lightened communities of Greece and Rome, the laws for this purpose were both strict and efficient; and it will not be easy to prove that there was any nation in the ancient world, without some corresponding provision, according to its peculiar circumstances.

It is natural to suppose that, to the adoption of such a measure, the legislators of every community have been induced, the more strongly, by a conviction that religion in some form was essential to the good order and well-being of civil society. But this tendency of our Christian faith-its tendency to strengthen the hands of every civil government, in what is conducive to the public weal, constitutes a part of that argument for church establishments which depends on the principle of expediency, and will be presented hereafter with more effect, when viewed in its direct bearing on the great question at issue, than it could be, in the meanwhile, as a mere auxiliary to the evidence for Divine authority.

I would therefore, without farther delay, invite the reader to consider in the first place, that authority for ecclesiastical establishments which is derived from Scriptural example under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, and, in the second place, that which is derived from circumstances connected with the Christian dispensation.

SECTION I.

ON THE DIVINE AUTHORITY FOR ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS, DERIVED FROM SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLE UNDER THE PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC DISPENSATIONS.

In many cases, Divine example is an absolute and uncompromising rule of duty. But, for reasons which will appear in the sequel, the authority of example is not to be pleaded to this extent in the case before us; it will be found quite sufficient for the purpose in view that we have the authority of Divine example for ecclesiastical establishments, so far as the case from which the example is derived does not so differ from the case to which we would apply it, as to preclude a just and fair application.

What, then, are the cases in which Divine example may be looked for, as giving countenance to church establishments, before the manifestation of the Son of God?

The visible church of God upon earth has subsisted in a variety of forms; and, in the argument respecting church establishments, reference has been often

made to the countenance which they derive from the But it does not seem less natural

Mosaic economy.

to look back on the circumstances of the church from the beginning on its circumstances and condition under the patriarchal dispensation.

All the ways of God are consistent; and the conduct of Providence from the beginning throws light upon what follows in its course. The notices which we have of what prevailed under the patriarchal dispensation are few and imperfect; but they are not, on that account, to be lightly estimated. From the day when it was promised to our first parents that" the "seed of the woman should bruise the head of the ser"pent," men have lived under a constitution of Divine grace, which, though at different periods developed and administered in different ways, has been at all times substantially the same. It would, therefore, be most unnatural to suppose that we may not fairly look back to the ways of God, even under the earliest dispensation, for such light as may enable us more safely to interpret his counsel and will in reference to any existing and similar case.

In the present case, indeed, there is one ground of no small importance, on which we may look for guidance and direction to the patriarchal dispensation, both more naturally, and more safely, than to the Mosaic economy. For the patriarchal dispensation was, in one respect, more conformable than the other to the Gospel of Christ. There was nothing that unfitted it for being received and practically acknowledged by all men

While it addressed

as the counsel and will of God. itself to the condition of all men as guilty and sinful creatures, dependent on Divine mercy and grace, through a Saviour who should be thereafter revealed, -it prescribed no law, either ritual or moral, that could not be obeyed by all men. From its nature in this respect we might have supposed that it was intended for universal prevalence; and nothing but the defection and apostacy of men, or the indisposition of their hearts to conform to it, seems to have prevented such prevalence. It was, in this respect, a more perfect figure, than that which the Mosaic economy afterwards exhibited, of a religion which was to be ultimately preached to all nations. The exclusive tenor of the Mosaic economy makes some men hesitate in deriving conclusions from it respecting the question before us. Instead of looking to it as a consistent part of one great scheme of providence for the recovery of our fallen race, they are too apt to regard it as, in its nature and design, so little harmonizing with any other institution, as not to admit of their reasoning from it. But, from this embarrassment, we shall be entirely free in looking to the patriarchal dispensation. Considered in this view, the brief notices which are given us of what served to indicate the Divine counsel under that dispensation will be found of no small importance in their bearing on our argument. So far as it shall appear that the leading principles of an ecclesiastical establishment were in any measure recognized,—so far as we shall find even presumptive

evidence to this effect, it cannot be uninteresting. But if the evidence to be adduced shall not be rejected without a patient and candid examination, it is hoped that it will not be found either weak or indecisive.

It is well known that, in the history of the patriarchal dispensation, as contained in the book of Genesis, there is a very interesting notice of a person under the name of Melchisedek; and it will scarcely be denied that the mysterious imaginations respecting this individual have been so refuted and exploded, as to supersede all objection to our speaking of him as a mere man, invested with the character and functions which in the language of scripture are ascribed to him. But if any reader entertain a doubt upon this point, it is hoped that he will take the trouble to peruse the annexed note. *

* The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when speaking of Melchisedek, with a peculiar reference to the nature of his priesthood, represents him as "without father, without mother, "without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of "life; but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually ;" and, again, as one " of whom it is witnessed "that he liveth."

66

This language, if understood literally, or without an exclusive and figurative reference to the nature of Melchisedek's priesthood, as a type of the priestly office of Christ, would certainly preclude our regarding him as a mortal being; and it has, therefore, been imagined that he was an angel, if not one of the persons of the blessed Trinity. But the fallacy of this sup

For, in the first place, the

position is placed beyond a doubt. Apostle, in the same passage, speaks of Melchisedek as a man,