because the object of his adoration was the supreme and only God. The person who believed the divinity to reside in a statue or image, and therefore made that statue or image the object of his adoration, would be an idolater; but if he viewed that image as it really was, not divine, nor partaking of the divinity, nor having any inherent sanctity, but a mere memorial by which his attention was awakened, his imagination fixed, and his religious feeling excited, and that in its presence he adored the eternal and spiritual God, and him alone-clearly he was not an idolater: for though, by occasion of the creature, he was brought to the adoration of the Creator, he adored God, and him alone. Thus he who, filled with the piety which nature excites, raises himself from the contemplation of a flower, or the consideration of the solar system, to the adoration of Him who gave to the one its delicate tints, and to the other its admirable order and wondrous harmony, is not the adorer of nature, but of nature's God. He who pays the homage of adoration to created beings, however intelligent and superior they may be, whether they be holy or wicked, gives to the creature that which is due to the Creator alone, and is thus an idolater: thus, the worshippers of Mars, of Juno, of Ceres, and the other deities of Greece and Rome, gave to created beings the homage of adoration, and were idolaters; and though they should never have represented by statues or painting those objects of their homage, the crime would have been fully committed; the adoration of those demons, by occasion and in presence of the image, was still the undue worship of creatures, and they who were so far besotted as to adore the statue itself, were, if possible, more criminal. The adhering to this idolatry so far as to withdraw its votaries from the adoration of the only and true God, would have been the consummation of this apostacy; and such was the state of the Indians of whom we treat. The Manitou is not considered as an intercessor with God, as a fellowworshipper with man of the Deity, but is the object of adoration, the lord of life and of death."

The article was considered by several with whom I spoke, to have been obnoxious, for an additional reason: because there was a general impression that it came from the pen of a writer who is supposed to believe, that the kindness of his fellow-citizens has more than conpensated for the hostility of unappeasable opponents. But, so far as I can ob serve, there is not throughout the whole article a single averment respecting Roman Catholic adoration of images, or Roman Catholic veneration of images, unless it be contained in the above paragraph, which another religious writer has proclaimed to be destructive of Christianity.

How far it is "needlessly elaborate," touches not the present question; but, it appears to me, only to do what your correspondent, and all other writers of his description, have been grossly deficient in omitting, to give some distinct notion of what is meant by the word idolatry, previously to charging millions of accountable beings with the practice of "abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God, and most damnable to man."-(Homil.)

In the same twenty-third paragraph, your correspondent, after giving pretty correctly the passage from the creed of the Roman Cath

olic Church, set forth by Pope Pius IV., in fulfilment of the order of the Council of Trent, favours his readers with a piece of Latin, which he calls "the words of the decree of the Council of Trent," but which is a garbled imitation, instead of being "the words of the decree." Although some of the printed words are nonsense, and there is a transposition of a point, which would make the original appear to place the worship of Christ and the saints upon an equal footing: yet the translation which he gives, is better in keeping with the spirit of the decree; though still, in that translation, the point is not introduced, and the distinction between the adoration of Christ, and the veneration of the saints, is not so strongly marked as it is in the original. Upon this, however, I shall not rest an argument. God forbid I should be driven to the wretched shift of endeavouring to sustain a calumny upon, perhaps, a printer's mistake. From all this, he states:

"Now, the honour and veneration of the images of Christ, and so forth, thus provided for by the highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church, as indispensably obligatory, we know to be held and taught in that church, to be not such as is due to God.

"The second Council of Nice, A. D. 786, which is referred to by the Council of Trent, on this subject, did assert the direct worship of images; declaring, at the same time, that it should not be Latria, which is due only to God, but merely an honorary adoration.''

Hence, we have the writer's testimony, or admission, for the following points:

First. That Roman Catholics pay to the one only God of the Scriptures, a purer worship than they pay to any other being.

Second. That the worship that they pay to this God, is a kind which is given exclusively to him, and which we call adoration, to distinguish it from any other.

Third. That they admit a certain kind of worship to be paid to images, which is very different from that which they give exclusively to God, and which they assert is consistent with giving that purer and exclusive worship of adoration to God alone.

Fourth. That there are different and distinct degrees of religious worship.

Fifth. That however erroneous Roman Catholics may be, in their appendages of the worship of one only God, of which the worship of images is one, there is a wide distinction to be taken between them and those who worship fictitious deities, in idols in which they may be supposed to reside.

Sixth. That Roman Catholics are not polytheists, for they believe in the existence of only one God, to whom, exclusively, they pay adoration.

Seventh. That there exists an important difference between Roman Catholics, who pay to images a certain kind of worship, and idolaters, who give to their idols a worship terminating in those idols. Eighth. As also between Roman Catholics and those idolaters, who through their idols worshipped the unknown God.

Ninth. That Roman Catholics do not believe any divinity to reside in their images.

Tenth. That they do not believe any power to reside in the images. Eleventh. That the honour which is shown to the images of Christ, is referred to the original, so that through the image Christ is adored by Catholics.

Twelfth.

That through the images of the saints, Roman Catholics venerate the saints whose similitude the images bear, so that the honour shown to the image, is referred to the original.

