*** and that due honour and veneration are to be awarded to them." The decree does not define what is the nature of this "due honour:" but it specially permits us to kiss the image, to uncover the head, and to prostrate ourselves before it.1 The council having left this important matter to the teaching of bishops, priests, etc., their opinions on the subject, as might be expected, are divided. The illustrious champion of Romanism, Cardinal Bellarmine, in his second book on "Sacred Images,"" tells us that there are different opinions on the question proposed-" With what sort of worship are images to be honoured ?" The first opinion he rejects, namely: "That the faithful ought to do no more, with regard to images, than to worship before them the prototype, the exemplar, the original Being, of which the image is a representation." The second opinion he does not absolutely object to, which is: "That the same honour is due to the image as to the exemplar; and thence that the image of Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of Latria [the species of worship rendered by Romanists to the Most High God], the image of the blessed Virgin with the worship of Hyperdulia, and the images of the other saints with the worship of Dulia." He names several "Catholic theologians" who taught this doctrine, and among them Alexander, the "blessed saint" St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Cajetan,

1 "Imagines porro Christi, Deiparæ Virginis et aliorum sanctorum, in templis præsertim habendas, et retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendam; non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam sint colenda; vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum; vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus quæ in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quæ illæ repræsentant; ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum illæ similitudinem gerunt, veneremur." Sess. XXV. Decretum de Invocatione, Veneratione, et reliquiis Sanctorum, et sacris Imaginibus. Lab. et Coss. concl. tom. xiv. col. 895. Paris, 1671. 2 Cap. 20. Edit. Prag. 1721.

the "blessed saint" Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almagne, "and others."

With regard to Aquinas, it may be as well to remark, that he justifies himself for giving the self-same worship to the wooden cross which he gives to God himself, by quoting the ritual of his church. His words are :—

"Because Christ himself is adored with Divine honour, it follows that his image is to be adored with Divine honour.We offer the supreme adoration of the Latria to that Being in whom we place our hope of salvation; but we place our hope of salvation in the Cross of Christ, for the church sings: 'Hail, O Cross, our only hope in this time of passion; increase righteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty.' Therefore the Cross of Christ is to be adored with the supreme adoration of the Latria."1

This is no figurative language; for the "Pontificale Romanum" directs that the cross of the pope's legate shall be carried in the right hand, "because Latria is due to it."2

In justice, however, to Bellarmine, we should add, that he said of the theory taught by Aquinas3 and his school-"Those who maintain that images are to be adored with divine honour are driven to use such subtle distinctions as they themselves can scarcely understand, much less the ignorant." And so say we. Whether this teaching, sanctioned as it is by such high authorities, is or is not idolatry in its worst sense, is happily not our inquiry. We have merely stated the Romanist's case in his own words, and if he is charged with teaching an idolatrous practice, we are not to blame. But our present object is to prove that what the present Roman

1 Thos. Aquinas, Theo. Sum. part iii. quæs. 25, art. 1-4; Romæ, 1686; and see Lib. iii. Dixt. ix. Salect. iv. p. 126, tom. xxiv. Venice, 1787. 2 "Quia debetur ei Latria." Pontificale Romanum, p. 468. Edit. Romæ, 1818.

3 De Relig. Sac. Lit. c. xxii. sec. 4. Prag. Edit. 1721.

church does authoritatively teach as her doctrine is a modern invention.

We have seen that the church by her mouthpiece, the Trent Council, has not defined the meaning of the expression "due honour." It may be, as Aquinas has it, that supreme worship is to be given to the image of Christ, a less worship to that of the Virgin, and a lower degree to that of saints. But the decree says that these images are to be retained in churches, and "that due honour and veneration are to be awarded to them;" because "the honour which is shown unto them [the sacred images] is referred to the prototypes which they represent, in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear." It is argued, therefore, that after all, the worship, whatever it may be, is only a relative worship. They do not worship what they see, but the Being represented by the image before them. This is refined Popery, and not much understood by the people; and has led, as we shall see, to absolute idolatry. Let us, however, take the declaration in the most liberal sense; and we shall find that even this species of refined Romanism was expressly condemned by the early Christian writers, as a proposition advanced by the heathens and image-worshippers of their day.

I. And first, on the theory of relative worship.

Arnobius, who flourished at the beginning of the third century, was himself a zealous pagan before his conversion to Christianity, and therefore practically knew what he was writing about. He thus remonstrated with the heathen idolaters of his day :

"You say, 'We worship the gods through the images.' What

then? If these images did not exist, would the gods not know they were worshipped, nor be aware of any honour being paid to them by you? What can be more unjust, more disrespectful, more cruel, than to recognise one as a God, and offer up supplication to another thing; to hope for help from a Divine Being, and pray to an image which has no sense ?"

Again, he says:

"But ye say,-You are mistaken; we do not consider materials of brass, or silver, or gold, or other things of which the statues are made, to be of themselves gods or sacred divinities; but in these materials we worship and venerate those gods whom the holy dedication brings in, and causes to dwell in the images wrought by the craftsmen."1

Origen, a Father of the third century, in his writings against Celsus, strongly condemned, by anticipation, the same theory. He says:

"What sensible person would not laugh at a man who * * * * looks to images, and there offers up his prayer to them, or, beholding them, refers it to the being contemplated in his mind, to whom he fancies that he ought to ascend from the visible object, which is the symbol of him (whom the image is supposed to represent) ?” 2

Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in the fourth century, also thus speaks of this species of heathen worship: :

“This gold, if carefully handled, has an outward value; but inwardly it is mere ordinary metal. Examine, I pray you, and sift thoroughly the class of Gentiles. The words they utter are rich and grand: the things they defend are utterly devoid of truth: they talk of God-they worship an image." 3

Saint Augustine, a Father of great authority with

1 Arnob., lib. v. c. ix. and c. xvii.
2 Origen cont. Cels., lib. vii. c. xliv.
3 Amb. ad Valen. Epist. cap. i. xviii.
G

Leipsic Edit. 1816.
Paris, 1733.
Venice, 1781.

Romanists (when he speaks for them), arguing against the nice distinctions made by the heathen idolaters of his day, says:

"But those persons seem to themselves to belong to a more purified religion who say 'I worship neither an image nor a demon [this does not mean a devil, but a departed spirit], but I regard the bodily figure as the representation of that Being whom I ought to worship.' * * * And when, again, with regard to these, they [the more enlightened heathens] begin to be pressed hard on the point, that they worship bodies, * * * they are bold enough to answer that they do not worship the images themselves, but the divinities which preside over and rule them."1

And, again, he says:

"But some disputant comes forward, and, very wise in his own conceit, says 'I do not worship that stone nor that insensible image; your prophet could not say they have eyes and see not, and I be ignorant that that image neither hath a soul, nor sees with his eyes, nor hears with his ears. I do not worship that, but I adore what I see, and serve him whom I do not see.' And who is he?—a certain invisible divinity, which presides over that image.” 2

"And lest any one should say, 'I do not worship the image, but that which the images signify,' it is immediately added, and they worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. Now, understand well, they either worship the image or a creature; he who worships the image converts the truth of God into a lie."3

Whether Ambrose and Augustine (both saints canonized by the church of Rome) were right or wrong in their con

1 Aug., in Psalm xciii. part 2, tom. iv. p. 1261. Paris, 1679.

2 Aug., in Psalm xcvi. tom. iv. p. 1047.

3 Aug., Serm. cxvii. tom. v. p. 905.