were distinct reasons, why such repetitions should be made. These reasons were either the particular circumstances of the person to whom the revelation was made, or the giving of some additional revelation, either of promise, command, or threating. Not to concede this premise, will, at least add a thousand covenants to Mr. C's seven! it will add hundreds of new commands to the common list; because we have the same precepts often repeated, according to Mr. C's plan, every repetition of the same command, will make it a distinct command. The truth is, the same covenant, the same command, is in scripture often repeated-and every repetition was made from distinct reasons, and under different circumstances. • Hence the reasons given by Mr. C. for distinct covenants have nothing to do with the being of the covenant, they only respect the circumstances belonging to it.

1

'Do we not read, that there were different covenants made with Abraham? one called by Stephen, the proto-Martyr, the covenant of cir'cumcision, and one called by Paul in his epis'tle, to the Galatians, the covenant confirmed of 'God in Christ four hundred and thirty years be'fore the giving of the law' P. 13. 14. That Stephen and Paul give different names to the covenant is not denied, will this, however, prove different covenants? If two writers refering to a certain contract, cite separate items, and each designate the contract, by such items, would Mr. C's conclusion be just-that therefore there must have been two contracts. The name given by Paul, (if we may call it a name:) arose from a peculiar circumstance, that it was a contract between God and the Church, concluded and con

firmed by appending a seal four hundred and thirty years before the revelation of the law from Mt. Sinai. But Stephen speaking of the same covenant, and quoting it for a different reason, entitles it a covenant of circumcision. The different reasons, these inspired pen-men had, for refering to this covenant, of course give the different names to the same translation.

Stephen was addressing the Jews; he intimated to them their true character: that they were a people peculiarly hardened, And in order to present this to their understanding-he intimates a doctrine, they did not deny, that they were people in covenant with God, that they were yet under the obligations of this covenant, this they confessed by their acknowledgement of the rite of circumcision, because that feoderal compact between God and Abraham was the covenant of circumcision. This is the evident reason why he refers to the 17, chapter of Genesis.*

But the apostle Paul drawing his argument from the date of the covenant names it accordingly. Let it be granted, that these inspired men had respect to two seperate dates of the same covenant, what plea does this afford Mr. C? Will he think to prove from this, that they must be distinct. Yes

*It is evident Stephen was no baptist, Mr. C. says this covenant to which Stephen refers only secured the land of Canaan, but the cause for which Stephen was pleading, neither knew particular spots of the world, or yet particular nations. To have quoted the covenant of circumcision would, according to the Baptist view, have. established nothing for the obligation of the church.

says Mr. C. for this plain reason.

"The one re

vealed to Abraham when seventy five years old, 'departing from Haran Gen. 12. 3. four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law; the 'other made with Abraham, when ninety or an "hundred years old Gen. 17. Why I say call these two, the Abrahamic covenant?" P. 14. Ans. Because the contract was made with Abraham first, when he was seventy five years old, and again repeated with some things additional when ninety nine years old. I call both the same covenant because most people deny that the simple repitition of a contract under different circumstances and for different reasons, necessarily implies a new contract-with this, common sense agrees 1st. when Abraham was first called out of Ur of the Chaldees and constituted the father of the faithful, he received the first revelation of the covenant of Grace Chap. 12. 2nd. When God revealed to him the mournful captivity to which his posterity should be reduced, HE repeats the same covenant, for the further confirmation of his faith -HE then gives an additional confirmation of the same covenant, by typically presenting to his faith the security and light of the church in the day of adversity, that while they passed through the burning fiery furnace-they should be favored with the light and comforts of the gospel. Chap. 15.. 3rd. When the blessings of this same covenant were for many ages to be continued to his posterity of whom Christ was to be born, and who were also now organized as a church-HE now reveals for the third time the same covenant and for the first, appeared as a sign, or seal, the rite of circumcision.

But Mr. C. would have the reader to believe

that it was impossible that these could be the same, because of the lapse of time between the revelations made to Abraham. That the reader may judge of the strength of his arguments-we recapitulate the substance of our observations. The first revelation of the covenant of grace was made to Abraham, when seventy five years old, about ten years after when the faith of Abraham needed a peculiar confirmation the same covenant was again revealed, with the necessary additional confirmations. Lastly when this was in a great measure to be confined to his natural pos- terity, and it became necessary to add a seal, HE again revealed the same covenant and added circumcision. Of these covenants I may either speak in the singular or plural number: If I speak of the substance, without refering to any circumstance, I mention it in the former sense; but if I refer to the different revelations made, then with the apostle I name it in the plural--covenants.

To 'argue from them as one, and the same, is a 'blunder too glaring in this enlightened age.' 'Whatever the apostle calls them; he preserves the 'same number to whom says he, pertain the cove'nants of promise, again, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. On these two cove· nants which are of such ancient date, were the 'two dispensations founded; the Jewish and the "Christian.' P. 20. Such round assertions deserve clear argument, or else the reader will be disposed to say; we have nothing but assertion, and indeed such a conclusion appears evident. When Mr. C. does not even attempt either to form the distinct nature or substance of covenants, from which to draw his new-fashioned conclusion.

We grant, that the covenant of grace has many promises, even every gospel promise contained in the Bible. When the apostle spoke of these promises he mentioned them in the plural number, or when he dissignated the covenant by the dif ferent revelations-or the numerous promises it contained, he uses the plural number-but who will hence infer, that there was a plurality of cove

nants.

That the Jews derived their blessings from the covenant of circumcision is also true; but when we attend to the particular specifications revealed to Abraham in that covenant; even the slightest attention will render it evident, that other nations were equally included. Gen. 17. 5. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations, have I made thee,' v. 15. 16. 'And God said unto Abraham, as for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her, yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.' It is obvious that in this covenant of circumcision, Abraham was constituted the father of the faithful; the 'nations born in a day' should, from the items of this contract be constituted his seed, and of course, Christians in all ages of the world, will be founded upon this covenant.

Although we grant that the New testament is founded upon the covenant mentioned in the 12th. Chap. yet we deny that this dispensation is exclusively founded upon that revelation of it.

Were

we so prolific of covenants as Mr. C. we would however, deny that the New testament church, was founded upon the revelation, mentioned in