Right after citing Origen, Tim K cites from Lactantius to bring up another church father against the so called “Roman incarnationalism”. But as usual, context and target of Lactantius’ statements remain ignored. In fact his opening statement in using him shows forth his ignorance as Tim K writes,
Or consider Lactantius (250 – 325 A.D.), who rejects Shea’s so-called “incarnationalism,” saying that because God is incorporeal and invisible, we must worship Him without the external trappings of Rome’s “enfleshed” representations of God’s grace, which are distractions from truly spiritual worship
See: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/12/07/novel-antiquity/
Compare this with the citation of Lactantius that is to follow,
‘Ivory,’ says Plato, ‘is not a pure offering to God.’ What then? Are embroidered and costly textures? Nay, rather nothing is a pure offering to God which can be corrupted or taken away secretly. But as he saw this, that nothing which was taken from a dead body ought to be offered to a living being, why did he not see that a corporeal offering ought not to be presented to an incorporeal being? … Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen.” (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book VI, chapter 25)
It is rather hilarious that nothing of “external trappings” is mentioned here at all. All one can infer from this is that God need not physical sacrifices. And let’s not forget, when he says “sacrifice” what he would be thinking of in context would be,
But with those who by no means understand the nature of the Divine Being, a gift is anything which is wrought of gold or silver; likewise anything which is woven of purple and silk: a sacrifice is a victim, and as many things as are burnt upon the altar. But God does not make use either of the one or the other, because He is free from corruption, and that is altogether corruptible.(ibid)
Or better yet his description in chapter 24,
That man is sound, he is just, he is perfect. Whoever, therefore, has obeyed all these heavenly precepts, he is a worshipper of the true God, whose sacrifices are gentleness of spirit, and an innocent life, and good actions. And he who exhibits all these qualities offers a sacrifice as often as he performs any good and pious action. For God does not desire the sacrifice of a dumb animal, nor of death and blood, but of man and life. And to this sacrifice there is neither need of sacred boughs, nor of purifications, nor of sods of turf, which things are plainly most vain, but of those things which are put forth from the innermost breast. Therefore, upon the altar of God, which is truly very great, and which is placed in the heart of man, and cannot be defiled with blood, there is placed righteousness, patience, faith, innocence, chastity, and abstinence.(ibid, chapter 24)
It doesn’t take half a brain to realize that things like these are not included in the so called “Roman incarnationalism” that Tim K intends to debunk when one takes this into consideration, making the use of Lactantius here rather pointless.
Having dealt with this, it is time to move onto other citations of Lactantius that Tim K uses to make his case on chapter 2 of book VI of the Divine Institutes, stating that,
As he explained in The Divine Institutes, Book IV “Of True Worship,” God requires neither candles nor incense from us, but rather a clear mind, enlightened by the Word of God:
Nothing wrong with the statement itself. It is after all one which even a Catholic can easily agree with. The problem here is that the statement once more directs one towards Catholic use of incense and candles in worship which is a rather ridiculous thing considering what Lactantius is arguing against,
Therefore they sacrifice fine and fat victims to God, as though He were hungry; they pour forth wine to Him, as though He were thirsty; they kindle lights to Him, as though He were in darkness. But if they were able to conjecture or to conceive in their mind what those heavenly goods are, the greatness of which we cannot imagine, while we are still encompassed with an earthly body, they would at once know that they are most foolish with their empty offices. Or if they would contemplate that heavenly light which we call the sun, they will at once perceive how God has no need of their candles, who has Himself given so clear and bright a light for the use of man.(Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book VI, chapter 2)
I for one am pretty sure Catholics don’t use candles in worship because God is somehow in the dark. Such is the context of Lactantius’ critique, not the use of candles itself per say.
But let’s take a look at Tim K’s own Presbyterian use of candles to see how his use of Lactantius against Rome on the issue would entail his own denomination as included in what he would be against
Notice the presence of candles…..funny, I thought God didn’t need them.
Next off it is time to move on to know more about Lactantius himself and his association with the first Christian Emperor, Constantine. He takes Constantine’s vision of the cross(or in Lactantius recording of it, the Chi-Rho) by which he was told to put it on the shields of his soldiers(Bowman et al., 2005, pg92) as an actual event and miracle that happened. It is also clear that the emperor Constantine trusted him to educate his son, Crispus; and that he serves as his advisor. (Pohlsander, 2004, pg42).
Pohlsander (2004, pg42) also makes clear Lactantius rather positive views of Constantine himself, stating that he is the first emperor to “repudiate errors” and “acknowledged and honored the majesty of the true God”. But, Constantine gave incense to the Lateran Basilica (Mcguckin, 2005, pg 182). And as one can see from Casaeu (2007, pg 76), to numerous other basilicas as well.
It is odd that Lactantius who would be alive at the time, did not condemn or chastise the emperor for doing this? He is supposed to be the advisor to him and so if he is really opposed to the trappings of this so called Roman incarnationalism, one would at least see his disdain for this. But none is to be found.
Such naturally creates a rather huge dent in Tim K’s use of Lactantius. One may also not forget that there would be plenty of imagery in these basilicas that Constantine had sponsored. In fact as Thunø (2002, pg 14) mentions Constantine installing a reliquary for the True Cross in the basilica at the Sessorian Palace. It seems that Lactantius didn’t advise Constantine not to fall into the trappings of Roman Catholicism.
With this it can hardly be even said that Lactantius denied what Tim K includes as Roman incarnationalism when he does not even bother correcting the person he is to advice on not doing things that are part of it. Furthermore, context makes clear how Lactantius is having Pagan sacrifices and practice in mind which is a far cry from that which Catholicism does. They don’t obviously think God needs light or victims after all.
Furthermore, Lactantius also attests to the use of the sign of the cross and its power,
Diocletian, as being of a timorous disposition, was a searcher into futurity, and during his abode in the East he began to slay victims, that from their livers he might obtain a prognostic of events; and while he sacrificed, some attendants of his, who were Christians, stood by, and they put the immortal sign on their foreheads. At this the demons were chased away, and the holyrites interrupted. (Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, Chapter 10)
It’s quite hilarious when Catholics also makes the sign of the cross(and can also do so through making it on their foreheads).
With this ends Part 4
Part 5 to follow
References consulted:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07016.htm
Debunking Deceit 