Continued from Part II. Popery A Moral Pestilence. Chapter V. The Worship of The Virgin

CHAPTER VI.
The Worship of Images

The worship of the saints and of the Virgin has thus been fully established against the Church of Rome. Another and still heavier charge is now brought against it—that of worshipping dumb idols. Had Papists been guilty of nothing worse than what the two previous chapters have proved against them, the charge of idolatry—i.e., of worshipping false gods—in the fullest sense, lies against them. In bowing down to graven images, however, a still more gross and criminal idolatry is committed by that apostate church—the worship of “stocks and stones.”

We have already seen that saint-worship began to be practised among Christians soon after the middle of the fourth century. The church, however, kept clear from idol-worship—which is confessedly a much grosser form of idolatry—for about two centuries longer.[1] An attempt has been made by a living writer, in an elaborate work upon Ancient Christianity, to convict the church of this crime “during and throughout the whole of the fourth century.” He has made the assertion, however, without advancing the slightest proof. That there were pictures representing the combats of the martyrs, and certain scriptural subjects in some churches, towards the close of the fourth century, is unquestionable, but they held the same place that the pictures in our parish churches now do. And the argument from this fact—in the utter absence of all other testimony—will also prove, some ages hence, that the Church of England worships pictures because it sanctions the use of altar-pieces!

At the close of the fifth century, pictures were still rare in the churches[2]—but during the sixth, they appear to have become very general—and also statues of Christ and the saints. Still they were not worshipped; at least, there is no evidence of the fact; and a circumstance which occurred at the commencement of the seventh century proves that the bishops were opposed to this.

“Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, having caused some images to be removed from the churches, a complaint was made to Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome. That Pope, at once, and very explicitly, declared that images should, on no account, be approached as objects of worship, and strongly exhorted the bishop to press that consideration upon all who might, possibly, mistake their use; which was, when truly understood, to impart knowledge to the ignorant and illiterate. At the same time, such being their professed end and purpose, he strenuously opposed their removal.” (Wad. Hist. Ch. part II. ch. X.)

There is, therefore, no evidence to prove that images were generally worshipped earlier than the seventh century in the visible church. From this time, the Church of Rome steadily maintained the growing superstition. In the Eastern Church, however, the cause of idolatry received several powerful checks.

The first who opposed the worship of images was the Emperor Leo. In the year 726 he published an edict ordering all images to be removed from the churches and broken to pieces. He himself caused all that were found in Constantinople to be brought into the midst of the city and there burnt; and all who opposed his decree were beheaded or otherwise mutilated. Pope Gregory III., hearing of this decree, convoked a synod in which the worship of images was enjoined, and deprived Leo of the rest of his empire in Italy, forbidding the people to pay tribute to him any longer.[3]

This emperor shortly after died, and was succeeded by his son Constantine, who immediately called another synod at Constantinople in opposition to that held by the pope; at which, not only the worship of images, but the images themselves were condemned on the following grounds:

“Since the two natures of Christ could not be separated, and the divine nature could not be painted, therefore, his human likeness ought not to be painted, lest it should be thought that the human person, which was painted, wore a different being from the divine person, which could not be painted. And, moreover, since his body was now arrayed in inexpressible glory, it was not possible to paint even that. That the souls, too, and virtues of the saints, which constituted the real representation of them, could not be expressed by colours, therefore the images of the saints ought not to be made.” (Ex act. Concil. Nicen. Secund. apud Chemnit. ubi sup.)

This emperor reigned about thirty-four years afterwards; and the whole of his life was employed in enforcing the decrees of the synod at which he had presided, in opposition to the monks and the influence of the Romish see. Idolatry soon received, however, another triumph.

The Empress Irene, who obtained the government a few years after Constantine’s death, exerted herself most strenuously to restore the worship of images in her dominions. A general council assembled at Nice in the year 787, by which images were again reinstated in their former honours—and the sentiments of the Pope and the Church of Rome declared orthodox.

“We receive,” says the council, “besides the figure of the cross, the relics of the saints, and their images; we embrace them, according to the ancient tradition of our Fathers, who have placed them in all the churches of God, and all the places where he is served: we honour and adore them, viz. that of Jesus Christ, of his holy mother, of the angels, for though they are incorporeal, they have revealed themselves in a human form.” (Fleury, Liv. xliv. sect. 34)

The decrees of this council, however, did not secure immediate obedience. The Emperor Leo the Armenian, who reigned from A.D. 814 to 820, relapsed into the heresy of the Isaurians (i.e. of the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers). He fell an early victim to conspiracy; but his successor Michael fearlessly proceeded in the same difficult endeavour; and the earnestness of his wishes and the perplexities of his situation are naturally displayed in an epistle addressed by him to the son of Charlemagne, Louis, Emperor of the West. As this document throws great general light on the ecclesiastical history of that age, we shall transcribe it here:

“Many of our clergy and laity, departing from the apostolical traditions, have introduced pernicious novelties. They took down the crosses in the churches, and put images in their room, before which they lighted up lamps and burned incense, honouring them as the cross. They sang before them, worshipped them, and implored their succour. Many dressed the female images with robes, and made them stand godmothers to their children. They offered up hair to them when they cut it off for the first time. Some presbyters scratched off the paint from the images, and mixed it with the holy Eucharist, and gave it to the communicants. Others put the body of the Lord into the hands of the images, and made the communicants take it out thence. Others used boards, with pictures painted on them, instead of an altar, on which they consecrated the elements; and many such-like abuses were committed.

Therefore, the orthodox emperors, and the most learned bishops, assembled in council, have forbidden these enormities; and have removed the images to higher places, in the church, where they stood formerly, and when they were not worshipped, as they have been of late, by ignorant people. Some of the complainers are gone to Rome, to calumniate us there; but we are orthodox; we believe the Trinity, one God in three persons; the incarnation of the Word; his two wills, and two operations; we implore the intercession of the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God, and of all the saints; we reverence their relics; we receive all the apostolical traditions, and the decrees of the Six Councils.”

“The spirit of appeal and justification in which the above epistle is conceived indicates the weakness of a falling cause, and so indeed it proved; for in the year 842, the Empress Theodora re-established the authority of the seventh council and replaced the images, with so firm a hand, that they have never since been shaken.”

