Our proof that the covenant made with the seed is called an everlasting covenant," is its being declared such, Gen. xvii. 7. xiii. 19, which everlasting covenant Israel broke, Isa. xxiv. 5. Hence God does away with it. Jer. xxxi. 31-34, and Heb. viii.

The reference to Jer. xxiv. 1, ought to have been Lev. xxiv. 8, which, along with 1 Chron. xvi. 17, we referred to simply to show the use of the word, though we acknowledge this is not made clear; but we differ with D. L. as to 1 Chron. xvi. 17, because we regard the covenant with Abraham and his seed as one.

The remarks on Aaron's priesthood we have already disposed of. D. L. next states certain points for our consideration, which we will notice, though, if we are unable to explain all he may present for attention, it does not follow that our position is unscriptural. If this would make it so, we think D. L. would have more difficulty in reconciling his notions of the re-establishment of an inferior institution by God, in place of one perfect and all-sufficient, than we shall have.

The first point we have already answered. The second we dispose of thus,-Jer. xxxi. 22, does not teach that the land of Canaan, or any land, shall be possessed under the new covenant mentioned in this chapter, verse 21, which was made in Paul's time, hence not yet to be made.

Because

On point third we observe, Because the land was promised to a greater extent than Israel possessed, it does not follow that it must be under another covenant. If they did not, after the return from Babylon, occupy the land to the extent promised through Ezekiel, it does not follow that they were not intended to do so. God made promises to them which were not fulfilled, it does not necessarily follow that they must be fulfilled at a future time. This is a point that requires attention, God promised the land of Canaan to the generation of Israel that he brought out of Egypt, but they were not permitted to enter it through unbelief; and those who did enter it, although promised the whole of the land, yet because they were unfaithful, the Canaanites were permitted to remain in the land to prove them. With these facts before us we need not be at a loss to account for Israel not occupying the land as promised, after the Babylonish captivity, for they proved unfaithful again.

Point 4th. Does it follow, because the tribes were to possess the land under a different arrangement, that it must be under a new covenant! why may not this refer to the period after the return from Babylon, &c. It may be answered, Because it was not so possessed. If so, does it follow that it is yet to be. See preceding

remarks.

With respect to the temple and a temple service referred to, Ez. chapters xl. xli. let it be observed, Exekiel was to acquaint the

1

Israel then living with what he saw hence we conclude they were the parties interested, which we really believe to be the case, from the fact of worship after the coming of Christ not being confined to Jerusalem, or a material temple, or the sacrifices to consist of burnt, sin, and trespass offerings, (to be offered in connexion with this temple,) which were all set aside by the perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, as these offerings are connected with this temple, we conclude the temple was designed to be before Christ's coming. God's order is not backward to inferior institutions, but forward to those increasingly glorious. We present these thoughts upon D. L.'s four points, but do not rest our argument upon them.

In answer to the objection to our argument from Heb. iv. we think we do not confound things that differ, for it was the giving them possession of the land that is called giving them rest; but if it refers to the way in which they possessed it, it does not follow that it is the same place of rest that remains. No! it is a better place of rest, as well as a better rest. A candle when burnt up is not a candle still, neither are the bodies of the saints the same after the resurrection.

Peter does not say the metropolis is in heaven, but the inheritence of the saints, the new earth, &c.

We do not say that the literal Jerusalem will be the abode of the saints, therefore D. L.'s remarks are out of place.

Admitting it is this earth that is to be renewed, we do not think the names given to its surface, from previous occupation, could with propriety be retained, seeing the land-marks and characteristics will be destroyed.

Because the land of Canaan could be improved, does it follow that it is the inheritance of the saints? Would it hold them? We now come to what D. L. terms our third main position, which, as with the other, he says, he has refuted. Let us see whether this be true or no.

He says he passes over the word "perfect," for neither a perfect knowledge of the one hope, nor of the one faith, nor any one other thing is necessary to justification. But if a perfect knowledge of the hope is not necessary, how much and what part of it is necessary ? We should like an answer to this, for we know of no testimony that any is necessary.

If the Ephesians did know a little of it, (which we have not denied, as D. L. intimates,) this does not prove that it was necessary to justification. But is it a little knowledge that is pleaded for, as necessary? or, what if taught at all, is so very obscurely so, that only a very few have been able to discover it. The locality of the kingdom of God, &c.

The exact knowledge pleaded for by some in order to participa tion in the future kingdom, is illustrated by the following:

64

In order to the fulfilment of the promises, Christ must return to Canaan, and Abraham be raised from the dead. Hence the premillenial advent is a necessity. There is no room for opinion on the subject, for opinion implies doubt. It is a matter of absolute certainty, and the belief of it as essential to a participationin the kingdom of God as faith in the death and resurrection of the Lord; for a man to deny the advent of Jesus to Palestine in power and glory before the millenium, is to proclaim to men and angels his utter ignorance of the glorious Gospel of the blessed God."-DB. THOMAS. And yet this man could seek fellowship with the churches of the reformation in this country, who generally neither know nor believe in these doctrines! And some members of these could receive and countenance him while doing this, and unchristianise their brethren!

If we understand Paul, Eph. iv. his teaching is not that the Ephesians possessed the knowledge of the hope when called, but, as we before observed, the emphasis is upon the hope being one in connexion with their calling as Christians. But if they possessed the knowledge of the hope when called, does this prove that it was necessary to justification? No! we must have direct testimony in this important matter, which we believe would have been given if it had been necessary.

