of the covenant, as such, therefore the subjects of that covenant, as such, did receive the pardon of their sins. Look again at Mr. C's assersion "to the subjects of that covenant, as such, the forgiveness of sin was not promised;' with this compare a declaration made to the subjects of that dispensation, as such, at the very time of delivering the judicial and ceremonial law. Exodus 34, 6, 7. The LORD, the LORD GOD, merciful and gracious, long suffering and abundant in goodness and truth. Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin.' Reader, observe, this is an item of Mr. C's-national covenant-these were the people to whom the pardon of sin was not promised.

4th Reason. "The first covenant waxed old and vanished away,' page 40 41. In the pages cited, he calls the former covenant musty, moth-eaten, &c. When Mr. C. used such expressions at the time of the public debate, I was indeed astonished, that a person who desired the world to take him for a minister, would be guilty of such a profane expression; but I now think him more inexcusable, when in the cool moments of composition, he stilluses them. Is it not, reader, a pity to hear one who makes some kind of a professesion of Christianity, however far it is from the truth, use such degrading expressions of any covenant, of which the eternal God was a party. Reader blot those expressions out of your memory.

For the justification of this reason he calls your attention to Heb. 8, 13. 'In that he saith a new covenant, he made the first old, now that which decayeth, and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away.' The question is, to what does the apostle refer in this verse? Either he must mean that the covenant,

in its very being waxed old, and was ready to vanish away, or else he speaks of the dispensation of it; it cannot be the former, and therefore it must be the latter. It cannot be the former; be

cause:

1st. The covenant conveyed and secured blessings, spiritural and eternal God had promised to be the God of Abraham, and the God of his seed, these were to continue before him forever. It was called, as we have shewn, an everlasting covenant; by this covenant, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are now in heaven. This is, and shall remain, their residence, Matt. 22, 32. Were the doctrine of Mr C. true, then indeed closed all the blessings, and all the privileges of any contract God ever made with the Jews, as his people. It is remarkable, however, that Peter revives one of Mr. C's musty, moth-eaten promises, on the day of Pentecost, when the blaze of the New testament shot forth, on which day thousands were added to the family of Abraham. They were Christ's, and therefore Abraham's seed.

2nd. Christ was the substance of all their shadows. Heb. 10. 1. But as Christ, the substance, the blessed SUN, began to rise, the shadows began to disappear, and to vanish away." This had a reference to the outward rituals of the church alone, they were all the subjects of sense. The church, even then, and long before that time, anxiously looked for the time when these shadows should 'vanish away,' while, for that time, they were to them a medium, through which they held communion with God. Their resolution is expressed Song. 4. 6. Until the day break & the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of Myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense,'

3rd. There were two things that rendered the covenant unchangeable, the blessings it contained, and the parties contracting: to the former I have spoken at length. On the last of these, I would observe,that this covenant was first made between the Father and the Son. Christ in that eternal contract was a fœderal head. Therefore this covenant was between the Father and, through Christ, with the church; the Father is unchangeable-'I am. the Lord, I change not.' The son is unchangeable 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to day, and forever' The church, politically considered, is also one. 'My dove my undefiled is but one.' This party shall continue forever. Psal. 102. 28. The children of thy servants shall continue," the church shall 'ever be with the Lord.'

There are covenant vows which secure to her the eternal possession of blessings, and of this Old testament covenant, God has promised that he will ever be mindful Psal. 11, 5. Then I infer that a covenant, the parties and the promises of which will exist forever, is a covenant that cannot wax old, and cannot vanish away.

We grant that true religion was about departing from the Jews when Christ came; the sceptre was droping from the hand of Judah, when HE lifted it up, the traditions of men are supplanting Divine revelation, these are truths; but they cannot be learned from the passage to which Mr. C. refers.

It follows by native inference that the dispensation of grace, which comprehends the external rites peculiar to that dispensation, were the only parts of that covenant that 'waxed old' 'vanished away.'

Mr. C. for once, having found an argument that he supposes may be seen, invites Pedo-Baptists up to the sight. 'Oh! That every Pedo-Baptist would ' remember it: it should forever silence my oppo6 nent on these topics, it reads thus. In that he 'sayeth a new covenant he hath made the first old. -Now THAT which is old is ready to vanish away.' Page 40-Now, what has Pedo-Baptists discovered in the text? That beyond all doubt it proves that the ceremonies and all things peculiar to the outward dispensation of the old covenant, waxed old and were ready to vanish away' an important discovery! yet known to all you PedoBaptists from your childhood, from the time your parents taught you that question: How many covenants are there? Our argument founded upon the 8th of the Heb. remains untouched. While Mr. C. is quite exhausted, fighting his shadow, yet he has this satisfaction, that he has played upon the inattentive reader, from the only circumstance that the word covenants is mentioned; which he would have you to believe respected the being, not the external parts of that covenant. The reader will perceive that the only difference Mr. C. has yet succeeded in establishing, is, that there were different dispensations to the same covenant.

In page 70 Mr. C. proposes Mr. W. Three intricate and pertinent questions, that without doubt must bring a decision in his favor, on the subject of the covenants.

1st, 'Are they the same, in respect of the nature and extent of the privileges secured to 'the respective subjects, under each of these cov( enants.

2nd. Are they the same in respect of the inte

resting, or entitling condition; that is, is the "ground of interest and of claim, the same in both?"

3rd. Is the condition of the continued enjoy-. 'ment of the covenanted blessings, the same in both covenants?"

To the first of these I reply, essentially considered, they are, but as it respects their external privileges they are not. For the illustration of which, I observe,

than

1st. That the faith of the subjects of each covenant was the same. Christ was the alone and proper object of faith, under both dispensations. For other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' 1. Cor. 3, 11. There never was any other superstructure of mercy, the church, and it was built on this foundationfor this faith many of the Old testament saints were famous. If Christ be refused by Mr. C. to be the object of their faith, and ground of their atonement; what will he choose? their sacrifices will not do, they were an object of sense,not of faith; they will not do for a ground of atonement; David in Psal. 51. would have given them for this purpose, but found they would not do. v. 16. For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it. Thou delightest not in burnt offering.' It was in consideration of this, that Christ said to the subjects of the former dispensation: Lo I come' Psal. 40. Their prophets all taught them to look beyond their sacrifices. Acts. 3, 18.' But these things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ'should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.'

Their faith and hope united in him, this was the language of Old testament saints. But he was