While the former shall surpass the latter, the operations of Supreme Wisdom will of necessity be unmeasurable by the scale of human intelligence. Let us consider, on the one hand, the boundless comprehension of the Divine wisdom and knowledge: let us reflect on that unlimited field of contemplation which lies open to the Deity; embracing all the possibilities, relations, and dependencies, of things in the universe both of matter and spirit, and thence affording the selection of means for the accomplishment of the Divine counsels. Then, again, let us advert to the narrow extent of our own knowledge, the restricted sphere of our observation, and the limited capacities of our reason. How little of that knowledge, on which the Divine decrees are framed, lies open to our view! How little of it is our mental vision strong enough to embrace! Shall we then expect, that every proceeding of an Infinite Mind should be intelligible to us? Shall we question the wisdom of such proceedings, when we cannot discern it? Let us remember that God is in heaven, and we on earth: let us remember the station that we fill, and the sentiments that become it; the majesty of our Creator, and the reverence which it claims from us. "Who," says the prophet Isaiah, "hath mea"sured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and "meted out heaven with the span, and compre"hended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in "a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the

66

66

λαμβανοι, το της ανθρωπινης και θείας φύσεως ηγνοηκως αν ειη διαφορον. Platonis Timæus,

66

Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? "With whom took he counsel, and who instructed "him, and taught him in the path of judgment, "and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him "the way of understanding ¶ ?"

"There is no searching of the understanding of "God," says the same eloquent prophet. It is impossible that any creature; and especially that one who belongs to the lowest order of rational creatures; should embrace that infinite range of knowledge which lies open to the Supreme Intelligence, or form any conception of those endless possibilities, arrangements, and combinations, from which good or evil may eventually predominate. That which seems to us to be good may, in its ultimate tendency and in its most extended operation, prove to be evil that which seems to us evil may, on the same enlarged view, prove to be good; because we judge from the knowledge of a small part, in a case where we cannot judge correctly without a knowledge of the whole. Would the feeble lamp that guides your steps amidst thick surrounding darkness, enable you to estimate the wise and harmonious contrivance of this earth? How much less then, circumscribed as you are with regard to the region of knowledge, and restricted as to your powers of judgment and observation, shall you be able to estimate the proceedings of an Infinite Mind, whose counsels are framed, on a view of circumstances which are hidden from your sight, and on principles which your faculties cannot entertain! Let us remember then, that the dispensations of

9 Is. xl. 12-14.

r Ibid. 28.

any religion which comes from God are framed according to a perfect wisdom and an universal knowledge they must therefore of necessity be unaccountable in many particulars to a being, in whom the gifts of wisdom and the opportunities of knowledge are restricted within narrow limits. Hence will difficulties be necessarily inherent in every system of true religion: even those difficulties on which, as its favourite topics, infidelity delights to expatiate. This is a necessary consequence of the relation in which we stand to God; whose provisions for our welfare will be framed agreeably to his own perfections, his unbounded knowledge and wisdom, and not accommodated to the measures of intellectual power and excellence which he hath communicated to us since an adaptation of those provisions to our weakness would be only compromising our happiness to gratify our pride, and would at once cut off all exercise of that humility which is the appropriate virtue of the rank we occupy among created beings. And if difficulties be, according to the nature of things, necessarily inherent in a true revelation; it must follow, that the total absence of such difficulties in a scheme of religion, would, abstractedly considered, be so far from affording any just recommendation of it, that it would on the contrary yield a strong presumption against its authority and truth. However then, to the hasty view of an inconsiderate mind, the want of universality in a scheme of revealed religion may appear to militate against its authority; still, if the foregoing consideration be allowed its due weight, it will be found impossible to prove, but that the time and manner

of its introduction, and all other circumstances connected with it, may have been so ordained, as to impart to that scheme the most extensive and beneficial effect of which it was capable. And when we reflect on that wonderful manifestation of mercy to fallen man, of which the characters are so conspicuously traced in the Gospel, we have the most abundant reason to rest our minds in a firm but humble conviction, that they actually have been so ordained; and that as to this, as well as all other particulars, "the present system of the world is the very best "that could be with regard to the mind of God in 'framing it "."

66

Thus much in general, with regard to all objections of a character similar to that which we have more particularly in view. We will now proceed to a distinct examination of that specific objection itself.

Let us suppose then, that the Gospel had possessed that antiquity and universality the want of which is here objected to it. It remains that we should inquire, whether, on this supposition, it would have stood on a ground more favourable than it now does to the attainment of the objects it has in view.

There are but two ways in which the fact here supposed could have been realized. In order that we may justly estimate the force and value of the objection, let us examine them both.

First then let us suppose, that immediately after the fall of man, the Gospel, in all its present fulness

Abp. King, Origin of Evil, p. 121. ed. 1739.

and clearness of discovery, as a covenant of reconciliation with God through the blood of Christ, had been prospectively offered to our first parents with a view to its universal diffusion among their posterity. Thus promulgated, how can you be sure that it would have been universally embraced? For nothing less than universality will satisfy your demands. Would you have had some divine appointment, by virtue of which its reception should have been in every case a necessary effect of its being made known? If so, your objection amounts to much the same thing as if it were asked, Why did not God create man a machine, to be actuated only by a physical and necessary impulse, not a rational and moral determination? For it is surely nothing less than an absurdity and a contradiction, to imagine a necessity of embracing that which men are free to embrace or not. The course of our future observations will lead us to shew, that in this case, the reception of revealed religion would, if we may reason from the natural and ordinary course of human affairs, have been even more limited than it now is. But let us suppose the contrary: let us suppose that true religion, thus made known to mankind, had been universally embraced. Then consider what would have been the natural consequence. The pretensions of our Redeemer, at the appointed time of his appearance upon earth, would have been universally acknowledged, and his person would have been regarded with love and reverence by all the sons of men. Now the redemption of man is effected through the sacrifice of the death of Christ and the pride, the malice, the cruelty, and