"

I. The promise of the land of Canaan was given alone to the fleshly seed of Abraham. Gen. xvii."

The point of this argument is in the word "alone." Now the Student could not produce a single text to support his statement, though he were to get the whole land for it, in everlasting possession. Gen. xvii. shows that the land was promised to the fleshly seed: but neither Gen. xvii. nor any other passage of Scripture, shows it was made to them alone. The promise of the land is sure to all the seed, whether they be Abraham's seed fleshly and spiritually or his seed spiritually alone: Rom. iv. 13-16. Observe in verse 16. the promise is said to be through the righteousness of faith. A plain proof that the promise is one thing, and the righteousness another.

II. "We believe the land of Canaan is not the hope of the spiritual seed, because the institution with which it was connected was only the shadow of a better institution, this part of it being no exception to the rest."

Here are two great errors, which being corrected, make this second argument lighter than thistle-down. It is assumed, first, that the promise of the land is connected with the sinaiatic covenant only. Now the land was promised in a covenant made with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the sinaiatic covenant came into existence; Gal. iii. 17. Should the Student say he does not mean the promise of the land, but the possession of it; we reply, he just begs the question; and as respects this very point, we shall dismiss him with an empty wallet, by and by. Again, it is assumed that everything connected with the sinaiatic covenant was temporary. Now by that covenant, God, the everlasting God, promised to become the king of Israel. True indeed, Israel, by rebellion, has lost their king and their country, but that is no proof that either the king or the country is of temporary duration.

Here the Student anticipates an objection. The land was promised to Abraham and his seed, (Christ,) who have not yet inherited it. Hence they must inherit it at a future time." How does he meet this objection? First, he denies part of the statement altogether. He denies that the land was promised to Christ. But the Apostle shows, Gal. iii. 16, that seed singular, means Christ. Well, the land is distinctly promised to the seed, singular, in Gen. xii. 7. "Unto thy seed [singular,] will I give this land." Secondly, he explains away the other part of the objection. He says, "the land was not promised to Abraham personally, but for his seed." A sufficient refutation of this error will be found in simply reading the promises. All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and [not for, but, and] to thy seed for ever."-Gen. xiii. 15. Also, it is fatal to our friend's theory, that the land was promised to the seed before it

66

was promised to Abraham. What was the use of promising the land to Abraham for his seed, when it was fairly promised to the seed already. If the land had not been first promised to the seed, it never would have been promised to any one else. Instead of being promised to Abraham for his seed, it was, in fact, promised to his seed for Abraham. The Student's theory is not only beside the truth, but is the very reverse of it.

"ever

Again, the Student objects to the terms, "for ever," and lasting, "as applied to the possession of the land, signifying endless duration. We ask D. L." says he, "if the servant mentioned Exod. xxi. 6, lives for ever to serve his master?" If these terms sometimes mean endless duration, and sometimes not, there must be some sure and certain rule whereby to ascertain when, and when they do not, mean endless duration, otherwise the Word of God is a trumpet giving an uncertain sound. We submit that the following rule will always show when the terms "for ever," and "everlasting," mean endless duration, and when they do not. When these terms are used in reference to the having, enjoying, or suffering of anything connected with natural life, they only mean, the whole duration of natural life; but when they are used in reference to the having, enjoying, or suffering anything in reference to resurrection life, then they signify, endless duration. The reason of the rule is, that natural life is temporary life, whereas resurrection life is endless life. Now, as the promise of the land is to be enjoyed by Abraham, Christ, and the saints, in connexion with their resurrection life, it follows that the terms "for ever," and "everlasting." as connected with the promise of the land to them, means endless duration. Thus we learn out of the law, that Messiah abides for ever; and thus it is written in Psalm xxxvii,-"The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever." And that these words refer to resurrection life is evident, for he saith, "When the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it." You will find the terrible cutting off of the wicked in Zech. xiv. 12-15, and the righteous then inheriting the land, in the verses following. Look and see, and be not faithless, but believing.

Our friend attempts to prove that the sinaiatic covenant is called an everlasting covenant, which covenant Paul shows, Heb. viii, passed away. But what is his proof that the sinaiatic covenant is called an everlasting covenant? He refers to Jer. xxiv. 8, which says nothing about it, and to 1 Chron. xvi. 17, where the Spirit speaks, not of the sinaiatic covenant, but of "the covenant which he [God,] made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac." With regard to the everasting priesthood of Aaron, what is to hinder him from being Israel's priest again, when David is their king again? Ezek. xxxvii. 24, 25. The change of the covenant will no more prevent Aaron from becoming their priest again, than it will prevent Jehovah from

becoming their king again. The feast of tabernacles, and other institutions connected with the sinaiatic covenant, are to be continued in the world to come. See Zech. xiv. 16; Isa. lxvi. 20-23; Matt. xxvi. 29; Luke xxii. 15, 16-18; Eph. ii. 7. "Ages to come;" "from sabbath to sabbath, and from one new moon to another." Ages are made up of sabbaths and new moons.

Our friend concludes his second argument by thinking that he has both reason and revelation to support him in saying that the promise (of the land) connected with the covenant, passed away with the covenant. But did the promise of the land not connected with the covenant, pass away also? That is the point. Let our friend know, whatever he thinks, that

1. The land was promised four hundred and thirty years before that sinaiatic covenant.

2. That the land is to be inherited by, and under, a new and very different covenant. Jer. xxxi. 22-40.

3. That the land is to be possessed to a greater extent than under the sinaiatic covenant. Ezek. xlvii. 13—21.

4. And by a different arrangement of the tribes than under the sinaiatic covenant. Ezek. xlviii. 1-35.

5. And under another temple, and temple service, &c. than under the sinaiatic covenant. Ezek. xl., xli., &c.

When the Student has fairly disposed of all these, we have a few

more.

