Chapter VIII. Image-Worship And Other Superstitious Practices Of The

Graeco-Russian Church.

The Græco-Russian Church is perhaps the most important element of the

politico-religious complications in which Europe is at present involved.

It is, moreover, not a fortuitous cause of these complications, but has

been growing during centuries, until it has reached its present magnitude,

though its action upon Turkey may have been prematurely brought into play

by accidental circumstances. It comprehends within its pale about

50,000,000 of souls, whilst it exercises an immense influence upon

13,000,000 of Turkish, and a considerable one upon more than 3,000,000 of

Austrian subjects, professing the tenets of that church, though governed

by separate hierarchies. To this number must be added the population of

the kingdom of Greece, amounting to about 1,000,000: so that the whole of

the followers of the Eastern Church may be computed in round numbers at

66,000,000 or 67,000,000 of souls.(100)

The Russian Church differs from other Greek churches, not in her tenets,

but in her government. From the establishment of Christianity in Russia,

towards the end of the tenth century, to the capture of Constantinople by

the Turks in 1453, the Russian Church was governed by a metropolitan,

consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. After this event, the

metropolitans were consecrated by the Russian bishops till 1588, when a

patriarch of Russia was instituted by that of Constantinople, who had

arrived at Moscow, in order to obtain pecuniary assistance for his church.

The patriarch enjoyed considerable influence, which modified in some

respects the despotic authority of the Czar. It was Peter the Great who

abolished this dignity in 1702, after the death of the Patriarch Adrian,

and declared himself the head of the Russian Church.

He introduced several regulations to restrict the power of the clergy, and

to improve their education. It appears that the violent reforms by which

that monarch tried to introduce the civilization of western Europe amongst

his subjects, had produced an intellectual movement in their church, but

which, not squaring with the views of the imperial reformer, was violently

suppressed by him. Thus, in 1713, a physician called Demetrius

Tveritinoff, and some other persons, began to attack the worship of

images, and to explain the sacrament of communion in the same sense as has

been done by Calvin.

These reformers were anathematised by the order of the Czar, and one of

them was executed in 1714.(101) Next year, 1715, a Russian priest, called

Thomas, probably a disciple of the above-mentioned reformers, began

publicly to inveigh against the worship of saints and other practices of

his church, and went even so far as to break the images placed in the

churches. He was burnt alive, and nothing more was heard afterwards of

such reformers. The Russian clergy regained their influence under the

reign of the Empress Elizabeth, 1742-62, a weak-minded, bigoted woman, who

was continually making pilgrimages to the shrines of various Russian

saints and miraculous images, displaying on those occasions such a

splendour and such munificence to the objects of her devotion, that the

finances of her state were injured by it.(102) Elizabeth’s nephew and

successor, Peter III., Duke of Holstein, who, for the sake of the throne,

had passed from the Lutheran communion to the Greek Church, entertained

the greatest contempt for his new religion. This half-crazy, unfortunate

prince, instead of trying to reform the Russian Church by promoting a

superior information amongst her clergy, offended the religious prejudices

of his subjects by an open disregard of the ordinances of that church, and

his projects of violent reforms. He not only did away with all the fasts

at his court, but he wished to abolish them throughout all his empire, to

remove the images and candles from the churches, and, finally, that the

clergy should shave their beards and dress like the Lutheran pastors. He

also confiscated the landed property of the church. Catherine II., who

observed with the greatest diligence those religious rites which her

husband treated with such contempt, and who greatly owed to this conduct

her elevation to the throne, confirmed, however, the confiscation of the

church estates, assigning salaries to the clergy and convents who had been

supported by that property. She made use of the influence of the

Græco-Russian Church for the promotion of her political schemes in Poland

and in Turkey; yet, as her religious opinions were those of the school of

Voltaire and Diderot, which believed that Christianity would soon cease to

have any hold upon the human mind, she seems not to have been fully aware

of that immense increase of power at home and influence abroad which a

skilful action upon the religious feelings of the followers of that church

may give to the Russian monarchs. This policy has been formed into a

complete system by the present Emperor, and it was in consequence of it

that several millions of the inhabitants of the ancient Polish provinces,

who belonged to the Greek United Church, _i.e._, who had acknowledged the

supremacy of the Pope by accepting the union concluded at Florence in

1438, were forced to give up that union, and to pass from the spiritual

dominion of the Pope to that of the Czar. This wholesale conversion was

necessarily accompanied with a good deal of persecution. Those clergymen

who had refused to adopt the imperial ukase for their rule of conscience

were banished to Siberia, and many other acts of oppression were committed

on that occasion, but of which only the case of the nuns of Minsk has

produced a sensation in western Europe. The same system of religious

centralization has also been applied to the Protestant peasantry of the

Baltic provinces, many of whom were seduced by various means to join the

Russian Church; and this policy continues to be vigorously prosecuted in

the same quarter, as may be seen by the following extract from the _Berlin

Gazette_ of Voss, reprinted in the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ of the 12th March

of this year, 1854:—

“Emissaries travelling about the country succeeded by every kind of

cunning, and by holding out prospects of gain and other advantages, to

convert people from Lutheranism to the Greek Church. All the children,

under seventeen years must follow the religion of their father as soon as

he has entered the orthodox church. Whoever has received the

anointment(103) can no longer return to his former creed, and those who

would try to persuade him to do it would be severely punished. It is even

forbidden to the Protestant clergy to warn their congregations from going

over to the Greek Church by drawing their attention to the difference

which exists between the two religions. A great number of Greek churches

have been built in the Baltic provinces, and already, in 1845, it was

ordered that the converts to the Greek Church should be admitted into

every town; that those peasants who would leave their places of residence

in order to join a Greek congregation should be allowed by their

landowners to do so;(104) and, finally, that the landowners and Protestant

clergymen who would oppose in any way the conversion to the Greek Church

of their peasantry and congregations, should be visited with severe

penalties. These penalties, directed against those who would attempt to

induce any one, either by speeches or writings, to pass from the Greek

Church to any other communion, have been specified in a new criminal code.

They prescribe for certain cases of such a proselytism corporal

chastisement, the knout, and transportation to Siberia.” It is also well

known that the Protestant missionaries, who had been labouring in various

parts of the Russian empire for the conversion of Mahometans and heathens,

have been prohibited from continuing their pious exertions. And yet,

strange to say, there is a not uninfluential party in Prussia, which,

pretending to be zealously Protestant, supports with all its might the

politico-religious policy of Russia, and is as hostile to Protestant

England as it is favourable to the power which is persecuting

Protestantism in its dominions. On the other hand, it is curious to

observe in this country some persons of that High Church party which

affects to repudiate the name of Protestant, and with whom _churchianity_

seems to have more weight than Christianity, showing an inclination to

unite with the Græco-Russian Church; and I have seen a pamphlet, ascribed

to a clergyman of the Scotch Episcopal Church, positively recommending

such a union, and containing the formulary of a petition to be addressed

by the Episcopalians of Great Britain to the most holy Synod of St

Petersburg, praying for admission into the communion of its church. I

would, however, observe to these exaggerated Anglo-catholics, who chiefly

object to the ecclesiastical establishment of England on account of its

being a State Church, that the Russian Church is still more so, and that

the most holy synod which administers that church, though composed of

prelates and other clergymen, can do nothing without the assent of its lay

member, the imperial procurator, and that a colonel of hussars was lately

intrusted with this important function. The Greek Church being opposed to

Rome, some Protestants sought to conclude a union with her in the

sixteenth century; and the Lutheran divines of Tubingen had for this

purpose a correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople, between the

years 1575 and 1581, but which did not lead to any result, as the

Patriarch insisted upon their simply joining his church. The Protestants

of Poland attempted in 1599 a union with the Greek Church of their

country, and the delegates of both parties met for this purpose at Vilna;

their object was, however, frustrated by the same cause which rendered

nugatory the efforts that had been made by the divines of Tubingen for

this purpose, the Greek Church insisting upon their entire submission to

her authority. It is true that some learned ecclesiastics of the

Græco-Russian Church are supposed to entertain Protestant opinions, but

this is entirely personal, and has no influence whatever on the systematic

policy of their Church, which hates Rome as a rival, but Protestantism as

a revolutionary principle. One of the ablest and most zealous defenders of

the Roman Catholic Church in our times, and whom a long residence in

Russia had made thoroughly acquainted with her church, Count Joseph

Demaistre, is of opinion that this church must finally give way to the

influence of Protestantism;(105) and I think that this might be really the

case if the Russian Church enjoyed perfect liberty of discussion, which

she is very far at present from possessing. I believe, however, that such

a contingency is very possible with those Eastern churches that are not

under the dominion of Russia, if they were once entirely liberated from

Russian influence and brought into contact with Protestant learning. Such

a revolution would be most dangerous, not only to the external influence

of Russia, but even to her despotism at home, because a Protestant

movement amongst the Greek churches of Turkey would sever every connection

between them and Russia, and very likely extend to the last-named country.

It is therefore most probable, as has been observed by the celebrated

explorer of Nineveh, Layard, that the movement alluded to above, which has

recently begun to spread amongst the Armenian churches of Turkey, was not

without influence on the mission of Prince Menschikoff and its

consequences.

I have said above that the mutual position of the Græco-Russian and Roman

Catholic Churches towards one another is that of two rivals. The dogmatic

difference between them turns upon some abstruse tenets, which are

generally little understood by the great mass of their followers, whilst

the essential ground of divergence, the real question at issue, is,

whether the headship of the church is to be vested in the Pope, in the

Patriarch of Constantinople, or in the Czar. The Pope has allowed that

portion of the Greek Church which submitted to his supremacy at the

council of Florence in 1438, to retain its ritual and discipline, with

some insignificant modifications. The Roman Catholic Church considers the

Græco-Russian one in about the same light as she is regarded herself by

that of England. She acknowledges her to be _a church_, though a

schismatic one, whose sacraments and ordination are valid, so that a Greek

or Russian priest becomes, on signing the union of Florence, a clergyman

of the Roman Catholic Church exactly as is the case in the Anglican Church

with a Roman Catholic priest who renounces the pope. The Græco-Russian

Church does not, however, return the compliment to the Roman Catholic one,

any more than the Catholic does it to that of England; because a Roman

Catholic priest who enters the Græco-Russian Church not only loses his

sacerdotal character, just as is the case with an Anglican clergyman who

goes over to the communion of Rome, but he must be even baptised anew, as

is done with Christians of every denomination who join that church,

whether Jews or Gentiles.

The system of reaction which the Roman Catholic Church has been pursuing

for many years, with a consistency, perseverance, and zeal worthy of a

better cause, and not without considerable success, has created just alarm

in the minds of many friends of religious and civil liberty. This feeling

is but too well warranted by the open hostility which the promoters of

that reaction, having thrown away the mask of liberalism, are manifesting

to the above-mentioned liberties. I shall, moreover, add, that the

political complications in which Europe is now involved may be taken

advantage of by the reactionary party in order to advance its schemes,

whilst the public attention, particularly of this country, will be

absorbed by the events of the present war; and therefore I think that all

true Protestants should, instead of relaxing, increase their vigilance, in

respect to the movements of the ecclesiastical reactionists. But the

dangers which threaten from that quarter are, at least in this country, of

a purely moral character, though they are doing much mischief in families,

and may throw some obstruction into the legislative action of the

government. They must therefore be combated with moral and intellectual

means,—with spiritual, and not carnal weapons,—and they may be completely

annihilated by a vigorous and skilful application of such means. The Pope

of Rome, though claiming a spiritual authority over many countries, cannot

maintain himself in his own temporal dominion without the assistance of

foreign powers, and is obliged to court the favour of secular potentates,

instead of commanding them, as had been done by his predecessors. The case

is quite different with the Imperial Pope of Russia, who commands a

million of bayonets, and whose authority is supported, not by canon, but

by cannon law, and not by bulls, but by bullets. The material force which

he has at his disposal is immensely strengthened by his spiritual

authority over the ignorant masses of the Russian population, upon whose

religious feelings he may act with great facility, because his orders to

the clergy are as blindly obeyed as his commands to the army; and it is

with the object of extending and consolidating this authority over all his

subjects without exception that those measures of persecution and

seduction against the Roman Catholics and Protestants, which I have

mentioned above, have been adopted. The probable consequence of this

religious centralization, and the condition of the church whose exclusive

dominion it is sought to establish in Russia, have been sketched in the

following graphic manner by an accomplished German writer, who, having

resided many years in Russia, and being thoroughly acquainted with the

language of that country, may be considered as one of the most competent

judges on this subject:—

“He who, with attentive ear and eye, travels through the wide empire of

the Czar, surrounding three parts of the world with its snares, and then

traces the sum of his contemplations, will tremble in thought at the

destiny which the Colossus of nations has yet to fulfil. He who doubts of

the impending fulfilment of this destiny knows not history, and knows not

Russia.