“The bishops,” adds the historian, “and, in general, the secular clergy of the East, appear to have taken no violent part in the contest. Indeed, we are persuaded that that numerous body contained many pious and rational individuals who were shocked by the degradation of Christianity and human nature, and who watched, with an anxious eye, the endeavours which were made to remove it. But such characters are seldom busy or ambitious, and the anxiety of these excellent men may have been often confined to their own bosoms, or at least to the narrow limits of their diocese. On the other hand, the monastic orders have, too generally, attested the spuriousness of their origin, by their alliance with impurity and imposture. And thus, in the present instance, they were furious advocates for a system so necessary to their influence and their avarice; and it is chiefly, no doubt, to their entrance, that we are to attribute the evil result of the conflict.” (Wad. Hist. of Ch. Part 2. ch. xi.)

We have thus beheld the gradual establishment of image-worship throughout the visible church. Let us now investigate the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, in reference to this subject, from the twelfth century to the present time. This is the more necessary, in consequence of the awfully false statements of modern English Papists.

“A Papist misrepresented,” says a book which is now circulated by thousands in this country, “worships stocks and stones for gods, he takes no notice of the second commandment, but setting up pictures and images of Christ, the Virgin Mary and his other saints, he prays to them and puts his trust in them; much like as the heathens did in their wooden gods Jupiter, Mars, Venus, &c.; and for this reason he erects stately monuments to them in his churches, adorns them sumptuously, burns candles, offers incense, and frequently falls down prostrate before them, and, with his eyes fixed upon them, cries out, ‘Help me Mary.’ ‘Assist me Antony.’ ‘Remember me Ignatius.’

A Papist truly represented believes it damnable to worship stocks and stones for gods, to pray to pictures or images of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, or of any other saints, to believe any virtue or divinity in them, or to put any trust or confidence in them.”

Such is the statement of the celebrated Gother in his popular work, styled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented. Let us now see whether the practices here pronounced damnable have not belonged to the Romish Church for at least a thousand years!

It is beyond all question, then, that the doctrines inculcated by the doctors of the Romish Church for many centuries previous to the Reformation were, in the very highest degree, idolatrous; and the practice of the people was in full accordance with such teaching.

In the first place, the second Council of Nice, at which the worship of images was authoritatively enjoined, has always been held for a general council by the Church of Rome; and its decrees were appealed to, as still in force, by the Council of Trent (Sess. xxv.). Hence the doctrines inculcated by that idolatrous synod must be regarded as representing the opinions of the Romish Church, viz.:

“That the holy and venerable images may be exposed to the sight, as well as the cross: both those which are made in color upon cloth, and those of another kind; that they may be placed in churches, placed upon sacred vessels, upon sacerdotal vestments, upon the walls and tables in houses and the highways, viz. the image of Jesus Christ and the Virgin, of the angels and saints, that they may be kissed and reverenced; but not adored with the true adoration due to God alone; that incense and wax-candles may be burnt before them, as they are before the cross, because the reverence paid to them passes to their object.” (Definition of the second Nicene Council, in the 7th action or session in Du Pin.)

This, however, was not enough for “the man of sin and son of perdition.” The Romish Church went far beyond the Eastern in this, as well as in every other corruption. The latter, even in this, its most idolatrous council, expressly states, that “images are not to be worshipped with the true adoration due to God alone” (Latria) and that the reverence paid to images passes to the object represented by them. The Romish doctors, on the contrary, distinctly state, that Latria, or supreme worship, is to be given to images, and that the worship paid to them terminates in the images themselves.

St. Thomas Aquinas, surnamed “the Angelical Doctor,” whose Summa exercised much the same authority in the Church of Rome that the Bible does amongst Protestants, declares, that “the worship of Latria (i.e. the worship paid to God) must be given to images of Christ.” After stating the several grounds of this opinion, he proceeds:

“Hence, it follows, that the same reverence should be shown to the image of Christ, as to Christ himself; and, since Christ is worshipped with supreme worship (Latria), therefore, his image must be worshipped with supreme worship.” (See Bossuet. Œuvres 1, 448.)

Ever since the time of St. Aquinas (A.D. 1268), this has been the commonly received opinion of the Church of Rome. It would be impossible to quote a twentieth part of the testimonies which exist:

Cardinal Bonaventure: “As Christ himself, from his union to the Divinity, is worshipped with Latria; so is the image of Christ, as it represents him; therefore, the worship of Latria should be given to the image of Christ.” (Bonav. in Sent. 3, dist. 9, q. 2.)

Marsilius ab Ingen: “The cross, as a sign representing the object of worship, and as a medium of it, is to be adored with Latria,” and, for this, he appeals to the office of the church, where the cross is thus addressed: “O cross, hail! our only hope; increase the righteousness of the just, and give pardon to sinners”; “which three things,” he says, “properly belong to God; therefore it is properly the worship of Latria, which the church renders to the cross, as a sign.” (Marsil. b. 3, part 2, q. 8, cond. 1 et 3.)

James Almain: Declares that images are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship as that with which the things represented are. (l. 3. dist. 9, con. 5.)

Angelus de Clavasio: “The image of Christ is to be worshipped with Latria, both on account of the representation and the contact. Therefore,” he adds, “we speak and pray to the cross, as to Christ himself.” (Summa Angel. vv. ador. n. 5. 6.) The same is said by Bartholomeus Fumus, Dionysius the Carthusian, Antoninus the Dominican, and many others.

Another extremely gross feature in the Romish doctrine of image-worship is, that the worship of images terminates in the images themselves. That this is the opinion of the doctors of the Church of Rome is unquestionable:

Bellarmine: In his treatise concerning images, distinctly says, “That the images of Christ and the saints are to be worshipped, not only by accident and improperly, but themselves and properly, so that they terminate the worship, as they are considered in themselves, and not barely as they represent the exemplar.”

Bernardus Pujol: “The image truly and properly is the matter of adoration and the worship truly and properly is terminated upon it… and, not only,” he adds, “the external, but the internal worship is to be terminated on the image.” (De sac. ador. cultu disp. 3. sect. 7.)

Dominicus Soto: Determines, also, “that images are not intended by the church only for helps to memory; for we do not worship the scriptures or names of saints, which call them to our minds; but, as to images, we ought to think otherwise, for they do not only raise our minds to worship those who are represented by them, but we ought to adore the images themselves (sed easdem ipsas debemus adorare); for the church does not say, ‘we worship thee, O Christ,’ but ‘thy cross,’ and ‘O cross, hail! our only hope.’” (De Inst. et jure, l. 2. q. 3. art. 2. in fin.)

Sylvius: “This is the Catholic truth… that images are, truly and properly, to be worshipped; so that the honour is given, not only to the exemplar, but, for the sake of that, to the image.” (Fr. Sylvius in 3 p. Th. q. 25. art. 3. q. 5.)

