discern that, not in deed only, but in faith, has Rome departed from the truth. They would find, that as, from age to age, these errors succeeded each other, till, like noxious plants, they obscured the tree of life, so did the mercy of God, from time to time, cause holy and learned men to arise and expose these errors to the world, and enabled many of them to seal their testimony with their blood.

A slight exertion of intellectual power would detect the shallowness of those pretexts by which so many Romanists are induced to adhere to a corrupted church. Some plead a reverence for its antiquity; others boast of its catholicity or universality. But what have universality or antiquity of notions and practices to do with their truth? The Brahmins talk proudly of their antiquity. Does this justify their idolatry? Judaism is nearly twice as old as popery; but the Jews are for the time, and have been for the space of nearly eighteen hundred years, rejected and forsaken of

God, and have been deprived even of the shadows and types of their religion, since they forsook the substance! What then becomes of the argument of antiquity? But even upon this ground, the papists have an inferior title; for they are compelled to support their tenets by an appeal to councils and decrees, some of them of very recent date: whereas protestants appeal directly to the apostolic age and to the Bible itself. Universality fares no better than the plea of antiquity-nay, the very reverse of this might be asserted. No person will deny this plea to the antediluvians. In the 6th chapter of the book of Genesis, and at the 12th verse, we read, "And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Instead of catholicity being an excuse for the opinions and practices of the old world, it proved the main ground of their condemnation. If therefore the faith and works of the Romish church be corrupt, the antiquity and universality of that

corruption is a strange argument for their approval: as if a criminal, in justification of his enormities, should venture to plead the greatness of their duration and extent! But how comes it that, if their religion be indeed corrupted, there have been so many learned and pious papists? Many reasons may be assigned in answer to this objection. Education, the force of habit and example, and, above all, the amazing difficulty and danger, in popish countries, of attempting, and the improbability of effecting a salutary change in religion -the certain loss of friends, of reputation, of property (especially if the reformer be a priest); the creation of a host of enemies; and lastly, the imminent hazard of those chief gifts and blessings, liberty and life! But what has example to do with truth? Is the virtue of man, or the word of God, the standard of faith? Have there been no pious and virtuous idolaters? How justly applicable are the words of the prophet Isaiah! (ix. 16.) "For the leaders of

this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed!"

But again, the church of Rome asserts, in confirmation of her title, that, during successive ages, she has exhibited proofs of her truth, by many infallible signs, and miracles, and holy works. These, if fully established, are no better testimonies than those we have already examined, if in other points it can be made out that she has departed from the faith; for, saith our blessed Saviour, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me ye that work iniquity." (MATT. vii. 21-23.)

Nay, if there be plain evidence deducible from acknowledged and incontro

*

vertible facts, that the character of the church of Rome is antichristian, then it is obvious that the strongest scriptural evidence against her which can possibly be given, arises out of that claim, which Mohammed himself dared not to assert, the claim to miracles, and those miracles wrought too by agents the most obnoxious to divine worship, even by images and pictures! "Then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. For this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie!" &c. (2 THESS. ii. 8—11.)

It is not in a remote quarter of the papal dominions, that her real character is fully exhibited. In England, and even in Ireland, the subtle policy of * See Note B.