“However different in origin and interest the strangely mixed hordes may

be which constitute this giant realm, there exists one mighty bond which

holds them all together,—the Byzantine Church. Whoever remains out of it

will soon be forced into it; and ere the coming century begins, all the

inhabitants of Russia will be of one faith.

“Already that great net, whose meshes the Neva and the Volga, the Don and

the Dnieper, the Kyros and Araxes, form, inclose a preponderating

Christian population, in whose midst the scattered Islamitish race, the

descendants of the Golden Horde, are lost like drops in the ocean. What a

marvellous disposition of things, that the Russian empire, whose governing

principle is the diametrically opposite of the Christian law, should be

the very one to make of Christianity the corner, the keystone of its

might! And a no less marvellous disposition of things is it that the Czar,

in whatever direction he stretches his far-grasping arms, should find

Christian points of support whereon to knit the threads of fate for the

followers of Islam, artfully scattered by him—that he should find

Armenians at the foot of Ararat, and Georgians at the foot of Caucasus!

“But of what kind is this Christianity, that masses together so many

millions of human beings into one great whole, and uses them as moving

springs to the manifestations of a power that will sooner or later give

the old world a new transformation?

“Follow me for a moment into the Russian motherland, and throw a flying

glance at the religious state of things prevailing there.

“See that poor soldier, who, tired and hungry from his long march, is just

performing his sacred exercises, ere he takes his meal and seeks repose.

“He draws a little image of the virgin from his pocket, spits on it, and

wipes it with his coat sleeve: then he sets it down on the ground, kneels

before it, and crosses himself, and kisses it in pious devotion.

“Or enter with me on a Sunday one of the gloomy image-adorned Russian

churches. If the dress of those present is not already sufficient to

indicate their difference of station, you may readily distinguish them by

the manner in which each person makes the sign of the cross. Consider

first that man of rank, as he stands before a miracle-working image of a

Kazanshian mother of God, bows slightly before it, and crosses himself

notably. Translated into our vernacular the language of this personage’s

face would run in something like the following strain:—‘I know that all

this is a pious farce, but one must give no offence to the people, else

all respect would be lost. Would the people continue to toil for us, if

they were to lose their trust in the assurances we cause to be made to

them of the joys of heaven?’

“Now look at that caftan-clad fat merchant, as, with crafty glance and

confident step, he makes up to the priest to get his soul freed from the

trafficking sins of the past week.

“He knows the priest, and is sure that a good piece of money will meet

with a good reception from him; that is why he goes so carelessly, in the

consciousness of being able to settle in the lump the whole of his sinful

account; and when the absolution is over, he takes his position in front

of the miraculous image, and makes so prodigious a sign of the cross, that

before this act all the remaining scruples of his soul must vanish away.

“Consider, in fine, that poor countryman, who steals in humbly at the

door, and gazes slyly round him in the incense-beclouded spaces. The pomp

and the splendour are too much for the poor fellow.

“ ‘God,’ he thinks, ‘but what a gracious lord the Emperor is, that he

causes such fine churches to be built for us poor devils! God bless the

Emperor!’ And then he slips timidly up to some image where the golden

ground and the dark colours form the most glaring contrast, and throws

himself down before it, and crosses the floor with his forehead, so that

his long hair falls right over his face, and thus he wearies himself with

prostrations and enormous crossings, until he can do no more for

exhaustion. For the poorer the man in Russia, the larger the cross he

signs and wears.”(106)

This description of the religious state of the Russian people, given by a

writer who is not very partial to their country, may be perhaps suspected

of exaggeration, or considered as being too much of a caricature; I shall

therefore give my readers the observations which have been made on the

same subject by another German author, Baron Haxthausen, a great admirer

of Russia, who travelled over that country in 1843, under the patronage of

the Emperor, in order to study the state of its agriculture and industry,

as well as the social condition of the working-classes.

“A foreigner is struck,” says the Baron, “by the deep devotion and the

strict observance of the ordinances and customs of the church shown by

Russians of rank and superior education. I had already, at Moscow, an

opportunity of seeing it. Prince T., a young, elegant Muscovite dandy,

conducted me about the churches of the Kremlin, and almost in every one of

them he knelt down before some particularly venerated object,—as the

coffin of a saint, the image of a Madonna,—and touched the ground with his

forehead, and devoutly kissed the object in question. I observed the same

thing at Yaroslaf. Madame Bariatynski (the wife of the governor) and

another lady conducted me about the churches of that city, and as soon as

we entered one of them, both these ladies approached an image of the

Virgin, fell down before it, _without any regard to their __ dresses_,

touched with their foreheads the ground, and kissed the image, making

signs of the cross; and these were ladies belonging to the highest

society, and of the most refined manners. Madame Bariatynski had been a

lady of the court, and the ornament of the first drawing-rooms of St

Petersburg. Her mind is uncommonly cultivated, and she has a thorough

knowledge of French and German literature; and, indeed, when we were

walking to see these churches, along the banks of the Volga, she

discussed, in an animated and ingenious manner, the matchless beauty of

Goethe’s songs, and recited from memory his Fisherman. Even in the

strictest Roman Catholic countries, as, for instance, Bavaria, Belgium,

Rome, Munster, such public demonstrations of piety are not to be met,

except in some exceedingly rare cases, with women, but never with men. The

educated classes have in this respect separated from the lower ones. Even

people who are very devout consider such excessive manifestations of piety

as not quite decent, nay, though they dare not confess it, they are in

some measure ashamed of them. In Russia the case is different. There are

perhaps as many freethinkers, and even atheists, as in western Europe, but

even they submit, at least in public, and when they are in their own

country, unconditionally, and almost involuntarily, to the customs of

their church. In this respect, no difference whatever may be observed

between the highest and the commonest Russian; the unity of the national

church and of the national worship predominates everywhere.”(107)

It is almost superfluous to observe that a church which has such a hold on

the national mind of Russia must be a powerful engine in the hands of her

Imperial Pope, whose political authority is thus immensely strengthened by

the influence of religion. But I think it will be, perhaps, not

uninteresting to my readers to compare this baptised idolatry of the

modern Russians with that which had been practised by their unbaptised

ancestors about a thousand years ago, and the following account of which

is given by Ibn Foslan, an Arabian traveller of the tenth century, who saw

Russian merchants in the country of the Bulgars, a Mahometan nation who

lived on the banks of the Volga, and the ruins of whose capital may be

seen not far from the town of Kazan:—

“As soon as their (Russian) vessels arrive at the anchoring place, every

one of them goes on shore, taking with him bread, meat, milk, onions, and

intoxicating liquors, and repairs to a high wooden post, which has the

likeness of a human face carved upon it, standing surrounded with small

statues of a similar description, and some high ones erected behind it. He

prostrates himself before this wooden figure, and says, ‘O Lord, I have

arrived from a distant country; I have brought with me so and so many

girls,(108) so and so many sable skins;’ and when he has enumerated all

his merchandise, he lays before the idol the things which he has brought

with him, and continues his prayer, saying, ‘Here is a present which I

have brought thee, and I wish thou wouldst send me a customer who has

plenty of gold and silver, who will not bargain with me, but purchase all

that I have to sell at my own price.’ When his commerce does not prosper,

he brings new presents to the idol, and when he meets with some new

difficulties he makes gifts also to the small statues, but when he is

successful he offers oxen and sheep.”(109)

Kissing constitutes the principal part of the Russian worship of images

and relics, and is most liberally bestowed on those objects of adoration,

whilst I believe that the Roman Catholic Madonnas maintain a more

dignified state, and do not allow such familiarities to their worshippers,

unless on some particular occasions or to some privileged persons. The

Emperor himself sets the example of this pious _osculation_, a striking

instance of which occurred in the summer of last year, 1853, under

circumstances which deserve a particular notice.

I have said above, p. 161, that several millions of the followers of the

Greek United Church had been forced by the present emperor to transfer

their spiritual allegiance from the Pope to himself. Several of their

churches contain miraculous images of the Virgin, of more or less repute,

and which were obliged to share the fate of their worshippers, and to

become schismatics as much as the latter. Their vested rights have not

been, however, injured in any way by this revolution, because they

continue to be worshipped, and to work miracles as they did before, or,

what is the same thing, they are fully authorised to do so. The Russian

government followed on this occasion its usual line of policy, which is to

promote those who have joined it, forsaking their former party; and thus

one of the most distinguished of these miracle-working converts, the

Madonna of Pochayoff, a little town in Wolhynia, was transferred from her

provincial station to Warsaw, and placed there in a newly built Russian

cathedral, probably with the object of inducing the Roman Catholic

inhabitants of that capital to imitate an example set to them in such a

high quarter, and to acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Czar as

much as they are obliged to submit to his temporal dominion. When the

emperor was going last year to Olmutz, in order to persuade the Austrian

court to support his policy in Turkey, he passed through Warsaw, and

repairing, immediately after his arrival in that city, to the Russian

cathedral, kissed the above-mentioned miraculous image of the Madonna of

Pochayoff with such fervour that it produced quite a sensation upon all

those who were present, and was noticed in the newspapers as a proof of

the autocrat’s piety. Yet whether this Madonna, notwithstanding her

outward conversion to the Græco-Russian Church, remains a Romanist at

heart, or whether, for some other reason, she could or would not support

the views of her imperial worshipper, the result of the Czar’s voyage to

Olmutz proved that the caresses which he had bestowed upon the Madonna in

question were _love’s labours lost_. It may be also observed, that the

emperor himself seems not to have been quite sure of the effects of his

pious addresses to the now schismatic Madonna of Pochayoff, because it is

well known that this man, who, as I have said above, p. 161, had torn from

the spiritual authority of the Pope, by a violent persecution, many

millions of souls, knelt during his visit to Olmutz, with all the marks of

deep devotion, at a Roman Catholic high mass; whilst the Prince of

Prussia, who was also present on that occasion, stood by without taking a

hypocritical part in a worship which was contrary to his religion.

This image-kissing propensity of the Russians was the cause of a tragical

event during the plague at Moscow in 1771. It usually happens during a

public calamity that rumours of a wild and absurd nature are circulated

amongst the ignorant part of the population, and it was thus that, when

the pestilence was raging in the above-mentioned capital, a report was

spread that an image of the Virgin, placed at the entrance of a church,

had the power of preventing infection. Thousands of people repaired to the

miraculous image, and endless processions were wending along the streets

towards the same object of adoration, which was overloaded with rich

offerings by its worshippers, and adorned with costly jewels. As was to be

expected, this superstitious practice, instead of preventing the

infection, powerfully contributed to its increase; because the kisses

which the crowd lavishly bestowed on the miraculous image could not but

propagate the disease. The Archbishop of Moscow, Ambrose, an enlightened

prelate, in order to stop this mischief, removed the image from the place

where it had been exposed into the interior of the church; but this wise

measure produced a violent riot, and an infuriated mob rushed into the

sanctuary and murdered the venerable old man at the foot of the altar,

where he was officiating, dressed in his pontificals.

It is probably the same image of which Bodenstedt, whose account of the

Russian Church I have quoted above, p. 169, relates the following

anecdote. After having spoken of the usurpations of Russia beyond the

Caucasus, under pretence of protecting the Christian population of those

parts, he says:—

“The Russian policy, which conceals its grasping claws under the cloak of

religion, may be not inaptly compared to a lady well known at Moscow, who,

to the great edification of the bystanders, kissed the miraculous Madonna,

situated close to the Kremlin, with so much fervour, that the most costly

diamond of the jewels with which this image is covered remained in her

mouth.” And he adds, in a note, “The thing was afterwards discovered, and

the writer of this was himself present when this lady, the wife of a

Russian general, was obliged publicly to crave the forgiveness of the

image for this act of desecration. It is said that when this noble lady

was judicially examined about this affair, she pleaded in her defence that

having loved and worshipped the image in question devoutly during many

years, she believed herself entitled to a little _souvenir_ from the

Madonna.”(110) The Russian lady of rank seems not to have been so

ingenious as the Prussian soldier, whose story I have related on p. 118.

