The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-10-27
For the Central Presbyterian.
Rome and Idolatry.

Il EhSBOhlr, V A, OCU. lJtn, 1851.
-NessrS. Editors, When I read the
closing words of the article of Dr. O'Con-
nell, which | subjected to criticism last
week, IN which closing words he speaks so
devoutly of making my letters herceforth
an occasion of unfolding the faith of
Jesus Christ to the public, and forgetting
the evil designs of men in the loving dis
Pensations Of God, [ hoped that he was
done with personalities, and would car
ry on the remainder of the discussion on
the basis of argument alone. He was
doubtless sincere at the time, but what
ever mysterious power that was that
forced the controversy on him" has
forced him on and on, so that his sue
ceedlng articles have been filled with
the same trade of personal abuse. [ do
not propose to follow him even for the
purpose of correcting him-but address
myself to the more important task of
considering the only point of argument
ne has yet presented, that in defence of
his Church against the charge of "idol-
airy He has occupied two letters
already and has promised more in answer
to single one of mine, on Rome AMI
the Virgin Mary, although he declared
IN his first one that he and his tract
writings are ignored THAT their hour
has passed" that the Catholic faith has
nothing to fear from them, and that "no
one need bother himself about the an
t5iquated ignorances of expiring preju-
dices."
His method of reply is very singular
one. had quoted certain passages
from Roman Catholic books of devotion
which l declared to be idolatrous. I de-
clared the language to be idolatrous as
ascrlbing to creature perfections and
rendering to creature honor and
worship such as belongs to God alone.
Now how does he reply? Does he take
up these passages and attempt to show
that the language is not idolatrous, and
that the form of bowling before an image
IN repeating it is not idolatrous? No,
ne begins by berating me for calling all
the Catholics of Virginia idolators. I
did not call them so. I said that certain
prayers and forms of the Catholic Church
are idolatrous, and that to use idolatrous
prayers and forms is idolatry I do not
know who use these forms, and who do
not. l hope there are many devout
Catholics who, like Rufus, only propose
to give to the Virgin Mary the honor
due to creature, and if so, I suppose Of
course they do not use these idofatrous
forms. Having thus tried to arouse the
indignation of the Virginia people against
me, he next proceeds to an elaborate dis
cussion of the scholastic distinctions of
dulta, hgperdu5ja, and Lat1ia. Now if
idolatry were a thing of theo1v and not
of practice, these distinctions might be
OF some importance-although even in
theory DR.. OConnell's beautiful distinc-
ton between dulia which may be rem
dered to creature and lat1ja which
must be rendered to God alone. is a
failure for does not Thomas Aouinas
himself admit (Summa P. 8, O. %. Art.
and ~ that L1t1ia is to be rendered
to the wood of the original cross, to all
representations Of the cross in whatever
material, and to the images of Christ.
Here are creatures, senseless creatures.
worshipped with the worship which DR.,
O'Connell says belongs to God alone.
But as | said in my letter to which DR..
OConnell takes exception, it is idle to
talk Of distinctions between d,tLa and
latTlo and hyperd,1jo. What do the
masses of the common people know Of such
technical distinctions5 Here is a PRAYER
to the Virgin Mary, and what difference
does it make whether you call the wor.
ship expressed in that prayer dula,