of God. And are built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. In whom all the building, (obviously including the Jewish saints,) fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple (one building) in the Lord. In whom ye (Gentiles) also are builded together for an habitation of God, through the Spirit."

Nothing can be more explicit than this language. The elect church is ONE, of whatever national materials composed. Abraham and Polycarp, Moses and Athanasius, Jeremiah and Luther, are builded into one temple, united in one body, partakers of one promise in Christ, and sanctified by one Spirit. The mainspring of the godly character of Moses was, that he preferred the reproach of Christ to worldly wealth and honour. The mainspring of every Christian's character is the same. And St. Paul, addressing the Gentile Christians of Galatia, says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs, according to the (one) promise." It is obvious, however, that this oneness of the election of God, composed of individuals gathered out of all nations, presents no diffi

• This oneness of the elect church, the Lamb's wife, (Compare Canticles vi. 9, My love, my undefiled is but one, with Rev.

culty in the way of the national separation for which we argue.

Thus we have cleared our way another step. The remnant of individuals selected from the Jews, in each age, and truly converted to the faith of Jesus of Nazareth, have certainly not continued a separate place. Neither are they, nor can they be, a separate church. They have been incorporated with the church of Christ, which knows nothing of distinctions. But with the Jews, considered nationally, it is far otherwise. The wall of separation between them and other nations, is in no sense or degree broken down; and our belief is, that as the language of our text never yet has ceased, so also it never will cease, to be applicable to them in the letter of it.

In alleging this perpetual and manifest separation,

xxi. 9,) supplies a formidable, I think, indeed, an unanswerable objection to the opinion advanced by some writers, that the faithful, under the Old Testament dispensation, and the faithful under the Gospel, are to be distinguished in the millennial kingdom the latter, as the spiritual and glorified; the former, as the spiritual, not yet glorified: the latter, as the New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven; the former, as the subordinate kings and princes of the world. All the faithful compose one body. As many of the Gentiles as are of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham.* This unbroken aggregate is the bride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem; and the subordinate dominion of the regenerated earth, is reserved, not for risen Jewish saints, but for the restored Jewish nation.

it is now obvious that we speak exclusively of THE PEOPLE OF JUDAH CONSIDERED AS A NATION.

III. Having said so much in explanation of what we mean, when we speak of the Jews being a separate people during the times of the Gentiles; let us now put the argument for their uninterrupted separation, into this form.

As a matter of observation, we begin by saying, they are at this moment a separate people, scattered in all nations, yet mingling with none. This is a plain fact, which even ignorance herself, with all her hardihood, can scarcely deny. But how is this fact to be accounted for? A modern writer on physiology, who labours to prove that man is matter, and nothing else; that the soul is organized brain, and nothing else; in his chapter on the causes of the varieties of the human species, finding the Jews, amongst other classes, forced upon his attention, thus cursorily disposes of this important question :—“The Jews exhibit one of the most striking instances of national formation, unaltered by the most various changes. They have been scattered for ages over the face of the whole earth; but their peculiar religious opinions and practices have kept the race uncommonly pure." " Now it

'Laurence on Physiology, &c., page 468, Edit. 3.

It may be urged, that the writer's object was simply to enumerate, among the varieties of organization, that one exhibited by the Jews; and not at all to discuss the question of why they

must be admitted, that this, so far, is not very philosophical. It is merely saying they are separate, because they are separate. The question is, how came they to adhere, so strictly, and so long, to their peculiar religious opinions and practices, under the varied circumstances of their outward

continue a separate people. To what purpose, then, is their separation spoken of at all? Still more; why is any reason assigned for it? The truth is, the separate state of the Jewish people, in opinion and practice, is too closely connected with the evidences for the inspiration of the Scriptures, to be a matter of real, however it may be of affected, indifference to any of our modern Sadducees. That I am fully warranted in reckoning Mr. Laurence among this class, requires no proof, to any person acquainted with his writings. Let his criticism on the popular notion of life be taken as a specimen. (Page 52.) I forbear to transcribe it, for obvious reasons. The following passage, however, from page 72, may, I think, be transcribed with advantage. It is characteristic of the school to which Mr. Laurence belongs, and it contains its own antidote. "Some hold, that an immaterial principle, and others, that a natural, but invisible and very subtle agent, is superadded to the obvious structure of the body, and enables it to exhibit vital phenomena. The former explanation will be of use to those who are conversant with immaterial beings, and who understand how they are connected with, and act upon matter; but I know no description of persons likely to benefit by the latter. For subtle matter is still matter; and if this fine stuff can possess vital properties, surely they may reside in a fabric which differs only in being a little coarser." With such passages in the body of his work, it is vain, or something worse, for Mr. Laurence, in his Introductory Reply to the Charges of Mr. Abernethy, to disclaim all intention of interfering with the theological doctrine of the soul.

condition? The Romans adopted the opinions and practices of the Greeks; the Goths those of the Romans: and when Christianity was promulgated, Greeks, and Romans, and Goths, adopted the opinions and practices of certain poor Galileans. How is it, then, that the Jews, scattered among all these nations, have kept aloof from them all, retaining their own peculiar opinions and practices? Surely it is not too much to expect that a philosopher, in assigning any reason whatever for their so doing, would, if he could, give a better reason, than that they did so because they did so. And, therefore, surely it is not too much to conclude, that since he does not give a better, he has none better to give. And thus we perceive, how a well-informed, acute, and useful man—a great man, so long as he confines himself to his legitimate sphere-unwittingly brings glory to God by his own discomfiture, when he presumes to assail that holy ground, which Jehovah hath consecrated to place his name there.

Mr. Gibbon ascribes the continued separation of the Jews to "the sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners ;" and which, he says, "seemed to mark them out a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable hatred to the rest of human kind." Here the question recurs-how came they thus sullenly, and obstinately, to maintain their peculiar rites; while other na& Decline and Fall, &c. ch. xv.