- innumerable ornaments, placed the images of two cherubs in the oracle and in the midst of the temple, which he covered with gold, and graved the walls of the holy building with various engravings and carvings, representing cherubs, and palm-trees, and diverse pictures." an idolater, meaning spiritual idola try, because he maketh money his god. And by the same unholy and scandalous artifices, they make God a perverter of his own decrees. Christianus says, that there is no practice more strongly reprobated by the Almighty than the making a graven image, the likeness of any figure, that it forms the subject of Enough has been advanced to enaone of the ten commandments, ble the reader duly to appreciate Thou shalt not make to thyself any the correctness of Christianus's in graven image, and that the bible, in dividual opinion and private interalmost every page, most pointedly pretation of image-making from the condemns it. But let me ask this bible, and to judge whether the gentleman, if God forbad the Israel- practice is unscriptural or not. ites to make any graven image, how The catholic church, relying on the came he, who is immutable and un- solemn promises of her divine Foundchangeable, to command these stiffer, that the Holy Spirit should guide necked people to violate his own law. In the 25th chapter of Exodus, we find the Almighty directing Moses to make the graven images of two cherubim to be placed on both sides of the oracle of the taberna-ther, as I have clearly proved from cle, which does not favour the asser- holy writ, from her first establishtion of the man of Antioch, that no ment, and through all ages, has practice was so strongly reprobated maintained the veneration of relics and the use of holy pictures and images. We see pope Gregory reproving a prelate of this church for his mistaken zeal in destroying them in the sixth century, and maintain her in all truth to the end of the world, and knowing that the prac tice of making images by the jews was not reprobated but commanded and allowed by our heavenly Fa by our omnipotent Creator as that of image making. Again, in the 21st chapter of numbers, we see the IMAGE of a brazen serpent set up by the command of God, as a sign and remedy to the jews, who, by looking the use of them as lawful and ing at it with the eye of faith, were healed of the bite of the serpents which God had sent to punish them, for their rebellious murmurings against his will. Now, if the Al mighty included a prohibition of MAKING any graven image, when he gave his commandments to Moses, would he have thus ordered his prophet to do that which Christianus says he solemnly reprobated? That the making of images for a good purpose was not condemned by our supreme ruler, is manifested in a particular manner in the 6th chapter of the 3d book of Kings, where it is related that Solomon, in decorating the temple of God, amongst other agreeable to the invariable practice of the christian church. In the eighth century we see the fathers of condemning the heresy of iconothis same church convened at Nice, clasm, or image-breaking, as contrary to the universal custom of the church of God. And in the sixteenth, we see the fathers of the Tridentine council agreeing in opinion with those of Nice, and commanding the bishops and pastors to instruct the people, that the images of Christ and of the saints are to be held and and retained, especially in churches, and due honour and veneration to be given to them. "Not" they ob. serve," that they believe any di 1 vinity, or power to be in them, for which they should be worshipped, or that any confidence should be placed in such images, as it was accustomed by the gentiles, who placed their hope in IDOLS. But because the honour which is exhibited to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent. So that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and bow down, we adore Christ and worship the saints, whose similitude they bear." The reader will here notice that the council makes a distinction between the honour given to Christ and that paid to the saints; for the catholic church has always maintained three distinct degrees of honour, namely, divine honour, which is due to God only, and cannot be given to any creature what ever without committing the crime of idolatry, which catholics abhor as much as protestants. The second is relative honour, belonging to angels, saints, and holy things, by reason of their excellency, and being exalted by God above the course of nature. The third is civil honour, due to human and worldly rank and capacity, and appertaining to kings, governors, magistrates, &c. But Christianus will not admit this definition of our spiritual guides in respect to religious worship. He says, p. 36, "The council of Trent has decreed that due worship ought to be given to images, but however papists may endeavour to explain the term, by subtle and metaphysical distinction, certain it is, that not only ALL and EVERY KIND of WORSHIP, but the MERE MAKING ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, to represent an object of worship, IS IDOLATRY, and contrary to the law of God." Now, if this statement of the man of Antioch be correct, it will require but little iagenuity to prove protestants to be idolaters as well as catholics, and | therefore it is neither kind nor con sistent in them to swear that papists only are guilty of this abominable crime. But is Mr Christianus aware that his description of idolatry ab solutely excludes the adoration of the Creator himself? If it is certain that every kind of worship is idola try, how are we to render homage to God according to his command? And if the mere making any graven' image to represent an object of worship be idolatry, and contrary to the law of God, what is to become of all the protestant academicians; the painters, engravers, sculptors, and other artists of this protestant country, who devote the chief part of their time in perfecting the art of graving images