riage covenant, is expressly declared, Isaiah 54. 5. for thy maker is thine husband; the Lord of Hosts is his name.' Jer. 3. 14. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord: for I am married unto you.'

But against this doctrine Mr. C. zealously contends. He is probably the first Baptist writer, that so fully asserts his opinion in opposition to it.

Mr. C. not terrified at any assertion, throws off all disguise, and lets himself appear. However evident the truth of the New and Old testament church being one, is; yet the confirmation of a favorite point demands its sacrifice-it must be offered, an object is to be gained. Mr. C. must be well aware that it never entered the minds of the original Baptists to pass this sweeping revolution, by cutting off all the Old-testament saints, by one blow from church membership.

6

P. 26. This remnant according to the election ' of grace' did not continue in the same visible state in 'which they formerly existed. This remnant was 'the root or beginning of the new testament 'church. This remnant had no priest, no prophet, no king, no temple, no sacrifice, but the crucified Jesus' &c. It is therefore evident that a difference of privileges must make a difference in the identity of a body. A man cannot be the same now he was ten years ago; for this unanswerable reason; he was then poor and he is now rich. So the church has had her times of poverty and persecution; her wealth and prosperity: she cannot therefore be the same now, she was in former times.

There was a time when she needed her temple, altars, priests &c.-but the arrival of her Lord has made her independent of these. Is she therefore D

not the same body? But will Mr. C. argue, that the difference of circumstances will destroy the identity of the church? He will then destroy even identity itself-scarcely any individual body is one hour in the same precise state.

But the church has now her crucified JesusSo had Abraham the father of the faithful "he saw his day afar off & was glad." Christ was seen by all in the same way-viz. by faith. But when Christ did appear in the flesh it was to 'confirm the promises made unto the fathers:" that is, to the old-testament church, Rom. 15, 8. These promises were the ground of their faith. He was their hope, their righteousness. Jer. 23, 6.

Christ was the person revealed in the first promise made to man. He is as truly the substance of the Old as of the New testament. "All things must be fulfiled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Luke 24. 44. The difference between the faith of Old and New testament saints, could never affect the justification of either; both possessed the same legal plea, and the same way of claiming it-and each had the same free grant of eternal life in the everlasting gospel. Christ came to increase both the privileges and numbers of the New testament church; but not to destroy the former and create the latter.

But his last reason, is fatal; it decides the point; none must controvert it. Page 26. To this society of Jews, this remnant, according to the election of grace, the Lord added the saved daily" "This was called the first christian church Acts 2. 47. But the honest reader will turn to the scripture passage quoted by Mr. C. and he will find the argument has this disadvantage, that its proof is

not in the Bible; and its highest authority is Mr. C's brain. Read the passage-"and the Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved." But where have we any account that this "was called the first christian church?" a writer that can make scripture is never at a loss for proof. But Mr. C. unhappily connects a declaration of the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, with this expression of Luke, in the book of Acts, because Paul, when he speaks of this remnant according to the election of grace, includes all the Jews 'saved daily' Act. 2. 47-of course, (common sense says) there could be no addition to the remnant.

This argument is therefore defective in two respects-1st. a part of it is self created-because they are not called the first christian church2ndly. Because those converted by the ministry of Peter were not added to the remnant saved according to the election of grace, being a part of their number-Let us inquire for the simple fact! It is: those converted by the ministry of the apostles, were added to the church, which anounces to us this truth, that before this time the church of Christ existed; these converts were not the 'first christian church'-but an addition to the church. I believe that Abel, Enoch, Paul and Peter, were equally members of the 'first christian church;' against which assertion, we have not a single hint given in all Divine revelation.

"Query was it the Jewish nation, or 'the first 'church of Christ converted in Jerusalem, to which the Lord added such as should be saved?' Page 42. Mr. C. grants, very properly, that it could not be the nation; and must therefore be the first Christian church. This was in the first place, useless; because that every one who can read the

scriptures, knows, that the first New testament believers were Jews, of course could not be added to the nation. That they were added to the first Christian church, is true, if by the first Christian church is meant that precise church. to which, Abraham, Moses and Paul belonged-and that there is another first or second church, is the thing to be proved.

As

The Jews, like other nations where the gos. pel is, had a twofold relation to God; as a nation and as a church-but these relations were as distinct in their nature, then, as they are now. a nation, they had privileges, which nations under the New.testament have not. God was their orly lawgiver, and governed them by positive laws, revealed for that special purpose-and chose their kings by particular appointment: hence their government was theocratical. They were also privileged with being a nation, professing the true religion; which profession they were bound to make, by positive law. They were a nation of professors.

But distinct from this, they were the church of Christ. And although these relations were distinct, they met in the same person. A simple statement of the truth will enable Mr. C. to understand it, at least almost any other person may. As the members of a nation, even baptists will elect officers, take civil offices, collect debts, make contracts, &c. The same persons as members of the church, will go to sermon, take the sacrament, engage in religious duty, &c. To understand this, you will comprehend our assertion, that the Jews were both a nation and a church. A nation receives addition, by births, longevity &c. A church receives addition by conversions, accessions &c. 'Seth, Abraham, and Timothy, were members of

the same church, although of distinct nations. In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek. The privileges of the Old testament saints, prove their character as a church. They all professed to receive eternal life, by sacrifice. This they declared by the continual sacrifices they offered: which could not have any meaning, but a typical representation of the blood of Jesus. The particular efficacy which that sacrifice now has, was taught them both by the flesh they eat, & the blood that was sprinkled upon them. Compare Exod. 24, with Heb. 3. From which it is evident that blood legally offered in any age of the world was typically the redemption of the person offering.

This blood was either typically or really offered -the church before the coming of Christ, did the former, and Christ himself the latter. The Jews acknowledged by this, that in all ages of the world saints met in Christ Jesus, and had communion in his blood. This doctrine is mate"rially conceded by Mr. C. He grants that David, Samuel, Isaac &c. were saints. Page 44. But when a number of these saints, under the Old testament collected for religious purposes, had dedicated themselves to God, and pledged themselves individually and as a body united, to walk 'in the law of the Lord, and keep his commandments,' why will Mr. C. refuse to have them called by the name eklesia?-a church called out of the world. But in every age of the world, such a collection was found united to God and to one anothertherefore in every age of the world there has been a chruch.

It is conceded that this body, under the present dispensation, possesses more privileges than in former periods; yet the idenity of the body, is the