CHAPTER II.

ON THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT FOR DIVINE AUTHORITY.

MANY objections, either to the separate branches of the evidence produced, or to the separate conclusions derived from each, have been examined and answered in our progress. But there is a class of objections applicable to the whole argument for Divine authority, of which it was necessary to postpone the consideration, till the reader should be in possession of all the evidence, together with the general conclusion, to which these objections are opposed.

The objections and arguments, to which I now refer, may be comprised under the following heads.

I. That there is no precept of the Gospel under which ecclesiastical establishments are required and enjoined, and that there was no such establishment for 300 years after Christ's ascension to Heaven.

II. That Christ himself declared that his kingdom is not of this world.

III. That civil governments are not competent to

specify a religious creed which ought to be preferred and sanctioned, and cannot, therefore, be supposed to have Divine authority for that purpose.

IV. That the maintenance of any particular scheme or system of religion, as distinguished from others, at the public expense, and consequently more or less at the expense of dissenters, is antiscriptural, unjust, and a violation of the rights of conscience.

In the following sections, these objections and arguments shall be considered in their order.

SECTION I.

ON THE OBJECTION THAT THERE IS NO PRECEPT OF THE GOSPEL UNDER WHICH ECCLESIASTICAL

ESTABLISH

MENTS ARE REQUIRED AND ENJOINED, AND THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH ESTABLISHMENT FOR 300 YEARS AFTER CHRIST'S ASCENSION TO HEAVEN.

IT will not be difficult to account for the two facts which this objection comprises, in a way perfectly consistent with what I have hitherto maintained; but it will be convenient to begin with a consideration of the second, because an explanation of what relates to it will aid us in reference to the first.

During the apostolic age, the gift of miracles, as imparted to those who preached the Gospel, in some measure superseded the importance, or at least the necessity, of outward and worldly means for the accomplishment of the purpose of Heaven. But, after the age of miracles had passed away,-Was there not, (it will be asked,) all the need that there can now be, for the outward and human aid of ecclesiastical establishments, or, in other words, for the friendly inter

position of kings and others in authority? If it was the purpose of Heaven that the visible church should thereafter enjoy such aid, why was it so long withheld?

These questions seem to proceed upon the supposition that, at the period referred to, a friendly interposition of civil power might have been extended to the Church in the ordinary course of things, or without any preternatural agency for the accomplishment of the object. But, how stands the fact? Were there any kings or other rulers who had at that time embraced the Christian faith? If there were not, how was it possible that they should so exercise their functions in aid of the Church of Christ, as to lay the foundation of an ecclesiastical establishment? It may be said that all things are possible with God-that, if he had seen it wise, he might have disposed their hearts both to embrace the faith of the Gospel, and to maintain its interests in the world. But it is obvious that, under the moral government of God, there are limits set to the use or employment of preternatural agency; and what these limits ought to be, in reference to any particular case, it belongs not to us to judge. I admit that, without any thing like the outward appearance of a miracle, the same Divine influence, which converts any man to the faith of the Gospel, might have disposed the hearts of kings and others in authority to give their countenance and support to the Church of Christ, during the earliest ages. But if, in reference to the point in question, we allow

F

ourselves to reason upon this ground, where is such reasoning to end? May we not argue, with equal propriety, that it was in the power of God, from the beginning, to maké Divine influence effectual, in all cases, for superseding the use of all outward means and outward agency? In what concerns the ways of God, we can safely judge of what was right or fit for him to do, only from what we know him to have actually done. We know that, in fact, he permitted kings and others in authority to remain, for a long period, deaf to the calls of the Gospel, and of course morally incapable of contributing to the advancement of its cause in the world. But there was nothing in this case incompatible with what might have been anticipated in the ordinary course of things, nor any thing to forbid the supposition that, when God, in his great mercy, should be pleased to bring kings and other rulers to a saving knowledge of Christ, he would also be pleased to employ them as his servants for the advancement of the cause of Christ in the world.

So far, indeed, as we may venture to reason concerning the ways of God, the argument may be placed on higher ground;—and, with this view, I would ask, -whether it be unnatural to suppose that, in order to the permanent establishment and maintenance of the faith of the Gospel, God was pleased, in the first instance, to present a striking example of the vanity of all that man could do in opposition to it, by permitting the powers of the world not only to combine