of Elvira; but his\nassertions are completely disproved by every direct evidence which we have\nabout the places of worship of those Christians. I have already quoted, p.\n7, the testimony of Minutius Felix, that the Christians had no kind of\nsimulachres in their temples, as well as the indignation of St Epiphanius\nat an attempt to introduce them into the churches, p. 68, and for which\nthere would have been no occasion if it had been an established custom.\n\nThe most important part of his defence of the use of images is, however,\nthe paragraph entitled, \u201c_No virtue resident in images themselves_,\u201d\ncontaining what follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cNot only are Catholics not exposed to such dangers (_i.e._, idolatry),\nbut they are expressly prohibited by the church (_Concilium Tridentinum_,\nsess. xxv.) to believe that there is any divinity or virtue resident in\nimages for which they should be reverenced, or that any thing is to be\nasked of them, or any confidence placed in them, but that the honour given\nshould be referred to those whom they represent; and so particular are\ntheir religious instructors in impressing this truth upon the minds of\ntheir congregations, that if a Catholic child, who had learned its first\ncatechism, were asked if it were permitted to pray to images, the child\nwould answer, \u2018No, by no means; for they have no life nor sense to help\nus;\u2019 and the pastor who discovered any one rendering any portion of the\nrespect which belongs to God alone to a crucifix or to a picture, would\nhave no hesitation in breaking the one and tearing the other into shreds,\nand throwing the fragments into the flames, in imitation of Ezechias, who\nbroke the brazen serpent on account of the superstitious reverence which\nthe Israelites manifested towards it.\u201d\u2014(_Hierurgia_, p. 382.)\n\nIt is perfectly true that the Council of Trent has declared that the\nimages of Christ, of the virgin, and of other saints, are to be honoured\nand venerated, not because it is believed that there is any divinity or\nvirtue inherent in them, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any\nconfidence placed in images, as had been done by Pagans, who put their\ntrust in idols (Psalm cxxxv. 15-18), but that \u201cthe honour given should be\nreferred to those whom they represent, so that by the images which we\nkiss, before which we uncover our heads, or prostrate ourselves\n(_procumbimus_), we worship Christ and the saints whose likeness those\nimages represent.\u201d(84) But if there is \u201cno divinity or virtue resident in\nimages,\u201d as is declared by the Council of Trent, what is to become of all\nthose miraculous images which are the subject of pilgrimage in so many\nRoman Catholic countries, and the existence of whose miraculous powers has\nbeen solemnly acknowledged by the highest ecclesiastical authorities? I\nshall not attempt to enumerate those miraculous images, because their\nnumber is legion, but I shall only ask the rev. doctor whether he\nconsiders the image of the virgin of Loretto, which is the object of so\nmany pilgrimages, and to which so many miracles are ascribed, as having\nsome virtue resident in it or not? and would he break it in pieces on\naccount of the miraculous powers ascribed to it? Is he prepared to act in\nsuch a manner with the celebrated _Bambino_(85) of Rome? and are the\nmiraculous powers ascribed to it, as well as to the virgin of Loretto, and\nother images of this kind, a reality or an imposture? and, finally, what\nwill he do with the winking Madonna of Rimini, which has lately made so\nmuch noise, and which, instead of being broken to pieces or torn to shreds\nby the priests or the bishop of the place, has been approved by\necclesiastical authority? I can assure the rev. doctor, that by breaking\ninto pieces the miraculous images, carved as well as painted, he will\nbreak down many barriers which now separate the Protestant Christians from\nthose who belong to his own church. I am, however, afraid that he will\nfind many difficulties in attempting such a thing; and I must remind him,\nthat in quoting the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, he\nforgot an essential part of it, which greatly modifies the declaration\nthat there is _no divinity or virtue resident in images_, saying, \u201cThat\nthe holy synod ordains that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be\nplaced, any _unusual_ image(86) in any place or church, howsoever\nexempted, except that the image be approved by the bishop: also, that no\nnew miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognised, unless the\nsaid bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof, who, as soon as he\nhas obtained certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after\nhaving taken the advice of theologians and of other pious men, act therein\nas he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety.\u201d\u2014(Sess. xxviii.,\n&c.)\n\nThe real meaning of the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent is\ntherefore, I think, that there is no divinity or virtue resident in the\nimages which are not authorised by the bishop to work miracles, and that\n_unlicensed_ images are not allowed to have any such divinity or virtue in\nthem, but that such _unusual_ carved or painted images, as those which I\nhave mentioned above, having obtained the required authorization, may work\nas many miracles as they please, or as their worshippers will believe.\n\nIt has been observed by a writer, who certainly cannot be accused of\nviolent opinions, the learned and pious Melancthon, \u201cthat it was impious\nand idolatrous to address statues or bones, and to suppose that either the\nDivinity or the saints were attached to a certain place or to a certain\nstatue more than to other places; and that there was no difference between\nthe prayers which are addressed to the Virgin of Aix la Chapelle, or to\nthat of Ratisbon, and the Pagan invocations of the Ephesian Diana, or the\nPlatean Juno, or any other statue.\u201d(87) To these observations I shall only\nadd those of M. Beugnot, which I have given p. 27, on the marvellous\nfacility with which the worship of the virgin, established by the Council\nof Ephesus, 431, has superseded that of the Pagan deities in many\ncountries.\n\nThere is scarcely any ceremony in the Western as well as in the Eastern\nchurch, the origin of which cannot be traced to the Pagan worship. I shall\nlimit my observations on this subject to the three following objects,\nwhich constitute the most important elements in the divine service\nperformed in those churches, namely,\u20141. The consecrated water; 2. Lamps\nand candles; and, 3. Incense; giving the Roman Catholic explanation of\ntheir origin, as well as that which I believe to be true.\n\nWith regard to the consecrated water, it is described by the author of\n\u201cHierurgia\u201d in the following manner:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe ordinance of Almighty God, promulgated by the lips of Moses,\nconcerning the _water of separation_, and the mode of sprinkling it, are\nminutely noticed in the nineteenth chapter of the book of Numbers. In the\nbook of Exodus, we read that the Lord issued the following declarations to\nMoses:\u2014\u2018Thou shalt make a brazen laver, with its foot, to wash in; and\nthou shalt set it between the tabernacle of the testimony and the altar.\nAnd the water being put into it, Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands\nand feet in it when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony,\nand when they are to come to the altar to offer incense on it to the\nLord.\u2019\u2014(Exod. xxx. 18-20.)\n\n\u201cThat it was a practice with the Jews, not only peculiar to the members of\nthe priesthood, but observed amongst the people, for each individual to\nwash his hands before he presumed to pray, is a well-attested fact. The\nchurch adopted this as well as several other Jewish ceremonies, which she\nengrafted on her ritual; and St Paul apparently borrows from such ablution\nthe metaphor which he employs while thus admonishing his disciple\nTimothy:\u2014\u2018I will that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands.\u2019\u2014(1\nTimothy ii. 8.) That in the early ages the faithful used to wash their\nhands at the threshold of the church before they entered, is expressly\nmentioned by a number of writers.\u201d\n\nAs to the use of holy water being of apostolic origin, he says:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe introduction of holy or blessed water must be referred to the times\nof the apostles. That it was the custom, in the very first ages of the\nchurch, not only to deposit vessels of water at the entrance of those\nplaces where the Christians assembled for the celebration of divine\nworship, but also to have vases containing water mingled with salt, both\nof which had been separated from common use, and blessed by the prayers\nand invocations of the priest, is certain. A particular mention of it is\nmade in the constitution of the apostles; and the pontiff Alexander, the\nfirst of that name, but the sixth in succession from St Peter, whose chair\nhe mounted in the year 109, issued a decree by which the use of holy water\nwas permitted to the faithful in their houses.\u201d\u2014(_Hierurgia_, pp.\n461-463.)\n\nIt is rather a strange thing for Christians to imitate the religious rites\nof the Jews, whose ceremonial law,\u2014\u201cwhich stood only in meats and drinks,\nand divers _washings_, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the\ntime of reformation\u201d (Heb. ix. 10),\u2014was abolished by the New Testament.\nHowever, if this is to be done, why is not the holy water adopted by the\nRoman Catholic Church prepared in the same manner, and used for the same\nobject, as the Jewish _water of separation_, described in Numbers xix.,\nbut, on the contrary, composed in the same manner, and employed for the\nsame purpose, as the _lustral_ water of the Pagans? The fact is, that it\nhas been borrowed from the Pagan worship and not from the Jewish\nceremonial law, the truth of which is honestly acknowledged by the Jesuit\nLa Cerda, who, in a note on the following passage of Virgil,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIdem ter socios pura circumtulit unda,\n    Spargens rore levi, et ramo felicis oliv\u00e6,\n    Lustravitque viros\u201d\n\n    \u2014_\u00c6neid_, lib. vi. 229\u2014\n\n\nsays, \u201c_Hence was derived the custom of the holy church to provide\npurifying or holy water at the entrance of their churches_.\u201d(88) The same\ncustom was observed in the Pagan temples, at the entrance of which there\nwas a vase containing the holy or _lustral_ water, for the people to\nsprinkle themselves with, just as is now done at the entrance of the Roman\nCatholic churches. The author of \u201cHierurgia\u201d mentions, as quoted above,\nthat Pope Alexander I. authorised, in the beginning of the second century,\nthe use of holy water; and yet Justin Martyr, who wrote about that time,\nsays \u201cthat it was invented by demons, in imitation of the true baptism\nsignified by the prophets, that their votaries might also have their\npretended purification by water.\u201d(89) And the Emperor Julian, in order to\nvex the Christians, caused the victuals in the markets to be sprinkled\nwith holy water, with the intention of either starving them or compelling\nthem to eat what they considered as impure.(90)\n\nTo these evidences of the abomination in which the primitive Christians\nheld the Pagan rite of sprinkling with holy water, I may add the following\nanecdote, characteristic of the intensity of this feeling:\u2014\n\nWhen Julian the Apostate was one day going to sacrifice in the temple of\nFortune, accompanied by the usual train of the emperors, the Pagan\npriests, standing on both sides of the temple gate, sprinkled those who\nwere entering it with the lustral or holy water in order to purify them\naccording to the rites of their worship. A Christian tribune, or superior\nofficer of the imperial guards (_scutarii_), who, being on duty, preceded\nthe monarch, received some drops of this holy water on his _chlamys_ or\ncoat, which made him so indignant, that, notwithstanding the presence of\nthe emperor, he struck the priest who had thus sprinkled him, exclaiming\nthat he did not purify but pollute him. Julian ordered the arrest of the\nofficer who had thus insulted the rites of his religion, giving him the\nchoice either to sacrifice to the gods or to leave the army. The bold\nChristian chose the latter, but was soon restored to his rank on account\nof his great military talents, and raised, after the death of Julian and\nthe short reign of Jovian, to the imperial throne as Valentinian I.(91)\n\nThis monarch was, however, by no means a bigot; on the contrary, we have\nthe unsuspected testimony of the contemporary Pagan writer Ammianus\nMarcellinus that he maintained a strict impartiality between the\nChristians and Pagans, and did not trouble any one on account of his\nreligion. He even regulated and confirmed, by a law in 391, the privileges\nof the Pagan clergy in a more favourable manner than had been done by many\nof his predecessors; and yet this monarch, who treated his Pagan subjects\nwith such an extreme liberality, committed, when a private individual, an\nact of violence against their worship which exposed him to considerable\ndanger. This, I think, is a strong proof of the horror which the\nChristians felt for a rite which constitutes now an indispensable part of\nthe service in the Western as well as in the Eastern churches, and is most\nprofusely used by them.\n\nWith regard to the candles and lamps, which form a no less important and\nindispensable part of the worship adopted by the above-mentioned churches,\nthe author of \u201cHierurgia\u201d defends their use in the following manner:\u2014\n\nAfter having described the candlesticks employed in the Jewish temple, he\nsays:\u2014\u201cBut without referring to the ceremonial of the Jewish temple, we\nhave an authority for the employment of light in the functions of religion\npresented to us in the Apocalypse. In the first chapter of that mystic\nbook, St John particularly mentions the golden candlesticks which he\nbeheld in his prophetic vision in the isle of Patmos. By commentators on\nthe sacred Scripture, it is generally supposed that the Evangelist, in his\nbook of the Apocalypse, adopted the imagery with which he represents his\nmystic revelations from the ceremonial observed in his days by the church\nfor offering up the mass, or eucharistic sacrifice of the Lamb of God,\nChrist Jesus.\n\n\u201cThat the use of lights was adopted by the church, especially at the\ncelebration of the sacred mysteries, as early as the times of the\napostles, may likewise, with much probability, be inferred from that\npassage in their Acts which records the preaching and miracles of St Paul\nat Troas:\u2014\u2018And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to\nbreak bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow, and\nhe continued his speech until midnight. And there were a great number of\nlamps in the upper chamber where we were assembled.\u2019\u2014(Acts xx. 7, 8.) That\nthe many lamps, so particularly noticed in this passage, were not\nsuspended merely for the purpose of illuminating, during the night-time,\nthis upper chamber, in which the faithful had assembled on the first day\nof the week to break bread, but also to increase the solemnity of that\nfunction and betoken a spiritual joy, may be lawfully inferred from every\nthing we know about the manners of the ancient Jews, from whom the church\nborrowed the use of lights in celebrating her various rites and\nfestivals.\u201d\u2014(_Hierurgia_, p. 372.)\n\nIt is really difficult seriously to answer such extraordinary suppositions\nas that the seven candlesticks, expressly mentioned as types of the seven\nchurches, should be an allusion to the physical lights used in the worship\nof those churches, and not to the moral and spiritual light which they\nwere spreading amongst Jews and Gentiles. Such an explanation appears to\nme nothing better than that tendency to materialise the most abstract and\nspiritual ideas to which I have alluded above, p. 126. With regard to the\npassage in the Acts xx. 7, 8, which says that there were a great number of\nlamps in the upper chamber where St Paul was preaching, I think that this\ncircumstance might have been considered as a religious rite if the apostle\nhad been preaching at noon; but as it is expressly said that he did it at\nnight, nothing can be more simple than the lighting of the upper chamber\nwith lamps. It was also very natural that there should be many of them,\nbecause as St Paul was undoubtedly often referring to the Scriptures, his\nhearers, or at least many of them, being either real Jews or Hellenists,\nmust have been continually looking to copies of the Bible in order to\nverify his quotation. It was, therefore, necessary to have the room well\nlighted, and consequently to employ many lamps. It is, indeed, curious to\nsee to what far-fetched suppositions a writer of so much learning and\ningenuity as Dr Rock is obliged to recur, in order to defend a purely\nPagan rite which has been adopted by his church, giving the simplest and\nclearest things a _non-natural sense_, similar to that which some\nRomanising clergymen have been giving to the precepts of a church which\nthey were betraying whilst in her service and pay.\n\nThe same author maintains that lights were employed from primitive times\nat divine service, saying:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe custom of employing lights, in the earlier ages of the church, during\nthe celebration of the eucharist; and other religious offices, is\nauthenticated by those venerable records of primitive discipline which are\nusually denominated Apostolic Canons.\u201d\u2014(_Hierurgia_, p. 393.)\n\nNow, what is the authenticity of these canons? The author himself gives us\nthe best answer to it, saying:\u2014\n\n\u201cThough these canons be apocryphal, and by consequence not genuine,\ninasmuch as they were neither committed to writing by the apostles\nthemselves, nor penned by St Clement, to whom some authors have attributed\nthem; still, however, this does not prevent them from being true and\nauthentic, since they embody the traditions descended from the apostles\nand the apostolic fathers, and bear a faithful testimony that the\ndiscipline which prevailed during the first and second centuries was\nestablished by the apostles.\u201d\u2014(P. 394.)\n\nI shall not enter into a discussion about the value of evidence furnished\nby a work which is acknowledged to be apocryphal, and not to have been\nwritten by those to whom its defenders had ascribed its authorship;(92)\nbut I shall only remark, that one of the most eminent fathers of the\nchurch, the learned Lactantius, who flourished in the fourth century, and\nconsequently long after the time when the Apostolic Canons are supposed to\nhave been composed, takes a very different view from them in regard to\nthis practice, because he positively says, in attacking the use of lights\nby the Pagans, _they light up candles to God as if he lived in the dark,\nand do they not deserve to pass for madmen who offer lamps to the Author\nand Giver of light_?(93) And is it probable that he could approve of a\npractice in the Christian church which he condemns in the Pagan?\n\nAnd, indeed, can there be any thing more heathenish than the custom of\nburning lights before images or relics, which is nothing else than\nsacrifices which the Pagans offered to their idols?\n\nI have described above, p. 74, the manner in which St Jerome defended the\nuse of lights in the churches against Vigilantius. This defence of St\nJerome is adduced by our author in a rather extraordinary manner.\n\n\u201cIt happens not unfrequently that those very calumnies which have been\npropagated, and the attacks which were so furiously directed by the\nenemies of our holy faith in ancient times, against certain practices of\ndiscipline then followed by the church, are the most triumphant\ntestimonies which can be adduced at the present day, both to establish the\nvenerable origin of such observances, and to warrant a continuation of\nthem. In the present instance, the remark is strikingly observable; for\nthe strictures which Vigilantius passed in the fourth age, on the use of\nlights in churches, as well as on the shrines of the martyrs, and the\nenergetic refutation of St Jerome of the charge of superstition preferred\nagainst such a pious usage by that apostate, may be noticed as an\nirrefragable argument, in the nineteenth century, to establish the remote\nantiquity of this religious custom. After mentioning as a fact of public\nnotoriety, and in a manner which defied contradiction, that the\nChristians, at the time when he was actually writing, which was about the\nyear 376,(94) were accustomed to illumine their churches during mid-day\nwith a profusion of wax tapers, Vigilantius proceeds to turn such a\ndevotion into ridicule. But he met with a learned and victorious opponent,\nwho, while he vindicated this practice of the church against the objection\nof her enemy, took occasion to assign those reasons which induced her to\nadopt it. That holy father observes:\u2014\u2018Throughout all the churches of the\nEast, whenever the Gospel is to be recited, they bring forth lights,\nthough it be at noon-day; not certainly to shine among darkness, but to\nmanifest some sign of joy, that under the type of corporeal light may be\nindicated that light of which we read in the Psalms, \u201cThy word is a lamp\nto my feet, and a light to my path.\u201d \u2019 \u201d\u2014(_Hierurgia_, p. 298.)\n\nNow, I would observe to the learned doctor, that St Jerome, in answering\nVigilantius, maintained, as I have shown above, p. 74, that it was calumny\nto say that the Christians burnt candles in the daylight, and that it was\ndone only by some people, _whose zeal was without knowledge_.\nConsequently, the church which has adopted this practice shows, according\nto the authority of that \u201choly and learned father,\u201d that _her zeal is\nwithout knowledge_. With regard to the argument in support of the\nabovementioned practices given by St Jerome, and reproduced by our author,\nthat the Eastern churches make use of lights, I admit that it is\nunanswerable, because it is an undoubted fact that the Gr\u00e6co-Russian\nChurch makes an immense consumption of wax candles, chiefly burnt before\nthe images, and it remains for me only to congratulate the advocates of\nthis practice on the support which they derive from such an imperative\nauthority as that of the Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church.\n\nIt remains for me now only to say a few words about the _incense_, which\nforms a constituent part of the service of the Roman Catholic and\nGr\u00e6co-Russian Churches, as much as the holy water and lights, and which is\ndefended by the author of \u201cHierurgia\u201d in the following manner. After\nhaving described the use of incense in the Jewish temples, he says\u2014\n\n\u201cIt was from this religious custom of employing incense in the ancient\ntemple, that the royal prophet drew that beautiful simile of his, when he\npetitioned that his prayers might ascend before the Lord like incense. It\nwas while \u2018all the multitude were praying without at the hour of incense,\nthat there appeared to Zachary an angel of the Lord, standing at the right\nof the altar of incense,\u2019\u2014(Luke i. 10, 11). That the oriental nations\nattached a meaning not only of personal reverence, but also of religious\nhomage to an offering of incense, is demonstrable from the instance of the\nmagi, who, having fallen down to adore the newborn Jesus, and recognise\nhis divinity, presented him with gold, and myrrh, and frankincense. That\nhe might be more intelligible to those who read his book of the\nApocalypse, it is very probable that St John adapted his language to the\nceremonial of the liturgy then followed by the Christians in celebrating\nthe eucharistic sacrifice, at the period the evangelist was committing to\nwriting his mysterious revelations. In depicting, therefore, the scene\nwhich took place in the sanctuary of heaven, where he was given to behold\nin vision the mystic sacrifice of the Lamb, we are warranted to suppose\nthat he borrowed the imagery, and selected several of his expressions,\nfrom the ritual then actually in use, and has in consequence bequeathed to\nus an outline of the ceremonial which the church employed in the apostolic\nages of offering up the unbloody sacrifice of the same divine Lamb of God,\nChrist Jesus, in her sanctuary upon earth. Now, St John particularly\nnotices how the \u2018angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden\ncenser; and there was given him much incense, that he should offer of the\nprayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne\nof God; and the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended\nup before God, from the hand of the angel.\u2019\u2014Apocal. viii.\n3-5.\u201d\u2014(_Hierurgia_, p. 518.)\n\nTo this explanation of the use of incense in the churches, I may answer by\nthe same observation which I have made, p. 144, on a similar defence of\nthe use of lights, namely, that it is a strange materialization of\nspiritual ideas by embodying into a tangible shape what is simply typical,\nand which is not warranted by any direct evidence. Such far-fetched and\nfanciful conjectures cannot be refuted by serious arguments; but as\nregards the Jewish origin of the use of incense, as well as of many other\nceremonies common to the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, I shall give\nthe observation of the celebrated Dr Middleton, on an answer made by a\nRoman Catholic to his well-known Letter from Rome, and who, defending the\nceremonies of his Church in nearly the same manner as the author of\n\u201cHierurgia,\u201d says, \u201cThat Dr Middleton was mistaken in thinking every\nceremony used by the heathens to be heathenish, since the greatest part of\nthem were borrowed from the worship of the true God, in imitation of which\nthe devil affected to have his temples, altars, priests, and sacrifices,\nand all other things which were used in the true worship.\u201d This he applied\nto the case of _incense_, _lamps_, _holy water_, and _processions_,\nadding, \u201cthat if Middleton had been as well read in the Scriptures as he\nseemed to be in the heathen poets, he would have found the use of all\nthese in the temple of God, and that by God\u2019s appointment.\u201d\n\n\u201cI shall not dispute with him,\u201d says Middleton, \u201cabout the origin of these\nrites, whether they were _first instituted by Moses_, or _were of prior\nuse and antiquity amongst the Egyptians_. The Scriptures favour the last,\nwhich our _Spenser_ strongly asserts, and their _Calmet_ and _Huetius_\nallow; but should we grant him all that he can infer from his argument,\nwhat will he gain by it? Were not all those _beggarly elements_ wiped away\nby the spiritual worship of the Gospel? Were they not all annulled, on\naccount of _their weakness and unprofitableness_, by the more perfect\nrevelation of _Jesus Christ_?\u2014(Gal. iv. 9; Heb. vii. 18.) If, then, I\nshould acknowledge my mistake, and recall my words, and instead of\n_Pagan_, call them _Jewish_ ceremonies, would not the use of Jewish rites\nbe abominable still in a _Christian church_, where they are expressly\nabolished and prohibited by God himself?\n\n\u201cBut to pursue his argument a little farther. While the _Mosaic_ worship\nsubsisted by divine appointment in _Jerusalem, the devil likewise_, as he\ntells us, _had temples and ceremonies of the same kind_, in order to draw\nvotaries to his idolatrous worship, which, after the abolition of the\n_Jewish_ service, was carried on still with great pomp and splendour, and\nabove all places, in _Rome_, the principal seat of his worldly empire.\nNow, it is certain that in the early times of the Gospel, the Christians\nof Rome were celebrated for their zealous adherence to the faith of\nChrist, as it was delivered to them by the apostles, pure from every\nmixture either of _Jewish_ or _heathenish superstition_, till, after a\nsuccession of ages, as they began gradually to deviate from that apostolic\nsimplicity, they introduced at different times into the church the\nparticular ceremonies in question. Whence, then, can we think it probable\nthat they should borrow them from the _Jewish_ or the _Pagan_ ritual? From\na temple remote, despised and demolished by the Romans themselves, or from\ntemples and altars perpetually in their view, and subsisting in their\nstreets, in which their ancestors and fellow-citizens have constantly\nworshipped?(95) The question can hardly admit any dispute; the humour of\nthe people, as well as the interest of a corrupted priesthood, would\ninvite them to adopt such rites as were native to the soil, and found upon\nthe place, and which long experience had shown to be useful to the\nacquisition both of wealth and power. Thus, by the most candid\nconstruction of this author\u2019s reasoning, we must necessarily call their\nceremonies _Jewish_, or by pushing it to its full length, shall be obliged\nto call them _devilish_.\n\n\u201cHe observes that I begin my charge with the use of _incense_ as the most\nnotorious proof of their Paganism, _and like an artful rhetorician, place\nmy strongest argument in the front_. Yet he knows I have assigned a\ndifferent reason for offering that the first; because it is _the first\nthing_ that strikes the sense, and surprises a stranger upon his entrance\ninto their churches. But it shall be my strongest proof, if he will have\nit so, since he has brought nothing, I am sure, to weaken the force of it.\nHe tells us that there was _an altar of incense in the temple of\nJerusalem_, and is surprised, therefore, how I can call it _heathenish_;\nyet it is evident, from the nature of that institution, that it was never\ndesigned to be perpetual, and that during its continuance, God would have\nnever approved _any other altar_, either in _Jerusalem_ or any where else.\nBut let him answer directly to this plain question: Was there ever _a\ntemple in the world, not strictly heathenish_, in which there were\n_several altars, all smoking with incense, within our view, and at one and\nthe same time_? It is certain that he must answer in the negative; yet it\nis as certain that there were many such temples in _Pagan_ Rome, and are\nas many in _Christian Rome_; and since there never was an example of it,\nbut what was _Paganish_, before the time of _Popery_, how is it possible\nthat it could be derived to them from any other source? or when we see so\nexact a resemblance in the copy, how can there be any doubt about the\noriginal?\n\n\u201cWhat he alleges, therefore, in favour of _incense_ is nothing to the\npurpose: \u2018That it was used in the Jewish, and is of great antiquity in the\nChristian churches, and that it is mentioned with honour in the\nScriptures,\u2019 which frequently _compare it to prayer_, and speak of its\n_sweet odours ascending up to God_, &c., which figurative expressions, he\nsays, \u2018would never have been borrowed by sacred penmen from heathenish\nsuperstition;\u2019 as if such allusions were less proper, or the thing itself\nless sweet, for its being applied to the purposes of idolatry, as it\nconstantly was in the time of the _same penmen_, and, according to their\nown accounts, on the _altars of Baal_, and the other _heathen idols_: and\nwhen _Jeremiah_ rebukes the people of _Judah_ for _burning incense to the\nqueen of heaven_ (Jer. xliv. 17), one can hardly help imagining that he is\nprophetically pointing out the worship paid now to the _virgin_, to whom\nthey actually _burn incense_ at this day under that very title.(96)\n\n\u201cBut if it be a just ground for retaining a practice in the _Christian_\nchurch, because it was enjoined to the _Jews_, what will our Catholic say\nfor those usages which were actually prohibited to the _Jews_, and never\npractised by any but by the _heathens and papists_? All the _Egyptian\npriests_, as Herodotus informs us, _had their heads shaved, and kept\ncontinually bald_.(97) Thus the Emperor _Commodus_, that he might be\nadmitted into that order, _got himself shaved, and carried the god Anubis\nin procession_. And it was on this account, most probably, that the\n_Jewish priests_ were commanded _not to shave their heads, nor to make any\nbaldness upon them_.\u2014(Lev. xxi. 5; Ezek. xliv. 20). Yet this _Pagan\nrasure_, or _tonsure_, as they choose to call it, on the crown of the\nhead, has long been the distinguishing mark of the _Romish priesthood_. It\nwas on the same account, we may imagine, that the _Jewish priests were\nforbidden to make any cuttings in their flesh_ (Lev. xix. 28, xxi. 5),\nsince _that was likewise the common_ practice of certain _priests and\ndevotees among the heathens_, in order to acquire the fame of a more\nexalted sanctity. Yet the same discipline, as I have shown in my\n_Letter_,(98) is constantly practised at _Rome_ in some of their solemn\nseasons and processions, in imitation of these _Pagan enthusiasts_, as if\nthey searched the Scriptures to learn, not so much what was enjoined by\ntrue religion, as what had been useful at any time in a false one, to\ndelude the multitude, and support an imposture.\u201d\u2014(_Middleton\u2019s\nMiscellaneous Works_, vol. v., p. 11, _et seq._)\n\nThe same author justly observes, that \u201cunder the _Pagan emperors_ the use\nof _incense_ for any purpose of religion was thought so contrary to the\nobligations of _Christianity_, that in their persecutions, the very method\nof _trying and converting a Christian was by requiring him only to throw\nthe least grain of it into the censer or on the altar_.\u201d\n\n\u201cUnder the _Christian emperors_, on the other hand, it was looked upon as\na _rite_ so peculiarly _heathenish_, that the very _places or houses_\nwhere it could be proved to have been done, were, by a law of Theodosius,\nconfiscated to the government.\u201d(99)\u2014(_Ibid._, p. 95.)\n\nI shall conclude this essay by a short sketch of the superstitious\npractices prevailing in the Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church, which will be the\nsubject of my next and last chapter.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII. Image-Worship And Other Superstitious Practices Of The\nGraeco-Russian Church.\n\n\nThe Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church is perhaps the most important element of the\npolitico-religious complications in which Europe is at present involved.