“Images and pictures were first introduced into churches, not to be worshiped, but either in the place of books to give instruction to those who could not read, or to excite devotion in the minds of others. How far they ever answered such a purpose is doubtful; but, even granting that this was the case for a time, it soon ceased to be so, and it was found that pictures and images brought into churches darkened rather than enlightened the minds of the ignorant—degraded [pg 680] rather than exalted the devotion of the worshiper. So that, however they might have been intended to direct men's minds to God, they ended in turning them from Him to the worship of created things.”—J. Mendham, “The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicæa,” Introduction, pp. iii-vi.
For a record of the proceedings and decisions of the Second Council of Nice, A.D. 787, called to establish the worship of images, see Baronius, “Ecclesiastical Annals,” Vol. IX, pp. 391-407 (1612 Antwerp ed.); J. Mendham, “The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicæa;” Ed. Stillingfleet, “Defence of the Discourse Concerning the Idolatry Practiced in the Church of Rome” (London, 1686); “A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” second series, Vol. XIV, pp. 521-587 (N. Y., 1900); C. J. Hefele, “History of the Councils of the Church, from the Original Documents,” bk. 18, ch. 1, sec. 332, 333; ch. 2, sec. 345-352 (T. & T. Clark ed., 1896, Vol. V, pp. 260-304, 342-372).
[Page 53.] Edict of Constantine.—The law issued by Constantine on the seventh of March, A.D. 321, regarding a day of rest, reads thus:
“Let all judges, and all city people, and all tradesmen, rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields; since it frequently happens, that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain, or the planting of vines; hence the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost.”—A. H. Lewis, “History of the Sabbath and the Sunday,” pp. 123, 124 (2d ed., rev., 1903).
The original (in the “Codex of Justinian,” lib. 3, tit. 12, leg. 3) is quoted by Dr. J. A. Hessey in his Bampton Lectures on “Sunday,” lecture 3, par. 1, and by Dr. Philip Schaff in his “History of the Christian Church,” Vol. III, sec. 75, par. 5, note 1. See also Mosheim, “Ecclesiastical History,” cent. 4, part 2, ch. 4, sec. 5; Chambers' Encyclopædia, art. Sabbath; Encyclopædia Britannica, ninth ed., art. Sunday; Peter Heylyn, “History of the Sabbath,” part 2, ch. 3 (2d ed., rev., London, 1636, pp. 66, 67).
[Page 54.] Prophetic Dates.—See note for [page 329].
[Page 56.] Forged Writings.—Among the documents that at the present time are generally admitted to be forgeries, the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are of primary importance.
In citing facts concerning the question, “When and by whom was Constantine's Donation forged?” M. Gosselin, Director of the Seminary of St. Sulpice (Paris), says:
“Though this document is unquestionably spurious, it would be difficult to determine with precision the date of its fabrication. M. de Marca, Muratori, and other learned critics, are of the opinion that it was composed in the eighth century, before the reign of Charlemagne. Muratori, moreover, thinks it probable that it may have induced that monarch and Pepin to be so generous to the Holy See.”—Gosselin, “The Power of the Pope during the Middle Ages,” Vol. I, p. 321 (translated by the Rev. Matthew Kelly, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth; Baltimore, J. Murphy & Co., 1853).
On the date of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, see Mosheim, “Ecclesiastical History,” bk. 3, cent. 9, part 2, ch. 2, sec. 8. As Dr. Murdock, the translator, points out in a foot-note, the learned Catholic historian, M. L'Abbé Fleury, in his “Ecclesiastical History” (diss. 4, sec. 1), says of these decretals, that “they crept to light near the close of the eighth century.” Fleury, writing near the close of the seventeenth century, says further that these “false decretals were looked upon as authentic for the space of eight hundred years; and it was with much difficulty that they were given up in the last century. It is true that at present there are hardly any, though meanly instructed in these matters, who do not acknowledge that these decretals are false.”—Fleury, “Ecclesiastical History,” bk. 44, par. 54 (G. Adam's translation, London, 1732, Vol. V, p. 196). See also Gibbon, “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” ch. 49, par. 16.