such knowledge of God, from the least to the greatest, as was to insure duty and fidelity ever after and that in such manner, that though all nations failed, yet the Jews should never be cast off, or cease to be a nation; for the same Almighty Power that created the universe, and gave laws to nature, would preserve and protect them. This, then, is the contents and condition of the new covenant, and the difference from the old to the new is this, by the old the nation's happiness was only conditional; whereas, by the new it is to be absolute and unconditional. The old they often broke, but the new they never should break, for it was to be as lasting as nature itself. The reasoning of St. Paul on this passage, is most remarkable, and ought not to be passed in silence. He will have Jesus to be the mediator of it, and reasons, "that if the first covenant had been faultless, there had been no place for a second." To these two assertions, I shall only say, 1st. that the prophet neither points out Jesus, nor intimates any thing concerning a Mediator, and 2dly, that, had any other than St. Paul declared that what God did was faulty, so many arguments would be urged against him by ......ian divines, and such a defence be made of God's goodness and conduct, and the impossibility of his committing any fault, would be made so evident as should silence all such opinions. And there appears so little connexion between the new covenant promised by the prophet, and the transaction related to have happened in the time of Jesus, that I cannot see the least resemblance of the prophecy to the completion. The comparing a few instances may help to set this in a clear light.

'Tis pretended that Jesus was the mediator of the new covenant; but how was this performed? did he enter into any agreement or covenant with the house of Israel? No, the Jews know of none, and history is entirely silent, as to this circumstance, and not the least footstep of any such contract is to be traced; besides no contract can be made without the consent of the parties; and if they did not give either their express or tacit consent, the covenant, or contract, can never be either valid or binding. But was it at that time that God entered into a special relation with the house of Israel and Judah, of being their God, and took them for his chosen people?

Was it then that they were full of the knowledge of God, even from the least to the greatest?

Was it at that time that God forgave their sins and iniquity?

Were they at that time restored, never more to be cast off, or cease to be a nation?

Was then the time in which their city should be rebuilt, never. after to be plucked up or thrown down?

These particulars, it is well known, never came to pass, neither then nor since. How, then, could the promised covenant take place? Should not every particular circumstance of the prophet's description be fulfilled and accomplished, before they lay their claims? and are not things represented in the very opposite, or contrary extreme? For instead of having God's law fixed in their hearts, they are represented as the wickedest generation that ever existed.

Instead of having a perfect knowledge of God, and being his people, they are represented as the most abominable and reprobate nation under heaven.

Instead of having their city and temple rebuilt, never more to be destroyed, behold both miserably laid waste!

Instead of being a nation never to be cast off, .behold them struggling under every hardship, oppression and dependence.

Instead of having their sins forgiven, they are represented as committing, at that very time, the most heinous and atrocious crimes, particularly that of refusing the Messiah, and putting him to an ignominious death.

Instead of continuing a glorious nation, behold them miserable, conquered, and dispersed throughout the four corners of the earth, persecuted in turn by every nation.

How, then, is this prophecy fulfilled? Has the application the least shadow of agreement with the promise therein contained?

But here they take shelter in their evasions, and fly for refuge to their arts and inventions, the strength of which let us examine.

They say that by the names of Israel and Judah, not the Jews, but the Gentiles, are thereby intended and meant. It is the ......ian church, under that denomination, that was to enjoy the peculiar privileges and advantages promised by the new cove

nant. Were they able to make out their claim, it would be but reasonable to grant their pretensions; but it happens that the prophet is so minutely circumstantial in his description, that it effectually excludes any people or nation from being thereby intended, excepting the literal house of Israel, or natural seed of Jacob. Nothing, under the utmost violence done to the text, and a most unnatural meaning imposed on it, can give it a contrary sense. But certainly the liberty of imposing a sense and meaning on words different from that which they import according to their first and known acceptation and signification, is such a violation as ought never to be admitted.

