Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

toward heaven, (the symbol of the Christian church, and of the individual Christian soul,) or a lyre, (the symbol of Christian joy,) or an anchor, (the symbol of Christian hope;) and he who is a fisherman will not be forgetful of the apostle Peter, and of the children. taken from the water;* for no images of gods should be engraved on the rings of those who are forbidden all intercourse with idols; no sword or bow on the rings of those who strive after peace; no goblets on the rings of those who are the friends of sobriety.' Yet religious emblems passed from domestic use into the churches, perhaps as early as the end of the third century. The walls of them were painted in this manner. The Council of Elvira, in the year 303, opposed this innovation as an abuse, and forbade the objects of worship and adoration to be painted on the walls.' ”3

All this was in harmony also with the ceremonials of the sensuous religion of the age, which, relying more on the outward form than on the inward spirit, sought by imposing rituals to enforce religious truth, rather than by a direct appeal to the understanding and the conscience. Mosheim and Augusti represent this to have been eminently the spirit of several sects of the Gnostics, with whom it was a favourite sentiment, "that religious truth could better be enforced by pictorial representations than by sermons and by books." By such paintings they taught their religious tenets. Gregory the Great, of the sixth century, particularly commends this as a happy expedient for instructing the unlearned in religion. "What the letter is to the learned, such is the painting to the unlearned. For here they see what they ought to obey, so that the ignorant may read their duty in the pictured representation." "Pictures, therefore, are introduced into churches, that they who cannot read from the written word, may still understand it as depicted on the walls."†

In these sentiments we recognise the temporizing spirit of the church, in accommodating itself to the superstitions of the age. This Gregory greatly encouraged, in total opposition to the spirit of primitive Christianity. It was, indeed, a favourite maxim of this renowned prelate, that Christianity should accommodate itself

The Christians, whom the Divine teacher, the Sɛios naidaywyós, Christ, leads through baptism to regeneration.

† Quod legentibus Scriptura, hoc idiotis præstat pictura cernentibus.-Epist. lib. ix. ind. 3, ep. 9. Idcirco enim pictura in ecclesiis adhibetur, ut ii, qui literas nesciunt, saltem in parietibus videndo legunt, quæ legere in codicibus non valent. -Lib. vii. ind. 2, ep. 3.

more and more to paganism, to facilitate conversions to the religion of Christ. Under such influences and such teaching, the Christian church was soon filled with images, pictures, and statues more becoming an idol's temple than a sanctuary for the worship of the living God.

These images, though at first employed as aids to devotion, soon became the objects of almost idolatrous veneration. A single extract from a letter of the Emperor Michael to Louis the Pious, in the ninth century, is added, in illustration of the spirit of the age:"First of all, they put away the cross from the churches, and set up images instead, before which they placed their candles and burned incense, and reverenced them as though they were the sacred cross on which Christ was crucified. Before these images they sang psalms and prayed and implored blessings. They clothed these images in linen, and made them godfathers to their children in baptism. Monks, on shaving their heads and in taking their vows, let their hair fall into the bosom of the image. Many priests scraped the paint from the statues, and mingled it with the bread and wine of the Lord's supper, and ministered it to the communicants. Others placed the sacred elements in the hands of the image as they were presented to those who partook of this ordi

[blocks in formation]

Such puerilities and superstitions gave rise to the famous war respecting image-worship, (a. D. 726,) which was characterized by many atrocities, and continued to distract the church during the space of one hundred and twenty years, until 842, when the superstitious practices respecting the use of images were finally confirmed and legalized.

The antagonistic spirit by which this protracted strife against image-worship was sustained, found an appropriate expression in the stern remonstrance of many of the ancient fathers. "As God admonished the Jews," says Jerome, †A. D. 420, "so hath he also warned us, who claim to be the church, not to trust in the splendour of our edifices, in gilded and fretted ceilings, and marble walls. Let not these be called the temple of God. That alone is the true temple which is adorned with the indwelling of a true, a holy life, and all the Christian graces."

995

Isidore of Pelusium, † A. D. 449, complains "that the church edifices were garnished too richly, while the church itself was disfigured, and adds that he would prefer to have lived in that age in which the place of assembly was not, indeed, so richly

ornamented, but the church was crowned with heavenly gifts, than in his own age, when lofty edifices were erected and finished in splendid style, while the church itself stood naked and empty."

Epiphanius, †A. D. 403, on observing in a strange church which he had entered for devotional purposes, a vail, hanging on which was depicted the image of Christ, or of some saint, indignantly tore it down, and urgently remonstrated against the introduction of such things into the church, as contrary to the spirit of our religion."

§ 15. OF THE VENERATION FOR SACRED PLACES, AND THE PRIVILEGES ATTACHED TO THEM.1

It became customary in the fourth century to set apart the church to religious uses by a solemn consecration, by which it was invested with peculiar sanctity. The remarks which follow relate particularly to churches subsequent to this period.