When we say we cannot regard the knowledge of the hope as indispensable to justification, because the apprehension of it is a gradual work, we have reference to the exact knowledge contended for, no allowance being made for imperfect apprehension.

We can assure D. L. we are not amongst those (as he conveys) that plead for only part of the requirements of Scripture as necessary, or for old (or new) sectarian sophistry.

It is asked if we admit faith and baptism as necessary, why reject the one hope?" Because faith and baptism is declared necessary, which is not the case with the one hope; if it was we should by no means say it was not necessary, even if it was our interest to do so.

But D. L. remarks, "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." If this argument is worth anything, the knowledge of all Christ taught, is necessary to justification! Hence Christians must be born men, not babes!

In proof that the knowledge of the hope is necessary to future salvation, D. L. quotes Rom. viii. 24, We are saved by hope." which he appears to think amply sufficient to prove his position.

F

But if D. L. attaches to our language what we do, this passage will not serve him at all. We mean that the knowledge of the hope is not necessary as a condition of enjoying eternal life and glory, which is not taught in Rom, viii. 24, nor in any other Scripture.

The Apostle teaches that in the midst of the troubles he is speaking of, the Christian is preserved by hope, it causing him to wait patiently. It holds him fast amidst the storms of life as an anchor, Heb. vi. 19, and protects from the blows of the enemy as an helmet. 1 Thes. v. 8. This saves him, and not by recommending him to God.

Hence we think this position, as well as our other, remains unshaken. D. L. has not brought any satisfactory testimony to show that a knowledge of the hope is necessary to justification, or future salvation, especially such a knowledge as that contended for, which was not Israel's; and is not the Christian's hope at all. As to what is really necessary, we put against D. L.'s assertions the numerous unequivocal passages brought forward in our third article, which has scarcely been noticed by D. L. Fitness is the condition, the grand consideration, the necessity, which is not only the teaching of God, but accords with our reason. But to exclude those who have become fitted for the inheritance, because not knowing such as the foregoing (even if true), is opposed to reason, revelation, and God's character. As amongst the Jews, so amongst Christians, contentions for nicities of knowledge, theories, creeds, &c., appear to take the place of weightier matters. Straining at knats and swallowing camels, is far from uncommon in this age. Quarreling about shadows, and losing sight of the great design of the Christian institution. We do not apply these remarks to D. L. or his friends, but think the point requires attention from all. Is not Satan, by dividing Christians, and diverting attention from the main point, effecting his purposes? My brethren, let us not be ignorant of his devices, and so fall into the snare. We do not wish to suggest a thought in favour of ignorance, or against a correct knowledge, in the preceding. By no means, but from experience to throw out what we conceive a necessary hint, being acquainted with churches who are very strenuous about small matters, but are very deficient in the weightier.

Answer to D. L.'s notice of incidentals. We do not intimate that D. L. had not produced any arguments, but wished him, before conveying that we made God a liar, in denying what he pleases to call the Hope of Israel, to bring arguments to prove that this was the Hope of Israel, which, in his sense, we consider he had not done; to say we made God a liar without proving it was like an attempt to frighten us with words. But if our remarks referred to what he thought they did, why find fault with us, when he says, this is

exactly his opinion of what we have advanced as arguments? We think his remarks are more applicable to himself than us. Whether our arguments are nothing, as D. L. says, or whether his are, we leave the reader to judge.

The if we used, was owing to our knowledge that it was possible for the typographers to have made the mistake, which we could not decide, not having our manuscript by us.

Before D. L. had asserted so boldly, that we despised, and taught others to despise any portion of God's Word, he should have had some evidence of our doing so. Instead of this being the case, we esteem all God's Word to be exceedingly precious, and heartily embrace the Apostle's appreciation of it; but we wish to use it as it was intended, which we do not consider to be despising it, or teaching others to do so. We do not believe, from lack of testimony, that the Old Testament Scriptures were intended to teach Christians how their sins would be pardoned-how they would be saved from condemnation, or enjoy the blessings connected with the gospel, or new covenant; hence we do repudiate going to them for this purpose, and we do not believe they unfold the hope of the Christian, although D. L. intimates they were written for this very purpose, because of what Paul says, Rom. xvi, 1, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort (admonition) of the Scriptures, might have hope." But this passage does not convey, that the Scriptures teach what the hope of the Christian was, but that through the patience and admonition which are conveyed through the Scriptures (as in those referring to Christ's sufferings), producing patience and other salutary effects upon us, we might have hope.

The Apostle makes them a means of producing hope, not of teaching what it was. Hence D. L.'s support amounts to nothing, and our position is unshaken. This loose method of applying Scripture may be satisfactory to D. L. and his friends, but not to us. The most absurd theories may be established (and one) by this licentious course. We believe the theories we are now opposing would never have been introduced but for this practice.

D. L. talks about courtesy, &c. Has he shown it in saying, It (despising God's Word) is a fault common to his (own) whole party. Again, Which (the knowledge of the hope) the Student and his party blames us for taking from them. In answer to such misre presentations and insinuations, we would inform D. L. with respect to the point we have not before noticed, that we follow no leader but Christ, and belong to no party, but those who reverence the whole of God's Word. That we study the Scriptures for ourselves, and what we find they teach we embrace, without respect to any man, men, or party whatsoever.