Page images

Yet, without justifying in the least the barbarism of those zealots, it should be borne in mind that there had been abuses on the other side which provoked their zeal, and became so many incentives to their rage and fury. There is an evil great enough to justify the desecration of hallowed things when they are become infected with it; and if sacred things, however good in themselves, and however legitimately brought in at the first, have become so perverted to idolatry that it can only be put away by destroying the things, then let the things be destroyed—at any sacrifice let idolatry be destroyed. The gold of which the calf was made was as good gold after it became an idol as before, but Moses would not use it for any other service; he ground it to powder, and made the idolators drink it for their sin.

We have before our eyes practices among the Roman Catholics which ought not to be tolerated by any Church which knows the truth; we have had experience among ourselves, in cases like that of Ware, how a weak and headstrong man, taking up crude notions concerning obsolete practices, and trying to force them upon an ill-informed and undisciplined people, may provoke hostility, not only to himself, but to the Church itself, which all the wise councils and conciliatory recommendations of the bishops may fail in attempting to assuage. And we very much fear, that if something is not done to inform men's minds better on these subjects, and an exciting cause of a more general and extensive interest should arise, we may find that the boasted civilization of this day will not suffice to exempt us from a repetition of the well-nigh forgotten excesses and barbarous havoc of the Iconoclasts and the Puritans.

In the publications which we have prefixed to this article, and that merely as one sample from numbers of the four different classes, there is no attempt at giving principles—they only give examples or illustrations, assuming that whatever has been is right. And then, because men have been at fault for principles, yet have wished to say something in favour of the practices they have found prevalent, and have therefore exercised their ingenuity in devising some meaning in the practice, these fancies, or mere guesses, are obtruded upon us in place of principles, and as traditions of the Church. We have not put Mr. Lewis's book on Kilpeck Church among those we refer to, because it might be thought an unfair sample, as many of the other writers disown him, and refuse to be bound by his dicta. The editors of Durandus, for example, in speaking of Mr. Lewis, say—

“We may mention the arbitrary way in which he determines on things which are to be symbolized, and then violently endeavours to find their expected types. This is quite at variance with the practice of any sober symbolist...... Indeed, while Mr. Lewis insists strongly on the symbolizing of facts, he does not succeed in grasping any general principle, any more than he sees the difficulty there is in the way of our receiving his supposition, of an intention to symbolize from the first."

And in a note they say

“ It is with pain that we have spoken of Mr. Lewis at all, because every Ecclesiologist owes him a debt, for his great boldness in turning the public attention to the subject of symbolism. Yet we believe that a prejudice has been excited by him against that subject which it will be hard to get over; for we are constrained to say, that greater

absurdities were never printed than some which have appeared in his book.” -Pref. xxxi.

We say so, too, merely including all these writers, together with Mr. Lewis, in our estimate, and especially Durandus, whom these gentlemen have been at the pains of editing, though he was a man so ignorant, that his attempts to give the etymology of the words he uses are nearly as often wrong as right, and sometimes most grotesquely absurd. Such as “history is derived from lotopelv, which is to gesticulate : whence gesticulators (that is, players) are called histriones.(8). For our parts, we cannot perceive in what respects Durandus was a more sober symbolist than Mr. Lewis, or that he succeeded better in grasping general principles, or was more consistent than Mr. Lewis in applying them to the facts. But there was a vast difference in the station of the men; Durandus was a bishop-Mr. Lewis is a layman. And we suspect that if these things were reversed, and, above all

, if Mr. Lewis had written in Latin, and Durandus “in the vulgar tongue,” these gentlemen might have formed a different estimate, and might even have given the palm of superiority to Mr. Lewis. It is wonderful what excellences men discover in Latin of the thirteenth century written by a bishop! Take for instance, the mystery of the weathercock, concerning which thus writeth Durandus

“ The cock which is placed thereon representeth preachers. For the cock, in the deep watches of the night, divideth the hours thereof; with his song he arouseth the sleepers; he foretelleth the approach of day; but first he stirreth himself up to crow, by the striking of his wings. Behold ye these things mystically, for not one is there without meaning. The sleepers be the children of this world, lying in sins. The cock is the company of preachers, which do preach sharply, do stir up the sleepers to cast away the works of darkness, crying -- Woe to the sleepers : awake thou that sleepest:' which also do foretell the coming of the light, when they preach the day of judgment and future glory. But wisely, before they preach unto others, they do rouse themselves, by virtues, from the sleep of sin, and do chasten their bodies. Whence (saith the apostle) I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection. The same also do turn themselves to meet the wind, when they bravely do contend against and resist the rebellious by admonition and argument, lest they should seem to flee when the wolf cometh. The iron rod upon which the cock sitteth showeth the straightforward speech of the preacher-that he doth not speak from the spirit of man, but according to the Scriptures of God: as it is said -If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. In that this rod is placed above the cross, it is shown that the words of Scripture be consummated and confirmed by the cross; whence our Lord said in his passion, . It is finished.'” (r. 200).

