thought the authors of our Homilies, for great part of that "against Peril of Idolatry” is on purpose to prove this very point. Moreover, the Gentiles themselves, would deny the truth

66

Second Edit. Oxford, 1843. The same is proved by Beveridge, on the 22nd Article. Vol. 2. p. 165-173. Oxford, 1840. "The worshippers of Images," says Archdeacon Welchman, "would fain clear themselves from the charge of Idolatry, by distinguishing between an Image and an Idol, and between an absolute and a relative worship; but in vain, &c." (Welchman on the Articles, p. 53. 14th Edition.) 'Rome," says Milner, "is to be regarded as Antichrist indeed, for it set itself to support false doctrines, and particularly that which deserves the name of Idolatry." (Milner's Church History. Cent. viii. Chap. iii, 1st paragraph, and also passim.) Spanheim calls Image-Worship an "Idolatrous practice." (Eccles: Annals. Cent. viii. sec. 7.) Mosheim calls Image-Worship, "Idolatry," "this new Idolatry," "this gross Idolatry," "Idolatrous Worship," ," "Idolatrous service," &c. (Eccles: Hist: Cent. viii. Chap. iii. sec. 9-14.) But to mention all the writers who have accused Rome of Idolatry, would be to give a catalogue of all the best and soundest of the Protestant Divines who have happened to touch on the subject. Indeed this tendency to fling a veil over the errors of the Great Antichrist, and to soften the differences between Popery and " Anglo-Catholicism" is one of the evil "signs of the times." (See Archbishop Magee's Works. Vol. 2, p. 492-495.) But on this subject I have spoken more at length in the Preface.

of your position-for, "the Gentiles"* (says St. Augustin) "say, 'we worship not the images, but by the corporal image we behold the signs of the things which we ought to worship;' and Lactantius says, 'the Gentiles say, We fear not the images but them after whose likeness the images be made, and to whose names they be consecrated' and Clemens saith, "That serpent the devil uttereth these words by the mouth of certain men, we to the honour of the invisible God worship the visible image" ". and yet notwithstanding this excuse, we see that God has called them Idolaters, and declared that they worship 'stocks and stones'—and why therefore is not the same thing to be said of the Roman Catholics, who make the same excuse, or how can you protect the worshipping of God through a picture from the same condemnation. Moreover, had the Almighty intended there should be any difference between worshipping

* See "Third Part of the Homily against Peril of Idolatry."

an image itself, and worshipping God through an image, the commandment would not have been so absolute in its wording. As it stands now, it is levelled against all kinds of worshipping, or even, as we have seen, the making of images; whereas had God considered it to be allowable, or desirable that mankind should worship him in and through an image, surely he would have expressed as much, and would have added, that, nevertheless, though it were unlawful to make or fall down to the image of anything whatsoever for its own sake, yet that it might be lawful to make and to fall down to an image with the purpose of worshipping Him in it and through it.

But may I ask whether you have ever read the Homily which I quoted above.

Tryphosa. I am sorry to say I never have.

Gaius. Then pray let me strongly urge you to take the first opportunity to do so for I am sure, when you have read it, you will be convinced of the great, the certain, and the un

avoidable evil of having either altar pictures, or pictures of any kind in churches, "for that," in the words of the Homily itself, "it is impossible that images of God, Christ, or His saints, can be suffered, in churches or temples, any while or space, without worshipping of them; and that idolatry, which is most abominable to God, cannot possibly be escaped and avoided, without the abolishing and destruction of images and pictures in temples and churches." Moreover, you will find it a most delightful kind of reading the quaint yet simple and easy flow of its style, the depth of its reasoning-its occasional bursts of bold oratory or indignant eloquence-the clearness, the conclusiveness, and the satisfactoriness of its arguments, together with the air of blunt, straightforward honesty which pervades it, form a pleasing contrast to the murky obscurity which characterises much of the writing of the present day. But if it will not tire you, I will give you a brief sketch of the line of argument pursued in the Homily,

and of the interesting and most instructive history it gives of the rise and progress of image-worship and picture-adoration; and I hope that what I say may induce you to read the Homily for yourself, and may assist you in some little measure to appreciate it when you do so.

The object which the writer of the Homily proposes, is to prove the enormity of “ Idolatry or worshipping of images,” 1st. by quoting the authority of the Scriptures, old and new; 2nd. by citing the writings and the practice of the old fathers, in whose time religion was "most pure and uncorrupt;" and 3rd. by confuting the reasons or arguments which are brought in defence of idols or images. And first, by way of preface, he explains that the words "idol," and "image," in Scripture mean exactly the same thing, and are used indifferently, being translations of two synonymous*

* Thus Tertullian, commenting on the words of St. John, says, "Filioli,' inquit, 'custodite vos ab idolis,' non jam ab idolatria, quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, i. e., ab ipsa effigie