identity of the church clearly taught, in this similarity of language which God has held respecting it, in every age?

11. The prophecies of scripture clearly evince, that the present visible church is the same with the church of Isra el.-John the Baptist predicted of him who should come after him, not that he should destroy, but that he should "thoroughly purge his floor." (Matth. iii. 12.) Christ did indeed purify his church, but he never destroyed it.* Our Saviour predicted, that many should "come from the east, and from the west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven," while "the children of the kingdom should be cast out, into outer darkness." (Matth. viii. 11, 12.)-By the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," we cannot here understand the kingdom of fu ture glory; for none of the children of this kingdom will ever be cast out into outer darkness." The phrase, then, must denote in this place, as it does in many others, the visible church. Hence the prediction of our Saviour was, that when the Jews, "the natural branches," were broken off, the Gentiles should come, and sit down in the same visible church "with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." In the parable of the vineyard, Christ clearly foretold, that the same vineyard, or church, in which the Jews had done wickedly, should be taken from them, and given to others. "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."+"

66

In proof of the same point, we might adduce a multitude of quotations from the prophecies of the Old Testa ment. Whoever will peruse candidly the ninth chapter of Isaiah, and indeed all the ancient predictions of the ingathering of the Gentiles, will be satisfied that they relate, not to the building up of a new church under the gospel, but to the enlargement of the very same church which then existed in Israel.-The force of this part of the argument, Mr. J. endeavours to evade. "Some of these prophecies," says he, "relate to the final conversion and

*The period of Christ's advent is spoken of by the apostle Paul as "the time of reformation." (Heb. ix. 10.) On the theory we oppose, this must have been to the ancient church a time, not of reformation, but destruction. Reformation necessarily implies the continuance of the thing reformed.

+ Mark xii. 9; Luke xx. 16; Matth. xxi. 43.

restoration of the Jewish people." Suppose they do; will the converted, restored Jews be distinct in their church standing from the converted Gentiles? "Others" he adds, "belong to the true church of God, the perpetuity and identity of which no one denies." (P. 28.) In answer to this remark, we quote but one passage out of many. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the church, says" The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me-give place to me, that I may dwell. Then thou shalt say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, remov ing to and fro?" (xlix. 20, 21.) Will Mr. J. pretend, that this prediction belongs to the real, as distinct from the visible church of God? Has the real church ever lost any of its children? Has any real saint ever fallen away?—In short, it cannot be denied that this prediction relates to the visible church of Israel; and establishes the fact, that converted Gentiles under the new dispensation are children and members of this very church.

12. The sameness of the church under both dispensations is certain, from the declarations as well as the proph ecies of scripture. The apostle abundantly teaches, in the eleventh chapter of Romans, that the believing Gentiles are graffed into the samé olive tree from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off, and into which the restored Jews shall be graffed again.-What shall we understand by the "olive tree?" Jeremiah, addressing the church, says "The Lord called thy name a green olive tree; fair, and of goodly fruit." (xi. 16.) Of the church in Israel, the prophet Hosea says "His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree." (xiv. 6.) "The ol ive tree," therefore, represents the visible church of God. From this, the unbelieving Jews were broken off. Into the same, the believing Gentiles were graffed. And into the same, the restored Jews will at length be graffed again. The sameness of the church, therefore, under both dispensations, is in this chapter incontestably established.

How does Mr. J. interpret this instructive allegory? "The olive tree," he says, "may represent the Messiah, as presented in the promises." And how did the Jews,

as a people, belong to the Messiah? By profession, he answers the Jews, as a nation, professed to rest in him" (P. 29.) If, then, he will be consistent, he will proceed and say" When the Jews were broken off, they renounced their profession of faith in Christ. When the Gentiles were graffed in, they came forward, and made the same profession which the apostate Jews had renounced. And when the posterity of Abraham shall be graffed in again, they will be re-united to Christ, by the same profession." If this interpretation is more favourable than ours to Mr. JUDSON's system, he is welcome to every advantage he can possibly derive from it. We will only insist that he should follow it throughout, and be consistent with himself. We purpose to introduce but one passage more. The apostle, addressing his Ephesian brethren, says "Wherefore remember, that ye, being in time past Gentiles in the flesh.....were without Christ; being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." (ii. 11, 12.) Does this form of expression certainly imply, that the Ephesians were no longer "without Christ, having no hope, and without God in the world?" It implies with equal certainty, that they were no longer "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." It is precisely as certain from this passage, that they were now members of the commonwealth or church of Israel, as that they believed in Christ, enjoyed the comforts of hope, or adored and served the God of heaven.

