CHAPTER CXIII. Mr. Palmer's discussion with the Archimandrite THU Philaret about Invocation of Saints. HUS I introduce the conversation I had with him at the Troitsa Monastery, at this date, on the subject of the Invocation of the Saints. In the following dialogue Ph. denotes Philaret, and A. his Anglican guest. The Archimandrite began thus: Ph. I have looked over the Introduction to the XXXIX. Articles which you have given me, and wonder at what is there said of Icons, Relics, and Invocation of the Saints, seeing that from the first there was a necessary connexion between outward representations of them and the inward sentiments of veneration and honour entertained towards them. I wonder then to find you calling, what I consider inseparable, adiapopov, indifferent. Who does not identify a father's countenance with his spirit or soul? A. Not only do we call it adtápopov, but for ourselves, absolutely and abstractedly, we prefer what we think the more ancient and primitive sense and practice of the Church to your present. We contend that our Church has never synodically bound herself to the Decrees of the Second Nicene Council, though the custom which that Council sanctions may have been introduced and prevailed among us for some centuries, through Papal influence. Ph. Canonical decisions need not enter into the question. If the thing is in itself natural and tends to edification, it is good, whether any particular Church makes canons for it or against it. A. We think that there are many things which may be more or less profitable, according to circumstances, and this among the number. There may be no necessary sin or idolatry in it, if holy pictures or images be honoured according to the doctrine and intention of the Church, and for myself I am ready to kiss even the pavement of the church, or the doorpost of the outer porch, or the feet of the clergy; still, there is a wide difference between an occasional spontaneous act and a formal prescribed ceremony; and, as men are, may be doubted whether more harm or good is done by the general mass of such observances, especially when there are many of them. it Ph. When people are pious, how can you in that case think the usage an abuse or mischief? There was indeed a time when they had here in Russia an undue and superstitious attachment to their Icons, but the clergy now warn them against such abuse. A. But surely the people may have a feeling of religion without sound judgment; it is not as if we could secure generally a high standard of enlightened piety; hence I am driven back to the Fathers; what do they say? And again, what say the Nestorians? And again, what say the Armenians? The Nestorians hand down to us the custom of the fifth century, and the Armenians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries are spoken of as agreeing in this point with the Germans, and differing from the Greeks and the Italians; moreover, the German, Frankish, and English Churches all rejected the Second Nicene Council without any breach of communion ensuing on that account. St. Augustine, speaking of abuses, says he knew of many Christians who used to kiss (adorare) pictures, and he considers this a weakness. Ph. I think I can show you proof that there were not only pictures, but Icons in the churches at that time in some parts of the East. A. Certainly, that may be so; but their existence in some Churches, and even the existence of the "weakness," of which St. Augustine speaks, in some Churches, is one thing, and the general prescribed use of external reverence in any part of the ritual is another. Doubt less from the very time of the Apostles it was permissible and permitted to the Christians to have both pictures and images; and if they kissed them at any time from spontaneous affection (as we know they honoured the Cross, and the Gospel, and many other holy objects), it was surely no sin in them. There is complete agreement between us as to the principle and the abstract theory or doctrine, the only question which can remain being wholly practical, and open, whatever authorities are adducible, to such reasonable objections. and distinctions as the circumstances create. CHAPTER CXIV. Discussion Continued. HE Archimandrite would not take this view THE of the matter; he proceeded to say why. I cannot, he said, think that it is a matter of so little importance as to lie outside that rule which you admit to be decisive in all principal matters of religion, viz. that " usum non tollit abusus," and that when an abuse occurs or may be apprehended, the clergy should correct or guard against it, without removing the thing abused. Otherwise, where are we? under pretence of abuse, since everything is abused or perverted by one mind or another, the whole outward framework of religion and of the Church runs the risk of a gradual destruction, one thing after another being removed as an abuse. A. We certainly think that in this particular case it is indeed best for us in England to be rid of the formal usage altogether; but still we need not say or think that, as things are now in Russia, it would be desirable |