And it must be remarked that the Russian images expose their worshippers

to the temptations of mammon much more than the Roman Catholic ones;

because, whilst the latter are often valuable as objects of art, the

former have usually silver or golden garments, often set with precious

stones, which entirely cover the painting except the face, generally by no

means a model of beauty. The gifts which the Russians bestow on their

images are immense, and the most celebrated place for the accumulation of

such treasures is the convent of Troitza, or Trinity, situated about fifty

English miles from Moscow, and considered as a kind of national sanctuary

of Russia.(111) Baron Haxthausen, whom I have quoted on p. 173, says that

the value of sacred vases and ornaments accumulated in that place

surpasses all that may be seen of this kind any where else, without even

excepting Rome and Loretto; and he thinks that the quantity of pearls

contained in those ornaments is perhaps greater than is to be found in the

whole of Europe.(112)

The grave of St Sergius, the founder of that convent in the fourteenth

century, is adorned with gold and precious stones, and the silver canopy

over it is said to weigh 1200 pounds. The most remarkable object contained

in that convent is, however, the image of that saint which accompanied

Peter the Great during all his campaigns, and on which are inscribed the

names of all the battles and stormings of towns at which it had been

present. I do not know whether this image had a part in other expeditions

of the Russian army, but I have read this year in the newspapers that when

a division of grenadiers was passing through Moscow, on their way to

Turkey, the Archbishop of that capital addressed them, firing their zeal

for the religious war in which they were going to take part, and after

having blessed them with the image of St Sergius, the same to which I

alluded above, gave it them as a companion of their expedition. The allied

troops must therefore be prepared to encounter that _bellicose_ saint

somewhere on the Danube, unless he has been ordered to the shores of the

Baltic for the defence of the capital. The custom of taking with them

images considered as miraculous, during a campaign, was followed by the

generals of the Greek empire on many occasions. Thus it is related by a

Byzantine writer,(113) that in 590 Philippicus, a general of the Emperor

Mauritius, when going to engage the Persians in battle, took an _image

which was not made by the hands of man_, and carried it about the ranks of

his army, in order to purify his soldiers, and that he gained, after this

ceremony, a complete victory. It must, however, be remarked that when

Philippicus was replaced by another general, called Priscus, the latter,

relying too much on the protection of the image which _was not made by the

hands of man_, diminished the rations of the soldiers, and gave them other

causes of offence; they revolted, and when Priscus, in order to subdue the

riot, paraded the image in question, the mutineers threw stones at it. I

don’t know exactly how this business ended, but it is said that the Greek

generals usually liked to have an image of the kind alluded to, in order

to appease their troops in cases of mutiny and discontent; and I believe

that, considering the gross ignorance and superstition of the Russian

soldiers, the image of St Sergius may do good service in similar cases,

and for which these soldiers have but too many reasons. The Greek emperors

also sometimes provided with miraculous images the ambassadors who were

sent on important missions. I don’t know whether the Russian diplomacy,

which has performed so many wonders, has ever had recourse to the

assistance of such images, or to that of any supernatural agency.

The miraculous images of the Græco-Russian Church are generally considered

as _not made by the hands of man_, whilst those of the Roman Catholic

Church are usually believed to be painted by St Luke. The most celebrated

Madonnas of Russia, as those of Kazan, Korennaya, Akhtyrka, &c., are

believed to have dropt from heaven, in the same manner as the Diana of

Ephesus, and other Greek idols of repute. They are called _yavlenneeye

icony_, _i.e._, revealed images, and their number is considerable, though

all of them do not enjoy an equal reputation for miraculous powers. The

number of images of various descriptions is, I think, much greater in

Russia than in any other country, and they are called by the common

people, not images, _icony_, but gods, _boghi_; and many of their

worshippers are so ignorant, that they take every kind of picture or

engraving for the _boghi_, and devoutly cross themselves before them. A

German officer of engineers, in the Russian service, related to the author

that he had a Russian servant, a young lad of a very devout disposition,

who pasted every engraving which he could lay hold on, upon the wall over

his bed, in order to address his prayers to them. This officer once missed

some plates, containing mathematical figures, which had dropt from a book

of geometry, and he found afterwards that his pious servant, having picked

them up, gave them a place in his pantheon. If this strange divinity had

been found amongst the objects worshipped by that poor lad by some very

profound foreign traveller, unacquainted with the Russian people, it is

more than probable that he would have taken it for a mystical object of

adoration, and written a learned dissertation to explain its emblematic

sense.

Every household in Russia has its own little sanctuary, consisting of one

or more images, ornamented according to the means of the owner, and placed

in a corner opposite to the principal door. Every one who enters the room

makes a sign of the cross, bowing to these _penates_, the place under

whose shrine is considered as the seat of honour, reserved at meals for

the father of the family, or the most respected guest.

The Russians are great _exclusives_ in respect to their images, and every

believer has at least one of them stuck on the wall near his sleeping

place, for his especial use and comfort; whilst people who are continually

moving about, as carriers, pedlars, soldiers, &c., have their pocket

divinities with them; and the description of the devotional exercises of a

Russian soldier, given on p. 171, is by no means a caricature. This

exclusiveness was much greater before the reforms introduced by the

Patriarch Nicon in the seventeenth century than it is at present.(114)

Contemporary travellers relate that people brought into the churches their

own images, trying to get for them on the walls of the church the place

which they considered the best; and thus it often happened that these

images, being placed opposite to the altar, people in praying to them

turned their backs to the officiating priest, which generally produced

great confusion, and disturbed the performance of divine service. There

was a very great competition amongst those people in ornamenting their

images as showily as possible; and as the sanctity of an image was

increased, according to the opinion of those baptised idolaters, in

proportion to the richness of its ornaments, it often happened that a poor

man, who could not afford to trim up smartly his own image, addressed his

prayers to that of his richer neighbour. Such an adoration, however, was

considered as contraband; and when the lawful owner of the image caught

one of those pious interlopers, he not only sharply rebuked him, but

frequently gave him a sound thrashing, saying that he did not go to the

expense of decorating his image that another should obtain its

favours.(115)

Scandalous scenes of this description have been abolished in the

established church by the reforms of the Patriarch Nicon, alluded to

above, but something very like it may still be witnessed in the churches

of the _Raskolniks_, who have separated from the established church on

account of those reforms. These people often bring their own images to the

churches to pray before them, and it frequently happens amongst the boys

who worship in this way, that some of them, perceiving that their

neighbour has a finer image than their own, they steal it from him,

substituting that which belongs to them. This produces quarrels and

fighting amongst these boys, who reproach one another, saying, You

So-and-so, you have stolen my fine image which cost my father two roubles,

and left me this wretched one, which is not worth fifty copecs, _i.e._,

half a rouble. These scenes would be ludicrous if they were not positively

blasphemous, because these images are called on such occasions, as is

always done, by the name of gods, _boghi_.

It has been observed by some travellers in Russia that the image-dealers

of that country do not sell their wares, but, by a kind of legal fiction,

exchange them for a certain sum, and that consequently they are disposed

of at a fixed price. This is, however, not the case, and the image-dealers

of Russia make no exception to the other merchants of that country, who

generally ask for their goods the treble of their value, and a reasonable

price can only be obtained by hard bargaining. Only consecrated images,

_i.e._, those which have been sprinkled by a priest with holy water,

cannot be, I think, made an object of traffic.

The orthodox Russians have no less veneration for fine churches than for

splendidly adorned images, and the well-known German dramatic writer

Kotzebue gives in the relation of his forced voyage to Siberia,(116) under

the Emperor Paul, a characteristic trait of this disposition. The titulary

counsellor(117) Shchekatikhin, who conducted him to the place of his

exile, Kurghan, in the south of Siberia, showed a great reverence to all

the churches which they passed by. Whenever they passed a fine church

constructed of solid masonry, he doffed his cap and crossed himself most

fervently, whilst he treated very cavalierly all those which were built of

wood, making a hardly perceptible sign of the cross in their honour. This

national propensity to treat respectfully the great and disdainfully the

little, of which M. Shchekatikhin’s piety was such a characteristic

exemplification, has been, in its application to churches, described by

the great admirer of Russia, Baron Haxthausen, whose account of the

devotional practices observed by the upper classes of that country I have

given above, p. 173, in the following manner:—

“We saw, in most part of the villages on our road, fine new churches built

of stone or brick; but in one of them, called Novaya, I saw for the first

time an old wooden church, built of logs, and covered with boards and

shingles, such as they generally had been every where in Russia. These

wooden churches continually disappear, being replaced by those constructed

of masonry. The Russian peasantry consider it a particular honour to have

in their village a church of stone or brick. To leave a village with a

church of stone in order to settle in a place which has but a wooden one,

is considered as a degradation, and the inhabitants of the former would

hardly intermarry with those of the latter. The villages which have only a

wooden church, therefore, do all that they can in order to rise to an

equal grade with those who have one of stone or brick. This shows how the

pride of rank pervades the mind of the Russians in every form of life, and

in every class of the population. In cases of this kind, no promotion but

only a sum of money is required in order to obtain the desired rank. It

may be purchased by constructing a church of stone or brick. Such a church

costs ten, twenty, or thirty thousand silver roubles (six roubles equal to

one pound); but nothing is more easy than to get this sum. A dozen of

stout fellows disperse in various directions, to collect by begging the

sum required for the construction of the projected church, which is done

without any expense, as the collectors are hospitably received in every

house. As soon as the necessary sum is obtained, the village petitions the

government for a plan and for an architect, because the plan of every such

church must be approved at St Petersburg. Thus, in a few years, a fine

church is built, constructed in the modern style, and the rank of the

village rises in its own and in its neighbours’ opinion.

“Such things cannot be done in Western Europe, partly because an active

religious feeling amongst the people disappears more and more,(118) and

partly on account of the great fluctuation of their ideas, and want of

stability in their opinions. With the Russian it is quite otherwise. This

nation has no political ideas: but two sentiments pervade its whole

being—a common feeling of nationality, and a fervent attachment to the

national church. Whenever these two feelings take hold of the Russian’s

mind, he is ready willingly to sacrifice without a moment’s hesitation his

life and property.”(119)

It is these two national feelings that the Emperor Nicholas is now trying

to excite to the utmost pitch, and there can be little doubt that if he

succeeds in his object there will be a hard struggle between barbarity and

civilization, though the final triumph of the latter, to the advantage not

only of the victors, but also of the vanquished, cannot be doubted for a

moment. I must, however, return to Baron Haxthausen, who continues his

account of the Russian village churches, saying,—

“It must not be forgotten, in order to understand how such large

collections for a church of some obscure village, and made for the most

part amongst the peasants, are obtained, that _giving_ is as much in the

Russian character as _taking_. Nowhere property hangs upon such loose

threads and changes hands with such rapidity as in Russia. To-day rich,

to-morrow poor. People earn and squander away almost simultaneously; they

cheat and are cheated; they steal with one hand, and give away with the

other. The common Russian sets not his heart on any kind of property; he

loses with perfect equanimity what he had just earned, in the hope of

getting it again to-morrow.

“The Russian is, moreover, naturally good-hearted, charitable, and

liberal. A shopkeeper who had perhaps just cheated his neighbour of the

value of 20 copecs, without feeling any qualms of conscience on the

subject, will give one moment after it a rouble for the construction of a

church in some village to which he is a perfect stranger.”(120)

Thus, what Cicero said of Catiline, _Sui profusus alieni cupiens_, is

applicable, not only to individuals, but also to nations, whose actions

are swayed by feeling without being regulated by principle. It is almost

superfluous to observe that a nation thus disposed, and with whom

superstitious practices have a greater weight than religious principles,

may be easily precipitated into the most violent and dangerous courses,

which to accomplish seems now to be the object of the Emperor of Russia.

The Græco-Russian Church has an immense number of relics of saints, to

which all that Calvin has said of those of the Roman Catholic Church is

applicable. I have given, in a note to his treatise on this subject, an

account of St Anthony’s relics in Russia, as a counterpart to those which

the same saint possesses in western Europe. There are, indeed, many relics

to the exclusive possession of which both these churches lay an equal

claim, each of them representing her own as the only genuine, and that of

her rival as a spurious one. The most celebrated of these disputed relics

is the holy coat of Treves, and that of Moscow. It is well known what a

noise the former of these produced in 1844, when an immense number of

pilgrims came to worship it; and it is pretended that it had been found by

the Empress Helena, with the true cross, and presented by her to the town

of Treves. The coat of Moscow was given as a present to the Czar by a Shah

of Persia, and its genuineness was established by a Russian archbishop,

who asserted that, when he passed through Georgia on his return from

Jerusalem, he saw in a church of that country a golden box placed upon a

column, and which, as it was told to him, contained the coat without a

seam of our Lord. This statement was corroborated by an eastern monk, then

at Moscow, who related that it was generally believed in Palestine, that

when the soldiers cast lots for the possession of that coat, it fell to

the part of one of them, who, being a native of Georgia, took it with him

to his native land. These statements were sufficient to establish the

authenticity of the relic, which consequently was licensed to work

miracles and worked them.(121)

The most celebrated collection of relics in Russia is found in the town of

Kioff, on the Dnieper, and where the bodies of many hundreds of saints are

deposited in a kind of crypt called _Piechary_, _i.e._, caverns. The

chronicles relate that the digging of this sacred cavern was commenced in

the eleventh century by two monks called Anthony and Theodosius, who had

come from the Mount Athos, for their own and their disciples’ abode. It

was gradually extended, but the living established themselves afterwards

in a convent above ground, leaving to the dead the part under it. This

statement is considered to be authentic, but the numerous bodies of the

saints with which the long subterranean galleries of that cavern are

filled, have never been satisfactorily accounted for. It is the opinion of

many, that the nature of the soil is so dry, that, absorbing all the

moisture, it keeps the dead bodies which are deposited there in a more or

less perfect state of preservation; and it is said that an enlightened

archbishop of Kioff proved it by a successful experiment, putting into

that place the bodies of two women, who had been confined as prisoners in

a nunnery for their many vices. Be it as it may, Kioff is the resort of an

immense number of pilgrims, who arrive from all parts of Russia, to

worship the bodies of the saints, and the riches accumulated by their

pious donations at that place are only second to those of Troitza (p.

