for those holy men, by their influence and authority, either altogether prevented the practice, or, in the few instances where it was attempted, at once put a stop to it-so that, in their times, image-worshipping only prevailed amongst a few individuals, and even with them, was only practicable in secret and in private; indeed it is well known that the Heathen* used to allege this against the Christians as an accusation, that they had no images nor statues in their churches, and that the Christians, so far from denying the charge, confirmed it and gloried in its truth. Surely this fact, that the Christians, in the earliest ages of Christianity, "which were most pure and uncorrupt," so sweepingly and so uncompromisingly condemned

* Cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulachra? Minut.

Censuestis crimen nobis maximum impietatis affigere, quod neque ædes sacras venerationis ad officia construamus, non Deorum alicujus simulachrum constituamus, aut formam, &c. Arnob. 6.

And again Origen says, σε κέλσος φησιν, ἡμᾶς βωμους, και

ἀγάλματα, και νεὼς ἱδρύσθαι φεύγειν.” κ. τ. λ.

the introduction of pictures and images into churches, should be enough to induce us to do the same. But no, strangely enough, man will never profit by another's experience; because we have lived so many years free from idolatry, we forget how idolatry first sprung up, and we doubt the possibility of its return in our enlightened age and country; yet our neighbours and contemporaries, the Roman Catholics, prove the possibility of the thing, and the language of the history of mankind declares that it will always follow the admission of pictures and images. We are not so much wiser than Solomon, and he became an idolater.

And this leads us to the most interesting and instructive part of the Homily, which the author thus introduces. "Now as concerning

histories ecclesiastical touching this matter, that ye may know why, and when, and by whom, images were first used privately, and afterwards not only received into churches and temples, but in conclusion also worshipped, and how the same

was gain-said, resisted, and forbidden, as well by godly Bishops and learned Doctors, as also by sundry Christian Princes, I will briefly collect into a compendious history, that which is written more at length, and in sundry places, by learned ancient writers and historiographers concerning this matter." And in glancing through this history you will remark how Idolatry always sprung from a small and apparently innocent beginning, and that this beginning was the introduction of pictures into churches.*

* It may not be uninteresting here to take the evidence of a man who was neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic, who wrote on the subject without party spirit, and thought without personal feelings; who, without caring for the religious importance of the question, coldly deduced the necessary results from the given premises, and argued from the mere reason of the thing. I mean Gibbon, who, in his own words could easily

poise the balance with philosophic indifference." He says ("Decline and Fall," vol. 6. p. 176-179.) "The Primitive Christians were possessed with an unconquerable repugnance to the use and abuse of images. ** The Mosaic Law had severely proscribed all representations of the Deity. ** Perhaps some recent and imperfect converts of the Gnostic tribe might crown the statues of Christ and St. Paul with the profane honours which they paid to those of Aristotle and Pythagoras,

Now the origin of the custom of making pictures and images among the Christians is thus explained—that "the Gentiles which were

but the public religion of the Catholics was uniformly pure and simple, and the first notice of the use of pictures is in the censure of the council of Illiberis, 300 years after Christ." ** Then, speaking of the introduction of pictures, he says, "At first the experiment was made with caution and scruple, and the venerable pictures were discreetly allowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and to gratify the prejudices of the Heathen proselytes. By a slow, though inevitable progression, the honours of the original were transferred to the copy, the devout Christian prayed before the image of a saint, and the Pagan rites of genuflexion, luminaries, and incense, again stole into the Catholic Church. The scruples of reason and piety were silenced by the strong evidence of visions and miracles, and the pictures which speak, and move, and bleed," &c. To show what this assumption of miraculous powers came to at last in our own country, I must, at the risk of being tedious, quote some passages out of Herbert's History of the reign of King Henry VIII. "I shall mention," says the Author, "some of the images and relics to which the pilgrimages of these times brought devotion and offerings; as our Lady's Girdle shewed in eleven places, and her milk in eight-the Felt of St. Thomas of Lancaster, a remedy for the head ache * * two or three heads of St. Ursula, the parings of St. Edmond's nails. **The crucifix of Boxley was a famous imposture to

converted from the worshipping of false Gods and Idols, to the true God, (as men long accustomed to the use of idols) did paint or carve

which many pilgrimages were made, being contrived so as to be able, by the help of springs, to roll the eyes and move the lips, to bow, to shake the head, hands, and feet. It was shewn publicly at Paul's Cross, by John, Bishop of Rochester, and after a sermon preached on it, there broken in pieces. Another great imposture was at Hales, where the blood of Christ, brought from Jerusalem, was shewed in a christal vial, and was said to have this property, that, if a man was in a mortal sin, and not absolved, he could not see it. Therefore every man that came to behold this miracle, was forced to continue to make presents, till he bribed heaven to give him the sight of so blessed a relict. This was now discovered to be the blood of a duck, renewed every week, and the one side of the vial was so thick, that there was no seeing through it, but the other was transparent. It was so placed near the altar, that one in a secret place behind, could turn which side he pleased outward," &c., &c. See also Rapin's History of England, Vol. 1. p. 818. fol. Edit. 1732, where this passage is quoted more at length, and Burnet's History of the Reformation. But to return, Gibbon incidentally gives his opinion on the rights of the question as follows:-"This general history of images is drawn from Basnage's Histoire des Eglises Reformées. He was a Protestant, but of a manly spirit, and on this head the Protestants are so notoriously in the right, that they can venture to be impartial." (Vol. 6. chap. xlix. p. 179. Note f.)