remarkable stones in all parts of Egypt as well as in Syria, which were objects of worship, like the Grecian heaps of Mercury. From the description of some of those in ancient authors, many of them appear to have been large aerolites, which naturally accounts for their heavenly origin. These were more common in Egypt, whence the Israelites were journeying; and in Syria whither they were going, than in any other place: and thus we can account for the special mention by Moses, of the pillars and remarkable stones, which are very different things from our marble or other stone images. Ours are set up for purposes similar to that of Jacob and of Josue, and do not come within the prohibition.

We now come to the text of Numbers, which corresponds to this of Leviticus, and it is not the least curious part of the subject to find the standing images, metamorphosed by your Bible into pictures.

Catholic version. (Numbers xxxiii. 52). "Destroy all the inhabitants of the land, beat down their pillars, and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their high places."'

Protestant version. "Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places.''

In a quotation from Deuteronomy iv., as it appears in the essay, there is undoubtedly the appearance of an absolute prohibition of making the similitude of any male or female; however, it is perhaps, only because your correspondent feared to occupy too much valuable space, or got tired of transcribing, or fell asleep at this particular moment. Allow me to continue the passage which in each version is only interrupted by a comma, whereas he gives us a full stop. But you know, that he and I never quarrel about points.

Catholic version. "17. The similitude of any beasts, that are upon the earth, or of birds, that fly under heaven.

"18. Or of creeping things that move on the earth, or of fishes, that abide in the waters under the earth:

"19. Lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun and the moon, and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error, thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath created for the service of all the nations that are under heaven."

Protestant version. "17. The likeness of any beast, that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air.

"18. The likeness of anything that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:

"19. And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all the nations under the whole heaven.'

We see that the prohibition is not absolute; and as soon as the en

tire passage is produced, we find it to contain no more than an enumeration of the special objects, which they were particularaly cautioned not to adore; together with a substantial repetition of what he commanded in Exodus xx. 22 and 23. You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven. You shall not make gods of silver, nor shall you make to yourself gods of gold. And lest they should imagine he had a bodily shape, he did not exhibit himself to them under any bodily appearance, but only in fire, that they might be kept better to appreciate his spiritual nature. Hence, it is the opinion of several Catholics that the Jews were prohibited by this precept from making any statue or image of the eternal and invisible God, for any purpose whatsoever. But, even granting this to be a fair consequence of the assigned reason, it will not follow, that Christians are forbidden to make a likeness of Jesus Christ, who appeared in his human nature, in his bodily shape; of angels, who appeared as men, and of whose images God himself gave a model to Moses; of the blessed Virgin who was a visible woman, and of other saints who lived and moved in their bodies; nay even the Holy Ghost under the appearance of a dove, as you do yourselves. In fact my impression is that you have more images of the Holy Ghost and of angels in your churches in the United States that we have, and some of them so well-fed and so fat, as to testify that they were made in times of royal favour and regal munificence. And wo be to the man who would dare to go into either St. Phillip's or St. Michael's to spit upon one of the shining figures, "similitudes of things in heaven above," "graven images," though you do not adore them. Neither do we. I have in vain strained my eyes through every nook of our poor churches to discover cherub or seraph or sacred dove. I must confess onr angels are indeed spiritual and invisible! Is it then come to this, that our churches have changed sides? The churches of the Romans are bereft of image-gods, and the churches of the Protestants possess them!!! This probably is only a piece of Jesuitical policy. No. I must say, that I have known the Catholic Bishop use upon the occasion, the words of Shakespeare's Apothecary, "my poverty, but not my will consents." If he had the means, he says, that he would have the sacred images.

Are the Catholics of Charleston then not out of the pale of that church which as your correspondent says, makes it "obligatory on them to render honour and veneration to images of the Virgin and of the saints?" (Paragraph 25.) No! Because there is no such obligation; the practice is useful, but neither essential nor obligatory. Have they not the images of Jesus Christ crucified? Yes; it is true they have; but this is not an image of the Virgin, nor of an angel, nor of any other

saint. Do they not adore the image of Christ? No! They do not. It but reminds them of their Saviour: fixes their attention, and excites them to remember his sacrifice of atonement and seek salvation through his merits.

In the outset of his 25th paragraph your correspondent asserts what is not the fact, when he makes adoration and veneration synonymous terms: when he changes the meaning of our expressions, he misstates our doctrines, and is thus dishonest, and in this mode of argument he has indeed few superiors.

I am still detained upon his precious second essay.
I remain, gentlemen,

Your obedient, humble servant,

B. C.

LETTER XII.

For she was just, and friend to virtuous lore,
And pass'd much time in truly virtuous deed;
And in those elfins' ears would oft deplore,

The times when Truth by popish rage did bleed,
And torturous death was true devotion's meed;
And simple Faith in iron chains did mourn,
That could on wooden image place her creed;

And lawny saints in smould 'ring flames did burn:
Ah! dearest Lord! forefend thilk days should e'er return.

To the Editors:

Shenstone.

CHARLESTON, S. C., Aug. 17, 1829.

