it. The extent of the apostle's reasoning in the chapter cited, only proves that the change of priesthood, made by the coming of Christ, secures a better administration to the New testament, than our fellow-heirs had under the former dispensation. It is not possible that any reader acquainted with the common transactions of life, or the administration of wills, can credit Mr. C's explanation of Paul's words.

2nd. Reason why the covenants cannot be the same. The NEW is established upon better promises than the OLD. Although we should admit all Mr. C. says upon this reason, in its fullest extent, what would it establish for his theory? nothing but that which is conceded. That the heirs to whom this testament was first administered, frequently received their promises through types, is conceded; these favors were oft given to them wrapt in thick vails; through which their faith had to penetrate, in order to reach the promise. These types, this vail, is removed, and the heirs have now more ready access to the same will: Mr. C's inference, 'therefore the covenants connot be the same-is without a premise. Again, reader, admire Mr C's ingenuity. Because in process of time and change of circumstances, heirs have more convenient access to the benefits bequeathed them by their common FATHER, and of consequence more enjoyment in the possession of these blessings than those had, who were the first heirs-he takes it for a natural consequence that therefore the will cannot be the same. Who can subscribe

his creed?

3rd. Reason. The first covenant was faultythe second faultless. I reply, that Mr. C. will not suppose that there were any immoralities

was

in the first covenant. The DIVINE BEING Was a party; fault (comparative defect) indeed found; with the administration, it was dark, cloudy, veiled, and also the administrators of that dispensation were found guilty in not believing the promises of that covenant, and refusing to obey its law. Both these are conceded.

Fault was found either with the covenant itself, or with the administration. It could not be with the former, without blasphemy, it cannot be alledged that fault can be found with any covenant of which God is a party, its law was divine and for that time was as positive in its injunctions, as 'thou shalt not kill.' The ceremonial law which was the law of that dispensation, an existing command founded upon the Divine will, possesses all the obligation of a command, founded upon the Divine nature, although the former of these may be repealed or changed by the DEITY, yet while enjoined, they possess the force and perfection of the moral law,

It could not be the substance with which the fault was found, because these were blessings drawn from the divine bounty, by those to whom God, in that covenant had promised, that 'he would be their God and the God of their seed.' It follows that the fault was found only with the dispensation, which I have shewn did not affect the being of the covenant, the only thing in dispute.*

*For the satisfaction of Mr. C's Disciples we shall give them a summary of his three reasons why the Old and New-testament cannot be the

same covenant.

B and C were the sons of A. When A their father

Objection 2nd. Comprehends two things. 1st. The first covenant was old, the second new. 2nd. The new covenant was not to be according to the old.

To the first of these I reply that the present dispensation is called a new covenant for one of two reasons-the first of these must be, that the covenant or will, must be entirely new, this however, is impossible; the promises of that covenant which were made unto the fathers, its first heirs, were confirmed by the death of the testator of the newtestament. Rom. 15. 8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.' I would now ask Mr C. If one testator can by his death confirm two distinct wills? he must answer, No; however numerous the items

died he left them equal shares of a very large estate. B was the oldest and come first into the possession of the estate. There were, however, three difficulties that B had to encounter. 1st. He was inexperienced, there were many things he could not understand. 2nd. The administrators through whom B had to look for his estate, were also ignorant, and, in many instances, not faithful. 3rd. In the early times in which B come into the possession of his estate, none were capable of making him understand the will-B was often perplexed, and had but little comfort. But when his younger brother become of age, the will was understood; the first administrators dead, and a full regulation of wills fixed in law-Now because of these cir cumstancial differences, who will say that B and C were not brothers, or the will one? Does Mr. C. believe himself that they were not?

of one will may be, the testament is but one, every item is confirmed by the death of the testator, as truly as if each were a separate will. Numerous promises, indeed, belonged to the covenant of grace in either of its administrations: the fathers of the Jews to whom the apostle wrote, were heirs of that covenant; the promises made to them, were inferior with respect to evidence to those made since-yet they were confirmed by the death of Christ the testator, and, by fair consequence, they were the promises of our covenant, confirmed to them and us by the 'once offering up of himself."'

But 'the new covenant was not to be according to the old'. This is Mr. C's 2nd. reason. I ask why it was not to be according to it? Was it in the enjoyment of God by faith? No: for while the evidence of their faith was inferior to ours; yet the being of this grace was secured to the subjects of that dispensation, in the very revelation of the covenant. I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be aGod unto thee and thy seed after thee.' In what respect then did they differ? Answer only in the adminstration, which is granted.

We now come to Mr. C's third reason, why these covenants cannot be the same, viz. That the items of the covenants were not the same, 1st. The law of the first covenant was written on stone'-the law "of the second on the heart". This is an unexpected concession, that the law written on stone was the same which was written on our hearts under the New testament. As the only dispute is respecting the law, I care not where he finds it written, on posts, parchment, stones, or flesh. Is the law written on stone the same that is written on H

the heart? then my position stands unimpaired. I think the weakest reader will be unwilling to establish this proposition, that the new and old covenants were not one, because they had the same law. Mr. C. has joined a wrong link into this part of his chain.

The truth is that the same law which was first written on the heart of Adam, was afterwards written by its divine author on tables of stone; and is now written by the same law-giver on the hearts of his people. But if we attach any meaning to Mr C's observations on this part of his subject, it is, that this law was, under the Old testament, only written on stone, for he intends by this assertion to establish an essential difference between the two covenants. Query, was not this law written on the hearts of Old testament saints? Mr. C. thinks not; he supposes it was only written on stone at that time, but now it is written on the heart. Let us ask an inspired Old testament saint. Psal. 40, 8. "Yea thy law is written in my heart." No, says Mr. C. it was at that time written on stones, lying in the ark-another query: Where was the law of Old testament saints, after the Chaldean, burnt the house of God and the ark? The truth is, under the former dispensation it was written on tables of stone, and also on the hearts of the saints of that dispensation. Under the New testament it is written on paper, and also on the hearts of all believers. Mr. C. are you not wearied of this item?*

*It is something curious, to read Mr. C's, view expressed in this first item. Page. 40. "In the first, the laws were written on tables of stone, and 'as Moses broke the stones, so the people broke 'the laws. In the 2nd. or new, they are written