full.1 Dr. Newman in his " Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England," delivered after his reconciliation with the Church of Rome, says, " At Rome there is the True Cross, the Crib of Bethlehem, and the Chair of St. Peter ; portions of the Crown of Thorns are kept at Paris ; the Holy Coat is shown at TreVes ; the Winding-sheet at Turin : at Monza the iron Crown is formed out of a nail of the Cross ; and another nail is claimed for the Duomo of Milan ; and pieces of Our Lady's habit are to be seen in the Escurial. The Agnus Dei, blest medals, the Scapula, the cord of St. Francis, all are the medium of divine manifestations and graces." 2
There is-here opened an illimitable field for pious fraud. First, in palming upon the credulous people spurious relics, and, sec- ondly in falsely attributing to them supernatural power. It has been proved in many cases that remains passed off as relics of the saints were bones of animals. In other cases it is impossible that all should be genuine, as bodies, or the same parts of bodies, of one and the same man are exhibited in different places. There is, as has often been asserted, enough wood of the true cross, held sacred in different localities, out of which to construct a large building. Writing not long after the alleged discovery of the cross on which the Saviour died, Cyril of Jerusalem says, " Sanc- tum crucis lignum testatur, quod ad hodiernum usque diem apud nos conspicitur, ac per eos qui fide impellente ex eo frusta decerp- unt orbem fere totum hinc jam opplevit." And again, he speaks of "crucis lignum, quod per particulas ex hoc loco per totum orbem distributum est." 3 St. Paulinas, who is one of the long fist of witnesses quoted in defence of the veneration of relics, says " that a portion of the cross kept at Jerusalem gave off fragments of itself without diminishing." This is the only way in which
1 The language of the Council of Trent in reference to the honour due to the relics of the saints has already been quoted when treating of the second commandment. Perrone in his Prcelectiones Theological, De Cultu Sanctorum, iv. 71, edit. Paris, 1861, vol. ii. p. 112, b, adduces as one of his arguments in favour of the worship of relics the declaration of the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, that the heathen feared " ne Christiani, relicto Christo, Polycarpum adorare inciperent; omni idcirco qua poterant ratione martyrum corpora, ne a Christianis colerentur, ethnici gladiatorum corporibus commiscebant; in amphitheatris feris, in aquis piscibus ut vorarentur exponebant; aut saltern igne ilia cremabant, cinere dispergentes, uti ex martyrum actis constat." It was " adoration," " worship," that was to be rendered to these relics. The distinctions between the different kinds of worship, had little effect on the popular mind. Perrone himself teaches that the " material heart of Christ " was to be adored latrice cultu. De Incamatione, XL iv. 454; Ibid. p. 81, a.
2 Quoted by Dr. Cumming in his Lectures on Romanism, p. 595.
8 Catechesis Ittuminandorum, x. 19, and xiii. 4 ; Opera, Venice, 1763, pp. 146, c. and 184, c.
460 PART III. Ch. XIX. — THE LAW.
the fact in question can be accounted for. If this solution be not admitted, then it must be acknowledged that, at least, the great majority of the portions of the cross now on exhibition must be spurious. There is no historical evidence of any value that any portion of the true cross has been preserved. Nothing was heard of it until A. D. 327. About that time, according to the legend, the Empress Helena, in searching for the Holy Sepulchre, found at the depth of thirty feet from the surface of the earth, three crosses, assumed to be those mentioned in the Gospels. The true cross was identified, some say, by its inscription ; others, by a sick woman being touched by the one and the other without effect, but restored to perfect health the moment the true cross came in contact with her body. Others say that a corpse was restored to life by the touch of the true cross. In reference to this account it may be remarked, (1.) That there is a strong antecedent im- probability that the crosses used on Calvary were ever buried. The assumption that it was the custom of the Jews to bury those implements of torture, rests on a very precarious foundation. (2.) The cross was a very slight structure, as it could be borne by one man; and, therefore, if buried superficially, as it must have been at first, it could hardly have continued undecayed three hundred years, especially considering the ploughings and over- turnings to which the Holy City was subjected. (3.) The histor- ical evidence in support of this legend is of little account. Cyril of Jerusalem, twenty years after the date assigned to the discovery, does indeed say that the true cross was then in Jerusalem, as Je- rome does some sixty years later, but neither of them makes any mention of Helena in connection with the cross or the sepulchre. It may, therefore, be admitted that what passed for the true cross was then in Jerusalem, but the account of its recovery and iden- tification remains without support. (4.) The historian Eusebius, a contemporary and eye-witness, makes no mention of the finding of the cross, an event the belief in which agitated all Christendom, and led to the immense aggrandizement of the bishopric of Jeru- salem. It is inconceivable that such an event, if within his knowl- edge, should have been passed over in silence by such a historian, who had so much at heart to enchance the glory of his patron the Emperor. (5.) Calvary and the sepulchre we know were without the city. The place where the cross is said to have been found is in the centre of the modern city. Whether the city has so changed its limits as to bring the place of the crucifixion and burial of Christ within its boundaries, is a much debated question. Dr.