Gentlemen:-Allow me to state what I believe has been shown. 1. That Roman Catholics pay adoration or divine worship to the eternal God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, and of all things visible and invisible. 2. That they pay divine honour or adoration to him alone. 3. Of course they do not pay divine honour to devils, 4. nor to imaginary beings, 5. nor to idols, 6. nor to human beings, living or dead; 7. nor to the images of any being, nor to any creature. 8. That they do not believe there resides any divinity or divine virtue in any image whatever. 9. That the worship of dulia or hyperdulia, or houour which they give to angels and saints is not divine honour, or adoration, but that honour which one reasonable being owes to another, because of its excellence: 10. and that the excellence of the angels and saints consists in the perfection of that nature and those graces which they received from God the Creator and Redeemer, and therefore, 11. that the

honour given to them is ultimately referable to God whose creatures they are. Hence, 12. the honour paid to them is not derogatory to that of the Creator or Redeemer, but 13. it is rather an enhancing of the same. I have also shown 14, that when our writers mention the adoration of an image, the expression is restrained to those of Jesus Christ, and that their meaning is that not the image, but the original whom the image represents, is to receive this homage: and 15, that when they use the expression of paying the worship of dulia or hyperdulia to the image of a saint, or the representation of an angel; they mean that the worship is paid to the original, through the image: yet 16, that those inanimate representations, or images, are to be treated with a degree of religious respect, which we call veneration, 17, not because of any inherent sanctity which they possess, but because of their connexion with the service of God, and through reverence for him.

I believe I have also fairly shown that almost every one of those propositions which is true of Roman Catholic worship, would be false if predicated of the worship of the heathens.

I believe I have also fairly shown that neither the text from Exodus xx. 4, nor that from Leviticus xxvi. 1, nor that from Deuteronomy iv. 15, 16, forbids what the Council of Trent declares to be lawful, and is fully expressed in our formulary.

"I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of other saints, may be had and retained; and that due honour and veneration is to be given to them."

That, and only that, is our defined doctrine. The Council of Trent was not called upon to decide, nor did it give a decision, upon either of those two questions. "Is it permitted to make an image of the invisible God?" "Is it permitted to make an image of a mere spiritual being, an angel for instance?" Yet still we can easily state what has been the general practice, and the general sentiment of the church upon those two questions. First, as to the practice respecting the image of the invisible God. Such images are not, I believe, made. Sometimes painters attempt a representation founded upon the description given in various parts of the sacred writings; to omit many others, I shall merely refer to Isaias vi., Ezekiel i., Daniel vii. The sentiment is, that if their intention be to represent God as really possessing that peculiar and proper appearance, it would be criminal; and to yield to such an impression would be folly; but if the painting be considered as merely emblematic or allegorical, it is not unlawful; though very unusual. As regards the second question. Images and pictures are made, which give to us the representation of the appearances which spiritual beings as

sumed, as described in the sacred volume; not that we believe these to be their natural and usual modes of appearance, but those assumed to affect our senses, and the sentiment is universal as to its being a lawful practice; otherwise we must condemn God for giving such a direction in Exodus xxv. 18, and Moses and Bezeleel for making them in Exodus xxxvii. 7, as also Solomon and his people, I or III Kings vi., and God himself, who in chapter ix. of the same book, accepts and approves of a temple filled with such images. Our Episcopalian friends are mightily censurable for this crime, if crime it be; and I have been filled with awe and wonder at beholding over the head of a zealous independent clergyman, whilst he was praying fervently against idolatry, a beautiful graven image of the dove, representing the Spirit of God, with which the staid and demure congregation of his hearers, at the time, believed the holy man to be filled.

This view of our doctrine and practice will enable any one to see what value is due to the assertion of your correspondent, paragraph 27, that respecting heathens and Roman Catholics "the per imagines of the Trentine decree, puts the matter, as to the use of images, very much on the same footing, in one case as in the other." But I cannot so easily part with him even upon this score, for I should like to see the gentleman reconcile himself.

Per. 27. The next is, that Protestants say, 'Roman Catholics exculpate themselves from the charge of idolatry, not otherwise than as the heathens did.' The Council of Trent, it is true, will not allow the heathen to have even pretended to worship anything above their idols. It may, on the contrary, be safely asserted, that there is abundant evidence that they did—and that the per imagines of the Trentine decree, puts the matter, as to the use of images, very much on the same footing, in the one case as in the other. The testimony of several of the fathers might be given to this effect."'

Contra. 23. It may be true that some Protestants, in an intemperate zeal of dissent from Popery, have considered Roman Catholics equally as idolatrous as the heathens either are or were. I believe, however, that a wide distinction is generally considered due in favour of Christian worshippers of the one only God, however incumbered their worship may be with erroneous appendages from those who, with no knowledge or belief of the one Jehovah, may worship infinitely various fictitious deities, in idols, in which they may be supposed to reside."

"Voltaire, it is true, thought the heathens were no more idolaters than Roman Catholics. I would not, however, take his authority as good, against the industrious author of the essay, in the Review. There is a difference, and we should admit that it is important. The poor Indian either honoured his idols with a worship terminating in them, or, through them, worshipped the unknown God. Christians under the denomination of Roman Catholics, like other Christians, worship the one true God of the Scriptures.''