The Two Babylons Chapter V Section III
The
Clothing and Crowning of Images
In the Church of Rome, the clothing and
crowning of images form no insignificant part of the ceremonial. The sacred
images are not represented, like ordinary statues, with the garments formed of
the same material as themselves, but they have garments put on them from time to
time, like ordinary mortals of living flesh and blood. Great expense is often
lavished on their drapery; and those who present to them splendid robes are
believed thereby to gain their signal favour, and to lay up a large stock of
merit for themselves. Thus, in September, 1852, we find the duke and Duchess of
Montpensier celebrated in the Tablet, not only for their charity in
"giving 3000 reals in alms to the poor," but especially, and above all,
for their piety in "presenting the Virgin with a magnificent dress of tissue
of gold, with white lace and a silver crown." Somewhat about the same time
the piety of the dissolute Queen of Spain was testified by a similar
benefaction, when she deposited at the feet of the Queen of Heaven the homage of
the dress and jewels she wore on a previous occasion of solemn thanksgiving, as
well as the dress in which she was attired when she was stabbed by the assassin
Merino. "The mantle," says the Spanish journal Espana, "exhibited the
marks of the wound, and its ermine lining was stained with the precious blood of
Her Majesty. In the basket (that bore the dresses) were likewise the jewels
which adorned Her Majesty's head and breast. Among them was a diamond stomacher,
so exquisitely wrought, and so dazzling, that it appeared to be wrought of a
single stone." This is all sufficiently childish, and presents human nature in a
most humiliating aspect; but it is just copied from the old Pagan worship. The
same clothing and adorning of the gods went on in Egypt, and there were sacred
persons who alone could be permitted to interfere with so high a function. Thus,
in the Rosetta Stone we find these sacred functionaries distinctly referred to:
"The chief priests and prophets, and those who have access to the adytum to
clothe the gods,...assembled in the temple at Memphis, established the
following decree." The "clothing of the gods" occupied an equally important
place in the sacred ceremonial of ancient Greece. Thus, we find Pausanias
referring to a present made to Minerva: "In after times Laodice, the daughter of
Agapenor, sent a veil to Tegea, to Minerva Alea." The epigram [inscription] on
this offering indicates, at the same time, the origin of Laodice:--
"Laodice, from Cyprus,
the divine,
To her paternal wide-extended land,
This veil--an offering to Minerva--sent."
Thus, also, when Hecuba, the Trojan
queen, in the instance already referred to, was directed to lead the penitential
procession through the streets of Troy to Minverva's temple, she was commanded
not to go empty-handed, but to carry along with her, as her most acceptable
offering:--
"The largest mantle your
full wardrobes hold,
Most prized for art, and laboured o'er with gold."
The royal lady punctually obeyed:--
"The Phrygian queen to
her rich wardrobe went,
Where treasured odours breathed a costly scent;
There lay the vestures of no vulgar art;
Sidonian maids embroidered every part,
Whom from soft Sydon youthful Paris bore,
With Helen touching on the Tyrian shore.
Here, as the Queen revolved with careful eyes
The various textures and the various dyes,
She chose a veil that shone superior far,
And glowed refulgent as the morning star."
There is surely a wonderful resemblance
here between the piety of the Queen of Troy and that of the Queen of Spain. Now,
in ancient Paganism there was a mystery couched under the clothing of the gods.
