"But to pursue his argument a little farther. While the _Mosaic_ worship subsisted by divine appointment in _Jerusalem, the devil likewise_, as he tells us, _had temples and ceremonies of the same kind_, in order to draw votaries to his idolatrous worship, which, after the abolition of the _Jewish_ service, was carried on still with great pomp and splendour, and above all places, in _Rome_, the principal seat of his worldly empire. Now, it is certain that in the early times of the Gospel, the Christians of Rome were celebrated for their zealous adherence to the faith of Christ, as it was delivered to them by the apostles, pure from every mixture either of _Jewish_ or _heathenish superstition_, till, after a succession of ages, as they began gradually to deviate from that apostolic simplicity, they introduced at different times into the church the particular ceremonies in question. Whence, then, can we think it probable that they should borrow them from the _Jewish_ or the _Pagan_ ritual? From a temple remote, despised and demolished by the Romans themselves, or from temples and altars perpetually in their view, and subsisting in their streets, in which their ancestors and fellow-citizens have constantly worshipped?(95) The question can hardly admit any dispute; the humour of the people, as well as the interest of a corrupted priesthood, would invite them to adopt such rites as were native to the soil, and found upon the place, and which long experience had shown to be useful to the acquisition both of wealth and power. Thus, by the most candid construction of this author's reasoning, we must necessarily call their ceremonies _Jewish_, or by pushing it to its full length, shall be obliged to call them _devilish_.
"He observes that I begin my charge with the use of _incense_ as the most notorious proof of their Paganism, _and like an artful rhetorician, place my strongest argument in the front_. Yet he knows I have assigned a different reason for offering that the first; because it is _the first thing_ that strikes the sense, and surprises a stranger upon his entrance into their churches. But it shall be my strongest proof, if he will have it so, since he has brought nothing, I am sure, to weaken the force of it. He tells us that there was _an altar of incense in the temple of Jerusalem_, and is surprised, therefore, how I can call it _heathenish_; yet it is evident, from the nature of that institution, that it was never designed to be perpetual, and that during its continuance, God would have never approved _any other altar_, either in _Jerusalem_ or any where else. But let him answer directly to this plain question: Was there ever _a temple in the world, not strictly heathenish_, in which there were _several altars, all smoking with incense, within our view, and at one and the same time_? It is certain that he must answer in the negative; yet it is as certain that there were many such temples in _Pagan_ Rome, and are as many in _Christian Rome_; and since there never was an example of it, but what was _Paganish_, before the time of _Popery_, how is it possible that it could be derived to them from any other source? or when we see so exact a resemblance in the copy, how can there be any doubt about the original?