\nIt is, moreover, not a fortuitous cause of these complications, but has\nbeen growing during centuries, until it has reached its present magnitude,\nthough its action upon Turkey may have been prematurely brought into play\nby accidental circumstances. It comprehends within its pale about\n50,000,000 of souls, whilst it exercises an immense influence upon\n13,000,000 of Turkish, and a considerable one upon more than 3,000,000 of\nAustrian subjects, professing the tenets of that church, though governed\nby separate hierarchies. To this number must be added the population of\nthe kingdom of Greece, amounting to about 1,000,000: so that the whole of\nthe followers of the Eastern Church may be computed in round numbers at\n66,000,000 or 67,000,000 of souls.(100)\n\nThe Russian Church differs from other Greek churches, not in her tenets,\nbut in her government. From the establishment of Christianity in Russia,\ntowards the end of the tenth century, to the capture of Constantinople by\nthe Turks in 1453, the Russian Church was governed by a metropolitan,\nconsecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. After this event, the\nmetropolitans were consecrated by the Russian bishops till 1588, when a\npatriarch of Russia was instituted by that of Constantinople, who had\narrived at Moscow, in order to obtain pecuniary assistance for his church.\nThe patriarch enjoyed considerable influence, which modified in some\nrespects the despotic authority of the Czar. It was Peter the Great who\nabolished this dignity in 1702, after the death of the Patriarch Adrian,\nand declared himself the head of the Russian Church.\n\nHe introduced several regulations to restrict the power of the clergy, and\nto improve their education. It appears that the violent reforms by which\nthat monarch tried to introduce the civilization of western Europe amongst\nhis subjects, had produced an intellectual movement in their church, but\nwhich, not squaring with the views of the imperial reformer, was violently\nsuppressed by him. Thus, in 1713, a physician called Demetrius\nTveritinoff, and some other persons, began to attack the worship of\nimages, and to explain the sacrament of communion in the same sense as has\nbeen done by Calvin.\n\nThese reformers were anathematised by the order of the Czar, and one of\nthem was executed in 1714.(101) Next year, 1715, a Russian priest, called\nThomas, probably a disciple of the above-mentioned reformers, began\npublicly to inveigh against the worship of saints and other practices of\nhis church, and went even so far as to break the images placed in the\nchurches. He was burnt alive, and nothing more was heard afterwards of\nsuch reformers. The Russian clergy regained their influence under the\nreign of the Empress Elizabeth, 1742-62, a weak-minded, bigoted woman, who\nwas continually making pilgrimages to the shrines of various Russian\nsaints and miraculous images, displaying on those occasions such a\nsplendour and such munificence to the objects of her devotion, that the\nfinances of her state were injured by it.(102) Elizabeth\u2019s nephew and\nsuccessor, Peter III., Duke of Holstein, who, for the sake of the throne,\nhad passed from the Lutheran communion to the Greek Church, entertained\nthe greatest contempt for his new religion. This half-crazy, unfortunate\nprince, instead of trying to reform the Russian Church by promoting a\nsuperior information amongst her clergy, offended the religious prejudices\nof his subjects by an open disregard of the ordinances of that church, and\nhis projects of violent reforms. He not only did away with all the fasts\nat his court, but he wished to abolish them throughout all his empire, to\nremove the images and candles from the churches, and, finally, that the\nclergy should shave their beards and dress like the Lutheran pastors. He\nalso confiscated the landed property of the church. Catherine II., who\nobserved with the greatest diligence those religious rites which her\nhusband treated with such contempt, and who greatly owed to this conduct\nher elevation to the throne, confirmed, however, the confiscation of the\nchurch estates, assigning salaries to the clergy and convents who had been\nsupported by that property. She made use of the influence of the\nGr\u00e6co-Russian Church for the promotion of her political schemes in Poland\nand in Turkey; yet, as her religious opinions were those of the school of\nVoltaire and Diderot, which believed that Christianity would soon cease to\nhave any hold upon the human mind, she seems not to have been fully aware\nof that immense increase of power at home and influence abroad which a\nskilful action upon the religious feelings of the followers of that church\nmay give to the Russian monarchs. This policy has been formed into a\ncomplete system by the present Emperor, and it was in consequence of it\nthat several millions of the inhabitants of the ancient Polish provinces,\nwho belonged to the Greek United Church, _i.e._, who had acknowledged the\nsupremacy of the Pope by accepting the union concluded at Florence in\n1438, were forced to give up that union, and to pass from the spiritual\ndominion of the Pope to that of the Czar. This wholesale conversion was\nnecessarily accompanied with a good deal of persecution. Those clergymen\nwho had refused to adopt the imperial ukase for their rule of conscience\nwere banished to Siberia, and many other acts of oppression were committed\non that occasion, but of which only the case of the nuns of Minsk has\nproduced a sensation in western Europe. The same system of religious\ncentralization has also been applied to the Protestant peasantry of the\nBaltic provinces, many of whom were seduced by various means to join the\nRussian Church; and this policy continues to be vigorously prosecuted in\nthe same quarter, as may be seen by the following extract from the _Berlin\nGazette_ of Voss, reprinted in the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ of the 12th March\nof this year, 1854:\u2014\n\n\u201cEmissaries travelling about the country succeeded by every kind of\ncunning, and by holding out prospects of gain and other advantages, to\nconvert people from Lutheranism to the Greek Church. All the children,\nunder seventeen years must follow the religion of their father as soon as\nhe has entered the orthodox church. Whoever has received the\nanointment(103) can no longer return to his former creed, and those who\nwould try to persuade him to do it would be severely punished. It is even\nforbidden to the Protestant clergy to warn their congregations from going\nover to the Greek Church by drawing their attention to the difference\nwhich exists between the two religions. A great number of Greek churches\nhave been built in the Baltic provinces, and already, in 1845, it was\nordered that the converts to the Greek Church should be admitted into\nevery town; that those peasants who would leave their places of residence\nin order to join a Greek congregation should be allowed by their\nlandowners to do so;(104) and, finally, that the landowners and Protestant\nclergymen who would oppose in any way the conversion to the Greek Church\nof their peasantry and congregations, should be visited with severe\npenalties. These penalties, directed against those who would attempt to\ninduce any one, either by speeches or writings, to pass from the Greek\nChurch to any other communion, have been specified in a new criminal code.\nThey prescribe for certain cases of such a proselytism corporal\nchastisement, the knout, and transportation to Siberia.\u201d It is also well\nknown that the Protestant missionaries, who had been labouring in various\nparts of the Russian empire for the conversion of Mahometans and heathens,\nhave been prohibited from continuing their pious exertions. And yet,\nstrange to say, there is a not uninfluential party in Prussia, which,\npretending to be zealously Protestant, supports with all its might the\npolitico-religious policy of Russia, and is as hostile to Protestant\nEngland as it is favourable to the power which is persecuting\nProtestantism in its dominions. On the other hand, it is curious to\nobserve in this country some persons of that High Church party which\naffects to repudiate the name of Protestant, and with whom _churchianity_\nseems to have more weight than Christianity, showing an inclination to\nunite with the Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church; and I have seen a pamphlet, ascribed\nto a clergyman of the Scotch Episcopal Church, positively recommending\nsuch a union, and containing the formulary of a petition to be addressed\nby the Episcopalians of Great Britain to the most holy Synod of St\nPetersburg, praying for admission into the communion of its church. I\nwould, however, observe to these exaggerated Anglo-catholics, who chiefly\nobject to the ecclesiastical establishment of England on account of its\nbeing a State Church, that the Russian Church is still more so, and that\nthe most holy synod which administers that church, though composed of\nprelates and other clergymen, can do nothing without the assent of its lay\nmember, the imperial procurator, and that a colonel of hussars was lately\nintrusted with this important function. The Greek Church being opposed to\nRome, some Protestants sought to conclude a union with her in the\nsixteenth century; and the Lutheran divines of Tubingen had for this\npurpose a correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople, between the\nyears 1575 and 1581, but which did not lead to any result, as the\nPatriarch insisted upon their simply joining his church. The Protestants\nof Poland attempted in 1599 a union with the Greek Church of their\ncountry, and the delegates of both parties met for this purpose at Vilna;\ntheir object was, however, frustrated by the same cause which rendered\nnugatory the efforts that had been made by the divines of Tubingen for\nthis purpose, the Greek Church insisting upon their entire submission to\nher authority. It is true that some learned ecclesiastics of the\nGr\u00e6co-Russian Church are supposed to entertain Protestant opinions, but\nthis is entirely personal, and has no influence whatever on the systematic\npolicy of their Church, which hates Rome as a rival, but Protestantism as\na revolutionary principle. One of the ablest and most zealous defenders of\nthe Roman Catholic Church in our times, and whom a long residence in\nRussia had made thoroughly acquainted with her church, Count Joseph\nDemaistre, is of opinion that this church must finally give way to the\ninfluence of Protestantism;(105) and I think that this might be really the\ncase if the Russian Church enjoyed perfect liberty of discussion, which\nshe is very far at present from possessing. I believe, however, that such\na contingency is very possible with those Eastern churches that are not\nunder the dominion of Russia, if they were once entirely liberated from\nRussian influence and brought into contact with Protestant learning. Such\na revolution would be most dangerous, not only to the external influence\nof Russia, but even to her despotism at home, because a Protestant\nmovement amongst the Greek churches of Turkey would sever every connection\nbetween them and Russia, and very likely extend to the last-named country.\nIt is therefore most probable, as has been observed by the celebrated\nexplorer of Nineveh, Layard, that the movement alluded to above, which has\nrecently begun to spread amongst the Armenian churches of Turkey, was not\nwithout influence on the mission of Prince Menschikoff and its\nconsequences.\n\nI have said above that the mutual position of the Gr\u00e6co-Russian and Roman\nCatholic Churches towards one another is that of two rivals. The dogmatic\ndifference between them turns upon some abstruse tenets, which are\ngenerally little understood by the great mass of their followers, whilst\nthe essential ground of divergence, the real question at issue, is,\nwhether the headship of the church is to be vested in the Pope, in the\nPatriarch of Constantinople, or in the Czar. The Pope has allowed that\nportion of the Greek Church which submitted to his supremacy at the\ncouncil of Florence in 1438, to retain its ritual and discipline, with\nsome insignificant modifications. The Roman Catholic Church considers the\nGr\u00e6co-Russian one in about the same light as she is regarded herself by\nthat of England. She acknowledges her to be _a church_, though a\nschismatic one, whose sacraments and ordination are valid, so that a Greek\nor Russian priest becomes, on signing the union of Florence, a clergyman\nof the Roman Catholic Church exactly as is the case in the Anglican Church\nwith a Roman Catholic priest who renounces the pope. The Gr\u00e6co-Russian\nChurch does not, however, return the compliment to the Roman Catholic one,\nany more than the Catholic does it to that of England; because a Roman\nCatholic priest who enters the Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church not only loses his\nsacerdotal character, just as is the case with an Anglican clergyman who\ngoes over to the communion of Rome, but he must be even baptised anew, as\nis done with Christians of every denomination who join that church,\nwhether Jews or Gentiles.\n\nThe system of reaction which the Roman Catholic Church has been pursuing\nfor many years, with a consistency, perseverance, and zeal worthy of a\nbetter cause, and not without considerable success, has created just alarm\nin the minds of many friends of religious and civil liberty. This feeling\nis but too well warranted by the open hostility which the promoters of\nthat reaction, having thrown away the mask of liberalism, are manifesting\nto the above-mentioned liberties. I shall, moreover, add, that the\npolitical complications in which Europe is now involved may be taken\nadvantage of by the reactionary party in order to advance its schemes,\nwhilst the public attention, particularly of this country, will be\nabsorbed by the events of the present war; and therefore I think that all\ntrue Protestants should, instead of relaxing, increase their vigilance, in\nrespect to the movements of the ecclesiastical reactionists. But the\ndangers which threaten from that quarter are, at least in this country, of\na purely moral character, though they are doing much mischief in families,\nand may throw some obstruction into the legislative action of the\ngovernment. They must therefore be combated with moral and intellectual\nmeans,\u2014with spiritual, and not carnal weapons,\u2014and they may be completely\nannihilated by a vigorous and skilful application of such means. The Pope\nof Rome, though claiming a spiritual authority over many countries, cannot\nmaintain himself in his own temporal dominion without the assistance of\nforeign powers, and is obliged to court the favour of secular potentates,\ninstead of commanding them, as had been done by his predecessors. The case\nis quite different with the Imperial Pope of Russia, who commands a\nmillion of bayonets, and whose authority is supported, not by canon, but\nby cannon law, and not by bulls, but by bullets. The material force which\nhe has at his disposal is immensely strengthened by his spiritual\nauthority over the ignorant masses of the Russian population, upon whose\nreligious feelings he may act with great facility, because his orders to\nthe clergy are as blindly obeyed as his commands to the army; and it is\nwith the object of extending and consolidating this authority over all his\nsubjects without exception that those measures of persecution and\nseduction against the Roman Catholics and Protestants, which I have\nmentioned above, have been adopted. The probable consequence of this\nreligious centralization, and the condition of the church whose exclusive\ndominion it is sought to establish in Russia, have been sketched in the\nfollowing graphic manner by an accomplished German writer, who, having\nresided many years in Russia, and being thoroughly acquainted with the\nlanguage of that country, may be considered as one of the most competent\njudges on this subject:\u2014\n\n\u201cHe who, with attentive ear and eye, travels through the wide empire of\nthe Czar, surrounding three parts of the world with its snares, and then\ntraces the sum of his contemplations, will tremble in thought at the\ndestiny which the Colossus of nations has yet to fulfil. He who doubts of\nthe impending fulfilment of this destiny knows not history, and knows not\nRussia.\n\n\u201cHowever different in origin and interest the strangely mixed hordes may\nbe which constitute this giant realm, there exists one mighty bond which\nholds them all together,\u2014the Byzantine Church. Whoever remains out of it\nwill soon be forced into it; and ere the coming century begins, all the\ninhabitants of Russia will be of one faith.\n\n\u201cAlready that great net, whose meshes the Neva and the Volga, the Don and\nthe Dnieper, the Kyros and Araxes, form, inclose a preponderating\nChristian population, in whose midst the scattered Islamitish race, the\ndescendants of the Golden Horde, are lost like drops in the ocean. What a\nmarvellous disposition of things, that the Russian empire, whose governing\nprinciple is the diametrically opposite of the Christian law, should be\nthe very one to make of Christianity the corner, the keystone of its\nmight! And a no less marvellous disposition of things is it that the Czar,\nin whatever direction he stretches his far-grasping arms, should find\nChristian points of support whereon to knit the threads of fate for the\nfollowers of Islam, artfully scattered by him\u2014that he should find\nArmenians at the foot of Ararat, and Georgians at the foot of Caucasus!\n\n\u201cBut of what kind is this Christianity, that masses together so many\nmillions of human beings into one great whole, and uses them as moving\nsprings to the manifestations of a power that will sooner or later give\nthe old world a new transformation?\n\n\u201cFollow me for a moment into the Russian motherland, and throw a flying\nglance at the religious state of things prevailing there.\n\n\u201cSee that poor soldier, who, tired and hungry from his long march, is just\nperforming his sacred exercises, ere he takes his meal and seeks repose.\n\n\u201cHe draws a little image of the virgin from his pocket, spits on it, and\nwipes it with his coat sleeve: then he sets it down on the ground, kneels\nbefore it, and crosses himself, and kisses it in pious devotion.\n\n\u201cOr enter with me on a Sunday one of the gloomy image-adorned Russian\nchurches. If the dress of those present is not already sufficient to\nindicate their difference of station, you may readily distinguish them by\nthe manner in which each person makes the sign of the cross. Consider\nfirst that man of rank, as he stands before a miracle-working image of a\nKazanshian mother of God, bows slightly before it, and crosses himself\nnotably. Translated into our vernacular the language of this personage\u2019s\nface would run in something like the following strain:\u2014\u2018I know that all\nthis is a pious farce, but one must give no offence to the people, else\nall respect would be lost. Would the people continue to toil for us, if\nthey were to lose their trust in the assurances we cause to be made to\nthem of the joys of heaven?\u2019\n\n\u201cNow look at that caftan-clad fat merchant, as, with crafty glance and\nconfident step, he makes up to the priest to get his soul freed from the\ntrafficking sins of the past week.\n\n\u201cHe knows the priest, and is sure that a good piece of money will meet\nwith a good reception from him; that is why he goes so carelessly, in the\nconsciousness of being able to settle in the lump the whole of his sinful\naccount; and when the absolution is over, he takes his position in front\nof the miraculous image, and makes so prodigious a sign of the cross, that\nbefore this act all the remaining scruples of his soul must vanish away.\n\n\u201cConsider, in fine, that poor countryman, who steals in humbly at the\ndoor, and gazes slyly round him in the incense-beclouded spaces. The pomp\nand the splendour are too much for the poor fellow.\n\n\u201c \u2018God,\u2019 he thinks, \u2018but what a gracious lord the Emperor is, that he\ncauses such fine churches to be built for us poor devils! God bless the\nEmperor!\u2019 And then he slips timidly up to some image where the golden\nground and the dark colours form the most glaring contrast, and throws\nhimself down before it, and crosses the floor with his forehead, so that\nhis long hair falls right over his face, and thus he wearies himself with\nprostrations and enormous crossings, until he can do no more for\nexhaustion. For the poorer the man in Russia, the larger the cross he\nsigns and wears.\u201d(106)\n\nThis description of the religious state of the Russian people, given by a\nwriter who is not very partial to their country, may be perhaps suspected\nof exaggeration, or considered as being too much of a caricature; I shall\ntherefore give my readers the observations which have been made on the\nsame subject by another German author, Baron Haxthausen, a great admirer\nof Russia, who travelled over that country in 1843, under the patronage of\nthe Emperor, in order to study the state of its agriculture and industry,\nas well as the social condition of the working-classes.\n\n\u201cA foreigner is struck,\u201d says the Baron, \u201cby the deep devotion and the\nstrict observance of the ordinances and customs of the church shown by\nRussians of rank and superior education. I had already, at Moscow, an\nopportunity of seeing it. Prince T., a young, elegant Muscovite dandy,\nconducted me about the churches of the Kremlin, and almost in every one of\nthem he knelt down before some particularly venerated object,\u2014as the\ncoffin of a saint, the image of a Madonna,\u2014and touched the ground with his\nforehead, and devoutly kissed the object in question. I observed the same\nthing at Yaroslaf. Madame Bariatynski (the wife of the governor) and\nanother lady conducted me about the churches of that city, and as soon as\nwe entered one of them, both these ladies approached an image of the\nVirgin, fell down before it, _without any regard to their __ dresses_,\ntouched with their foreheads the ground, and kissed the image, making\nsigns of the cross; and these were ladies belonging to the highest\nsociety, and of the most refined manners. Madame Bariatynski had been a\nlady of the court, and the ornament of the first drawing-rooms of St\nPetersburg. Her mind is uncommonly cultivated, and she has a thorough\nknowledge of French and German literature; and, indeed, when we were\nwalking to see these churches, along the banks of the Volga, she\ndiscussed, in an animated and ingenious manner, the matchless beauty of\nGoethe\u2019s songs, and recited from memory his Fisherman. Even in the\nstrictest Roman Catholic countries, as, for instance, Bavaria, Belgium,\nRome, Munster, such public demonstrations of piety are not to be met,\nexcept in some exceedingly rare cases, with women, but never with men. The\neducated classes have in this respect separated from the lower ones. Even\npeople who are very devout consider such excessive manifestations of piety\nas not quite decent, nay, though they dare not confess it, they are in\nsome measure ashamed of them. In Russia the case is different. There are\nperhaps as many freethinkers, and even atheists, as in western Europe, but\neven they submit, at least in public, and when they are in their own\ncountry, unconditionally, and almost involuntarily, to the customs of\ntheir church. In this respect, no difference whatever may be observed\nbetween the highest and the commonest Russian; the unity of the national\nchurch and of the national worship predominates everywhere.\u201d(107)\n\nIt is almost superfluous to observe that a church which has such a hold on\nthe national mind of Russia must be a powerful engine in the hands of her\nImperial Pope, whose political authority is thus immensely strengthened by\nthe influence of religion. But I think it will be, perhaps, not\nuninteresting to my readers to compare this baptised idolatry of the\nmodern Russians with that which had been practised by their unbaptised\nancestors about a thousand years ago, and the following account of which\nis given by Ibn Foslan, an Arabian traveller of the tenth century, who saw\nRussian merchants in the country of the Bulgars, a Mahometan nation who\nlived on the banks of the Volga, and the ruins of whose capital may be\nseen not far from the town of Kazan:\u2014\n\n\u201cAs soon as their (Russian) vessels arrive at the anchoring place, every\none of them goes on shore, taking with him bread, meat, milk, onions, and\nintoxicating liquors, and repairs to a high wooden post, which has the\nlikeness of a human face carved upon it, standing surrounded with small\nstatues of a similar description, and some high ones erected behind it. He\nprostrates himself before this wooden figure, and says, \u2018O Lord, I have\narrived from a distant country; I have brought with me so and so many\ngirls,(108) so and so many sable skins;\u2019 and when he has enumerated all\nhis merchandise, he lays before the idol the things which he has brought\nwith him, and continues his prayer, saying, \u2018Here is a present which I\nhave brought thee, and I wish thou wouldst send me a customer who has\nplenty of gold and silver, who will not bargain with me, but purchase all\nthat I have to sell at my own price.\u2019 When his commerce does not prosper,\nhe brings new presents to the idol, and when he meets with some new\ndifficulties he makes gifts also to the small statues, but when he is\nsuccessful he offers oxen and sheep.\u201d(109)\n\nKissing constitutes the principal part of the Russian worship of images\nand relics, and is most liberally bestowed on those objects of adoration,\nwhilst I believe that the Roman Catholic Madonnas maintain a more\ndignified state, and do not allow such familiarities to their worshippers,\nunless on some particular occasions or to some privileged persons. The\nEmperor himself sets the example of this pious _osculation_, a striking\ninstance of which occurred in the summer of last year, 1853, under\ncircumstances which deserve a particular notice.\n\nI have said above, p. 161, that several millions of the followers of the\nGreek United Church had been forced by the present emperor to transfer\ntheir spiritual allegiance from the Pope to himself. Several of their\nchurches contain miraculous images of the Virgin, of more or less repute,\nand which were obliged to share the fate of their worshippers, and to\nbecome schismatics as much as the latter. Their vested rights have not\nbeen, however, injured in any way by this revolution, because they\ncontinue to be worshipped, and to work miracles as they did before, or,\nwhat is the same thing, they are fully authorised to do so. The Russian\ngovernment followed on this occasion its usual line of policy, which is to\npromote those who have joined it, forsaking their former party; and thus\none of the most distinguished of these miracle-working converts, the\nMadonna of Pochayoff, a little town in Wolhynia, was transferred from her\nprovincial station to Warsaw, and placed there in a newly built Russian\ncathedral, probably with the object of inducing the Roman Catholic\ninhabitants of that capital to imitate an example set to them in such a\nhigh quarter, and to acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Czar as\nmuch as they are obliged to submit to his temporal dominion. When the\nemperor was going last year to Olmutz, in order to persuade the Austrian\ncourt to support his policy in Turkey, he passed through Warsaw, and\nrepairing, immediately after his arrival in that city, to the Russian\ncathedral, kissed the above-mentioned miraculous image of the Madonna of\nPochayoff with such fervour that it produced quite a sensation upon all\nthose who were present, and was noticed in the newspapers as a proof of\nthe autocrat\u2019s piety. Yet whether this Madonna, notwithstanding her\noutward conversion to the Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church, remains a Romanist at\nheart, or whether, for some other reason, she could or would not support\nthe views of her imperial worshipper, the result of the Czar\u2019s voyage to\nOlmutz proved that the caresses which he had bestowed upon the Madonna in\nquestion were _love\u2019s labours lost_. It may be also observed, that the\nemperor himself seems not to have been quite sure of the effects of his\npious addresses to the now schismatic Madonna of Pochayoff, because it is\nwell known that this man, who, as I have said above, p. 161, had torn from\nthe spiritual authority of the Pope, by a violent persecution, many\nmillions of souls, knelt during his visit to Olmutz, with all the marks of\ndeep devotion, at a Roman Catholic high mass; whilst the Prince of\nPrussia, who was also present on that occasion, stood by without taking a\nhypocritical part in a worship which was contrary to his religion.\n\nThis image-kissing propensity of the Russians was the cause of a tragical\nevent during the plague at Moscow in 1771. It usually happens during a\npublic calamity that rumours of a wild and absurd nature are circulated\namongst the ignorant part of the population, and it was thus that, when\nthe pestilence was raging in the above-mentioned capital, a report was\nspread that an image of the Virgin, placed at the entrance of a church,\nhad the power of preventing infection. Thousands of people repaired to the\nmiraculous image, and endless processions were wending along the streets\ntowards the same object of adoration, which was overloaded with rich\nofferings by its worshippers, and adorned with costly jewels. As was to be\nexpected, this superstitious practice, instead of preventing the\ninfection, powerfully contributed to its increase; because the kisses\nwhich the crowd lavishly bestowed on the miraculous image could not but\npropagate the disease. The Archbishop of Moscow, Ambrose, an enlightened\nprelate, in order to stop this mischief, removed the image from the place\nwhere it had been exposed into the interior of the church; but this wise\nmeasure produced a violent riot, and an infuriated mob rushed into the\nsanctuary and murdered the venerable old man at the foot of the altar,\nwhere he was officiating, dressed in his pontificals.\n\nIt is probably the same image of which Bodenstedt, whose account of the\nRussian Church I have quoted above, p. 169, relates the following\nanecdote. After having spoken of the usurpations of Russia beyond the\nCaucasus, under pretence of protecting the Christian population of those\nparts, he says:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe Russian policy, which conceals its grasping claws under the cloak of\nreligion, may be not inaptly compared to a lady well known at Moscow, who,\nto the great edification of the bystanders, kissed the miraculous Madonna,\nsituated close to the Kremlin, with so much fervour, that the most costly\ndiamond of the jewels with which this image is covered remained in her\nmouth.\u201d And he adds, in a note, \u201cThe thing was afterwards discovered, and\nthe writer of this was himself present when this lady, the wife of a\nRussian general, was obliged publicly to crave the forgiveness of the\nimage for this act of desecration. It is said that when this noble lady\nwas judicially examined about this affair, she pleaded in her defence that\nhaving loved and worshipped the image in question devoutly during many\nyears, she believed herself entitled to a little _souvenir_ from the\nMadonna.\u201d(110) The Russian lady of rank seems not to have been so\ningenious as the Prussian soldier, whose story I have related on p. 118.\nAnd it must be remarked that the Russian images expose their worshippers\nto the temptations of mammon much more than the Roman Catholic ones;\nbecause, whilst the latter are often valuable as objects of art, the\nformer have usually silver or golden garments, often set with precious\nstones, which entirely cover the painting except the face, generally by no\nmeans a model of beauty. The gifts which the Russians bestow on their\nimages are immense, and the most celebrated place for the accumulation of\nsuch treasures is the convent of Troitza, or Trinity, situated about fifty\nEnglish miles from Moscow, and considered as a kind of national sanctuary\nof Russia.(111) Baron Haxthausen, whom I have quoted on p. 173, says that\nthe value of sacred vases and ornaments accumulated in that place\nsurpasses all that may be seen of this kind any where else, without even\nexcepting Rome and Loretto; and he thinks that the quantity of pearls\ncontained in those ornaments is perhaps greater than is to be found in the\nwhole of Europe.(112)\n\nThe grave of St Sergius, the founder of that convent in the fourteenth\ncentury, is adorned with gold and precious stones, and the silver canopy\nover it is said to weigh 1200 pounds. The most remarkable object contained\nin that convent is, however, the image of that saint which accompanied\nPeter the Great during all his campaigns, and on which are inscribed the\nnames of all the battles and stormings of towns at which it had been\npresent. I do not know whether this image had a part in other expeditions\nof the Russian army, but I have read this year in the newspapers that when\na division of grenadiers was passing through Moscow, on their way to\nTurkey, the Archbishop of that capital addressed them, firing their zeal\nfor the religious war in which they were going to take part, and after\nhaving blessed them with the image of St Sergius, the same to which I\nalluded above, gave it them as a companion of their expedition. The allied\ntroops must therefore be prepared to encounter that _bellicose_ saint\nsomewhere on the Danube, unless he has been ordered to the shores of the\nBaltic for the defence of the capital. The custom of taking with them\nimages considered as miraculous, during a campaign, was followed by the\ngenerals of the Greek empire on many occasions. Thus it is related by a\nByzantine writer,(113) that in 590 Philippicus, a general of the Emperor\nMauritius, when going to engage the Persians in battle, took an _image\nwhich was not made by the hands of man_, and carried it about the ranks of\nhis army, in order to purify his soldiers, and that he gained, after this\nceremony, a complete victory. It must, however, be remarked that when\nPhilippicus was replaced by another general, called Priscus, the latter,\nrelying too much on the protection of the image which _was not made by the\nhands of man_, diminished the rations of the soldiers, and gave them other\ncauses of offence; they revolted, and when Priscus, in order to subdue the\nriot, paraded the image in question, the mutineers threw stones at it. I\ndon\u2019t know exactly how this business ended, but it is said that the Greek\ngenerals usually liked to have an image of the kind alluded to, in order\nto appease their troops in cases of mutiny and discontent; and I believe\nthat, considering the gross ignorance and superstition of the Russian\nsoldiers, the image of St Sergius may do good service in similar cases,\nand for which these soldiers have but too many reasons. The Greek emperors\nalso sometimes provided with miraculous images the ambassadors who were\nsent on important missions. I don\u2019t know whether the Russian diplomacy,\nwhich has performed so many wonders, has ever had recourse to the\nassistance of such images, or to that of any supernatural agency.