tifying the necessity of a reformation. To countenance such misrepresentation in our own country in particular, avaricious courtiers and grandees seized on the costly shrines, statues, and other ornaments of all the churches and chapels, and authorized the demolition or defacing of all other religious memorials, of whatever nature or materials, not only in places of worship, but also in market-places, and even in private houses. In support of the same pious fraud, the Holy Scriptures were corrupted in their different versions and editions,* till religious Protestants themselves became disgusted with them,† and loudly called for a new translation. This was accordingly made, at the beginning of the first James' reign. In short, every passage in the Bible, and every argument which common sense suggests against idolatry, was applied to the decent respect which Catholics show to the memorials of Christianity.

The misrepresentation in question still continues to be the chosen topic of Protestant controvertists, for inflaming the minds of the ignorant against their Catholic brethren. Accordingly, there is hardly a lisping infant, who has not been taught that the Romanists pray to images; nor is there a secluded peasant who has not been made to believe, that the Papists worship wooden gods. The Book of Homilies repeatedly affirms, that our images of Christ and his saints are idols; that we pray and ask of them what it belongs to God alone to give ;" and that "images have been and be worshipped, and so, idolatry committed to them by infinite multitudes, to the great offence of God's

66

his knees before a crucifix. Queen Elizabeth persisted for many years in retaining a crucifix on the altar of her chapel, till some of her Puritan courtiers engaged Patch, the fool, to break it: "no wiser man," says Dr. Heylin, (Hist. of Reform. p. 124,) " daring to undertake such a service." James I. thus reproached the Scotch bishops, when they objected to his placing pictures and statues in his chapel at Edinburgh: "You can endure lions and dragons, (the supporters of the royal arms,) and devils, (Queen Elizabeth's griffins,) to be figured in your churches, but will not allow the like place to patriarchs and apostles." Spotswood's History, p. 530.

See in the present English Bible, Colos. iii. 5, Covetousness, which is idolatry: this in the Bibles of 1562, 1577, and 1579, stood thus: Covetousness, which is the worshipping of images. In like manner, where we read, a covetous man who is an idolater in the former editions we read, a covetous man which is a worshipper of idols. Instead of, What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? 2 Cor. vi. 16, it used to stand: How agreeth the temple of God with images? Instead of, Little children, keep yourselves from idols, 1 John v. 21, it stood during the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth: Babes, keep yourselves from images. There were several other manifest corruptions in this as well as in other points in the ancient Protestant Bibles; some of which remain in the present version.

† See the account of what passed on this subject, at the Conference of Hampton Court, in Fuller and Collier's Church Histories, and in Neal's History of the Puritans.

majestie, and danger of infinite soules; that idolatrie can not possibly be separated from images set up in churches, and that God's horrible wrath and our most dreadful danger cannot be avoided without the destruction and utter abolition of all such images and idols out of the church and temple of God." *** Archbishop Secker teaches, that "the Church of Rome has other gods besides the Lord," and that, "there never was greater idolatry among heathens in the business of image-worshipping than in the Church of Rome." Bishop Porteus, though he does not charge us with idolatry by name, yet intimates the same thing, where he applies to us one of the strongest passages of Scripture against idol-worship: "They that make them are like unto them; and so is every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in the Lord." Psalm cxiii.

Let us now hear what the Catholic Church herself has solemnly pronounced on the present subject, in her General Council of Trent. She says: "The images of Christ, of the Virginmother of God, and of the other saints, are to be kept and retained, particularly in the churches, and due honor and veneration is to be paid them: not that we believe there is any divinity or power in them, for which we respect them, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be placed in them, as the heathens of old trusted in their idols." In conformity with this doctrine of our church, the following question and answer are seen in our first catechism, for the instruction of children: "Question: May we pray to relics or images? Answer: No; by no means, for they have no life or sense to hear or help us. Finally, that work of the able Catholic writers, Gother and Challoner, which I quoted above, The Papist Misrepresented and Represented, contains the following anathema, in which I am confident every Catholic existing will readily join: "Cursed is he that commits idolatry; that prays to images or relics, or worships them for God. Amen."

