consecrated elements of bread and wine, imputing to them this special Divinity;-whether they do at all PROSTRATE themselves in devotion before the altars of the Virgin Mary and the saints, attributing to them a presiding influence, and a degree of ubiquity and omniscience, which belong to GOD only; and whether they do at all "BOW "DOWN" before the images of the saints, as the visible representatives of these demi-gods, these imaginary mediators between GOD and man?

This is the question: and if this question be answered in the affirmative, (and, according to the principles and practices of the Roman Church, it cannot be answered in the negative)-then, in all these instances, is she guilty of gross IDOLATRY, by the second commandment of the decalogue.

Now, the publishers of this Declaration may refine as they please. I shall only take leave to remark, that all those, who, since the introduction of these doctrines into the Romish Church, (see pages 26, 30, 32.) have been content to take things as they found them, on the authority of that Church, have been certainly addicted to the practice of IDOLATRY.

We find that in the language of the sacred Scripture, in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin,' as well as in the language of the ancient liturgies of the Christian church, these words, adoration, honour, and worship, are ambiguous terms, and are used in different senses, according to the nature of the object to which the act, implied by the term, is directed, and according to the intention of him who performs the act. Hence we find them used as relating, sometimes to GOD, and sometimes to creatures. Although, in modern times, the exclusive idea of that supreme homage which is due only to GOD, is attached by some to the words adoration and worship; yet these words may still be retained by others in a different meaning, without affording the remotest cause for the imputation of idolatry. In this different meaning they are still retained in the unchanged language of the ancient liturgies used in the Catholic Church.

The words adoration and worship are equally referred, sometimes to GOD, and sometimes to creatures, as is the word honour. Now because we are commanded in Scripture to honour GOD and to honour the king, and children are commanded to honour their parents; it does not follow that the honour due to the king, or to parents, is the same as that which we owe to GOD. TO GOD we owe supreme and sovereign honour, such as it would be a crime to pay to

I See in Hebrew Prov. iii. 9. and Exod. xx. 12. Deut. xxviii. 47, 48. Ps. xcvi. 9. and 1 (alias 3) Kings, i. 23. In Greek Gen. xxiv. 26. xlix. 8. In Latin adorare, Ps. xxviii. 2. and Gen. xxiii. 7. and 4 (alias 2) Kings, ii. 15. (original.) What profound learning! Yet I think it is rather unusual to introduce the alias into mere English references to the Holy Scriptures.

Arguments drawn from ambiguous terms," etc.] The arguments in proof of the idolatry of the Church of Rome are not "drawn from ambiguous terms," but, as we have seen, from the known doctrines and practices of that Church.

"They do not, in this sense, adore," etc.] But they do invest the Virgin Mary and the saints, on account of their supposed transcendent merits, with that MEDIATORIAL capacity which belongs only to Christ, and with those attributes of omnipresence and omniscience which belong only to GOD;' thus elevating them, in the strictest sense of the word, into objects of idolatrous worship. Consult their own breviary, and books of devotion; but, more especially, that decree of the twenty-fifth session of the Council of TRENT, which teaches

"That the saints, who reign with Jesus Christ, offer up prayers to "GOD for men :-that it is a good and profitable thing to call upon "them with humility, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and "assistance, to obtain grace and favour from GOD, through his Son "Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Saviour and Redeemer.” (Du Pin's Council of Trent, sess. xxv.) Whence it appears, that while the Romanists allow that our Lord Jesus Christ is their "only Re"deemer and Saviour," they entirely take away from him his mediatorial office, and give it to their saints; presuming that they reign with him, for the very purpose that they may thus " offer up prayers "to God for men," "to obtain them grace and favour from him," etc. "And change thereby of the elements," etc.] The antiquity of this doctrine of Transubstantiation has been already pointed out, as well as the pure source from whence it derived its authority; any one therefore may easily appreciate the value of this argument. I believe that every one who candidly considers all the particulars, will put the invention down as an IDOLATROUS innovation. For