\n\nThe miraculous images of the Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church are generally considered\nas _not made by the hands of man_, whilst those of the Roman Catholic\nChurch are usually believed to be painted by St Luke. The most celebrated\nMadonnas of Russia, as those of Kazan, Korennaya, Akhtyrka, &c., are\nbelieved to have dropt from heaven, in the same manner as the Diana of\nEphesus, and other Greek idols of repute. They are called _yavlenneeye\nicony_, _i.e._, revealed images, and their number is considerable, though\nall of them do not enjoy an equal reputation for miraculous powers. The\nnumber of images of various descriptions is, I think, much greater in\nRussia than in any other country, and they are called by the common\npeople, not images, _icony_, but gods, _boghi_; and many of their\nworshippers are so ignorant, that they take every kind of picture or\nengraving for the _boghi_, and devoutly cross themselves before them. A\nGerman officer of engineers, in the Russian service, related to the author\nthat he had a Russian servant, a young lad of a very devout disposition,\nwho pasted every engraving which he could lay hold on, upon the wall over\nhis bed, in order to address his prayers to them. This officer once missed\nsome plates, containing mathematical figures, which had dropt from a book\nof geometry, and he found afterwards that his pious servant, having picked\nthem up, gave them a place in his pantheon. If this strange divinity had\nbeen found amongst the objects worshipped by that poor lad by some very\nprofound foreign traveller, unacquainted with the Russian people, it is\nmore than probable that he would have taken it for a mystical object of\nadoration, and written a learned dissertation to explain its emblematic\nsense.\n\nEvery household in Russia has its own little sanctuary, consisting of one\nor more images, ornamented according to the means of the owner, and placed\nin a corner opposite to the principal door. Every one who enters the room\nmakes a sign of the cross, bowing to these _penates_, the place under\nwhose shrine is considered as the seat of honour, reserved at meals for\nthe father of the family, or the most respected guest.\n\nThe Russians are great _exclusives_ in respect to their images, and every\nbeliever has at least one of them stuck on the wall near his sleeping\nplace, for his especial use and comfort; whilst people who are continually\nmoving about, as carriers, pedlars, soldiers, &c., have their pocket\ndivinities with them; and the description of the devotional exercises of a\nRussian soldier, given on p. 171, is by no means a caricature. This\nexclusiveness was much greater before the reforms introduced by the\nPatriarch Nicon in the seventeenth century than it is at present.(114)\nContemporary travellers relate that people brought into the churches their\nown images, trying to get for them on the walls of the church the place\nwhich they considered the best; and thus it often happened that these\nimages, being placed opposite to the altar, people in praying to them\nturned their backs to the officiating priest, which generally produced\ngreat confusion, and disturbed the performance of divine service. There\nwas a very great competition amongst those people in ornamenting their\nimages as showily as possible; and as the sanctity of an image was\nincreased, according to the opinion of those baptised idolaters, in\nproportion to the richness of its ornaments, it often happened that a poor\nman, who could not afford to trim up smartly his own image, addressed his\nprayers to that of his richer neighbour. Such an adoration, however, was\nconsidered as contraband; and when the lawful owner of the image caught\none of those pious interlopers, he not only sharply rebuked him, but\nfrequently gave him a sound thrashing, saying that he did not go to the\nexpense of decorating his image that another should obtain its\nfavours.(115)\n\nScandalous scenes of this description have been abolished in the\nestablished church by the reforms of the Patriarch Nicon, alluded to\nabove, but something very like it may still be witnessed in the churches\nof the _Raskolniks_, who have separated from the established church on\naccount of those reforms. These people often bring their own images to the\nchurches to pray before them, and it frequently happens amongst the boys\nwho worship in this way, that some of them, perceiving that their\nneighbour has a finer image than their own, they steal it from him,\nsubstituting that which belongs to them. This produces quarrels and\nfighting amongst these boys, who reproach one another, saying, You\nSo-and-so, you have stolen my fine image which cost my father two roubles,\nand left me this wretched one, which is not worth fifty copecs, _i.e._,\nhalf a rouble. These scenes would be ludicrous if they were not positively\nblasphemous, because these images are called on such occasions, as is\nalways done, by the name of gods, _boghi_.\n\nIt has been observed by some travellers in Russia that the image-dealers\nof that country do not sell their wares, but, by a kind of legal fiction,\nexchange them for a certain sum, and that consequently they are disposed\nof at a fixed price. This is, however, not the case, and the image-dealers\nof Russia make no exception to the other merchants of that country, who\ngenerally ask for their goods the treble of their value, and a reasonable\nprice can only be obtained by hard bargaining. Only consecrated images,\n_i.e._, those which have been sprinkled by a priest with holy water,\ncannot be, I think, made an object of traffic.\n\nThe orthodox Russians have no less veneration for fine churches than for\nsplendidly adorned images, and the well-known German dramatic writer\nKotzebue gives in the relation of his forced voyage to Siberia,(116) under\nthe Emperor Paul, a characteristic trait of this disposition. The titulary\ncounsellor(117) Shchekatikhin, who conducted him to the place of his\nexile, Kurghan, in the south of Siberia, showed a great reverence to all\nthe churches which they passed by. Whenever they passed a fine church\nconstructed of solid masonry, he doffed his cap and crossed himself most\nfervently, whilst he treated very cavalierly all those which were built of\nwood, making a hardly perceptible sign of the cross in their honour. This\nnational propensity to treat respectfully the great and disdainfully the\nlittle, of which M. Shchekatikhin\u2019s piety was such a characteristic\nexemplification, has been, in its application to churches, described by\nthe great admirer of Russia, Baron Haxthausen, whose account of the\ndevotional practices observed by the upper classes of that country I have\ngiven above, p. 173, in the following manner:\u2014\n\n\u201cWe saw, in most part of the villages on our road, fine new churches built\nof stone or brick; but in one of them, called Novaya, I saw for the first\ntime an old wooden church, built of logs, and covered with boards and\nshingles, such as they generally had been every where in Russia. These\nwooden churches continually disappear, being replaced by those constructed\nof masonry. The Russian peasantry consider it a particular honour to have\nin their village a church of stone or brick. To leave a village with a\nchurch of stone in order to settle in a place which has but a wooden one,\nis considered as a degradation, and the inhabitants of the former would\nhardly intermarry with those of the latter. The villages which have only a\nwooden church, therefore, do all that they can in order to rise to an\nequal grade with those who have one of stone or brick. This shows how the\npride of rank pervades the mind of the Russians in every form of life, and\nin every class of the population. In cases of this kind, no promotion but\nonly a sum of money is required in order to obtain the desired rank. It\nmay be purchased by constructing a church of stone or brick. Such a church\ncosts ten, twenty, or thirty thousand silver roubles (six roubles equal to\none pound); but nothing is more easy than to get this sum. A dozen of\nstout fellows disperse in various directions, to collect by begging the\nsum required for the construction of the projected church, which is done\nwithout any expense, as the collectors are hospitably received in every\nhouse. As soon as the necessary sum is obtained, the village petitions the\ngovernment for a plan and for an architect, because the plan of every such\nchurch must be approved at St Petersburg. Thus, in a few years, a fine\nchurch is built, constructed in the modern style, and the rank of the\nvillage rises in its own and in its neighbours\u2019 opinion.\n\n\u201cSuch things cannot be done in Western Europe, partly because an active\nreligious feeling amongst the people disappears more and more,(118) and\npartly on account of the great fluctuation of their ideas, and want of\nstability in their opinions. With the Russian it is quite otherwise. This\nnation has no political ideas: but two sentiments pervade its whole\nbeing\u2014a common feeling of nationality, and a fervent attachment to the\nnational church. Whenever these two feelings take hold of the Russian\u2019s\nmind, he is ready willingly to sacrifice without a moment\u2019s hesitation his\nlife and property.\u201d(119)\n\nIt is these two national feelings that the Emperor Nicholas is now trying\nto excite to the utmost pitch, and there can be little doubt that if he\nsucceeds in his object there will be a hard struggle between barbarity and\ncivilization, though the final triumph of the latter, to the advantage not\nonly of the victors, but also of the vanquished, cannot be doubted for a\nmoment. I must, however, return to Baron Haxthausen, who continues his\naccount of the Russian village churches, saying,\u2014\n\n\u201cIt must not be forgotten, in order to understand how such large\ncollections for a church of some obscure village, and made for the most\npart amongst the peasants, are obtained, that _giving_ is as much in the\nRussian character as _taking_. Nowhere property hangs upon such loose\nthreads and changes hands with such rapidity as in Russia. To-day rich,\nto-morrow poor. People earn and squander away almost simultaneously; they\ncheat and are cheated; they steal with one hand, and give away with the\nother. The common Russian sets not his heart on any kind of property; he\nloses with perfect equanimity what he had just earned, in the hope of\ngetting it again to-morrow.\n\n\u201cThe Russian is, moreover, naturally good-hearted, charitable, and\nliberal. A shopkeeper who had perhaps just cheated his neighbour of the\nvalue of 20 copecs, without feeling any qualms of conscience on the\nsubject, will give one moment after it a rouble for the construction of a\nchurch in some village to which he is a perfect stranger.\u201d(120)\n\nThus, what Cicero said of Catiline, _Sui profusus alieni cupiens_, is\napplicable, not only to individuals, but also to nations, whose actions\nare swayed by feeling without being regulated by principle. It is almost\nsuperfluous to observe that a nation thus disposed, and with whom\nsuperstitious practices have a greater weight than religious principles,\nmay be easily precipitated into the most violent and dangerous courses,\nwhich to accomplish seems now to be the object of the Emperor of Russia.\n\nThe Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church has an immense number of relics of saints, to\nwhich all that Calvin has said of those of the Roman Catholic Church is\napplicable. I have given, in a note to his treatise on this subject, an\naccount of St Anthony\u2019s relics in Russia, as a counterpart to those which\nthe same saint possesses in western Europe. There are, indeed, many relics\nto the exclusive possession of which both these churches lay an equal\nclaim, each of them representing her own as the only genuine, and that of\nher rival as a spurious one. The most celebrated of these disputed relics\nis the holy coat of Treves, and that of Moscow. It is well known what a\nnoise the former of these produced in 1844, when an immense number of\npilgrims came to worship it; and it is pretended that it had been found by\nthe Empress Helena, with the true cross, and presented by her to the town\nof Treves. The coat of Moscow was given as a present to the Czar by a Shah\nof Persia, and its genuineness was established by a Russian archbishop,\nwho asserted that, when he passed through Georgia on his return from\nJerusalem, he saw in a church of that country a golden box placed upon a\ncolumn, and which, as it was told to him, contained the coat without a\nseam of our Lord. This statement was corroborated by an eastern monk, then\nat Moscow, who related that it was generally believed in Palestine, that\nwhen the soldiers cast lots for the possession of that coat, it fell to\nthe part of one of them, who, being a native of Georgia, took it with him\nto his native land. These statements were sufficient to establish the\nauthenticity of the relic, which consequently was licensed to work\nmiracles and worked them.(121)\n\nThe most celebrated collection of relics in Russia is found in the town of\nKioff, on the Dnieper, and where the bodies of many hundreds of saints are\ndeposited in a kind of crypt called _Piechary_, _i.e._, caverns. The\nchronicles relate that the digging of this sacred cavern was commenced in\nthe eleventh century by two monks called Anthony and Theodosius, who had\ncome from the Mount Athos, for their own and their disciples\u2019 abode. It\nwas gradually extended, but the living established themselves afterwards\nin a convent above ground, leaving to the dead the part under it. This\nstatement is considered to be authentic, but the numerous bodies of the\nsaints with which the long subterranean galleries of that cavern are\nfilled, have never been satisfactorily accounted for. It is the opinion of\nmany, that the nature of the soil is so dry, that, absorbing all the\nmoisture, it keeps the dead bodies which are deposited there in a more or\nless perfect state of preservation; and it is said that an enlightened\narchbishop of Kioff proved it by a successful experiment, putting into\nthat place the bodies of two women, who had been confined as prisoners in\na nunnery for their many vices. Be it as it may, Kioff is the resort of an\nimmense number of pilgrims, who arrive from all parts of Russia, to\nworship the bodies of the saints, and the riches accumulated by their\npious donations at that place are only second to those of Troitza (p.\n181).\n\nThe shrines of Jerusalem, which attract crowds of pilgrims from all parts\nof the Christian world, had been for a long time a subject of dispute\nbetween the Latins and the Greeks, and it is well known that the\npolitico-religious complications in which Europe is at present involved\nhave arisen from the claims of Russia relating to those shrines. It will,\ntherefore, I think, be not uninteresting to my readers to see the devout\nmanner in which these shrines are worshipped by the pilgrims of the\nGr\u00e6co-Russian Church; and I subjoin the two following accounts of this\nsubject, written at an interval of a century and a half, in order that my\nreaders may be able to judge for themselves whether the progress of\ncivilization during this period has had much influence on the pilgrims\nalluded to above.\n\nThe first of these accounts is an extract from the diary of an English\nclergyman, the Rev. Henry Maundrell, a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford,\nand chaplain to the English factory at Aleppo, who visited Jerusalem in\nthe year 1697:\u2014\n\n\u201c_Saturday, April 3d._\u2014We went about mid-day to see the function of the\nholy fire. This is a ceremony kept by the Greeks and Armenians, upon a\npersuasion that every Easter Eve there is a miraculous flame descends from\nheaven into the Holy Sepulchre, and kindles all the lamps and candles\nthere, as the sacrifice was burnt at the prayer of Elijah.\u2014(1 Kings\nxviii.)\n\n\u201cComing to the church of the Holy Sepulchre, we found it crowded with a\nnumerous and distracted mob, making a hideous clamour, very unfit for that\nsacred place, and better becoming bacchanals than Christians. Getting,\nwith some struggle, through this crowd, we went up into the gallery, on\nthat side of the church next the Latin convent, whence we could discern\nall that passed in this religious frenzy.\n\n\u201cThey began their disorders by running round the Holy Sepulchre with all\ntheir might and swiftness, crying out as they went, \u2018_Huia!_\u2019 which\nsignifies \u2018_This is he_,\u2019 or, \u2018_This is it_,\u2019 an expression by which they\nassert the verity of the Christian religion. After they had by their\nvertiginous circulations and clamours turned their heads, and inflamed\ntheir madness, they began to act the most antic tricks and postures, in a\nthousand shapes of distraction. Sometimes they dragged one another along\nthe floor, all around the sepulchre; sometimes they set one man upright on\nanother\u2019s shoulders, and in this posture marched round; sometimes they\nturned men with their heels upwards, and hurried them about in such an\nindecent manner as to expose their nudities; sometimes they tumbled round\nthe sepulchre, after the manner of tumblers on the stage. In a word,\nnothing can be imagined more rude or extravagant than what was acted upon\nthis occasion.\n\n\u201cIn this tumultuous frantic humour they continued from twelve to four of\nthe clock, the reason of which delay was because of a suit that was then\nin debate before the cadi betwixt the Greeks and Armenians, the former\nendeavouring to exclude the latter from having any share in this miracle.\nBoth parties having expended (as I was informed) five thousand dollars\nbetween them in this foolish controversy, the cadi at last gave sentence\nthat they should enter the Holy Sepulchre together, as had been usual at\nformer times. Sentence being thus given, at four of the clock both nations\nwent on with their ceremony. The Greeks first set out in a procession\nround the Holy Sepulchre, and immediately at their heels followed the\nArmenians. In this order they compassed the Holy Sepulchre thrice, having\nproduced all their gallantry of standards, streamers, crucifixes, and\nembroidered habits on this occasion.\n\n\u201cToward the end of this procession, there was a pigeon came fluttering\ninto the cupola over the sepulchre, at the sight of which there was a\ngreater shout and clamour than before. This bird, the Latins told us, was\npurposely let fly by the Greeks to deceive the people into an opinion that\nit was a visible descent of the Holy Ghost.\n\n\u201cThe procession being over, the suffragan of the Greek patriarch (he being\nhimself at Constantinople), and the principal Armenian bishop, approached\nto the door of the sepulchre, and cutting the string with which it was\nfastened and sealed, entered in, shutting the door after them, all the\ncandles and lamps within having been before extinguished in the presence\nof the Turks and other witnesses. The exclamations were doubled as the\nmiracle drew nearer its accomplishment, and the people pressed with such\nvehemence towards the door of the Sepulchre, that it was not in the power\nof the Turks set to guard it with the severest checks to keep them off.\nThe cause of their pressing in this manner is the great desire they have\nto light their candles at the holy flame, as soon as it is first brought\nout of the Sepulchre, it being esteemed the most sacred and pure, as\ncoming immediately from heaven.\n\n\u201cThe two miracle-mongers had not been above a minute in the Holy Sepulchre\nwhen the glimmering of the holy fire was seen, or imagined to appear,\nthrough some chinks of the door, and certainly Bedlam itself never saw\nsuch an unruly transport as was produced in the mob at this sight.\nImmediately after came out the two priests, with blazing torches in their\nhands, which they held up at the door of the Sepulchre, while the people\nthronged about with inexpressible ardour, every one striving to obtain a\npart of the first and purest flame. The Turks in the meantime, with huge\nclubs, laid on them without mercy; but all this could not repel them, the\nexcess of their transport making them insensible of pain. Those that got\nthe fire applied it immediately to their beards, faces, and bosoms,\npretending that it would not burn like an earthly flame; but I plainly saw\nnone of them could endure this experiment long enough to make good that\npretension.\n\n\u201cSo many hands being employed, you may be sure it could not be long before\ninnumerable tapers were lighted. The whole church, galleries and every\nplace, seemed instantly to be in a flame, and with this illumination the\nceremony ended.\n\n\u201cIt must be owned that those two within the sepulchre performed their part\nwith great quickness and dexterity; but the behaviour of the rabble\nwithout very much discredited the miracle. The Latins take a great deal of\npains to expose this ceremony as a most shameful imposture, and a scandal\nto the Christian religion, perhaps out of envy that others should be\nmasters of so gainful a business; but the Greeks and Armenians pin their\nfaith upon it, and make their pilgrimages chiefly upon this motive; and it\nis the deplorable unhappiness of their priests, that having acted the\ncheat so long already, they are forced now to stand to it, for fear of\nendangering the apostasy of their people.\n\n\u201cGoing out of the church after the event was over, we saw several people\ngathered about the stone of unction, who, having got a good store of\ncandles lighted with the holy fire, were employed in daubing pieces of\nlinen with the wicks of them and the melting wax, which pieces of linen\nwere designed for winding sheets; and it is the opinion of these poor\npeople that if they can but have the happiness to be buried in a shroud\nsmutted with this celestial fire, it will certainly secure them from the\nflames of hell.\u201d\u2014(P. 127, _et seq._, eighth edition, 1810.)\n\nMany people may, however, believe that scenes of such an outrageous\ndescription as that witnessed by Maundrell might have happened in his\ntime, viz., 1697, but that their repetition is quite impossible in our own\nenlightened age. The following account of the same scenes by Mr Calman,\nwhose veracity is attested by a high authority, and who had an opportunity\nof seeing it only a few years ago, which has been reproduced in a little,\nand now particularly interesting book, \u201cThe Shrines of the Holy\nLand,\u201d(122) may enable my readers to judge of the influence which the\nboasted march of intellect has produced on the Gr\u00e6co-Russian pilgrims, who\nassemble every Easter at Jerusalem.\n\n\u201cTo notice all that was passing,\u201d says Mr Calman, \u201cwithin the church of\nthe Holy Sepulchre during the space of twenty-four hours, would be next to\nimpossible, because it was one continuation of shameless madness and\nrioting, which would have been a disgrace to Greenwich and Smithfield.\nOnly suppose for a moment the mighty edifice crowded to excess with\nfanatic pilgrims of all the Eastern Churches, who, instead of lifting pure\nhands to God, without wrath and quarrelling, are led, by the petty\njealousy about precedency which they should maintain in the order of their\nprocessions, into tumults and fighting, which can only be quelled by the\nscourge and whip of the followers of the false prophet.\n\n\u201cSuppose, farther, those thousands of devotees running from one extreme to\nthe other, from the extreme of savage irritation to that of savage\nenjoyment, of mutual revellings and feastings, like Israel of old, who,\nwhen they made the golden calf, were eating and drinking, and rising to\nplay. Suppose troops of men stripped half naked, to facilitate their\nactions, running, trotting, jumping, galloping to and fro, the breadth and\nlength of the church, walking on their hands with their feet aloft in the\nair, mounting on one another\u2019s shoulders, some in a riding and some in a\nstanding position, and by the slightest push are all sent to the ground in\none confused heap, which made one fear for their safety.\n\n\u201cSuppose, farther, many of the pilgrims dressed in fur caps, like the\nPolish Jews, whom they feigned to represent, and whom the mob met with all\nmanner of insult, hurrying them through the church as criminals who had\nbeen condemned, amid loud execrations and shouts of laughter, which\nindicated that Israel is still a derision amongst these heathens, by whom\nthey are still counted as sheep for the slaughter.\n\n\u201cAbout two o\u2019clock on Saturday afternoon, the preparations for the\nmiraculous fire commenced. The multitude, who had been hitherto in a state\nof frenzy and madness, became a little more quiet, but it proved a quiet\nthat precedes a thunderstorm. Bishops and priests, in full canonicals,\nthen issued forth from their respective quarters, with flags and banners,\ncrucifixes and crosses, lighted candles and smoking censers, to join or\nrather to lead a procession, which moved thrice round the church, invoking\nevery picture, altar, and relic in their way to aid them in obtaining the\nmiraculous fire.\n\n\u201cThe procession then returned to the place from whence it started, and two\ngrey-headed bishops, the one of the Greek and the other of the Armenian\nChurch, were hurled by the soldiers through the crowd, into the apartment\nwhich communicated with that of the Holy Sepulchre, where they locked\nthemselves in; there the marvellous fire was to make its first appearance,\nand from thence issue through the small circular windows and the door, for\nthe use of the multitude. The eyes of all\u2014men, women, and children\u2014were\nnow directed towards the Holy Sepulchre with an anxious expression,\nawaiting the issue of their expectation. The mixed multitude, each in his\nor her own language, were pouring forth their clamorous prayers to the\nVirgin and the saints to intercede for them on behalf of the object for\nwhich they were assembled, and the same were tenfold increased by the\nfanatic gestures and the waving of the garments by the priests of their\nrespective communions, who were interested in the holy fire, and who were\nwatching by the above-mentioned door and circular windows, with torches in\ntheir hands, ready to receive the virgin flame of the heavenly fire, and\ncarry it to their flocks.\n\n\u201cIn about twenty minutes from the time the bishops locked themselves in\nthe apartment of the Holy Sepulchre, the miraculous fire made its\nappearance through the door and the two small windows, as expected. The\npriests were the first who lighted their torches, and they set out on a\ngallop in the direction of their lay brethren; but some of these\nerrandless and profitless messengers had the misfortune to be knocked down\nby the crowd, and had their firebrands wrested out of their hands, but\nsome were more fortunate, and safely reached their destination, around\nwhom the people flocked like bees, to have their candles lighted. Others,\nhowever, were not satisfied at having the holy fire second hand, but\nrushed furiously towards the Holy Sepulchre, regardless of their own\nsafety, and that of those who obstructed their way, though it has\nfrequently happened that persons have been trampled to death on such\noccasions.\n\n\u201cThose who were in the galleries let down their candles by cords, and drew\nthem up when they had succeeded in their purpose. In a few minutes\nthousands of flames were ascending, the smoke and the heat of which\nrendered the church like the bottomless pit. To satisfy themselves, as\nwell as to convince the Latins, the pilgrims, women as well as men,\nshamefully exposed their bare bosoms to the action of the flame of their\nlighted candles, to make their adversaries believe the miraculous fire\ndiffers from an ordinary one in being perfectly harmless.\n\n\u201cThe two bishops, who a little while before locked themselves in the\napartment of the Holy Sepulchre, now sallied forth out of it. When the\nwhole multitude had their candles lighted, the bishops were caught by the\ncrowd, lifted upon their shoulders, and carried to their chapels, amidst\nloud and triumphant acclamations. They soon, however, reappeared at the\nhead of a similar procession to the one before, as a pretended\nthank-offering to the Almighty for the miraculous fire vouchsafed.\u201d\u2014(P.\n121, _et seq._)\n\nIt appears, by comparing these two narratives of one and the same thing,\nthough separated by a distance of a hundred and fifty years, that the only\ndifference which will be found between them is, that in the time of\nMaundrell, 1697, the miraculous fire was produced in about one minute\u2019s\ntime, whilst the performance of the same trick required twenty when it was\nobserved by Mr Calman. And, indeed, it has been justly observed by both\nthese writers, that the exhibitors of the miraculous fire, having\ncontinued so long to practise this imposture, cannot leave it off without\nruining their authority and influence over those whom they have thus been\ncheating for many centuries. This circumstance has been most pointedly\nexpressed by the author of the work from which I have extracted Mr\nCalman\u2019s description of this pious, or rather impious, fraud, and who\nsays:\u2014\n\n\u201cHad it been an occasional miracle, as time had rolled on, and truth had\nmore and more illuminated the human mind, the practice might have been\ngradually discontinued. As the priests had grown more honest, and the\npeople more enlightened, they might have mutually consigned these pious\nfrauds to the oblivion of the darker ages; and if the blush of shame had\nrisen up at the memories of the past, the world would have respected them\nthe more for their honesty of purpose.\n\n\u201cBut an _annual miracle_, always of the same specific kind, exhibited on\nthe same spot, and at the same hour,\u2014an _annual miracle_,\u2014at what point of\ntime should this be discontinued? and, if discontinued, would it not be\nmanifest either that heaven had forsaken its favourites, or that all the\npast had been delusion and imposture?\u201d\u2014(Pp. 127, 128.)\n\nAnd it is the authority of a church supported by such impious and shameful\nimpostures as this miraculous fire that a number of Anglicans, including\nseveral dignitaries of the church, are anxious of preserving against\nProtestant encroachments, and protest against the existence of the\nProtestant bishopric of Jerusalem, for fear that it might injure the faith\nof the pilgrims, and put an end to such sacred juggleries as the one\ndescribed above, which outrivals the most superstitious practices of\nancient or modern Paganism! And it is for the predominance of this same\nchurch that the autocrat of Russia has now plunged Europe into a war which\nmay prove one of the bloodiest that modern times have witnessed, and\nproclaimed a Gr\u00e6co-Russian crusade against the Ottoman Porte and its\nChristian allies! This last-named circumstance may, I think, render it not\nuninteresting to my readers to know the manner in which this question is\nviewed by Russians of elevated rank and superior education. I would\ntherefore recommend to their attention a little pamphlet(123) recently\npublished in English by an accomplished Russian, who had studied at the\nUniversity of Edinburgh, and had enjoyed friendly intercourse with the\nmost eminent characters of that learned body, leaving with all those who\nhad known him a most favourable impression of his personal character and\ntalents. His opinions, therefore, are not those of an ignorant fanatic, or\na hireling of the Government, but must be considered as an expression of\nthose entertained by the upper classes of Russian society. He compares in\nthis pamphlet the position of Russia towards the followers of the Eastern\nChurch in Turkey, to that of England towards the Protestants of other\ncountries, saying:\u2014\n\n\u201cYou translate the Bible into all living languages, not excluding the\nTurkish idiom, and you distribute the holy volumes to the shopkeeper of\nConstantinople, and to the shepherd who tends his camels amidst the ruins\nof Ephesus. We are not as laborious propagators of the faith; but yet we\nwould fain intercede in favour of the Turk when your copy of the Bible has\nconverted him to the Christian faith, and who, by the law of the land,\nmust have his head cut off for this transgression. Mark that the\nobligation is much more binding on us than it is on you, and not the less\nbinding from the job having been begun by yourselves. The Turks are spread\namongst the Greeks and surrounded by them. There are ten thousand chances\nto one, that if the Moslem be converted at all, it is to that creed of\nwhich the church stands in his immediate eye, and that creed is ours. But,\nstrange to say, it is because of that very chance that we are to be\nprohibited from meddling in the matter. With the French and with the\nEnglish the case is far different. They, indeed, we are told, claim the\nright of protection only over thousands; but you claim that same right\nover millions, and, therefore, you shall not have it. The question you\nmay, however, say, is not fairly put, for should a Turk be converted, and\non the point of losing his head, we are ready to interpose with our\nauthority, even though it be to the Greek Church that he should have\nturned. Well! but place yourselves for a moment in our situation. Are we\nto leave to you the work which has been done in our vineyard, and not\nstand up for those who have embraced the cross, merely because there are\nmillions in that realm who embrace it? The case stands equally the same\nwith regard to the far greater number of human beings who are born and\nhave grown up in the profession of our faith. Without attempting to prove\nthat they are exposed to constant cruelty and oppression, a fact which has\nbeen strenuously denied without the denial having ever been proved, it is\nabundantly known, and an indisputable fact, that the Greeks are in a state\nof continual bondage, deprived of the dearest rights of men, condemned, in\na religious point of view, to a state of thraldom such as exists in no\nother part of the world, inasmuch as the supreme head of their church is\ninstalled in his dignity, maintained in the same, or deposed by a\nsovereign professing a faith hostile to his own. Is such a state of things\nto be tolerated by those who are its victims? and is not this in itself a\nhardship greater than any other that can be imagined? The English have\ngiven us, in a period, it is true, of greater zeal for their faith, an\nexample of active sympathy manifested by them towards their brothers in\nbelief, subjects of a neighbouring and powerful sovereign. The case was\nnot as urgent as the one to which I compare it, inasmuch as the Huguenots\nof France were not the subjects of a Mussulman sovereign. But this,\nperhaps, will be brought home as an argument against me, for such is the\nhatred of sects proceeding from the same faith, that England would,\nperhaps, have borne more meekly the hardships endured by the Calvinistic\nbrethren, if they had been subjected thereunto by a Soliman, and not by\nhim who styled himself the most Christian king of France. However this may\nbe, it is said at present that, whether oppressed or no, the Greeks never\nsolicited our intervention. To this it may be answered, that the whole\ndifficulty would have been solved by the very fact of the solicitation,\nfor had they had the courage and the means to send a similar and unanimous\nmessage to the Emperor of Russia, they would have had the strength and\nunanimity required themselves to strike the blow, and make all\nintervention useless. The fact of their having not risen as a man in their\nown cause, is a sufficient explanation for their want of boldness in\nsoliciting their deliverance at the hands of a foreign state. But laying\naside the question of the _subjects_ of the Ottoman empire professing the\nGreek faith, to speak of the much more vital interest of the faith itself,\nprofessed as it is by ourselves, let it be permitted to me to submit to\nyour candid decision, if the work of defending that faith does not belong\npre-eminently to us, and neither to the English nor the French. We\ntolerate in the whole extent of our empire both the Roman Catholic and the\nLutheran communions of faith; we have millions of subjects professing both\ncreeds; we build churches for them. Long before the Roman Catholics were\nemancipated in England, the posts of the highest honour, of the greatest\nconfidence, and of the largest perquisites in the army, the senate, and\nthe supreme council of the empire, were opened indiscriminately by us to\nmen professing the Greek, Roman, or Lutheran creeds. Is it because of our\ntolerance with respect to sects not our own, that we are condemned to be\nindifferent to the hardships of those of our own faith? Are we not only to\nallow your church to stand unmolested within our own realm, but also to\nallow our own church to fall in ruins within the limits of a neighbouring\nstate? If so, you condemn our toleration, you call it indifference and\ndisbelief.