66

was a type and resemblance of redemption by Christ, "and to which reference here seems to be had."

But

although the redemption here contemplated, refers to a temporal deliverance, the Dr. says that it "intends the "spiritual and eternal redemption of them by the price "of his blood, from the slavery of sin; the bondage of "the law, and curse of it, and the captivity of Satan, " and a deliverance out of the hands of every enemy; "a redemption which reaches both to soul and body, "and secures from all condemnation and wrath to come; "and includes every blessing in it, as justification, "forgiveness of sins, adoption, sanctification, and "eternal life, and is a plenteous, full, complete, and "everlasting one.”(t)

It is plain, then, that the redemption here mentioned is not merely a temporal or political one, but a spiritual and eternal redemption. It is also plain that it is conferred upon God's "people," a word which my Opponent considers equivalent to church. The text moreover informs us that this was done, "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers," not at Mount Sinai, but "to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he "sware to our father Abraham ;" many hundred years before the transactions at Sinai.

It is in reference to this holy covenant, that Moses said to Israel, "thou art an holy people." "Not sanc"tified" says Dr. Gill," in a spiritual sense, or having "principles of grace and holiness in them, from whence "holy actions sprang, at least, not all of them; but

(t) Gill on Luke i, 68.

66 they were separated from all other people in the "world to the pure worship and service of God in an "external manner, and therefore were to avoid all "idolatry and every appearance of it." The remainder of the verse which speaks of their being chosen to be a special people, the Dr. understands to mean "for "special service and worship, and to enjoy special "privileges and benefits, civil and religious."(u) Elsewhere, when Moses speaks of their being "an holy "people unto the Lord," Gill explains it, "set apart "by him from all other people, and devoted to his 66 worship and service, and many of them were sancti"fied and made holy in a special and spiritual sense." The remainder of the verse calls them a peculiar people. Gill explains this peculiarity as consisting "espe"cially in things sacred."(v) My aim is to prove from scripture, that Abraham and his seed have the constitution of a visible church; that is, that they were a consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. Dr. Gill has proved from scripture, that they were "set apart" as a holy people, a special people, a peculiar people, "especially in things sacred" and "religious:" all this, too, upon the constitution of "his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham." They were therefore a church.

(u) Gill on Ex. vii. 6,

(v) Gill on Ex. xiv. 2.

POINT VI.

The Jewish society had the express, inspired, and unequivocal NAME of a church.

These points are professedly intended to support the proposition that "Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God." Soon after that proposition was announced, some remarks were made, and more were promised, on the name of a church. My farther progress on this subject, my Opponent has endeavoured to obstruct by the authority of Dr. Mason, who has the appearance of being against me. He speaks as follows, viz. "The word church, derived from the “Greek, zugiazov, signifies the house of the Lord, ❝and marks the property which he has in it. But the original words which it is employed to translate, sig“nify a different thing. The Hebrew words

66

66

ערה

and

y in the Old Testament, and the corresponding one 66 Exxλnoia in the New, all signify an assembly, espe"cially one convened by invitation or appointment. "That this is their generic sense, no scholar will deny ; "nor that their particular applications are ultimately "resolvable into it. Hence it is evident that from the "terms themselves nothing can be concluded as to the "nature and extent of the assembly which they denote. "Whenever either of the two former occurs in the Old "Testament, or the other in the New, you are sure of 66 an assembly, but of nothing more. What that assem“bly is, and whom it comprehends, you must learn from the connexion of the term, and the subject of

"the writer." (w) The Dr. then proceeds to give instances of the diversified application of these several words.

When this eminent scholar observes that we must learn the meaning of the word "from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer," he says what is true not only of the word church, but of those words which all will confess to have been reduced from their generic signification to an appropriate meaning. This remark may be elucidated by the title of the most distinguished officer in the church. It is the word apostle. Concerning this, we may say as Dr. Mason has of church, "What an Apostle is, and whom it points out, whether "an ordinary or extraordinary agent, whether Christ, "one of the twelve, or any other person, you must "learn from the connexion of the term, and the sub"ject of the writer." The Greek word signifies a messenger.(x)"That this is its generic sense, no scholar will deny, nor that its particular applications are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident that from the term itself, nothing can be concluded as to the character of the messenger which it denotes. Whenever it occurs in the Old or New Testament, you are sure of a messenger, but of nothing more."

After thus applying all Dr. Mason's remarks to the word apostle as well as church, suppose a question to arise concerning the apostleship of Paul, as one has arisen concerning the ecclesiastical standing of the Jews. Was

(z) Mason on the Church. pp. 8-10. Christian's Magazine, vol, 1. pp. 54-56. (x) See Phil. ii. 25, and 1 Kings xiv. 6, in the Greek,

Paul an ordinary messenger of ordinary matters, from one ordinary man to another; or was he an extraordinary, spiritual, ecclesiastical Apostle of Jesus Christ? I say that he was the latter, and I very naturally try to prove it, by shewing that the scriptures apply to him the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of an Apostle. This conclusion is so far from being forbidden by Dr. Mason's remarks, that it is attained in the very way which he points out, "from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer." From these we plainly see that the term is applied to Paul, not in its generic. sense, but in its appropriate meaning. It points him out, not as an ordinary, secular messenger from man, but as an inspired ecclesiastical messenger from our divine Redeemer. Shall we say then, that his being so called, in such a connexion, is no evidence of his apostleship, in the highest sense in which the term is applied to men? Shall we say that the mere fact that a word originally has a generic sense, shall forever disqualify it from pointing out a particular object? Shall we say, that because it has a variety of meanings, it can have no definite meaning at all? If so, then let us be consistent, and openly relinquish the common and well established proof of Christ's divinity, from the fact that the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of God is applied to him in the scriptures. But if we admit, as all real Christians do, that the application of this name to Christ, proves him to be the true God; and that the application of another name to Paul, proves him to be an apostle of God; then the application of a third name to the Jews will prove them to have been the church of God.