morals, our exemplars in liturgical offices, our masters in church polity as joint authorities with canonical Scripture; as authorities first and last to be listened to; and, very recently, as our sole and ultimate referees in all questions, moral, devotional, and ecclesiastical!

These facts, obvious and known to all who have looked into the writings in question, necessarily involve the further fact, that, notwithstanding some ambiguous exceptions reluctantly made, or some reserves, these divines acquiesce in the demonolatrous opinions and practices of the ancient church. They either acquiesce, or they disallow. If they disallow-the subject is so heavy a one, and it touches so intimately the question whether the ancient church was not apostate and adulterous, that a christian man's disapproval cannot be disguised, consistently with religious integrity conscience loudly demands, that, if we think it a corruption, we should distinctly denounce it as a far more fatal one than any other-it is whoredom; and must so be spoken of.

How then has it happened that men, surrounded by the light of Biblical principles, and not blinded by a training in idolatry from childhood, have brought themselves, or have been brought, to an acquiescence (whether active or passive) in abominations such as these? The explication of so strange a phenomenon, though not obvious to those who are not acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity, presents itself to us, without a doubt, as soon as we set foot upon this awful ground.

The first principle, or universal axiom of the modern revivers of church principles, is, The abjuration of that integrity of reason to which the inspired writers always appeal, and of which they enjoin the exercise and culture. In the place of an understanding, grounded and settled upon evidence, we are to cherish the sentiment of passivity. Instead of Faith, knowing why it believes to be true, and admits, what it cannot grasp; we are to have an unquestioning credulity." To doubt is a sin." To adduce evidence, even in relation to common facts of history, and to judge of it according to the common rules of historical inquiry is to be "a rationalist." To distrust the pretensions of St. Dunstan, or the genuineness of the "true Cross," is an offence as grievous as to reject the Trinity: both are-disobedience.

With these guiding principles, and with this temper, let any one spend his days and nights in the perusal of the church writers of the fourth century. Whereas the earlier writers advance either no pretensions to miraculous powers, or such only as are ambiguous, and may easily be understood on the supposition of weakness of judgment, and the credulity of the age, these later writers affirm miraculous agencies of that sort to which no such explication can be applied;-miracles which, if not real, were impious frauds. Again, these miracles were all wrought, or nearly so, in attestation of the two great articles of the nicene system— monkery and demonolatry. The dead were seldom raised, except to establish the saintship of an anchoret in, the wilderness, or the virtues of a martyr in the skies.

With minds prepared, as we have supposed, to believe, and never to examine, the ascetic doctrine of the ancient church, as well as its demonolatry, stands boldly forward as supernaturally sanctioned by Heaven. If it was not so, then what was the church, and what were the churchmen of that era? Whoever will remand common sense, for a season, and will give himself fairly up to the continued perusal of church legends, may easily come to believe them, one and all, to be true. After a little while, it will not be the most monstrous, or the most ridiculous of these fabrications, that will shock the mind. Gregory of Tours will be found as edifying a writer as the evangelists. Reason, once shamefully violated, scorns to complain of any new outrage.

In a word, the supernatural portion of the nicene literature, has been, we do not doubt, accepted as genuine by the modern admirers of antiquity;-for, had it been rejected, the Fathers themselves must have been condemned: but if this supernatural portion be genuine, then the worship of the saints and Virgin, and the veneration of relics, holy pictures, and images, stand before us, awfully approved by God himself! Religious practices, and a scheme of worship, sternly denounced, under every disguise, by the ancient prophets, are restored in the nicene church, under the sanction, not of now and then a prodigy; but of a broad and deep stream of miracles, flowing on from year to year-from day to day! This attestation being

accepted, all is accepted, necessarily, to which it originally attached.-Saint- worship, as well as asceticism, are then the "fully developed" christianity which it is our part to receive!

It does not appear at what point we can find a way of escape from this conclusion, in stating the case of those who have deliberately and repeatedly appealed to the nicene authorities—yet well knowing what those authorities actually recommend, and on what ground of miraculous attestation, they so enjoin these things.