to represent objects of worship, and consequently, according to the logic of Christianus, live in a constant and open state of idolatry. Our most celebrated lexicographers, Johnson and Walker, define "to worship," to be respect, to honour, to treat with civil reverence. Now, as we are told by our blessed Saviour to render to Cæsar the tribute due to Cæsar, and as we are enjoined by St. Paul to render honour to whom honour is due, we must hold the king and other state functionaries in respect, and treat them with civil reverence; but by so doing we become guilty of idolatry; and thus every protestant artist who produces a graven image of our unfortunate and venerable monarch, and every loyal protestant subject who preserves a copy or representation of him, for the respect they entertain of his virtues, must be, like their catholic neighbours -IDOLA. TERS. In the marriage ceremony of the church of England, the bridegroom is made to worship the bride ; now is not this idolatry, according to the reasoning of the man of Antioch? Why, then, does he condemn the act, when performed by a papist, yet sanctions it in the case of a protestant? Is the latter privi- | God spake,' &c. &c. is omitted, and leged not only to transgress the law of God with impunity, but publicly to stigmatize his neighbour as the guilty offender? Surely an Eng lish protestant must be a superlative and highly gifted being, at least in his own eyes, to boast the possession of such impious presumption and inconsistency! More might be said in favour of the use of images and pictures, as now maintained by catholics, and other instances of self-conviction and folly might be produced against the man of Antioch and his protest ant brethren on this point; but sufficient has been said to upset this flippant logician. There is, however one groundless and barefaced allegation brought forward by him in support of his cause, which must not be passed unnoticed. I allude to his charge of catholics having suppressed the second commandment, and the manner in which he has attempted to support it. He says, p. 41, >> As Romanus appears anxious that I should prove the omission of the second commandment, I beg leave to point out to him the following publications, in which the second commandment prohibiting the making and wor. shipping of images is rejected in tolo, and the tenth cut in two to make up the number. Summary of Christian Doctrine, printed for T. D. 1678. See also a publication by father James Ledesma, a jesuit, printed by permission, 1609, and 1624, in which the fourth commandment runs thus:-Remember to sanctify the holy days; but not a word of the sabbath. This shews what popery was; and we shall see that it is still the same as ever. The little spelling book for beginners; with a collection of prayers and devout lessons, Dublin, printed by Pat. Wogan, 23, Old Bridge, 1806. In this little work we have a with reason; for this instruction for the use of the unlearned does not give the the second commandment is wholly commandments as God spake them, for omitted, and the tenth is divided into two, and part of it left out; Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.' (Deut. iv. 2.) This precept passes unregarded by the church of Rome. Why do not the clear that the omission of the second laity find out their artifices? for it is commandment is wholly occasioned by their anxiety to conceal the prohibition of idolatry, and their impious and unscriptural bowing to images, from the mass of the people. The last work that I shall produce for the satisfaction Manual of Devotions, &c. for R. Cross, of Romanus, is No. 28, Bridge-street, Dublin, 1805. The commandments are thus stated: The Poor Man's I.I am the Lord thy God, thou shall have none other Gods but me.' God in vain.' II. Thou shalt not take the name of thy neighbour's wife. The IX. is, Thou shalt not desire The X. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's goods.' "Are these facts new to Romanus, or has he heard of them before? I suspect he has." Whether Mr. Christianus has been spending his time in ransacking the D.'s Summary, or the jesuit's nameold book-stalls of Preston for T. less book, or whether he took a voyage cross St. George's channel, to purchase them of Pat. Wogan or R. Cross, in Dublin, I am not able to say; but this I can tell him, that if he had applied at my shop, or to any of my agents in Lancashire, he might have supplied himself with the f first and second catechism, or with my Catholic School-Book, printed expressly for the ignorant and unlearned, in which latter he would have seen the ten commandments IN FULL, the same as they are given perversion of the protestant catechism, in order to beguile the ignorant. WeFULL, pass to the ten commandments. In in the 20th chapter of Exodus. It answer to the question, Which be is therefore clear that the catholic they? the passage 'The same that clergy have no wish or desire to 2 P. 12 ,་།, mand thy Son! Really, Sir, it is difficult to conceive how a protestant government, which so lately prosecuted poor Mr. Hone for blasphemy, can, with any show of consistency, declare that the religion of the Romish church is not idolatrous." 