\u201d\u2014(P. 9, _et seq._)\n\nIt is perfectly true that there are in Russia several millions of\nProtestants and Roman Catholics, and that many of the highest offices,\ncivil as well as military, are occupied by them; for it is well known that\nthe most efficient servants of the Russian government are chiefly\nforeigners, either by birth or extraction. This tolerance, however, is\nalways getting more and more restricted; and I have alluded above, on pp.\n161-163, to the persecution of the Greeks united with Rome, as well as the\nsystematical proselytism by force and fraud amongst the Protestants of the\nBaltic provinces. The author says that a Mahometan who becomes a convert\nto Christianity must lose his head by the laws of Turkey, but he does not\ntell us what fate awaits a follower of the Greek Church in Russia who\nwould become a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. M. de Custine relates, in\nhis well-known work on Russia,(124) that a Russian gentleman, who enjoyed\na high social position at Moscow, published a work, which the censor\nallowed in an unaccountable manner to pass, maintaining that the influence\nof the Roman Catholic Church is much more favourable to the progress of\ncivilization than that of the Gr\u00e6co-Russian one, and that the social\ncondition of Russia would have been much more advanced by the former than\nit has been by the latter. This work produced a great sensation, and the\npunishment of the author of such a blasphemy was loudly demanded by the\northodox Russians. This affair being submitted to the Emperor, he declared\nthat the author was _insane_, and ordered to treat him accordingly. The\nunfortunate individual consequently was put into a madhouse, and though\nperfectly sane, was subjected to the most rigorous treatment as a lunatic,\nso that he nearly became in reality what he was _officially_ declared to\nbe, and it was only after several years of this moral and physical torture\nthat he was permitted to have a little more liberty, though still retained\nin confinement.\n\nI do not know what has become of this unfortunate man, but the truth of\nthis nameless act of tyranny has been fully admitted by Mr Gretsch, who\nwrote, by the order of the Russian Government, an answer to the work of\nCustine. He says that the individual in question, a Mr Chadayeff, having\ncommitted an action which the laws of Russia punish with great severity,\nthe Emperor Nicholas, desiring to save the culprit from the penalty which\nhe had incurred, ordered, by an act of mercy, to treat him simply as a\nmadman.\n\nNow, I think that the penalty of physical death, inflicted by the Turkish\nlaw on the converts from Mahometanism to Christianity, may be considered\nas humane, if compared to the murder of soul and intellect by the slow\nprocess of a moral and physical torture, to which a man has been subjected\nin Russia for his religious opinions; and if such an atrocious punishment\nwas inflicted by an act of _imperial mercy_, as a mitigation of the\nseverity of the law, what would it have been if the letter of that law had\nbeen fulfilled? \u201c_Ferrea jura, insanumque forum._\u201d\n\nIf, according to the opinion of the Russian writer, his countrymen have a\nright of interfering in behalf of the followers of their church in Turkey,\non account of the community of their faith, the same right is possessed by\nGreat Britain and other Protestant States, as well as by France and other\nRoman Catholic powers, to interfere in behalf of their brethren in the\nfaith who are oppressed by Russia. With regard to the observation of the\nsame author, \u201cthat the Greeks are in a continual state of bondage,\ndeprived of the dearest rights of men, condemned, in a religious point of\nview, to a state of thraldom such as exists in no other part of the world,\ninasmuch as the supreme head of their church is installed in his dignity,\nmaintained in the same, or deposed, by a sovereign professing a faith\nhostile to his own,\u201d I must remark that he has forgotten, in saying that\nsuch a state of thraldom exists not in any other part of the world, to\nadd, _except in Russia_, because all the Roman Catholic bishops and other\ndignitaries of their church, as well as the Protestant superintendents,\npresidents of consistories, &c., \u201care installed in their dignity,\nmaintained in the same, or deposed, by a sovereign professing a faith\nhostile to their own.\u201d And his question, \u201cIs such a state of things to be\ntolerated by its victims? and is it not in itself a hardship greater than\nany other that can be imagined?\u201d is as much applicable to the Protestants\nand Roman Catholics of Russia as it is to the Christians of Turkey.\n\nThe \u201cRussian, Quondam Civis Bibliothec\u00e6 Edinensis,\u201d carries his zeal for\nthe orthodox Greek Church so far as to recommend its adoption to the\nEnglish:\u2014\n\n\u201cDo you not see every day, in your own country, the encroaching action of\nthe See of Rome? And here I cannot refrain from exclaiming, how strange it\nis to see every day converts in crowds passing from the Protestant to the\nRoman faith, and not pausing for a moment to reflect if they have not a\nsmaller space to cross, and a safer haven to come to in the bosom of the\nGr\u00e6co-Catholic Church, the same as that of Rome, minus the anti-apostolic\ndouble procession of the Holy Ghost, minus an infallible pope, minus the\nsale of indulgences, and last, though not least, minus the arbitrary\nexclusion of the blood of Christ from the holy communion given to laymen!\nIs it not strange, that on the moment of abjuring your reformations, you\nshould fly into the arms of a church which _has_ introduced reformations\nof its own, and not appeal to that one church which professes with evident\ntruth to have admitted no changes at all, and kept intact the purity of\nher tradition? But, again, this is no theological disquisition.\nWitnessing, however, as I said above, in your own kingdom, the daily\nincreasing influence of the Roman See, you can surely understand how\nlegitimately jealous we must be of the same influence extending within the\nprecincts of our sheepfold. And, therefore, not only is our faith to be\npreserved unmolested, but the saving deed is to be done by _us_, and not\nthrough the agency of English and French ambassadors or fleets, to be\nachieved in the name of the faith we profess in common with our Greek\nbrethren, and by no means stipulated in the name of universal freedom of\nthought. I think I have said enough to prove the vital and cordial\ninterest which Russia cannot but take in the cause of her own church, and\nof those who profess it in Turkey, and the paramount necessity she is\nunder of making that cause her own.\u201d\u2014(P. 12, _et seq._)\n\nIf the Russian author is so anxious to convert the British Protestants to\nthe Gr\u00e6co-Russian, or, as he calls her, \u201cGr\u00e6co-Catholic\u201d Church, he may\ntranslate her controversial works into English, and build places of\nworship where image-kissing, prostration, incense, and holy water, may be\nexhibited for the edification of the British heretics, _ad libitum_.\nNobody will interfere with their ceremonies, not even with their\npreachings against Protestantism, because its disciples in Great Britain\nare satisfied with defending their religion by spiritual weapons, and do\nnot resort to material arms, except in repressing either public or private\nacts of violence. As regards the dogmatic pre-eminence of his church over\nthat of Rome,\u2014her rejection of the \u201c_anti-apostolic double procession of\nthe Holy Ghost_,\u201d\u2014which has been, I think, retained by the English Church,\n&c., I leave this subject to the decision of theologians, but shall only\nobserve that the worship of images, relics, and other pagan practices,\nwhich I have described in this chapter, do not prove much in favour of the\n_purity of her tradition_. I would also ask whether it is in accordance\nwith this tradition that the Russian clergy, notwithstanding all their\nclaims to apostolic succession, are governed by the Czar, who sometimes\ndelegates for this purpose a colonel of hussars,(125) which office, I\nbelieve, was never known, even in the most militant of churches? It has\nbeen, indeed, well said by the Marquis de Custine, that the Russian clergy\nare but an army wearing regimentals somewhat different from the dress of\nthe regular troops of the empire. The papas and their bishops are under\nthe direction of the emperor, a regiment of clerks, and that is all.(126)\nIt is in order to extend the advantages of this military organization to\nthe Christians of Turkey that Russia, according to the opinion of our\nauthor, \u201c_is __ under the paramount necessity of making their cause her\nown_.\u201d All that I say is, that she felt the same necessity of making the\ncause of the Greeks and Protestants of Poland _her own_, and that she\nended by making the same thing with their country.\n\nThe politico-religious complications into which Europe has now been thrown\nby the ambition of Russia have induced me particularly to dwell upon the\nmeans which the church of that country offers for the promotion of the\npolitical schemes of its rulers. With regard to the superstitious\npractices borrowed from Paganism, and peculiar to that church, the most\nremarkable is, perhaps, that heathen custom called _parentales_, mentioned\nbefore, p. 62, and which may be found in different parts of Russia. People\nassemble on Monday, after the Easter week, in churchyards, where they eat\nand drink to great excess, in commemoration of their deceased relatives.\nThere are many other similar practices, as, for instance, that of\nproviding the dead body with a kind of passport or written testimony of\nhis religious conduct, &c., probably imported with the Christian religion\nby the Greek Church, because at the time of the conversion of Russia, this\nchurch had already introduced painted though not carved(127) images, to\nwhich allusion has been made on p. 12 of this Essay.\n\n\n\n\n\nCALVIN\u2019S TREATISE ON RELICS, WITH NOTES BY THE TRANSLATOR.\n\n\nSt Augustinus complains, in his work entitled \u201cThe Labour of Monks,\u201d that\ncertain people were, even in his time, exercising a dishonest trade,\nhawking about relics of martyrs, and he adds the following significant\nwords, \u201c_should they really be relics of martyrs_,\u201d from which we may\ninfer, that even then abuses and deceits were practised, by making simple\nfolks believe that bones, picked up any where, were bones of saints. Since\nthe origin of this abuse is so ancient, there can be no doubt that it has\ngreatly increased during a long interval of years, particularly as the\nworld has been much corrupted since that age, and has continued to\ndeteriorate until it has arrived at its present condition.\n\nNow, the origin and root of this evil has been, that, instead of\ndiscerning Jesus Christ in his Word, his Sacraments, and his Spiritual\nGraces, the world has, according to its custom, amused itself with his\nclothes, shirts, and sheets, leaving thus the principal to follow the\naccessory.\n\nIt did the same thing with the apostles, martyrs, and other saints, and,\ninstead of observing their lives in order to imitate their examples, it\ndirected all its attention to the preservation and admiration of their\nbones, shirts, sashes, caps, and other similar trash.\n\nI know well that there is a certain appearance of real devotion and zeal\nin the allegation, that the relics of Jesus Christ are preserved on\naccount of the honour which is rendered to him, and in order the better to\npreserve his memory. But it is necessary to consider what St Paul says,\nthat every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom\nit may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no\nother foundation than our own devising. Moreover, it is necessary to set\nthe profit derived from it against the dangers with which it is fraught,\nand it will thus be found that, to have relics is a useless and frivolous\nthing, which will most probably gradually lead towards idolatry, because\nthey cannot be handled and looked upon without being honoured, and in\ndoing this men will very soon render them the honour which is due to Jesus\nChrist. In short, the desire for relics is never without superstition, and\nwhat is worse, it is usually the parent of idolatry. Every one admits that\nthe reason why our Lord concealed the body of Moses, was that the people\nof Israel should not be guilty of worshipping it. Now, we may conclude\nthat the act to be avoided with regard to the body of Moses must be\nequally shunned with regard to the bodies of all other saints, and for the\nsame reason\u2014because it is sin. But let us leave the saints, and consider\nwhat St Paul says of Jesus Christ himself, for he protests that he knew\nhim not according to the flesh, but only after his resurrection,\nsignifying by these words, that all that is carnal in Jesus Christ must be\nforgotten and put aside, and that we should employ and direct our whole\naffections to seek and possess him according to the spirit. Consequently\nthe pretence that it is a good thing to have some memorials either of\nhimself or of the saints, to stimulate our piety, is nothing but a cloak\nfor indulging our foolish cravings which have no reasonable foundation;\nand should even this reason appear insufficient, it is openly repugnant to\nwhat the Holy Ghost has declared by the mouth of St Paul, and what can be\nsaid more?\n\nIt is of no use to discuss the point whether it is right or wrong to have\nrelics merely to keep them as precious objects, without worshipping them,\nbecause experience proves that this is never the case.\n\nIt is true that St Ambrose, in speaking of Helena, the mother of the\nEmperor Constantine the Great, who sought with great trouble and expense\nfor the cross of our Lord, says that she did not worship the wood, but the\nLord who was suspended upon it. But it is a very rare thing, that a heart\ndisposed to value any relics whatever should not become to a certain\ndegree polluted by some superstition.\n\nI admit that people do not arrive at once at open idolatry, but they\ngradually advance from one abuse to another until they fall into this\nextremity, and, indeed, those who call themselves Christians have, in this\nrespect, idolatrised as much as Pagans ever did. They have prostrated\nthemselves, and knelt before relics, just as if they were worshipping God;\nthey have burnt candles before them in sign of homage; they have placed\ntheir confidence in them, and have prayed to them, as if the virtue and\nthe grace of God had entered into them. Now, if idolatry be nothing else\nthan the transfer elsewhere of the honour which is due to God, can it be\ndenied that this is idolatry? This cannot be excused by pretending that it\nwas only the improper zeal of some idiots or foolish women, for it was a\ngeneral custom approved by those who had the government of the church, and\nwho had even placed the bones of the dead and other relics on the high\naltar, in the greatest and most prominent places, in order that they\nshould be worshipped with more certainty.\n\nIt is thus that the foolish fancy which people had at first for collecting\nrelics, ended in this open abomination,\u2014they not only turned from God, in\norder to amuse themselves with vain and corruptible things, but even went\non to the execrable sacrilege of worshipping dead and insensible\ncreatures, instead of the one living God. Now, as one evil never comes\nalone but is always followed by another, it thus happened that where\npeople were seeking for relics, either of Jesus Christ or the saints, they\nbecame so blind that whatever name was imposed upon any rubbish presented\nto them, they received it without any examination or judgment; thus the\nbones of an ass or dog, which any hawker gave out to be the bones of a\nmartyr, were devoutly received without any difficulty. This was the case\nwith all of them, as will be shown hereafter.\n\nFor my own part, I have no doubt that this has been a great punishment\ninflicted by God. Because, as the world was craving after relics, and\nturning them to a wicked and superstitious use, it was very likely that\nGod would permit one lie to follow another; for this is the way in which\nhe punishes the dishonour done to his name, when the glory due to him is\ntransferred elsewhere. Indeed, the only reason why there are so many false\nand imaginary relics is, that God has permitted the world to be doubly\ndeceived and fallen, since it has so loved deceit and lies.\n\nThe first Christians left the bodies of the saints in their graves,\nobeying the universal sentence, that _all flesh is dust, and_ TO DUST IT\nMUST RETURN, and did not attempt their resurrection before the appointed\ntime by raising them in pomp and state. This example has not been followed\nby their successors; on the contrary, the bodies of the faithful, in\nopposition to the command of God, have been disinterred in order to be\nglorified, when they ought to have remained in their places of repose\nawaiting the last judgment.\n\nThey were worshipped; every kind of honour was shown to them, and people\nput their trust in such things. And what was the consequence of all this?\nThe devil, perceiving man\u2019s folly, was not satisfied with having led the\nworld into one deception, but added to it another, by giving the name of\n_relics of saints_ to the most profane things. And God punished the\ncredulous by depriving them of all power of reasoning rightly, so that\nthey accepted without inquiry all that was presented to them, making no\ndistinction between white or black.\n\nIt is not my intention now to discuss the abominable abuse of the relics\nof our Lord, as well as of the saints, at this present time, in the most\npart of Christendom. This subject alone would require a separate volume;\nfor it is a well-known fact that the most part of the relics which are\ndisplayed every where are false, and have been put forward by impostors\nwho have most impudently deceived the poor world. I have merely mentioned\nthis subject, to give people an opportunity of thinking it over, and of\nbeing upon their guard. It happens sometimes that we carelessly approve of\na thing without taking the necessary time to examine what it really is,\nand we are thus deceived for want of warning; but when we are warned, we\nbegin to think, and become quite astonished at our believing so easily\nsuch an improbability. This is precisely what has taken place with the\nsubject in question. People were told, \u201cThis is the body of such a saint;\nthese are his shoes, those are his stockings;\u201d and they believed it to be\nso, for want of timely caution. But when I shall have clearly proved the\nfraud which has been committed, all those who have sense and reason will\nopen their eyes and begin to reflect upon what has never before entered\ntheir thoughts. The limits of my little volume forbid me from entering but\nupon a small part of what I would wish to perform, for it would be\nnecessary to ascertain the relics possessed by every place in order to\ncompare them with each other. It would then be seen that every apostle had\nmore than four bodies,(128) and each saint at least two or three, and so\non. In short, if all the relics were collected into one heap, the only\nastonishment would be that such a silly and clumsy imposition could have\nblinded the whole earth.\n\nAs every, even the smallest Catholic church has a heap of bones and other\nsmall rubbish, what would it be if all those things which are contained in\ntwo or three thousand bishoprics, twenty or thirty thousand abbeys, more\nthan forty thousand convents, and so many parish churches and chapels,\nwere collected into one mass?(129) The best thing would be not merely to\nname, but to visit them.\n\nIn this town (Geneva) there was formerly, it is said, an arm of St\nAnthony; it was kissed and worshipped as long as it remained in its\nshrine; but when it was turned out and examined, it was found to be the\nbone of a stag. There was on the high altar the brain of St Peter; so long\nas it rested in its shrine, nobody ever doubted its genuineness, for it\nwould have been blasphemy to do so; but when it was subjected to a close\ninspection, it proved to be a piece of pumice-stone. I could quote many\ninstances of this kind; but these will be sufficient to give an idea of\nthe quantity of precious rubbish there would have been found if a thorough\nand universal investigation of all the relics of Europe had ever taken\nplace. Many of those who look at relics close their eyes from\nsuperstition, so that in regarding these they _see_ nothing; that is to\nsay, they dare not properly gaze at and consider what they properly may\nbe. Thus many who boast of having seen the whole body of St Claude, or of\nany other saint, have never had the courage to raise their eyes and to\nascertain what it really was. The same thing may be said of the head of\nMary Magdalene, which is shown near Marseilles, with eyes of paste or wax.\nIt is valued as much as if it were God himself who had descended from\nheaven; but if it were examined, the imposition would be clearly\ndetected.(130) It would be desirable to have an accurate knowledge of all\nthe trifles which in different places are taken for relics, or at least a\nregister of them, in order to show how many of them are false; but since\nit is impossible to obtain this, I should like to have at least an\ninventory of relics contained in ten or twelve such towns as Paris,\nToulouse, Poitiers, Rheims, &c. If I had nothing more than this, it would\nform a very curious collection. Indeed, it is a wish I am constantly\nentertaining to get such a precious repertory. However, as this is too\ndifficult, I thought it would be as well to publish the following little\nwarning, to awaken those who are asleep, and to make them consider what\nmay be the state of the entire church if there is so much to condemn in a\nvery small portion of it;\u2014I mean, when people find so much deception in\nthe relics I shall name, and which are far from being the thousandth part\nof those that are exhibited in various parts of the world, what must they\nthink of the remainder? moreover, if those which had been considered as\nthe most authentic proved to be fraudulent inventions, what can be thought\nof the more doubtful ones? Would to God that Christian princes thought a\nlittle on this subject! for it is their duty not to allow their subjects\nto be deceived, not only by false doctrine, but also by such manifest\nimpositions. They will indeed incur a heavy responsibility for allowing\nGod to be thus mocked when they could prevent it.\n\nI hope, however, that this little treatise will be of general service, by\ninducing people to think on the subject; for, if we could have the\nregister of all the relics that are to be found in the world, men would\nclearly see how much they had been blinded, and what darkness and folly\noverspread the earth.\n\nLet us begin with Jesus Christ, about whose blood there have been fierce\ndisputations; for many maintained that he had no blood except of a\nmiraculous kind; nevertheless the natural blood is exhibited in more than\na hundred places. They show at Rochelle a few drops of it, which, as they\nsay, was collected by Nicodemus in his glove. In some places they have\nphials full of it, as, for instance, at Mantua and elsewhere; in other\nparts they have cups filled with it, as in the Church of St Eustache at\nRome. They did not rest satisfied with simple blood; it was considered\nnecessary to have it mixed with water as it flowed out of his side when\npierced on the cross. This is preserved in the Church of St John of the\nLateran at Rome.\n\nNow, I appeal to the judgment of every one whether it is not an evident\nlie to maintain that the blood of Jesus Christ was found, after a lapse of\nseven or eight hundred years, to be distributed over the whole world,\nespecially as the ancient church makes no mention of it?\n\nThen come the things which have touched the body of our Lord. Firstly, the\nmanger in which he was placed at his birth is shown in the Church of\nMadonna Maggiore at Rome.\n\nIn St Paul\u2019s Church there are preserved the swaddling clothes in which he\nwas wrapped, though there are pieces of these clothes at Salvatierra in\nSpain. His cradle is also at Rome, as well as the shirt his mother made\nfor him.\n\nAt the Church of St James, in the same city, is shown the altar upon which\nhe was placed at his presentation in the temple, as if there had been many\naltars, according to the fashion of the Popish churches, where any number\nof them may be erected. This is what they show relating to the time of\nChrist\u2019s childhood.\n\nIt is, indeed, not worth while seriously to discuss whence they obtained\nall this trash, so long a time after the death of Jesus Christ. That man\nmust be of little mind who cannot see the folly of it. There is no mention\nof these things in the Gospels, and they were never heard of in the times\nof the apostles. About fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ,\nJerusalem was destroyed. Many ancient doctors have written since,\nmentioning fully the occurrences of their time, even to the cross and\nnails found by Helena, but these absurdities are not alluded to. But what\nis more, these things were not brought forward at Rome during the days of\nSt Gregory, as may be seen from his writings; whilst after his death Rome\nwas several times taken, pillaged, and almost destroyed.\n\nNow, what other conclusion can be drawn from these considerations but that\nall these were inventions for deceiving silly folks? This has even been\nconfessed by some monks and priests, who call them _pious frauds_, _i.e._,\n_honest deceits_ for exciting the devotion of the people.\n\nAfter these come the relics belonging to the period from the childhood to\nthe death of Jesus Christ, such as the water pots in which Christ changed\nwater into wine at the marriage feast of Cana in Galilee.\n\nOne would naturally inquire how they were preserved for so long a time?\nfor it is necessary to bear in mind that they were not discovered until\neight hundred or a thousand years after the performance of the miracle.\n\nI cannot tell all the places where these water pots are shown; I only know\nthat they can be seen at Pisa, Ravenna, Cluny, Antwerp, and Salvatierra in\nSpain.(131)\n\nAt Orleans they have even the wine which was obtained by that miracle, and\nonce a-year the priests there give to those who bring offerings a small\nspoonful, saying that they shall taste of the very wine made by our Lord\nat the marriage feast, and its quantity never decreases, the cup being\nalways refilled. I do not know of what date are his shoes, which are\npreserved in a place at Rome called _Sancta Sanctorum_, or whether he had\nworn them in his childhood or manhood; but this is of little moment, for\nwhat I have already mentioned sufficiently shows the gross imposition of\nproducing now the shoes of Jesus Christ, which were not possessed by the\napostles in their time.\n\nNow, let us proceed to the last supper which Christ had with his apostles.\nThe table is at St John of the Lateran at Rome; some bread made for that\noccasion at Salvatierra in Spain; and the knife with which the paschal\nlamb was carved is at Tr\u00e9ves. Now, it is necessary to observe that Christ\nmade that supper in a borrowed room, and on going from thence he left the\ntable, which was not removed by the apostles. Jerusalem was soon\nafterwards destroyed. How, then, could the table be found after a lapse of\neight hundred years?\n\nMoreover, in the early ages tables were made of quite a different shape to\nthose of our days, for people then took their repasts in a lying, not in a\nsitting posture\u2014a circumstance expressly mentioned in the Gospels. The\ndeceit is therefore quite manifest, without more being added to prove it.\n\nThe cup in which Christ gave the sacrament of his blood to the apostles is\nshown at Notre Dame de l\u2019Isle, near Lyons; and there is another in a\nconvent of Augustine monks in the Albig\u00e9ois;\u2014which is the true one?\nCharles Sigonius, a celebrated historian of our times, says, in his fourth\nbook on Italy, that Baldwin, second king of Jerusalem, captured in 1101,\nwith the assistance of the Genoese, the town of Cesarea in Syria, and\namongst the spoils taken by his allies was a vessel or cup of emerald,\nwhich was considered to have been made use of by Jesus Christ at his last\nsupper. \u201cTherefore,\u201d\u2014these are his own words,\u2014\u201cthis cup is even now\ndevoutly preserved in the town of Genoa.\u201d\n\nAccording to this account, our Lord must have had a splendid service on\nthat occasion; for there would be as little propriety in drinking from\nsuch a costly vessel without having the rest of the service of a similar\ndescription, as there is in some Popish pictures where the Virgin Mary is\nrepresented as a woman with her hair hanging over her shoulders, dressed\nin a gown of cloth of gold, and riding on a donkey which Joseph leads by\nthe halter. We recommend our readers to consider well the Gospel texts\nrelating to this subject.\n\nThe case of the dish upon which the paschal lamb was placed is still\nworse, for it is to be found at Rome, at Genoa, and at Arles. If these\nholy relics be genuine, the customs of that time must have been quite\ndifferent from ours, because, instead of changing viands as we now do, the\ndishes were changed for the same food!\n\nThe same may be said of the towel with which Jesus Christ wiped the feet\nof the apostles, after having washed them; there is one at Rome at the\nLateran, one at Aix-la-Chapelle, and one at St Corneille of Compiegne,\nwith the print of the foot of Judas. Some of these must be false.\n\nBut we will leave the contending parties to fight out their own battles,\nuntil one of them shall establish the reality of his case. It appears to\nme, however, that trying to make people believe that a towel which Jesus\nChrist had left in the place where it was used, had in several hundred\nyears afterwards found its way into Germany and Italy, is nothing better\nthan a gross imposture.\n\nI nearly forgot to mention the bread with which five thousand persons were\nmiraculously fed in the desert, and of which a bit is shown at Rome, and\nanother piece at Salvatierra in Spain.\n\nThe Scripture says that a portion of manna was preserved in remembrance of\nGod having miraculously fed his people in the desert; but the Gospel does\nnot say a word respecting the preservation of the fragments of the five\nloaves for a similar purpose; the subject is not mentioned in any ancient\nhistory, nor does any ecclesiastical writer speak of it. It is therefore\nvery easily perceived that the above-mentioned pieces of bread are of\nmodern manufacture.\n\nThe principal relics of our Lord are, however, those relating to his\npassion and death. And the first of them is the cross. I know that it is\nconsidered to be a certain fact that it was found by Helena, the mother of\nthe Emperor Constantine; and I know also that some ancient doctors have\nwritten about the manner in which the discovery was certified that it was\nthe true cross upon which our Lord had suffered. I think, however, that it\nwas a foolish curiosity, and a silly and inconsiderate devotion, which\nprompted Helena to seek for that cross. But let us take for granted that\nit was a laudable act, and that our Lord had declared by a miracle that it\nwas the real cross, and let us consider only the state of the case in our\nown time.