ance its propagation must have been attended with needless difficulties. For either it must have been permitted to accommodate itself to the governments where it was received, or those governments must in many instances have been changed, to bring them to a suitableness with the fixed model of religious government. But to effect these changes in government would have been a work more difficult than the propagation of religion itself. It is what Christianity was so far from ever attempting, that it constantly inculcates obedience to the established government. As a religion of peace it could do no otherwise; and had it been obliged always stiffly to maintain the same external form, this condition must either have prevented its reception in many countries, or have been a means of creating disorder and confusion, and have justified the character which was once given of its first preachers, "these who have “turned the world upside down are come hither "also."

This kind of argument, taken from the immutability of the Divine wisdom, is what the Deist hath dong made use of against admitting those changes which revelation hath introduced into religion. They argue that because God is unchangeable, therefore every religion which hath its original from him must be unchangeable likewise; consequently the first established religion must be the only true one, and mnist remain unalterable. We reply, that because the Divine wisdom is unchangeable, its operations in different circumstances must be different. The same wisdom and the same goodness which gave to our first

parents a law of duty, and a light for their direction, suited to their situation, would, when mankind were in a different situation, naturally, give them another law, and afford them other lights, such as their situation required. To have continued the same law to mankind when mankind were no longer the same, would have been no argument either of wisdom or of consistency. This very fact proves the unchangeableness of the divine wisdom and goodness, that they have accompanied mankind under every change of circumstances, and have provided for all his new necessities. Thus do we justify the changes that have taken place in religion, and vindicate the various dispensations of heaven towards us.

They who suppose that Christianity must always retain its first outward form, go upon the same mistaken apprehensions of the immutability of the divine wisdom as doth the Deist. It must undoubtedly adapt itself to the various situations of human society. It is not bound to stipulate for itself as a condition of its reception, that human societies shall change their form, and that a republic shall become a monarchy, or a monarchy a republic. Christianity freely associates with every species of government; otherwise its form would be a continual bar to its reception.

Yet still it will be urged, that since our Saviour himself was once at the head of his visible Church, and must be supposed to have settled it in the best and most excellent form, he hath hereby sufficiently made known his will, and obliged it in all future times to retain the same form,

As often as this is urged so often must it be replied, that the form which he gave was the best and most excellent which it could then have assumed; but it by no means follows that it is the best for all succeeding ages, and for every possible situation. It was then the best, because it was suited to its particular situation. For the same reason it cannot be the best in all succeeding ages, because it is not suited to the very different situations into which the Church must necessarily come, in the course of its progress and establishment through so many different countries.

Nay, to shew how little weight there is in this kind of argument from our Saviour's personal government of his Church, we see that in the very next instance, the Apostles themselves departed from his model. They appointed officers under a different name and with a different authority from what our Saviour himself had done, and framed local and tem`porary laws suited to the present situation of their new religion, whilst they sought to disengage it by gentle means from that ancient institution from which it was descended.

Thus much I thought it necessary to say on this subject, in hopes of removing the prejudices, and allaying the distaste which Christian societies are apt to conceive against each other on account of external forms, till a zeal for these leads them to forget the spirit of religion.

It had been argued for the necessity of human establishments in religion, by a writer in defence of the Essay on Spirit, "that the welfare and support

&6

"of society is so founded by the great author of nature, on the basis of religion, that it is impos"sible to separate the one from the other; and of consequence, the establishment of the one will necessarily require the establishment of the "other."

To this our author replies, "that there is a sophism "here in the word establishment. Religion, saith “he, may be said to be established, when it is re"ceived and professed by individuals, upon the sole

authority of divine revelation.-If then the esta"blishment of religion by divine revelation is suffi"cient to answer the purposes of civil society, the purposes of the great author of nature in creating "this connection, are answered at the same time; "and with any farther establishment of religion, "human laws have nothing to do. *"

The effectual promulgation of religion, and its reception, or if you will, its establishment amongst individuals, and that solely on the authority of revelation, is the end and intention of all public religious establishments. It is therefore this very consideration, which is here strangely brought as an objection against establishments, that alone shews the use and the necessity of them. For without established means of making religion known to the people, of instructing them in its laws, explaining to them its divine authority, and enforcing upon them its sanctions, it is to be apprehended that the individuals of society would soon fall into gross ignorance, both as

* P. 208, 9.

1

to the knowledge of religion itself and its divine au thority. Human and civil establishments in religion are no other than wise and necessary provisions made by public authority, for securing that establishment of which the author speaks, in the minds of individuals. A religious establishment is not, as this ob jection seems to insinuate, an attempt to take religion from its own basis of divine authority, and to place it on the weak foundation of human authority; but it is a public establishment of its own divine authority, as the best means of securing its reception amongst individuals.

"But who is the judge, how far it may be neces sary to establish religion by human laws? The de"fender answers without hesitation, the same legis "lative powers which establish the one, have a right

to establish the other; and to chuse that religion "which they think to be best."

"Where, says the author of the Confessional, it "must be supposed, that the great author of nature "hath left it as free for magistrates, and legislators, to " establish by human laws what doctrines or modes "of religion they chuse, or find expedient for secular utility; as it is for them to chuse what modes of "civil society they find convenient. Which indeed "is to suppose, that there never was any authentic "revelation of true religion in the world. For as "surely as God has revealed true religion, so surely "has he inhibited magistrates and all others from "establishing any thing contrary to it, or deviating " from it."

The great author of nature hath undoubtedly left