"themselves pay to the Bible, the name of Jesus, and even to the King's throne"?*

If, indeed, your doctrine were only this, could it so often have led its followers to the practice of direct idolatry? Or could the rulers of your Church have hesitated one instant to forbid all Images, when the use of them was so little necessary, and the abuse so common and so tremendous? If it were only this, could cardinals, and popes, and saints, have so grossly misconceived, or so impiously perverted it? If it were only this, could the assembled piety and wisdom of the universal Church; above all, could that Holy Spirit, whom the Lord of life and love sent into the world to bless, to comfort, and to support his children-could He, guiding by his secret influence the decisions of a general council, condemn the impugners of such a doctrine to eternal torments? Could He, for so slight an error, have shut us out from all hopes of mercy, have denied us all share in our Redeemer's merits, made us outcasts from his love, and aliens from his inheritance? Is it thus his blessed promise is fulfilled, that "even the "bruised reed he will not break, and the “smoaking flax he will not quench"? Has that

* End of Controversy, pp. 258, 259.

"whoever 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."

And now, Sir, permit me to ask you, whether the doctrine of your Church respecting Images be merely what the works cited by you state it to be? Are the devotions, which we have been examining, what Dr. Milner means by "the "decent respect, which," he says, "Roman

Catholics shew to the memorials of Chris

tianity"*? Will he any longer persist in maintaining, that "the end for which pious pictures "and images are made and retained in your

Church, is the same for which pictures and

images are made and retained by mankind in ge“neral—to put us in mind of the persons and things they represent"? and that "the relative "veneration to which they are entitled" is no other than "the honour which Protestants

*End of Controversy, p. 254.

"themselves pay to the Bible, the name of Jesus, and even to the King's throne"?*

If, indeed, your doctrine were only this, could it so often have led its followers to the practice of direct idolatry? Or could the rulers of your Church have hesitated one instant to forbid all Images, when the use of them was so little necessary, and the abuse so common and so tremendous? If it were only this, could cardinals, and popes, and saints, have so grossly misconceived, or so impiously perverted it? If it were only this, could the assembled piety and wisdom of the universal Church; above all, could that Holy Spirit, whom the Lord of life and love sent into the world to bless, to comfort, and to support his children-could He, guiding by his secret influence the decisions of a general council, condemn the impugners of such a doctrine to eternal torments? Could He, for so slight an error, have shut us out from all hopes of mercy, have denied us all share in our Redeemer's merits, made us outcasts from his love, and aliens from his inheritance? Is it thus his blessed promise is fulfilled, that "even the "bruised reed he will not break, and the "smoaking flax he will not quench"? Has that

* End of Controversy, pp. 258, 259.

Holy Spirit told us, that "we shall not make "to ourselves any graven image, nor the like"ness of any thing in heaven, in earth, or under "the earth; that we shall not bow down to "them nor worship them;" and does the same Spirit cut us off for ever, if yet we scruple to respect and venerate them? Is the exact measure of observance due to Images, by the will of God, so very nice, so very delicately poised, and yet is mistake on either side big with danger to our soul's salvation?

Will you dare to answer these questions in the affirmative? If you will not, you must acknowledge, that the representation of your Church's doctrine, made by your modern apologists, is, in this instance, false and deceitful.

66

LETTER IV.

Dr. Lingard. His unfaithfulness in quotation.

IN enquiring, in my last letter, into the Acts of the II. Nicene Council, I said that "Dr. Lingard protests altogether against such enquiry, and declares that your Church acknowledges only the Council's doctrinal decree "passed in its last session." In answer to this statement, I then satisfied myself with shewing, that the previous Acts of the Council are admitted, as authoritative, even by the Trent Catechism. But, as this Council's proceedings have been found very important in my view of the doctrine of your Church respecting Images, I now think it right to give more particular attention to Dr. Lingard's assertions, and shall thus at the same time fulfil my promise of addressing to you a few words respecting Dr. Lingard himself.

That gentleman is, I believe, among the most distinguished living writers of your Church. By yourself he is repeatedly mentioned in terms of very high respect: for although he is not cited as one of your Vouchers for the doc