181).

The shrines of Jerusalem, which attract crowds of pilgrims from all parts

of the Christian world, had been for a long time a subject of dispute

between the Latins and the Greeks, and it is well known that the

politico-religious complications in which Europe is at present involved

have arisen from the claims of Russia relating to those shrines. It will,

therefore, I think, be not uninteresting to my readers to see the devout

manner in which these shrines are worshipped by the pilgrims of the

Græco-Russian Church; and I subjoin the two following accounts of this

subject, written at an interval of a century and a half, in order that my

readers may be able to judge for themselves whether the progress of

civilization during this period has had much influence on the pilgrims

alluded to above.

The first of these accounts is an extract from the diary of an English

clergyman, the Rev. Henry Maundrell, a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford,

and chaplain to the English factory at Aleppo, who visited Jerusalem in

the year 1697:—

“_Saturday, April 3d._—We went about mid-day to see the function of the

holy fire. This is a ceremony kept by the Greeks and Armenians, upon a

persuasion that every Easter Eve there is a miraculous flame descends from

heaven into the Holy Sepulchre, and kindles all the lamps and candles

there, as the sacrifice was burnt at the prayer of Elijah.—(1 Kings

xviii.)

“Coming to the church of the Holy Sepulchre, we found it crowded with a

numerous and distracted mob, making a hideous clamour, very unfit for that

sacred place, and better becoming bacchanals than Christians. Getting,

with some struggle, through this crowd, we went up into the gallery, on

that side of the church next the Latin convent, whence we could discern

all that passed in this religious frenzy.

“They began their disorders by running round the Holy Sepulchre with all

their might and swiftness, crying out as they went, ‘_Huia!_’ which

signifies ‘_This is he_,’ or, ‘_This is it_,’ an expression by which they

assert the verity of the Christian religion. After they had by their

vertiginous circulations and clamours turned their heads, and inflamed

their madness, they began to act the most antic tricks and postures, in a

thousand shapes of distraction. Sometimes they dragged one another along

the floor, all around the sepulchre; sometimes they set one man upright on

another’s shoulders, and in this posture marched round; sometimes they

turned men with their heels upwards, and hurried them about in such an

indecent manner as to expose their nudities; sometimes they tumbled round

the sepulchre, after the manner of tumblers on the stage. In a word,

nothing can be imagined more rude or extravagant than what was acted upon

this occasion.

“In this tumultuous frantic humour they continued from twelve to four of

the clock, the reason of which delay was because of a suit that was then

in debate before the cadi betwixt the Greeks and Armenians, the former

endeavouring to exclude the latter from having any share in this miracle.

Both parties having expended (as I was informed) five thousand dollars

between them in this foolish controversy, the cadi at last gave sentence

that they should enter the Holy Sepulchre together, as had been usual at

former times. Sentence being thus given, at four of the clock both nations

went on with their ceremony. The Greeks first set out in a procession

round the Holy Sepulchre, and immediately at their heels followed the

Armenians. In this order they compassed the Holy Sepulchre thrice, having

produced all their gallantry of standards, streamers, crucifixes, and

embroidered habits on this occasion.

“Toward the end of this procession, there was a pigeon came fluttering

into the cupola over the sepulchre, at the sight of which there was a

greater shout and clamour than before. This bird, the Latins told us, was

purposely let fly by the Greeks to deceive the people into an opinion that

it was a visible descent of the Holy Ghost.

“The procession being over, the suffragan of the Greek patriarch (he being

himself at Constantinople), and the principal Armenian bishop, approached

to the door of the sepulchre, and cutting the string with which it was

fastened and sealed, entered in, shutting the door after them, all the

candles and lamps within having been before extinguished in the presence

of the Turks and other witnesses. The exclamations were doubled as the

miracle drew nearer its accomplishment, and the people pressed with such

vehemence towards the door of the Sepulchre, that it was not in the power

of the Turks set to guard it with the severest checks to keep them off.

The cause of their pressing in this manner is the great desire they have

to light their candles at the holy flame, as soon as it is first brought

out of the Sepulchre, it being esteemed the most sacred and pure, as

coming immediately from heaven.

“The two miracle-mongers had not been above a minute in the Holy Sepulchre

when the glimmering of the holy fire was seen, or imagined to appear,

through some chinks of the door, and certainly Bedlam itself never saw

such an unruly transport as was produced in the mob at this sight.

Immediately after came out the two priests, with blazing torches in their

hands, which they held up at the door of the Sepulchre, while the people

thronged about with inexpressible ardour, every one striving to obtain a

part of the first and purest flame. The Turks in the meantime, with huge

clubs, laid on them without mercy; but all this could not repel them, the

excess of their transport making them insensible of pain. Those that got

the fire applied it immediately to their beards, faces, and bosoms,

pretending that it would not burn like an earthly flame; but I plainly saw

none of them could endure this experiment long enough to make good that

pretension.

“So many hands being employed, you may be sure it could not be long before

innumerable tapers were lighted. The whole church, galleries and every

place, seemed instantly to be in a flame, and with this illumination the

ceremony ended.

“It must be owned that those two within the sepulchre performed their part

with great quickness and dexterity; but the behaviour of the rabble

without very much discredited the miracle. The Latins take a great deal of

pains to expose this ceremony as a most shameful imposture, and a scandal

to the Christian religion, perhaps out of envy that others should be

masters of so gainful a business; but the Greeks and Armenians pin their

faith upon it, and make their pilgrimages chiefly upon this motive; and it

is the deplorable unhappiness of their priests, that having acted the

cheat so long already, they are forced now to stand to it, for fear of

endangering the apostasy of their people.

“Going out of the church after the event was over, we saw several people

gathered about the stone of unction, who, having got a good store of

candles lighted with the holy fire, were employed in daubing pieces of

linen with the wicks of them and the melting wax, which pieces of linen

were designed for winding sheets; and it is the opinion of these poor

people that if they can but have the happiness to be buried in a shroud

smutted with this celestial fire, it will certainly secure them from the

flames of hell.”—(P. 127, _et seq._, eighth edition, 1810.)

Many people may, however, believe that scenes of such an outrageous

description as that witnessed by Maundrell might have happened in his

time, viz., 1697, but that their repetition is quite impossible in our own

enlightened age. The following account of the same scenes by Mr Calman,

whose veracity is attested by a high authority, and who had an opportunity

of seeing it only a few years ago, which has been reproduced in a little,

and now particularly interesting book, “The Shrines of the Holy

Land,”(122) may enable my readers to judge of the influence which the

boasted march of intellect has produced on the Græco-Russian pilgrims, who

assemble every Easter at Jerusalem.

“To notice all that was passing,” says Mr Calman, “within the church of

the Holy Sepulchre during the space of twenty-four hours, would be next to

impossible, because it was one continuation of shameless madness and

rioting, which would have been a disgrace to Greenwich and Smithfield.

Only suppose for a moment the mighty edifice crowded to excess with

fanatic pilgrims of all the Eastern Churches, who, instead of lifting pure

hands to God, without wrath and quarrelling, are led, by the petty

jealousy about precedency which they should maintain in the order of their

processions, into tumults and fighting, which can only be quelled by the

scourge and whip of the followers of the false prophet.

“Suppose, farther, those thousands of devotees running from one extreme to

the other, from the extreme of savage irritation to that of savage

enjoyment, of mutual revellings and feastings, like Israel of old, who,

when they made the golden calf, were eating and drinking, and rising to

play. Suppose troops of men stripped half naked, to facilitate their

actions, running, trotting, jumping, galloping to and fro, the breadth and

length of the church, walking on their hands with their feet aloft in the

air, mounting on one another’s shoulders, some in a riding and some in a

standing position, and by the slightest push are all sent to the ground in

one confused heap, which made one fear for their safety.

“Suppose, farther, many of the pilgrims dressed in fur caps, like the

Polish Jews, whom they feigned to represent, and whom the mob met with all

manner of insult, hurrying them through the church as criminals who had

been condemned, amid loud execrations and shouts of laughter, which

indicated that Israel is still a derision amongst these heathens, by whom

they are still counted as sheep for the slaughter.

“About two o’clock on Saturday afternoon, the preparations for the

miraculous fire commenced. The multitude, who had been hitherto in a state

of frenzy and madness, became a little more quiet, but it proved a quiet

that precedes a thunderstorm. Bishops and priests, in full canonicals,

then issued forth from their respective quarters, with flags and banners,

crucifixes and crosses, lighted candles and smoking censers, to join or

rather to lead a procession, which moved thrice round the church, invoking

every picture, altar, and relic in their way to aid them in obtaining the

miraculous fire.

“The procession then returned to the place from whence it started, and two

grey-headed bishops, the one of the Greek and the other of the Armenian

Church, were hurled by the soldiers through the crowd, into the apartment

which communicated with that of the Holy Sepulchre, where they locked

themselves in; there the marvellous fire was to make its first appearance,

and from thence issue through the small circular windows and the door, for

the use of the multitude. The eyes of all—men, women, and children—were

now directed towards the Holy Sepulchre with an anxious expression,

awaiting the issue of their expectation. The mixed multitude, each in his

or her own language, were pouring forth their clamorous prayers to the

Virgin and the saints to intercede for them on behalf of the object for

which they were assembled, and the same were tenfold increased by the

fanatic gestures and the waving of the garments by the priests of their

respective communions, who were interested in the holy fire, and who were

watching by the above-mentioned door and circular windows, with torches in

their hands, ready to receive the virgin flame of the heavenly fire, and

carry it to their flocks.

“In about twenty minutes from the time the bishops locked themselves in

the apartment of the Holy Sepulchre, the miraculous fire made its

appearance through the door and the two small windows, as expected. The

priests were the first who lighted their torches, and they set out on a

gallop in the direction of their lay brethren; but some of these

errandless and profitless messengers had the misfortune to be knocked down

by the crowd, and had their firebrands wrested out of their hands, but

some were more fortunate, and safely reached their destination, around

whom the people flocked like bees, to have their candles lighted. Others,

however, were not satisfied at having the holy fire second hand, but

rushed furiously towards the Holy Sepulchre, regardless of their own

safety, and that of those who obstructed their way, though it has

frequently happened that persons have been trampled to death on such

occasions.

“Those who were in the galleries let down their candles by cords, and drew

them up when they had succeeded in their purpose. In a few minutes

thousands of flames were ascending, the smoke and the heat of which

rendered the church like the bottomless pit. To satisfy themselves, as

well as to convince the Latins, the pilgrims, women as well as men,

shamefully exposed their bare bosoms to the action of the flame of their

lighted candles, to make their adversaries believe the miraculous fire

differs from an ordinary one in being perfectly harmless.

“The two bishops, who a little while before locked themselves in the

apartment of the Holy Sepulchre, now sallied forth out of it. When the

whole multitude had their candles lighted, the bishops were caught by the

crowd, lifted upon their shoulders, and carried to their chapels, amidst

loud and triumphant acclamations. They soon, however, reappeared at the

head of a similar procession to the one before, as a pretended

thank-offering to the Almighty for the miraculous fire vouchsafed.”—(P.

121, _et seq._)

It appears, by comparing these two narratives of one and the same thing,

though separated by a distance of a hundred and fifty years, that the only

difference which will be found between them is, that in the time of

Maundrell, 1697, the miraculous fire was produced in about one minute’s

time, whilst the performance of the same trick required twenty when it was

observed by Mr Calman. And, indeed, it has been justly observed by both

these writers, that the exhibitors of the miraculous fire, having

continued so long to practise this imposture, cannot leave it off without

ruining their authority and influence over those whom they have thus been

cheating for many centuries. This circumstance has been most pointedly

expressed by the author of the work from which I have extracted Mr

Calman’s description of this pious, or rather impious, fraud, and who

says:—

“Had it been an occasional miracle, as time had rolled on, and truth had

more and more illuminated the human mind, the practice might have been

gradually discontinued. As the priests had grown more honest, and the

people more enlightened, they might have mutually consigned these pious

frauds to the oblivion of the darker ages; and if the blush of shame had

risen up at the memories of the past, the world would have respected them

the more for their honesty of purpose.

“But an _annual miracle_, always of the same specific kind, exhibited on

the same spot, and at the same hour,—an _annual miracle_,—at what point of

time should this be discontinued? and, if discontinued, would it not be

manifest either that heaven had forsaken its favourites, or that all the

past had been delusion and imposture?”—(Pp. 127, 128.)