It need scarcely be said, that the practice of the Church of Rome, down to the period of the Reformation, was what might have been expected under such teaching. At the second Nicene Council, it was universally agreed that no image of God could be made. “If we cannot paint the soul,” says St. John Damascene, “how much less can we represent God by an image! What image can we make of him, who is invisible, incorporeal, without quantity, magnitude, or form?” And Leontius, John of Thessalonica, and other fathers in that council express themselves similarly.

The Romish Church, on the contrary, has set up images of God the Father, and of the Trinity, for worship. (See Stillf. Def. of a discourse, &c.) Molanus, a popish writer, and Thyreus also, mention four kinds of images which are most used in the Church of Rome:

That of an old man—to represent God the Father; of Christ, in his human nature; and of a dove—for the Holy Spirit.

That of three persons, of equal age and stature—to denote the Trinity.

That of an image of the Blessed Virgin, in the belly of which was represented the Holy Trinity. The celebrated doctor, John Gerson of Paris, says he saw this in the Carmelites’ church (Gers. Serm. in nativ. Dom. Opera Tom. 4. p. 620), and that there were others like it. Molanus also met with one among the Carthusian monks.

That of one head, with three faces; or one body, with three heads: which the last author describes, and says it is usually set up before the office of the Trinity is said.

The Processionale printed for the use of the church at Salisbury (A.D. 1555) contains a rubrick for the incensing the image of the Holy Trinity (fol. 16). And Cardinal Bellarmine contends for the lawfulness of representing God by images (De Imag. l. 2. c. 8).

The practice of the church, in the worship of images, is well set forth in the homily on peril of idolatry, written at the time of the Reformation:

“Our churches stand full of such great puppets, wondrously decked and adorned; garlands and coronets be set on their heads; precious pearls hanging about their necks; their fingers shine with rings set with precious stones; their dead and stiff bodies are clothed with garments, stuffed with gold. You would believe that our men saints were some princes of Persia land, with their proud apparel; and the idols of our women saints were nice and well-trimmed harlots, tempting their paramours to wantonness, whereby the saints of God are not honoured, but most dishonoured; and their godliness, soberness, chastity, contempt of riches and the vanity of the world, defaced and brought in doubt, by such monstrous decking; most differing from their sober and godly lives.

And because the whole pageant must thoroughly be played, it is not enough thus to deck idols, but at last come in the priests themselves, likewise decked with gold and pearl, that they may be meet servants for such lords and ladies, and fit worshippers of such gods and goddesses. And with a solemn face they pass forth before these golden puppets, and fall down to the ground on their marrow-bones, before these honourable idols; and then rising up again, offer up odours and incense to them, to give the people an example of double idolatry, by worshipping not only the idol, but the gold also and riches, wherewith it is garnished.” (p. 219)

And again:

“True religion then, and pleasing of God, standeth not in making, setting up, painting, gilding, clothing and decking of dumb and dead images, (which be but great puppets and babies for old fools in dotage and wicked idolatry, to dally and play with) nor in kissing of them, capping, kneeling, offering to them, incensing of them, setting up of candles, hanging up legs, arms, and whole bodies of wax before them, or praying or asking of them, or of saints things belonging only to God to give. But all these be vain and abominable, and most damnable before God.” (p. 223)

Such was the practice of the baptized heathens who constituted the Church of Rome for many centuries previous to the Reformation; and our knowledge of human nature would have led us to expect what a celebrated popish historian of the sixteenth century has recorded as a matter of fact: that there “were many persons who worshipped the very wood or stone, brass or marble, or pictures painted on the walls, not as figures, but as if they had verily sense; and did put more trust in them, than they did in Christ, or in the saints to whom they were dedicated.” (Polyd. Virg. de invent. rer. lib. 6. cap. 13.)

The Council of Trent, which was held in the sixteenth century, gave its deliberate approval to the worship of images, and thus all the idolatries of the dark ages have been perpetuated even to the present day. The solemn decree of that authoritative body on this subject is as follows:

“That the images of Christ and of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, and other saints, are to be kept and reserved, especially in churches, and due honour and veneration to be given to them; not, for that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be worshipped; or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence to be placed in them, as was anciently done by the heathens, who put their trust in idols, but because the honour which is exhibited to images, is referred to the prototype, or thing represented by them; so that by the image which we kiss, and before which we kneel, or put off our hats, we adore Christ and reverence his saints whom the said images represent.” (Session xxv.)

Upon this important canon, we would remark, first, that there is nothing here stated to prevent men from giving Latria or supreme worship to the images of Christ. The wary council uses the word due veneration, which is of course susceptible of any interpretation which may be put upon it; and whilst one person may consider a slight salutation all that is due, another may deem the highest honour and veneration of which they are capable due to images.

Accordingly, as a matter of fact, many of the most eminent doctors present at the Council of Trent have declared that both the images and cross of Christ are to be worshipped with the supreme worship of Latria. Among which are Dominicus Soto, Turrianus, Naclantus. Of the same opinion was Cardinal Paleotus, Gregory de Valentia, Peter Thyreus, Ludovicus de Paramo, Paulus Maria, Gregory Valentinianus, Paul Layman, Eligius Basseus, and also Phil. Gamacheus and Ysambertus, both doctors of the Sorbonne; whilst Azorius informs us, that this was the common opinion of divines. Many doctors have included the sponge and the nails in the catalogue of material objects to which supreme worship is to be paid, as Cornelius Curtius, an Augustine, and Eligius Basseus. Extracts from all the above great divines of the Romish Church, since the Reformation, may be found in Stillingfleet’s “Defence of a Discourse on Idolatry,” Lond. 1676, pp. 615–620.

Another important fact is, that all the external acts of adoration are permitted by the council to be given to images; so that a door is thus opened for all the vile idolatry of the dark ages. And there can be no question that the practice of the Romish Church since the Reformation has been altogether as gross as it ever was. Mr. Gother, as we have already seen, pronounces it “damnable to pray to pictures or images”; but the Romish Church itself prays to the cross in the most express and formal terms. The Roman Pontifical at present used determines that Latria, or supreme worship, is due to the cross of Christ. In appointing the mode of procession at the reception of the emperor, it says, “The cross of the legate ought to have the right hand, because Latria is due to it” (quia debetur ei Latria. Pontificale Rom. Ordo ad recep. Imperat. Rubr.).

The Romish Breviary of the present day addresses the cross in prose in the following terms:

“O cross, brighter than all the stars, famous in the world, much beloved by mortals, more holy than all things, who alone wast worthy to support the weight of the world, sweet wood, bearing sweet nails, sweet burdens; save this present assembly congregated for thy praise to-day.” (Brev. Rom. Fest. Maii 30. Invent. S. Cruc.)

