contrary, language utterly inconsistent with it and from their way of arguing against the Gentiles we may very fairly infer that no such practice was ever known amongst them as that of bowing the head to images, prostration before them, or the offering of incense or lighting of candles, all which practices are now adopted alike by the Church of the East and of the West. Many passages might be selected from Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, and others, which certainly could not have been written by them if they had held the same sentiments with their successors of the eighth century. Thus Arnobius (lib. vi. p. 195) declares, "That if the gods be in heaven, it is a folly to direct our eyes to stones, and wood, and walls, when we address ourselves to them; and that rather we ought to direct our eyes to heaven, where we believe they are." Lactantius (lib. ii. cap. 2) argues that "images are either for the commemoration of the dead or of the absent: it being, therefore, a folly to adore either the dead or the absent, it must be much more folly to adore their images." Tertullian yet more strongly asserts that "the Devil brought into the world the artificers of statues and images." Such were the sentiments of the writers of the primitive ages. Would they have used language so strong and unequivocal as this, had they been accustomed to worship images themselves?

How, then, did it come to pass that a practice so strongly condemned in the pages of the Old Testament, and against which we find so express a testimony in the close of the first epistle of St. John-"Little children, keep yourselves from idols"-a practice utterly unknown in the purest ages of the Church-should so gain ground as to be made in after ages a test of orthodoxy-so much so, that they who would not worship

images were anathematized as Heretics, Pagans, Manichæans, and Mohammedans?

It must be traced to the idolatrous tendency of the human heart, and its propensity to serve the creature more than the Creator. Taking advantage of this, the great enemy of souls, who led the human race astray in times of old after gods many and lords many, rested not till he had seduced the Christian Church into like error: turning Christians aside, first, from Christ to Saint and Angel mediators; and then, from pure and spiritual worship, to the worship of images and pictures. The Church had been assailed by fierce persecution: against this she had stood her ground, and by the grace of God was made more than conqueror. But though equal and even superior to all the assaults made by the enemy in this way, she was less on her guard against the attempts afterwards too successfully made to sully her purity and corrupt her simplicity by adversity she was made great—in her prosperity was her fall.

Heresies had not, indeed, been wanting from the first to distress and perplex, but she was on her guard and they were speedily silenced; but afterwards the enemy found a new way of corrupting the truth-by the underhand introduction of unscriptural practices which should bring it to none effect. Thus while the Church seemed all glorious without, within it was full of corruption, formality, and hypocrisy. By none of her corruptions has the purity and spirituality of the Church been more seriously injured than by that of image worship-a practice distinguished from Gentile idolatry in little else than in

name.

The progress, however, of this corruption was very gradual. Images and pictures were at first introduced into churches not to be worshipped, but either in the place of books to give instruction to those who could

not read, or to excite devotion in the minds of others. How far they ever answered such a purpose is doubtful ; but, even granting that this was the case for a time, it soon ceased to be so, and it was found that pictures and images brought into churches darkened rather than enlightened the minds of the ignorant—degraded rather than exalted the devotion of the worshipper. So that, however they might have been intended to direct men's minds to God, they ended in turning them from Him to the worship of created things.

There are three successive æras through which we may trace the progress of this corruption. The First æra extends from the Apostolic age to that of Constantine the Great, during which period images were not admitted into churches at all. The Second æra dates from the time of Constantine to that of Pope Gregory, surnamed the Great in this period, though images were admitted into churches, there is no record of any worship being paid to them. The Third æra is that which followed the time of Gregory, in which images were everywhere set up in churches and worshipped, and this brings us to the time when Leo and his successors made so noble and so ineffectual a struggle against this corruption.

Concerning the first of these periods we find no other testimony of any importance brought forward by the advocates of image worship, either as to the making or worshipping of images, than the instance recorded by Eusebius of the woman of Paneas. It was said that this woman, after having received the cure of her disease as mentioned in the Gospels, returned to Paneas, her own city, and that she set up in one of the streets an image of the Saviour, and of herself kneeling at his feet. But it requires little consideration to see how

feeble is this testimony, whether considered as a proof of the existence of image worship in those early centuries, or as an example to be imitated by Christians in after ages in their religious worship. This image is set up not in a church, but in a street; not by a bishop or a priest, but by a woman; not in a Christian, but a Pagan manner; for, as Eusebius expressly adds, this and like things were done by the heathen after a Gentile custom. This however was the only proof that the Nicene divines ventured to bring forward in favour of their assertion that the worship of images had existed from the first origin of the Gospel, or that they could produce from the history of the three best centuries of the Church's existence. As to the canon of the pretended Council of Antioch, which enjoined Christians to carry about with them the image of Christ, or the picture of Christ said to be sent by him to King Abgarus, or those other pictures of Christ and the Virgin said to be drawn by St. Luke, they are generally abandoned as alike devoid of all credit and probability. Indeed, it is allowed even by some of the most ardent favourers of this corruption that such was not the practice of the Church during this period, and they labour to justify the omission by pleas of expediency.

We come now to the second period commencing with the establishment of Christianity, under Constantine, and extending to the Pontificate of Gregory the Great. That during this period images were pretty generally admitted into churches cannot be denied; but that there was any authorized worship of them, or that the worship of them was considered in any way a Christian duty during the same period, cannot be proved. The testimonies, as far as they are genuine, which were selected by the Nicene divines from the fathers who

flourished during these centuries, prove that images were, indeed, set up in Churches, Martyria,Basilicæ, and the like, but not that they were worshipped. Still, though the worship of them was not authorized, it had begun by degrees to creep into the Church; and those who might at first come to pictures for instruction had begun to look upon them as gods. Hence we find on record protests against such superstition made by men of so small eminence and authority in the Church. Early in the fourth century the Council of Elibiris, or Elvira, amongst many others, enacted the following Canon :"It is agreed that pictures ought not to be in churches, lest what is worshipped or adored should be painted on walls." The Iconoclastic Council of Constantinople brought forward testimonies from the writings of Theodotus, Amphilochius and Epiphanius. The words of Epiphanius are:-" In this respect be mindful, my beloved children, to introduce no images into churches, nor into the cemeteries of the Saints, nor yet into private houses for it is not fitting for a Christian to be led by the sight of the eyes, or by the fancies of other people's minds." The protest of Epiphanius was not always confined to words, for on one occasion he is said to have done that which, had he lived in the times of the second Nicene Council, would have brought down anathema upon his head; but, had he lived later still, he might have been compelled to expiate by fire or the sword.

:

The record is preserved in a letter written to a friend, in which he states that, as he was entering into a church at Anabathla, he saw on a veil an image of Christ or of some Saint, and that he tore the same in pieces, advising the keepers of the place to use it as a shroud for some dead pauper; and when the keepers of the place murmured, and urged that he