Again--There is evidence from fact, that there never has been but one visible church in the world. During Christ's publick ministry, his disciples were members of the Jewish church. They uniformly observed the ordinances of that church, and attended on the temple worship. After his ascension, we find them pillars in the Christian church. Had they been cut off from one church, and ta ken into another? And if they had, how, and when, was

*That we have not misunderstood Mr. J. is evident from a remark immediately preceding. He introduces these words of Christ-"Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away," (John xv. 2,) and says, "This may suggest the proper interpretation of the symbolical language of the apostle." (P. 29.) His theory then is, that the unbelieving Jews belonged to the olive tree, in the same sense that fruitless branches are here said to be in Christ;-that is, as every respectable Commentator agrees-by profession. See PooL, HENRY, Doud RIDGE, and Scert, on John xv. 2,

this done?-Nothing can be more evident, than that the disciples belonged to the same church, on the day of Pentecost, and afterwards, to which they belonged on the night when they ate the Passover with their blessed Lord. And from this fact it conclusively follows, that the church under both dispensations has been the same.

It is no inconsiderable argument in favour of the identity of the church, that Mr. J. with all his ingenuity, and "from all the information" he "can obtain," is obliged to make nearly the same observations respecting it, under both dispensations. Of "the Jewish church" he says"it was a select people," who "professed to rest" in the promised Messiah. (Pp. 29, 30.) Of the Christian church he says, within a few lines" it is a society composed of select individuals, professing faith in Christ." (P. 30.) No wonder he seems almost willing to admit, that these churches "may be in many respects alike." (P. 29.)

We have now proved, we think to a demonstration, the identity of the visible church, in all periods of time.

It is at present called, as was predicted, by a new name; (Is. Ixii. 2.) it has been brought under a new and brighter dispensation; but to all intents and purposes it remains the same as before the coming of Christ.

We shall proceed, in the following sections, to make a number of inferences from this important fact.

SECTION II.

The Covenant of the Visible Church the same, under both Dispensations.

THIS is our first inference from the identity of the church, as established in the preceding section. The church is indissolubly and essentially connected with its covenant. It cannot possibly exist without it. If we destroy the covenant, we destroy the church. If we essentially change the covenant, we change the church.-These positions have the countenance of Mr. J. himself. He states that the sameness of the Jewish and Christian churches "cannot be proved, by showing that they are founded on the same covenant; for there is no evidence"

that their covenant is the same. (P. 28.) This form of expression necessarily implies, that if there were evidence of the sameness of their covenant, there would be equal evidence of the sameness of these churches. It implies, therefore, that the church is essentially and inseparably connected with its covenant. Hence, would he admit the identity of the church under both dispensations, he could not resist the conclusion we have derived-he could not avoid saying, that the covenant of the church has also been essentially the same.

What was the covenant of the church of Israel? Was it the Sinai covenant? No; for God had solemnly promised to be their God, and, when speaking of them, uniformly calls them his people, previous to the promulgation of his covenant from Sinai.*-The covenant of the ancient church was unquestionably the covenant with Abraham. In this covenant, God first promises to be the God of Abraham's posterity. Immediately after, he begins to call this favoured family his people. And in all subsequent scripture, when speaking of them as his people, he usually annexes some special reference to his covenant dealings with Abraham.t-That the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of the church of Israel, is evident from the Mosaick institutions themselves. The design of these institutions was merely that God might establish Israel to be a people unto himself, and that he might be unto them a God, as he had "sworn unto their fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." (Deut. xxix. 13.)-Since, then, the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of the ancient visible church; and since the visible church has been under both dispensations essentially the same; the covenant with Abraham must now be the covenant of the visible Christian church. This inference has not been deduced, without a deep and prayerful examination of the subject. It is now deduced, with the utmost confidence that it never can be fairly set aside. The covenant of the visible church still is, or ought to be, but a new edition of the covenant with Abraham.

That the covenant with Abraham still exists, as the covenant of the church, may be argued from many other con:lerations.

*Sec Ex. iii. 6, 7, &c. † See Ex. iii. 6, 7; Ps. xlvii. 9; Luke i. 68, 73, &Cm.