\n\nIt is maintained undoubtingly that the cross found by Helena is still at\nJerusalem, though this is contradicted by ecclesiastical history, which\nrelates that Helena took a piece of it, and sent it to her son the\nemperor, who set it upon a column of porphyry, in the centre of a public\nplace or square, whilst the other portion of it was enclosed by her in a\nsilver case, and intrusted to the keeping of the Bishop of Jerusalem;\nconsequently, either the before-mentioned statement or this historical\nrecord must be false.\n\nNow let us consider how many relics of the true cross there are in the\nworld. An account of those merely with which I am acquainted would fill a\nwhole volume, for there is not a church, from a cathedral to the most\nmiserable abbey or parish church, that does not contain a piece. Large\nsplinters of it are preserved in various places, as for instance in the\nHoly Chapel at Paris, whilst at Rome they show a crucifix of considerable\nsize made entirely, they say, from this wood. In short, if we were to\ncollect all these pieces of the true cross exhibited in various parts,\nthey would form a whole ship\u2019s cargo.\n\nThe Gospel testifies that the cross could be borne by one single\nindividual; how glaring, then, is the audacity now to pretend to display\nmore relics of wood than three hundred men could carry! As an explanation\nof this, they have invented the tale, that whatever quantity of wood may\nbe cut off this true cross, its size never decreases. This is, however,\nsuch a clumsy and silly imposture, that the most superstitious may see\nthrough it. The most absurd stories are also told respecting the manner in\nwhich various pieces of the cross were conveyed to the places where they\nare now shown; thus, for instance, we are informed that they were brought\nby angels, or had fallen from heaven. By these means they seduce ignorant\npeople into idolatry, for they are not satisfied with deceiving the\ncredulous, by affirming that pieces of common wood are portions of the\ntrue cross, but they pretend that it should be worshipped, which is a\ndiabolical doctrine, expressly reproved by St Ambrose as a Pagan\nsuperstition.\n\nAfter the cross comes the inscription, \u201c_Jesus of Nazareth, King of the\nJews_,\u201d which was placed upon it by order of Pilate. The town of Toulouse\nclaims the possession of this relic, but this is contradicted by Rome,\nwhere it is shown in the Church of the Holy Cross. If these relics were\nproperly examined, it would be seen that the claims of both parties are\nequally absurd.\n\nThere is a still greater contradiction concerning the nails of the cross.\nI shall name those with which I am acquainted, and I think even a child\ncould see how the devil has been mocking the world by depriving it of the\npower of discernment on this point. If the ancient writers, such as the\necclesiastical historian Theodorite, tell the truth (_Historia\nTripartita_, lib. ii.), Helena caused one of the nails to be set in the\nhelmet of her son Constantine, and two others in the bridle of his horse.\nSt Ambrose, however, relates this differently, saying that one of the\nnails was set in the crown of Constantine, a second was converted into a\nbridle-bit for his horse, and the third was retained by Helena. Thus we\nsee that twelve hundred years ago there was a difference of opinion on\nthis subject, and how can we tell what has become of the nails since that\ntime? Now, they boast at Milan that they possess the nail which was in\nConstantine\u2019s bridle; this claim is, however, opposed by the town of\nCarpentras. St Ambrose does not say that the nail was attached to the\nbridle, but that the bit was made from it,\u2014a circumstance which does not\nagree with the claims of Milan or Carpentras. There is, moreover, one nail\nin the Church of St Helena at Rome, and another in that of the Holy Cross\nin the same city; there is a nail at Sienna, and another at Venice.\nGermany possesses two, at Cologne and Tr\u00e9ves. In France there is one in\nthe Holy Chapel at Paris, another in the same city at the church of the\nCarmelites, a third is at St Denis, a fourth at Bruges, a fifth at the\nabbey of Tenaille in the Saintonge, a sixth at Draguignau, the whole\nnumber making fourteen shown in different towns and countries.(132) Each\nplace exhibiting these nails produces certain proofs to establish the\ngenuineness of its relic, but all these claims may be placed on a par as\nequally absurd.\n\nThen follows the iron spear with which our Saviour\u2019s side was pierced. It\ncould be but one, and yet by some extraordinary process it seems to have\nbeen multiplied into four; for there is one at Rome, one at the Holy\nChapel at Paris, one at the abbey of Tenaille in Saintonge, and one at\nSelve, near Bourdeaux.\n\nWith regard to the crown of thorns, one must believe that the slips of\nwhich it was plaited had been planted, and had produced an abundant\ngrowth, for otherwise it is impossible to understand how it could have\nincreased so much.\n\nA third part of this crown is preserved at the Holy Chapel at Paris, three\nthorns at the Church of the Holy Cross, and a number of them at St\nEustache in the same city; there are a good many of the thorns at Sienna,\none at Vicenza, four at Bourges, three at Besan\u00e7on, three at Port Royal,\nand I do not know how many at Salvatierra in Spain, two at St James of\nCompostella, three at Albi, and one at least in the following\nplaces:\u2014Toulouse, Macon, Charroux in Poitiers; at Cleri, St Flour, St\nMaximim in Provence, in the abbey of La Salle at St Martin of Noyon,\n&c.(133)\n\nIt must be observed, that the early church has made no mention of this\ncrown, consequently the root that produced all these relics must have\ngrown a long time after the passion of our Lord. With regard to the coat,\nwoven throughout without a seam, for which the soldiers at the cross cast\nlots, there is one to be seen at Argenteuil near Paris, and another at\nTr\u00e9ves in Germany.\n\nIt is now time to treat of the \u201c_sudary_,\u201d about which relic they have\ndisplayed their folly even more than in the affair of the holy coat; for\nbesides the sudary of Veronica, which is shown in the Church of St Peter\nat Rome, it is the boast of several towns that they each possess one, as\nfor instance Carcassone, Nice, Aix-la-Chapelle, Tr\u00e9ves, Besan\u00e7on, without\nreckoning the _fragments_ to be seen in various places.(134)\n\nNow, I ask whether those persons were not bereft of their senses who could\ntake long pilgrimages, at much expense and fatigue, in order to see\nsheets, of the reality of which there were no reasons to believe, but many\nto doubt; for whoever admitted the reality of one of these sudaries shown\nin so many places, must have considered the rest as wicked impostures set\nup to deceive the public by the pretence that they were each the real\nsheet in which Christ\u2019s body had been wrapped. But it is not only that the\nexhibitors of this one and the same relic give each other mutually the\nlie, they are (what is far more important) positively contradicted by the\nGospel. The evangelists who speak of all the women who followed our Lord\nto the place of crucifixion, make not the least mention of that Veronica\nwho wiped his face with a kerchief. It was in truth a most marvellous and\nremarkable event, worthy of being recorded, that the face of Jesus Christ\nwas then miraculously imprinted upon the cloth, a much more important\nthing to mention than the mere circumstance that certain women had\nfollowed Jesus Christ to the place of crucifixion without meeting with any\nmiracle; and, indeed, had such a miracle taken place, we might consider\nthe evangelists wanting in judgment in not relating the most important\nfacts.\n\nThe same observations are applicable to the tale of the sheet in which the\nbody of our Lord was wrapped. How is it possible that those sacred\nhistorians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at\nChrist\u2019s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the\nlikeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This\nfact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates\neven how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes\nlying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other;\nbut he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord\u2019s\nfigure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have\nomitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this\nkind. Another point to be observed is, that the evangelists do not mention\nthat either of the disciples or the faithful women who came to the\nsepulchre had removed the clothes in question, but, on the contrary, their\naccount seems to imply that they were left there. Now, the sepulchre was\nguarded by soldiers, and consequently the clothes were in their power. Is\nit possible that they would have permitted the disciples to take them away\nas relics, since these very men had been bribed by the Pharisees to\nperjure themselves by saying that the disciples had stolen the body of our\nLord? I shall conclude with a convincing proof of the audacity of the\nPapists. Wherever the holy sudary is exhibited, they show a large sheet\nwith the full-length likeness of a human body on it. Now, St John\u2019s\nGospel, chapter nineteenth, says that Christ was buried according to the\nmanner of the Jews; and what was their custom? This may be known by their\npresent custom on such occasions, as well as from their books, which\ndescribe the ancient ceremony of interment, which was to wrap the body in\na sheet, to the shoulders, and to cover the head with a separate cloth.\nThis is precisely how the evangelist described it, saying, that St Peter\nsaw on one side the clothes with which the body had been wrapped, and on\nthe other the napkin from about his head. In short, either St John is a\nliar, or all those who boast of possessing the holy sudary are convicted\nof falsehood and deceit.(135)\n\nIn the Church of St John of the Lateran at Rome, they show the reed which\nthe soldiers, mocking Christ in the house of Pilate, placed in his hand,\nand with which they afterwards smote him on the head. In the Church of the\nHoly Cross at Rome they show the sponge which was filled with vinegar, and\ngiven him to drink during his passion. Now, I would ask, how were these\nthings obtained? They must have been formerly in the hands of infidels.\nCould they have delivered them up to the apostles to be made relics of? or\ndid they preserve them themselves for future times?\n\nWhat a sacrilege to make use of the name of Jesus Christ in order to\ninvent such absurd fables!\n\nAnd what can we think of the pieces of silver received by Judas for\nbetraying our Saviour? The Gospel says that he returned this money to the\nchief priests, who bought with it the potter\u2019s field for a burial-place\nfor strangers.\n\nBy what means were these pieces of silver obtained from the seller of that\nfield? It would be too absurd to maintain that this was done by the\ndisciples of Jesus Christ; and if we are told that they were found a long\ntime afterwards, it will be still less probable, as this money must have\npassed through many hands. It is therefore necessary to prove, that either\nthe person who sold his field did so for the purpose of obtaining the\nsilver pieces in order to make relics of them; or that he afterwards sold\nthem to the faithful. Nothing of this kind has ever been mentioned by the\nprimitive church.(136) To the same class of impositions belong the steps\nof Pilate\u2019s tribunal, which are exhibited in the Church of St John of the\nLateran, as well as the column to which Christ was fastened during the\nflagellation, shown in the Church of St Prasedo in the same city, besides\ntwo other pillars, round which he was conducted on his way to Calvary.\nFrom whence these columns were taken it is impossible to conjecture. I\nonly know that the Gospel, in relating that Jesus Christ was scourged,\ndoes not mention that he was fastened to a column or post. It really\nappears as if these impostors had no other aim than to promulgate the most\nfallacious statements, and, indeed, they carried this to such a degree of\nextravagance, that they were not ashamed to make a relic of the tail of\nthe ass upon which our Lord entered into Jerusalem, which they show at\nGenoa.(137) One really cannot tell which is most wonderful,\u2014the folly and\ncredulity of those who devoutly receive such mockeries, or the boldness of\nthose who put them forth.\n\nIt may be said that it is not likely all these relics should be preserved\nwithout some sort of correct history being kept of them. To this I reply\nthat such evident falsehoods can never bear the slightest resemblance to\ntruth, how much soever their claims may be supported by the names of\nConstantine, Louis IX., or of some popes; for they will never be able to\nprove that Christ was crucified with fourteen nails, or that a whole hedge\nwas used to plait his crown of thorns,\u2014that the iron of the spear with\nwhich his side was pierced had given birth to three other similar pieces\nof iron,\u2014that his coat was multiplied threefold,\u2014and that from his single\nsudarium a number of others have issued, or that Jesus Christ was buried\nin a manner different from that described in the Gospels.\n\nNow, if I were to show a piece of lead, saying, \u201cThis piece of gold was\ngiven me by a certain prince,\u201d I should be considered a madman, and my\nwords would not transmute the lead into gold.\n\nThus it is precisely when people say, \u201cThis thing was sent over by Godfrey\nde Bouillon after his conquest of Judea.\u201d Our reason shows us that this is\nan evident lie. Are we then to be so much imposed upon by words as to\nresist the evidence of our senses?\n\nMoreover, in order to show how much reliance may be placed on the\nstatements which are given about these relics, we must remark that those\nconsidered the principal and most authentic at Rome have been, according\nto those accounts, brought thither by Vespasian and Titus. Now, this is\nsuch a clumsy fabrication,\u2014they might just as well tell us that the Turks\nwent to Jerusalem in order to carry off the true cross to Constantinople!\n\nVespasian conquered and ravaged a part of Judea before he was elected\nemperor, and his son Titus completed that conquest by the capture and\ndestruction of Jerusalem. They were both Pagans, and had no more regard\nfor Christ than if he had never existed on earth. Consequently to maintain\nthat Vespasian and Titus carried off the above-mentioned relics to Rome,\nis even a more flagrant falsehood than the stories about Godfrey of\nBouillon and St Louis.\n\nMoreover, it is well known that the times of St Louis were very\nsuperstitious. That monarch would have accepted as a relic, and\nworshipped, any thing that was represented to him as having belonged to\nthe Holy Virgin; and, indeed, King Louis and other crusaders sacrificed\ntheir bodies and their goods, as well as a great portion of their\ncountry\u2019s substance, merely to bring back with them heaps of foolish\ntrifles, having been taught to consider them as the most precious jewels\nof the world.\n\nIt must be here mentioned, that in Greece, Asia Minor, and other eastern\ncountries, people show, with full assurance, counterpart old rubbish,\nwhich those poor idolaters imagine they possess in their own country. How\nare we to judge between the two contending parties? One party says that\nthese relics were brought from the East; but the Christians now inhabiting\nthose lands maintain that the same relics are still in their possession,\nand they laugh at our pretensions. How can it be decided betwixt right and\nwrong without an inquiry, which will never take place? Methinks the best\nplan is to let the dispute rest as it is, without caring for either side\nof the question.\n\nThe last relics pertaining to Jesus Christ are those which relate to the\ntime after his resurrection,\u2014as, for instance, a piece of broiled fish\nwhich St Peter presented to him on the sea-shore. This fish must have been\nstrongly spiced, and prepared in some extraordinary manner, to be\npreserved for so long a period. But, seriously, is it likely that the\napostles would have made a relic of a portion of the fish which they had\nprepared for their dinner? Indeed, I think that whoever will not perceive\nthis to be an open mockery of God, deserves not to be reasoned with.\n\nThere is also the miraculous blood which has flowed from several\nhosts,\u2014as, for instance, in the Churches of St Jean-en-Greve at Paris, at\nSt Jean d\u2019Angeli at Dijon, and in many other places. They show even the\npenknife with which the host at Paris was pierced by a Jew, and which the\npoor Parisians hold in as much reverence as the host itself. For this they\nwere well blamed by a Roman Catholic priest, who declared them to be worse\nthan the Jews, for worshipping the knife with which the precious body of\nChrist was pierced. I think we may apply this observation to the nails,\nthe spear, and the thorns; and consequently those who worship those\ninstruments used at our Lord\u2019s crucifixion are more wicked than the Jews\nwho employed them for that purpose.\n\nThere are many other relics belonging to this period of our Lord\u2019s\nhistory, but it would be tedious to enumerate them all. We shall therefore\npass them over, and say a few words respecting his images,\u2014not the common\nones made by painters and carvers, but those considered as actual relics,\nand held in particular veneration. Some of these images are believed to\nhave been made in a miraculous manner, like those shown at Rome in the\nChurch of the blessed Virgin, in Portici, at St John of the Lateran, at\nLucca, and other places, and which they pretend were painted by angels. I\nthink it would be ridiculous to undertake a serious refutation of these\nabsurdities, the profession of angels not being that of painters, and our\nLord Jesus Christ desired to be known and remembered otherwise than by\ncarnal images.\n\nEusebius, it is true, relates, in his Ecclesiastical History, that our\nLord sent the likeness of his face to King Abgarus;(138) but the\nauthenticity of this account has no better proof than that of a fairy\ntale; yet, supposing it were true, how came this likeness to be found at\nRome (out of Abgarus\u2019 possession), where people boast to have it now?\nEusebius does not mention where it was in his time, but he merely relates\nthe story as having happened a long time before he wrote; we must\ntherefore suppose that this image reappeared after a lapse of many\ncenturies, and came from Edessa to Rome.\n\nThey have forged not only images of Christ\u2019s body, but also copies of the\ncross. Thus they pretend at Brescia to have the identical cross which\nappeared to the Emperor Constantine. This claim is, however, stoutly\nopposed by the town of Constance, whose inhabitants maintain that the\nabove-mentioned cross is preserved in their town, and not at Brescia.\n\nBut let us leave the contending parties to settle this point between\nthemselves, though it would be easy enough to show the absurdity of their\npretensions, because the cross which, according to some writers, appeared\nto Constantine, was not a material cross, but simply a vision.\n\nThere are several carved images, as well as paintings, of Jesus Christ to\nwhich many miracles are attributed. Thus the beard grows on the crucifixes\nof Salvatierra and Orange, and other images are said to shed tears. These\nthings are too absurd for serious refutation, and yet the deluded world is\nso infatuated that the majority put as much faith in these as in the\nGospels.\n\n_The Blessed Virgin._\u2014The belief that the body of the Virgin was not\ninterred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all\npretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might\nhave been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard;(139) yet in\norder to have at least something belonging to her, they sought to\nindemnify themselves for the absence of other relics with the possession\nof her hair and her milk. The hair is shown in several churches at Rome,\nand at Salvatierra in Spain, at Ma\u00e7on, St Flour, Cluny, Nevers, and in\nmany other towns. With regard to the milk, there is not perhaps a town, a\nconvent, or nunnery, where it is not shown in large or small quantities.\nIndeed, had the Virgin been a wet-nurse her whole life, or a dairy, she\ncould not have produced more than is shown as hers in various parts.(140)\nHow they obtained all this milk they do not say, and it is superfluous\nhere to remark that there is no foundation in the Gospels for these\nfoolish and blasphemous extravagances.\n\nThe Virgin\u2019s wardrobe has produced an abundant store of relics. There is a\nshirt of hers at Chartres, which has been fully celebrated as an idol, and\nthere is another at Aix-la-Chapelle.\n\nI do not know how these things could have been obtained, for it is certain\nthat the Apostles and first Christians were not such triflers as to amuse\nthemselves in this way. It is, however, sufficient for us to consider the\nshape of these articles of dress, in order clearly to see the impudence of\ntheir exhibitors. The shirt at Aix-la-Chapelle is a long clerical\nsurplice, shown hanging to a pole, and if the Blessed Virgin had been a\ngiantess, she would still have felt much inconvenience in wearing so large\na garment.\n\nIn the same church they preserve the shoes of St Joseph, which could only\nfit the foot of a little child or a dwarf. The proverb says that liars\nneed good memories, so as not to contradict their own sayings. This rule\nwas not followed out at Aix-la-Chapelle, otherwise care would have been\ntaken to maintain a better proportion of size between the shoes of the\nhusband and the shirt of the wife. And yet these relics, so devoid of all\nappearance of truth, are devoutly kissed and venerated by crowds!\n\nI know of only two of her head-dresses; one is at the abbey of St Maximian\nat Treves, and the other is at Lisio in Italy. They may be considered\nquite as genuine as the Virgin\u2019s girdle at Prato and at Montserrat, as her\nslipper at St Jaqueme, and as her shoe at St Flour.\n\nNow, those who are at all conversant with this subject well know that it\nwas not the custom of the primitive church to collect shoes and stockings,\n&c., for relics, and also that for five hundred years after the death of\nthe Virgin Mary there was never any talk of such things. It really seems\nas if these well-known facts would be sufficient to prove the absurdity of\nall these relics of the Virgin; but her worshippers, not merely satisfied\nwith the articles I have just enumerated, endeavour to ascribe to her a\nlove of dress and finery. A comb of hers is shown in the church of St\nMartin at Rome, and another in that of St Jean-le-Grand at Besan\u00e7on,\nbesides others that may be shown elsewhere. Now, if this be not a mockery\nof the Virgin, I do not know what that word implies. They have not\nforgotten her wedding-ring, which is shown at Perusa.\n\nAs it is now the custom for a husband to present his bride with a ring at\nthe marriage ceremony, they imagined it to be so in the time of the\nVirgin, and in her country, consequently, they show a splendid ring as the\none used at her wedding, forgetting the state of poverty in which she\nlived.\n\nRome possesses four of her gowns, in the churches of St John of the\nLateran, St Barbara, St Maria _supra Minervam_, and St Blasius; whilst at\nSalvatierra they boast of having fragments of a gown belonging to her.\n\nI have forgotten the names of other towns where similar relics are\nshown.(141)\n\nIt is sufficient to examine the materials of these vestments in order to\nsee the falsehood of their claims, for their exhibitors give to the Virgin\nthe same sort of robes with which they dress up her images.\n\nIt remains now to speak of her images\u2014not of the common ones, of which\nthere are so many everywhere, but of those which are distinguished from\nthe rest by some particular claims. Thus at Rome there are four, which\nthey pretend were painted by St Luke the evangelist. The principal one is\nin the church of St Augustine, which they say St Luke had painted for his\nown use; he always carried it about his person, and it was buried with\nhim. Now, is it not a downright blasphemy to turn thus a holy evangelist\ninto a perfect idolater? And what reason had they for believing that St\nLuke was a painter? St Paul calls him a physician. I do not know from\nwhence they obtained this notion; but supposing it was so, is it possible\nto admit that he would have painted the Virgin for the same purpose as the\nPagans did a Jupiter, a Venus, or any other idol?\n\nIt was not the custom of the primitive Christians to have images, and it\nonly became so a long while afterwards, when the Church was corrupted by\nsuperstition. Moreover, the whole world is filled with representations of\nthe Blessed Virgin, which are said to have been painted by the same\nevangelist.(142)\n\nI shall not say any thing about St Joseph, whose shoes at Aix-la-Chapelle\nI have already mentioned, and whose other similar relics are preserved in\nmany places.(143)\n\nST MICHAEL.\n\nIt may be supposed that I am joking when I speak of the _relics of an\nangel_, considering how absurd and ridiculous it is to do so, yet,\nalthough the hypocrites certainly know this well, they have made use of\nthe name of St Michael to delude the ignorant and foolish; for they show\nat Carcassone his falchion, which looks like a child\u2019s dagger, and his\nshield, which is no larger than the knob of a bridle. Is it possible for\nman or woman to exist who can believe such mockery?(144) It is indeed a\nblasphemy, under a garb of devotion, against God and his angels. The\nexhibitors of the above-mentioned relics endeavour to support their\nimposture by the testimony of Scripture that the archangel Michael\ncombated with Satan; but if he was conquered by the sword, it would at\nleast have been one of a different size and calibre than the toy to which\nI have alluded. People must, however, be very silly to believe that the\nwar waged by angels and the faithful against the devil is a carnal\nencounter, fought with material weapons. But as I said before, at the\ncommencement of this treatise, the world has rightly deserved to be led\nastray into such absurdities, for having lusted after idols, and\nworshipped them instead of the living God.\n\nST JOHN THE BAPTIST.\n\nProceeding in due order, we must now treat of St John the Baptist, who,\naccording to the evangelical history\u2014_i.e._, God\u2019s Word of Truth\u2014was,\nafter being beheaded, buried by his disciples. Theodoret, the eminent\nchronicler of the Church, relates that his grave was at Sebaste, a town in\nSyria, and that some time after his burial the grave was opened by the\nPagans, who burnt his bones and scattered their ashes in the air. Eusebius\nadds, however, that some men from Jerusalem, who were present on the\noccasion, secretly took a little of these ashes and carried them to\nAntioch, where they were buried in a wall by Athanasius.\n\nWith regard to his head, Sosomen, another chronicler, relates that it was\ncarried to Constantinople by the Emperor Theodosius; therefore, according\nto these ancient historians, the whole body of John the Baptist was burnt\nwith the exception of his head, and the ashes were all lost excepting the\nsmall portion secretly taken away by the hermits of Jerusalem. Now, let us\nsee what remains of the head are extant.\n\nThe face is shown at Amiens, and the mask which is there exhibited has a\nmark above the eye, caused, they say, by the thrust of a knife, made by\nHerodias. Amiens\u2019 claim to this relic is, however, disputed by the\ninhabitants of St John d\u2019Angeli, who show another face of St John.\n\nWith regard to the rest of the head, its top, from the forehead to the\nback part, was at Rhodes, and I suppose must now be at Malta, at least the\nknights boast that the Turks had restored it to them. The back of the head\nis at St John\u2019s Church at Nemours, the brains at Nogent le Rotrou, a part\nof the head is at St Jean Maximin, a jaw is at Besan\u00e7on, a portion of a\njaw is at St John of the Lateran, and a part of the ear at St Flour in\nAuvergne. All this does not prevent Salvatierra from possessing the\nforehead and hair; at Noyon they have a lock of the hair, which is\nconsidered to be very authentic, as well as that at Lucca, and many other\nplaces.\n\nYet in order to complete this collection, we must go to the monastery of\nSt Sylvester at Rome, where the whole and real head of St John the Baptist\nwill be shown to us.\n\nPoets tell us a legend about a king of Spain who had three heads; if our\nmanufacturers of relics could say the same of St John the Baptist, it\nwould greatly assist their lies; but as such a fable does not exist, how\nare they to get out of this dilemma?(145)\n\nI shall not press them too hard by inquiring how could this head be so\ndivided and distributed, or how have they procured it from Constantinople?\nI shall merely observe, that either St John must have been a miracle, or\nthat those who possess so many parts of his head are a set of the most\naudacious cheats.\n\nWhat is more than this, they boast at Sienna of possessing an arm of that\nsaint, which is contrary, as we have already said, to the statements of\nall the ancient historians; and yet this fraud is not only suffered, but\neven approved of, for in the kingdom of Antichrist nothing is too bad\nwhich can serve to keep people in a state of superstition.\n\nAnother fable has been invented respecting St John the Baptist. When his\nbody was burnt, they say that the finger with which he had pointed out our\nLord Jesus Christ had remained whole and uninjured by the fire. Now this\nstory may easily be refuted by the ancient historians, because Eusebius\nand Theodoret distinctly state that the body had already become a skeleton\nwhen the Pagans burnt it; and they certainly would not have omitted the\nrelation of such a miracle in their histories if there had been any\nfoundation for it, having been but too eager to narrate such events even\nas are quite frivolous. But supposing that this miracle had really taken\nplace, let us seek where this finger is now to be found. There is one at\nBesan\u00e7on in the Church of St John the Great, a second at Toulouse, a third\nat Lyons, a fourth at Florence, and a fifth at St Jean des Aventures, near\nMa\u00e7on. Now I request my readers to examine this subject, and to judge for\nthemselves whether they can believe, that whilst St John\u2019s finger, which,\naccording to their own tradition, is the only remainder of his body, is at\nFlorence, five other fingers can be found in sundry other places, or, in\nshort, that six are one, and one is six. I speak, however, only of those\nthat have come to my knowledge; but I make no doubt, if a careful inquiry\nwere made, that one might discover half a dozen more of St John\u2019s fingers,\nand many pieces of his head, besides those I have enumerated.(146)\n\nThere are many relics of another kind shown as having belonged to St John\nthe Baptist; as, for instance, one of his shoes is preserved in the Church\nof the Carthusians at Paris. It was stolen about twelve years ago; but it\nwas very soon replaced by that sort of miracle never likely to cease so\nlong as there are shoemakers in the world.\n\nAt St John of the Lateran, at Rome, they boast of having his haircloth\nmentioned in the Gospels. The Gospel speaks of his raiment of camel\u2019s\nhair, but they endeavour to convert it into a horse-hair garment.(147)\n\nThey have also at the same church the altar before which he prayed in the\ndesert, as if altars were in those days erected on every occasion and in\nevery place. I wonder, indeed, that they have not ascribed to him the\nsaying of the mass.\n\nAt Avignon they show the sword with which he was beheaded, and at\nAix-la-Chapelle the sheet which was spread under him at that time. Is it\nnot absurd to suppose that the executioner would spread a sheet under one\nwhom he was about to kill?\n\nBut admitting that this should be the case, how have they obtained these\ntwo objects? Is it likely that the man who put him to death, whether a\nsoldier or executioner, should have given away his sword and the sheet we\nhave mentioned, in order to be converted into relics?\n\nST PETER AND ST PAUL.\n\nIt is now time to speak of the apostles, and I shall begin with St Peter\nand St Paul. Their bodies are at Rome; one part of them in the church of\nSt Peter, and the other in that of St Paul. We are told that St Sylvester\nweighed their bodies in order to divide them into equal parts. Both their\nheads are preserved also at Rome in St John of the Lateran. Besides the\ntwo bodies we have just mentioned, many of their bones are to be found\nelsewhere, as at Poitiers they have St Peter\u2019s jaw and beard. At Treves\nthere are several bones of the two apostles. At Argenton in Berri they\nhave St Paul\u2019s shoulder, and in almost every church dedicated to these\napostles there will be found some of their relics. At the commencement of\nthis treatise I mentioned that St Peter\u2019s brains, which were shown in this\ntown (Geneva), were found on examination to be a piece of pumice stone,\nand I have no doubt that many of the bones considered to belong to these\ntwo apostles would turn out to be the bones of some animal.\n\nAt Salvatierra they have St Peter\u2019s slipper. I do not know what shape it\nis, or of what material it is made; but I conclude it to be similar to the\nslippers of the same apostle shown at Poitiers, and which are made of\nsatin embroidered with gold. It would seem as if they had made him thus\nsmart after his death as a compensation for the poverty which he suffered\nduring his lifetime. Their bishops look now so showy in their pontificals,\nthat no doubt it would be thought derogatory to the apostles\u2019 dignity if\nthey were not dressed out in the same style. They take, therefore, figures\nwhich they gild and ornament all over, and name them as St Peter or St\nPaul, forgetting that it is well known what was the condition of these\napostles whilst in this life, and that they wore the raiments of the poor.