And it is the authority of a church supported by such impious and shameful

impostures as this miraculous fire that a number of Anglicans, including

several dignitaries of the church, are anxious of preserving against

Protestant encroachments, and protest against the existence of the

Protestant bishopric of Jerusalem, for fear that it might injure the faith

of the pilgrims, and put an end to such sacred juggleries as the one

described above, which outrivals the most superstitious practices of

ancient or modern Paganism! And it is for the predominance of this same

church that the autocrat of Russia has now plunged Europe into a war which

may prove one of the bloodiest that modern times have witnessed, and

proclaimed a Græco-Russian crusade against the Ottoman Porte and its

Christian allies! This last-named circumstance may, I think, render it not

uninteresting to my readers to know the manner in which this question is

viewed by Russians of elevated rank and superior education. I would

therefore recommend to their attention a little pamphlet(123) recently

published in English by an accomplished Russian, who had studied at the

University of Edinburgh, and had enjoyed friendly intercourse with the

most eminent characters of that learned body, leaving with all those who

had known him a most favourable impression of his personal character and

talents. His opinions, therefore, are not those of an ignorant fanatic, or

a hireling of the Government, but must be considered as an expression of

those entertained by the upper classes of Russian society. He compares in

this pamphlet the position of Russia towards the followers of the Eastern

Church in Turkey, to that of England towards the Protestants of other

countries, saying:—

“You translate the Bible into all living languages, not excluding the

Turkish idiom, and you distribute the holy volumes to the shopkeeper of

Constantinople, and to the shepherd who tends his camels amidst the ruins

of Ephesus. We are not as laborious propagators of the faith; but yet we

would fain intercede in favour of the Turk when your copy of the Bible has

converted him to the Christian faith, and who, by the law of the land,

must have his head cut off for this transgression. Mark that the

obligation is much more binding on us than it is on you, and not the less

binding from the job having been begun by yourselves. The Turks are spread

amongst the Greeks and surrounded by them. There are ten thousand chances

to one, that if the Moslem be converted at all, it is to that creed of

which the church stands in his immediate eye, and that creed is ours. But,

strange to say, it is because of that very chance that we are to be

prohibited from meddling in the matter. With the French and with the

English the case is far different. They, indeed, we are told, claim the

right of protection only over thousands; but you claim that same right

over millions, and, therefore, you shall not have it. The question you

may, however, say, is not fairly put, for should a Turk be converted, and

on the point of losing his head, we are ready to interpose with our

authority, even though it be to the Greek Church that he should have

turned. Well! but place yourselves for a moment in our situation. Are we

to leave to you the work which has been done in our vineyard, and not

stand up for those who have embraced the cross, merely because there are

millions in that realm who embrace it? The case stands equally the same

with regard to the far greater number of human beings who are born and

have grown up in the profession of our faith. Without attempting to prove

that they are exposed to constant cruelty and oppression, a fact which has

been strenuously denied without the denial having ever been proved, it is

abundantly known, and an indisputable fact, that the Greeks are in a state

of continual bondage, deprived of the dearest rights of men, condemned, in

a religious point of view, to a state of thraldom such as exists in no

other part of the world, inasmuch as the supreme head of their church is

installed in his dignity, maintained in the same, or deposed by a

sovereign professing a faith hostile to his own. Is such a state of things

to be tolerated by those who are its victims? and is not this in itself a

hardship greater than any other that can be imagined? The English have

given us, in a period, it is true, of greater zeal for their faith, an

example of active sympathy manifested by them towards their brothers in

belief, subjects of a neighbouring and powerful sovereign. The case was

not as urgent as the one to which I compare it, inasmuch as the Huguenots

of France were not the subjects of a Mussulman sovereign. But this,

perhaps, will be brought home as an argument against me, for such is the

hatred of sects proceeding from the same faith, that England would,

perhaps, have borne more meekly the hardships endured by the Calvinistic

brethren, if they had been subjected thereunto by a Soliman, and not by

him who styled himself the most Christian king of France. However this may

be, it is said at present that, whether oppressed or no, the Greeks never

solicited our intervention. To this it may be answered, that the whole

difficulty would have been solved by the very fact of the solicitation,

for had they had the courage and the means to send a similar and unanimous

message to the Emperor of Russia, they would have had the strength and

unanimity required themselves to strike the blow, and make all

intervention useless. The fact of their having not risen as a man in their

own cause, is a sufficient explanation for their want of boldness in

soliciting their deliverance at the hands of a foreign state. But laying

aside the question of the _subjects_ of the Ottoman empire professing the

Greek faith, to speak of the much more vital interest of the faith itself,

professed as it is by ourselves, let it be permitted to me to submit to

your candid decision, if the work of defending that faith does not belong

pre-eminently to us, and neither to the English nor the French. We

tolerate in the whole extent of our empire both the Roman Catholic and the

Lutheran communions of faith; we have millions of subjects professing both

creeds; we build churches for them. Long before the Roman Catholics were

emancipated in England, the posts of the highest honour, of the greatest

confidence, and of the largest perquisites in the army, the senate, and

the supreme council of the empire, were opened indiscriminately by us to

men professing the Greek, Roman, or Lutheran creeds. Is it because of our

tolerance with respect to sects not our own, that we are condemned to be

indifferent to the hardships of those of our own faith? Are we not only to

allow your church to stand unmolested within our own realm, but also to

allow our own church to fall in ruins within the limits of a neighbouring

state? If so, you condemn our toleration, you call it indifference and

disbelief.”—(P. 9, _et seq._)

It is perfectly true that there are in Russia several millions of

Protestants and Roman Catholics, and that many of the highest offices,

civil as well as military, are occupied by them; for it is well known that

the most efficient servants of the Russian government are chiefly

foreigners, either by birth or extraction. This tolerance, however, is

always getting more and more restricted; and I have alluded above, on pp.

161-163, to the persecution of the Greeks united with Rome, as well as the

systematical proselytism by force and fraud amongst the Protestants of the

Baltic provinces. The author says that a Mahometan who becomes a convert

to Christianity must lose his head by the laws of Turkey, but he does not

tell us what fate awaits a follower of the Greek Church in Russia who

would become a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. M. de Custine relates, in

his well-known work on Russia,(124) that a Russian gentleman, who enjoyed

a high social position at Moscow, published a work, which the censor

allowed in an unaccountable manner to pass, maintaining that the influence

of the Roman Catholic Church is much more favourable to the progress of

civilization than that of the Græco-Russian one, and that the social

condition of Russia would have been much more advanced by the former than

it has been by the latter. This work produced a great sensation, and the

punishment of the author of such a blasphemy was loudly demanded by the

orthodox Russians. This affair being submitted to the Emperor, he declared

that the author was _insane_, and ordered to treat him accordingly. The

unfortunate individual consequently was put into a madhouse, and though

perfectly sane, was subjected to the most rigorous treatment as a lunatic,

so that he nearly became in reality what he was _officially_ declared to

be, and it was only after several years of this moral and physical torture

that he was permitted to have a little more liberty, though still retained

in confinement.

I do not know what has become of this unfortunate man, but the truth of

this nameless act of tyranny has been fully admitted by Mr Gretsch, who

wrote, by the order of the Russian Government, an answer to the work of

Custine. He says that the individual in question, a Mr Chadayeff, having

committed an action which the laws of Russia punish with great severity,

the Emperor Nicholas, desiring to save the culprit from the penalty which

he had incurred, ordered, by an act of mercy, to treat him simply as a

madman.

Now, I think that the penalty of physical death, inflicted by the Turkish

law on the converts from Mahometanism to Christianity, may be considered

as humane, if compared to the murder of soul and intellect by the slow

process of a moral and physical torture, to which a man has been subjected

in Russia for his religious opinions; and if such an atrocious punishment

was inflicted by an act of _imperial mercy_, as a mitigation of the

severity of the law, what would it have been if the letter of that law had

been fulfilled? “_Ferrea jura, insanumque forum._”

If, according to the opinion of the Russian writer, his countrymen have a

right of interfering in behalf of the followers of their church in Turkey,

on account of the community of their faith, the same right is possessed by

Great Britain and other Protestant States, as well as by France and other

Roman Catholic powers, to interfere in behalf of their brethren in the

faith who are oppressed by Russia. With regard to the observation of the

same author, “that the Greeks are in a continual state of bondage,

deprived of the dearest rights of men, condemned, in a religious point of

view, to a state of thraldom such as exists in no other part of the world,

inasmuch as the supreme head of their church is installed in his dignity,

maintained in the same, or deposed, by a sovereign professing a faith

hostile to his own,” I must remark that he has forgotten, in saying that

such a state of thraldom exists not in any other part of the world, to

add, _except in Russia_, because all the Roman Catholic bishops and other

dignitaries of their church, as well as the Protestant superintendents,

presidents of consistories, &c., “are installed in their dignity,

maintained in the same, or deposed, by a sovereign professing a faith

hostile to their own.” And his question, “Is such a state of things to be

tolerated by its victims? and is it not in itself a hardship greater than

any other that can be imagined?” is as much applicable to the Protestants

and Roman Catholics of Russia as it is to the Christians of Turkey.

The “Russian, Quondam Civis Bibliothecæ Edinensis,” carries his zeal for

the orthodox Greek Church so far as to recommend its adoption to the

English:—

“Do you not see every day, in your own country, the encroaching action of

the See of Rome? And here I cannot refrain from exclaiming, how strange it

is to see every day converts in crowds passing from the Protestant to the

Roman faith, and not pausing for a moment to reflect if they have not a

smaller space to cross, and a safer haven to come to in the bosom of the

Græco-Catholic Church, the same as that of Rome, minus the anti-apostolic

double procession of the Holy Ghost, minus an infallible pope, minus the

sale of indulgences, and last, though not least, minus the arbitrary

exclusion of the blood of Christ from the holy communion given to laymen!

Is it not strange, that on the moment of abjuring your reformations, you

should fly into the arms of a church which _has_ introduced reformations

of its own, and not appeal to that one church which professes with evident

truth to have admitted no changes at all, and kept intact the purity of

her tradition? But, again, this is no theological disquisition.

Witnessing, however, as I said above, in your own kingdom, the daily

increasing influence of the Roman See, you can surely understand how

legitimately jealous we must be of the same influence extending within the

precincts of our sheepfold. And, therefore, not only is our faith to be

preserved unmolested, but the saving deed is to be done by _us_, and not

through the agency of English and French ambassadors or fleets, to be

achieved in the name of the faith we profess in common with our Greek

brethren, and by no means stipulated in the name of universal freedom of

thought. I think I have said enough to prove the vital and cordial

interest which Russia cannot but take in the cause of her own church, and

of those who profess it in Turkey, and the paramount necessity she is

under of making that cause her own.”—(P. 12, _et seq._)

If the Russian author is so anxious to convert the British Protestants to

the Græco-Russian, or, as he calls her, “Græco-Catholic” Church, he may

translate her controversial works into English, and build places of

worship where image-kissing, prostration, incense, and holy water, may be

exhibited for the edification of the British heretics, _ad libitum_.

Nobody will interfere with their ceremonies, not even with their

preachings against Protestantism, because its disciples in Great Britain

are satisfied with defending their religion by spiritual weapons, and do

not resort to material arms, except in repressing either public or private

acts of violence. As regards the dogmatic pre-eminence of his church over

that of Rome,—her rejection of the “_anti-apostolic double procession of

the Holy Ghost_,”—which has been, I think, retained by the English Church,

&c., I leave this subject to the decision of theologians, but shall only

observe that the worship of images, relics, and other pagan practices,

which I have described in this chapter, do not prove much in favour of the

_purity of her tradition_. I would also ask whether it is in accordance

with this tradition that the Russian clergy, notwithstanding all their

claims to apostolic succession, are governed by the Czar, who sometimes

delegates for this purpose a colonel of hussars,(125) which office, I

believe, was never known, even in the most militant of churches? It has

been, indeed, well said by the Marquis de Custine, that the Russian clergy

are but an army wearing regimentals somewhat different from the dress of

the regular troops of the empire. The papas and their bishops are under

the direction of the emperor, a regiment of clerks, and that is all.(126)

It is in order to extend the advantages of this military organization to

the Christians of Turkey that Russia, according to the opinion of our

author, “_is __ under the paramount necessity of making their cause her

own_.” All that I say is, that she felt the same necessity of making the

cause of the Greeks and Protestants of Poland _her own_, and that she

ended by making the same thing with their country.

The politico-religious complications into which Europe has now been thrown

by the ambition of Russia have induced me particularly to dwell upon the

means which the church of that country offers for the promotion of the

political schemes of its rulers. With regard to the superstitious

practices borrowed from Paganism, and peculiar to that church, the most

remarkable is, perhaps, that heathen custom called _parentales_, mentioned

before, p. 62, and which may be found in different parts of Russia. People

assemble on Monday, after the Easter week, in churchyards, where they eat

and drink to great excess, in commemoration of their deceased relatives.

There are many other similar practices, as, for instance, that of

providing the dead body with a kind of passport or written testimony of

his religious conduct, &c., probably imported with the Christian religion

by the Greek Church, because at the time of the conversion of Russia, this

church had already introduced painted though not carved(127) images, to

which allusion has been made on p. 12 of this Essay.

