Question XVI. Of what kind was the altar on Ebal?

Of unpolished stones, which iron did not touch, was the altar, as is said here (v. 31) and [in] Deut. 27, v. 5. But why the Lord willed such [an altar], various [men] have thought out various reasons. First: Abenezra [Ibn Ezra] — because [it is] a sacrilege [that], from stones which are applied to the highest worship of God, any fragments perish, or fall into rubbish and dung. Secondly: Rambam [Maimonides], in the book Moreh Nebuchim — lest, from the fragments of such sacred stones, idols be feigned under some appearance of religion. Thirdly: Ralbag and R. Isaac — lest God, who is most perfect in Himself and needy of nothing, seem to need human work and art for the completion of His altar. Fourthly: The same [say] — lest men refer that which they receive from God, through altar and sacrifice, to their own labor and work [as its source]. Fifthly: Abulensis (on Deut. 27, and Exod. 20, q. 40) — lest the altar itself be adored as an idol, if it had beautiful, polished stones, shaped into certain figures. Sixthly: Very many Rabbis — as Nachmanides, Bachya, and others in Mechilta, Tanchuma, and the Talmud — [say]: lest anything pernicious and harmful to the life and safety of men touch the altar, from which and through which safety, life, and prosperity is conciliated to all men by God; but what [is] more pernicious than iron? what more deadly? Seventhly: Masius — lest there be anything in the altars which men might admire, besides the very sacrifice of our salvation, which is the body and blood of the Lord; which was figured by the victims of the ancients, and foreknown by them, [and is] now known and believed by us. “To which,” says the same Masius, “I think that [thing] also looks, that our elders so greatly detested [it] if any image or picture were seen on the altars: as is handed down in the writings of Optatus, Bishop of Milevis. For he relates [that] the Donatists tried, by this thing procured through fraud, to violate the reputation of the religion and sacred [rites] of Catholic men. And St. Augustine — his contemporary, I think — infers from this (sermon 6 On the Words of the Lord) [that] some have statues in place of God [pro Deo], because they place them on the altars.” How this last [point] is to be taken, I will say a little after: but of these reasons, several seem little firm; let there be some, however, as they are called, “congruities.” To which I rightly add [these reasons], why God willed his altar [to be] of earth and rough stones. First: That he might signify [that] the sacrifices and victims of the Old Testament were rude and formless — [being], namely, types and figures of the one sacrifice of CHRIST JESUS, which, once done bloodily on the altar of the cross, is wont to be repeated bloodlessly every day. Secondly: That he might show how rude and unpolished and hard the altar of that same CHRIST the Lord — the truest and most precious victim — was to be: [namely] the cross itself, as Procopius indicates. Thirdly: That it might be noted [that] no altar of the ancients ought to be perpetual, but [that], just as they were easily constructed from earth and rough and horrid stones, so [they would be] most easily destroyed. Fourthly: That, suddenly and everywhere, when God had willed, there might be occasion for raising an altar to Him — since it demanded nothing laborious or artful. Fifthly: That the Lord might show [men] to look upon themselves [as] the victims rather than the altars, and to be delighted rather by the purity and sanctity of those [victims] than by the price and art of these [altars]. Sixthly: The Masian reason pleases me exceedingly; but as to the statues [images], which he added — what is [that]? Does he wish none of them to be on the altars? But [it is a mark] of religion, to some priests, to celebrate the sacred [rites] — [religion] which [is] sometimes even divinely approved by miracles — without at least the image of the crucified [Christ]; and those altars are looked upon as, [it were,] most religious, which are adorned with very many most beautiful pictures and statues. I say three [things]. First: Pictures and statues which may be thought [to be worshipped as] gods are by no means to be placed on the altars; and of these Optatus and St. Augustine speak (sermon 6 On the Words of the Lord), where he [Augustine] shows [that] those Christians acted ill who reclined [at table] with the Gentiles in idol-temples: and although these [Christians] said the “genius of Carthage” was not God, yet he teaches [that] it was held by them in place of God, because an altar was set up and raised to it. But no Catholics set up any altar with images or signs and statues: but [only] to God alone. Second: But to adorn altars with pictures and statues which refer to CHRIST the Lord, and the heaven-dwellers [saints], is good; to lack the same is not evil. Third: It can, however, be called into question, which is better and more conducive. Some — as the Capuchins — regard the simplicity and poverty by which God is delighted, or [look to] the peril of a lapse into some superstitions [that comes] from a certain excessive rudeness; and these [set up] either no, or very few, images; the Greeks indeed set up no statues, as neither [do] the Tzernians and the Poznanians, concerning whom, in their tongue, [is] the book On the 12 Languages, [by] Postellus. But others reckon [that], by however much altars are more adorned in all things — both in material and in art — by that very [degree] more of honor is done to CHRIST the Lord Himself, and [to] His truest and highest sacrifice; and they judge [that] souls curved down on the earth are more raised up and kindled to the worship of God; and these employ all the elegance of sacred vestments, vessels, pictures, and sculptures. Let neither condemn the others, and let each abound in his own judgment. One faith, one charity joins, in this age, the men of the Society of JESUS and the family of the Capuchins. How disparate, however, [are] their temples! How adorned [are] the [temples] of those, how unadorned and simple the altars of these! But from all altars are to be removed all images and statues which [are] more effective of levity, wantonness, [and] vanity than of piety — which are wont to be painted and fashioned by wanton or heretical painters — concerning which see the Council of Trent (sess. 25, on invocation), and Molanus and Paleotti (On Pictures). How absurd [is] either the painter, or [he] who described [ordered it] to the painter, by whom in the Bleidenstatt temple [was painted] the Gentile [pagan] Lucretia! How scurrilous and foul that type of the extreme [Last] Judgment in the temple of St. Stephen at Mainz! But enough. Abulensis, moreover, notes here [that] iron [is] not forbidden, by which perhaps the stones might be dug out from the quarries, but [only that] by which they might be sculpted and carved. Rude altars of this kind, too, around Trebizond, Arrian relates himself to have seen.