Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/309

 VII.] wonsn. or ? os. 01 same quest/on must be asked concerning those who ordained h/m; and 80 on fill,we come to the apostles' thnes. But, thirdly, how can a man be assured that the priest who consecrates had due intention ? Suppose the priest to be an infidel or atheist, which is not uncommon; or suppose he did' not believe transubetant/at/on, as ninny who have become Protestant8 declared that theo/id not believe it, even while belonging to the Church of Rome; w can a man be certain, under these circumstances, whether what he worships is a wafer or our Lord Jesus Christ; even upon the supposition that the doctrine of transub- stant/ation be true ? Did ever  require men to worship him at random ? It cannot be certain they do not commit idolatry every time they worship the host. But secondly, all tiffs is upon the supposition that the doctrine of transubstantiation be true. If it be false, are they not plahtly idolaters ? Do they not in this case give divine worship to a creature ? Certainly they do; and according to the notion that the Scriptures attach to idolatry', and as it has been defined by the primitive church, they are idolaters who worship the host. Now, we are certain the doctrine of transubstantiation is not true; since it is contrary to the joint testimony of Scripture, reason, and sense. 8. But for the worship of the host the following apology may be offered: "Suppose they are mistaken in their belief, their good inten- tion would excuse them from the crime of idolatry, us they intend only to worship Christ, who is a proper object of worship." To thl, we answer: In the first place, this excuse supposes that idolatry cannot be com- mitted where the man is mistaken in the object he adores. This sup- position is not only false, but the contrary is true. There never was any idolatry but what is founded on mistake; for no serious man was ever so foolish to adore that for the supreme God which he did not believe to be such; yet if what he worshipped was not Ood, he was, notwithstanding his good intention, an idolater. The Roman Catholics do not more firmly believe in transubstantiation and the worship of the host, than millions formerly believed that the sun was the great and eternal Ood; yet their mistake did not acquit them of the charge of idolatry' in worshipping the sun; and for the same reason we cannot exculpate the Roman Catholics in worshipping the host. But secondly, we will read fly grant that ignorance and mistake, so far as they are not contracted by our own fatfit, will excuse in all cases; and therefore in this case of idolatry. But us it is certai_o that idolatry proceeds fi, om mistake and ignorance, so it is also certain that the idolatry will be inexcusable when there is sufficient evidence given that it is idolatry. What plea can Eoman Catholics have, when their senses tell them that a piece of bread cannot be C:,od ? Their reason assures them, by way of mathematical demonstration, that tran- substantiation is impossible. They have many convincing arguments from Scripture to convince them, that the sense they put on our Saviour's words,   my lZy, is not that which he meant, but quite the contrary. And lastly, they have ha means enough aflorded thom to convince them of their error by the Protestants, who lmve eonti- muce the Reformation, iven undeniable proofs both of' its t