On Good Friday, the Romish Missal commands the following service to be performed:

“The priest takes the cross from the deacon, and turning towards the people, uncovers a part of it from the top, beginning alone, ‘Behold the wood of the Cross’—the choir sing, ‘come let us adore,’ and while this is singing, the whole congregation falls prostrate before it. The priest then uncovers more of the cross, raising it, by slow degrees, higher than at first. The people are then addressed, ‘Behold the wood of the Cross, on which the salvation of the world was hung, come let us adore.’ This is repeated three times. Then the priest, uncovering the whole cross, and laying it on its place before the altar, takes off his shoes and draws near to adore it, kneeling down three times before kissing the cross. The ministers of the altar afterwards adore the cross in the same manner and sing, ‘We adore thy Cross, Oh Lord,’ &c.” (Feria 6, in Parasceve Domini, in Rom. Miss.)

Again, the Council of Trent expressly rejects the belief, “That any divinity or virtue resides in images for which they are to be worshipped, trusted in,” etc. But it is notorious:

First. That the forms of consecration used by that church do profess to impart virtue to images.

Secondly. That the allowed practice of Papists in foreign countries proves that divinity and virtue are believed to reside in them.

First. The Second Nicene Council considered no consecration necessary, but merely set up the images for worship. Not so, however, the Church of Rome. When a new cross is to be set up for worship, the following prayer is offered up by the pontiff:

“We beseech thee, holy Lord, Almighty Father, everlasting God, to vouchsafe to bless this wood of thy cross, that it may be a saving remedy to mankind—that it may be to them the strengthening of faith, the increase of good works, and the redemption of their souls—that it may be their comfort, protection, and defence against the cruel darts of their enemies, through our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.

After sprinkling the cross with holy water and censing it, he stands uncovered and says:

“Blessed be this wood, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and may the blessing of that wood on which the holy members of our Saviour were suspended, be in this wood, that they who pray and bow themselves on account of God (propter Deum) before this cross, may find sanctification, both of body and soul, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In case the Cross is of metal instead of wood, a different prayer is offered, in which occurs the following: “Accept this Cross, with those hands, with which thou didst embrace that on which thou sufferedst, and out of the sanctity of that Cross, sanctify this; and as by that the world was delivered from all guilt, so let the very devout souls of thy servants who now offer, be delivered from every sin committed by them, through the merit of this Cross,” etc. (Rom. Pontif., De bened. nov. Cruc., Venet. 1582.)

In the same Pontificale, the next form is that of blessing an image of the Virgin, in which the Pontiff offers the following prayer of consecration: “Almighty, Everlasting God, by whose merciful providence all things are created out of nothing, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify this image, prepared with veneration, to the honour of the most pious mother of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and grant O most merciful Father, by the invocation of thy name, and of the name of the same thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to thy will was incarnate for the salvation of mankind, tuâ ever Virgin Mary, quatenus precibus ejusdem sacratissimæ virginis,[4] that, whosoever shall strive suppliantly to honour the same Queen of mercy, and our most gracious Lady, before this image, may both be rescued from impending dangers, and in the sight of thy divine majesty, may obtain pardon of all their sins, and may likewise acquire in the present life that grace which they long for, and in the world to come, may rejoice with thy elect, in everlasting salvation, through the same our Lord.”

Prayers for consecrating other images follow; but the above are sufficient to prove that the practice of the Church of Rome is directly at variance with the profession of the Council of Trent, viz., that they do not believe “that any divinity or virtue resides in images, for which they are to be worshipped, confided in,” etc.

Second. The allowed practice of Papists ever since the Council of Trent has been so gross and idolatrous, in papal countries, that no one acquainted with the worship which is paid to images on the continent can for a moment question that the priests inculcate, and the people believe, the actual divinity of all the principal images of their church. Take the following authentic account of the worship of “Our Lady of the Pillar,” which was the name of a celebrated image of Spain in the 18th century:

“This image,” says Mr. Gavin, a converted Spanish priest, “has her own chaplain besides a chapter of prebends and priests. The Virgin’s chaplain has more privileges and power than any king, archbishop, or any ecclesiastical person, except the Pope; for his business is only to dress the image every morning, which he doth in private and without any help; I say in private, that is drawing the four curtains of the Virgin’s canopy, that nobody may see the image naked. No body has liberty but this chaplain to approach so near the image; for as the author of the book called ‘The History of our Lady of the Pillar’ says—an archbishop (who had so great assurance as to attempt to say mass on the altar table of the Virgin) died upon the spot before he began mass. I saw King Philip and King Charles, when they went to visit the image, stand at a distance from it. With these cautions it is very easy to give out that nobody can know of what matter the image is made, that being a thing referred to the angels only. So all the favour the Christians can obtain from the Virgin, is only to kiss her Pillar; for it is contrived that by having broke the wall backwards, a piece of the pillar as big as two crown pieces is shewn, which is set in gold round about, and there kings and other people kneel down to adore and kiss that part of the stone. The stones and lime, that were taken when the wall was broken, are kept for relics, and it is a singular favour if any can get some small stone, paying a great sum of money.

“There is always so great a crowd of people that many times they cannot kiss the Pillar, but touch it with one of their fingers, and afterwards kiss the part of the finger that touched the pillar. The large chapel of the lamp is always night and day crowded with people: for, as they say, that chapel was never empty of Christians since St. James built it, so the people of the city, that work all day, go out at night to visit the image: and this blind devotion is not only among pious people, but among the most profligate and debauched; insomuch that a lewd woman will not go to bed without visiting the image; for they certainly believe, that nobody can be saved, if they do not pay this tribute of devotion to the sacred image.

“As to the miracles wrought by this image,” adds the author, “I could begin to give an account, but never make an end: and this subject requiring a whole book to itself, I will not trouble the reader with it, hoping in God, that if he is pleased to spare my life some years, I shall print a book of their miracles and revelations, that the world by it may know the inconsistent grounds and reasons of the Romish Communion.” (Master Key to Popery, vol. i. p. 238)

In the same work is contained the following account of a crucifix, which “is worshipped as if the very image of wood was the very Christ of flesh and bones”:

“In the Cathedral Church of St. Salvator,” says Mr. Gavin, “there was an old image of Jesus Christ crucified, behind the choir, in a small unminded chapel, nobody took notice of that crucifix except a devout prebend or canon of the church, who did use every day to kneel down before that image and to pray heartily to it. The prebend (though a religious man in the outward appearance) was ambitious in his heart of advancement in the church; so one day as he was on his knees before the old image, he was begging, that, by its power and influence, he might be made a bishop, and after a cardinal, and lastly a Pope. To which earnest request the image gave him this answer, ‘And thou seest me here, what dost thou do for me?’ To which the prebend answered, ‘Lord I have sinned and done evil before thee.’ To this humble request the image said, ‘Thou shalt be a bishop,’ and accordingly he was made a bishop very soon after.