But we have now to advert to the consequence, as affecting the present controversy (so far as it is touched in these numbers). Every writer who engages in controversy, being himself sincerely convinced that he has truth on his side, does so with a natural, though vague expectation, that he may not merely confirm those who already think with him, but even convince his opponents; or silence them; or at least wring from them some sort of concession, or compromise: but let it be especially noted that the peculiar nature of the case precludes any such expectations in the present instance. There can be no concession, or partial agreement, where the question at issue turns upon the reality of a miraculous dispensation. There is an ominous vitality attaching to a controversy of this kind, which, while it carries a fearful consequence, affecting the one, or the other of the combatants, peremptorily forbids their coming to any sort of compromise. I must plainly acknowledge myself to perceive this irreconcileable difference much more clearly than I did when I first engaged in the argument; and this has arisen from a more mature consideration of the real position of the advocates of church principles, as having necessarily yielded their assent to the supernatural claims of the ancient church.

To look no further than to the few passages that have been cited in this number.-These, as well as a hundred others of like quality, have been deliberately perused by my opponents; and must have been accepted as good and true. But as the entire system of Saint-worship stands flagrantly opposed both to the letter, and to the spirit of the Scriptures, this assent can rest upon no other basis than that of miracles-miracles to countervail miracles. And that this assent to the supernatural attestations of demonolatry, has actually been accorded, we are compelled to

assume; inasmuch as the alternative involves the heavy condemnation of the very authorities whose claims to reverent submission are now so solemnly asserted. We are surely not to be sent to learn our religion from men, confessed to have been dealers in false miracles.

Therefore, as it would be idle to think of being able to modify, either by argument or evidence, opinions such as those now in debate, the only course is to turn, at once, toward those readers with whom evidence and argument may yet avail. There are many who will not soon bring themselves to believe, that, for authenticating the worship of the dead, and the veneration of relics and images, God-the avenger of ancient idolatry, vouchsafed a perpetual series of miracles! To such persons therefore I now appeal ; and, in concluding this branch of the argument, shall state the case as it bears upon the HYPOTHESIS OF CHURCH PRINCIPLES; and in doing so, shall think myself free to lay aside the logical severity which might be intended to compel the submission of an adversary; and instead, shall suppose myself to be addressing a friend. Let it then be candidly considered whether we have any choice, other than among the following alternatives.

The DEMONOLATRY, in its various branches, which universally prevailed in the (so called) christian church, during, and throughout, the Fourth Century, and from that time onward, was either

I. THE PRODUCT OF THAT AGE; or,

II. IT HAD COME DOWN FROM AN EARLIER PERIOD.

We will assume, then, first—That it was the product of that age-namely of the Fourth Century. But if so, it had either been

(a) RIGHTFULLY ENACTED, by an authority, competent to that

extent; or,

ii. (b) IT WAS AN UNWARRANTED INVENTION, and a corrupt addition to Apostolic Christianity.

a. But if rightfully enacted by a competent authority, then it demands our submission; and especially as it was attested by a course of miracles, which, on this supposition, are not to be

called in question. The modern protestant church, therefore, must be regarded as having placed itself in direct opposition to a Divine Economy; and moreover the Theory of the papacy is established. But on the contrary

b. If this Demonolatry was an unwarranted invention, and a corruption-the joint progeny of superstition and fraud, thenThe miracles by which it was attested were no miracles, but lying wonders:

The divines and writers who had a guilty participation in this scheme of delusion and whoredom, are the last men to be looked up to as authorities in religion, morals, or ecclesiastical discipline :

The modern endeavour to reinstate the Nicene system, and to supplant the Reformation, is a treason, which, if it succeed, must be fatal to the church that favours it.

But we now take in hand the second supposition; namely, that

THIS DEMONOLATRY, whether in itself good or bad, HAD DESCENDED, in its rudiments at least, FROM AN EARLIER AGE; and that the divines of the fourth century, favoured by the new circumstances of the church, did nothing more than amplify that which, with a belief of its good quality, and a knowledge of its antiquity, they had inherited from their predecessors, of the Martyr church.

On this supposition we may first (and to fill up our hypothetical synopsis) assume that the ancient Demonolatry, in its rudiments, was indeed

i. AN APOSTOLIC TRADITION, or a genuine portion of that orally conveyed Truth which a faithful church had conserved, and had transmitted in a whisper, to a time when it might be happily expanded, and elaborated, in the worship and devotional practices of the faithful. On this supposition, again, the modern Protestant church must be granted to be grievously at fault, and should lose no time in returning to the "old paths." But on the contrary, we must consider the correlative supposition, namely,

ii. That the ancient demonolatry, whencesoever it might first