20. Idolatry near Home.

It is wonderful what a propensity there is in fallen men to idolatry. How they do love to worship the creature rather than the Creator! In a certain church, which need not be named, the blessed virgin, though a mere woman, receives ten, perhaps a hundred times as much religious honor as does the blessed Savior, though he be "the mighty God," deserving of all homage, while she merits barely respectful remembrance. One that has much intercourse with Catholics would suppose the mother to be the Savior of the world, rather than the Son. They make her to be the principal advocate of sinners in heaven. "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father." Who? St. John says, "Jesus Christ the righteous"-the Catholics say it is Mary! So they differ-we Protestants side with John.

I have lately met with an idolatrous temple, that is, a church or chapel avowedly erected in honor of a creature, and dedicated to a creature. Is not that a temple of idolatry? Can there be a more accurate definition of such a place? Well, I have seen one-and I have not been a voyage to India neither. Some think there is no idolatry nearer than India; and when they hear of an idol-temple they immediately think of Juggernaut. But it is a mistake. I have not been out of the United States of America, and yet I have seen a temple of idolatry. I will state the case, and let every one judge for himself. If I am under an erroneous impression I shall be glad to be corrected. The

Popery.

case is this: On the Catholic chapel in Annapolis Maryland, is this inscription, "IN HONOREM DEi Pa· RÆ VIRGINIS." It is Latin. The English of it is, "In honor of the Virgin, the mother of God." If I have not rightly translated it, some of those who worship in Latin can correct me.

Now, what does this mean? It seems to signify that the chapel was erected, and is continued in honor of, that is, for the worship of the Virgin Mary. The being in whose honor a chapel is erected is worshiped in it. If not, how is it in honor of him? The inscription signifies dedication to the Virgin Mary. Now, the being to whom a place of religious worship is dedicated is always the object of the worship there rendered. This is universaily understood. Hence we dedicate our churches to the Triune God, for him we worship in them. They are erected in honor of him. No one mistakes the meaning of these inscriptions. When we read on the Unitarian church in Baltimore this inscription in Greek, "To the only God," we understand that the church is consecrated to the service of the only God, and it is precisely the same as if the inscription had been in the style of that at Annapolis, in honor of the only God. So when Paul found at Athens an altar with this inscription, "To the unknown God," he inferred immediately that worship was intended, for he says, "whom therefore ye ignorantly worship" suppose the inscription had been "in honor of the unknown God," would not the apostle's inference have been the same? Nothing is more clear than that the inscription on which I am remarking implies that the chapel in question is dedicated to the worship of the Virgin Mary; and she being a creature,

this constitutes it a temple of idolatry, and those who worship in it idolaters!

Let no man say that the inscription implies no more than that the chapel is named after Mary. Some Protestants name their churches after saints, but the name is not given in any case in honor of the saint. St. Paul's in London was not built in honor of St. Paul. It is simply so denominated. But here we have a chapel in honor of the Virgin, and she is called Mother of God, apparently to justify the worship which the authors of the chapel intend her. If this were the only proof that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, we might overlook it; but it is only one of many. No one thing is more susceptible of demonstration, less capable of denial, than that Roman Catholics render unto this creature that which is due to God alone, religious worship. See for proof, their own Rhemish Testament with the notes. Therefore they are idolaters. I am sorry to say it, because I am sorry there is any occasion for saying it. But the time has come to speak out. This religion is threatening America, and it should be known, it should be proclaimed in the ear of every Christian, and every patriot, that it is something worse than mere error. And something more to be dreaded far than tyranny, which also it is, and ever has been, and must be-it is IDOLATRY. It puts another, and a creature, in the place of God, or if it discards not him, it does what is as offensive to him, it associates other and inferior objects of worship with him-and this his jealousy will not suffer. Whatever this great people are to become, I do hope we shall never be a nation of idolaters-creature-worshipers. We had better be, what God forbid we ever should be,

a nation of slaves. I do verily believe that the Roman Catholic religion has only to be universally adopted to make us both.

21. Praying to Saints.

This is one of the numerous points in which Catholics and Protestants differ from each other. They, the Catholics, pray to departed saints. This they ac knowledge they do, nor are they at ali ashamed of the practice, but endeavor to justify it. If any one doubts that they hold to the invocation of saints, as they express it, let him consult the notes to their own Rhemish Testament, or look into their book of prayers, where he will read the very language in which they make their supplication to the saints.

We Protestants do not pray to saints, and we think we have pretty good reasons for not doing it. We will mention some of them, in the hope that they will appear to be equally good reasons why Catholies should not pray to saints.

1. We do not feel the need of saints to pray to. We have a great and good God to go unto, whose ear is ever open to our cry, and we think that is enough ; we do not want any other object of prayer. Whenever we feel the need of any thing, we judge it best to apply directly to our heavenly Father, especially since James, one of the saints, testifies, that "every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights." Others may,

in their necessity, if they please, apply to the saints but we choose to ask of the Great Giver of all good. In doing so, we think we are much more likely to receive than if we invoke the saints.

It is true, being sinners, we need an advocate with the Father, but we do not need more than one, and him we have, as John, another saint, testifies, in Jesus Christ: "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." John speaks of only one advocate, and Paul asserts that as there is but one God, so there is but one mediator between God and men. Yet the Catholics will have it, that there are advocates many and mediators many. The notes of the Rhemish translators on 1 Tim. 2:5, and 1 John. 2: 1, assert the doctrine of a plurality of mediators and advocates. The object of those notes is to show, that if any man sin, he has many advocates with the Father, and that there are more mediators than one between God and men; the very reverse of what those texts assert! I am aware that the Catholics say that saints are mediators only in a subordinate sense; but I say they are mediators in no sense. Does the Bible speak of them as mediators in any sense? Those words, "mediator" and "advocate," are in the Bible. sacredly appropriated to Christ. There is but one, and it is he. We come to the Father by him. To him we come immediately. Here we need no daysman.

2. We Protestants have always regarded prayer as a part of worship, as much as praise and confession of sin. Now, our Savior says, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." We dare not, therefore, pray to any other than God. We would not like to be guilty of the idolatry of worship, ing a creature.