For if words are made use of as signs to denote our ideas, what a confusion and subversion of language must ensue, if a meaning contrary to that which the word stands as a known sign of, be arbitrarily imposed on them at pleasure. What is there, according to this scheme, that a person may not be made to say? but as this is the greatest and grossest abuse of language, the bare mentioning it is sufficient to expose its absurdity. However, I should be glad to know from whence the authority of imposing an opposite, contrary, or different sense on scripture is derived. I am sure no such liberty would be allowed to any person; no, not even in the most common affairs of life. Ought not the pretenders to this privilege, (supposing in this prophecy) at least to have referred to some passage wherein mention is made of the house of Israel and Judah, and showing the inconsistency and absurdity of applying those terms to the literal seed of Israel or Judah, or the Jewish nation; and then show their pertinency and exact agreement, as applied to the ......ian church. Was it for want of words in the Hebrew language, that the Gentiles are called by that very name by which the Jews are always meant and intended? Can it be supposed that God would do that which must appear highly absurd in man? By no means; the very passage is plain and explicit against any such pretensions, and puts it out of all doubt, that none but the literal houses of Israel and Judah were intended. For the new covenant was to be made with those, whose fathers he brought up from the land of Egypt; with whose fathers he made a former covenant; with those whose fathers had broke that covenant; notwithstanding he had behaved like

མ

a husband unto them. Now pray, who does this description fit, the Jews or the Gentiles? If the Jews, then it was with them that God was to make the new covenant. And as it is them, literally, that the preceding particulars are alone applicable to, so it is with them literally that the covenant was to be made; but since the Gentiles are so fond of being thought to be meant by this name, why do they not undertake to prove that it was not the ancestors of the Jews (literally) but theirs who entered into a former covenant-that it was not the fathers of the Jews (literally) who broke the covenant, and were punished, but theirs. And then after they have properly made all this out, it will be time to put in for that name, and claim the privilege of the new covenant; and as it is natural to think they can never make out all this, they may, perhaps, make use of another invention, and pretend that the new covenant was to be spiritual. To this I answer that God made no such distinction; and, as the former covenant was worldly, so also must the new one be; for it particularises things entirely of worldly nature-particularly, that the house of Israel should never be cast off, nor cease to be a nation.

It may likewise be pretended that this covenant was to take place in Heaven, and refer you to Paradise for its accomplishment; 'tis but putting Heaven for Jerusalem, an invention often made use of, to which I answer, that the prophet intimates the very contrary, aud, least any such pretension should be made, he carefully and minutely describes the earthly Jerusalem, and describes the tower Hananeel, the gates, the hill Gareb and Goeth, the valley of dead bodies and of ashes, the fields, the brook Kidron, and the Horse-gate, all which puts it beyond dispute that he meant Jerusalem literally and not Paradise or Heaven; besides, the words shall not be plucked up, or thrown down any more for ever, imply that the place had been destroyed which never could be said of a heavenly one.

In short it seems as if God had carefully provided, that his meaning should not be misapplied in any part of it, by circumstantially describing every particular, and that he has done so minutely as strongly inforces his plain meaning, in such a manner VOL. II.

as to render it impracticable consistently to apply this prophecy in any other sense.

These are the arts and evasions to which the most learned and eminent men have recourse. It is in these, and such like subterfuges, that they fly to for shelter, it is from such chimerical and vain pretensions, that they undertake to prove the fulfilling of prophecy as they write to people of the same persuasion, and way of thinking, it is very rare that their reasoning meets any opposition; but every thing they say, though ever so absurd, is received with applause and approbation, as if they had demonstratively proved their point, or convinced their opponents.

They exult and sing tedeum for their victory. They triumph and exclaim against the Jews for wilfully shutting their eyes and hardening their hearts against the plain arguments and dictates of truth; concluding them to be under a national blindness, an infatuation; they will, indeed, invite people to make their objections, but then they are to expect no quarter; heresy, infidelity, and apostacy, will be proved against them; defamation and ill language will certainly ensue, for they are generally very eloquent and expert at these weapons.

Allow me, sir, to ask one question-Supposing a prophet had positive orders from God to promise and fulfil any thing which was to happen and befall the house of Israel or Judah, or their literal descendents, would it be possible for the prophet to deliver or make known God's will, and reveal his purpose to them, in words and terms more significant and proper than those very words which the prophet has in the passage now under consideration, delivered his commission in? I challenge any person to do it in words more expressive and less liable to objections or exceptions; and if this is the case, as it certainly is, what reasons are there to think that when he has chosen the most unexceptionable terms, he has deceived those he spake to, and intended the contrary, shall we impute that to God which we should condemn as the greatest absurdity and abuse in men?

(To be Continued.)