CALVIN’S TREATISE ON RELICS, WITH NOTES BY THE TRANSLATOR.

St Augustinus complains, in his work entitled “The Labour of Monks,” that

certain people were, even in his time, exercising a dishonest trade,

hawking about relics of martyrs, and he adds the following significant

words, “_should they really be relics of martyrs_,” from which we may

infer, that even then abuses and deceits were practised, by making simple

folks believe that bones, picked up any where, were bones of saints. Since

the origin of this abuse is so ancient, there can be no doubt that it has

greatly increased during a long interval of years, particularly as the

world has been much corrupted since that age, and has continued to

deteriorate until it has arrived at its present condition.

Now, the origin and root of this evil has been, that, instead of

discerning Jesus Christ in his Word, his Sacraments, and his Spiritual

Graces, the world has, according to its custom, amused itself with his

clothes, shirts, and sheets, leaving thus the principal to follow the

accessory.

It did the same thing with the apostles, martyrs, and other saints, and,

instead of observing their lives in order to imitate their examples, it

directed all its attention to the preservation and admiration of their

bones, shirts, sashes, caps, and other similar trash.

I know well that there is a certain appearance of real devotion and zeal

in the allegation, that the relics of Jesus Christ are preserved on

account of the honour which is rendered to him, and in order the better to

preserve his memory. But it is necessary to consider what St Paul says,

that every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom

it may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no

other foundation than our own devising. Moreover, it is necessary to set

the profit derived from it against the dangers with which it is fraught,

and it will thus be found that, to have relics is a useless and frivolous

thing, which will most probably gradually lead towards idolatry, because

they cannot be handled and looked upon without being honoured, and in

doing this men will very soon render them the honour which is due to Jesus

Christ. In short, the desire for relics is never without superstition, and

what is worse, it is usually the parent of idolatry. Every one admits that

the reason why our Lord concealed the body of Moses, was that the people

of Israel should not be guilty of worshipping it. Now, we may conclude

that the act to be avoided with regard to the body of Moses must be

equally shunned with regard to the bodies of all other saints, and for the

same reason—because it is sin. But let us leave the saints, and consider

what St Paul says of Jesus Christ himself, for he protests that he knew

him not according to the flesh, but only after his resurrection,

signifying by these words, that all that is carnal in Jesus Christ must be

forgotten and put aside, and that we should employ and direct our whole

affections to seek and possess him according to the spirit. Consequently

the pretence that it is a good thing to have some memorials either of

himself or of the saints, to stimulate our piety, is nothing but a cloak

for indulging our foolish cravings which have no reasonable foundation;

and should even this reason appear insufficient, it is openly repugnant to

what the Holy Ghost has declared by the mouth of St Paul, and what can be

said more?

It is of no use to discuss the point whether it is right or wrong to have

relics merely to keep them as precious objects, without worshipping them,

because experience proves that this is never the case.

It is true that St Ambrose, in speaking of Helena, the mother of the

Emperor Constantine the Great, who sought with great trouble and expense

for the cross of our Lord, says that she did not worship the wood, but the

Lord who was suspended upon it. But it is a very rare thing, that a heart

disposed to value any relics whatever should not become to a certain

degree polluted by some superstition.

I admit that people do not arrive at once at open idolatry, but they

gradually advance from one abuse to another until they fall into this

extremity, and, indeed, those who call themselves Christians have, in this

respect, idolatrised as much as Pagans ever did. They have prostrated

themselves, and knelt before relics, just as if they were worshipping God;

they have burnt candles before them in sign of homage; they have placed

their confidence in them, and have prayed to them, as if the virtue and

the grace of God had entered into them. Now, if idolatry be nothing else

than the transfer elsewhere of the honour which is due to God, can it be

denied that this is idolatry? This cannot be excused by pretending that it

was only the improper zeal of some idiots or foolish women, for it was a

general custom approved by those who had the government of the church, and

who had even placed the bones of the dead and other relics on the high

altar, in the greatest and most prominent places, in order that they

should be worshipped with more certainty.

It is thus that the foolish fancy which people had at first for collecting

relics, ended in this open abomination,—they not only turned from God, in

order to amuse themselves with vain and corruptible things, but even went

on to the execrable sacrilege of worshipping dead and insensible

creatures, instead of the one living God. Now, as one evil never comes

alone but is always followed by another, it thus happened that where

people were seeking for relics, either of Jesus Christ or the saints, they

became so blind that whatever name was imposed upon any rubbish presented

to them, they received it without any examination or judgment; thus the

bones of an ass or dog, which any hawker gave out to be the bones of a

martyr, were devoutly received without any difficulty. This was the case

with all of them, as will be shown hereafter.

For my own part, I have no doubt that this has been a great punishment

inflicted by God. Because, as the world was craving after relics, and

turning them to a wicked and superstitious use, it was very likely that

God would permit one lie to follow another; for this is the way in which

he punishes the dishonour done to his name, when the glory due to him is

transferred elsewhere. Indeed, the only reason why there are so many false

and imaginary relics is, that God has permitted the world to be doubly

deceived and fallen, since it has so loved deceit and lies.

The first Christians left the bodies of the saints in their graves,

obeying the universal sentence, that _all flesh is dust, and_ TO DUST IT

MUST RETURN, and did not attempt their resurrection before the appointed

time by raising them in pomp and state. This example has not been followed

by their successors; on the contrary, the bodies of the faithful, in

opposition to the command of God, have been disinterred in order to be

glorified, when they ought to have remained in their places of repose

awaiting the last judgment.

They were worshipped; every kind of honour was shown to them, and people

put their trust in such things. And what was the consequence of all this?

The devil, perceiving man’s folly, was not satisfied with having led the

world into one deception, but added to it another, by giving the name of

_relics of saints_ to the most profane things. And God punished the

credulous by depriving them of all power of reasoning rightly, so that

they accepted without inquiry all that was presented to them, making no

distinction between white or black.

It is not my intention now to discuss the abominable abuse of the relics

of our Lord, as well as of the saints, at this present time, in the most

part of Christendom. This subject alone would require a separate volume;

for it is a well-known fact that the most part of the relics which are

displayed every where are false, and have been put forward by impostors

who have most impudently deceived the poor world. I have merely mentioned

this subject, to give people an opportunity of thinking it over, and of

being upon their guard. It happens sometimes that we carelessly approve of

a thing without taking the necessary time to examine what it really is,

and we are thus deceived for want of warning; but when we are warned, we

begin to think, and become quite astonished at our believing so easily

such an improbability. This is precisely what has taken place with the

subject in question. People were told, “This is the body of such a saint;

these are his shoes, those are his stockings;” and they believed it to be

so, for want of timely caution. But when I shall have clearly proved the

fraud which has been committed, all those who have sense and reason will

open their eyes and begin to reflect upon what has never before entered

their thoughts. The limits of my little volume forbid me from entering but

upon a small part of what I would wish to perform, for it would be

necessary to ascertain the relics possessed by every place in order to

compare them with each other. It would then be seen that every apostle had

more than four bodies,(128) and each saint at least two or three, and so

on. In short, if all the relics were collected into one heap, the only

astonishment would be that such a silly and clumsy imposition could have

blinded the whole earth.

As every, even the smallest Catholic church has a heap of bones and other

small rubbish, what would it be if all those things which are contained in

two or three thousand bishoprics, twenty or thirty thousand abbeys, more

than forty thousand convents, and so many parish churches and chapels,

were collected into one mass?(129) The best thing would be not merely to

name, but to visit them.

In this town (Geneva) there was formerly, it is said, an arm of St

Anthony; it was kissed and worshipped as long as it remained in its

shrine; but when it was turned out and examined, it was found to be the

bone of a stag. There was on the high altar the brain of St Peter; so long

as it rested in its shrine, nobody ever doubted its genuineness, for it

would have been blasphemy to do so; but when it was subjected to a close

inspection, it proved to be a piece of pumice-stone. I could quote many

instances of this kind; but these will be sufficient to give an idea of

the quantity of precious rubbish there would have been found if a thorough

and universal investigation of all the relics of Europe had ever taken

place. Many of those who look at relics close their eyes from

superstition, so that in regarding these they _see_ nothing; that is to

say, they dare not properly gaze at and consider what they properly may

be. Thus many who boast of having seen the whole body of St Claude, or of

any other saint, have never had the courage to raise their eyes and to

ascertain what it really was. The same thing may be said of the head of

Mary Magdalene, which is shown near Marseilles, with eyes of paste or wax.

It is valued as much as if it were God himself who had descended from

heaven; but if it were examined, the imposition would be clearly

detected.(130) It would be desirable to have an accurate knowledge of all

the trifles which in different places are taken for relics, or at least a

register of them, in order to show how many of them are false; but since

it is impossible to obtain this, I should like to have at least an

inventory of relics contained in ten or twelve such towns as Paris,

Toulouse, Poitiers, Rheims, &c. If I had nothing more than this, it would

form a very curious collection. Indeed, it is a wish I am constantly

entertaining to get such a precious repertory. However, as this is too

difficult, I thought it would be as well to publish the following little

warning, to awaken those who are asleep, and to make them consider what

may be the state of the entire church if there is so much to condemn in a

very small portion of it;—I mean, when people find so much deception in

the relics I shall name, and which are far from being the thousandth part

of those that are exhibited in various parts of the world, what must they

think of the remainder? moreover, if those which had been considered as

the most authentic proved to be fraudulent inventions, what can be thought

of the more doubtful ones? Would to God that Christian princes thought a

little on this subject! for it is their duty not to allow their subjects

to be deceived, not only by false doctrine, but also by such manifest

impositions. They will indeed incur a heavy responsibility for allowing

God to be thus mocked when they could prevent it.

I hope, however, that this little treatise will be of general service, by

inducing people to think on the subject; for, if we could have the

register of all the relics that are to be found in the world, men would

clearly see how much they had been blinded, and what darkness and folly

overspread the earth.

Let us begin with Jesus Christ, about whose blood there have been fierce

disputations; for many maintained that he had no blood except of a

miraculous kind; nevertheless the natural blood is exhibited in more than

a hundred places. They show at Rochelle a few drops of it, which, as they

say, was collected by Nicodemus in his glove. In some places they have

phials full of it, as, for instance, at Mantua and elsewhere; in other

parts they have cups filled with it, as in the Church of St Eustache at

Rome. They did not rest satisfied with simple blood; it was considered

necessary to have it mixed with water as it flowed out of his side when

pierced on the cross. This is preserved in the Church of St John of the

Lateran at Rome.

Now, I appeal to the judgment of every one whether it is not an evident

lie to maintain that the blood of Jesus Christ was found, after a lapse of

seven or eight hundred years, to be distributed over the whole world,

especially as the ancient church makes no mention of it?

Then come the things which have touched the body of our Lord. Firstly, the

manger in which he was placed at his birth is shown in the Church of

Madonna Maggiore at Rome.

In St Paul’s Church there are preserved the swaddling clothes in which he

was wrapped, though there are pieces of these clothes at Salvatierra in

Spain. His cradle is also at Rome, as well as the shirt his mother made

for him.

At the Church of St James, in the same city, is shown the altar upon which

he was placed at his presentation in the temple, as if there had been many

altars, according to the fashion of the Popish churches, where any number

of them may be erected. This is what they show relating to the time of

Christ’s childhood.

It is, indeed, not worth while seriously to discuss whence they obtained

all this trash, so long a time after the death of Jesus Christ. That man

must be of little mind who cannot see the folly of it. There is no mention

of these things in the Gospels, and they were never heard of in the times

of the apostles. About fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ,

Jerusalem was destroyed. Many ancient doctors have written since,

mentioning fully the occurrences of their time, even to the cross and

nails found by Helena, but these absurdities are not alluded to. But what

is more, these things were not brought forward at Rome during the days of

St Gregory, as may be seen from his writings; whilst after his death Rome

was several times taken, pillaged, and almost destroyed.

Now, what other conclusion can be drawn from these considerations but that

all these were inventions for deceiving silly folks? This has even been

confessed by some monks and priests, who call them _pious frauds_, _i.e._,

_honest deceits_ for exciting the devotion of the people.

After these come the relics belonging to the period from the childhood to

the death of Jesus Christ, such as the water pots in which Christ changed

water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana in Galilee.

One would naturally inquire how they were preserved for so long a time?

for it is necessary to bear in mind that they were not discovered until

eight hundred or a thousand years after the performance of the miracle.

I cannot tell all the places where these water pots are shown; I only know

that they can be seen at Pisa, Ravenna, Cluny, Antwerp, and Salvatierra in

Spain.(131)

At Orleans they have even the wine which was obtained by that miracle, and

once a-year the priests there give to those who bring offerings a small

spoonful, saying that they shall taste of the very wine made by our Lord

at the marriage feast, and its quantity never decreases, the cup being

always refilled. I do not know of what date are his shoes, which are

preserved in a place at Rome called _Sancta Sanctorum_, or whether he had

worn them in his childhood or manhood; but this is of little moment, for

what I have already mentioned sufficiently shows the gross imposition of

producing now the shoes of Jesus Christ, which were not possessed by the

apostles in their time.

