that our blessed LORD, foreseeing the superstition that would come into the world on account of His mother, treated her always at a distance, never once called her "mother," no, not upon the cross; and he says, "neither Elias, nor John, nor Thecla, nor any of the saints, are to be worshipped: for that ancient error shall not prevail over us; to forsake the living GOD, and to worship the things that are made by Him; for they (the ancients) served and worshipped the creature more than the Creator, and became fools. For if He will not have the angels to be worshipped, how much more would he not have her that was born of Anna?"

How, then, would Epiphanius have been grieved could he have foreseen the prayers which these fell deceivers, the Romish doctors, have framed to express devotion for the very woman, whose name he thought he was quite safe in using as a safeguard to prevent the worship of her daughter. For, as if to place the matter utterly beyond the regard of the grossest devotee, he closes his sentence with an expression which he evidently conceived to involve the very climax of impossibility. (See Appendix, No. IV.)

But nothing is too bad to be beyond the reach of Satan and his synagogue, nothing is too impossible; and, may I not now venture to hope that many of my readers, who have hitherto been in much ill humour with their poor servant, will begin to think that instead of his words being too harsh to express the "harmless prejudices," (as some will have them called,) of the deluded beings who support this un

paralleled assemblage of blasphemies, that the biting pen of Burke could scarcely find sufficient terms of indignation and contempt, to do justice to the horrors of this offensive creed*.

Now are we to embark in the honor and veneration due to images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and other saints!

“Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, or the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them; for I, the LORD thy GOD, am a jealous GOD." Exod. xx. 4. This command is nothing at all to a Romanist, because he does not bow down before the images which they put up. No, he only kneels before them, and makes his prayers to them, that the wood may convey his pious aspirations to the saints which it represents, (who can hear him just as much as the wood to which he prays), to make intercession for him at the mercy seat. But, my friends, this pretence will not serve you. It appears from Psalm xcv. 6. that, kneeling to the LORD GOD, is a synonymous expression for worship, and therefore can be applied properly to none but GOD. Whether, when in that posture you worship him or not, the posture is His, and when in it, if you do not pray to HIM, you are

This is to be understood of the last twelve articles, the first twelve not having any thing to do with the last twelve. Indeed they cannot co-exist.

L2

mocking, and therefore committing abomination in His sight.

"Take ye therefore good heed to yourselves, lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the likeness of male or female, the similitude of any figure. The likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air," &c. Deut. iv. 15, 16, &c.

"Take ye heed to yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which He made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing which the LORD thy GOD hath forbidden thee. For the LORD thy GOD is A CONSUMING FIRE, a jealous GOD!" Contrary to which, Pope Gregory I., in his epistle to Serenus, bishop of Massila, approves of images in the churches; and calls them "the books of laymen." And he gave the same directions to the monk Austin, (indifferently called Augustine,) who came over to Britain, (not to convert the Saxons, but) to reduce them to "Christianity," (as they termed it,) about 597. I give a strong authentication of this fact, in a most interesting extract from the learned Dr. Burgess, (bishop of Salisbury's) important work "On the Origin and Independence of the Ancient British Church."

"Down to the end of the sixth century we hear of the church of Britain only under the general character of a Christian church. But from the mission of Austin the monk, we find her in a new character; we see her not only an apostolical and independent, but also a PROTESTANT CHURCH, distinguished by her rejection of

the Pope's authority, and of all communion with the church of Rome. A remarkable evidence of the sentiments of the British church, recorded in an old chronicle, is preserved in a letter from Bishop Davies to Archbishop Parker, in which we are informed, that when the Britons were conquered by the Saxons, they did not refuse to treat with them amicably, as occasion served, so long as the latter continued pagans;" but "after that, by the means of Austin, the Saxons became Christians in such sort as Austin had taught them; the Bryttayns wold not after that nether eate nor drynke wyth them, because they corrupted, with ymages and idolatrie, the true religion of Christ."

This heresy arose, as some suppose, with the Gnostics, very ancient heretics, who set up various images of Christ and others. Carpocrates and Marcellina, two of this party, first brought this idolatrous heresy to Rome, when Anicetus was pope. Having secretly made images of Jesus and Paul, as well as of the heathen authors, Homer and Pythagoras, they perfumed them with odours, and worshipped them, as both Epiphanius and Augustine relate. The Elibtrine Council, A. D. 310, says, "It is our mind that pictures ought not to be in the church, lest that which is worshipped or adored should be painted on walls."

Origen says, "It is impossible that any one should know GOD and pray to images." I told the Romanists, some pages back, that I was assured, spirituality was a non-existent principle in their church in this day. Perhaps they will agree with me, now that I have quoted the opinion of their friend Origen,

Great contentions afterwards arose on this subject in the Christian world. The Greek church unanimously rejected the introduction of images, and have ever continued to keep themselves free from this reproach. The Roman church by degrees approved and required it. The first council at which it was tolerated, was at the second of Nice, held 787; but so far was the doctrine from being general even then, that it was publicly rejected at a general synod held 792; by the general council of Frankfort in 794; and, previously to all these, at a council held in Constance in 752. To such a height, however, has it latterly been carried, that the great Cardinal Bellarmine, archbishop of Capua, 1599, the Colossus of Romish controversy, declares, in tom. iii. disp. 6, of his works, "that images are not only to be worshipped as they are examples, but also properly and by themselves, so as the worship may terminate upon them!" But our Irish popish adversaries will say, that they do not represent GoD in images, and that it will be very hard to make them suffer all the onus of the superstitious and idolatrous crimes of these their forefathers of infallible pretence. Such remonstrance, my protestant friends, we might be perhaps disposed to admit, as well on many other points as this, did we find them one whit changed for the better in any one thing: but the reverse is so lamentably the case in all respects, that we may feel well assured, opportunity is all they want to wreak revenge upon poor England for the many indignities which have been put upon "the holy faith," under her protecting arm.

But to the point in consideration. At Fethard,