The instruments of the crucifixion—the very inscription on the cross—the crown of thorns—the nails—the lance—are shown to the present hour, as the true inscription, the true thorns, the true nails, and the true lance. So also there are exhibitions of the true blood, yet it is a printed truth, that what is exposed to worshippers in churches by ecclesiastics for true blood, is doubted of by the rev. Alban Butler. In a note to his article on “The Invention of the Holy Cross,” he states a ground for his incredulity, quite as singular as that whereon holders of the true blood maintain their faith. His words are: “The blood of Christ, which is kept in some places, of which the most famous is that at Mantua, seems to be what has sometimes issued from the miraculous bleeding of some crucifix, when pierced in derision by Jews or Pagans, instances of which are recorded in authentic histories.”[96] Though, as a catholic priest and biographer well acquainted with these “authentic histories,” Mr. Butler might have set them forth, yet he abstains from the disclosure; and hence on their superior credibility in his eyes, to the credibility of the declarations and testimonials urged by the owners of the blood itself, we may choose between their requisition to believe that the blood is the true blood, and Mr. Butler’s belief, that it is the blood of bleeding crucifixes. So stands the question of credibility.
Concerning the alleged implements of the crucifixion, it would be curious to examine particulars; but we are limited in room, and shall only recur to one—
“The Holy Lance.”
Respecting this weapon, reference should be first made to the great authority cited above. Mr. Butler, speaking of other instruments of Christ’s crucifixion, which he maintains to be genuine, says:—
“The holy lance which opened his sacred side, is kept at Rome, but wants the point. Andrew of Crete says, that it was buried, together with the cross. At least, St. Gregory of Tours, and venerable Bede, testify, that, in their time, it was kept at Jerusalem. For fear of the Saracens it was buried privately at Antioch; in which city it was found, in 1098, under ground, and wrought many miracles, as Robert the monk, and many eye-witnesses, testify. It was carried first to Jerusalem, and soon after to Constantinople. The emperor, Baldwin II., sent the point of it to Venice, by way of pledge for a loan of money. St. Lewis, king of France, redeemed this relick by paying off the sum it lay in pledge for, and caused it to be conveyed to Paris, where it is still kept in the holy chapel. The rest of the lance remained at Constantinople, after the Turks had taken that city, till, in 1492, the sultan Bajazet sent it by an ambassador, in a rich and beautiful case, to pope Innocent VIII., adding, that the point was in the possession of the king of France.”
This is Mr. Butler’s account of the “holy lance,” without the omission of a word, which should be recollected for reasons that will be obvious.
St. Longinus.
It is now necessary to observe, that there is not any account of this saint in Alban Butler’s “Lives of the Saints,” though (in the Breviar Roman. Antiq. 1543) the 15th of March is dedicated to him for his festival, and though the saint himself is declared, in the Romish breviary, to have been the Roman soldier who pierced the side of the saviour with the lance; and that, “being almost blind by the blood which fell, it is supposed on his eyes, he immediately recovered his sight and believed;” and that, furthermore, “forsaking his military profession he converted many to the faith,” and under the president Octavius suffered martyrdom.[97]
Cardinal Vigerius.
This dignitary, who died in 1516, was bishop of Præneste, and arch-priest of the Vatican church. He wrote a book to prove that Christ’s tunic ought to give place to the eminence of Longinus’s lance. The occasion of the work unfolds the history of the holy lance. In 1488, the sultan Bajazet II., being in fear of his brother, who had become prisoner to the king of France, offered that sovereign, if he would keep his brother in France, all the relics which his late father Mahomet had found in Constantinople when he took that city. Bajazet’s letter came too late; the court of France had already promised to put his brother in the custody of Innocent VIII. “When the sultan knew this, he wrote to the pope, and endeavoured to gain him by presents, and amongst others by the iron of the lance that pierced our saviour’s side, which he had before offered to the grand master, and assured him of the punctual payment of 40,000 ducats every year, on condition that he would not let his brother go upon any pretence whatsoever.” It appears, however, that Bajazet retained the relic called the “seamless coat,” and that this gave rise to a great dispute in Italy, as to whether the holy lance presented to the pope, or the holy coat, which Bajazet reserved for himself, was the most estimable; and hence it was assigned to cardinal Vigerius to make it clear that the pope had the best relic. He executed the task to the satisfaction of those who contended for the precedence of the lance.[98]