any creature to the king we owe the highest civil1 honour to parents children owe the honour of filial respect and obedience. How unjust would it be to say, that because a subject honours his king, he pays him that supreme and sovereign honour which is due only to GOD! The same may be said of the terms adoration and worship, as used in former times, and sometimes used at present, in the language of the Catholic Church. To adore, even according to modern usage, often means no more than to express extreme affection or respect. To worship, in the translation of the Bible published at Oxford, is therein used to signify inferior as well as supreme worship. In the first book of Chronicles, xxix. 20. we read in that edition, that the assembly bowed down their heads, and WORSHIPPED the Lord (Jehovah) and the king. Did they worship the king with the same supreme worship which they paid to GOD? Certainly not. When a man says to the woman he takes to wife," With my body I "thee worship,"-can this be called idolatry? Surely nothing can be more unfair than arguments drawn from ambiguous terms, construed in a sense disavowed by those against whom the arguments are employed.

We answer, therefore, that if by the terms adoration, honour, and worship, be understood that supreme adoration, honour, and worship, which is due only to GOD,-Catholics do not adore, nor honour, nor worship any other than the one, only, true, and living GOD, the Creator and Sovereign Lord of the Universe; they do not, in this sense, adore, nor honour, nor worship the Virgin Mary, nor any of the saints, nor the cross, nor images, nor any other creature whatsoever.

In the Mass, Catholics do offer supreme adoration, not to the elements of bread and wine, which they hold not to be present after the consecration ;-but to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom they be lieve to be truly, really, and substantially present, under the appearances only of bread and wine, after the consecration, and change thereby of the elements into his body and blood. To adore

See the Remarks on Section VIII. of this Declaration. 2 The cross and images are strange kinds of "creatures.”

if, after consecration, there is NOT truly, really, and substantially "the body and blood of Christ,”—then there remain only the consecrated elements of the bread and wine as the OBJECTS of adoration, and "the SUPREME adoration" that is paid becomes the grossest IDOLATRY. And if they be truly, really, and substantially present, according to the Romish CREED, then the adoration paid to Christ is paid to him through the semblance of the bread and wine, and the rite is still idolatrous.

But the ANATHEMAS, as well as the MIRACLES, of the Church of Rome are always multiplied, in proportion to the absurdity of the doctrine that is to be enforced and supported by them and, accordingly, upon looking into the canons which the Council of TRENT has established relative to this one doctrine, I find that its various parts are fenced round and protected by no less than nine ANATHEMAS, as far as regards the sacrifice of the MASS; and by eleven, in respect to the EUCHARIST: but the first two canons, relating to the former of these, and the first canon of the Eucharist, will be amply sufficient for my purpose.

Canon I. "" If any one says, that a true and proper sacrifice is "not offered up to GOD at the Mass; or that that which is to be offered is any thing else than JESUS CHRIST given to be eaten, "let him be Anathema.

Canon II. "If any one says, that by these words,' Do this in re"membrance of me,'-JESUS CHRIST did not ordain his apostles "priests, or did not command, that they, and other priests, should offer his body and his blood, let him be Anathema." (Session xxii.) The first canon respecting the Eucharist runs thus :

If any one says, that the body and blood of our LORD JESUS "CHRIST, with his soul and divinity, and, consequently, the whole "JESUS CHRIST entire, is not contained truly, really, and substantially "in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; but says, that it is there "as in a sign, or in a figure, or virtually,-let him be Anathema.” (Session xiii.)

Such are the tolerant spirit, and the tender mercies of popery! What, if she had now the power to give them their former exercise and effect?

"Because it relates to, and brings to his mind," etc.] The reasoning, advanced under these three heads, is altogether unsound in a theological point of view; and we are bound to consider it in no other. It is altogether forgotten by these prelates, that in the delivery of the Law upon Mount Sinai, though there was every circumstance which could impress the minds of the Israelites with a sense of the supreme majesty, power, and justice of the DIVINE Legislator, yet there was seen NO SIMILITUDE, no VISIBLE FORM or

1

So, the canons concerning the seven sacraments in general, all backed by ANATHEMAS, are in number thirteen. (Session vii.)