These words spoken by the crucifix of the Cathedral Church, made such a noise, that crowds of well-disposed credulous persons used to come every day, to offer their gifts to the miraculous image of our Saviour: and the image, which was not minded at all before, after it spoke, was, and has been ever since so much reverenced, that the offerings of the first six years were reckoned worth near a million of crowns. The history of the miracle reports that the chapter did intend to build a chapel in one corner of the church to put the crucifix in with more veneration and decency; but the image spoke again to the prebend, and said, ‘My pleasure is to continue where I am till the end of the world.’ So the crucifix is kept in the same chapel but richly adorned: and nobody, ever since, dare touch any thing belonging to the image, for fear of disobliging the crucifix. It has an old wig on its head, the very sight of which is enough to make every one laugh; its face looks so black and disfigured, that nobody can guess whether it is the face of a man or a woman, but every one believes it is a crucifix, by the other circumstances of the cross, and crown of thorns.” (p. 232)

As it appears important to fasten this charge of idolatry upon the Romish Church, we will bring before the reader one or two other proofs that “divinity is believed to reside in images, and actual trust and confidence placed in them.” The following account refers to the practice of veiling certain images for a time, and then, on a fixed day, removing the veil with great ceremony:

“I wanted no diversion,” says an intelligent writer, “all the way till I came to Sienna, whither all these processions were going. Only I found great inconvenience when I came to my inn; because that wherever these processions pass they cause great scarcity, by reason of the great numbers that compose them. Being come to Sienna, I enquired what church it was to which all these devotions were designed, and was told that they all went to a church of our Lady where they had lately uncovered a miraculous image of the Virgin, which was only done at the end of every forty years. My curiosity invited me to take a view of it, but the throng of the people was so great, that I had much ado to crowd into the church. They told me that this thronging concourse had already continued for eight days, (for so long the image had been unveiled,) and that after eight days more it was to be veiled again, with a great deal of solemnity.

I took an exact view of this image, which was about a foot broad and a foot and a half high, the countenance of it representing that of a very young girl; neither could I find any thing extraordinary in it, for which it might seem to deserve the adorations they gave it. I enquired of the priests that served this church, What might be the reason that this image was only unveiled once in forty years? But they could give me no better than this, ‘That it had been a custom observed time out of mind; and that they believed the first rise of it, was an order given by the Virgin herself for so doing.’

“I have in Italy seen a vast number of these sorts of veiled images; not only of the Virgin but also of the crucifix, and all other saints; and I can say with truth, that there is scarcely a church to be met with, which has not two or three of them. Sometimes we meet with great pictures in their churches, where several saints are represented and amongst them one only having his or her face veiled, that being the mysterious saint. The secret of which intrigue as far as I could pierce into by the use the monks and priests make of it, is plainly this; They find this way admirably adapted to advance their temporal profit. The things we see are every day become too common with us! The images and statues of the Church of Rome would make no great impression on the minds of the people, or be powerful enough to open their purse-strings if the priest had not found out this ingenious invention of making them more rare, and therefore the more desired. Yea, it seems also that the long time of their veiling, begets something of a greater veneration for them, and that the Roman Catholics imagine, that when after so long a time they are uncovered, they meet with something in those Pictures, Images, and Statues, more august and divine than usual.” (Frauds, etc. p. 320)

Such was the worship paid to images and pictures by Papists in the 17th and 18th centuries. Annexed we give facsimiles of four of the miraculous images of the Virgin Mary, taken from a work of the highest authority published in the seventeenth century, entitled “The Marian Atlas, or the Miraculous Images of the Mother of God, throughout the Christian World.”[5] The likeness between these several portraits, the reader will naturally think, might have been somewhat stronger, considering that they all represent the same individual goddess.

The worship of the wooden image called Our Lady of Loretto is far greater than that usually given to the images of the Virgin. It is important therefore that some account of it be given to the reader:

“The Chapel of Loretto, in Italy, is by the Italians called La Santa Casa, that is ‘The Holy House.’ They believe this to be the very same house wherein Jesus Christ dwelt, at Nazareth, with the Blessed Virgin, his mother, and his reputed father St. Joseph, for the space of thirty years… They pretend it was transported by angels from Nazareth, where it stood at first, to the place where it is at present… I proceed now to the description of this chapel, or Santa Casa. The whole building is of brick, about twenty-five feet long; the length not being proportionable to the breadth of it. The wood with which it is ceiled, being consumed and rotten by age, it has been vaulted with brick. It has two windows and two doors in the two sides of it, and another beneath, by which, they say, the Angel Gabriel entered, to announce to the Blessed Virgin the mystery of the incarnation.

They have erected an altar in the very place, where, they say, the Virgin was on her knees, when the Angel entered; and upon the altar is an image of the Virgin, of wood, about four feet and a half high, which is the miraculous statue on which they bestow their adorations. She has changes of clothes for all working days, and for all holy-days and Sundays. She has them of all sorts of colours, and mourning clothes for the Passion week. They shift or change her clothes with abundance of ceremonies. I was there one Saturday, in the evening, when the priests undressed her. They took away from her the suit of purple she had on, in order to dress her in a green gown; which they performed in the following manner. They first took off her veil; then her great robe or mantle royal. Afterwards her gown, and upper and under petticoats. Last of all, with a great deal of reverence, they pulled off her smock, to put on a clean one. I leave you, Sir, to guess, what thoughts this may probably impress on the imagination, as well of those who perform the ceremony, as of the assistants and spectators.

The people that are present upon their knees, all the time the ceremony is performing, beat their breasts; and nothing is heard, throughout the chapel, but sighings and groans, with interrupted words and ejaculations: ‘Holy Virgin of Loretto: Help me! Mother of God: hear me:’ and other such like. As soon as the image is quite naked or undressed, these sighings and groanings are doubled; but decrease again, by degrees, as they dress it. I cannot imagine what should be the cause of this change in their tone, except it should be this: that when the statue is quite undressed, it more strongly affects their imagination, and makes them believe that they see the very Virgin in person; and that this therefore is the nick of time for them to pray with the greatest fervour of devotion. They dress her in a green suit of apparel, extremely rich, being a flower-work upon a crown of gold. The veil they put upon her head is much more costly; for besides that, it was of the same cloth of gold, it was all powdered with great fine pearls.