If gods and goddesses were so much pleased by being clothed, it was because
there had once been a time in their history when they stood greatly in need
of clothing. Yes, it can be distinctly established, as has been already hinted,
that ultimately the great god and great goddess of Heathenism, while the facts
of their own history were interwoven with their idolatrous system, were
worshipped also as incarnations of our great progenitors, whose disastrous fall
stripped them of their primeval glory, and made it needful that the hand Divine
should cover their nakedness with clothing specially prepared for them. I cannot
enter here into an elaborate proof of this point; but let the statement of
Herodotus be pondered in regard to the annual ceremony, observed in Egypt, of
slaying a ram, and clothing the FATHER OF THE GODS with its skin. Compare this
statement with the Divine record in Genesis about the clothing of the "Father of
Mankind" in a coat of sheepskin; and after all that we have seen of the
deification of dead men, can there be a doubt what it was that was thus annually
commemorated? Nimrod himself, when he was cut in pieces, was necessarily
stripped. That exposure was identified with the nakedness of Noah, and
ultimately with that of Adam. His sufferings were represented as voluntarily
undergone for the good of mankind. His nakedness, therefore, and the nakedness
of the "Father of the gods," of whom he was an incarnation, was held to be a
voluntary humiliation too. When, therefore, his suffering was over, and his
humiliation past, the clothing in which he was invested was regarded as a
meritorious clothing, available not only for himself, but for all who were
initiated in his mysteries. In the sacred rites of the Babylonian god, both the
exposure and the clothing that were represented as having taken place, in his
own history, were repeated on all his worshippers, in accordance with the
statement of Firmicus, that the initiated underwent what their god had
undergone. First, after being duly prepared by magic rites and ceremonies, they
were ushered, in a state of absolute nudity, into the innermost recesses of the
temple. This appears from the following statement of Proclus: "In the most holy
of the mysteries, they say that the mystics at first meet with the many-shaped
genera [i.e., with evil demons], which are hurled forth before the gods: but on
entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved and guarded by the mystic
rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom divine illumination, and, DIVESTED
OF THEIR GARMENTS, participate, as they would say, of a divine nature." When the
initiated, thus "illuminated" and made partakers of a "divine nature," after
being "divested of their garments," were clothed anew, the garments with which
they were invested were looked upon as "sacred garments," and possessing
distinguished virtues. "The coat of skin" with which the Father of mankind was
divinely invested after he was made so painfully sensible of his nakedness, was,
as all intelligent theologians admit, a typical emblem of the glorious
righteousness of Christ--"the garment of salvation," which is "unto all and upon
all them that believe." The garments put upon the initiated after their
disrobing of their former clothes, were evidently intended as a counterfeit
of the same. "The garments of those initiated in the Eleusinian Mysteries," says
Potter, "were accounted sacred, and of no less efficacy to avert evils
than charms and incantations. They were never cast off till completely worn
out." And of course, if possible, in these "sacred garments" they were
buried; for Herodotus, speaking of Egypt, whence these mysteries were derived,
tells us that "religion" prescribed the garments of the dead. The efficacy of
"sacred garments" as a means of salvation and delivering from evil in the unseen
and eternal world, occupies a foremost place in many religions. Thus the
Parsees, the fundamental elements of whose system came from the Chaldean
Zoroaster, believe that "the sadra or sacred vest" tends
essentially to "preserve the departed soul from the calamities accruing from
Ahriman," or the Devil; and they represent those who neglect the use of this "sacred
vest" as suffering in their souls, and "uttering the most dreadful and
appalling cries," on account of the torments inflicted on them "by all kinds of
reptiles and noxious animals, who assail them with their teeth and stings, and
give them not a moment's respite." What could have ever led mankind to attribute
such virtue to a "sacred vest"? If it be admitted that it is just a
perversion of the "sacred garment" put on our first parents, all is clear. This,
too, accounts for the superstitious feeling in the Papacy, otherwise so
unaccountable, that led so many in the dark ages to fortify themselves against
the fears of the judgment to come, by seeking to be buried in a monk's dress.
"To be buried in a friar's cast-off habit, accompanied by letters enrolling the
deceased in a monastic order, was accounted a sure deliverance from eternal
condemnation! In 'Piers the Ploughman's Creed,' a friar is described as
wheedling a poor man out of his money by assuring him that, if he will only
contribute to his monastery,
'St. Francis himself
shall fold thee in his cope,
And present thee to the Trinity, and pray for thy sins.'"
In virtue of the same superstitious
belief, King John of England was buried in a monk's cowl; and many a royal and
noble personage besides, "before life and immortality" were anew "brought to
light" at the Reformation, could think of no better way to cover their naked and
polluted souls in prospect of death, than by wrapping themselves in the garment
of some monk or friar as unholy as themselves. Now, all these refuges of lies,
in Popery as well as Paganism, taken in connection with the clothing of the
saints of the one system, and of the gods of the other, when traced to their
source, show that since sin entered the world, man has ever felt the need of a
better righteousness than his own to cover him, and that the time was when all
the tribes of the earth knew that the only righteousness that could avail for
such a purpose was "the righteousness of God," and that of "God manifest in the
flesh."
Intimately connected with the "clothing
of the images of the saints" is also the "crowning" of them. For the last
two centuries, in the Popish communion, the festivals for crowning the
"sacred images" have been more and more celebrated. In Florence, a few years
ago, the image of the Madonna with the child in her arms was "crowned"
with unusual pomp and solemnity. Now, this too arose out of the facts
commemorated in the history of Bacchus or Osiris. As Nimrod was the first king
after the Flood, so Bacchus was celebrated as the first who wore a crown. *
* PLINY, Hist. Nat. Under the
name of Saturn, also, the same thing was attributed to Nimrod.