Dr. Porteus is very positive, that there is no scriptural warrant for retaining and venerating these exterior memorials; and he maintains that no other memorial ought to be admitted than the Lord's supper. Does he remember the ark of the covenant,

* Against the Peril of Idol. p. iii.-This admonition was quickly carried into effect throughout England. All statues, bas-relievos, and crosses, were demolished in all the churches, and all pictures were defaced; while they continued to hold their places, as they do still, in the Protestant churches of Germany. At length common sense regained its rights, even in this country. Accordingly we see the cross exalted at the top of its principal church, (St. Paul's,) which is also ornamented all round with the statues of saints; most of the cathedrals and collegiate churches now contain pictures, and some of them, as for example, Westminster Abbey, carved images.

† Comment on Ch. Catech. sect. 24.

+ Sess. xxv.

made by the command of God, together with the punishment of those who profaned it, and the blessings bestowed on those who revered it? And what was the ark of the covenant after all? A chest of settim wood, containing the tables of the law and two golden pots of manna; the whole being covered over by two carved images of cherubim; in short, it was a memorial of God's mercy and bounty to his people. But, says the bishop, "The Roman Catholics make images of Christ and of his saints after their own fancy: before these images, and even that of the cross, they kneel down and prostrate themselves; to these they lift up their eyes, and in that posture they pray."* Supposing all this to be true; has the bishop never read, that when the Israelites were smitten at Ai, "Joshua fell to the earth upon his face, before the ark of the Lord, until the even-tide, he and the elders of Israel; and Joshua said, Alas, O Lord God," &c. Jos. vii. 6. Does not he himself oblige those who frequent the above-mentioned memorial, to kneel and prostrate themselves before it, at which time it is to be supposed they lift up their eyes to the sacrament and say their prayers? Does he not require of his people, that "when the name of JESUS is pronounced in any lesson, &c., due reverence be made of all with lowliness of courtesie?" And does he consider, as well-founded, the outcry of idolatry against the Established Church, on this and the preceding point, raised by the dissenters? Again, is not his lordship in the habit of kneeling to his majesty, and of bowing, with the other peers, to an empty chair when it is placed at his throne? Does he not often reverently kiss the material substance of printed paper and leather, I mean the Bible, because it relates to, and represents the sacred word of God? When the Bishop of London shall have well considered these several matters, methinks he will better understand, than he seems to do at present, the nature of relative honor; by which an inferior respect may be paid to the sign, for the sake of the thing signified, and he will neither directly nor indirectly charge the Catholics with idolatry on account of indifferent ceremonies, which take their nature from the intention of those who use them. During the dispute about pious images, which took place in the eighth century, St. Stephen, of Auxence, having endeavored, in vain, to make his persecutor, the Emperor Copronimus, conceive the nature of relative honor and dishonor in this matter, threw a piece of money, bearing the emperor's figure, on the ground, and treated it with the utmost indignity; when the latter soon proved, by his treatment of the saint, that the affront regarded himself, rather than the piece of metal.‡

* Confut. p. 27.

† Injunctions, A. D. 1559, n. 52. Canons, 1603, n. 18. Fleury's Hist. Ecc. L. xliii. n. 41.