\n\nThey show also at Rome St Peter\u2019s episcopal chair and his chasuble, as if\nthe bishops of that age had thrones to sit upon. The bishops then were\nengaged in teaching, consoling, and exhorting their flocks both in public\nand private, setting them an example of true humility, but not teaching\nthem to set up idols, as is done by those of our day. With regard to his\nchasuble, I must say that it was not then the custom to put on disguises,\nfor farces were not at that time performed in the churches as they are\nnow. Thus, to prove that St Peter had a chasuble, it is necessary to show\nin the first place that he had played the mountebank, as the priests do\nnow whenever they intend to serve God.\n\nIt is, however, no wonder that they have given him a chasuble since they\nhave assigned an altar to him, there being no more truthful foundation for\nthe one than for the other. It is well known what kind of mass was said at\nthat time. The apostles simply celebrated the Lord\u2019s Supper, and this\nrequires no altar; but as to the celebration of the mass, it was then not\nheard of, nor was it practised for a long time afterwards.(148) It is,\ntherefore, evident that those who invented all these relics never expected\ncontradiction, or they would not have devised such audacious falsehoods.\nThe authenticity of St Peter\u2019s altar at Rome (which I have just mentioned)\nis denied by Pisa, that town pretending to possess the real one. The least\nobjectionable of St Peter\u2019s relics is undoubtedly his staff, it being most\nprobable that he had made use of one during his travels, but unfortunately\nthere are two of them at Cologne and Treves, each town claiming exclusive\npossession of the identical one.(149)\n\nTHE OTHER APOSTLES.\n\nWe shall speak of the rest of the apostles together, in order to get\nquicker over the matter, and we will relate, in the first place, where\ntheir whole bodies are to be found, that our readers, by comparison, may\nbe able to form their own opinions on the subject. All know that the town\nof Toulouse boasts of possessing the bodies of six, namely, St James the\nMajor (brother of St John), St Andrew, St James the Minor, St Philip, St\nSimeon, and St Jude. At Padua they have the body of St Matthias, at\nSalerno that of St Matthew, at Orconna that of St Thomas, in the kingdom\nof Naples that of St Bartholomew.\n\nNow, let us reckon up those apostles who possess two or three bodies. St\nAndrew has a duplicate at Amalfi, St Philip and St James the Minor both\nhave duplicates at Rome, _ad sanctos Apostolos_, St Simeon and St Jude the\nsame in St Peter\u2019s Church. St Bartholomew enjoys an equal privilege at\nRome, in the church bearing his name. Here we have enumerated six of them,\neach provided with two bodies, and St Bartholomew has an additional skin\ninto the bargain, which is shown at Pisa.(150) St Matthew, however,\noutrivals them all, for besides the body at Padua, which we have before\nmentioned, he has another at Rome in the church of St Maria Maggiore, a\nthird at Treves, and an additional arm at Rome.(151)\n\nIt is true that the bits and scraps of St Andrew\u2019s body, scattered in\nvarious places, counterbalance, in some measure, the superiority of St\nMatthias; for he has at Rome, in St Peter\u2019s Church, a head, and a shoulder\nin that of St Chrysostom, an arm at St Esprit, a rib at St Eustache, I do\nnot know how many bones at St Blaise, and a foot at Aix in Provence.\n\nNow, as St Bartholomew has left his skin at Pisa, so he has left there a\nhand; at Treves he has also some bones, of which I forget the number; at\nFrejus a finger, and at Rome there are other of his bones; so that, after\nall, he is not the poorest of the apostles, others not having such a\nnumber of relics. St Matthew and St Thomas are the poorest of all. The\nfirst has only, besides his body at Salerno, which we have mentioned, some\nbones at Treves, an arm in the church of St Maria at Rome, and in that of\nSt Nicolas his head; though it may be that other of his relics may have\nescaped my knowledge, which would be no wonder, for who is not confused\nwith this ocean of impostures?(152)\n\nAs they pretend, in their tales, that the body of St John the Evangelist\ndisappeared immediately after it was deposited in the grave, so they\ncannot produce any of his bones, and they therefore sought for a\ncompensation amongst his clothing, &c. Thus they show at Bologna the cup\nfrom which he was forced to drink poison by order of the Emperor Domitian.\nProbably owing to some wonderful process of alchemy, the same cup exists\nalso in the church of St John of the Lateran at Rome.\n\nThey have also his coat, and the chain with which he was bound when\nbrought from Ephesus to Rome, as well as the oratory at which he used to\npray when in prison.(153)\n\nST ANNA.\n\nWe must now hurry on, or we shall never quit this labyrinth. We will,\ntherefore, only briefly mention the relics of those saints who were our\nLord\u2019s contemporaries, and then proceed to those of the martyrs, &c.,\nleaving our readers to form their own conclusions from these brief\nsketches.\n\nSt Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, has a whole body at Apt in\nProvence, and another at Notre Dame de l\u2019Isle at Lyons. She has a head at\nTreves also, a second at Duren near Cologne, and a third at a town called\nafter her name in Thuringhia. I shall not speak of her other relics shown\nin more than a hundred different places. I remember that I myself kissed\none of her relics, kept at the abbey of Orcamps near Noyon, on the\noccasion of a grand festival held in its honour.\n\nLAZARUS, MARY MAGDALENE, ETC.\n\nLazarus has, to my knowledge, three bodies, at Marseilles, Autun, and\nAvalon. A protracted lawsuit took place between the two last-named towns\nconcerning the validity of their respective claims to the possession of\nthe real body of this saint. Yet after an immense expense, both parties\nmay be said to have gained their suit, for neither forfeited its title to\nownership. With regard to Mary Magdalene, she owns but two bodies, one at\nAuxerre, and another of very great celebrity, with its head detached, at\nSt Maximin, in Provence.\n\nOf their numerous relics scattered over the world I shall not speak. I\nwould merely inquire whether Lazarus and his sisters ever went to preach\nin France; for those who have read the accounts given by ancient\nhistorians of those times cannot fail to be convinced of the folly of this\nfable.(154)\n\nST LONGINUS, AND THE THREE WISE MEN, OR KINGS.\n\nThe individual who pierced the side of our Lord on the cross has been\ncanonised under the name of St Longinus, and after having thus baptized\nhim, they have bestowed upon him two bodies, one of which is at Mantua,\nand the other at Notre Dame de l\u2019Isle at Lyons.(155)\n\nThe same has been done with the wise men who came to worship our Lord at\nthe nativity. In the first place they settled their number, telling us\nthat there were three. Now the Gospel does not mention how many were\npresent, and some eminent ecclesiastical writers have maintained their\nnumber to have been fourteen, as mentioned for instance in that imperfect\ncommentary on St Matthew which is ascribed to Chrysostom.\n\nMoreover, the _Gospel_ calls them _wise men_, but they have elevated them\nto the dignity of kings, without bestowing on them, however, either\nkingdoms or subjects. Finally, they have been baptized under the names of\nBalthazar, Melchior, and Gaspar. Now, supposing we concede to them these\nfables, frivolous as they are, it is certain that the wise men returned to\nthe east, for the Gospel informs us of this, and we may conclude that they\ndied in their native land, there being no reason for thinking otherwise.\nNow, who transferred their bodies to the west, for the purpose of\npreserving them as relics? It would be quite ridiculous, however, for me\nto attempt seriously to refute such a palpable imposture. Let Cologne and\nMilan, both of which towns pretend to possess relics of these _wise men_,\nor _kings_, decide this question between themselves.(156)\n\nST DIONYSIUS.\n\nSt Dionysius is considered to be one of the most celebrated of ancient\nmartyrs, as a disciple of the apostles, and as the Evangelist of France.\nOccupying such high rank, it is therefore very natural that his relics\nshould be so liberally dispersed; his whole bodies are, however, only\npreserved at the Abbey of St D\u00e9nis in France, and at Ratisbon in Germany.\nAbout a century ago Ratisbon instituted a lawsuit at Rome to prove that\nthe body in its possession was truly that of the saint, and the justice of\nthe claim was established by a decision of the Papal Court, delivered in\nthe presence of the French Ambassador. And yet, any one so bold as to dare\nto assert at St D\u00e9nis that theirs was not the real body would run the risk\nof being stoned for blasphemy; whilst those who oppose the claim of\nRatisbon are considered as heretics, rebellious to the decision of the\nHoly See.(157)\n\nST STEPHEN.\n\nThe whole body of St Stephen is at Rome, his head is at Arles, and his\nbones are in more than three hundred places; and the Papists, as if to\nshow themselves to be the partisans of those who murdered him, have\ncanonized the stones with which he was killed.\n\nIt may be asked how these stones were obtained, but to my mind this would\nbe a foolish question, as stones may be picked up anywhere, without\nincurring any trouble or expense in their transport. These stones are\nshown at Florence, at the convent of the Augustine monks at Arles, and at\nVigan in Languedoc, &c.\n\nWhoever will close his eyes and allow his understanding to be set aside,\nmay believe that these are the identical stones with which St Stephen\nsuffered martyrdom, but whoever will exert his reason a little cannot but\nlaugh at this imposition. The Carmelite monks of Poitiers discovered some\nof these stones only fourteen years ago, to which they ascribed the virtue\nof assisting women in the pains of travail; but the Dominican monks, from\nwhom a rib of St Margarita which possessed the same virtue had been\nstolen, were very indignant, and raised a great outcry at the deception\npractised by the Carmelites, but the latter gained the body by firmly\nmaintaining their rights.\n\nTHE HOLY INNOCENTS.\n\nIt was not at first my intention to mention the Holy Innocents, for if I\nwere to enumerate a whole army of their relics, it might always be said to\nme in reply that history is not contradicted by that, as their number has\nnever been mentioned to us. I shall not dwell, therefore, upon their\nmultitude, merely observing that they are to be found in every part of the\nworld. I would ask, however, how it came to pass that their graves were\ndiscovered so long after their massacre, since they were not considered as\nsaints when their murder by Herod took place? And then, how were these\nnumerous bodies conveyed to the many places where they are now to be seen?\nTo these questions but one answer can be given\u2014\u201cAll this occurred five or\nsix hundred years after their death.\u201d How can any but idiots believe such\nthings?\n\nBut supposing even that some of their bodies had really been discovered,\nhow came so large a number of them to be transported to France, Italy, and\nGermany, and to be distributed amongst so many towns situated so far\napart? This can only be a _wholesale_ deception.\n\nST GERVASIUS AND ST PROTASIUS.\n\nThe sepulchres of these two saints were discovered at Milan in the time of\nSt Ambrose, as testified by him. This fact is confirmed also by the\nevidence of St Jerome, St Augustine, and several others; consequently\nMilan maintains its possession of the real bodies of these saints.\nNevertheless, they are likewise to be seen at Brissach in Germany, and in\nthe Church of St Peter at Besan\u00e7on, besides an immense number of different\nparts of their bodies scattered throughout the land, so that each of them\nmust have had at least four bodies.\n\nST SEBASTIAN.\n\nThis saint, from the wonderful power his remains possessed of curing the\nplague, was put into requisition and more sought after than many of his\nbrother saints, and no doubt this popularity was the cause of his body\nbeing quadrupled. One body is in the church of St Lawrence at Rome; a\nsecond is at Soissons; the third at Piligny, near Nantes, and the fourth\nat his birth-place, near Narbonne. Besides these, he has two heads at St\nPeter\u2019s at Rome, and at the Dominican church at Toulouse. The heads are,\nhowever, empty, if we are to believe the Franciscan monks of Angers, as\nthey pretend to possess the saint\u2019s brains. The Dominicans of Angers\npossess one of his arms, another is at St Sternin, at Toulouse, a third at\nCase Dieu in Auvergne, and a fourth at Montbrisson. We will pass over the\nsmall fragments of his body, which may be seen in so many churches. They\ndid not rest satisfied with this multiplication of his body and separate\nlimbs, but they converted into relics the arrows with which he was killed.\nOne of these is shown at Lambesc in Provence, another is in the Augustine\nconvent at Poitiers, and there are many others in different towns.\n\nST ANTHONY.\n\nA similar reason has bestowed on St Anthony the advantage of\nmultiplication of his remains, he being considered as an irrascible saint,\nburning up all those who incur his displeasure; and this belief caused him\nto be dreaded and reverenced. Fear creating devotion, and producing also a\nuniversal desire to possess his relics, on account of the profits and\nadvantages to be derived therefrom, Arles therefore had a long and severe\ncontest with Vienne (in France) respecting the validity of the bodies of\nthis saint possessed by each of these towns.\n\nThe issue was the same as in other similar disputes, _i.e._, matters\nremained in the same state of confusion as before; for if the truth had\nbeen established, both parties would have lost their cause.\n\nBesides these two bodies, St Anthony has a knee in the Church of the\nAugustines at Albi, and several other limbs at Bourg, Ma\u00e7on, Ouroux,\nChalons, Besan\u00e7on, &c.\n\nSuch are the advantages of being an object of dread and fear, otherwise\nthis saint might possibly have been permitted to remain quietly in his\ngrave.(158)\n\nST PETRONILLA\u2014ST HELENA\u2014ST URSULA\u2014AND THE ELEVEN THOUSAND VIRGINS.\n\nI must not forget to mention St Petronilla, St Peter\u2019s daughter, who has a\nwhole body at Rome, in the church dedicated to her father, besides other\nrelics in that of St Barbara. This does not, however, prevent her from\nowning another body in the Dominican convent at Mans, which is greatly\nvenerated for the virtue it possesses of curing fevers. St Helena has not\nbeen so liberally provided for. Besides her body at Venice, she has but an\nextra head in the Church of St Gereon at Cologne.(159) St Ursula beats her\nhollow in this respect; for she has a whole body at St Jean d\u2019Angely, and\na head into the bargain at Cologne, besides three separate limbs, and\nvarious fragments at Mans, Tours, and Bergerat. The companions of this\nsaint are called _the eleven thousand virgins_, and although this is a\nrespectable number, yet it is still too small, considering that the\nremains of these virgins are to be seen everywhere; for besides there\nbeing about one hundred cart-loads of their bones at Cologne, there is\nhardly a town where one or more churches have not some relics of these\nnumerous saints.(160)\n\nIf I was to enumerate all the minor saints I should enter a labyrinth\nwithout possibility of egress. I shall, therefore, rest satisfied with\ngiving a few examples, leaving my readers to judge from these of the rest.\nFor instance, there are two churches at Poitiers, one attached to the\nconvent of Selle, and the other dedicated to the saint in question,\nbetween which a great dispute has been going on as to the possession of\nthe real body of St Hilarion.\n\nThe lawsuit upon this point has been suspended for an indefinite time, and\nmeanwhile the idolaters worship two bodies of one and the same individual.\n\nSt Honoratus has a body at Arles, and another at the island of Lerins,\nnear Antibes.\n\nSt Giles has a body at Toulouse, and a second in a town bearing his name\nin Languedoc.\n\nI could quote an infinite number of similar cases. I think that the\nexhibitors of these relics should at least have made some arrangement\namongst themselves the better to conceal their barefaced impostures.\nSomething of this sort was managed between the canons of Tr\u00eaves and those\nof Li\u00e9ge about St Lambert\u2019s head. They compounded, for a sum of money, not\nto show publicly the head in their possession, in order to avoid the\nnatural surprise of the public at the same relic being seen in two\ndifferent towns situated so near to each other. But, as I have already\nremarked at the commencement of this treatise, the inventors of these\nfrauds never imagined any one could be found bold enough to speak out and\nexpose their deceptions.\n\nIt may be asked, how it came to pass that these manufacturers of relics,\nhaving collected and forged without any reason all that their imaginations\ncould fancy in any way, could have omitted subjects pertaining to the Old\nTestament?\n\nThe only reply I can give to this query is, that they looked with contempt\non those subjects, from which they did not anticipate any considerable\ngain.\n\nStill they have not entirely despised them, for they pretend to have the\nbones of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the church of _St Maria supra\nMinervam_, at Rome. They also boast of possessing, at St John of the\nLateran, the ark of alliance, with Aaron\u2019s rod, though the same rod is\nalso at the Holy Chapel in Paris, whilst some pieces of it are preserved\nat Salvatierra. Moreover, at Bordeaux they maintain that St Martial\u2019s rod,\nwhich is exhibited in the church of St Severin, is no other than that of\nAaron. It seems, indeed, that they would wish with this rod to perform\nanother miracle; formerly it was turned into a serpent, whereas now they\nwould convert it into three different rods! It is very likely that they\nmay have other relics of objects mentioned in the Old Testament, but the\nfew we have here alluded to show that they have treated them much in the\nsame style as those belonging to Christian times.\n\nI now beg to remind my readers of what I mentioned at the beginning of\nthis work, that I have had no commissioners for visiting the numerous\nchurches of the different countries enumerated by me, nor must my\ndescription be taken for a register or inventory of all that can be\ndiscovered respecting relics. I have mentioned about half-a-dozen towns in\nGermany, but three in Spain I think, about fifteen in Italy, and between\nthirty and forty in France, and even of these few examples I have not\nrelated all that I might concerning them. Now, let us only imagine what a\nmass might be raised out of all the relics which are to be seen in\nChristendom, if they were collected and arranged together in proper order.\nI speak, however, only of those countries which we know and frequent; for\nit is most important to observe that all the relics belonging to Christ\nand the apostles which are displayed in the west are also to be seen in\nGreece, Asia, and all other countries where Christian Churches are in\nexistence. Now, what are we to say when the Eastern Christians assert\ntheir claims?\n\nIf we contradict them, alleging on our part that the body of such a saint\nwas brought to Europe by merchants, that of another by monks, that of a\nthird by a bishop, that a part of the crown of thorns was sent to a king\nof France by an emperor of Constantinople, and another part was carried\noff in time of war, and so on of every object of the kind, they would\nshake their heads, and laugh at us! How are such differences to be\nsettled? In every doubtful case we can only judge by conjecture, and, in\nfollowing this out, the adherents of the Eastern Churches are sure of\nsuccess, because their claims are more probable than those of their\nopponents. It is indeed a difficult point for the defenders of relics to\nsettle.\n\nFinally, I beseech and exhort, in the name of God, all my readers to\nlisten to the truth now clearly displayed before them, and to believe\nthat, by God\u2019s especial providence, those who have endeavoured thus to\nlead mankind astray have been rendered so blind and careless as to neglect\na proper concealment of their deceptions, but that, like Midianites having\ntheir eyes put out, they run one against another, for we all know that\nthey quarrel amongst themselves, and mutually injure each other. Whoever\nis not wilfully prejudiced against all reason must certainly be convinced\nthat the worship of relics, whether true or false, is an abominable\nidolatry; yet should not this even be the case with him, he must\nnevertheless perceive the evident imposture, and whatever may have been\nhis former devotion to relics, he must lose all courage in kissing such\nobjects, and become entirely disgusted with them.\n\nI repeat what I said at the commencement of this treatise, that it would\nbe most important to abolish from amongst us Christians this pagan\nsuperstition of canonising relics, either of Christ or of his saints, in\norder to make idols of them; for this is a defilement and an impurity\nwhich should never be suffered in the Church. We have already proved that\nit is so by arguments, and also from the evidence of Scripture. Let those\nwho are not yet satisfied look to the practices of the ancient fathers,\nand conform to their examples. There are many holy patriarchs, many\nprophets, many holy kings, and other saints mentioned in the Old\nTestament. God ordained at that time the observance of more ceremonies\nthan are needed now. Even funerals were performed then with more display\nthan at present, in order to represent symbolically the glorious\nresurrection, especially as it had not then been so clearly revealed by\nthe Word of God as it is to ourselves.\n\nDo we ever read in that book that these saints were taken from their\nsepulchres as idols? Was Abraham, the father of the faithful, ever thus\nraised? Was Sarah ever removed from her grave? Were they not left in\npeace, with the remains of all other saints? But what is more conclusive,\nwas not the body of Moses concealed by God\u2019s will, in such a manner that\nit never has been or can be discovered? Has not the devil contended\nconcerning it with the angels, as St Jude says? Now, what was our Lord\u2019s\nreason for removing that body from the sight of men, and why should the\ndevil desire to have it exhibited to them? It is generally admitted that\nGod wished to put away from his people of Israel all temptation to commit\nidolatry, and that Satan desired its introduction amongst them.\n\nIt may be said, however, that the Israelites were inclined to\nsuperstition. I ask, how stands the case now with ourselves? Is there not,\nwithout comparison, more perversity in this respect amongst Christians\nthan there ever was amongst the Jews of old?\n\nLet us call to mind the practice of the early church. It is true that the\nfirst Christians were always anxious to get possession of the bodies of\nthe martyrs, lest they might be devoured by beasts or birds of prey, and\ndecently to bury them, as we read was the case with the bodies of St John\nthe Baptist and St Stephen. This solicitude was shown, however, in order\nto inter them in their graves, and there to leave them until the day of\nthe resurrection; but they did not expose these remains to the sight of\nmen for their adoration.\n\nThe unfortunate custom of canonising saints was not introduced into the\nChurch until it had become perverted and profaned, partly by the folly and\ncupidity of its prelates and pastors, and partly because they were unable\nto restrain this innovation, as people were seeking to deceive themselves\nby giving their hearts to puerile follies, instead of to the true worship\nof God. If we wish, in a direct manner, to correct this abuse, it is\nnecessary to abolish entirely what has been so badly commenced and\nestablished against all reason. But if it is impossible to arrive at once\nat such a clear comprehension of this abuse, let people at least have\ntheir eyes opened to discern what the relics are which are presented for\ntheir adoration.\n\nThis is indeed no difficulty for those who will only exercise their\nreason, for amongst the numerous evident impostures we have here\nmentioned, where may we find one real relic of which we may feel certain\nthat it is such as is represented?\n\nMoreover, all those that I have enumerated are nothing comparatively to\nthe remainder yet untold by me. Even whilst this treatise is in the press,\nI have been informed of many relics not mentioned in it; and if a general\nvisitation of all existing relics were possible, a hundredfold more\ndiscoveries would be made.\n\nI remember when I was a little boy what took place in our parish. On the\nfestival day of St Stephen, the images of the tyrants who stoned him (for\nthey are thus called by the common people) were adorned as much as that of\nthe saint himself. Many women, seeing these tyrants thus decked out,\nmistook them for the saint\u2019s companions, and offered the homage of candles\nto each of them. Mistakes of this kind must frequently happen to the\nworshippers of relics, for there is such confusion amongst them that it is\nquite impossible to worship the bones of a martyr without danger of\nrendering such honours by mistake to the bones of some brigand or thief,\nor even to those of a horse, a dog, or a donkey.\n\nAnd it is equally impossible to adore the ring, the comb, the girdle of\nthe Virgin Mary, without the risk of adoring instead objects which may\nhave belonged to some abandoned person.\n\nNow, those who fall into this error must do so willingly, as no one can\nfrom henceforth plead ignorance on the subject as their excuse.(161)\n\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\n\n\nThe following extract from the _Ecclesiastical Gazette_ of Vienna has been\nreproduced in an Extraordinary Supplement of the _Allgemeine Zeitung_, of\nAugsburg, for the 11th May 1854. I subjoin a translation of it in a\npostscript, as an additional evidence of the persecution to which the\nGreek Church united with Rome has been subjected in Russia, and which I\nmentioned on page 161 of this work:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cSpies appointed for this especial purpose transmitted, in their\n    reports to the Government, lists of such individuals as were\n    suspected to be Catholics at heart; and if all the exaggerated\n    accounts which had been made of the Spanish Inquisition were true,\n    they would be thrown into the shade by the proceedings that were\n    adopted against the above-mentioned individuals. And indeed it is\n    an averred fact, that many of them fell a victim to starvation,\n    blows, and other cruel treatment. The Catholic inhabitants of\n    Worodzkow were forced with stripes, by the Governor and his\n    satellites, to sign a _voluntary_ petition, expressing their\n    ardent wish to be received into the pale of the orthodox Russian\n    Church. The names of those who could not write were signed by\n    others, and whoever showed the slightest manifestation of his\n    desire to remain a Catholic, after having performed this\n    _voluntary_ act, was treated as one guilty of high treason. The\n    same proceedings as at Worodzkow were adopted in a hundred other\n    places, whose _voluntary_ petitions were obtained with bloody\n    stripes of the knout. The unfortunate petitioners were, in order\n    to perform this operation, dragged from their homes, sometimes to\n    a distance of 18 or 20 versts (1-\u00bd verst to an English mile), and\n    those who steadfastly refused to sign were treated by the Russian\n    papas with the utmost cruelty and indignity. They were put into\n    irons, barred up in cold prisons without any fire, starved, thrown\n    into large tubs filled with an icy and stinking water, and most\n    mercilessly beaten, so that many, in order to escape from such\n    torments, signed the _voluntary_ petition, with hearts as bleeding\n    as their bodies. Many succumbed under these fearful persecutions,\n    which were not much inferior to that which the Christians had\n    suffered under the reign of Diocletian. The Papa Stratanovich\n    extorted the signatures made by the feverishly agitated hands of\n    the clerical victims, whilst his lay associate, Waimainich\n    Zokalinski, performed the same charitable office to other\n    unfortunate individuals. Some of these miserable persons were\n    reduced by starvation and every kind of ill-treatment to such a\n    condition, that they were almost unconscious of what they did in\n    signing the _voluntary_ petitions for the reception into the pale\n    of the Russian Church, all of which were obtained by more or less\n    similar means.\n\n    \u201cIt appears from a great mass of documentary evidence, containing\n    the names of localities and persons, that the proselytism of 1841\n    was carried out in the following manner:\u2014Military authorities, and\n    Russian papas or priests, visited Catholic villages, and having\n    called together the Catholic peasantry and landowners of the\n    neighbourhood, declared that they must join the Russian Church,\n    throwing into prison those who resisted the summons. In the most\n    part of cases, a petition for this object was signed by some hired\n    wretches in the name of all the community, of whom many often knew\n    nothing about this business, but when they behaved as Catholics,\n    they were punished, as guilty of high treason.\u201d\n\n\nThe _Allgemeine Zeitung_ states, in giving this extract from the\n_Ecclesiastical Gazette_ of Vienna, that this periodical contains many\nwell-authenticated cases of religious persecution against the Roman\nCatholics of Russia; and I have little doubt that if the Protestants of\nWestern Europe had taken as much pains to ascertain and denounce the\npersecution of their brethren in the Baltic provinces of Russia, which I\nhave mentioned on p. 162, as is done, be it said to their great honour, by\nthe Roman Catholics, they would find many acts of persecution directed\nagainst the above-mentioned Protestants, as flagrant as those which have\njust been described.\n\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF WORKS PUBLISHED BY JOHNSTONE, HUNTER, & CO., EDINBURGH.\n\n\nMAGAZINES:\u2014\n\n*The Christian Treasury*; Containing Contributions from Ministers and\nMembers of various Evangelical Denominations. Edited by HORATIUS BONAR,\nD.D. Super royal 8vo. Monthly Parts, \u00a30  0  6. Weekly Numbers, 0  0  1.\n\n*The Children\u2019s Hour*; A Monthly Magazine for our Young Folks. Edited by\nM. H., Author of \u201cRosa Lindesay,\u201d etc. Crown 8vo. Beautifully Illustrated,\n0 0 3.\n\n*The Reformed Presbyterian Magazine*; Containing Home and Missionary\nIntelligence relating to the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland.\nDemy 8vo. Monthly, 0  0  4.\n\nJ. H. & CO.\u2019S SIXPENNY SERIES.\n\nSuper royal 32mo, cloth limp. Illustrated.\n\n1. JEANIE HAY, THE CHEERFUL GIVER. And other Tales.\n\n2. LILY RAMSAY; OR HANDSOME IS WHO HANDSOME DOES. And other Tales.\n\n3. ARCHIE DOUGLAS; OR, WHERE THERE\u2019S A WILL THERE\u2019S A WAY. And other.\n\n4. MINNIE AND LETTY; OR, THE EXPECTED ARRIVAL. And other Tales.\n\n5. NED FAIRLIE AND HIS RICH UNCLE. And other Tales.\n\n6. MR GRANVILLE\u2019S JOURNEY. And other Tales.\n\n7. JAMIE WILSON\u2019S ADVENTURES. And other Tales.\n\n8. THE TWO FRIENDS. And other Tales.\n\n9. THE TURNIP LANTERN. And other Tales.\n\n10. JOHN BUTLER; OR, THE BLIND MAN\u2019S DOG. And other Tales.\n\n11. CHRISTFRIED\u2019S FIRST JOURNEY. And other Tales.\n\n12. KATIE WATSON, THE CONTENTED LACEMAKER. And other Tales.\n\n13. BIDDY, THE MAID OF ALL WORK.\n\n14. MAGGIE MORRIS: A TALE OF THE DEVONSHIRE MOOR.\n\nJ. H. & CO.\u2019S SHILLING PACKETS OF REWARD BOOKS.\n\nSuper Royal 32mo, in Illuminated Covers.\n\n1. SHORT TALES TO EXPLAIN HOMELY PROVERBS. By M. H. A Series of Twelve\nPenny Books. Illustrated.\n\n2. SHORT STORIES TO EXPLAIN BIBLE TEXTS. By M. H. A Series of Twelve Penny\nBooks. Illustrated.\n\n3. WISE SAYINGS, AND STORIES TO EXPLAIN THEM. By M. H. A Series of Twelve\nPenny Books. Illustrated.\n\n4. LITTLE TALES FOR LITTLE PEOPLE. A Series of Six Twopenny Books.\nIllustrated.\n\n*J. H. & CO.\u2019S ONE SHILLING SERIES.*\n\nSuper royal 32mo, extra cloth, bevelled boards, Illustrated.\n\n1. THE STORY OF A RED VELVET BIBLE. By M. H.\n\n2. ALICE LOWTHER; OR, GRANDMAMMA\u2019S STORY ABOUT HER LITTLE RED BIBLE. By J.\nW. C.\n\n3. NOTHING TO DO; OR, THE INFLUENCE OF A LIFE. By M. H.\n\n4. ALFRED AND THE LITTLE DOVE. By the Rev. F. A. Krummacher, D.D. And THE\nYOUNG SAVOYARD. By Ernest Hold.\n\n5. MARY M\u2019NEILL; OR, THE WORD REMEMBERED. A Tale of Humble Life. By J. W.\nC.\n\n6. HENRY MORGAN; OR, THE SOWER AND THE SEED. By M. H.\n\n7. WITLESS WILLIE, THE IDIOT BOY. _By the Author of __\u201c__Mary\nMatheson,__\u201d__ etc_.\n\n8. MARY MANSFIELD; OR, NO TIME TO BE A CHRISTIAN. By M. H.\n\n9. FRANK FIELDING; OR, DEBTS AND DIFFICULTIES. By Agnes Veitch.\n\n10. TALES FOR \u201cTHE CHILDREN\u2019S HOUR.\u201d By M. M. C.\n\n11. THE LITTLE CAPTAIN: a Tale of the Sea. By Mrs George Cupples.\n\n12. GOTTFRIED OF THE IRON HAND: a Tale of German Chivalry.\n\n13. ARTHUR FORTESCUE; OR, THE SCHOOLBOY HERO. By Robert Hope Moncrieff.\n\n14. THE SANGREAL; OR, THE HIDDEN TREASURE. By M. H.\n\n15. COCKERILL THE CONJURER; OR, THE BRAVE BOY OF HAMELN.\n\n16. JOTTINGS FROM THE DIARY OF THE SUN. By M. H.\n\n17. DOWN AMONG THE WATER WEEDS. By Mona B. Bickerstaffe.\n\nJ. H. & CO.\u2019S EIGHTEENPENCE SERIES.\n\nSuper royal 32mo, extra cloth, richly gilt sides and edges, Illustrated.\n\n1. SHORT TALES TO EXPLAIN HOMELY PROVERBS. By M. H.\n\n2. SHORT STORIES TO EXPLAIN BIBLE TEXTS. By M. H.\n\n3. ALFRED AND THE LITTLE DOVE. By the Rev. F. A. Krummacher, D.D. And\nWITLESS WILLIE, THE IDIOT BOY. By the Author of \u201cMary Matheson,\u201d etc.\n\n4. THE STORY OF A RED VELVET BIBLE: and HENRY MORGAN; OR, THE SOWER AND\nTHE SEED. By M. H., Editor of \u201cThe Children\u2019s Hour.\u201d\n\n5. ARTHUR FORTESCUE; OR, THE SCHOOLBOY HERO. By Robert Hope Moncrieff. And\nFRANK FIELDING; OR, DEBTS AND DIFFICULTIES. By Agnes Veitch.\n\n6. MARY M\u2019NEILL; OR, THE WORD REMEMBERED. By J. W. C. And other Tales.\n\n7. ALICE LOWTHER; OR, GRANDMAMMA\u2019S STORY ABOUT HER LITTLE RED BIBLE. By J.\nW. C. And other Tales.\n\n8. NOTHING TO DO; OR, THE INFLUENCE OF A LIFE: and MARY MANSFIELD; OR, NO\nTIME TO BE A CHRISTIAN. By M. H.\n\n9. BILL MARLIN\u2019S TALES OF THE SEA. By Mrs George Cupples.\n\n10. GOTTFRIED OF THE IRON HAND. And other Tales.\n\n11. THE STORY OF THE KIRK: a Sketch of Scottish Church History. By Robert\nNaismith.\n\n12. THE HIDDEN TREASURE. And other Tales. By M. H.\n\n13. LITTLE TALES FOR LITTLE PEOPLE. By Various Authors.\n\n14. WISE SAYINGS, AND STORIES TO EXPLAIN THEM. By M. H.