AKT
phenomena to the contemplation of the eternal' ; for ' the beauty which is the aim of Christian art is referred to a Divine ideal. It is not " of the world," as finding its source or its final measure there, but "of the Father," as corresponding to an unseen truth. The visible to the Christian eye is in every part a revelation of the invisible.'
Westcott, however, assumes an ' antagonism of early Christians to contemporary art,' and points to the central message of Christianity as establish- ing a reconciliation between supposed ' elements of contrast.' Was there, we must ask any such an- tagonism as a matter of history ? When Westcott wrote, Christian archaeology was still in its in- fancy ; much that we now have was still undis- covered, and that which was known was uncertain in date and inaccurately reproduced ; notions still held the field which have since been disproved, as, for instance, that which credits the early Church with the wanton destruction of pagan monuments, when, as a matter of fact, the ancient Roman temples were, after the triumph of Christianity, long kept in repair at the expense of the Christian State, as the chief glory of the city.
The question is of great importance, for modern writers frequently condemn Christianity because of its supposed depreciation of humanity. Thus the natural scientist Metchnikoff — writing, as people do, about matters which are outside his province — declares in The Nature of Man that Christianity lowered our conception of human nature, and gives as evidence this statement : — 'Sculpture, which played so great a part in the ancient world, and which was intimately associated with Greek ideals, began to decline in the Chris- tian era,' — the real truth being, as we shall see, that sculpture had been declining for several generations in pagan hands, and that Christian artists did M'hat they could with the decadent craft.
Now Westcott himself states that ' the literary evidence is extremely scanty' as regards the rela- tion of Christianity to art ; and, writing twenty- two years later, we may add that archoeological evidence all jjoints in the opposite direction to that which he supposed. The literary evidence, indeed, proves little as to the first two centuries, though recent discoveries have increased our know- ledge of the 3rd century.
The usual quotations from the Fathers— such as Westcott gives— are, indeed, 'extremely scanty' ; but the one extract which does deal directly and definitely with the subject has been curiously over- looked. It is from Clement of Alexandria in the chapter headed 'Human arts as well as Divine knowledge proceed from God ' {Strom, i. 4), and is quite final as to Clement's opinion. After perti- nently referring to the craftsman Bezalel the son of Uri (Ex 31'-"), whose ' understanding' was from God, he proceeds—
' For those who
practise the
- - are in what per-
-»...= lAj iiic acuoes highly gifted : in hearing, he who is com- monly falU-tl a musician; in touch, he who moulds clay; in
\'ni-'c thr • Mirci- ; ni -':i. M thr- jierfunier; in sight, the engraver "'''''■"■ '^ ^^ " h !<ason, therefore, the Apostle has
' ' ' ' ; ,1.1 iiaiiifold," which has manifested its
P I ; I '!> and in many modes" lEph 31*>,
"' ''i I; "I, '■■ l-ii-'Ali J„.-, by faith, by prophecy— tor our 'liV ■ ', '^" ■'" "'»''""' 13 "'om the Lord and is with him for ever l&ir I'J, aa sa^s the Wisdom of Jesus.'
Thougli less comprehensive than this admirable statement, the passage to which Westcott himself alludes is also extremely interesting. Clement describes a number of subjects commonly engraved upon seals to whicli Christians could give a Chris- tian meaning (see Christ in Art), whilst he forbids the use of seals whicli bear idols, swords, bows, and drinking cups— condemning thus, not (irt, but idolatry, war, and drunkenness (/'«•(/. iii.
3). Origen's answer to Celsus (r. Ccl.f. viii. 17-20) is often quoted as denying the use of art. He meets Celsus' charge that 'we shrink frnm raising altars, statues, and temples,' liy s.-iyin;.; tli.it < 'cl.sus 'does not perceive that we ri_-;^aiil tlic ^|lilit of every good man as an altar,' ami tliat Christ is ' the most excellent image in all creation,' and 'that we do refuse to build lifeless temples to the Giver of all life, let anyone who chooses learn how we are taught that our bodies are the temi)Ie of God.' This rhetorical answer cannot be taken as denying the use of art by the African Christians : it is a vindication of the spiritual nature of Christian worship, and the 'lifeless temples' must be referred to paganism, since there was nowhere any shrinking from the erection of church buildings. Origen is not concerned with the question of art : he merely denies ' altars, statues, and temples ' in the heathen sense.
Even Tertullian, Montanist though he was, is clear in not condemning artists for practising their art, though he has a good deal to say about their making idols ; the artist who makes idols works ' illicitly ' like Hermogenes, who ' despises God's law in his painting' (ado. Hermog. 1). An artist's profession was full of temptation from heathen patrons : so Tertullian warns them that ' every artificer of an idol is guilty of one and the same crime ' as he who worships it (de Idol. 3), .since to make an idol is to worship it (ib. 6) ; and he advises them to practise their art in other direc- tions— ' gild slippers instead of statues '— ' We urge men generally to such kinds of handicrafts as do not come in contact with an idol' (ib. 8). Else- where he gives useful testimony by his incidental mention of Christian art work in the painting of the Good She])lierd and other subjects upon chalices (de Pudit: 7 and 10).