After this they put upon her head a crown of gold, thick beset with precious stones of inestimable price. Next, they put on her neck-jewel, her pendants, and her bracelets of diamonds; and many great chains of gold about her neck; to which were fastened abundance of hearts and medals of gold, which are the presents which queens and Catholic princesses have bestowed on the image, out of devotion, in testimony that they have resolved to be its slaves. The whole adorning and furniture of the altar, was equally sumptuous and magnificent. Nothing could be seen but great pots or vessels, basins, lamps and candlesticks, all of gold and silver, and beset with precious stones. All which, by the light of a vast quantity of wax-candles, that burn there night and day, afford a lustre, whose beauty ravished the soul through the eyes. It is no wonder to me, that many do aver themselves to be sensible of an extraordinary devotion in this place… This natural effect being, by some ignorant people, supposed to be a particular grace of God, appropriated to that place, makes them take it for no less than a continual miracle. But the extravagancies continually committed here, are a sufficient argument against this weak and ungrounded opinion.

“They kiss the walls all round about the chapel, they lick the bricks with their tongues, they rub their beads against them, they take thread, and having compassed the chapel with it, as if they intended to take the measure or compass of it, they afterwards make a girdle of it, which they say is very efficacious against witchcraft, and all manner of ills. Priests, in the mean time are not unmindful of their gain; they have persons placed every where in the chapel, and great church, who press the people to give alms and to have masses said for them to our Lady. They pay a crown apiece for every mass; and the Priests promise to say them at our Lady’s Altar, that is in the chapel. ‘Tis certain that the Priests receive money for the saying of about 50,000 masses every year; and yet it is as sure that it is impossible for them to say above 10,000 in a year at that altar; so that all the rest who have given their money for that purpose, must needs be frustrated of their intentions, and choused of their money.

Those that are rich and wealthy bestow great presents upon the wooden statue of the Virgin that is in the chapel, which without any addition or modification, they call ‘The Holy Virgin of Loretto.’ They present her with necklaces and bracelets of pearls and diamonds, hearts of gold, medals, candlesticks, lamps embossed, pictures of gold and silver of prodigious weight, and bigness. Many present her with rings, and most precious jewels, as a token of their espousing of her. She has above fifty gowns, all of them of inestimable price, insomuch as she is, this day, the richest puppet that is in the universe; and the piece of wood the most sumptuously drest, that is to be found in the whole world. ‘Tis to this image, that those famous Litanies which are so much in vogue with the Church of Rome, have been addressed, which are called ‘The Litanies of the Virgin,’ or ‘The Litanies of our Lady of Loretto,’ wherein she is termed ‘The Queen of Angels,’ ‘The mother of Divine Grace,’ ‘The Gate of Heaven,’ ‘The help of Christians,’ ‘The refuge of sinners,’ etc. (Frauds, etc. pp. 155–163)

Whether the Romish Church inculcates the belief that actual virtue and divinity are inherent in images in the present day, the reader can judge from the following statements:

“At the time of the irruption of the French into Italy (1796,) the most wondrous miracles were said to be wrought by certain images in Rome. Many of them opened and shut their eyes; and one shed torrents of tears. A full and particular account of these miracles, was published in the year 1801, entitled ‘Official Memoirs of the Juridical examination, into the authenticity of the miraculous events, which happened at Rome in the year 1796–7, including the decree of approbation.’ London, Keating and Brown. (See extracts in Philpott’s Sup. Let. to Butler, p. 414.)”

In a work already quoted, The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus Liguori, printed in Dublin, 1845, occur the following legends:

“While St. Gertrude was one day fervently saying the words ‘turn thy eyes of mercy towards us,’ she saw the holy Virgin pointing to the eyes of the Son whom she held in her arms. The Virgin then said: ‘These are my most merciful eyes, which I can incline in favour of all who invoke me.’—Rev. i. 4. cap. 53. These are the most compassionate eyes which I can incline to save all who ask my prayers. A certain sinner who wept before an image of Mary, beseeching her to obtain from God the pardon of his sins, was given to understand that the Blessed Virgin turned to the infant whom she held in her arms and said to him: ‘Son, shall these tears be lost?’ Jesus Christ answered that he pardoned the sinner.” (p. 274)

“Blessed John Errold, who, through humility, called himself the disciple, relates (in Promptuar.) that there was a married man, who lived in enmity with God. His wife, a virtuous woman, being unable to induce him to renounce sin, entreated him at least to practise, in honour of the mother of God, the devotion of saluting her with a Hail Mary, every time he passed by an image of the Virgin. He began to practise this devotion. One night, on his way to commit sin, he saw a light: he looked, and perceived that it was a lamp that burned before an image of Mary, holding in her arms the infant Jesus. He said the Hail Mary, as usual: but what did he see? HE SAW AN INFANT COVERED WITH WOUNDS STREAMING BLOOD. Filled at once with terror and compunction, at the thought of having, by his sins, inflicted these wounds on his Redeemer, he began to weep: but he saw the infant turning away from him.

Hence, full of confusion, he had recourse to the most holy Virgin, saying: ‘Mother of Mercy, thy Son rejects me: I can find no advocate more merciful and more powerful than thee, who art his mother. My queen, assist me, pray to him for me.’ The divine mother answered: ‘You sinners, call me Mother of Mercy, but you do not cease to make me a mother of misery, by renewing the passion of my Son, and my dolours.’ But because Mary knows not how to send away disconsolate a soul that has recourse to her, she turned to her Son to ask pardon for that miserable sinner. Jesus still appeared unwilling to forgive him; but the holy Virgin, PLACING THE INFANT IN THE NICHE, PROSTRATED HERSELF BEFORE HIM, saying: ‘Son, I will not depart from thy feet until thou dost pardon this sinner.’ Jesus then said: ‘Mother I can refuse thee nothing: thou dost wish me to pardon him, for thy sake I pardon him: make him come and kiss my wounds.’ The sinner came weeping bitterly, and as he kissed the wounds of the infant, they were healed. In the end, JESUS EMBRACED HIM in token of his pardon: the sinner changed his conduct, and afterwards led a holy life, enamoured of the most holy Virgin, who had obtained for him so great a grace.” (p. 174)

“Father Charles Bovio relates (Ex. 8. Virg. t. 5. ex. 32), that in Domans, in France, there was a married man, who, though his wife was living, kept up a criminal intimacy with another woman. The wife, being unable to bear such maltreatment, continually besought the Lord to punish the crimes of her husband: she went one day before an altar of the Blessed Virgin in a certain church, to implore just vengeance against the woman who lived with him.

