Page images
PDF
EPUB

able proofs of this is found in the words of Paul, where he shews that God demanded the same prerequisite to legitimate membership in the Jewish church. "Well; "because of unbelief, they [the Jews] were broken off, "and thou [the Christian church] standest by "faith."(g) And let it be marked, that in both churches, believers and their households are initiated.

2. Regulation. Without taking time to quote the authorities at large, I will just tell you, in a few words, what you know can be easily proved on this subject. In both the Old and New Testament churches, an offender must be told of his fault ;(h) in both, a penitent must be forgiven ;(i) and in both, the impenitent must be cut off.(j)

POINT II.

The Scriptures give to the Jewish and Christian societies the same NAMES, in such a manner as plainly to prove that they are the same church.

of

This has the appearance, appearance, and only the contradicting the following prophecies. "The Gentiles "shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and "thou [the Jewish church] shalt be called by a new name, "which the mouth of the Lord shall name.' "And "ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen ; "for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants "by another name."(k) A diversity of names, in one

(g) Mk. xvi. 16. Rom. xi. 20. (i) Lev. iv. 20. Luke xvii. 3. (k) Is. lxii. 2. lxv. 15.

(h) Lev. xix. 17. Mat. xviii. 15. (j) Deut. xvii. 12. Mat. xviii. 17,

respect, is consistent with an identity of names in another respect. But even this prophecy concerning the change of name, proves the sameness of the churches. It is not said that the Jews had been called by one name, and another people should be called by another name; but it is, in a certain sense, the same people, whose name is to be altered. "And thou shalt be called by a

new name."

While the name was to be altered, the people were to continue the same. Yet how the same? Not nationally; for those who bore the old name were Jews, and those who were to bear the new name were Gentiles: they were the same people, therefore, considered as the church, the professed servants of God; for he says that he will "call his servants by another name." This change of name only points out the change of administration, while an inter-community of names shews the sameness of the church.

This inter-community of names is visible throughout the scriptures. Moses calls the Jews, God's peculiar treasure, a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. Peter calls the Christians "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people."() There are also many other figurative appellations which, in their connexion, shew clearly that these two administrations are called by the same name, because they are, ecclesiastically, the same thing. It is in this sense, that they are called a tree and vineyard; a foundation, floor, and house; a kingdom and commonwealth; man and body; brethren, bride, and children.

(1) Ex. xix. 5. 6. 1 Pet. ii. 9.

I. TREE. Of this the Apostle Paul speaks largely in his Epistle to the Romans. (m) My Opponent, in his Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, (n) speaks of it as follows, viz. "Distinguished commentators have found "it extremely difficult to comprehend every thing the "Apostle says in this eleventh chapter. Therefore, we "find the ablest of them differing among themselves. "One cause of this difficulty, I presume, is the Apos"tle's so frequently referring from one part of the sub"ject to another so often stating and applying his "remarks in sudden transitions from Jews to Gentiles. "Another difficulty in expounding the metaphors is, "that the engrafting spoken of, appears to be predica❝ted upon a mistaken view of grafting. A wild olive "into a good olive, does not improve the wild olive; the "fruit being similar to the cion engrafted, and not simi"lar to the stalk. But the Apostle's design was to shew "that the Gentiles partook equally with the Jew, as the "engrafted cion equally partakes with the natural "branch, in the sap and vigour of the root."

If I am not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent has, in this extract, displayed a modesty to which he is usually a stranger. He generally speaks as if those subjects which puzzled and divided the ablest commentators were perfectly translucent to his penetrating eye. He not unfrequently spurns the opinion of the most distinguished expositors, Baptist as well as Pedobaptist; and advances his own dogmas with the lofty confidence, of one who had a grain of intelligence diluted with an

(m) Rom. xi. 16-24.

(n) p. 28. Note.

ounce of self-conceit.

But when he comes to the Abra

hamic Olive-tree, with its Jewish and Gentile branches, his confidence for a while forsakes him; it is all involved in obscurity, to himself and to the ablest commentators, if not to Paul also. He even sees something in the sacred text, very much resembling those "far-fetched analogies and inaccurate reasonings" which Unitarians often discover in the Apostle's writings. He tells us that "the engrafting spoken of appears to be predicated upon a mistaken view of grafting." If the Apostle was not mistaken, my Opponent certainly is, for they differ very much from each other. But there is no reason to believe that the Apostle's views of grafting were different from those of every practical man among you. You practice engrafting, that you may improve the fruit, by a change of the branches, while there is no change in the root, the trunk, or the sap. So Paul, with the ecclesiastical Olive-tree. Its root, trunk, and fatness remained; its branches only were changed: and whether it was not an improvement, to exchange infidel for believing branches, to exchange the Jewish for the Christian administration, judge ye. This opinion does not suffer by a closer examination.

1. The root. It is equally consistent with the Pedobaptist system, to consider this as referring to Christ or to Abraham, the original or derived root. When the figure of a building instead of a tree is used, the prophets and apostles are spoken of as a foundation, but Christ is the foundation of foundations. When Christ is

said to be "the root and the offspring of David," (o) the sense is, that he is the Father as well as the son of David. But Abraham is said to be "the Father of circumcision

66

[that is, of ecclesiastical initiation] to them who are "not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the "steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he "had, being yet uncircumcised."(p) His very name Abraham, signifies a high father, and it was given to him, because he was to be a father not to the Jews only, but to many nations: that is, he was the root of that ecclesiastical tree, which bore both Jewish and Christian branches.

If, instead of to Abraham, you should apply this figure to the seed of the woman, revealed to Adam, and worshipped by Abel, Seth, Enoch, and Noah, I see no ground of objection; since Christ is really the Head of the church visible, as well as invisible. This is evident from his representing himself as a vine, from which fruitless branches are cut off. The invisible church has no fruitless branches, and from it none can be cut off. My Opponent says, "Pardon, justification, sanctification, "and salvation, are inseparably connected ;" and gives Paul on perseverance, to prove it. Dr. Gill says, "There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; "the one sort are such who have only an historical "faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed; "they are such who only profess to believe in him, as "Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only." "These are the other sort of branches, who are

(0) Rev. xxii. 16.
U

(1) Rom. iv. 12.

« PreviousContinue »