III. The Student objects to the land being the hope, "because God promised another rest, while the Jews were in possession of the land.'

In

Here the Student confounds things that differ; the rest, and the place of rest. God promised another rest. But that is a different thing from promising another land. This settles argument third. In Josh. xxi. 44, it is said that Joshua gave the people rest. Heb. iv, that he did not. But, in Joshua, the Spirit means a temporary rest and, in Hebrews, an everlasting rest. Both rests are in the same land. As to the place of the everlasting rest, God says of Zion, "This is my rest for ever." Let us labour to enter into his rest, and not despise it. Let us not be like them of whom it is written, "Yea, they despised the pleasant land."

IV. Again, the Student argues against the land being the hope, because it is defiled by sin, under the curse, is to be burnt up, and dissolved; and because the inheritance is in heaven.

The land is defiled by sin, and under the curse. But sin can be purged away, and the curse removed. Adam was the link that bound creation in glory and blessedness to the throne of God. When he sinned the curse fell upon the earth beneath, and the heavens above. But all things are to be reconciled again, by Jesus, whether

they be things on earth or things in heaven. There is a portion of this earth already, as the first-fruits of the great harvest, delivered from the curse; shining with glory; and seated, in the highest heavens, at the right hand of God. Rev. xxii. 3, shows that the curse will be removed. Then shall the earth yield her increase, and the light of the moon be as the light of the sun, while the light of the sun shall be seven-fold, as the light of seven days.

But the earth is to be burnt up, and dissolved. What then? The bodies of the martyrs are burnt up, and dissolved; yet" this mortal shall put on immortality."

But, the inheritance is reserved in heaven. What of that? If 1 Pet. i. 4, shows that the metropolis is in heaven, Rev. xxi. 2, shows as clearly that it is to come down from God out of heaven. To say that the saints are not to dwell in Canaan, because they are to dwell in the New Jerusalem, is the same as saying, that a man dwells not in England, because he dwells in London. A man dwells in England, though he dwells in London; and would do so, though London had dropt from the clouds.

The Student supposes that the matter of the earth will not be destroyed, but its form, as the land of Canaan, &c. That the land will be greatly changed, is evident from Zech. xiv. 10, but it will be the same land still.

But the Student further objects, Canaan was given by the sinaiatic whereas the new covenant is based upon "better promises." Well, and is not the laud, with the complete and eternal forgiveness of sin, better than the land without that forgiveness; the land for ever, than the land for a time; the land glorified, than the land unglorified; the land with Jesus in it as king, than the land with Solomon; the land with the New Jerusalem, than the land with the old Jerusalem, &c. &c.

SECTION III.-THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOPE NOT NECESSARY

TO JUSTIFICATION.

THIS THIRD MAIN POSITION REFUTED BY MEETING THE STUDENT'S ARGUMENTS.

We pass over the word "perfect," designedly. Neither a perfect knowledge of the one hope, nor the one faith, nor any one other thing, is necessary to justification. But in his articles the Student argues or assumes that no knowledge of the hope whatever, is necessary to justification.

I. "The knowledge of the hope is not necessary because the Ephesians were justified before they knew it."

The Student argues from Paul praying, Eph. i. 18, that they might know it, that they had not known it before. We objected to this criticism, How then could they be called in it? But the Student has discovered that the new translation reads, "called with," instead of

"called in." Well, that rather strengthens our objection. How could they be "called with" the one hope, if they did not know it? Paul prays, verse seventeenth, that they might know the Lord. Does that prove that they did not know him? Paul's prayer, that they might know the Lord, and the hope, just means, that they know them more fully than they did.

II. His second argument is, 'We cannot regard (the knowledge of the hope.) as indispensible, because the apprehension of the hope, like faith and love, is a gradual work; it not being attained fully at the first, as the Apostle's prayer intimates."

So then, our friend has discovered that the Apostle's prayer just intimates, as we have said, that they might attain to the knowledge of the hope more fully. This is some progress.

But if the knowledge of the hope is not necessary to justification, because it is a gradual work, like faith, it follows that faith is not necessary either. Our friend's argument proves too much. It would prove, if sound, that the knowledge of the Lord is not necessary to justification, because that is a gradual work, too.

III. "Faith in the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King of Jehovah, is what the New Testament shows to be necessary for justification." Very true. But is that all that the New Testament shows to be necessary? The one faith is necessary. Is the one baptism not? And if you admit these, why reject the one hope? Because some passages show that faith is necessary, am I therefore to conclude that baptism and the knowledge of the hope is not? We have got beyond this old sectarian sophistry.

Besides, if faith in the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, is necessary, that proves that the knowledge of the hope is necessary. Because, as our Prophet, Jesus preached the hope, Matt. v 5; as our Priest, he died to give possession of it, Heb. ix. 15; and, as our King, he will reign with his saints in it, Rev. xx. 4.

As to the knowledge of the hope being necessary to future salvation, we only quote five words, "WE ARE SAVED BY HOPE."

SECTION IV.-INCIDENTALS.

I The Student says, "Will D. L. meet our argument, and that with arguments, and not try to frighten us with words about making God a liar?" &c.

That

The Student supposes that our words are not arguments. is exactly our opinion of his. But we call his words arguments, by way of courtesy, and so might he with ours. Perhaps he would not do so for fear he should lie; but he might cast this fear to the winds: -arguments are arguments, whether they be sound or unsound. If they are not, when our friend called upon us to meet his arguments, he just called upon us to meet nothing.