The early Christians, like the Jews, manifested a profound veneration for the house of God, and zealously guarded it, not only against the intrusion of the profane, but against secular and sacrilegious uses. Their own attendance upon its ordinances was marked with every demonstration of religious awe. "Let both men and women," says Clemens of Alexandria, "come to church in comely apparel, with a serious gait, with modest silence, and love unfeigned; chaste both in body and mind, so that they may be duly prepared to offer prayer to God." "They came into the church as into the palace of the Great King. Before going into the church, they used to wash at least their hands, carrying themselves there with the most profound silence and devotion. Nay, so great was the reverence which they bore to the church, that the emperors themselves, who otherwise never went without their guard about them, when they came to go into the church, used to lay down their arms-to leave their guard behind them, and to put off their crowns."3

The churches, however, were occasionally the scenes of disorder and sacrilege; especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, during the Arian controversy. To prevent these, Honorius decreed, A. D. 398, the sentence of scourging and banishment upon any one who should enter the church and disturb the bishop or minister in the discharge of his duties. If he interrupted the religious services, or offered violence to the litany, he was to be sentenced to death by any court, civil or military.1

The following were some of the rules by which the church was guarded from secular and sacrilegious uses.

(a) Neither churches nor any of their utensils or implements could be sold, mortgaged, or assessed for taxes; to this rule, however, there were occasional exceptions.

(b) Churches could not be used for courts of either civil or criminal cases, nor for popular elections, or legislative assemblies, but they might be opened for the accommodation of ecclesiastical councils, and for the coronation of princes.

(c) No marketing, or exchanges in buying or selling of any kind was allowed in the church, much less were annual fairs permitted in the neighbourhood of a church.

(d) No convivial assemblies were in any instance to be held in the churches. And even the love-feasts, the abuses of which in the Corinthian church were so severely censured by the apostle Paul, (1 Cor. xi. 18 et seq.,) were not allowed in the churches.

(e) Neither were churches to be opened for the entertainment of strangers and travellers.

(f) It was also a high offence to speak irreverently of the house of God, or unworthily to engage in any official act of public worship.5

All who entered into the church were first required to wash their hands, and for this purpose water was constantly kept in the front part of the church, as has been already stated, § 7, p. 251. This rite, as explained by Tertullian and others, was emblematical of that purity of heart with which the worshipper ought to engage in his public religious duties. In some of the Eastern churches, particularly in Abyssinia, it was customary, also, for Christians to put off their shoes on entering the church, after the example of Moses. Exod. iii. 5. Kings and princes, and military commanders reverently laid aside their badges of honour and of office on entering the church, a custom which even Julian the Apostate commends as worthy of imitation. It was, moreover, an ancient and very general usage to kiss the threshold of the doors and the altars of the churches, as another token of reverence. Afterward it became usual to kiss the paintings and utensils.

Of the same general character were the numerous directions given respecting a quiet, devout, and becoming demeanour in the church in the time of religious worship and during the celebration of the sacrament. These directions required the worshipper to appear in decent apparel, to kneel or stand in prayer, to keep the

head uncovered, to fold the hands, and to refrain from gazing about. All noise and bustle, shrieking, clapping, hemming, and spitting, was expressly forbidden, together with all irreverent gesticulation, reading, and mimicking: all which serves to show how fully the Christian church, at all times, participated in the sentiment of the pious Israelite, "Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth."

No account remains of the formal consecration of churches earlier than the fourth century. Eusebius describes this solemnity on two different occasions, and records the sermon which he himself preached in one instance. 10 The act of consecration consisted in prayer and other religious solemnities, in connection with the public discourse.

The dedication must be performed by the bishop. No church could even be built without his consent previously obtained; and no religious service could be held in the church until it had been consecrated." The simple and appropriate rites of consecration were afterward changed by Catholic superstition into a multitude of mystical ceremonies totally repugnant to the original design of this solemnity.

§ 16. OF THE CHURCH AS A PLACE OF REFUge.

THE ancient historians and Christian fathers mention many instances in which the church and the altar were made a safe place of refuge, not only for Christians, but for Jews and pagans. Even by barbarous nations the church was respected as a sacred asylum. Both Jews and Gentiles had long been familiar with similar usages. The Christian church, therefore, like the pagan temples and Jewish cities of refuge, very naturally became a sacred retreat, which avenging justice feared to invade. This right, probably, was first established under the reign of Constantine the Great, and was confirmed and enlarged by succeeding emperors; but the privilege was greatly abused, and, as early as A. D. 392, became the subject of complaint, as preventing the ends of justice, by offering a hidingplace for every fugitive from justice. Arcadius, at the instigation of Etropius, a. D. 397, is said to have abrogated the right within his empire. The clergy were uniformly opposed to this decree of Arcadius. A council which was held in Africa, A. D. 409, sent a delegation to the emperor for its repeal.2 Chrysostom especially distinguished himself by his zeal against it: from him it appears

« ForrigeFortsett »