79 suppress any part of the command- his antagonist, Christianus says, ments of God, for if that had been the case, they had opportunities Again, when we read in the bible, offered long before protestantism thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, was broached. They might have and him only shalt thou serve,' what done it when the Iconoclast heresy can we think of those who thus pray tó was first set up, in which case pro- the virgin Mary, we sheller ourselves bably our enlightened protestants under thy protection; despise not our would not have had the chance of sity; but deliver us from all dangers, supplications in the time of our neces falsifying the word of God in this in- thou ever-glorious Virgin!! and again, stance, to serve their base purposes.command thy Son, O happy parent! The books alluded to by Christia- who makest expiation for wickednus, with the exception of Pat. Wo-ness, by thy authority as a Mother comgan's, are evidently intended for adults, who have been already in structed in the commandments in their youth. Had he not brought in ajesuit, the game would have been incomplete, as an excitation of fear and hatred towards this calumniatAnd in his last latter, after treated society is too fashionable to being his readers with a variety of ex: passed over. But let Christianus interrogate any boy who has been educated by one of those venerable fathers, whether in Spain, Sicily, or Italy, and I will venture to say he will be found as conversant with the whole of the commandments as any child that has been instructed by a protestant clergyman. Or let him step into any catholic chapel, either in this island or in Ireland, and he will find every pastor, when instructThen following up his remarks ing his flock on the subject of reli- and quotations, in a subsequent gious worship, as careful and zea-page, (40) he puts this question to lous to guard them against the crimi- his adversary: nal and odious crime of idolatry, as those who unfeelingly and rashly charge them with the committal of it in the presence of the God of Justice and Charity. From this state'ment of facts, the reader will be able to pronounce on the veracity and candour of the man of Antioch. - INVOCATION ΤΟ THE BLESSED tracts from different catholic prayer books, he exultingly exclaims, "Romanus will not, I presume, deny the authority of the above quoted works. Let me then ask him, whether it is not blasphemy and idolatry to pray to a created being to receive our prayers and praises, release our souls from punishment, blot out our sins, succour and defend, comfort and protect, dihour of death?”→p. 38. rect and govern us, &c, now and at the writings of Mr. Hone, the profane pa "Can Romanus point out from the rodist, or any other author, a passage that contains more genuine impiety and blasphemy than those which I have extracted from the devotional writings of his church? To the first question I answer, that it is neither blasphemy nor idolatry to pray to a created being in the sense taught by the catholic church and to the second I have no hésitation in assuring Christianus, that, had I space and time, I could point out from the parodies produced by Mr. Hone in his defence, " brought forward, by, him, who had prostituted their talents in this way to revile those whom they could not convict. Had Hone followed their example, as I before observed, he would have remained unmolested; but he had the temerity to attack passages of the most profane, scurrilous, and impious tendency, which is not the case with those he has selected from our books of devotion. But why did he allude to the case of Mr. Hone?-Nothing could be more unfortunate for his cause, nothing more inopportune. Mr," the powers that be; his satire Hone was prosecuted by a protest; threatened the interests of ministers, ant government for blasphemy, and and therefore he was selected as an therefore it would be inconsistent in object for punishment, and an exthis protestant government and the ample to deter others from exercising protestant legislature not to compel the same freedom. Just so was this all those who seek to enjoy the pri- disgraceful oath enacted and pervileges of the constitution to swear petuated. The catholic peers in that all catholics are idolaters. the Stuart's time were become ob But, good Mr. Christianus, could jects of jealousy and enmity to the you not recollect, that although a partizans of pretended liberty and protestant government prosecuted popular rights. The latter could Hone for blasphemy, three protest not bear to see the former preferred ant juries declared him innocent of in the monarch's favour to them the crime? And might it not occur, selves. They had long tried, by if protestants were to reflect with calling for the rigid execution of the candour and liberality on what ca bloody code of laws enacted to pretholics have to offer in defence of vent the growth of popery, to bathe charge brought against them, nish the catholics from the presence that a verdict of not guilty would of their sovereign, and even from be pronounced in their favour also? the metropolis of the kingdom, but It is clearly evident, that had Mr. in vain. The Stuarts knew, from Hone parodied the pope, and the je experience, their worth and fidelity; suits, and the inquisition, instead of nor were their virtues less unknown no-popery bags and his two col- to their bigotted and selfish adver leagues, he might have gone on in saries. The latter, therefore, to his imputed blasphemous work with cloak their nefarious designs, and impunity, notwithstanding the dis render them effectual, created a gusting parodies quoted by him on clamour among the people against the catholic religion were declared the supposed dangerous and trai from the bench to be libellous. And terous principles of papists; they WHY was he acquitted? Truly, infused a belief into the credulous because he established the fact, that gulls, that armies of jesuits were if parodying the scriptures or sacred concealed under ground, which things was blasphemy, it was the were to come forth suddenly, and crime of the reformation, as every turn all protestants into papists, by one who had been guilty of the of cutting their throats; a notable fence were PROTESTANTS or re- mode of conversion; that the Thames formers, from old father Martin was to be blown up, so as the modern down to the prosecuted William Babylon (London) might be drownHone. To the honour of catholi-ed, and other such fooleries; and city, not a writer of that faith was in the midst of this delirium, they produced by Hone guilty of so im passed a, bill, and intimidated the pious a deed, although many di- king (Charles II.) to sign it, which vines of the established church were compelled all who accepted office ORTHOD. JOUR. Vol. VI, T |