and the remembrance of past events suggested the idea that it was the abode of the Deity and the symbol of the Divine presence. Impressed with this belief, the families migrating in various directions from the abode of the parent stock gave to the sacred structures erected in their several localities the same form, the imagined resemblance of the sacred mount and the world. Different ideas of the form of the world acquired by extended migrations made in different ages, gave occasion to new opinions of the form of the world, and produced altered forms in sacred structures. These changes have been traced, and it has been shewn that all sacred structures were supposed to be symbols of the created world, proper and true temple of the great Creator. Such was the principle by which the patriarchs of all nations were influenced, when they constructed their places for religious worship. This identity of principle was identified in the effect also, and temples, whether sacred or profane, whether constructed by the true worshipper or the idolatrous, were nearly the same in form, though different in use. The tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple at Jerusalem were of the same form as were most of the temples of Egypt. The instructions given to Moses for the form of the tabernacle afford the fullest assurance that the principle on which sacred structures might be built, and the general resemblance between them all, was approved by the Almighty God. Whether the disciples of the Gospel were, in the structure of churches, influenced by the principle on which the patriarchal altars or later temples had been constructed, or whether they merely acted in compliance with ancient usages, it may not be easy to determine; but that they did follow ancient usages is plainly evident. The church at Tyre was an exact resemblance of many heathen temples, and the churches of our own times are, in their naves, ailes, chancels, towers, and spires, exact resemblances of heathen structures, and that their several parts were of the same symbolical import has been plainly proved. Another reason may be supposed to have induced the Christians to have studiously adopted the form of the ancient temple: they may have sought the pleasure of a triumph, when not only the idolaters were made converts to the gospel, but that the temples of the gods of idolatry, their ancient abodes, had become churches and houses of the Redeemer. Whatever may have been the reason, it is certain that the Christians, so far from abhorring the forms of the heathen temples, did adopt them by choice. Even the symbolical import of the several parts of the fabrics was retained in substance, though turned to subjects of Gospel authority. Thus the original principle which gave the form to the sacred patriarchal fabric was transmitted to the Christian, and the progressive series was continued unbroken and may be clearly traced through successive ages, till the altar in the grove beneath the trees of knowledge and of life has become the handsome church or the magnificent cathedral of western Europe. St. Paul, making reference to the establishment of the Gospel and the former laws of rites and observances, writes, "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The establishment of the Gospel supersedes old principles, and offers new. The attention of the Christian is turned from earth to heaven. The import of the symbols chosen by him as a disciple of Christ, must be turned from things earthly to things heavenly, and to that end the symbols of the instructive ornaments of churches ought to be such as the Gospel offers, with such import as the Gospel suggests and approves. Earth having given the form and substance of our sacred structures, heaven and objects closely connected with heaven may well supply the x 1 Cor. xiii. 10. ornaments, which may with great propriety be termed the life, the spirit, the soul of the material edifice. The symbols which will chiefly engage attention are such as belong almost exclusively to the interior of the sacred fabric. The cross, which is made an ornament to churches, both within and without, has been used in the earliest ages of the world, for it is seen in the crux ansata borne in hand by several of the gods of Egypt; it is the linga of the Brahmens of Hindosthàn; it was the bulla worn by the youth of ancient Rome and present India; and is found inscribed on many of the sacred stones set up by the Celtic priests and Druids. There are reasons for the belief that it was a sacred though idolatrous symbol used even by the antediluvian world. These facts have been already noticed in a former chapter, where it has been shewn that the cross was a symbol of generation and life, and that such deep and mysterious meaning was possibly intended when, by the divine dispensation, the Saviour, the Creator of the world, died on the cross, and gave spiritual life and immortality to all mankind. Christians, ignorant of the heathen import of the cross, usually regard it as the symbol of the sufferings of the Saviour, who dying the death of a slave, his disciples were taunted with a reference to the cross. This induced St. Paul to write, "I glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."y Hence Christians came to regard the act of reverencing the cross as a bounden duty; the idea of disgrace gradually was done away, and the cross was openly reverenced, except in times of severe persecution. When Constantine the Great professed his adoption of the Christian faith, the cross became the ensign of his armies; from that time it was exhibited by the Christians as a symbol of the triumph of the faith over conquered heathenism. It was thenceforth fixed on their churches both within and y Gal. vi. 14. without. This use of the cross may be said to have been then carried to excess, especially by the Romanists: it is exhibited with them on the vestments of their priests, and in many instances, of the laity also, by whom it is worn, like the bulla of old, as an amulet: not only every devotional, but almost every the most ordinary act, is imagined to be sanctified by motions and gestures exhibiting the form of the cross. Whatever may be the intention of such honour, the act of bowing before the cross is clearly a sin expressly forbidden by the divine commandment. Protestants, justly regarding this excessive use of the cross not only as idly superstitious but even idolatrous, very commonly destroyed all crosses, as an act necessary to the prevention of that worship which the multitude paid by bowing before them. Puritan dissenters from the church of England reject altogether the use of the cross, as a symbol wholly useless, if not absurd. Fond of the proud doctrine that all spiritual emotions are altogether the result of the Divine agency miraculously, arbitrarily, and irresistibly exercised upon the passive spirit of the man favoured of God, they bring themselves to believe that personal efforts and ordinary means, and especially observances, rites, and symbols, are utterly inefficient and useless. The well-informed and judicious Christian, rejecting the strange doctrine of Calvin, knows that true and sound religion is not produced in man by the zeal of passion and the madness of enthusiasm, but by a gradual, steady, perhaps a slow process. Isaiah taught that it was the result of precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little. The Saviour figuratively compares the true Christian to "a wise man which built his house upon a rock.”a St. Paul, illustrating the symbol used by the Saviour, speaks of true Christians as "edifices built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone."b These authorities teach that true z Is. xxviii. 10. b Ephes. ii. 20. a Matt. vii. 24. religion, being the product of gradual growth, is also the effect of ordinary means. These are very various: among them symbols may be justly classed, and together with other symbols, the symbol of the cross. The bishop of Mende regards the cross as a symbol of the person of the Saviour. A better authority shews that the cross is a general symbol of the Gospel of Christ; of its doctrines, precepts, and promises. This sense may be gathered from the following words of the Saviour, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." It is evident that the person of the Saviour cannot be intended in this text. Neither does it intend the voluntary endurance of suffering. Such acts are inconsistent with the benevolent spirit of the Gospel, which, unwilling to expose its disciples unnecessarily to pain, teaches that persecutions are to be shunned, as far as may be properly done: "When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another." This precept regulated the conduct of the Apostles, as may be seen by the history of the Acts. The words, "Let him take up the cross, and follow me," convey the following, "Let the Christian who may receive my doctrines of salvation subject himself to my precepts, and make my habits of life the object of his imitation." Such is the true import of the symbolical cross. This interpretation will be confirmed by the following text, "Many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ whose end is destruction, and whose god is their belly; whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things. For our conversation is in heaven."f Useful must be the symbol which can call the attention to such important truths. It were well were every Christian to feel the force of such admonitions whenever the cross is offered to his c Durand. chap. iii. s. 31. d Matt. xvi. 24. Gal. vi. 14. f Phil. iii. 18-20. |