tive offerings hanging around it, and the bracelets and jewels which adorn it, testify."

Such is the worship of St. Dominic's images by papists; and, as he was a blood-thirsty, cruel man, their high estimation of his character, shown in their worship of his image, proves that such a character is consonant to the prevailing feelings of papists. The worship of Bacchus and Venus by the ancient heathen, indicated their own licentiousness: so the popularity attending the worship of St. Dominic, the Moloch of modern idolatry, shows the prevalent spirit of popery. The story of the picture of St. Dominic being brought down from heaven, is evidently borrowed from the ancient heathen tradition concerning the image of Diana of Ephesus, that it fell down from Jupiter out of heaven. It was a favorite notion of the heathen, that they had shields and swords made by the gods; and old Vulcan, the divine blacksmith, had a great deal of custom from this nether world. And it would seem, from the foregoing heathenish tale about the picture of St. Dominic, that there are painters in heaven, who can represent, though but rudely, earthy bodies, and give their paintings earthy substance. How this can be, the credulous worshippers of Dominic do not inform us. But it is vain for any advocate of popery to tell us after this that images are only worshipped as visible representatives of absent divinity, when they are believed to have consciousness and the power of working miracles.

It must be evident, therefore, that popery stands, in the face of the world, chargeable with open and authorized idolatry. And there is no plea by which she attempts to shelter herself from this charge, which would not be equally valid in defence of the idolatry of the heathen. Is it said that images and pictures are calculated to impress truth upon the mind? So said the Hindoo who once visited London. He very much censured the want of images in the churches of protestant Christians. He said the worshippers had nothing upon which they could

fix their attention, and hence they were often gazing at each other, and often at mere inanity. "We," said he, "have in our temples an image of the Deity to look at, with large eyes, huge ears, great hands, and long feet. Not that we believe this very image to be the Deity, but we use it only to fix our attention, and to remind us that the being whom it represents, can see every thing, and hear every thing." Who does not see that this argument, though coming from a heathen, is equally applicable to the practices of popery?

Will it be said that there is something specious in the canonization and festive honor of eminent men. The same may be said, and doubtless has been felt in all its force, by the heathen. The worship of the calf in the wilderness, by the Israelites, was esteemed and treated as downright idolatry. But there were many plausible reasons for this worship, more perhaps than we at first imagine. The worship of the calf is supposed to have been suggested by the worship of the god Apis, in Egypt. This god was represented by the figure of an ox, and the ox is supposed to have been chosen in reference to the service rendered to Egypt by Joseph, the great deliverer of the nation from famine. The years of plenty and of famine had been represented in the dream of Pharaoh, each by seven kine. On this account probably, the ox, or kine, which is the female of the same species of animal, became a symbol of the deliverance of Egypt, and of Joseph the deliverer. The Israelites understood this. And when Moses had been absent so long as to lead them to despair of his return, what would be more natural than for them to think of Joseph, the illustrious benefactor of their race, whose bones they were transporting with them; and, thinking of him, what would be more natural than to think of his representative, in the worship to which they had been witnesses in Egypt? And what more plausible, in the absence of Moses, than to attempt to invoke the presence of Joseph, by the worship of the

young ox? This is all plausible, and perfectly consonant with the feelings of the carnal mind. But it was rank idolatry nevertheless. The principle was wrong. They were not to look to any finite power or deliverer, but to God only. Him they were taught to worship, and to have no gods before him. The heathen might have many plausible things to say in favor of their idolatry. They honor and celebrate eminent men, heroes, and deliverers. Hercules destroyed various monsters that desolated the earth, and who could refuse him divine honor? What better can be said of popish saints, who make up the list of demons in the worship of popery? What more, for example, can be said of St. Patrick, the tutelar demon of Ireland, supposing it true that he cleared that island of venomous reptiles, as tradition relates? Indeed the worship of creatures for their real or imaginary virtues or benefactions all stands on the same principle, whether it be papal or pagan. It is loving and serving the creature rather than the Creator, and this is idolatry. The same principle, followed out, will lead to the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, and indeed to the worship of four-footed beasts and creeping things. It is all idolatry from first to last. And popery is almost as deeply involved in this guilt as paganism.

SECTION VIII.

PERSECUTIONS OF POPERY.

IT has been the boast of the advocates of popery, that the church of Rome never persecuted. The manner in which this conclusion is reached is so much of a curiosity, and affords so choice a specimen of popish logic, that it deserves a particular statement. The papists define persecution to be, violence used towards the friends of the truth, and the true church of Christ, whereby they

suffer for righteousness' sake. The bearing of this definition will be seen by every reader. The papists consider themselves the only friends to the truth, and their nominal church as the only true church of Christ. Consequently there can be no persecution, in their view, but what is directed against themselves. All who differ from them are heretics, as they say, and to use violence with heretics, even to imprison and destroy them, by any means, or to any extent, is no persecution; because it is, as they say, their duty to suppress heretics, and to support the true faith. If any measure is taken to restrict papists, or to limit their power, this is persecution, awful violence against the friends of the truth. Papists must have full liberty to think, speak, write, and publish as they please; and all who differ from them, however conscientiously or justly, are enemies to the truth, and deserving of utter destruction. On this ground the papists allege, that none but their opposers have ever persecuted. But papists do not appear to reflect, that this principle would prove that there is, and can be, no such thing as persecution. The heathen of old pagan Rome held that their religion was the only true religion, and consequently, that all who opposed, or adopted any new system, were contemners of the gods, and enemies to religion. On this ground they proceeded to use violence. And if Rome papal is correct in her position, Rome pagan was correct in hers, and there never has been any such thing as persecution. The fallacy of this reasoning lies in the principle assumed in the definition of persecution. The truth is, every accountable agent is his own judge as to what true religion is; and no one has the right to judge for another. Persecution, therefore, consists in using violence or constraint with men, for believing and practicing what they conscientiously judge to be truth and duty. This is the right of conscience, and so long as it keeps within its proper sphere, and does not infringe on the rights of others, or the public welfare, it

must be held sacred. To deny this right is persecution. And the papists, by assuming to themselves the right of controling the consciences of their fellow-men, assume the principle and attitude of persecutors.

Another principle of persecution adopted and carried into practice by papists is, that no faith is to be kept with heretics. This is as much as to say, that all who do not receive their doctrines and opinions implicitly, are to be disfranchised, and not entitled to any of the rights of moral beings. The most solemn promises and treaties, in these circumstances, have no binding force in the estimation of papists. This sentiment, indeed, is nothing less than a sentence of universal outlawry, passed against the human family if they do not choose to become papists. But, as the adoption of this principle by papists is sometimes denied, the first illustration of popish persecution may properly be the proof, that popery maintains the sentiment that no faith is to be kept with heretics.

Here it may be remarked, that the doctrine of indulgences, when carried out to its legitimate consequences, implies this sentiment. For if the pope, or his priests, can commute crimes and punishments; if they can grant absolution at all; they can do it in respect to breaches of faith, as well as to any other offences, and thus nullify at a blow the most solemn obligations and engagements. That the doctrine of indulgences is understood by papists themselves to have this extent of application, is evident from the dispensation given to the king and queen of France, and to their successors forever, by pope Clement VI. It is as follows, viz:-" Clement, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our most dear son and daughter in Christ, John and Joan, king and queen of France, greeting, and our apostolic benediction. Your desires we willingly approve of, and especially those, wherein may God graciously give you that peace and repose of soul you piously seek after; hence it is that we, ready to answer your humble request, dó, by our apostolic au