"either a type of the church, or of heaven, or of "Christ's human nature: the better reason of its being "so called is, because it consisted of earthly matter "and worldly things; it was in the world, and only had "its use in the world, and so is opposed to the heavenly "sanctuary."(u) None of these views have the least bearing against the doctrine that this worldly sanctuary is an ecclesiastical sanctuary, unless you will first prove that no church can exist in the world. But that we may not be at a loss concerning its ecclesiastical character, God said to Solomon, "I have heard thy prayer, and "have chosen this place to myself, for an house of "sacrifice." "Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ❝ears attent unto thy prayer, that is made in this place. "For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that

66

my name may be there forever: and mine eyes and "mine heart shall be there perpetually."(v) If a holy residence of God, consecrated to sacrifice and prayer, is not dignified enough to be called an ecclesiastical sanctuary, I should like to know where you would find a church in our day. This doctrine was held by the Jews, in opposition to the Samaritans, down to the time of our Saviour, to whom the Samaritan woman applied to decide the controversy. This gave him an opportunity of instructing her in the new dispensation, which has laid the dispute asleep almost ever since, until, in late days, it has been revived by some Baptists, who have a zeal not according to knowledge. Among those I am happy to find that the pious and learned Dr. Gill is

(u) On Hebr. ix. 1.

(v) 2 Chr. vii, 12, 15, 16.

not numbered. He comments upon the words of the Samaritan woman, as follows, viz. "And ye say that in "Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship; "that is, in the temple there; who urged, and very "rightly, that God had chosen that place to put his 66 name, and fix his worship there; and had ordered "them to come thither, and bring their offerings and sacri"fices, and to keep their Passover and other feasts."”(w)

POINT III.

The Jewish society had the MEMBERS of a visible church.

The ordinances of which we have been speaking, were emblematical of sanctification, and required evidence of sanctification in their adult communicants. It is true that this is a thing of which my Opponent has no very high opinion, as he scoffs at the very Baptists themselves, for requiring of candidates some account of their religious experience, preparatory to initiation. But with pious Baptists this is esteemed important. So do the scriptures esteem it important in the subjects of circumcision. "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin "of your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked.”(x) "The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and "the heart of thy seed, to love the lord thy God, with "all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest "live."(y) "All these nations are uncircumcised, " and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the

(w) Gill on John iv. 20. For proof he refers to Deut. xii. 5. 6. xvị. 2. (x) Deut. x. 16. (y) Deut. xxx. 6.

"heart."(z) "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in "heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; "as your fathers did, so do ye."(a) "And thou shalt

66

say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, thus "saith the Lord God, O ye house of Israel, let it suffice 66 you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought "into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, "and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to 66 pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, "the fat and the blood, and they have broken my cove"nant, because of all your abominations."(b)

It is one glorious feature of the visible church, that it requires evidence of regeneration in those who are candidates for membership. The scriptures which have just now been read, plainly shew that the Jewish society had this feature of a church: for, according to these texts, they violated the constitution of the church, whenever they received proselytes without evidence of piety. This is so conspicuously the spirit of these passages, that I know no way of escaping their force, but by proving that they are not intended for the literal Israel, but that they are prophecies exclusively applicable to the Christian church. Dr. Gill says that the last authority which I have quoted (Ez. xliv. 6, 7.) "well agrees with these declining churches in the latter ❝day, and even in our times:" yet, unhappily for my opponent, the Dr. says at the same time, that the picture there given is a character of literal Israel from the "beginning." The Dr. tells us that they are con(a) Acts vii, 51,

66

Jer. ix. 26.

(6) Ez, xliv. 6, 7, .

demned for introducing "strangers," because they are 66 unregenerate men, who are in a state of alienation and 66 estrangement to divine and spiritual things." The "uncircumcised in heart," whom they were forbidden to receive as members, Dr. Gill understands to be those "who never were pricked in the heart for sin, or felt any 66 pain there on account of it; never had the hardness "of their heart removed, or the impurity of it dis"covered to them; never were filled with shame and 66 loathing because of it; or ever put off the body of "sins in a course of conversation; or renounced their 66 own righteousness." This last text censures the church for polluting the sanctuary by the introduction of persons who were even uncircumcised in flesh. These, the Dr. says, were "carnal as they were born ; 66 men in the flesh, in a state of nature, mind and savour "the things of the flesh, and do the works of it; having 66 never been taught by the grace of God, to deny un"godliness and worldly lusts, and to abstain from fleshly 66 ones: or who put their trust in the flesh, in outward "things, in carnal privileges, and external righteousness. These the Lord complains were brought to be "in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house; either "to be members here, and partake of all the ordinances "and privileges of the Lord's house; or to officiate "here as priests and ministers of the Lord." According to these words of Dr. Gill, he must have thought, that evidence of regeneration was as requisite to membership in the Lord's house, under the Old Testament dispensation, as under the New. No wonder then, that he thought the Jews a church. This opinion is confirm

66

ed in the New Testament, by the allusions which it makes to the Old; "and you being dead in your sins, "and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he "quickened together with him, having forgiven you all "trespasses."(c)

On this subject I would wish you attentively to read, and devoutly to consider Psalm 1. 7-23. On the first of these verses, which begins, "Hear O my people," Dr. Gill remarks, "This is an address to the people of "the Jews, whom God had chosen to be his people above "all others, and who professed themselves to be his peo"ple; but a lo-ammi was about to be written upon "them, being a people uncircumcised in heart and ears, "refusing to hear the great prophet of the church, him "that spake from heaven." Here people and church are used synonymously, as they are by my Opponent ; and the Jews are justly said to be, by their own profession, and the choice of God, his people; and Christ is said to be the prophet of their church, as well as of the New Testament church.

I have the same request to make concerning your perusal of Is. i. 10-20. The ninth verse predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, which threatened an utter extinction of God's people, "except the Lord had left "unto us a very small remnant." "And this," says Dr. Gill," was done unto us, for the sake of his church, "that that might continue, and he might have a seed to "serve him." Here the Dr. considers the Christian "dispensation a continuance of the us to whom Isaiah

(c) Coll. ii. 13.