Neander describes the origin of the use of images in churches as follows: "It was not in the Churc]i,but in the family, that religious images first came into use among the Christians. In their daily intercourse with
BIAGEAYORSHIP
504
IMAGE-WORSHIP
men, the Christians saw themselves everpvhere sur- romided by the objects of pagan mythology, or, at least, by objects" offensive to their moral and Christian senti- ments. Representations of this sort covered the walls in shops, and were the ornaments of drinking-vessels and seal-rings, on which the pagans frequently had en- graved the images of their gods, so that they might worship them when they pleased. It was natural that, in place of these objects, so offensive to their religious and moral sentiments, the Christians should substitute others more agreeable to them. Thus they preferred to have on the goblets the figure of a shepherd carrjdng a lamb on his shoulder, which was the symbol of our Saviour rescuing the repentant sinner, according to the Gospel parable. Clement of Alexandria says, m refer- ence to the seal-rings of the Christians, ' Let our signets be a dove (the symbol of the Holy Spirit), or a fish, or a ship sailing towards heaven (the symbol of the Chris- tian Chm-ch and of the individual Christian soul), or a lyre (the symbol of Christian joy), or an anchor (the sj-mbol of Christian hope) ; and he who is a fisherman will not be forgetful of the apostle Peter, and of the children taken from the water; for no images of gods should be engraved on the rings of those who are for- bidden all intercourse with idols ; no sword or bov/ on the rings of those who strive after peace ; no goblets on the rings of those who are the friends of sobriety.' Yet religious emblems passed from domestic use into the churches perhaps as early as the end of the 3d century. The walls of them were painted in this manner. The Council of Elvira, in the year 303, opposed this innova- tion as an abuse, and forbade ' the objects of worshij and adoration to be painted on the walls'" (Neander, Church History, i, 292).
III. Image loorsMp in the Roman Catholic Church. — The Romanists deny the charge of worshipping images, or idolatry, which has often been and is still made against them by Protestants. They have always care fully refrained from such doctrinal definitions on the subject as would fully convict the Church of idolatry, In this respect the course of the Romish Church is sim- ilar to its procedure with regard to the doctrine oi good works, which it presents in such a manner as might lead one to think that it strictly asserts the merits of Christ as alone rendering our works useful, whilst in pi-actice the believer is pointed to good works as the means of salvation. So, with regard to prayers to the Yirgm and the saints, it draws a clear distinction between the adoration and the worship of saints, but practically the prayers of the Roman Catholics are more generally ad- dressed to the saints than to Clirist. The same takes place with regard to images. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De invocatione Scmctorum, etc.) states " that the images of Christ and of the ever virgin Mother of God, and in Uke manner of other saints, are to be kept and retained, and that due honor and veneration is to be awarded to them. Not that it is believed that any divinity or power resides in them, on account of whicli they are to be worshipped, or that any benefit is to be sought from them, or any confidence placed in images, as was formerly done by the Gentiles, who fixed their hope in idols. But the honor with which they are regarded is referred to those who are represented by them ; so that we adore Christ and venerate the saints, whose likenesses these images bear, when we kiss them, and uncover our heads in their presence, and prostrate our- selves." The council quotes on this subject the second Sjmod of Nicjea. To this " honor and veneration" be- long the solemn consecration of the images, offering up incense before them, the special prayers accompanj-ing these ceremonies as contained in the Pontificale Roma- num, other prayers for private use to be repeated before the images, and the indulgences granted to those who fulfil that duty, etc. All this shows that the Romish Church, while rejecting in form the doctrine of image worship, has introduced the p?-actice among the people. The masses do not and cannot miderstaud the subtle
distinction made bj^ the Church, and not always strict- ly observed even by the clergy. The Church knows of this evil, but places it among things she tolerates for the sake of charity, though she does not approve them. Yet some Roman Catholic theologians appear to have come very close indeed to the same conception as the masses on this point. Thomas Aquinas expressed his views of images in a dilemma : " A picture considered in itself is worthy of no veneration, but if we consider it as an image of Christ it may be allowable to make an in- ternal distinction between the image and its subject, and ado7-atio and lafi-ia are as well due to it as to Christ" (iii Setit. dist. 9, qu. 1, art. 2, 3; Summa, qu. 23, art. 4, 5). Bonaventura drew a correct conclusion from the princi- ple : " Since all veneration shown to the image of Christ is shown to Christ himself, then the image of Christ is also entitled to be prayed to" {Cidtus latrice, 1. iii, dist. 9, art. 1, qu. 2). Bellarmine says that "the images of Christ and the saints are to be adored not only in a fig- urative manner, but quite positively, so that the pray- ers are directly addressed to them, and not merely as the representatives of the original (Ita ut ipsi [imag- ines] tenninent venerationem, ut in se considerantur et nou ut vicem gerunt exemplaris). The image itself is in some degree holy, namely, by its likeness to oim- holy, its consecration and its use in worship; from whence it follows that the images themselves are not entitled to the same honor as God, but to less" (De Imaginibus, 1. ii, c. x), i. e. the difference between the divine worship and image worship is one of degree or quantity, not of nature or quality. Such theories, although far over- stepping the limits of the decree of Trent, ai'e yet freely permitted by the Romish Chiu-ch; it neither openly ad- mits nor officially condemns them, and thus leaves an opening for all possible degrees of idolatrj', over which many an honest Roman Catholic priest mourns in se- cret