itself the wealth and power of the universe. The tendency of its distinguishing doctrines, principles, and practices, to this one point, has often been demonstrated, and might easily be shewn at large, were it not a much fitter subject for a treatise of politics, than a religious enquiry.

Hence, then, the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, with all the internal characters of its divine original arising from it, is effectually destroyed, and the Gospel is rendered, what its adversaries have always endeavoured to represent it as being, a mixture of worldly policy, superstition, and enthusiasm. In this view of things, the argument drawn from the sudden and extensive progress of our religion, vanishes at once; it being no way surprising, that a scheme so indulgent to vulgar notions and corruptions, and so well calculated to render it the interest of the more knowing part of mankind to impose upon the weaker, should be attended with all imaginary success. Nay, even the sufferings of the first preachers of the Gospel can no longer be depended upon as a proof of their sincerity. Since impostors are sometimes known to fall a sacrifice to a favourite project, the advantage arising from which, if they could have put it in execution, would have sufficiently rewarded them for the dangers they underwent in support of it. But these reflections more properly belong to what I secondly proposed to consider, the effect which Popery has on the external evidence of our religion.

This indeed is a point, which after what has been

already observed, it may seem needless to insist upon.

For if Popery has so far altered the very spirit and genius of Christianity, as to render it a system evi dently unworthy of a divine original, the consideration of any facts that can be brought in support of such a revelation is entirely precluded by it; they can at most amount but to an high degree of moral evidence in its favour, whereas arguments drawn from the internal nature of a religion may fall little, if at all, short of demonstration against it. A few general reflections, therefore, will suffice for the present subject of our enquiry. And the first which natu rally occurs, and which has, therefore, been often handled at large, is the effect which the doctrine of transubstantiation necessarily has on the evidence of sense in matters of religion, and consequently on miracles, as depending entirely on this evidence; a point which cannot perhaps be set in a clearer light, than by considering it with á particular view to the fundamental miracle of Christianity, the resurrection of its author. For what could even an eye-witness of this fact, supposing him at the same time to teach the doctrine of transubstantiation, possibly say in defence of the former, which might not be immediately retorted upon him with regard to the latter by his heathen adversary? If he alledges that every outward circumstance that can be imagined, conspired to beget in him a full persuasion, that the person and body of Christ were evidently the same both before and after his crucifixion, the other may with equal reason and certainty reply, that the like combination of circumstances equally conspires to

convince him that the bread and wine after their consecration remain as evidently the same, nor is there any one of the most subtle distinctions which the church of Rome has invented, that can in the least degree turn the scale in her favour. But if the case stands thus even with an eye-witness of our Saviour's resurrection, how much more directly does it incline to the side of infidelity with regard to us at present, who must depend on the remote testimony of others. for this and the like facts in support of Christianity, and have at the same time, upon this her scheme, an infinitely better evidence, that of our own senses, to the contrary.

Nor is this the only instance in which Popery strikes at the miracles of Christ and his apostles. The constant pretensions which the church of Rome has made to a power of the same extraordinary nature, and the little, low artifices, to which she has had recourse in order to support this her imaginary claim, visibly tend to vilify the very notion of miracles, and derogate from the effect they would otherwise have on the minds of men. Nay, will not an unbe, liever, that resides within the pale of the Romish church, thus naturally reason with himself? "The first Christians are said to have been converted to the belief of the Gospel by miracles of which they were either eye-witnesses themselves, or of the reality of which they had the living testimonies of others who were so. And the church which informs me of this, informs me also, that she has constantly been, and still is, invested with the like extraordinary power of

performing them. May not I, therefore, as the same means of conviction by which the first Christians were persuaded of the truth of their religion, still subsist, safely suspend my judgement concerning it, till they are afforded me? Or if this be too much for every single person to expect, ought I not to begin my enquiry with examining into such as are said to have been wrought nearest to my own time, and when I have considered a proper number of them, rest the merits of the cause principally on these ?" That this is on many accounts the most natural method of proceeding in the case here supposed, cannot be denied. Nor is it difficult to determine what would too often be the result of it, if we consider how ill disposed a person must be to pay a proper attention to the more antient miracles of Christ and his apostles, who has before hand gradually detected a continued series of imposture for several ages together in their supposed successors.

It is, therefore, the peculiar honour and happiness of the Reformation to have rescued the original evidences of Christianity from this almost insuperable prejudice against them; to have referred the unbeliever to them for his conviction; and to have properly directed him in forming his judgement concerning them, by laying down such easy rules with regard to the nature of the actions themselves, the end for which they were performed, and the other circumstances relating to them, that these substantial miracles are almost at first view equally distinguishable from the visionary prodigies either of antient or modern Rome.

To these observations others may be added, particularly the tendency which Popery has to weaken the credit of those records, by which alone the evidences of the Gospel are at this distance of time sincerely conveyed to us. This the church of Rome effects, partly by resting it, not on those natural proofs, by which that of all other writings is supported, but on her own authority, (an authority, which not only no one can admit, according to her notions of it, till he is previously convinced of the validity of her charter, but which has likewise been to much impaired by the many notorious forgeries she has been convicted of, to be almost heard even as a common evidence) and partly by her endeavours to put her oral traditions upon an equal footing with these original records of Christianity; an attempt, which however it may be intended only to serve her private purposes with regard to the former, may yet easily be improved by an unbeliever to the manifest disadvantage of the latter.

Upon this short survey then of the principal circumstances, that constitute the evidence of our religion, it appears that the force and lustre of each of them is considerably weakened, and the nature of them so entirely changed by the peculiar doctrines, principles, and practices of the church of Rome, that they amount to a direct proof of the contrary. This, therefore, may in the first place be applied, as an answer to a like charge brought by her against the Reformation, as tending to encourage a spirit of scepticism and infidelity. Since in every one of the