\n\n*J. H. & CO.\u2019S HALF-CROWN SERIES.*\n\nExtra fcap. 8vo, handsomely bound in cloth.\n\n1. ROSA LINDESAY, THE LIGHT OF KILMAIN. By M. H. Illustrated.\n\n2. NEWLYN HOUSE, THE HOME OF THE DAVENPORTS. By A. E. W. Illustrated.\n\n3. ALICE THORNE; OR, A SISTER\u2019S WORK. Illustrated.\n\n4. LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. By M. H. Illustrated.\n\n5. THE CHILDREN OF THE GREAT KING. By M. H. Illustrated.\n\n6. LITTLE HARRY\u2019S TROUBLES. By the Author of \"Gottfried.\" Illustrated.\n\n7. SUNDAY SCHOOL PHOTOGRAPHS. By the Rev. Alfred Taylor, Bristol,\nPennsylvania.\n\n8. WAYMARKS FOR THE GUIDING OF LITTLE FEET. By the Rey. J. A. Wallace.\n\n9. THE DOMESTIC CIRCLE; OR, THE RELATIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES OF\nHOME LIFE. By the Rev. John Thomson. Illustrated.\n\n10. SELECT CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES. By the Rev. James Gardner, A.M., M.D.\nIllustrated.\n\n11. OCEAN LAYS. Selected by the Rev. J. Longmuir, LL.D. Illustrated.\n\n12. WILBERFORCE\u2019S PRACTICAL VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY. Complete Edition.\n\n13. COMMUNION SERVICES, ACCORDING TO THE PRESBYTERIAN FORM. By the Rev. J.\nA. Wallace.\n\n14. ATTITUDES AND ASPECTS OF THE DIVINE REDEEMER. By Rev. J. A. Wallace.\n\n15. THE REDEEMER AND THE REDEMPTION. By the Rev. Alex. S. Patterson, D.D.\n\n16. A PASTOR\u2019S LEGACY. Edited by the Rev. J. A. Wallace.\n\n17. JAMES NISBET; A STUDY FOR YOUNG MEN. By the Rev. J. A. Wallace.\n\n18. NOBLE RIVERS, AND STORIES CONCERNING THEM. By Anna J. Buckland.\nIllustrated.\n\n*J. H. & CO.\u2019S THREE SHILLING SERIES.*\n\nExtra fcap. 8vo, richly gilt sides and edges.\n\n1. MISS MATTY; OR, OUR YOUNGEST PASSENGER. And other Tales. Illustrated.\n\n2. HORACE HAZELWOOD; OR, LITTLE THINGS. And other Tales. Illustrated.\n\n3. ROSA LINDESAY, THE LIGHT OF KILMAIN. By M. H. Illustrated.\n\n4. NEWLYN HOUSE, THE HOME OF THE DAVENPORTS. By A. E. W. Illustrated.\n\n5. ALICE THORNE; OR, A SISTER\u2019S WORK. Illustrated.\n\n6. LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. By M. H. Illustrated.\n\n7. LITTLE HARRY\u2019S TROUBLES. By the Author of \u201cGottfried.\u201d Illustrated.\n\n8. THE CHILDREN OF THE GREAT KING. By M. H. Illustrated.\n\n9. THE DOMESTIC CIRCLE; OR, THE RELATIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES OF\nHOME LIFE. By the Rev. John Thomson. Illustrated.\n\n10. SUNDAY SCHOOL PHOTOGRAPHS. By the Rev. Alfred Taylor, Bristol.\n\n11. WAYMARKS FOR THE GUIDING OF LITTLE FEET. By the Rev. J. A. Wallace.\n\n12. SELECT CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES. By the Rev. James Gardner, A.M., M.D.\nIllustrated.\n\n13. CARDIPHONIA; OR, THE UTTERANCE OF THE HEART. In a Series of Letters.\nBy John Newton. A New Edition, bevelled boards, cut edges.\n\n14. FOUND AFLOAT. By Mrs George Cupples. And other Tales. Illustrated.\n\n15. JAMES NISBET; A STUDY FOR YOUNG MEN. By the Rev. J. A. Wallace.\n\n16. THE WHITE ROE OF GLENMERE. By Mona B. Bickerstaffe. And other Tales.\nIllustrated.\n\n17.  NOBLE RIVERS, AND STORIES CONCERNING THEM. By Anna J. Buckland.\nIllustrated.\n\n*J. H. & CO.\u2019S FIVE SHILLING SERIES.*\n\nBound in cloth, bevelled boards, richly gilt sides and edges.\n\n1.  THE CHILDREN\u2019S HOUR ANNUAL. First Series. 656 pp. Extra fcap. 8vo.\nIllustrated.\n\n2.  THE CHILDREN\u2019S HOUR ANNUAL. Second Series. 640 pp. Extra fcap. 8vo.\nIllustrated.\n\n3.  SKETCHES OF SCRIPTURE CHARACTERS. By the Rev. Andrew Thomson, D.D.\nCrown 8vo. Illustrated.\n\n4.  STARS OF EARTH; OR, WILD FLOWERS OF THE MONTHS. By Leigh Page. Crown\n8vo. With Original Illustrations by the Author.\n\n5.  ELIJAH; THE DESERT PROPHET: A Biography. By the Rev. H. T. Howat.\nCrown 8vo. Illustrated.\n\nAfflicted\u2019s Refuge (The); or, Prayers adapted to various Circumstances of\nDistress. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, \u00a3 0 2 6.\n\nAlfred and the Little Dove. By F. A. Krummacher, D.D. And the Young\nSavoyard. By Ernest Hold. Translated from the German by a Lady. Royal\n32mo, cloth. Illustrated, 0 1 0.\n\nAlice Lowther; or, Grandmamma\u2019s Story about her Little Red Bible. By J. W.\nC., Author of \u201cMary M\u2019Neill,\u201d etc. Royal 32mo, cloth, Illustrated, 0 1 0.\n\nAlice Thorne; or, A Sister\u2019s Work. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, Illustrated, 0\n2 6.\u2014\u2014Extra cloth, gilt edges, 0 3 0.\n\nArchie Douglas; or, Where there\u2019s a Will there\u2019s a Way. And other Tales.\nSuper Royal 32mo, cloth, Illustrated, 0 0 6.\n\nArthur Fortescue; or, The Schoolboy Hero. By Robert Hope Moncrieff. Royal\n32mo, cloth, Illustrated, 0 1 0.\n\nAuthorised Standards of the Free Church of Scotland: Being the Westminster\nConfession of Faith and other Documents. _Published by Authority of the\nGeneral Assembly._ Demy 12mo, cloth limp, 0 1 3.\u2014\u2014Cloth boards, 0 1\n6.\u2014\u2014Superior Edition, Printed on Superfine Paper, extra cloth, bevelled\nboards, antique, 0 2 6.\u2014\u2014Full calf, lettered, antique 0 5 0.\n\nBiddy, the Maid of All Work. Super Royal 32mo, cloth, Illustrated, 0 0 6.\n\nBill Marlin\u2019s Tales of the Sea. By Mrs George Cupples. Super royal 32mo,\nextra cloth, gilt edges, Illustrated, 0 1 6.\n\nBrodie (Rev. James, A.M.) The Antiquity and Nature of Man: A Reply to Sir\nCharles Lyell\u2019s Recent Work. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 0 2 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014Papers Offered for Discussion at the meeting of the British Association\nat Dundee. Extra fcap. 8vo, boards, 0 1 0.\n\nThe Rational Creation: An Inquiry into the Nature and Classification of\nRational Creatures, and the Government which God exercises over them.\nCrown 8vo, cloth, 0 5 0.\n\nAn Inquiry into the Apocalypse, with an Endeavour to ascertain our present\nPosition on the Chart of Time. Royal 8vo, sewed 0 2 0.\n\nBrodie (Rev. James, A.M.) Memoir of Annie M\u2019Donald Christie, a Self-taught\nCottager. Demy 18mo, cloth, \u00a30 1 6.\n\nBuckland (Anna J.) Noble Rivers, and Stories concerning Them. Extra fcap.\n8vo, cloth, with Illustrations, 0 2 6.\u2014\u2014Extra cloth, gilt edges, 0 3 0.\n\nBurns (Rev. George, D.D.) Prayers for the Use of Sabbath Schools. 18mo,\nsewed, 0 0 4.\n\nCatechisms\u2014\n\nTHE ASSEMBLY\u2019S SHORTER CATECHISM; with References to the Scripture Proofs.\nDemy 18mo, stitched, 0 0 0-\u00bd.\n\nTHE ASSEMBLY\u2019S SHORTER CATECHISM; with (_Italicised_) Proofs from\nScripture at full length; also with Additional Scripture References,\nselected from Boston, Fisher, M. Henry, Paterson, Vincent, and others.\nDemy 18mo, stitched, 0 0 1.\n\nTHE ASSEMBLY\u2019S LARGER CATECHISM; with (_Italicised_) Proofs from Scripture\nat full length. Demy 12mo, sewed, 0 0 6.\n\nCATECHISM OF THE EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION, with a few Preliminary\nQuestions on Natural Religion. By William Ferrie, D.D., Kilconquhar. 18mo,\nstitched, 0 0 4.\n\nCATECHISM ON BAPTISM: in which are considered its Nature, its Subjects,\nand the Obligations resulting from it. By the late Henry Grey, D.D.,\nEdinburgh. 18mo, stitched, 0 0 6.\n\nTHE CHILD\u2019S FIRST CATECHISM. 48mo, stitched, 0 0 0-\u00bd.\n\nSHORT CATECHISM FOR YOUNG CHILDREN. By the Rev. John Brown, Haddington.\n32mo, stitched, 0 0 0-\u00bd.\n\nPLAIN CATECHISM FOR CHILDREN. By the Rev. Matthew Henry. 18mo, stitched, 0\n0 1.\n\nFIFTY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LEADING DOCTRINES AND DUTIES OF THE GOSPEL;\nwith Scripture Answers and Parallel Texts. For the use of Sabbath Schools.\n18mo, stitched, 0 0 1.\n\nFORM OF EXAMINATION BEFORE THE COMMUNION. Approved by the General Assembly\nof the Kirk of Scotland (1592), and appointed to be read in Families and\nSchools; with Proofs from Scripture (commonly known as \u201cCraig\u2019s\nCatechism\u201d). With a Recommendatory Note by the Rev. Dr Candlish, Rev.\nAlexander Moody Stuart, and Rev. Dr Horatius Bonar. 18mo, stitched, 0 0 1.\n\nTHE MOTHER\u2019S CATECHISM; being a Preparatory Help for the Young and\nIgnorant, to their easier understanding The Assembly\u2019s Shorter Catechism.\nBy the Rev. John Willison, Dundee. 32mo, stitched, 0 0 1.\n\nWATTS\u2019 (DR ISAAC) JUVENILE HISTORICAL CATECHISMS OF THE OLD AND NEW\nTESTAMENTS; with Numerous Scripture References, and a Selection of Hymns.\nDemy 18mo, stitched, 0 0 1.\n\nA SCRIPTURE CATECHISM, Historical and Doctrinal, for the use Of Schools\nand Families. By John Whitecross, Author of \u201cAnecdotes on the Shorter\nCatechism,\u201d etc. 18mo, stitched, 0 0 1.\n\nA SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND DUTIES; being the Westminster\nAssembly\u2019s Shorter Catechism, without the Questions, with Marginal\nReferences. Fcap. 8vo, stitched, 0 0 1.\n\nChildren of the Great King (The): A Story of the Crimean War. By M. H.,\nEditor of \u201cThe Children\u2019s Hour.\u201d Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, with\nIllustrations, 0 2 6.\u2014\u2014Cloth extra, gilt edges, 0 3 0.\n\nChildren\u2019s Hour (The) Annual. First Series. 656 pp., and upwards of 50\nIllustrations. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, gilt edges, \u00a30 5 0.\n\n\u2014\u2014Second Series. 640 pp., and upwards of 70 Illustrations. Extra fcap.\n8vo, cloth, gilt edges, 0 5 0.\n\nChildren\u2019s Hour (The) Series of Gift Books.\n\n1. MISS MATTY; OR, OUR YOUNGEST PASSENGER. And other Tales.\n\n2. HORACE HAZELWOOD. And other Tales.\n\n3. FOUND AFLOAT. And other Tales.\n\n4. THE WHITE ROE OF GLENMERE. And other Tales. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth,\ngilt sides and edges, Illustrated\u2014each 0 3 0.\n\nChristfried\u2019s First Journey. And other Tales. Super royal 32mo, cloth,\nIllustrated, 0 0 6.\n\nChristian Treasury (The) Volumes 1845 to 1860. 16 Volumes, royal 8vo,\ncloth\u2014each 0 5 0.\n\nA complete Set will be forwarded to any part of the country, carriage\npaid, on receipt of \u00a33, 3s.\n\n\u2014\u2014Volumes 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, and 1866. Super royal 8vo, cloth,\ngreen and gold\u2014each 0 6 6.\n\nCockerill the Conjurer; or, The Brave Boy of Hameln. By the Author of\n\u201cLittle Harry\u2019s Troubles.\u201d Super royal 32mo, cloth, bevelled boards,\nIllustrated, 0 1 0.\n\nConfession of Faith (The) agreed upon at the Assembly of Divines at\nWestminster. Complete Edition, with the _Italics_ of the elegant Quarto\nEdition of 1658 restored. (Authorised Edition.) Demy 12mo, cloth limp, 0 1\n0.\n\n\u2014\u2014Cloth boards, 0 1 3.\u2014\u2014Superior Edition, Printed on Superfine Paper,\nextra cloth, bevelled boards, antique, 0 2 6.\u2014\u2014Full calf, lettered,\nantique, 0 5 0.\n\nDill (Edward Marcus, A.M., M.D.) The Mystery Solved: or, Ireland\u2019s\nMiseries: Their Grand Cause and Cure. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 0 2 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014The Gathering Storm; or, Britain\u2019s Romeward Career: A Warning and Appeal\nto British Protestants. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 0 1 0.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 An English translation of this Treatise was published under the\n      following title:\u2014\u201cA very profitable Treatise, declarynge what great\n      profit might come to all Christendom yf there were a regester made\n      of all the saincts\u2019 bodies and other reliques which are as well in\n      Italy as in France, Dutchland, Spaine, and other kingdoms and\n      conntreys. Translated out of the French into English by J. Wythers,\n      London, 1561.\u201d 16mo. I have made my translation from the French\n      original, reprinted at Paris in 1822.\n\n    2 It is well known that more than half a million of pilgrims went to\n      worship the holy coat of Treves in 1844, and that many wonderful\n      stories about the cures effected by that relic were related. Several\n      of these stories are not altogether without foundation, because\n      there are many cases where imagination affects the human body in\n      such a powerful manner as to cause or cure various diseases. It was\n      therefore to be expected that individuals suffering from such\n      diseases should be at least temporarily relieved from their ailings\n      by a strong belief in the miraculous powers of the relic. Cases of\n      this kind are always noticed, whilst all those of ineffectual\n      pilgrimage are never mentioned.\n\n    3 A translation of this letter was published in the _Allgemeine\n      Zeitung_ of Augsburg.\n\n    4 Thus St Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St\n      Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St Cosmas, like\n      Esculapius, that of physicians, &c. In fact, almost every profession\n      and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint,\n      who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular\n      honours from his or her _prot\u00e9g\u00e9s_.\n\n    5 In his Treatise given below.\n\n    6 \u201cQuod legentibus Scriptum, hoc et idiotis, pr\u00e6stat pictura, quia in\n      ipsa ignorantes vident quid sequi debeant, in ipsas legunt qui\n      litteras nesciunt,\u201d says St Gregory.\u2014_Maury, Essai sur les\n      Legendes_, &c., p. 104.\n\n    7 \u201cQuoniam talis memoria qu\u00e6 imaginibus fovetur, non venit es cordis\n      amore, sed ex visionis necessitate.\u201d\u2014_Opus illustrissimi Caroli\n      magni contra Synodum pro adorandis imaginibus_, p. 480, (in\n      18\u20141549),\u2014a work of which I shall have an opportunity more amply to\n      speak.\n\n    8 See his chapter on the \u201cIll Effects of Solitude on the\n      Imagination\u201d\u2014English translation.\n\n    9 Ibid.\n\n   10 \u201cFleury Histoire Eccles.,\u201d lib. xxi. chap. 15.\n\n   11 The author of this sketch says himself, in a note, \u201cYet this\n      idolatry is far from having entirely disappeared. Pilgrimages, and a\n      devotion to certain images, but particularly to that of the Virgin,\n      are still continuing,\u201d &c. This was said in 1843. I wonder what he\n      will say now, when this idolatry is reappearing, even in those parts\n      of Europe where the Calvinists had, according to his expression,\n      struck at its very root.\n\n   12 \u201cEssai sur les Legendes Pieuses du Moyen Age,\u201d par Alfred Maury, pp.\n      111, _et seq._\n\n   13 \u201cChateaubriand Etudes Historiques,\u201d vol. ii. p. 101.\n\n   14 \u201cHistoire de la Destruction du Paganisme dans l\u2019Empire d\u2019Orient,\u201d\n      par M. Chastel, Paris, 1850, p. 342 _et seq._\n\n   15 \u201cHistoire de la Destruction du Paganisme en Occident,\u201d par A.\n      Beugnot, Member of the French Institute, Paris, 1835, 8vo, 2 vols.\n\n_   16 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014Was not the introduction of pagan rites into\n      the church the indirect way to idolatry alluded to in the text?\n\n_   17 Author\u2019s Note._\u2014The festivals of the martyrs was a very large\n      concession made to the old manners, because all that took place\n      daring those days was not very edifying.\n\n_   18 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014I shall give in its proper place a more ample\n      account of Vigilantius.\n\n_   19 Author\u2019s Note._\u2014These compromises were temporary, and the church\n      revoked them as soon as she believed that she could do it without\n      inconvenience. She struggled hard against the calends of January,\n      after having for a considerable time suffered these festivities; and\n      when she saw that she could not succeed in abolishing them, she\n      decided to transport the beginning of the year from the first of\n      January to Easter, in order to break the Pagan customs.\n\n_   20 Author\u2019s Note._\u2014\u201cThe Saturnalia, and several other festivals, were\n      celebrated on the calends of January; Christmas was fixed at the\n      same epoch. The Lupercalia, a pretended festival of purification,\n      took place during the calends of February; the Christian\n      purification (Candlemas) was celebrated on the 2d of February. The\n      festival of Augustus, celebrated on the calends of August, was\n      replaced by that of St Peter _in vinculis_, established on the 1st\n      of that month. The inhabitants of the country, ever anxious about\n      the safety of their crops, obstinately retained the celebration of\n      the _Ambarvalia_; St Mamert established in the middle of the fifth\n      century the _Rogations_, which in their form differ very little from\n      the _Ambarvalia_. On comparing the Christian calendar with the Pagan\n      one, it is impossible not to be struck by the great concordance\n      between the two. Now, can we consider this concordance as the effect\n      of chance? It is principally in the usages peculiar only to some\n      churches that we may trace the spirit of concessions with which\n      Christianity was animated during the first centuries of its\n      establishment. Thus, at Catania, where the Pagans were celebrating\n      the festival of Ceres after harvest, the church of that place\n      consented to delay to that time the festival of the Visitation,\n      which is celebrated everywhere else on the 2d July.\u201d\u2014_F. Aprile\n      Cronologia Universale di Sicilia_, p. 601. I would recommend to\n      those who wish to study this subject the work of _Marangoni_, a very\n      interesting work, though its author (whose object was to convince\n      the Protestants who attacked the discipline of the Roman Catholic\n      Church on account of these concessions) tried to break the evident\n      connection which exists between certain Christian and Pagan\n      festivals.\n\n_   21 Author\u2019s Note._\u2014\u201cThere are at Rome even now several churches which\n      had formerly been pagan temples, and thirty-nine of them have been\n      built on the foundations of such temples.\u201d\u2014_Marangoni_, pp. 236-268.\n      There is no country in Europe where similar examples are not found.\n      It is necessary to remark, that all these transformations began at\n      the end of the fifth century.\n\n_   22 Author\u2019s Note._\u2014At Rome four churches have pagan names, viz:\u2014_S.\n      Maria Sopra Minerva_, _S. Maria Aventina_, _St Lorenzo in Matuta_,\n      and _St Stefano del Cacco_. At Sienna, the temple of Quirinus became\n      the church of _St Quiricus_.\n\n_   23 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014And still more to their corruption.\n\n_   24 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014Christ has said, \u201cCome unto me, all ye that\n      labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke\n      upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye\n      shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden\n      is light.\u201d\u2014Matt. xi. 28-30. I would ask the learned author, whether\n      these words of our Saviour are not sufficiently mild, tender, and\n      consoling, and whether there was any necessity to _consecrate_ some\n      new ideas in order to temper their severity?\n\n_   25 Author\u2019s Note._\u2014Amongst a multitude of proofs I shall choose only\n      one, in order to show with what facility the worship of Mary swept\n      away in its progress the remnants of Paganism which were still\n      covering Europe:\u2014Notwithstanding the preaching of St Hilarion,\n      Sicily had remained faithful to the ancient worship. After the\n      council of Ephesus, we see eight of the finest Pagan temples of that\n      island becoming in a very short time churches dedicated to the\n      Virgin. These temples were, 1. of Minerva, at Syracuse; 2. of Venus\n      and Saturn, at Messina; 3. of Venus Erigone, on the Mount Eryx,\n      believed to have been built by Eneas; 4. of Phalaris, at Agrigent;\n      5. of Vulcan, near Mount Etna; 6. the Pantheon, at Catania; 7. of\n      Ceres, in the same town; 8. the Sepulchre of Stesichorus.\u2014V. _Aprile\n      Cronologia Universale di Sicilia_. Similar facts may be found in the\n      ecclesiastical annals of every country.\n\n_   26 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014The time when the church is to accomplish this\n      purification has, alas! not yet arrived.\n\n   27 Beugnot, vol. ii., book xii., chap. 1, pp. 261-272.\n\n   28 The opinions of different writers on the number of Christians in the\n      Roman empire at the time of Constantine\u2019s conversion greatly varies.\n      The valuation of Staudlin (\u201cUniversal Geshichte der Christlichen\n      Kirche,\u201d p. 41, 1833) at half of its population, and even that of\n      Matter (\u201cHistoire de l\u2019Eglise,\u201d t. i. p. 120), who reduces it to the\n      fifth, are generally considered as exaggerated. Gibbon thinks that\n      it was the twentieth part of the above-mentioned population; and the\n      learned French academician. La Bastie (\u201cMemoires de l\u2019Academie des\n      Inscripter,\u201d &c.) believes that it was the twelfth. This last\n      valuation is approved by Chastel (\u201cHistoire de la Destruction du\n      Paganisme en Orient,\u201d 1850, p. 36) as an average number, though it\n      was much larger in the East than in the West. The celebrated passage\n      of Tertullian\u2019s \u201cApology,\u201d in the second century, where he\n      represents the number of Christians in the Roman empire to be so\n      great, that it would have become a desert if they had retired from\n      it, is considered by Beugnot (vol. ii. p. 188) as the most\n      exaggerated hyperbole which has ever been used by an orator.\n\n_   29 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014Expression of St Jerome, Op. iv. p. 266. It\n      would be curious to know what this father of the church would have\n      said of the present Rome.\n\n   30 Beugnot, vol. i., p. 86.\n\n   31 \u201cLudorum celebrationes, deoram festa sunt.\u201d\u2014Lactantius,\n      _Institutiones Divin._, vi., 20, _apud_ Beugnot.\n\n   32 \u201cAdite aras publicas adque delubra, et consuetudinis vestr\u00e6\n      celebrate solemnia: nec enim prohibemus preterit\u00e6 usurpationis\n      officia libera luce tractari.\u201d\n\n   33 The _labarum_ was a cross, with the monogram of Christ.\n\n   34 The Gr\u00e6co-Russian church has, however, given him a place in her\n      calendar on the 21st May, but only in common with his mother Helena.\n      This was done only a considerable time after his death.\n\n   35 Beugnot, upon the authority of Ausonius, vol. i., p. 321.\n\n   36 Thus Symmachus, one of the leaders of the old aristocracy of Rome,\n      celebrated for his learning, virtues, and staunch adherence to the\n      national polytheism, was invested by Theodosius with the dignity of\n      a consul of Rome; the well known Greek orator, Libanius, was created\n      prefect of the imperial palace; and Themistius, who had been\n      invested with the highest honours under the preceding reigns, was\n      created by Theodosius prefect of Constantinople, received in the\n      senate, and entrusted for some time with the education of Arcadius.\n      These distinguished polytheists never made a secret of their\n      religious opinions, but publicly declared them on several occasions.\n      Many of Theodosius\u2019 generals were avowed Pagans, but enjoyed no less\n      his confidence and favour.\n\n   37 Fallmerayer, \u201cGeschichte der Morea,\u201d vol. i., p. 136.\n\n_   38 Vide supra_, pp. 30-32.\n\n   39 I think that it will not be uninteresting to my readers to know how\n      the Roman Catholic Church explains this prohibition, and which may\n      be best seen from the following piece of ingenious casuistry, by one\n      of her ablest defenders in this country:\u2014\u201cCanon xxxvi. of the\n      Provincial Council held in 305, at Eliberis, in Spain, immediately\n      refutes the error of Bingham. (Bingham maintained the same opinion\n      on the images which is expressed in the text.) The pastors of the\n      Spanish church beheld the grievous persecution that Diocletian had\n      commenced to wage against the Christian faith, which had for a\n      lengthened period enjoyed comparative repose, under the forbearing\n      reign of Constantius C\u00e6sar, father of Constantine the Great. They\n      assembled to concert precautionary measures, and amongst other\n      things, they determined that, in the provinces under their immediate\n      jurisdiction, there should be no fixed and immovable picture\n      monuments, such as fresco paintings or mosaics, no images of Christ\n      whom they adored, nor of the saints whom they venerated, on the\n      walls of the churches which had been erected and ornamented during\n      the long interval of peace which the Christians had enjoyed.\n      \u2018Placuit,\u2019 says the council, \u2018picturas in ecclesia esse non debere,\n      ne quod colitur et adoratur, in parietibus depingatur,\u2019 (Con. Elib.,\n      _apud Labbeum_, tom i. p. 972.) This economy was prudent and adapted\n      to the exigency of the period. The figures of Christ and of his\n      saints were thus protected from the ribaldry and insults of the\n      Pagans. But this well-timed prohibition demonstrates, that the use\n      of pictures and images had already been introduced into the Spanish\n      church.\u201d\u2014_Hierurgia, or Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints,\n      Relics, &c., expounded by D. Rock, D.D._, second edition, p. 374,\n      _note_. There can be no doubt that the enactment in question proves\n      that images were used at that time amongst the Spanish Christians,\n      as a law prohibiting some particular crimes or offences shows that\n      they were taking place at the time when it was promulgated; but the\n      opinion that the above-mentioned enactment was not a prohibition of\n      images, but a precautionary measure in their favour, must be\n      supported either by the other canons of the same council, which\n      contain nothing confirmatory of this opinion, or by the authority of\n      some contemporary writer, and is without such evidence quite\n      untenable, and nothing better than a mere sophism, I have given this\n      explanation of the Council of Elvira by a Roman Catholic writer as a\n      fair specimen of the manner in which all other practices of their\n      church, derived from Paganism, are defended.\n\n_   40 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014And yet the same writer has defended this\n      manner of recruiting the church.\u2014_Vid. supra_, p. 17.\n\n_   41 Translator\u2019s Note_.\u2014And yet this system of concession has been\n      called by the same author _true wisdom._\u2014_Vid. supra_, p. 18.\n\n_   42 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014It dated from the time when the Christian\n      church began to make a compromise with Paganism.\n\n   43 Who would defile themselves by the impious superstition of the\n      idols.\n\n   44 An ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century.\n\n_   45 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014Importing usually into the Christian church\n      that leaven of Paganism which is mentioned in the text.\n\n_   46 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014Retaining meanwhile, however, the thing itself.\n\n_   47 Translator\u2019s Note._\u2014It is a great pity that the author leaves us in\n      the dark about the time when this great improvement in the Roman\n      Catholic Church to which he alludes took place.\n\n   48 St Augustinus relates, in the fourth book of his Confessions, chap,\n      iii., that he was diverted from the idea of studying astrology by a\n      pagan physician, who made him understand all the falsehood and\n      ridicule of that science.\n\n   49 A similar custom is still prevalent is Russia. _Vide infra_, \u201cOn the\n      Superstitions of her Church.\u201d\n\n_   50 Author\u2019s Note._\u2014In 1215, Buondelmonte was murdered by the Amidei at\n      the foot of the statue of Mars. This murder produced at Florence a\n      civil war, which, gradually spreading over all Italy, gave birth to\n      the factions of the Guelphs and Ghibelines.\n\n   51 Basnage, \u201cHistoire de l\u2019Eglise,\u201d p. 1174.\n\n   52 An interesting account of Vigilantius was published by the Rev. Dr\n      Gilly, the well-known friend of the Waldensians.\n\n_   53 Vide supra_, p. 8.\n\n   54 Gibbon\u2019s \u201cRoman Empire,\u201d chap. xlix.\n\n   55 The Greeks and Russians worship their images chiefly by kissing\n      them, and it was probably on this account that it was ordered to\n      raise them to a height where they could not be reached by the lips\n      of their votaries, because this means could not prevent them from\n      bowing to them.\n\n   56 It is related that the women were the most zealous in defending the\n      images, and that an officer of the emperor, who was demolishing a\n      statue of Christ placed at the entrance of the imperial palace, was\n      murdered by them.\n\n   57 Gibbon and some other writers think that Constantine survived for\n      some time the loss of his eyes, but I have followed in the text the\n      general opinion on this event.\n\n   58 Irene was a native of Athens.\n\n   59 Vol. ix. p. 429, _et seq._\n\n   60 Extracts from the works of this celebrated monk, and his life,\n      _apud_ Basnage _Histoire de l\u2019Eglise_, p. 1375.\n\n   61 Theodora, on being appointed by her husband regent during the\n      minority of her son, was obliged to swear that she would not restore\n      the _idols_. The Jesuit Maimbourg, who wrote a history of the\n      iconoclasts, maintains that, in restoring the worship of images, she\n      did not commit a perjury, because _she swore that_ she would not\n      restore the _idols_, but not _images_, which are not idols.\n\n   62 I may add, as well as the Russo-Greek Church, which, as I shall have\n      an opportunity to show afterwards, is no less opposed to\n      Protestantism than her rival, the Church of Rome.\n\n   63 Thus, for instance, the well-known work of the celebrated patriarch\n      Photius, written in the ninth century, contains extracts from and\n      notices of many works which have never reached us.\n\n   64 \u201cEdinburgh Review,\u201d July, 1841, p. 17.\n\n   65 According to the author of \u201cHierurgia,\u201d Cassianus suffered martyrdom\n      under the reign of Julian the Apostate; we know, however, from\n      history, that no persecution of Christians had taken place under\n      that emperor. Cassianus\u2019 body is still preserved at Imola, but\n      according to Collin de Plancy he has besides a head at Toulouse.\n\n   66 \u201cHierurgia,\u201d by D. Rock, D.D., second edition, p. 377, _et seq._\n\n   67 Prudentius was known as a man of great learning, and had filled some\n      important offices of the state.\n\n   68 The title of this book is\u2014\u201cOpus illustrissimi Caroli Magni, nutu\n      Dei, Regis Francorum, Gallias, Germaniam, Italiamque sive harum\n      finitimas provincias, Domino opitulante, regentis, contra Synodum\n      qu\u00e6 in partibus Greci\u00e6, pro adorandis imaginibus, stolide sive\n      arroganter gesta est.\u201d\n\n   69 I think that it has recently been completed at Brussels.\n\n   70 The title of Ruinart\u2019s work is\u2014\u201cActa primorum Martyrum sincera et\n      selecta ex libris, cum editis, tum manuscriptis, collecta eruta vel\n      emendata.\u201d 4to, Paris 1687, and several editions afterwards.\n\n   71 The most important of these Apocrypha of the New Testament, some of\n      which have reached us, whilst we know the others from the writings\n      of the fathers, are the Gospels according to St Peter, to St Thomas,\n      to St Matthias, the Revelations of St Peter, the Epistle of St\n      Barnabas, the Acts of St John, of St Andrew, and other apostles.\n\n   72 Mabillon on the Unknown Saints, p. 10. _Apud_ Basnage, p. 1047.\n\n   73 \u201cVie de St Fran\u00e7ois Xavier,\u201d par le Pere Bouhours, 1716. _Apud_\n      Maury, p. 22.\n\n   74 \u201cLiber Aureus Inscriptus, Liber Conformitatum Vit\u00e6 Beati ac\n      Seraphici Patris Francisci, ad Vitam Jesu Christi Domini Nostri.\u201d It\n      went through several editions.\n\n   75 The title of this curious work is \u201cHistoire de St Fran\u00e7ois d\u2019Assise,\n      par Emile Chavin de Malan.\u201d Paris: 1845.\n\n   76 \u201cEdinburgh Review,\u201d April 1847, p. 295.\n\n   77 History of St Waltheof, p. 2 in the 5th vol. of the collection.\n\n   78 Ibid., p. 24.\n\n   79 Life of St Augustine of Canterbury, Apostle of the English, p. 237,\n      in the 1st volume of the English Saints, mentioned above.\n\n   80 There is a German story which is evidently a parody of this legend.\n      It says that an individual who was passionately fond of playing at\n      nine-pins committed a crime for which he was sentenced to be\n      beheaded. He requested, as a favour which was usually granted to\n      culprits before their execution, to indulge once more in his\n      favourite game. This demand being conceded, he began to play with\n      such ardour that he entirely forgot his impending execution. The\n      executioner, who was present, got tired of waiting for the culprit,\n      and seizing a moment when he stretched his neck picking up a ball\n      from the ground, cut off his head. The culprit was, however, so keen\n      in the pursuit of his game, that he seized his own head, and having\n      made with it a successful throw, exclaimed, \u201cHaven\u2019t I got all the\n      nine?\u201d\n\n   81 An old German ballad gives a fair specimen of the ideas which people\n      entertained of the joys of heaven. It says, amongst other\n      things:\u2014\u201cWine costs not a penny in the cellar of heaven; angels bake\n      bread and cracknels at the desire of every one; vegetables of every\n      kind abundantly grow in the garden of heaven; pease and carrots grow\n      without being planted; asparagus is as thick as a man\u2019s leg, and\n      artichokes as big as a head. When it is a lent day, the fishes\n      arrive in shoals, and St Peter comes with his net to catch them, in\n      order to regale you. St Martha is the cook and St Urban the\n      butler.\u201d\u2014See Maury, p. 88.\n\n   82 Zimmerman\u2019s \u201cSolitude Considered with respect to its Dangerous\n      Influence upon the Mind and Heart.\u201d English translation. Ed. 1798,\n      p. 102, _et seq._\n\n_   83 Vide supra_, p. 17.