adoration to be given to the cross is latria, or the highest adoration which is given to God himself!

The church of England protests more at length against the idolatrous practice of worshipping images and relics, than against any other corruption of the church of Rome. In her homily against the peril of idolatry, she enters fully into the history of the rise and progress of idolatry in the Christian church, and most clearly convicts the church of Rome of that sin in worshipping saints, images, and relics. From this elaborate discourse the following extract alone can here be introduced:

"Wherefore they be convict of foolishness and wickedness in making images of God and the Trinity, for that no image of God ought or can be made, as by the Scriptures and good reason evidently appeareth: yea, and once to desire an image of God, cometh of infidelity, thinking not God to be present, except they might see some sign or image of him: no image can be made of Christ but a lying image, (as the Scripture peculiarly calleth images lies,) for Christ is God and man. Seeing, therefore, that of the Godhead, which is the most excellent part, no images can be made, it is falsely called the image of Christ. Wherefore, images of Christ be not only defects, but also lies. Which reason serveth also for the images of saints, whose souls, the more excellent

parts of them, can by no images be represented and expressed. Wherefore they be no images of saints, whose souls reign in joy with God, but of the bodies of saints, which yet lie putrefied in their graves. Furthermore, no true image can be made of Christ's body, for it is unknown now of what form or countenance he was. Wherefore, seeing that religion ought to be grounded upon truth, images which cannot be without lies, ought not to be made, or put to any use of religion, or to be placed in churches or temples, places peculiarly appointed to true religion, and service of God. And thus much, that no true image of God, our Saviour Christ, or his saints, can be made wherewithal is also confuted that their allegation, that images be the laymen's books. For, it is evident, by that which is afore rehearsed, that they teach no things of God, of our Saviour Christ, and of his saints, but lies and errors. Wherefore, either they be no books, or, if they be, they be false and lying books, the teachers of all error.” *

*Hom. xvi. Third Part.

364

CHAPTER IV.

PUBLIC PRAYERS IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE OTHER RITES AND CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME-CONCLUDING REMARKS.

Church of Rome.

"I do, without doubt, receive and profess all things, which have been delivered, defined, and declared, by the sacred canons and œcumenical councils, especially by the holy Council of Trent; and all things contrary thereunto, and all heresies of whatsoever kind, which have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church, I in like manner condemn, reject, and anathematize."-Trent. Profess. Art. xii.

Church of England.

"It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive church, to have public prayer in the church, or to minister the sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people."

"The church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living, and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith."-Art. xix. xxiii.

DIVINE Worship is rather an act of the mind than of the body. "God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth." The various acts of divine worship-and this especially applies to public prayers-were intended to raise our thoughts to things spiritual, and to aid us

in holy communion with the Father of our spirits. It must, therefore, be evident that every mode of religious worship which calls for "bodily exercise alone, and which fails to secure the great ends for which the worship of God was ordained, is absurd and anti-scriptural. These remarks, though applicable to the whole of the worship of the church of Rome, will apply with peculiar force to the peculiar practice of that church in offering up public prayers, and ministering the sacraments in a language not generally understood by the people.

While the church was confined to the Roman empire, in which the Latin language was generally understood, there was no reason why the service of the church should not be performed in that language, as but few could be found who did not understand it. As the Roman empire declined, its language also declined, and soon ceased, especially in all the western provinces, to be generally understood by the people. It therefore seemed reasonable in this case, and especially in the case of other nations to whom the gospel was introduced, that each people should be permitted to serve God in their own vernacular tongue. To a change so just and reasonable, the Roman pontiffs were opposed in the eleventh century. Among the reasons for this opposition may be stated the following:-It was imagined that by continuing the service of the church every where in the same language, the unity and uniformity of the church would be most

effectually preserved. It was also no less effectual as a means of keeping the people in a state of dependence on the clergy, by keeping them in ignorance. It was also a matter of considerable convenience to the clergy, who, as missionaries, converted barbarous nations to Christianity :-the custom of celebrating divine worship in the Latin language spared them the trouble of acquiring a knowledge of the languages of the people to whom their mission was directed. To these reasons may be added another the Roman pontiffs not unfrequently bestowed the best benefices in Europe upon foreigners; expediency therefore suggested the continuance of the service of God in the Latin language; had it been required or allowed to every people to have their religious services performed in their own tongue, these dependents on the Roman pontiffs would have been ineligible to their benefices before they had acquired the language of the flocks assigned to their ghostly care. The Council of Trent, which decreed the continuance of this unreasonable and unscriptural practice, urged as reasons against a departure from it,"the inconvenience which would follow : all would think themselves divines: the authority of prelates would be disesteemed, and all would become heretics."

This practice is clearly contrary to that of the primitive church, which for several centuries celebrated the worship of God in the language of the