When, however, he fell into the hands
of his enemies, as he was stripped of all his glory and power, he was stripped
also of his crown. The "Falling of the crown from the head of
Osiris" was specially commemorated in Egypt. That crown at different times was
represented in different ways, but in the most famous myth of Osiris it was
represented as a "Melilot garland." Melilot is a species of trefoil; and trefoil
in the Pagan system was one of the emblems of the Trinity. Among the Tractarians
at this day, trefoil is used in the same symbolical sense as it has long been in
the Papacy, from which Puseyism has borrowed it. Thus, in a blasphemous Popish
representation of what is called God the Father (of the fourteenth century), we
find him represented as wearing a crown with three points, each of which is
surmounted with a leaf of white clover (Fig.
39). But long before Tractarianism or Romanism was known, trefoil
was a sacred symbol. The clover leaf was evidently a symbol of high import among
the ancient Persians; for thus we find Herodotus referring to it, in describing
the rites of the Persian Magi--"If any (Persian) intends to offer to a god, he
leads the animal to a consecrated spot. Then, dividing the victim into parts, he
boils the flesh, and lays it upon the most tender herbs, especially TREFOIL.
This done, a magus--without a magus no sacrifice can be performed--sings a
sacred hymn." In Greece, the clover, or trefoil, in some form or other, had also
occupied an important place; for the rod of Mercury, the conductor of souls, to
which such potency was ascribed, was called "Rabdos Tripetelos," or "the
three-leaved rod." Among the British Druids the white clover leaf was held
in high esteem as an emblem of their Triune God, and was borrowed from the same
Babylonian source as the rest of their religion. The Melilot, or trefoil
garland, then, with which the head of Osiris was bound, was the crown of the
Trinity--the crown set on his head as the representative of the Eternal--"The
crown of all the earth," in accordance with the voice divine at his birth, "The
Lord of all the earth is born." Now, as that "Melilot garland," that crown of
universal dominion, fell "from his head" before his death, so, when he rose to
new life, the crown must be again set upon his head, and his universal dominion
solemnly avouched. Hence, therefore, came the solemn crowning of the statues of
the great god, and also the laying of the "chaplet" on his altar, as a trophy of
his recovered "dominion." But if the great god was crowned, it was needful also
that the great goddess should receive a similar honour. Therefore it was fabled
that when Bacchus carried his wife Ariadne to heaven, in token of the high
dignity bestowed upon her, he set a crown upon her head; and the remembrance of
this crowning of the wife of the Babylonian god is perpetuated to this hour by
the well-known figure in the sphere called Ariadnoea corona, or "Ariadne's
crown." This is, beyond question, the real source of the Popish rite of crowning
the image of the Virgin.
From the fact that the Melilot garland
occupied so conspicuous a place in the myth of Osiris, and that the "chaplet"
was laid on his altar, and his tomb was "crowned" with flowers, arose the
custom, so prevalent in heathenism, of adorning the altars of the gods with
"chaplets" of all sorts, and with a gay profusion of flowers. Side by side with
this reason for decorating the altars with flowers, there was also another. When
in
"That fair field
Of Enna, Proserpine gathering flowers,
Herself, a fairer flower, by gloom Dis,
Was gathered;"
and all the flowers she had stored up
in her lap were lost, the loss thereby sustained by the world not only drew
forth her own tears, but was lamented in the Mysteries as a loss of no ordinary
kind, a loss which not only stripped her of her own spiritual glory, but blasted
the fertility and beauty of the earth itself. *
* OVID, Metamorphoses. Ovid
speaks of the tears which Proserpine shed when, on her robe being torn from
top to bottom, all the flowers which she had been gathering up in it fell to
the ground, as showing only the simplicity of a girlish mind. But this is
evidently only for the uninitiated. The lamentations of Ceres, which were
intimately connected with the fall of these flowers, and the curse upon
the ground that immediately followed, indicated something entirely different.
But on that I cannot enter here.
That loss, however, the wife of Nimrod,
under the name of Astarte, or Venus, was believed to have more than repaired.
Therefore, while the sacred "chaplet" of the discrowned god was placed in
triumph anew on his head and on his altars, the recovered flowers which
Proserpine had lost were also laid on these altars along with it, in token of
gratitude to that mother of grace and goodness, for the beauty and temporal
blessings that the earth owed to her interposition and love. In Pagan Rome
especially this was the case. The altars were profusely adorned with flowers.
From that source directly the Papacy has borrowed the custom of adorning the
altar with flowers; and from the Papacy, Puseyism, in Protestant England, is
labouring to introduce the custom among ourselves. But, viewing it in connection
with its source, surely men with the slightest spark of Christian feeling may
well blush to think of such a thing. It is not only opposed to the genius of the
Gospel dispensation, which requires that they who worship God, who is a Spirit,
"worship Him in spirit and in truth"; but it is a direct symbolising with those
who rejoiced in the re-establishment of Paganism in opposition to
the worship of the one living and true God.