\n\n   84 \u201cMandat sancta synodus omnibus episcopis et caeteris, ut juxta\n      catholicae et apostolicae ecclesiae usum, a primaevis Christianae\n      religionis temporibus receptum, de legitimo imaginum usu fideles\n      diligenter instruunt, docentes eos, imaginis Christi et Deiparae\n      Virginis, et aliorum sanctorum, in templis praesertim habendas et\n      retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendam; non\n      quod credatur inesse aliqua in divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam\n      sint colendae; vel quod ab iis aliquod sit petendum; vel quod\n      fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus,\n      quae in idolis (Psalm cxxxv.) spem suam collocabant: sed quoniam\n      honos, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypae, quae illae\n      representant, ita ut per imagines, quae osculamur, et coram quibus\n      caput aperimus et procumbimus, Christum adoremus; et sanctos quorum\n      illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur.\u201d\u2014Sessio xxv. _de Invocatione\n      Sanc. et Sacr. Imag._\n\n   85 The following description of this little idol is given by a\n      well-known French writer of last century:\u2014\u201cThis morning, when I was\n      quietly walking along a street towards the capitol, I met with a\n      carriage, in which sat two Franciscan monks, holding on their knee\n      something which I was unable to distinguish. Every body was stopping\n      and bowing in a most respectful manner. I inquired to whom were\n      these salutations directed? \u2018To the _Bambino_,\u2019 I was answered,\n      \u2018whom these good fathers are carrying to a prelate, who is very ill,\n      and whom the physicians have given up.\u2019 It was then explained to me\n      what this _Bambino_ is. It is a little statue, meant for Jesus, made\n      of wood, and richly attired. The convent which has the good fortune\n      of being its owner has no other patrimony. As soon as any body is\n      seriously ill, the _Bambino_ is sent for, in a carriage, because he\n      never walks on foot. Two monks take him and place him near the bed\n      of the patient, in whose house they remain, living at his expense,\n      until he dies or recovers.\n\n      \u201cThe _Bambino_ is always driving about; people sometimes fight at\n      the gate of the convent in order to get him. He is particularly busy\n      during the summer, and his charges are then higher, in proportion to\n      the competition and the heat, which I think is quite\n      right.\u201d\u2014_Dupaty, Lettres sur l\u2019Italie_, let. xlviii.\n\n      The _Bambino_ continues to maintain his credit; and I have read not\n      long ago in the newspapers, that an English lady of rank, who had\n      joined the communion of Rome, was performing the duties of his dry\n      nurse on a festival of her adopted church.\n\n_   86 Insolitam imaginem._ I have made use in the text of the English\n      Roman Catholic translation of the canons of the Council of Trent, by\n      the Rev. Mr Waterworth.\n\n   87 \u201cOmnia h\u00e6c impia sunt et cultus idolorum, alloqui ipsas statuas aut\n      ossa, aut fingere Deum aut sanctos magis in uno loco, seu ad hanc\n      statuam alligatos esse quam ad alia loca. Nihil differunt\n      invocationes qu\u00e6 fiunt ad Mariam Aquensem seu Ratisbonensem ab\n      invocationibus ethnicis, qu\u00e6 flebant ad Dianam Ephesiam, aut ad\n      Junonem Plat\u00e6ensem, aut ad alias statuas.\u201d\u2014_Respon. ad Articul.\n      Bavaric_, art. 17, p. 381.\n\n   88 Middleton\u2019s \u201cMiscellaneous Works,\u201d vol. v., p. 96, edition of 1755.\n\n   89 Ibid., p. 97.\n\n   90 Hospinian, \u201cDe Origine Templ.,\u201d lib. ii. cap. 23; _apud_ Middleton,\n      _loco citato_.\n\n   91 Beugnot, vol. i. p. 231, on the authority of Sosomenes.\n\n   92 There are some Protestant writers who attach great value to the\n      apostolic canons, as, for instance, Dr Beveridge, Bishop of St\n      Asaph, who wrote a defence of them.\n\n   93 \u201cInstitutiones Christian\u00e6,\u201d lib. vi., cap. 2; apud, \u201cHospinian de\n      Origine Templorum,\u201d lib. ii., cap. 10.\n\n   94 This date is a mistake, and I would have taken it for a misprint if\n      the author had not said before, that \u201cVigilantius attacked the\n      practices of the church in the fourth age.\u201d I have, in speaking of\n      this subject, p. 71, followed the authority of the great historian\n      of the Roman Catholic Church, Fleury, who says that Jerome answered\n      Vigilantius in 404.\n\n_   95 Vid. supra_, p. 14, _et seq._, the opinions of Chateaubriand and\n      Beugnot on the same subject.\n\n   96 The appellation of _regina c\u00e6lorum_, queen of heaven, is frequently\n      given to the blessed Virgin in Roman Catholic litanies and hymns\n      addressed to her. The queen of heaven mentioned by Jeremiah is\n      supposed to be the same as Astarte, or the Syrian Venus.\n\n   97 Herodot., lib. ii., p. 36,\u2014\n\n      \u201cQui grege linigero circumdatus et grege calvo,\n      Plangentis populi currit derisor Anubis.\u201d\n\n      _Juvenal_, vi. 532.\n\n   98 He describes in it the well-known Roman Catholic practice of\n      flagellation or self-whipping, which has been, and is still, done by\n      the priests and votaries of several Pagan deities.\n\n   99 \u201cNamque omnia loca quae thuris constiterit vapore fumasse, si tamen\n      ea fuisse in jure thurificantium probabitur, fisco nostro adsocianda\n      censemus,\u201d &c.\u2014_Vid._ also _supra_, p. 48.\n\n  100 I give these numbers on the authority of the Almanac de Gotha.\n\n  101 The facts of this curious affair have never been published, but they\n      are preserved in the ecclesiastical archives of Moscow, and a copy\n      of them in the ecclesiastical academy of St Petersburgh.\u2014_Strahl\u2019s\n      Beytr\u00e4ge zur Russischen Kirchengeschichte_, p. 239.\n\n  102 Hermann Geschichte von Russland, 1853, vol. v., p. 89.\n\n  103 Anointment with oil makes a part of the Greek ritual of baptism.\n\n  104 These regulations may appear strange in a country like this, but in\n      Russia all the population is divided into various classes, and\n      nobody can pass from one of them into another without the\n      authorization of the Government; as, for instance, if a peasant or\n      agriculturist wishes to become a burgher by settling in a town. The\n      peasantry in the Baltic provinces were emancipated under the reign\n      of the Emperor Alexander, but the landowners still maintain a\n      certain authority over them.\n\n  105 The Pope, book iv., chap. 1.\n\n  106 Bodenstedt\u2019s Morning Land; or, Thousand and One Days in the East.\n      Second Series, vol. i., p. 61, _et seq._, a work which is\n      particularly interesting at the present time.\n\n  107 Studien \u00fcber Russland, vol. i., p. 101.\n\n  108 The Russians of that time were known as slave dealers, according to\n      Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish traveller of the same period.\n\n  109 Travels of Ibn Foslan, German translation, by Fr\u00e4hn, p. 7.\n\n  110 \u201cDie V\u00f6lker des Kaukasus,\u201d p. 284.\n\n  111 It owned before the confiscation of the church estates more than a\n      hundred thousand male serfs.\n\n  112 Studien \u00fcber Russland, vol. i. p. 87.\n\n  113 Simocatta, _apud_ Basnage, p. 1332.\n\n  114 This reform, accomplished in the reign of Alexius, father of Peter\n      the Great, consisted chiefly in the correction of the text of the\n      Slavonic Scriptures and liturgical books, which had been greatly\n      disfigured by the ignorance of successive copyists, and in the\n      prohibition of some superstitious practices, which had usurped an\n      important part in the divine service of the Russian Church. These\n      wise reforms produced, however, a violent opposition, and several\n      millions separated from the established church, and are known,\n      though divided into many sects, under the general appellation of\n      _Raskolniks_, _i.e._, schismatics, whilst they call themselves\n      _Starovertzi_, or those of the old faith, and designate the\n      established church by the name of the Niconian heresy.\n\n  115 Leveque, Histoire de Russie revue, par Malte Brun et Depping, tom.\n      iv. p. 131.\n\n  116 The title of this book is \u201cDas Merk w\u00fcrdige Jahr Meines Lebens\u201d\u2014\u201cThe\n      Memorable Year of my Life.\u201d It has been, I believe, translated into\n      English.\n\n  117 A civil grade equal to that of a captain in the army.\n\n  118 The author observes in a note that, in former times, a petty\n      ecclesiastical prince, the Archbishop of Cologne, could conceive and\n      partly execute the gigantic plan of the Cologne minster, and that in\n      the present time, though the whole of Germany had undertaken to\n      build the remainder of it, her people would have abandoned this\n      project long ago, if it were not supported by the kings. He ought,\n      however, I think, to confine his remarks to Germany, because there\n      are certainly more places of worship built by voluntary\n      contributions in England than in Russia.\n\n  119 Studien \u00fcber Russland, vol. i. p. 91.\n\n  120 Studien \u00fcber Russland, vol. i. p. 93.\n\n  121 Leveque, Histoire de Russie, vol. iv., p. 133.\n\n  122 London: Longman & Co. 1854.\n\n  123 The title of this curious production is, \u201cAn Appeal on the Eastern\n      Question to the Senatus Academicus of the Royal College of\n      Edinburgh. By a Russian, Quondam Civis Bibliothec\u00e6 Edinensis.\u201d\n      Edinburgh: Thomas C. Jack, 92 Princes Street. London: Hamilton,\n      Adams, & Co. 1854.\n\n  124 Letter xxxvi., at the end.\n\n_  125 Vide supra_, p. 184.\n\n  126 \u201cCustine\u2019s Russia,\u201d letter xxxvi. The same opinion is expressed by\n      Baron Haxthausen, whom I have quoted above, and who says, \u201cThe sons\n      of the papas and other young men acquire in the seminaries and\n      ecclesiastical academies a certain degree of theological learning,\n      after which they indue the monacal dress, and are inscribed on the\n      rolls of some convent, without however remaining in it. They enter\n      the offices of bishops and archbishops to perform their personal as\n      well as clerical service. Their position becomes then exactly the\n      same as that of the military aides-de-camp of the Generals, and of\n      the civil ones of ministers, and it is from amongst them that\n      bishops, archimandrites, abbots, &c., are chosen. It is a career\n      like every other service in Russia. Several of these ecclesiastics\n      may have chosen their calling from a real devotion; the most part of\n      them are, however, driven into it by an immeasurable ambition,\n      selfishness, speculation, and vanity, the curse of the upper classes\n      of Russia.\u201d\u2014(_Studien \u00fcber Russland_, vol. i., p. 89.) It must be\n      remarked that all the dignities of the Greek church are reserved for\n      the monastic or _regular_ clergy, whilst the secular (who cannot\n      take orders without being married) do not rise above the station of\n      a parish priest. This last-named function, which gives no prospects\n      of promotion, is generally left to such theological students as are\n      not fit for any thing better, and, with some few honourable\n      exceptions, they are generally an ignorant and drunken set, treated\n      with very little respect by the upper classes. The following\n      anecdote, characteristic of the moral and intellectual condition of\n      that class of the Russian clergy, was related to the author by a\n      friend who had resided for some time in Russia. A landowner of the\n      government of Kazan, Mr Bakhmetieff, who was very fond of the\n      pleasures of the table in the old style, was in the habit of\n      inviting to his revels the priests of the neighbourhood. Once, when\n      his clerical guests had got so drunk as to lose all consciousness,\n      their host, who was less overpowered by the effect of drink,\n      determined to play them a practical joke, by daubing their beards\n      with melted wax. The distress of these poor fellows, on awaking from\n      their sleep, at this strange unction of their beards, was very\n      great, because it was impossible to get rid of the wax without\n      greatly injuring that hirsute appendage, upon which so much of their\n      personal respectability rests. They became the laughing-stock of\n      their congregations, and the story made a great noise over all the\n      country.\n\n  127 The Greek Church admits no carved images, as being prohibited by the\n      second commandment.\n\n  128 They have considerably more, as will be shown presently.\n\n  129 Every altar in a Roman Catholic church must contain some relic.\n\n  130 It is said to have been made of pasteboard.\n\n  131 There are, besides the five water pots mentioned by Calvin, thirteen\n      others, at St Nicolo of the Lido at Venice, at Moscow, at Bologne,\n      at Tongres, at Cologne, at Beauvaia, at the abbey of Port Royal at\n      Paris, and at Orleans, though the Gospel mentions but six. The\n      materials of which they are made are very dissimilar to each other,\n      and so are their respective measures, whilst those mentioned in the\n      Gospel seem to have been all of the same size.\n\n  132 There are, besides these, thirteen more, unknown probably to Calvin;\n      but it would be too tedious to enumerate where they may be seen.\n\n  133 If a diligent inquiry were instituted after these relics in\n      particular, four times as many as are here enumerated might be found\n      in other parts.\n\n  134 I have employed the term Sudary, which has been adopted by Webster,\n      from the Latin word _sudarium_, to designate the relic in question.\n\n  135 It appears that a kerchief with the likeness of the face of Jesus\n      Christ imprinted on it, and covered with blood and sweat, was kept\n      in a church at Rome in the eleventh century, for it is mentioned in\n      the brief of Pope Sergius IV., dated 1011. We do not know what tales\n      respecting this relic were related at that time, but it appears that\n      copies of it called _Veronies_, _i.e._, a corruption of _verum\n      icon_, \u201cthe true image,\u201d were sold; and no doubt this appellation\n      gave rise to the legend of _Sancta Veronica_ who wiped the face of\n      Christ with her kerchief as he was going to Calvary. There are many\n      versions of this legend, as for instance that it was this woman whom\n      Christ had cured of the bloody issue, whilst again it is maintained\n      that she was no less a person than Berenice, niece to King Herod. It\n      is also related that after the dispersion of the apostles, St\n      Veronica went in company with Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Lazarus,\n      to Marseilles, where she wrought many miracles with her kerchief.\n      The Emperor Tiberius heard of these miracles, and having fallen ill,\n      he summoned Veronica to Rome. She cured him in a moment, and was\n      rewarded with great honours and rich presents. The remainder of her\n      life was spent at Rome in company with St Peter and St Paul, and she\n      bequeathed the miraculous kerchief to Pope St Clement. It must,\n      however, be observed, that this legend has not obtained the official\n      approbation of the Roman Catholic Church, though St Veronica is\n      acknowledged and has a place in the calendar for the 21st of\n      February; and it is said she suffered martyrdom in France. With\n      regard to the large sudaries or sheets upon which the whole body of\n      Jesus Christ is impressed, and the absurdity of which Calvin has so\n      clearly exposed, the most celebrated of these is that at Turin. Its\n      history is curious, inasmuch as it shows that the efforts of\n      enlightened and pious prelates to prevent idolatrous practices\n      invading their churches proved unavailing against that general\n      tendency to worship visible objects, so strongly implanted in\n      corrupt human nature, that even in this enlightened age we are\n      continually witnessing such manifestation of its revival as may be\n      compared only to that of the dark period of the middle ages. The\n      most striking instances undoubtedly are those of the holy coat of\n      Treves, and the relics of St Theodosia, which have been recently\n      installed at Amiens, with great pomp, and in the presence of the\n      most eminent prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, who seem now to\n      be as anxious to promote this kind of fetishism, as some of their\n      predecessors were formerly to repress the same abuse. But let us\n      return to our immediate subject\u2014the _holy sudarium_ of Turin. It is\n      a long linen sheet, upon which is painted in a reddish colour a\n      double likeness of a human body, _i.e._, as seen from before and\n      from behind, quite naked with the exception of a broad scarf\n      encircling the loins. It is pretended that this relic was saved by a\n      Christian at the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, and it was preserved\n      for many centuries by the faithful.\n\n      In 640 it was brought back to Palestine, from whence it was\n      transferred to Europe by the Crusaders. It was taken by a French\n      knight named Geoffroi de Charny, who presented it to the collegiate\n      church of a place called _Lir\u00e9_, which belonged to him, and which is\n      situated about three leagues from the town of Troyes, in Champagne;\n      the donor declaring, on that occasion, that this holy sheet was\n      taken by him from the infidels, and that it had delivered him in a\n      miraculous manner from a prison dungeon into which he had been cast\n      by the English.\n\n      The canons of that church, seeing at once the great profits to be\n      derived from such a relic, lost no time in exhibiting it, and their\n      church was soon crowded with devotees. The bishop of Troyes, Henri\n      de Poitiers, finding however no proofs of the authenticity of this\n      relic, prohibited it to be shown as an object of worship, and it\n      remained unheeded for twenty-four years.\n\n      The sons of Geoffroi de Charny, about the year 1388, obtained\n      permission from the Papal legate to restore this relic of their\n      father\u2019s to the church of Lir\u00e9, and the canon exposed it in front of\n      the pulpit, surrounding it with lighted tapers, but the bishop of\n      Troyes, Peter d\u2019Arcy, prohibited this exhibition under pain of\n      excommunication. They afterwards obtained from the king, Charles\n      VI., an authorization to worship the _holy sudarium_ in the church\n      of Lir\u00e9. The bishop upon this repaired to court, and represented to\n      the king that the worship of the pretended sheet of Jesus Christ was\n      nothing less than downright idolatry, and he argued so effectually\n      that Charles revoked the permission by an edict of the 21st August\n      1389.\n\n      Geoffroi de Charny\u2019s sons then appealed to Pope Clemens VII., who\n      was residing at Avignon, and he granted permission for the holy\n      sudarium to be exhibited. The bishop of Troyes sent a memorial to\n      the Pope, explaining the importance attached to this so-called holy\n      relic. Clemens did not, however, prohibit the sudarium to be shown,\n      but he forbade its being exhibited as the _real_ sudary of Jesus\n      Christ. The canons of Lir\u00e9, therefore, put aside their sudary, but\n      it reappeared in other places, and after being shown about in\n      various churches and convents it remained at Chambery in 1432, where\n      nobody dared to impugn its reality. From that time its fame\n      increased, and Francis I., king of France, went a pilgrimage on\n      foot, the whole way from Lyons to Chambery, in order to worship this\n      linen cloth. In 1578 St Charles Borromeo having announced his\n      intention of going on foot to Chambery to adore the holy sudary, the\n      Duke of Savoy, wishing to spare this high-born saint the trouble of\n      so long a pilgrimage, commanded the relic to be brought to Turin,\n      where it has since remained, and where the miracles performed by it\n      and the solemn worship paid to it, may be considered as a proof that\n      its authenticity is no longer doubted.\n\n      There are about six holy sudaries preserved in other churches,\n      besides the pieces shown elsewhere.\n\n  136 Calvin, speaking of the silver pieces for which Judas betrayed our\n      Lord, does not say where they are shown. Two of them are preserved\n      in the Church of the Annunciation at Florence, one in the Church of\n      St John of the Lateran, and another in that of the Holy Cross at\n      Rome. There is one piece at the Church of the Visitandine Convent at\n      Aix in Provence besides many other places where they are\n      displayed.\u2014_Collin de Plancy, Dictionaire des Reliques._\n\n  137 The whole skeleton of the animal is preserved at Vicenza, enclosed\n      in an artificial figure of an ass.\n\n  138 Eusebius relates, that Abgarus, king of Edessa, having heard of\n      Christ\u2019s teaching and miracles, sent an embassy to acknowledge our\n      Lord\u2019s divinity, and to invite him to his kingdom, in order to cure\n      Abgarus of a complaint of long standing; upon which Christ sent him\n      the likeness mentioned in the text. Now, it is impossible for one\n      moment to admit, that, if such an important fact had any truthful\n      foundation, it would have been left unrecorded by the apostles.\n\n  139 The Roman Catholic Church maintains that the Blessed Virgin was\n      carried to heaven by angels, and it commemorates this event by the\n      festival of the Assumption on the 15th August. This belief was\n      unknown to the primitive church; for, according to a Roman Catholic\n      writer of undoubted orthodoxy, the Empress Pulcheria, in the fifth\n      century, requested the Bishop of Jerusalem, Juvenal, to allow her to\n      have the body of the Virgin, in order to display it for the public\n      adoration of the faithful at Constantinople.\u2014(Tillerant\u2019s \u201cMemoires\n      Ecclesiastiques.\u201d)\u2014There are many other proofs that, even at that\n      time, when many idolatrous practices had begun to corrupt the\n      church, the Virgin\u2019s body was generally believed to be in earth, and\n      not in heaven.\n\n  140 Vials filled with such milk were shown in several churches at Rome,\n      at Venice in the church of St Mark, at Aix in Provence, in the\n      church of the Celestins at Avignon, in that of St Anthony at Padua,\n      &c. &c., and many absurd stories are related about the miracles\n      performed with these relics.\n\n  141 There are about twenty gowns of the Blessed Virgin exhibited in\n      various places. Many of them are of costly textures, which, if true,\n      would prove that she had an expensive wardrobe.\n\n  142 The number of miraculous images of the Virgin in countries following\n      the tenets of the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches is _legion_, and\n      a separate volume would be required if we were to give even an\n      abridged account of them.\n\n  143 \u201cThe most celebrated relic of St Joseph is his \u2018_han_,\u2019 _i.e._, the\n      sound or groan which issues from the chest of a man when he makes an\n      effort, and which St Joseph emitted when he was splitting a log of\n      wood. It was preserved in a bottle at a place called Concaiverny,\n      near Blois, in France.\u201d\u2014_D\u2019Aubigne\u2019s Confessions de Sancy_, chap.\n      ii. _apud_ Colin de Plancy.\n\n  144 It is said that as late as 1784, at Mount St Michael in Bretagne, a\n      Swiss was vending feathers from the archangel Michael\u2019s wings, and\n      that he found purchasers for his wares.\n\n  145 This multiplication of St John\u2019s head reminds one of an anecdote\n      related by Miss Pardoe in her \u201cCity of the Magyar.\u201d A museum of\n      curiosities was kept in the chateau of Prince Grassalkovich in\n      Hungary, and it was usually shown to strangers by the parish priest\n      of that place. This worthy man was once conducting a traveller over\n      the collection, and showed him amongst other curiosities two skulls,\n      of large and small size, saying of the first, \u201cThis is the skull of\n      the celebrated rebel Ragotzi;\u201d and of the second, \u201cThat is the skull\n      of the same Ragotzi when he was a boy!\u201d\n\n  146 Calvin has not rendered full justice to the relics of John the\n      Baptist exhibited in various places. He only mentions the different\n      parts of his head and the fingers; and the quantity altogether shown\n      implies no doubt that the head was one of no ordinary dimensions. He\n      evidently was not aware that there are about a dozen whole heads of\n      St John the Baptist, which are or were exhibited in different towns.\n      The most remarkable of them was undoubtedly that one which the\n      notorious Pope John XXIII., who was deposed for his vices by the\n      Council of Constance, had sold to the Venetians for the sum of fifty\n      thousand ducats; but as the people of Rome would not allow such a\n      precious relic to quit their city, the bargain was rescinded. The\n      head was afterwards destroyed at the capture and pillage of Rome by\n      the troops of Charles V. in 1527. There are, besides, many other\n      parts of St John\u2019s body preserved as relics. A part of his shoulder\n      was pretended to have been sent by the Emperor Heraclius to King\n      Dagobert I.; and an entire shoulder was given to Philip Augustus by\n      the Emperor of Greece. Another shoulder was at Longpont, in the\n      diocese of Soissons; and there was one at Lieissies in the Hainault.\n      A leg of the saint was shown at St Jean d\u2019Abbeville, another at\n      Venice, and a third at Toledo; whilst the Abbey of Joienval, in the\n      diocese of Chartres, boasted of possessing twenty-two of his bones.\n      Several of his arms and hands were shown elsewhere, besides fingers\n      and other parts of his body; but their enumeration would be too\n      tedious here.\n\n  147 Calvin here alludes to the haircloth worn by the monks of some\n      orders, and other Roman Catholic devotees, instead of the ordinary\n      shirt.\n\n  148 There is a French edition of the New Testament, published, I think,\n      at Louvaine, in which the 13th chapter of Acts, 2d verse, is thus\n      translated: \u201c_Etquand ils disotent la messe_,\u201d\u2014\u201cAnd when they were\n      saying mass.\u201d\n\n  149 The relics of Peter and Paul became at an early period the objects\n      of veneration to the Christians of Rome. Gregory the Great relates\n      that such terrible miracles took place at the sepulchres that people\n      approached them in fear and trembling, and he adds that those who\n      ventured to touch them were visibly punished. The Emperor Justinian,\n      desiring some relics of these two apostles, some filings from their\n      prison chains, and sheets that had been consecrated by having been\n      laid over their bodies, were sent to him; but some time afterwards\n      these relics were touched and handled without persons suffering any\n      visible punishment for so doing. Their heads were transferred to the\n      church of St John of Lateran, and their bodies were divided and\n      placed in the churches of St Peter and St Paul in the Ostian Road.\n      We have seen in the text that different parts of their bodies are\n      shown in many places, and the celebrated D\u2019Aubign\u00e9 relates that\n      France had possessed formerly the entire bodies of Peter and Paul\n      before the Huguenots burnt and destroyed a great number of the\n      relics in that country.\n\n  150 This relic is considered a very efficient remedy for cutaneous\n      disorders.\n\n  151 Calvin was evidently in haste to get over his task, as he intimated\n      to us at the commencement of this chapter. He has made very great\n      omissions. In the first place, he appears to have forgotten the body\n      of St James the Major at Compostella in Spain, one of the most\n      celebrated places of pilgrimage of the Western Church. According to\n      the legend, this apostle went to Spain to preach Christianity and\n      then returned to Jerusalem, where he was beheaded by Herod.\u2014(Acts\n      xii.) His body was afterwards removed by his disciples to Spain.\n      This is, therefore, his second body. He has a third at Verona, and a\n      fourth at Toulouse, besides several heads elsewhere. The other\n      apostles have also more bodies than are mentioned in the text, but\n      the limits of this work forbid enumeration.\n\n  152 St Matthew is not so poor in relics as Calvin supposed, for we could\n      quote several whole bodies, as well as members, with which he was\n      not acquainted.\n\n  153 An oratory is a small chapel or cabinet, adorned with images of\n      saints, &c., and used by the Roman Catholics for private devotions.\n      The absurdity of ascribing to John the Evangelist the possession of\n      such an oratory is too palpable a falsehood to require any comment.\n\n  154 According to the well-known Jesuit writer Ribadeneira, the Jews\n      seized Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Martha, Marcella, Maximin,\n      Celidonius (supposed to have been the man born blind, who was\n      restored to sight by Jesus Christ), and Joseph of Arimathea, and\n      placing them on board a vessel without helm, oars, or sails,\n      launched it forth into the sea. By a miracle the vessel reached\n      Marseilles, where Lazarus was appointed the first bishop of that\n      town. Maximin became bishop of Aix, Joseph of Arimathea went to\n      England, Martha entered a convent, and Mary, after preaching in\n      various parts of Provence for some time, retired into the desert of\n      St Beaume, to weep and lament over her sins.\u2014_Flower of Saints, July\n      22._\n\n  155 The legends say that the soldier, whom they name Longinus, was\n      struck with blindness immediately after piercing Jesus Christ\u2019s\n      side. He perceived the enormity of his crime, recognised the\n      divinity of our Lord, and having rubbed his eyes with the blood\n      which was on his lance, he recovered his sight, and finally became a\n      monk in Cappadocia. It is true that neither the Gospels nor the\n      early ecclesiastical writers mention anything respecting St\n      Longinus, but Ribadeneira and other narrators of legends speak much\n      of him. The reader may possibly object to the tale of his becoming a\n      monk, since in those days there were none; but that difficulty\n      merely requires the addition of another miracle.\n\n  156 Calvin is wrong here. Milan only assumes to have possession of the\n      graves of the wise men, not their bodies, which were removed to\n      Cologne at the capture of Milan in 1162, by Frederick Barbarossa.\n\n_  157 Vid. supra_, p. 120.\n\n  158 St Anthony is venerated, or rather worshipped, by the Eastern as\n      well as the Western Church, and he seems to have bestowed his\n      favours upon each with the utmost impartiality, for a body of his is\n      shown at Novgorod, in Russia, where a church, with a convent\n      attached to it, is dedicated to him. The legend concerning St\n      Anthony\u2019s arrival at Novgorod is curious. It is said that this\n      saint, whilst at Rome, was commanded by an angel, in a dream, to go\n      and convert the inhabitants of Novgorod. In obedience to this\n      angelic injunction, St Anthony embarked on a millstone, and floated\n      on this extraordinary craft down the Tiber, passed over the\n      Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Baltic seas, and arrived safely at the\n      river Wolchow, upon which stream Novgorod is situated, having\n      accomplished the whole voyage in four days\u2014a marvellous speed\n      indeed, and which completely shames all the wonders of modern steam\n      navigation! The date assigned to this wonderful voyage happens to be\n      that of a few centuries _after_ St Anthony\u2019s death, but we suppose\n      this too must be considered as another miracle.\n\n  159 Calvin is much mistaken about Helena, who was better provided for\n      than he imagined. Besides the body mentioned in the text, she has\n      one in the Church of _Ara C\u00e6li_, at Rome. There was one also at\n      Constantinople, in the Church of the Twelve Apostles, and another at\n      Hauteville, near Epernay, in Champagne.\n\n  160 The legend tells us that an English chief, after conquering and\n      taking possession of Lower Brittany, returned to his native land in\n      search of wives for his army and himself. He married Ursula, an\n      English princess, and took eleven thousand maidens as brides for his\n      companions in arms. Ursula, whilst journeying with this bridal train\n      to join her husband, was driven by a storm into the mouth of the\n      Rhine, and arrived at Cologne. There they were beset by a party of\n      Huns, who murdered them all. Their bodies were discovered at Cologne\n      in the 16th century, and the remains of St Ursula, which at first\n      were mixed with those of her companions, were pointed out, by a\n      miracle, for the special veneration of the faithful. Several of\n      these virgins have relics in various parts of Europe, and they are\n      distinguished by proper names, as, for instance, St Ottilla, St\n      Fleurina, &c. &c.. The origin of this absurd legend is ascribed by\n      some antiquarians to the following inscription found upon a\n      tomb:\u2014\u201c_St Ursula et XI. M. V._,\u201d _i.e._, _et 11 martyres virgines_,\n      which, through ignorance or wilful deceit, has been converted into\n      _millia virgines_\u201411,000 virgins. Other savans believe that the\n      inscription meant \u201c_St Ursula et Undecimilla, martyres virgines_,\u201d\n      and that _Undecimilla_, which was the proper name of a virgin\n      martyr, was mistaken by some ignorant copyist for an abbreviation of\n      _undecim millia_, 11,000.\n\n  161 It must be remarked that many relics described in this Treatise were\n      destroyed during the religious wars, but particularly by the French\n      Revolution. I recommend to those who have an interest in this\n      subject the observations made on it in Sir George Sinclair\u2019s\n      Letters, p. 88, _et seq._","title":"A Treatise on Relics","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":75980}