the Jews, then, have understood him as meaning by "the church," either a section of their nation no bigger than could be contained within the walls of a synagogue? or those favoured ones whom God has predestined to life? The thing is impossible! because he would use the current phraseology of both their holy and their popular language in a sense quite different from any which had formerly been affixed to it. They would understand him as discoursing of that great visible society which God had publicly set apart for himself.

Conceive again of the apostle as addressing Gentiles on this subject, and speaking Greek. He would evidently express himself in the terms which he has used in his epistles. What exxλnoía (ecclesia) means, every Grecian could tell. But how was a Heathen to understand the meaning of ἐκκλησία θεον (ecclesia theou,) or the "church of God?" He was perfectly ignorant of Christian doctrine, and the structure of Christian congregations. Nor could he form any correct notion of the thing intended, without an explanation drawn from the Old Testament scriptures.

The result stands thus: The apostle, when preaching or writing to Jews or Gentiles, speaks of the church of God in terms well known to the one, and entirely new to the other. The alternative is obvious. Either he used these terms in

their ascertained sense, or not. If the former, he has recognized the visible unity of the Church Catholic; and so our position is proved. If the latter, he deceived all his hearers; all his correspondents; all who in every age adopt his letters as a rule of faith. Undoubtedly, had he used the terms "church" and "church of God" in a sense unknown to Moses and the Fathers, he would not have omitted to mention it; that we might not be led into errour. But the fact is, that there is not throughout the New Testament any exposition of these terms. They are employed as terms of the most definite import; as terms which no one who chose to consult the earlier scriptures could mistake. The law of interpretation to the primitive Christians must, of course, be our law; and the same issue returns upon us; the expression "church of God," used without qualification, means an external society comprehending all those who profess the true religion.

If any one think that too much stress is laid upon the coincidence between the phraseology of the two Testaments, let him reflect, not only that they relate to a common whole; but that the same coincidence happens in other things. Thus, "Christ," is but the English form of Xgros, which is the literal translation of nw, (Messiah) all signifying "the anointed." When, therefore, the Lord Jesus was proclaimed as the "Christ of

God," how could either Jew or Gentile understand the preacher but by going back to the Old Testament? There the word was perfectly familiar, although, in its sacred sense, utterly unknown to the Heathen.

And this explains why a profession

that "Jesus is the Christ," was deemed, in the first age of the church, a sufficient criterion of one's religion. No man could make it without being instructed, from the scriptures of the Old Testament, in the Redeemer's character and work. The reason why many now suppose such a profession extremely easy, is, that they do not perceive its relation to truths previously revealed. And this, too, is the reason why there is so much blundering about the nature of the church. People imagine themselves at liberty to interpret the word at their pleasure: whereas it is referrible to the Old Testament as really as the word "Christ." Neither the nature of the church, nor the office of her head, is to be understood without an appeal to the same scriptures. Consequently, that very rule which expounds "the Christ of God," as signifying one who was qualified by the father's appointment, and by the measureless communication of the divine Spirit, to be a Saviour for men; will oblige us to expound the "church of God," as signifying that great visible society which professes his name.

4. The account which the New Testament Vol. IV.

3

gives of the church, confirms the doctrine of her visible unity.

*

One of the most common appellations by which she is there distinguished, is, " the kingdom of heaven." This can be but one: or else it would not be a kingdom, and the kingdom, but several. And this one must be visible, because its ordinances are administered by visible agency. Nay it is only as visible that it admits of the exercise of any part of its government by men. The church invisible, which eludes every human sense and faculty, cannot be the object of human functions. And to preclude mistake in this matter, our Lord informs us that his kingdom, while in the world, shall, like other kingdoms, have false as well as true subjects. That hypocrites shall so intermingle with saints as to render their separation in the present life impossible by any means which will not exterminate both. Such is the manifest import of the parable of the "tares." Mat, xiii. 24-30.

An attempt has, indeed, been made, to repel this argument, by supposing the parable to represent, not the mixture of Christians with hypocrites in the church, but their mixture with wicked men in civil Society. Let us see:

The parable is a likeness of “the kingdom of heaven." A phrase which never signifies the

* Mat. xvi. 19. xxviii. 19, 20. John xx. 21-23.

world at large, or civil society; but the church of God under the evangelical dispensation. There was no need to teach the disciples, by a symbolical lesson, that good men and bad are mingled together in civil society. This had been sufficiently attested by the experience of all previous ages, and was at that very moment evident to their eyes. But considering the expectations which they might be led to form from the introduction of a spiritual economy, it was altogether needful to apprise them that in her best estate, in her noblest appearance as the kingdom of Heaven, the church would be still imperfect, and injured by unworthy members. Nor could the officers of Christ, answering to the "servants of the householder," ever entertain so wild an idea as that of severing Christians from the society of other men; for were it even practicable, it would defeat one of the high ends for which they live in the world ; that of "letting their light shine before others;" and would gradually extirpate them from the face of the earth. But it would be very natural for the disciples to imagine that, with the keys of the kingdom of Heaven in their hands, they should endeavour to exclude every one whom they had reason to suspect of insincerity. Many are infected with such a notion to this day. No rotten hearted professor shall pollute their communion! they will rest the right of admission