for fear of the people. Why was not this opportunity laid hold on to
seize the kingdom, or at least to secure himself from the ignominious
death he expected? For whose sake was he contented to die? for whose
sake did he contrive this plot of his resurrection? Wife and children
he had none; his nearest relations gave little credit to him; his
disciples were not fit even to be trusted with the secret, nor capable
to manage any advantage that could arise from it. However, the
Gentleman tells us, a kingdom has arisen out of this plot, a kingdom of
priests. But when did it arise? Some hundred years after the death of
Christ, in opposition to his will, and almost to the subversion of his
religion. And yet we are told this kingdom was the thing he had in
view. I am apt to think the Gentleman is persuaded, that the dominion
he complains of is contrary to the spirit of the gospel; I am sure some
of his friends have taken great pains to prove it is so. How then can
it be charged as the intention of the gospel to introduce it? Whatever
the case was, it cannot surely be suspected that Christ died to make
Popes and Cardinals. The alterations which have happened in the
doctrines and practices of churches, since the Christian religion was
settled by those who had an authentick commission to settle it, are
quite out of the question, when the inquiry is about the truth of the
Christian religion. Christ and his Apostles did not vouch for the
truth of all that should be taught in the church in future times; nay,
they foretold and fore warned the world against such corrupt teachers.
It is therefore absurd to challenge the religion of Christ, because of
the corruptions which have spread among Christians. The gospel has no
more concern with them, and ought no more to be charged with them, than
with the doctrines of the Alcoran.

There is but one observation more, I think, which the Gentleman
made under this head. Jesus, he says, referred to the authority of