destroy their identity with the church of John the Baptist, or with one another.(¿)

66

4. Were the ordinances of the Jewish state, the same, with regard to their import, times of obser66 vance, number, the character and quality of the ob"servers or participants of them ?"

There was a difference in form, yet a substantial sameness in the passover, and the eucharist, and in circumcision and baptism, as we hope to shew fully in its place. Circumstantial differences effect not the substance.

"5. Are the subjects of the Christian church to be "such in birth, education, temper, and character, as "the subjects of the commonwealth of Israel?"

They are the same thus far, that they should be believers and their seed.

"6. Are the privileges enjoyed by Christians in the "church of Christ, just the same as those enjoyed by "the Jews?"

Privileges, whether in church or state, may be enlarged or restricted, created or suppressed, without affecting the identity of the body. The repeal of the ediot of Nantz did not annihilate the French nation, neither did the toleration act under William the Third, create a new nation in England: neither did these decrees affect the identity of churches, Popish or Protestant, Conformist or Non-conformist, in France or England. Virginia would still be Virginia, if she were

(i) If, by common intercourse, in this third question, is meant domestic intercourse, such as is contemplated in Lev. xx. 18. Ez. xviii. 6, I say that those particular laws are still binding. If he have regard to social intercourse, I say that we are now permitted to eat with unbelievers.

to extend the right of suffrage to her poorest citizen, and Pennsylvania would still be Pennsylvania, if she were to compel Preachers and Quakers to perform military duty. These United States would still be the same, (though somewhat disgraced,) if they were to give constitutional permission to the society of Cincinnati, to wear an empty honorary title of nobility. And the Presbyterian church would be the same, (though somewhat enhanced in value,) if, while they advocate a parity of clergy, they would, like Martin Luther, leave their Doctorates in Egypt, where those vain and invidious distinctions were born. If a change in respect of privilege must destroy identity, then Joseph was not the same person in prison and in the office of prime-minister to Pharaoh.

"7. When he(j) has answered the first question in "the affirmative, and the next five in the negative, "(which, if he consults the holy oracles, he must,) then "how are two things the same, which differ in every "essential particular?"

The author of the above questions does not know what is essential, and what is not essential to a church. He considers not only ordinances, but "times of observance," essential. The excommunication of the Asiatic church, by the Roman Bishop, because they differed from him in their time of observing Easter, must please my Opponent much for they ought to be out of the church, when they lack that which is essential to the church. If uniformity in "times of observance" be

(j) These questions were addressed to Dr. Ely.

essential to ecclesiastical identity, then those whose sabbath begins at sunset, and those whose sabbath begins at midnight, cannot both belong to the Christian church; because they lack that which is essential to being in the same church. He might as well say that two persons cannot be members of the same family, or citizens of the same state, unless they observe precisely the same time in eating and sleeping. There are four things essential to the visible church: visibility, association, consecration, and investiture; by which last I mean, being intrusted with the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. Now the Jewish and Christian societies were thus invested, and were consecrated to this trust, for which they were visibly associated. As both, therefore, were visible associations, and both were consecrated depositories, they both had all the essentials of God's church on earth; and no possible difference could hinder their amalgamation, any more than the difference between olive trees would make engrafting impossible, or the difference between different countries would prove an insurmountable obstacle to making a British subject an American citizen by naturalization.

My Opponent's eleven objections to the sameness of the Jewish and Christian societies, I shall have to notice concisely in an order of my own.

1. My Opponent's sixth argument is founded upon our Saviour's consolatory address to his small family; "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."(2) It was pru

66

(=) Luke xx. 32. Spur. Deb. with me. p. 228.

dent for my Opponent to spend but little of his breath in showing that this text excludes the Old Testament society from God's ecclesiastical kingdom, because if it does prove that, it must also prove that the Christian church must always be a little flock, even in the millennium, and in the kingdom of glory.

2. My Opponent's seventh argument is founded upon Matt. xix. 28. "And Jesus said unto them, verily I say "unto you, that ye which have followed me in the rege"neration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne "of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, "judging the twelve tribes of Israel."(a) He gives it to us in Campbell's translation, which uses the word renovation instead of regeneration, intimating that this renovation means the institution of the Christian church. My Opponent then says, "Observe here the erection of "this new kingdom is called emphatically THE RENO66 VATION; in the common translation THE REgenera"TION, not the continuation of the Jewish church."

My Opponent has considerable versatility of genius. When he is at a loss for proof, he can turn any thing into evidence by merely making it emphatical. By this means he can even impress opposite arguments into his service. All that they need is a due degree of emphasis. When our Saviour promised to build his church, my Opponent discovered that to build a church was very different from rebuilding or repairing a church; for rebuilding and repairing supposed a previous existence of a church which had fallen into decay.

(a) Matt. xix. 28, in Spur. Deb. against me, p. 228.

S

But now he lays an emphasis upon regeneration and renovation, words equivalent to rebuilding and repairing, and makes out that they do not presuppose existence, but the very contrary.

3. His tenth argument is founded upon a passage which, (strange as it may seem,) is a direct proof of the identity of the Jewish and Christian societies, according to my proposition. "For he is our peace, who hath "made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall "of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh "the enmity, even the law of commandments contained "in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new 66 man, so making peace."(b) According to him, this proves that Jews and Gentiles are emphatically made BOTH ONE, ONE NEW MAN, that is, ONE NEW CHURCH. Very well. So says Dr. Gill also. And so be it. My Opponent, however, believes it to be a new church, as to its essence, and I believe it to be a new church, as to its administration. The second temple was, in one sense a new temple, but in another, it was only a renovation of the old temple. So the higher gate of the temple, which Jotham repaired, is twice called by Jeremiah "the new gate," (c) in consequence of its repairs, although it was as old as the temple. This same prophet says concerning the Lord's mercies "they are new every "morning;"(d) which Gill justly explains, by saying that they are "daily renewed in the manifestations thereof." John says, "I write no new commandment unto you, "but an old commandment, which ye had from the be(6) Eph. ii. 14. 15. Spur. Deb. ag. me, p. 235. (c) Jer. xxvi. 10. xxxvi. 10. (comp. 2 Kgs. xv. 35.) (d) Lam. iii. 23,