Now, let us proceed to the last supper which Christ had with his apostles.

The table is at St John of the Lateran at Rome; some bread made for that

occasion at Salvatierra in Spain; and the knife with which the paschal

lamb was carved is at Tréves. Now, it is necessary to observe that Christ

made that supper in a borrowed room, and on going from thence he left the

table, which was not removed by the apostles. Jerusalem was soon

afterwards destroyed. How, then, could the table be found after a lapse of

eight hundred years?

Moreover, in the early ages tables were made of quite a different shape to

those of our days, for people then took their repasts in a lying, not in a

sitting posture—a circumstance expressly mentioned in the Gospels. The

deceit is therefore quite manifest, without more being added to prove it.

The cup in which Christ gave the sacrament of his blood to the apostles is

shown at Notre Dame de l’Isle, near Lyons; and there is another in a

convent of Augustine monks in the Albigéois;—which is the true one?

Charles Sigonius, a celebrated historian of our times, says, in his fourth

book on Italy, that Baldwin, second king of Jerusalem, captured in 1101,

with the assistance of the Genoese, the town of Cesarea in Syria, and

amongst the spoils taken by his allies was a vessel or cup of emerald,

which was considered to have been made use of by Jesus Christ at his last

supper. “Therefore,”—these are his own words,—“this cup is even now

devoutly preserved in the town of Genoa.”

According to this account, our Lord must have had a splendid service on

that occasion; for there would be as little propriety in drinking from

such a costly vessel without having the rest of the service of a similar

description, as there is in some Popish pictures where the Virgin Mary is

represented as a woman with her hair hanging over her shoulders, dressed

in a gown of cloth of gold, and riding on a donkey which Joseph leads by

the halter. We recommend our readers to consider well the Gospel texts

relating to this subject.

The case of the dish upon which the paschal lamb was placed is still

worse, for it is to be found at Rome, at Genoa, and at Arles. If these

holy relics be genuine, the customs of that time must have been quite

different from ours, because, instead of changing viands as we now do, the

dishes were changed for the same food!

The same may be said of the towel with which Jesus Christ wiped the feet

of the apostles, after having washed them; there is one at Rome at the

Lateran, one at Aix-la-Chapelle, and one at St Corneille of Compiegne,

with the print of the foot of Judas. Some of these must be false.

But we will leave the contending parties to fight out their own battles,

until one of them shall establish the reality of his case. It appears to

me, however, that trying to make people believe that a towel which Jesus

Christ had left in the place where it was used, had in several hundred

years afterwards found its way into Germany and Italy, is nothing better

than a gross imposture.

I nearly forgot to mention the bread with which five thousand persons were

miraculously fed in the desert, and of which a bit is shown at Rome, and

another piece at Salvatierra in Spain.

The Scripture says that a portion of manna was preserved in remembrance of

God having miraculously fed his people in the desert; but the Gospel does

not say a word respecting the preservation of the fragments of the five

loaves for a similar purpose; the subject is not mentioned in any ancient

history, nor does any ecclesiastical writer speak of it. It is therefore

very easily perceived that the above-mentioned pieces of bread are of

modern manufacture.

The principal relics of our Lord are, however, those relating to his

passion and death. And the first of them is the cross. I know that it is

considered to be a certain fact that it was found by Helena, the mother of

the Emperor Constantine; and I know also that some ancient doctors have

written about the manner in which the discovery was certified that it was

the true cross upon which our Lord had suffered. I think, however, that it

was a foolish curiosity, and a silly and inconsiderate devotion, which

prompted Helena to seek for that cross. But let us take for granted that

it was a laudable act, and that our Lord had declared by a miracle that it

was the real cross, and let us consider only the state of the case in our

own time.

It is maintained undoubtingly that the cross found by Helena is still at

Jerusalem, though this is contradicted by ecclesiastical history, which

relates that Helena took a piece of it, and sent it to her son the

emperor, who set it upon a column of porphyry, in the centre of a public

place or square, whilst the other portion of it was enclosed by her in a

silver case, and intrusted to the keeping of the Bishop of Jerusalem;

consequently, either the before-mentioned statement or this historical

record must be false.

Now let us consider how many relics of the true cross there are in the

world. An account of those merely with which I am acquainted would fill a

whole volume, for there is not a church, from a cathedral to the most

miserable abbey or parish church, that does not contain a piece. Large

splinters of it are preserved in various places, as for instance in the

Holy Chapel at Paris, whilst at Rome they show a crucifix of considerable

size made entirely, they say, from this wood. In short, if we were to

collect all these pieces of the true cross exhibited in various parts,

they would form a whole ship’s cargo.

The Gospel testifies that the cross could be borne by one single

individual; how glaring, then, is the audacity now to pretend to display

more relics of wood than three hundred men could carry! As an explanation

of this, they have invented the tale, that whatever quantity of wood may

be cut off this true cross, its size never decreases. This is, however,

such a clumsy and silly imposture, that the most superstitious may see

through it. The most absurd stories are also told respecting the manner in

which various pieces of the cross were conveyed to the places where they

are now shown; thus, for instance, we are informed that they were brought

by angels, or had fallen from heaven. By these means they seduce ignorant

people into idolatry, for they are not satisfied with deceiving the

credulous, by affirming that pieces of common wood are portions of the

true cross, but they pretend that it should be worshipped, which is a

diabolical doctrine, expressly reproved by St Ambrose as a Pagan

superstition.

After the cross comes the inscription, “_Jesus of Nazareth, King of the

Jews_,” which was placed upon it by order of Pilate. The town of Toulouse

claims the possession of this relic, but this is contradicted by Rome,

where it is shown in the Church of the Holy Cross. If these relics were

properly examined, it would be seen that the claims of both parties are

equally absurd.

There is a still greater contradiction concerning the nails of the cross.

I shall name those with which I am acquainted, and I think even a child

could see how the devil has been mocking the world by depriving it of the

power of discernment on this point. If the ancient writers, such as the

ecclesiastical historian Theodorite, tell the truth (_Historia

Tripartita_, lib. ii.), Helena caused one of the nails to be set in the

helmet of her son Constantine, and two others in the bridle of his horse.

St Ambrose, however, relates this differently, saying that one of the

nails was set in the crown of Constantine, a second was converted into a

bridle-bit for his horse, and the third was retained by Helena. Thus we

see that twelve hundred years ago there was a difference of opinion on

this subject, and how can we tell what has become of the nails since that

time? Now, they boast at Milan that they possess the nail which was in

Constantine’s bridle; this claim is, however, opposed by the town of

Carpentras. St Ambrose does not say that the nail was attached to the

bridle, but that the bit was made from it,—a circumstance which does not

agree with the claims of Milan or Carpentras. There is, moreover, one nail

in the Church of St Helena at Rome, and another in that of the Holy Cross

in the same city; there is a nail at Sienna, and another at Venice.

Germany possesses two, at Cologne and Tréves. In France there is one in

the Holy Chapel at Paris, another in the same city at the church of the

Carmelites, a third is at St Denis, a fourth at Bruges, a fifth at the

abbey of Tenaille in the Saintonge, a sixth at Draguignau, the whole

number making fourteen shown in different towns and countries.(132) Each

place exhibiting these nails produces certain proofs to establish the

genuineness of its relic, but all these claims may be placed on a par as

equally absurd.

Then follows the iron spear with which our Saviour’s side was pierced. It

could be but one, and yet by some extraordinary process it seems to have

been multiplied into four; for there is one at Rome, one at the Holy

Chapel at Paris, one at the abbey of Tenaille in Saintonge, and one at

Selve, near Bourdeaux.

With regard to the crown of thorns, one must believe that the slips of

which it was plaited had been planted, and had produced an abundant

growth, for otherwise it is impossible to understand how it could have

increased so much.

A third part of this crown is preserved at the Holy Chapel at Paris, three

thorns at the Church of the Holy Cross, and a number of them at St

Eustache in the same city; there are a good many of the thorns at Sienna,

one at Vicenza, four at Bourges, three at Besançon, three at Port Royal,

and I do not know how many at Salvatierra in Spain, two at St James of

Compostella, three at Albi, and one at least in the following

places:—Toulouse, Macon, Charroux in Poitiers; at Cleri, St Flour, St

Maximim in Provence, in the abbey of La Salle at St Martin of Noyon,

&c.(133)

It must be observed, that the early church has made no mention of this

crown, consequently the root that produced all these relics must have

grown a long time after the passion of our Lord. With regard to the coat,

woven throughout without a seam, for which the soldiers at the cross cast

lots, there is one to be seen at Argenteuil near Paris, and another at

Tréves in Germany.

It is now time to treat of the “_sudary_,” about which relic they have

displayed their folly even more than in the affair of the holy coat; for

besides the sudary of Veronica, which is shown in the Church of St Peter

at Rome, it is the boast of several towns that they each possess one, as

for instance Carcassone, Nice, Aix-la-Chapelle, Tréves, Besançon, without

reckoning the _fragments_ to be seen in various places.(134)

Now, I ask whether those persons were not bereft of their senses who could

take long pilgrimages, at much expense and fatigue, in order to see

sheets, of the reality of which there were no reasons to believe, but many

to doubt; for whoever admitted the reality of one of these sudaries shown

in so many places, must have considered the rest as wicked impostures set

up to deceive the public by the pretence that they were each the real

sheet in which Christ’s body had been wrapped. But it is not only that the

exhibitors of this one and the same relic give each other mutually the

lie, they are (what is far more important) positively contradicted by the

Gospel. The evangelists who speak of all the women who followed our Lord

to the place of crucifixion, make not the least mention of that Veronica

who wiped his face with a kerchief. It was in truth a most marvellous and

remarkable event, worthy of being recorded, that the face of Jesus Christ

was then miraculously imprinted upon the cloth, a much more important

thing to mention than the mere circumstance that certain women had

followed Jesus Christ to the place of crucifixion without meeting with any

miracle; and, indeed, had such a miracle taken place, we might consider

the evangelists wanting in judgment in not relating the most important

facts.

The same observations are applicable to the tale of the sheet in which the

body of our Lord was wrapped. How is it possible that those sacred

historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at

Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the

likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This

fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates

even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes

lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other;

but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord’s

figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have

omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this

kind. Another point to be observed is, that the evangelists do not mention

that either of the disciples or the faithful women who came to the

sepulchre had removed the clothes in question, but, on the contrary, their

account seems to imply that they were left there. Now, the sepulchre was

guarded by soldiers, and consequently the clothes were in their power. Is

it possible that they would have permitted the disciples to take them away

as relics, since these very men had been bribed by the Pharisees to

perjure themselves by saying that the disciples had stolen the body of our

Lord? I shall conclude with a convincing proof of the audacity of the

Papists. Wherever the holy sudary is exhibited, they show a large sheet

with the full-length likeness of a human body on it. Now, St John’s

Gospel, chapter nineteenth, says that Christ was buried according to the

manner of the Jews; and what was their custom? This may be known by their

present custom on such occasions, as well as from their books, which

describe the ancient ceremony of interment, which was to wrap the body in

a sheet, to the shoulders, and to cover the head with a separate cloth.

This is precisely how the evangelist described it, saying, that St Peter

saw on one side the clothes with which the body had been wrapped, and on

the other the napkin from about his head. In short, either St John is a

liar, or all those who boast of possessing the holy sudary are convicted

of falsehood and deceit.(135)

In the Church of St John of the Lateran at Rome, they show the reed which

the soldiers, mocking Christ in the house of Pilate, placed in his hand,

and with which they afterwards smote him on the head. In the Church of the

Holy Cross at Rome they show the sponge which was filled with vinegar, and

given him to drink during his passion. Now, I would ask, how were these

things obtained? They must have been formerly in the hands of infidels.

Could they have delivered them up to the apostles to be made relics of? or

did they preserve them themselves for future times?

What a sacrilege to make use of the name of Jesus Christ in order to

invent such absurd fables!

And what can we think of the pieces of silver received by Judas for

betraying our Saviour? The Gospel says that he returned this money to the

chief priests, who bought with it the potter’s field for a burial-place

for strangers.

By what means were these pieces of silver obtained from the seller of that

field? It would be too absurd to maintain that this was done by the

disciples of Jesus Christ; and if we are told that they were found a long

time afterwards, it will be still less probable, as this money must have

passed through many hands. It is therefore necessary to prove, that either

the person who sold his field did so for the purpose of obtaining the

silver pieces in order to make relics of them; or that he afterwards sold

them to the faithful. Nothing of this kind has ever been mentioned by the

primitive church.(136) To the same class of impositions belong the steps

of Pilate’s tribunal, which are exhibited in the Church of St John of the

Lateran, as well as the column to which Christ was fastened during the

flagellation, shown in the Church of St Prasedo in the same city, besides

two other pillars, round which he was conducted on his way to Calvary.