The other woman went every day before the same image to recite a Hail Mary. The Divine Mother appeared one night in a dream to the person who had been maltreated by her husband; the woman instantly began to exclaim, as usual, ‘Justice, O Mother of God, justice.’ The Blessed Virgin replied: ‘Do you ask justice from me? Go and find some one else to execute justice. For my part, I will not do it. Know that the sinner against whom you demand justice, recites a salutation every day in my honour. And I will endeavour to save from the vengeance due to their sins, those who recite that salutation.’ In the morning, the woman went to hear mass in the church of the Virgin. As she was leaving the church, she met her enemy, and began to reproach her, calling her a sorceress, who, by her magic, had enchanted even the Blessed Virgin.” (p. 321)

We must not omit to notice another object of idolatry amongst Papists, a representation of which is given in the annexed engraving. The Romish Church worships the wafer in the sacrament with the same honour (latria) which they render to Almighty God. The Council of Trent, after asserting that, at their consecration, the bread and wine are changed into our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, says: “There is, therefore, no room to doubt that all the faithful in Christ are bound to venerate this most holy sacrament; and to render thereto the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, according to the constant usage in the Catholic Church.” (Sess. xiii. cap. 5)

And again: “If any one say that this holy sacrament should not be adored, nor solemnly carried about in procession, nor held up publicly for the people to adore it, or that its worshippers are idolaters; let him be accursed.” (can. 6)

Such is the doctrine of the Romish Church in reference to the adoration of the host; and their practice is in strict accordance with their teaching. The following is a translation of the language used in the present Missal: “Having uttered the words of consecration, the priest immediately falling on his knees, adores the consecrated host: he rises, shows it to the people, places it on the corporal, and again adores it.” When the wine is consecrated, the priest in the same manner “falling on his knees, adores it, rises, shows it to the people, puts the cup in its place, covers it over, and again adores it.”

This worship is not only paid to the host during the communion, but at other times also: in the church, whenever it is placed on the altar, with the candles burning and the incense smoking before, or hung up in its shrine or tabernacle, with a canopy of state over it. They say the church is sanctified with it, as with the presence of God himself. They also worship the wafer when it is carried through the streets on solemn occasions, such as the pompous procession of Corpus Christi, or for the purpose of being administered to the sick. A bell announces its approach, and it is expected that all who meet it, whilst passing along the streets, should instantly fall down on their knees and adore it as God!

A striking account of the practice of the Spaniards is given by the late Rev. Blanco White. “In the more populous towns,” says he, “these unpleasant meetings are frequent. Nor are you free from being disturbed by the holy bell in the most retired part of your house. Its sound operates like magic upon the Spaniards. In the midst of a gay, noisy party, the word, ‘His Majesty,’ will bring every one on his knees, until the tinkling dies in the distance. Are you at dinner? you must leave the table; in bed? you must at least sit up. But the most preposterous effect of the custom is to be seen at the theatres. On the approach of the host to any military guard, the drum beats, the men are drawn out, and as soon as the priest can be seen, they bend the right knee, and invert the firelocks, placing the point of the bayonet upon the ground. As an officer’s guard is always stationed at the door of every Spanish theatre, I have often laughed in my sleeve at the effect of the chamade upon the actors and company. ‘Dios! Dios!’ (God! God!) resounds from all parts of the house, and every one falls that moment upon his knees.” (Doblado’s Letters from Spain, p. 12)

In further illustration of the blasphemous idolatry of the consecrated wafer, it may be mentioned that the Romish Church has a “Litany of the Blessed Sacrament”—which occurs in almost every devotional book—in which the consecrated wafer is addressed in the same language as Christ himself is! The following are some extracts:

“O Saviour of Israel, who art truly a hidden God, have mercy upon us!”
“Lamb without blemish, have mercy upon us!”
“Word made flesh, and dwelling among us, have mercy upon us!”
“Holy Victim, have mercy upon us!”
“Most holy sacrifice, truly propitiatory of the living and the dead, have mercy upon us!”
“Heavenly antidote, by which we are preserved from sin, have mercy upon us!”
“Most stupendous of all miracles, have mercy upon us!”
“Bread by the omnipotence of the word changed into flesh, have mercy upon us!”
“Bond of union, have mercy upon us!”
“Spiritual sweetness tasted in its very source, have mercy upon us!”
“Pledge of the glory to come, have mercy on us!”

The Papists have thus set up, to use the language of an old writer, “the most contemptible, detestable, and abominable idol that ever was in the world: viz. a pitiful wafer or piece of bread, not only as a true and perfect man, but as the true and living God, who made heaven and earth… So that here is a God made by a creature, a paltry priest; made of a creature, a morsel of bread; and made by a magical muttering over of five words, viz. Hoc enim est corpus meum.”

“This God made of bread and rising out of the womb of transubstantiation, is the idol set up in the mass; and, I say, it is the most absurd, horrible, abominable, and monstrous idol that ever was in the world. An idol that makes the Christian name and profession contemptible, yea, a very ridicule and scorn; and a matter of greatest distaste and execration, both to Jews, Mahometans, and heathens; and confirms them in an invincible enmity against it: as well it may, when they take Christianity to be such a religion as this idol makes it. Can men possibly (if they set their invention upon the rack) excogitate or conceive of a more gross and palpable error, than to set up such a God as this breaden boy is? A God that neither sees, nor hears, nor speaks, nor breathes, nor moves; a God that cannot save himself from thieves and enemies; no, nor from dogs, rats, mice, or worms; in a word, a God that is made a thousand times over, in a thousand places every day, and as often fairly devoured, and eaten up by his makers?”[6] (A Treatise of the Mass, by Rev. H. Pendlebury)

We have thus considered, at some length, the actual character of the worship of images, and also of the host, in the Church of Rome. In all the papal kingdoms of Europe, images and pictures, especially of the Virgin, are universally adored. In their churches and public places, in their streets and their highways, as well as elsewhere, Papists set up these senseless idols. Lamps, too, are usually burning before them during the night, and no devout Papist ever passes by without paying them some act of adoration.

The annexed engraving, to every devout mind inexpressibly affecting, represents an Italian female worshipping at one of these shrines, placed at the corner of a street, taken from Hone’s Every-Day Book. That English priests do not set up images and pictures for the worship of the faithful in their chapels, can only be called a most gross inconsistency of which they might well be ashamed. Nay, more: by this omission, they are guilty of direct disobedience to the decree of the Council of Trent, which commands:

“That the images of Christ, and of the blessed Virgin, Mother of God, and other saints, are to be kept and reserved, ESPECIALLY IN CHURCHES.”

