mldeniable argument: that the pegus would have objected it to the Christian% when they reproved them for their many idols; but we do not find they ever did. All the writings of the Christian fathers are full of invectives against the heathen idolatry. But how could they do this if they had been guilty of the same practices ? And should the Christians say that what the pagans worshipped were idols and false gods, but that which they worshipped was Jesus Christ; yet, though this might satisfy themselves, it would not satisfy the heathen. By them at piece of bread would be thought such, however the Christians might fancy it to be Almighty God. If a pagan had seen a Christian worship the host, would he not think that he had as ood reason to reproach him for adoring a piece of bread, as the other ?ad to reproac. h him for adoring the sun, moon, or an image ? And since there are no such reproaches, we have every reason to infer that there was no such practice among the fast Christians. But let the practice of the church be what it may, they who adore the consecrated bread with the worship that is due to God only, are idolaters as much as the heathen. 3. For, first of all, is it idolatry to worship that for God which is no Cod ? If it be, then they who worship the host with divine worship are idolaters; for certainly that which they worship is no God, is not our Saylear, but a wafer, a piece of bread. It is true, they do not think so, but we are certain it is nothing else; as certain as we can be of any thing, of the evidence of which we have the testimony of our senses, our reason, and of Scripttire. If ignorance or mistake will excuse Roman Catholics, it will also excuse the pagans; and ff it did not excuse those, it will not excuse these. 4. But, secondly, all the marks that the Scriptures give us of an idol, and all the rapmachos they cast upon it, do as well suit the popish god in the sacrament, and as heavily light upon it, as any thing that was worshipped by the heathen. It is the mark and reproach of a heathen idol that it was made by men. And is not the god in the mass as much the work of men's hands as any of the pagan idols were ? Let none be offended when we say the Romanism ? their god, or make the body and blood of Christ, for it is their own word, and solemnly used by them. And one of the greatest reasons for which they deny the validity of Protestant ministers is, because in their ordination they do not pretend to confer a power of MA,tmo t? body of CArtst. Moreover, the Scripture not only describes an idol, but also exposes it to laughter and contempt, by reckoning up the many outrages and ill usage? it is obnoxious too, and from which it cannot rescue itself. Now there is no abuse of this kind which they reckon up, but the god which the Roman Catholics adore in the mass is as subject to as any pagan idol ever was. If Laban be laughed at for serving gods e,h/?h were #to/zn a?ay, (Gan. xxxi, 30,) are they not as much to be laughed at who?e god has been so often in danger of being stolen by thieves, that they have been forced to make a law for his safe custody ? If men are reproached for worshipping what at last may be ca?t to tk, moi? and bats, (Isa. ii, 20,) are not the Romanists equally censurable for worshipping that which may become the p. rey of rats and mice, &c. ? If it was a sufficient proof that the Babylon]an gods were idols because they were carr/ed am?y copt/w, will it not be as good an argument m 1
�
