éned period, was proscribed by the majesty of Rome; that its observance was assailed by almost a continual and relentless persecution, and that it was not till the beginning of the fourth century, that the public exercise of the religion of Christ was established in the Roman empire. That the first Christians, however, did not consider the veneration of images as unlawful, appears from a fact recorded by Tertullian, that in his time, that is, in the second and third centuries, it was usual to have the image of the good shepherd engraven on their chalices1. To the same effect Eusebius, the parent of ecclesiastical history, relates, that he had seen a brazen statue of the woman cured by touching the hem of our Saviour's garment, and various paintings of him and of his apostles Peter and Paul; and that a plant grew at the base of the statue, which removed every species of disorder 2.

V. When the catechist asserts, that many councils of old have condemned this practice of venerating images, he should have added, that these were either false councils, not admitted by the Catholic Church, or provincial councils, that were studious to remove local abuses; for no general council, the grand organ of Catholic belief, ever censured this practice. On the contrary, the seventh general council, held in 787,

1 Tertull. de Pudicit. c. 10.

2 Euseb. Hist. lib. 7. c. 18.

fully established it; and no doubt was ever entertained in the church of the propriety of the decision.

VI. It is really a matter of some toil, to correct the errors of the catechist, on the subject of ecclesiastical history. Let me tell him to this effect, that the Carpocratians were not accounted heretics, for following the Catholic practice, as here explained; but for treating images as the Pagans treated their idols; and for placing the memorials of our Redeemer on the same level with the representations of Homer, of Pythagoras, and of Plato1.

VII. But, says the catechist, God not only forbids us to place any virtue in images, but any falling down before them in a religious way, whatever the intention may be. My answer is, that all this is directly untrue; for the reader has only to turn to the two passages cited, to be convinced that God forbids manifest idolatry only, but by no means every demonstration of respect to religious memorials: otherwise how could the Protestant venerate his Bible, bow at the name of Jesus, and perform a variety of actions, which are rendered lawful by the intention that directs them?

2

Compare St. Irenæus, lib. i. c. 24, with St. Epiphan. Hær. 27 et 79.

2 Jer. xi. 26, 27. Is. xliv. 17, 18.

VIII. Again the catechist confounds the actions of heathens with the practice of the Catholic church respecting images, but the difference is immense. The Pagans, as appears from every monument of antiquity, gave divine honours to created objects; the Catholic church ever honoured created memorials, for the relation which they bore to God and holy things.

IX. The fact relative to St. Epiphanius is cor-> rect; but it by no means justifies the conclusion of the catechist. The holy prelate apprehended some superstitious practice relating to images, among his converts from idolatry; and this induced him to remove what, under certain circumstances, might prove hurtful'. On the same principle, we snatch legitimate weapons of defence, and even common instruments of use, from the hands that are likely to pervert them to mischievous purposes. But as to the general practice of the church at that period, not the smallest doubt can exist2.

X. The statement concerning the supposed difference between the second Council of Nice and that of Francfort, invincibly proves, among many instances, how superficially the catechist is versed in ecclesiastical antiquity. If the Council of Francfort had really differed from the

See St. Epiph. ad Joan. Hier. inter opera Hieron. 2 See the body of this article.

second Council of Nice on a doctrinal point, its authority as a provincial synod must have been overborne by the influence which a general council possesses in the Catholic church. But the fact is, the supposed difference between these councils, originated in a mere mistake. The second Council of Nice was held in 787; that of Francfort in 794. In the latter was produced an unfaithful translation of some part of the acts of the former; in which these venerable fathers were represented as giving the same adoration to pictures, as is given to the Trinity: these fathers, however, carefully distinguished between relative honour and supreme adoration; and the error existed only in the faulty translation from the Greek original1. also adopted by the author of the Caroline books. The knowledge of this curious fact ought not to have escaped the attention of the catechist and his friends; since one of their own divines candidly acknowledges the truth of the statement here given2.

The same supposition was

After this clear and brief refutation of the objections of the catechist, will this candid divine accept of the opinions of two eminent doctors of his own church on the subject? "As to the use

See and compare the acts of both Councils, t. vii. p. 1057

et 187.

2 See Thorndike, Epilogue, part iii. p. 363.

of images in the worship of God," says Dr. Samuel Parker, "I cannot but wonder at the confidence of these men, to make so bold a charge against them in general, (the Catholics) when the images of the cherubim were commanded by God himself1, which instance is so plain and obvious to every reader, there being nothing more remarkable in the Old Testament than the honour done to the cherubim, that it is a much greater wonder to me that those men would advance the objection of idolatry so groundlessly, and can so slightly rid themselves of so pregnant a proof against it.".

"The pictures of Christ," says Montague, "of the Blessed Virgin, and the saints, may be had in houses, set up in churches; respect and honour may be given to them, the Protestants give it; you say that they must not have latria, so say we; you give them dulia; I quarrel not with the word; though I could. There is a respect due to the pictures of Christ and his saints. If you call this dulia, we give it too; let doctrine and practice go together, we agree3."

After all these authorities and reasonings on the subject of that veneration which is paid by the Catholic church to images, and after this

1 Exodus xxv. 18.

2 Parker's Reasons for Abrogating the Test, p. 130.