Yet the English and Scotch priests, after having solemnly sworn to obey ALL the decrees of the Council of Trent, deliberately and constantly disobey this most important one. Nothing but the lax morality of the Church of Rome could allow of this, or enable a priest of Rome to go one single day longer without exposing the images of Christ and the blessed to the view of the people, as well for their oath’s sake, as for the spiritual profit of “the faithful.”

There is little need of any remarks of ours to impress the reader with the absurdity, the debasing character, and the wickedness of such idolatry. The simple statement of the facts themselves, as above detailed, would be quite enough. And were any other argument necessary, the circumstance of its constituting one of the sins against which the ten commandments of the moral law are directed is sufficient to show the heinousness of the crime and the evil consequences of its commission.

The foregoing pages have aimed at establishing the fact, not only that Papists set up images and bow down to them—for this they themselves have always acknowledged—but also that they truly adore them; that they believe that divinity resides in these wooden idols; and that they put their trust and confidence in them. The command of the Almighty, however, reaches much further than this, and forbids men to “make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, to bow down to them, or serve them.”

It thus appears that in the mere act of placing images in churches and in public places, the prelates and priests of the Romish Church of past days have incurred the fierce wrath of the Most High God, but faintly symbolized by the lightnings and thunders with which Mount Sinai was enveloped. Nor need we wonder that the craft and wickedness of those abandoned individuals actually led them to blot this command of the Almighty out of the Decalogue, and to divide the tenth commandment into two for the purpose of keeping up the number ten! We might mention many popish catechisms, prayer books, and other devotional works in which what we term the second commandment is totally omitted.[7]

But if the sin of setting up and bowing down to images be so explicitly denounced in the Word of God as to lead the papal church to expunge the second commandment, as we term it, from the Decalogue so generally, what shall be said of the idolatries described in the foregoing pages? What language is strong enough to express the criminality involved in the facts there proved against the Romish Church?

The doctrine taught by their greatest doctors as to the propriety of worshipping certain images with latria, i.e., supreme honour. The same worship of latria still offered to the cross—the prayers addressed to it to “save the present assembly”; and to God, “that the wood of the cross may be to men the increase of good works, the redemption of souls,” etc. The horrid idolatry connected with the worship of images on the continent, where these idols, as we have seen, are prayed to, trusted in, and, in short, constituted the actual cops [gods] of the people!

The wickedness of such idolatry is so obvious to all classes except Romanists in the present day, that the only possible way left to English priests of evading the charge is flatly to deny the truth of the facts there alleged. Just as the celebrated Gother had the audacity, in his list of anathemas, to say “Cursed is he who commits idolatry; who prays to images or relics”; when, all the while, he knew that he was thus cursing the whole Romish Church previous to the Reformation, at least; for in the old “Prymers” we find forms of prayer to be addressed unto the image of Christ![8]

How overwhelming, then, is the idea of guilt with which the Church of Rome is chargeable in thus sanctioning the worship of graven images! How fearful is the amount of wickedness which she has thus diffused over Europe for a thousand years! And are we using any other than “the words of truth and soberness” in styling that apostate priesthood a pestilence, more terrible than the plague, spreading, not natural, but spiritual disease and death in every country where it is found?

Footnotes

[1] See the able work of Chemnitius, Exam. Conc. Trid. pp. 689–693.

[2] Raro more dumos pingere sanctas.—Paulinus, Epist. XII.

[3] See the authorities cited by Stillingfleet, in “Defence of a Discourse on Idolatry,” p. 538.

[4] We have thought it best to leave this somewhat obscure clause.

[5] Atlas Marianus, sive De Imaginibus Deiparæ per Orbem Christianum, miraculosis, Auctore Gul. Gumppenberg. Monachii. MDCLVII.

[6] The shocking profanity of the following extracts, from the modern Missal, must be obvious to every reader:

“If any poisonous matter touch the consecrated host, then let the priest consecrate another and receive it in the proper manner, and let the poisoned one be preserved in a box in a place, until the species be corrupted, and let the corrupted species be thrown into a sacred place.”

“If any of the blood of Christ fall on the table by negligence, it must be licked up with the tongue, the place must be thoroughly scraped, and the scrapings burned; but the ashes must be buried in holy ground.”

“If the priest vomit the eucharist, and the species appear entire, they must be reverently swallowed, unless nausea prevent, and in that case the consecrated species (alias God) must be cautiously separated from the vomit, and laid by in some sacred place, until they be corrupted and afterward they are to be thrown into a sacred place; but if the species do not appear, the vomit must be burned, and the ashes thrown into a sacred place.”—(Romish Missal, “Of the defects of the Mass”)

[7] In a book of prayers for the laity, entitled “Horæ Diurnæ,” extending to 368 pages, published in the year 1686, we read the following:

“THE TEN PRECEPTS OF GOD WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE DECALOGUE.”

“I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of servitude.

1. Thou shalt not have other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of his God in vain.
3. Remember that thou sanctify the Sabbath day,” &c., &c. Then the 10th is divided into two, as follows:

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house.
10. Thou shalt not desire his wife, nor servant, nor handmaid,” &c., &c. (p. 2 of the introduction)

This is the general form too in which the ten commandments occur in popish works previous to the sixteenth century.

Similarly in “A Catechism or Summary of Christian Doctrine, printed for T. D., 1673”—a book most extensively circulated in the 17th century, the second lesson begins thus:

Q. How shall we make it appear that we love God?
A. By obeying His commandments.
Q. How many are these commands, and what are they?
A. 1. You shall adore One God, and love him perfectly.
2. You shall not take his name in vain.
3. You shall keep holy the Sabbath day,” &c.

9. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife nor any thing that is against chastity.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s goods of any kind. (p. 23)

The version of the “Douay Catechism” used in Ireland also has not mentioned the second commandment. The same is the case with the catechism used in the Highlands of Scotland.—(Protest, vol. i. p. 180)

In foreign countries, and in Ireland, this practice is still continued, and it is plain that the only reason that it is not done in England is because the superior knowledge of the people would instantly lead to its detection. In Italy, catechisms omit our fourth commandment and substitute for it the first of what are termed the precepts of the church: ‘Remember to keep holy the festivals!’—(See also “La via del Paradiso,” pp. 81–83, A.D. 1831)

[8] See for instance Prymer in English and Latin, Rouen 1556.

“A PRAYER UNTO THE IMAGE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST”
“O thou maker of heaven and earth, King of Kings, Lord of Lords,” etc., fol. 129.

Continued in Chapter VII. The Priest in the Place of God