ers.

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, the Lord's Supper, 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 prayDoes not he require of his people that 'when the name of JESUS is pronounced in any lesson, &c. due reverence be made of all with lowness of courtesie?' (1) 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 as 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 honour, 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 endeavoured in vain, to make his persecutor, the Emperor Copronimus, conceive the nature of relative honour and dishonour in this matter, threw a piece of money, bearing the Emperor's figure,

(1) Injunctions, A. D. 1559, n, 52. Canons 1603, n, 18.

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. (1)

The Bishop objects, that the Catholics make pictures of God the Father under the likeness of 6 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. l. 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, 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; (2) both which we follow. In the mean time, it is a gross calumny

(1) Fleury, Hist. Ecc. L. xliii. n. 41.

(2) St. Augustin, Quest, in Exod. Clem. Alex, Strom. 1. vi. Hieron, n. Ps. xxxii.

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. (1) To be brief: the words, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, are either a prohibition of all images, and, of course of those round the Bishop's own cathedral St. Paul's, and upon all existing coins, which I am sure he will not consent 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, or 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 honouring 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 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 from it upon so extravagant an attempt, as that of confounding the inferior and relative honour which Catholics pay to the memorials of Christ and his Saints (an honour 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 believe to be inhabited by their Gods. In a

(1) Catech, Roman ad Paroch. The folio Catech. of Montpelier. Donay Catech. Abridgment of Christian Doctrine.

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 here explained. I must not forget one important use of pious pictures, mentioned by the holy Fathers, namely, that they help to instruct the ignorant. (1) Still, it is a point agreed upon among Catholic Doctors and Divines, that the memorials of religion form no essential part of it. (2) 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 delarations 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.

J. M.

(1) St. Gregory calls pictures Idiotarum libri. Epist. L. ix. 9. (2) The learned Petavius says, We must lay it down as a principle that images are to be reckoned among t e adiaphora, which do not belong to the substance of religion, and which the Church may retain or take away as she judges best. 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. Epiphanins destroyed a certain pious picture, and as Ezechias destroyed the brazen serpent.

349

LETTER XXXV.

To the Rev. ROBERT CLAYTON, M. A.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

REVEREND SIR,

I LEARN by a letter from our worthy friend, Mr. Brown, as well as by your own, that I am to consider you, and not him, as the person charged to make the objections which are to be made, on the part of the Church of England, against my theological positions and arguments in future. I congratulate the Society of New Cottage, on the acquisition of so valuable a member as Mr. Clayton, and I think myself fortunate in having to contend with an opponent, so clear-headed and candid, as his letter shows him to be.

You admit that, according to my explanation, which is no other than that of our Divines, our Catechisms, and our Councils in general, we are not guilty of Idolatry in the honour we pay to Saints and their memorials, and that the dispute between your Church and mine upon these points, is a dispute about words rather than about things; as Bishop Bossuet observes, and as several candid Protestants, before you, have confessed. You and Bishop Porteus agree with us, that the Saints are to be loved and honoured;" on the other hand, we agree with you, that it would be idolatrous to pay them divine worship, or to pray to their memorials in any shape whatever. Hence, the only question remaining be tween us is concerning the utility of desiring the prayers of the Saints: for you say it is useless, because you think that they cannot hear us, and that, therefore, the practice is superstitious: whereas I have vindicated the practice itself, and have shown that the utility of it no way depends