Upon these twelve points, the author of the essay and I appear to be perfectly agreed: but I must correct a mistake of his, in the passage just quoted last above, where he asserts that this honour and veneration of the images, and so forth, is "indispensably obligatory." Such is not the fact, nor is such a provision made. A person might be, during all his life, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and never be obliged to pay either honour or veneration to any image: but he would cease to be a member of the church, by deliberately denying that it was lawful to pay due honour and veneration to eitheer the images of Christ, or of the saints. Should he assert that they ought to be adored, in the sense in which I use the word, he would also cease to belong to the church, for he would assert idolatry, or that undue honour should be given to them. Every Catholic is bound to believe the true doctrine; but every Catholic is not "indispensably obliged" to practise every religious duty which he may lawfully practise, if he pleases. Your correspondent is very liable to mistakes.

I remarked before, upon the garbled extract which was given to us by the writer, as "the words of the decree of the Council of Trent, enacted at its twenty-fifth session," upon this subject. In a note to paragraph 23, he is pleased to state, that, for those decrees, Father Paul's history is his authority; he is, moreover, pleased to assert, that neither Mr. Charles Butler, nor B. C., can make good their insinuations against the correctness of that history: and especially asserts, that "it cannot be shown that Father Paul has not correctly reported the decrees

passed by this Council." He states that, several years ago, he did himself look over them in Pallavicini's work; and believes that, in this respect, there is no material difference." He then insinuates, that Pallavicini might be biassed to the Catholic side, and then confirms the whole by adducing, in support of the correctness of Father Paul, "an attested copy of the original acts of the Council," preserved in the library of Cambridge University, in England.

Now, the question is not, by any means, as to whether either of those writers, Father Paul, or Pallavicini, gave a correct history of the proceedings, debates, and, if it pleases you, the intrigues at the Council; the question is a far more simple one, and much more easily decided: whether the extract given by your correspondent, contains "the words of the decree?" A decree is a public document, every word of which should be given, when quoted, as "the words;" and then the suppression of any portion of "the words," is the most unpardonable dishonesty. When I saw your "Protestant Catholic's" note, before I read the decree, my suspicions were excited, and I began to consider why such stress was laid upon proving, what no person would be disposed to call in question, that the public document was correctly given. I next observed, that even your curiously named friend manifested extreme caution in asserting that the documents were reported in the same words in both historians, for he would only vouch upon a distant recollection of several years, and to there being, in this respect, no material difference. But, why should there be any difference, if they were both honest? They had only to copy the words of a public document. Then, as if the writer was fully aware that a difference would be discovered, he prepares his readers to distrust Pallavicini, and next he proceeds to strengthen Father Paul. It was now too manifest to me, that your correspondent was aware of a difference in the document, as given by each of the historians. Was it, here honest in him to quote as unquestioned, a doubtful document?

It is one of the best principles of evidence that no secondary testimony shall be admitted when primary testimony can be had; and it is also a practical maxim that secondary testimony, even when admitted, shall not weigh as much as that which is primary. Both those historians. are secondary witnesses. An attempt is next made by him, it is true, to give us primary testimony, but at second hand; an attested copy through Dr. Marsh. The attested copy might be correct and Dr. Marsh might be misquoted; this I state not to insinuate that he did, but to illustrate my position; therefore, this statement of your correspondent gives us no primary testimony. The attested copy would be testimony of this description, not in its strictest, but in its usual and practical

meaning. What is an attested copy? One testified to be correct, by a public officer who is solemnly bound, and trustworthy, and having the means of ascertaining its correctneess fully in his power. Let us apply this to the Cambridge copy. Upon the very face of the case it is difficult to believe it to be what your correspondent says. Because at the very time of the session of the Council, the laws of England prohibited under the most severe penalties, any intercourse with the only officers of the See of Rome who could give the attestation: and the See of Rome had excommunicated the persons who were the officers of the University authorized to receive and to preserve the copy. To suppose the fact, then, we must first suppose the officers on both sides to have disobeyed and violated the laws of their respective governments. Even at this day, though Catholics are emancipated, an officer of the University of Cambridge could not legally receive any official document from an officer of the See of Rome.

But, gentlemen, authenticated copies of the public acts and decrees of the Council of Trent are by no means scarce, and two of them, of different editions, now lie before me, one of which I shall leave at the Miscellany office, during a week from the publication of this letter, so that any person who thinks proper may satisfy himself of the correctness of the quoted decree.

I shall not then give Pallavicini against Father Paul; but I shall give primary evidence, by giving from an authenticated copy of the acts of the Council, "the very words of the decree," taken from an edition printed at Trent in 1745, with the regular testimonies and licenses, and moreover found to agree, upon comparison, with the various quotations and transcripts in all public documents and standard works which regarded the same topics, printed in several Catholic countries, and with various other authenticated printed copies of the acts of the Council published in other places.

Extract from the Decree of the Council of Trent, concerning the invocation, and veneration and relics of Saints, and concerning sacred images, passed in the 25th Session, celebrated on the 3d and 4th days of December, 1563.

"Imagines porro Christi, Deiparæ Virginis, et aliorum, sanctorum, in templis præsertim habendas, et retinendas, eisque debitum honorem, et venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in eis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam sint colendæ; vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda: veluti olim fiebat a Gentibus, quæ in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa, quæ illæ representant: ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimus Christum adoramus, et Sanctos, quorum illæ similitudinem gerunt, veneremur, id quod