It will be seen from these premises, that images and other forms, when addressed or honoured by bowing and other like acts of reverence, are then idols prohibited by the divine commandment; when not so used they are merely symbols, and are so far from being wicked, that they become objects of approved usefulness. The Protestant reformers, abjuring the errors of the Church of Rome, accused that Church with the direct worship of images, and with having thereby become an heretic Church. Acting in accordance with this accusation, all images and other symbols which had been perverted to the purposes of Romanist idolatry were destroyed, with a degree of zeal which might perhaps be justly termed indignant, and even outrageous, and the interior of churches were stript of all ornaments which could by any possibility have been available to idolatrous uses, even when they were merely expressive of moral and scriptural truths. In this it may be said that the Reformers transgressed all reasonable bounds. What may have been the rule by which the Reformers ought to have been guided, it may be proper to enquire.

The bishop of Mende advocates the Romanist use of images. He thus writes: "Pictures and ornaments in churches are the lessons and scripture of the laity. Whence Gregory: It is one thing to adore a picture, and another by means of a picture historically to learn what should be adored; for what writing supplieth to him that can read, that doth a picture supply to him which is unlearned and can only look. Because they who are instructed thus see what they ought to follow, and things are read though letters be unknown." m The bishop, after observing that the Chaldeans and other nations were idolaters in every sense of the word, thus proceeds: "But we worship not images, nor account them to be gods, nor put any hope of salvation in them, for that were idolatry. Yet we adore them for the

m Durand. chap. iii. sect. 1.

memory and remembrance of things done long agone, whence the verse,

What time thou passest by the rood,

Bow humbly evermore;

Yet not the rood, but him which there

Was crucified, adore.”

The bishop, after citing several texts condemnatory of idolatry, but not the important words of the second commandment, which forbid the act of bowing, proceeds to observe, "From these forementioned and other authorities the excessive use

of images is forbidden. The Apostle saith also to the

Corinthians, We know that an idol is nothing in this world, and there is no God but one. For they that are simple and infirm may easily by an excessive and indiscreet use of images be perverted to idolatry. Whence he saith in Wisdom, There shall be no respect to the idols of the nations which have made the creatures of God hateful, and temptations for the souls of men, and snares for the feet of the unwise. But blame there is none in a moderate use of pictures, to teach how ill is to be avoided and good followed.” n

On this doctrine the Camden authors of the laudatory introduction to the Rationale thus observe: "A more solemn protest against the sin of idolatry can hardly be found than the above; and they who brand every return to and every wish for the restoration of the Catholic practices by so hateful a name would do well to bear it in mind."

Nothing can be more just and true than the opinion given by the bishop of the salutary use of symbols. The evidences adduced in the pages of this treatise shew that such are the benefits to be derived from them. Previously to the promulgation of the Gospel, every act, whether of the true worship of God or of the false and idolatrous, was figurative or symbolical of some important truth; and further, that the Saviour in the institution of the Sacraments made

n Durand. chap. iii. sect. 4. 1 Cor. viii. 4. Wisdom xiv. 11.

them altogether symbolical. These facts not only justify but indirectly enjoin the use of symbolical ornaments in churches.

Thus far every Protestant may concur with the episcopal author; but when he speaks of images and pictures, as of the Rood in the lines above cited, assent to his statements must be withheld by every one who obeys the import of the commandment. He says, We worship not images. Can this be true when the suppliant kneels before the image, it may be of the Virgin Mary, and requests from her the grant of the object of his prayer? When he bows humbly before the Rood, even though he may adore him there crucified, is he not guilty of a breach of the commandment, Thou shalt not bow down to any form or likeness? When it is said, "Blame there is none in a moderate use of pictures," can that be a moderate use, which the commandment clearly prohibits? Christians worship the Saviour, but they must not worship or bow down to a picture or image of the Saviour, even though it be a likeness. Such reverence may honour the object, but it dishonours the God. It cannot but be a cause of regret, that pious persons, such as it is hoped that the bishop and his advocates are, should so mistake as seemingly to hold themselves bound to observe such portion only of the Divine command as may not interfere with their own prejudices and practice.

To garble texts of Scripture, and to cite as holy writ from the pen of an Apostle a text from an apocryphal book, the Book of Wisdom, and not of divine authority, may accord with the principles of Romanism, and might pass uncensured in the dark years of the thirteenth century; but that such practices should be regarded without disapprobation, or even with approving silence, in the present times, cannot but excite regret. The Camden editors are clearly amenable to such charge; may they not be denounced as wilful accomplices of error, or rather misstatement? When

the bishop writes of pictures and ornaments of churches, ought not the word image to have been used instead of pictures? for with the Romanists images are frequent, pictures few. Has not the word picture been substituted in the translation, instead of the word image, the more offensive to the Protestant ear? Be this as it may, when the editors decide that the declaration of the bishop is a solemn protest against the sin of idolatry, do they not advocate error, and wink with their eyes when they read the commandment which forbids not only the worship but with equal decisiveness the act of bowing to any likeness whatsoever? Is this honourable, is it honest? Can it be possible that a delirious admiration of Gothic architecture should thus pervert the understanding and render it blind to truth, or is it that because the rites of Protestant worship are too few, and the churches generally devoid of ornament, they resolve to love a church whose rites lead on to the opposite extreme, and consist of countless forms and superstitious observances, which atone for sin and supersede repentance, which carnalize the spirit, and render sin secure? These questions the Camden editors of Durandus may best answer. The Apostle writes, "of such the condemnation is just." What can have been the sin of the Church of England which has inclined the Great Disposer of all things to permit such darkness and error to overwhelm the minds of any of its members? May "the plague soon be stayed;" may there be an early removal of that "blindness in part which has happened to Israel.” o

Let errors such as these be shunned, and then pictures and images may with great benefit be admitted into Protestant Churches. It may be difficult to prescribe any general rule for the choice of the figurative subjects, whether images or pictures: being exhibitions of scriptural characters or scenes taken from scripture, they cannot be portraits or real

。 Romans xi. 25.

representations, they must be to a certain extent imaginary, and consequently may possibly be the productions of misconception and error, and likely to suggest wrong notions, so as even to be injurious to truth. To prevent such mischiefs, and even to render them impossible, it is submitted that such intended exhibitions, especially whenever they bear any traits of a novel kind, ought, before they be set up, to be subjected to the inspection of proper authorities, whose decisions may perhaps be guided by rules such as those propounded in a former page for regulating the choice of symbols. A few notices of some of the personages and subjects which may claim admission may be usefully illustrative of this opinion.

Images of the Virgin Mary, especially if bearing the infant Saviour in her arms, are preeminently approved by the Church of Rome. She is commonly called the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven; and as such her image wears a crown, often of gold. The rosary of beads and cross is almost exclusively appropriated to her worship, which consists of fifteen repetitions of the Lord's Prayer, and one hundred aves, or salutations of the adored image. This worship was first practised in the fourth century, by a party of Christians in Arabia, which obtained the name of Collyridians, from the cakes called collyridia, offered at certain times to this adored personage. The worship soon became generally adopted by the Churches of the West, particularly in Gaul in the fifth century.

This worship of the Virgin may justly be considered as one of the grossest errors of the Church of Rome, and cannot be vindicated by any scriptural authority. The Mother of the Lord is not distinguished in the gospel history from other women the disciples of the Saviour. At the marriagefeast at Cana the Saviour checked her interference, when about there to perform the beginning of his miracles. On P Mosheim, Eccles. Hist.