for she is introduced as a single person; and under this idea are they addressed to her.

66

Second-That this unity is not ascribed to her as composed of the elect alone. The Gentiles who should flow into her were not all, nor are pretended to have been, real Christians: that "light" which was to shine upon the Gentiles, and the brightness" of that "rising" which was to attract the "kings," must of necessity be external : nor could kings be her "nursing-fathers," nor their queens her "nursing-mothers," but as a public society which they could distinguish. In any other sense the prediction is palpably false.

Further when he foretells the transition of the dispensation of grace from the Jews to the Gentiles, the prophet uses the same style. He represents the church not as subsisting in a vast multitude of independent associations, but as a great whole; as possessing individual unity. He personifies it, as in the former instances: "Sing, O barren, that thou didst not bear break forth into singing, and cry aloud, that thou didst not travail with child; for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not; lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy. stakes."*

*Is. xliv. 1. 2.

This is, unequivocally, a description of the church as exhibited under an outward dispensation. The comparison between the "desolate" and the "married wife," can have no place in a question concerning the internal church, nor do the other circumstances at all agree to her.

Indeed, whoever admits that there was, at any time past, one visible church, and that promises were made to her, of which some have had, others are receiving, and others are yet to have, their accomplishment, must of course admit the continuance of that church at present. For the fulfilling a promise to an individual or a society, supposes the existence of that individual or society. The promises, for example, to Israel, could never have been performed, had Israel perished. The adoption of another family might have been accompanied with other promises, or with the renewal of the old ones: but, in no sense could they be fulfilled to a race which was extinct before the time of fulfilment came. The fact, then, that God is now fulfilling, and to fulfil hereafter, promises given to the visible church ages ago, establishes her perpetuity and identity. She never has been destroyed, or she could not at this day enjoy the accomplishment of ancient promise

3. The language of the New Testament implies, that an external visible church state was not abo lished with the law of Moses.

The writers of the New Testament never go about to prove that there is a catholic visible church; far less do they speak of it as originating in the evangelical dispensation; but they assume its existence, as a point which no Christian in their days ever thought of disputing. They argue against schism, upon the principle that the visible church is one, and they record ecclesiastical deliberations, and decisions by the apostles and elders, which, upon any other principle, were downright usurpation of dominion over conscience. This last particular, will be more fully handled before we have done. Let us, in the mean time, attend to some instances in which this doctrine of the one visible church, is interwoven with the texture of their language.

"This is he that was with the church in the wilderness." Acts vii. 38. Stephen refers to Moses, and we know what church Moses was with. No one, in his right mind, will undertake to say that Moses was with the elect only. "Our fathers," adds the martyr, “ would not obey him.” Moses himself writes that these rebels were the

66

people”—the " whole congregation”—“ all the children of Israel,"* and this was the "church" to which Stephen refers.

"The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts ii. 47. "Saul made

* Ex. xxxii. Num. xiv.

navoc of the church." Ch. viii. 3.-" God hath set some in the church; first, apostles," &c. 1 Cor. xii. 28.—“ Gaius, the host of the whole church." Rom. xvi. 23.-" Give none offence to the church of God." 1 Cor. x. 32.-"I persecuted the church of God." 1 Cor. xv. 9.

The list might easily be swelled; but it is needless. Let us weigh the import of these passages. The "church," to which the Lord daily added such as should be saved, was not the body of the elect, for no addition can be made to them; nor was it a single congregation, unless God had no more people to be saved in Jerusalem, than, together with mere professors, were sufficient for one pastoral charge. Nor is it to be imagined either that Saul confined his persecution to one congregation; or that he was able to pick out the elect, and persecute them. As little can it be suspected, either that Gaius never entertained any but the elect, or that his entertainments never went beyond one congregation. Nor will a sober man allege, that God hath set no officers but in one congregation, or that they have no functions toward any but his elect; or that all whom he hath set are themselves of the number; nor yet, that "offence" can never be given to any but to the elect. The sin, to be committed at all, requires both that the offending and offended, may see and know each other. But the scripture is

express: The Lord added to the church-Saul persecuted the church-Gaius was the host of the church-God hath set officers in the churchChristians are not to offend the church. Now as these and many similar phrases, are utterly inapplicable either to a single congregation, or to the body of the redeemed, they must designate another and different society, which can be no other than what we have called the visible Church Catholic. Too extensive for partial assemblies, too notorious for any secret election of men, and yet a church; the church-it is general, external, and but ONE.

In truth, the phraseology of the New Testament on this subject, as on many others, is borrowed directly from that of the Old. The expression "church of God," is a literal translation into English of those Greek words which are themselves a literal translation from the Hebrew. For every

densit ; קהל יהוה or האלהים scholar knows, that

ɛõʊ; and “Church of God," signify in their respective tongues, exactly the same thing. Conceive, then, of an apostle's addressing himself to Jews, as Paul did, in the Hebrew tongue. By what phrase would he designate the church? Evidently by that which is used in the Hebrew scriptures, and was familiar to his hearers. And what sense could they put upon it? Evidently that which had long been settled, and no other. Would