From whence these columns were taken it is impossible to conjecture. I

only know that the Gospel, in relating that Jesus Christ was scourged,

does not mention that he was fastened to a column or post. It really

appears as if these impostors had no other aim than to promulgate the most

fallacious statements, and, indeed, they carried this to such a degree of

extravagance, that they were not ashamed to make a relic of the tail of

the ass upon which our Lord entered into Jerusalem, which they show at

Genoa.(137) One really cannot tell which is most wonderful,—the folly and

credulity of those who devoutly receive such mockeries, or the boldness of

those who put them forth.

It may be said that it is not likely all these relics should be preserved

without some sort of correct history being kept of them. To this I reply

that such evident falsehoods can never bear the slightest resemblance to

truth, how much soever their claims may be supported by the names of

Constantine, Louis IX., or of some popes; for they will never be able to

prove that Christ was crucified with fourteen nails, or that a whole hedge

was used to plait his crown of thorns,—that the iron of the spear with

which his side was pierced had given birth to three other similar pieces

of iron,—that his coat was multiplied threefold,—and that from his single

sudarium a number of others have issued, or that Jesus Christ was buried

in a manner different from that described in the Gospels.

Now, if I were to show a piece of lead, saying, “This piece of gold was

given me by a certain prince,” I should be considered a madman, and my

words would not transmute the lead into gold.

Thus it is precisely when people say, “This thing was sent over by Godfrey

de Bouillon after his conquest of Judea.” Our reason shows us that this is

an evident lie. Are we then to be so much imposed upon by words as to

resist the evidence of our senses?

Moreover, in order to show how much reliance may be placed on the

statements which are given about these relics, we must remark that those

considered the principal and most authentic at Rome have been, according

to those accounts, brought thither by Vespasian and Titus. Now, this is

such a clumsy fabrication,—they might just as well tell us that the Turks

went to Jerusalem in order to carry off the true cross to Constantinople!

Vespasian conquered and ravaged a part of Judea before he was elected

emperor, and his son Titus completed that conquest by the capture and

destruction of Jerusalem. They were both Pagans, and had no more regard

for Christ than if he had never existed on earth. Consequently to maintain

that Vespasian and Titus carried off the above-mentioned relics to Rome,

is even a more flagrant falsehood than the stories about Godfrey of

Bouillon and St Louis.

Moreover, it is well known that the times of St Louis were very

superstitious. That monarch would have accepted as a relic, and

worshipped, any thing that was represented to him as having belonged to

the Holy Virgin; and, indeed, King Louis and other crusaders sacrificed

their bodies and their goods, as well as a great portion of their

country’s substance, merely to bring back with them heaps of foolish

trifles, having been taught to consider them as the most precious jewels

of the world.

It must be here mentioned, that in Greece, Asia Minor, and other eastern

countries, people show, with full assurance, counterpart old rubbish,

which those poor idolaters imagine they possess in their own country. How

are we to judge between the two contending parties? One party says that

these relics were brought from the East; but the Christians now inhabiting

those lands maintain that the same relics are still in their possession,

and they laugh at our pretensions. How can it be decided betwixt right and

wrong without an inquiry, which will never take place? Methinks the best

plan is to let the dispute rest as it is, without caring for either side

of the question.

The last relics pertaining to Jesus Christ are those which relate to the

time after his resurrection,—as, for instance, a piece of broiled fish

which St Peter presented to him on the sea-shore. This fish must have been

strongly spiced, and prepared in some extraordinary manner, to be

preserved for so long a period. But, seriously, is it likely that the

apostles would have made a relic of a portion of the fish which they had

prepared for their dinner? Indeed, I think that whoever will not perceive

this to be an open mockery of God, deserves not to be reasoned with.

There is also the miraculous blood which has flowed from several

hosts,—as, for instance, in the Churches of St Jean-en-Greve at Paris, at

St Jean d’Angeli at Dijon, and in many other places. They show even the

penknife with which the host at Paris was pierced by a Jew, and which the

poor Parisians hold in as much reverence as the host itself. For this they

were well blamed by a Roman Catholic priest, who declared them to be worse

than the Jews, for worshipping the knife with which the precious body of

Christ was pierced. I think we may apply this observation to the nails,

the spear, and the thorns; and consequently those who worship those

instruments used at our Lord’s crucifixion are more wicked than the Jews

who employed them for that purpose.

There are many other relics belonging to this period of our Lord’s

history, but it would be tedious to enumerate them all. We shall therefore

pass them over, and say a few words respecting his images,—not the common

ones made by painters and carvers, but those considered as actual relics,

and held in particular veneration. Some of these images are believed to

have been made in a miraculous manner, like those shown at Rome in the

Church of the blessed Virgin, in Portici, at St John of the Lateran, at

Lucca, and other places, and which they pretend were painted by angels. I

think it would be ridiculous to undertake a serious refutation of these

absurdities, the profession of angels not being that of painters, and our

Lord Jesus Christ desired to be known and remembered otherwise than by

carnal images.

Eusebius, it is true, relates, in his Ecclesiastical History, that our

Lord sent the likeness of his face to King Abgarus;(138) but the

authenticity of this account has no better proof than that of a fairy

tale; yet, supposing it were true, how came this likeness to be found at

Rome (out of Abgarus’ possession), where people boast to have it now?

Eusebius does not mention where it was in his time, but he merely relates

the story as having happened a long time before he wrote; we must

therefore suppose that this image reappeared after a lapse of many

centuries, and came from Edessa to Rome.

They have forged not only images of Christ’s body, but also copies of the

cross. Thus they pretend at Brescia to have the identical cross which

appeared to the Emperor Constantine. This claim is, however, stoutly

opposed by the town of Constance, whose inhabitants maintain that the

above-mentioned cross is preserved in their town, and not at Brescia.

But let us leave the contending parties to settle this point between

themselves, though it would be easy enough to show the absurdity of their

pretensions, because the cross which, according to some writers, appeared

to Constantine, was not a material cross, but simply a vision.

There are several carved images, as well as paintings, of Jesus Christ to

which many miracles are attributed. Thus the beard grows on the crucifixes

of Salvatierra and Orange, and other images are said to shed tears. These

things are too absurd for serious refutation, and yet the deluded world is

so infatuated that the majority put as much faith in these as in the

Gospels.

_The Blessed Virgin._—The belief that the body of the Virgin was not

interred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all

pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might

have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard;(139) yet in

order to have at least something belonging to her, they sought to

indemnify themselves for the absence of other relics with the possession

of her hair and her milk. The hair is shown in several churches at Rome,

and at Salvatierra in Spain, at Maçon, St Flour, Cluny, Nevers, and in

many other towns. With regard to the milk, there is not perhaps a town, a

convent, or nunnery, where it is not shown in large or small quantities.

Indeed, had the Virgin been a wet-nurse her whole life, or a dairy, she

could not have produced more than is shown as hers in various parts.(140)

How they obtained all this milk they do not say, and it is superfluous

here to remark that there is no foundation in the Gospels for these

foolish and blasphemous extravagances.

The Virgin’s wardrobe has produced an abundant store of relics. There is a

shirt of hers at Chartres, which has been fully celebrated as an idol, and

there is another at Aix-la-Chapelle.

I do not know how these things could have been obtained, for it is certain

that the Apostles and first Christians were not such triflers as to amuse

themselves in this way. It is, however, sufficient for us to consider the

shape of these articles of dress, in order clearly to see the impudence of

their exhibitors. The shirt at Aix-la-Chapelle is a long clerical

surplice, shown hanging to a pole, and if the Blessed Virgin had been a

giantess, she would still have felt much inconvenience in wearing so large

a garment.

In the same church they preserve the shoes of St Joseph, which could only

fit the foot of a little child or a dwarf. The proverb says that liars

need good memories, so as not to contradict their own sayings. This rule

was not followed out at Aix-la-Chapelle, otherwise care would have been

taken to maintain a better proportion of size between the shoes of the

husband and the shirt of the wife. And yet these relics, so devoid of all

appearance of truth, are devoutly kissed and venerated by crowds!

I know of only two of her head-dresses; one is at the abbey of St Maximian

at Treves, and the other is at Lisio in Italy. They may be considered

quite as genuine as the Virgin’s girdle at Prato and at Montserrat, as her

slipper at St Jaqueme, and as her shoe at St Flour.

Now, those who are at all conversant with this subject well know that it

was not the custom of the primitive church to collect shoes and stockings,

&c., for relics, and also that for five hundred years after the death of

the Virgin Mary there was never any talk of such things. It really seems

as if these well-known facts would be sufficient to prove the absurdity of

all these relics of the Virgin; but her worshippers, not merely satisfied

with the articles I have just enumerated, endeavour to ascribe to her a

love of dress and finery. A comb of hers is shown in the church of St

Martin at Rome, and another in that of St Jean-le-Grand at Besançon,

besides others that may be shown elsewhere. Now, if this be not a mockery

of the Virgin, I do not know what that word implies. They have not

forgotten her wedding-ring, which is shown at Perusa.

As it is now the custom for a husband to present his bride with a ring at

the marriage ceremony, they imagined it to be so in the time of the

Virgin, and in her country, consequently, they show a splendid ring as the

one used at her wedding, forgetting the state of poverty in which she

lived.

Rome possesses four of her gowns, in the churches of St John of the

Lateran, St Barbara, St Maria _supra Minervam_, and St Blasius; whilst at

Salvatierra they boast of having fragments of a gown belonging to her.

I have forgotten the names of other towns where similar relics are

shown.(141)

It is sufficient to examine the materials of these vestments in order to

see the falsehood of their claims, for their exhibitors give to the Virgin

the same sort of robes with which they dress up her images.

It remains now to speak of her images—not of the common ones, of which

there are so many everywhere, but of those which are distinguished from

the rest by some particular claims. Thus at Rome there are four, which

they pretend were painted by St Luke the evangelist. The principal one is

in the church of St Augustine, which they say St Luke had painted for his

own use; he always carried it about his person, and it was buried with

him. Now, is it not a downright blasphemy to turn thus a holy evangelist

into a perfect idolater? And what reason had they for believing that St

Luke was a painter? St Paul calls him a physician. I do not know from

whence they obtained this notion; but supposing it was so, is it possible

to admit that he would have painted the Virgin for the same purpose as the

Pagans did a Jupiter, a Venus, or any other idol?

It was not the custom of the primitive Christians to have images, and it

only became so a long while afterwards, when the Church was corrupted by

superstition. Moreover, the whole world is filled with representations of

the Blessed Virgin, which are said to have been painted by the same

evangelist.(142)

I shall not say any thing about St Joseph, whose shoes at Aix-la-Chapelle

I have already mentioned, and whose other similar relics are preserved in

many places.(143)

ST MICHAEL.

It may be supposed that I am joking when I speak of the _relics of an

angel_, considering how absurd and ridiculous it is to do so, yet,

although the hypocrites certainly know this well, they have made use of

the name of St Michael to delude the ignorant and foolish; for they show

at Carcassone his falchion, which looks like a child’s dagger, and his

shield, which is no larger than the knob of a bridle. Is it possible for

man or woman to exist who can believe such mockery?(144) It is indeed a

blasphemy, under a garb of devotion, against God and his angels. The

exhibitors of the above-mentioned relics endeavour to support their

imposture by the testimony of Scripture that the archangel Michael

combated with Satan; but if he was conquered by the sword, it would at

least have been one of a different size and calibre than the toy to which

I have alluded. People must, however, be very silly to believe that the

war waged by angels and the faithful against the devil is a carnal

encounter, fought with material weapons. But as I said before, at the

commencement of this treatise, the world has rightly deserved to be led

astray into such absurdities, for having lusted after idols, and

worshipped them instead of the living God.

ST JOHN THE BAPTIST.

Proceeding in due order, we must now treat of St John the Baptist, who,

according to the evangelical history—_i.e._, God’s Word of Truth—was,

after being beheaded, buried by his disciples. Theodoret, the eminent

chronicler of the Church, relates that his grave was at Sebaste, a town in

Syria, and that some time after his burial the grave was opened by the

Pagans, who burnt his bones and scattered their ashes in the air. Eusebius

adds, however, that some men from Jerusalem, who were present on the

occasion, secretly took a little of these ashes and carried them to

Antioch, where they were buried in a wall by Athanasius.

With regard to his head, Sosomen, another chronicler, relates that it was

carried to Constantinople by the Emperor Theodosius; therefore, according

to these ancient historians, the whole body of John the Baptist was burnt

with the exception of his head, and the ashes were all lost excepting the

small portion secretly taken away by the hermits of Jerusalem. Now, let us

see what remains of the head are extant.

The face is shown at Amiens, and the mask which is there exhibited has a

mark above the eye, caused, they say, by the thrust of a knife, made by

Herodias. Amiens’ claim to this relic is, however, disputed by the

inhabitants of St John d’Angeli, who show another face of St John.