1

The bishop objects, that the Catholics "make pictures of God the Father under the likeness of a venerable old man." Certain painters, indeed, have represented him so, as, in fact, he was pleased to appear so to some of the prophets, Isa. vi. 1— Dan. vii. 9; but the Council of Trent says nothing concerning that representation; which, after all, is not so common as that of a triangle among Protestants, to represent the Trinity. Thus much, however, is most certain, that if any Christian were obstinately to maintain, that the Divine nature resembles the human form, he would be condemned as an anthropomorphite heretic. The bishop moreover signifies, what most other Protestant controvertists express more coarsely, that, to screen our idolatry, we have suppressed the second commandment of the Decalogue, and to make up the deficiency, we have split the tenth commandment into two. My answer is, that I apprehend many of these disputants are ignorant enough to believe, that the division of the commandments, in their Common Prayer Book, was copied, if not from the identical tables of Moses, at least from his original text of the Pentateuch: but the bishop, as a man of learning, must know, that in the original Hebrew, and in the several copies and versions of it, during some thousands of years, there was no mark of separation between one commandment and another; so that we have no rules to be guided by, in making the distinction, but the sense of the context, and the authority of the most approved fathers;* both which we follow. In the mean time, it is a gross calumny to pretend, that we suppress any part of the Decalogue; for the whole of it appears in all our Bibles, and in all our most approved catechisms.† To be brief: the words, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, are either a prohibition of all images, and, of course, those round the bishop's own cathedral, that of St. Paul; of those likewise that are seen upon all existing coins, which I am sure he will not agree to; or else it is a mere prohibition of images made to receive divine worship, in which we perfectly agree with him. You will observe, dear sir, that, among religious memorials, I intend to include relics; meaning things which have, some way, appertained to, and been left by, personages of eminent sanctity. Indeed, the ancient fathers generally call them by that name. Surely Dr. Porteus will not say, that there is no warrant in Scripture for honoring these, when he recollects, that "From the body of St. Paul, were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them," Acts, xix. 12; and that, "When

* St. August. Quæst. in Exod. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 6. Hieron. Ps. xxxii. + Catech. Roman ad Paroch. The folio Catech. of Montpelier. Douay Catech. Abridgment of Christian Doctrine.

the dead man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood upon his feet." 2 Kings, xiii. 21.

But to make an end of the present discussion; nothing but the pressing want of a strong pretext for breaking communion with the ancient church, could have put the revolters upon so extravagant an attempt, as that of confounding the inferior and relative honor which Catholics pay to the memorials of Christ and his saints, (an honor which they themselves pay to the Bible-book, to the name of JESUS, and even to the king's throne,) with the idolatry of the Israelites to their golden calf, Exod. xxxii. 4, and of the ancient heathens to their idols, which they believed to be inhabited by their gods. In a word, the end for which pious pictures and images are made and retained by Catholics, is the same for which pictures and images are made and retained by mankind in general, to put us in mind of the persons and things they represent.-They are not primarily intended for the purpose of being venerated; nevertheless, as they bear a certain relation with holy persons and things, by representing them, they become entitled to a relative or secondary veneration, in the manner already explained. I must not forget one important use of pious pictures, mentioned by the holy fathers, namely, that they help to instruct the ignorant.* Still, it is a point agreed upon among Catholic doctors and divines, that the memorials of religion form no essential part of it.† Hence if you should become a Catholic, as I pray God you may, I shall never ask you if you have a pious picture or relic, or so much as a crucifix, in your possession: but then, I trust, after the declarations I have made, that you will not account me an idolater, should you see such things in my oratory or study, or should you observe how tenacious I am of my crucifix, in particular. Your faith and devotion may not stand in need of such memorials; but mine, alas! do. I am too apt to forget what my Saviour has done and suffered for me; but the sight of his representation often brings this to my memory, and affects my best sentiments. Hence I would rather part with most of the books in my library, than with the figure of my crucified Lord. I am, &c.

JOHN MILNer.

* St. Gregory calls pictures, Idiotarum libri. Epist. L. ix. 9. + The learned Petavius says, "We must lay it down as a principle that images are to be reckoned among the adiaphora, which do not belong to the sub. stance of religion, and which the church may retain or take away, as she best judges." L. xv. de Incar. Hence Dr. Hawarden, of images, p. 353, teaches, with Delphinus, that, if in any place there is danger of real idolatry or superstition from pictures, they ought to be removed by the pastor; as St. Epipha. nius destroyed a certain pious picture, and Ezechias destroyed the brazen serpent.