How the rod, which is placed above the cross, is consummated by the cross which stands below it, Durandus showeth not. But the whole book consists of such rambling disjointed stuff as this, unworthy of any other audience than ranters in a barn. Yet

many, we suppose, may think it excellent, because there is a text for every assertion; though the text and the assertion may have no better agreement than “ fist to eye,” according to the German proverb. Still this weathercock is a favourable specimen of Durandus, rather than otherwise, and, as such, is twice referred to by the editors in their Introduction; first, as an instance of intentional symbolism (p. lvii.); and again, to slip in the inference “ that Durandus, S. Isidore, Beleth, and the rest, seem to quote from some canons of Church symbolism, now unknown to us.” (p. lxxv.) Certainly there have been sundry absurd canons, but that any warranting such trifling as this have been framed we doubt, and shall continue to doubt, till they are actually produced. Many an old woman in a nursery would equal such symbolism as this.

We should not think the trifler Durandus worthy of a thought or a line, were it not that his writings have been a favourite plaything with the Romanists, and that he is put forward now as a sort of fly-trap, as one of the many artifices whereby light and unsettled spirits may be attracted, and, from want of heed, may at length find themselves within the meshes of Rome. We do not accuse the editors of this volume of the duplicity of any such intention, but we suspect that they lie under a stronger bias, and are in greater danger than they themselves are conscious of. When we observe that the gross ignorance of Durandus is scarcely noticed by them, or slurred over with the passing observation, “this is, of course, a false derivation" (page 32, note); and yet, find that in the far more important points of symbolism, and in the mystical signification of things, which require the greatest judgment, the word of this ignorant man is received by them with unhesitating credulity. Durandus blunders continually in the very names of the things which he is speaking of, yet men most unaccountably give him credit for understanding the meaning of the things themselves.

But all the mistakes of Durandus tell in favour of Romanism -none of them against it; for he lived at a time when the sectarianism of Rome was at its height, and her partizans had not then been shamed into decency by the light of the revival of letters, nor terrified by the forebodings of a coming Reformation, so as to bestir themselves to set their house in order. Yet all the things here mentioned are spoken of as Catholic practices, suppressing the qualifying adjective Roman altogether, and this by clergymen of the Reformed English Church. This is scarcely candid or consistent. But, alas! things are looked at through a false medium, and heightened by a colouring of imagination, and are mellowed, chastened, and hallowed by the hand of time which has passed upon them, so that all the accompanying evils are lost sight of, or, if seen at all, are only regarded as dust in the balance. And it is the master-stroke of the policy of Rome, that all her practices, while professing to be of the Spirit of God, are attractive and seductive to the mind of man, and lay a strong hold on the imagination. She has addressed herself to the senses with consummate art, and has succeeded in constructing a system which is all but irresistible—is only to be successfully resisted by knowledge of the word of God, and of God himself, as revealed in Jesus Christ. “They overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony."

Nothing can more clearly evince the Romanist tendency of these things than the fact, that Dr. Rock has published the work which we name at the beginning of this article avowedly in order to forward this tendency, and place the Roman Church in such an inviting attitude as to induce and almost compel men, who have advanced the length of symbolism, to take the other little step which remains, and receive their representations of transubstantiation in the mass. For if the principle be admitted, that things become symbolic because men have so regarded them, or the Church has so declared, then are they symbolic in the sense in which they have been so declared, and transubstantiation of the elements must consequently be received also in the sense in which the Church has made that declaration. And if there be a sacramental principle in all things, as these writers are continually maintaining, then are the sacraments themselves only a fuller development of the natural property of all things—not institutions of Christ, powerless in themselves, and made, by his appointment, channels for imparting to the Church supernatural gifts—the divine nature for regeneration, and heavenly grace and strength to use that new spiritual life unto the glory of God. But not only are both these parties unaware of all that is involved in the principles which they profess to hold-more than all this, they are deceived by the ambiguity of the words they employ; and one party laying hold of one sense, the other party, understanding things differently, is really speaking of different things. There are three senses in which symbolism may be understood—the figurative, the typical, and the sacramental. The figurative or imaginative sense is that which is meant by Durandus and his translators, and is of universal application--at least, to the degree and in the sense in which hieroglyphics are. In this sense, either from its inherent properties, or from some conventional understanding about it, an object suggests an idea to the mind, or strengthens it when pre-existing. For instance, in Durandus, “the glass windows in a church are holy Scriptures,” &c.

“ Also by the windows the senses of the body are signified,” &c. (pp. 28, 29). But the editors of Durandus say, in their Introduction, “ Firstly, of windows. The primary idea shadowed the saying of our Lord to his disciples,

Ye are the light of the world,” &c. (lxxxix.) There are three perfectly distinct ideas said to be conveyed by the same symbol, of which we will only remark, that the third is not very obvious, and we suppose is to be ranked with lucus a non lucendo ; for the use of all windows is to admit light from without, not to diffuse light from within, which we conceive ought to be their use if they symbolize the fact of the Church enlightening the world. We say, however, that as there are here three meanings, it is evident that symbolism here is only meant to designate the fanciful or conventional idea which men receive from any object. This low view of symbols is not only objectionable as being merely fanciful, but as being utterly insufficient for the purpose for which it is adduced, and a foundation too weak and variable to sustain a structure of such grave importance as men seek to build upon it. For who is to decide which of these three meanings given to windows is the correct one? On what principle do these meaning srest, and what principle is there to prevent any other person from assigning three other meanings? We know not any other principle than common sense which would guide a poor architect in his endeavours to carry out in practice such ideas as

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »