of Grace that God promised to Abraham Friend we say all the Elect Infants of believers or of unbelievers were Included in that Covenant and they are not nor can they be cast out of it But you mistake the Argument `t is not about the Spiritual Seed but the Natural Seed of Abraham the Controversie lies not about who are Members of the Invisible but who are Members of the Visible Church in Gospel days the Argument is about Childrens Visible in Covenanting I am sorry you distinguish no better either you do not see where the Stress of the Point lies or else will not see it I ask you whether there was no Covenant made with Abraham that belonged to his Natural Seed as such only and whether Circumcision did not belong to that Covenant and so a Covenant of Peculiarity i. e. in which Gentile believers and their Seed were no ways concerned was not Christ to come only of Abraham and his Seed according to the flesh Besides if this were not so Circumcision could not be said to be an advantage to the Jews upon the account of the Law above the Gentiles Rom. 3. 1 2. is it not said â—nto them that is the Jews appertained the Covenants c. Rom. 9. 4. is not here more Covenants than one 't is not Covenant but Covenants Now the Covenant of Circumcision that belonged to them as they were the Natural Seed of Abraham tho' wicked Persons and so did the giving of the Law and Service of God under that dispensation but the Covenant of Grace belongs only to Abraham Spiritual Seed First such of them that proceeded from his Loyns and Secondly those of the Gentiles also that were comprehended in Gods Election of Grace hence Christ saith he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel that is to all that God hath given him among the Jews not sent that is not first the promise runs first to the Jews to the Jews first and also to the Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. 1. Let this therefore be carefully considered viz. that God made a twofold Covenant or two Covenants with Abraham and his Seed one a formal Covenant the other held forth in promise which by and by I shall further evince 2. That the Gospel Covenant run first to all the Elect that were the Natural off-spring of Abraham and then to the Gentiles and from hence 't is said Rom. 11. That when the Jews are called and brought in again they shall be grafted into their own Olive-Tree Their own because the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant first in the blessings of it was to them or to such amongst them that were Gods Elect 2. Because the true Olive doth according to God 〈…〉 rnal pupose and free Grace Peculiarity belong to all the Elect and called ones of God but 3. Let it be consider'd that there was a National Covenant of Peculiarity also made with Abrahams Carnal Seed as such in which Circumcision the Land of Canaan the giving sorib of the Law on Mount Sinai their Visible Church and Church-membership and all the Statures Ordinances and Services of the Law did appertain and this brings me to what Mr. Shute hath said by way of answer to my Sermon on Maâ—h 3. Now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees Where I do not only assert but prove that two Covenants were continued in Gods Transactions with Abraham but first observe Reader his abuses and misconstructions of my words as in page 115. as if I had left out on purpose the 7. verse in Gen. 17. where the Covenant of Circumcision is called an everlasting Covenant 'T is evident I did not only mention that verse but answered Mr. Flavels Argument drawn there from as in part 2. page 13. But still he affirms positively again that in all my Discourse I have not so much as named this viz. an Everlasting Covenant and so compares me with the Devil who left out part of a Scripture see his Book page 116. Now this being a matter of Fact let such who are in Communion with him consider it for if they read my Sermons page 13 14. they will see that 't is a great untruth What tho' I left it out at such times when the writing it was not to my purpose in Hand seeing I mention it at another and answer what our opponents draw there from In page 117. he says If there were two Covenants made with Abraham then there would have been three Covenants in being at once two of Works and one of Grace Answer This I have fully answered in those Sermons called the Ax layd at the Root see page 14 15 16 18. Second Part. Thus you will find I express my self viz. Tho' there is but one Covenant of Work 's yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident altho' given upon a different End Purpose and Design by the Lord The Covenant of Works was primerly made with Adam yet another addition or ministration of it was given on Mount Sinai and to that Covenant I there prove Circumcision did appertain Ax 2d Part page 17 18. Also I there shewed that tho' there is but one Covenant of Grace yet there were several distinct Additions or Administrations of that Also in page 125. he misrepresents my words again he cites an Objection I mention in page 25. part 1. viz. Object If Infants as such were not included in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham how can dying Infants be saved My Answer is Must Infants of believers as such be comprehended in that Covenant God made with Abraham or else can they not be saved how then were any dying Infants saved before Abraham's days or before the Covenant was made with him Now Mr. Shute says page 125. That I have answered this Objection as if there had been no Covenant of Grace before that time God did declare and make that Covenant with Abraham Answer I will appeal to all Men whether or no the very purport of my Answer is not to signifie that the Covenant of Grace was from the beginning made primarly with Christ before the World begun for us and that those Infants that were saved before Abraham's time were saved by the said Covenant of Grace otherwise I had said nothing the very Stress of my Argument lyes upon that foot of account In page 132. Mr. Shute he says if God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham and his Seed then 1. There must be that in the one that is peculiar to his Spiritual Seed 2. There must be that in the other that is peculiar to his Carnal Seed but we find saith he it is altogethor unscriptural for 1. Both the Seeds of Abraham had a right to all the External Benefits and Priviledges of the everlasting Cevenant which God made with Abraham very few excepted Answer I have largely proved in the said Sermons called The Ax layd to the Root That there were
typical Covenant was taken away This being so it follows clearly that the Covenant Gen. 17. was only a peculiar external and Typical Covenant made with Abraham and his carnal Seed in which Justification pardon of sin Adoption and Eternal Life was not contained but in the free Promise only God made to him that Covenant had in it it is true temporal Blessings apolitical Church state and typical worship and visible legal Church Membership given to Israel in subserviency to the Gospel Covenant And further to prove that the promise of the Covenant of Grace did not belong to Abraham's natural Seed as such Paul shews in Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and to his Seed was the promise made he saith not to seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ. And therefore saith he vers 29. and if ye be Christs then are you Abrahams Seed and heirs according to the promise Ye must say I reckon from Christ not from Abraham but Mr. Shute misrepresents me here also as if I set Abraham before Christ when 't is evident I intimated no other thing than this i. e. you must see your selves first in Christ before you can reckon your selves to be Abrahams Seed Again I cited Page 17. part 1. that in Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called 7. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God But the Children of the promise are counted for the Seed What can be more clear than this viz. that the natural Seed of Abraham as such called here the Children of the Flesh are not his Spiritual Seed to whom the Covenant of Grace doth belong unto that is saith the Apostle They which are the Children of the Flesh these are not he Children of God that is as such or as simply so considered For some of the natural Seed of Abraham tho' not all were the Children of the promise for saith he they are not all Israel that are of Israel vers 6. This Man meddles not with my arguments and what he catches up he generally wrongs and abuses me in rendring me to speak that which I speak not nor intended But to proceed he says Page 132. Both the Seeds of Abraham had a right to all the external benefits and priviledges of the everlasting Covenant God made with Abraham very few excepted Answer What few he means that are excepted I know not but if all the Spiritual Seed of Abraham had right to all the external benefits and priviledges of the external Covenant God made with him then all believing Gentiles and their Elect Infants have or had a right to circumcision the giving of the Law the possession of the Land of Canaan and all other rites of the Mosaical Law 2. If by the everlasting Covenant he means the Covenant of Grace then all Abrahams natural Seed as such a few excepted have or had a right to Baptism the Lords Supper and all Gospel Churche-priviledges and if so why were the Sadduâ—ees and Pharisees and Multitudes more of Abrahams natural Seed refused and not admitted to the external benefits and priviledges of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace Think not to say saith John Baptist within your selves ye have Abraham to your Father when they came to be Baptized he proceeds to prove several things that none denys Aâ— that the Covenant of Works was made with Adam and all mankind in him and that there is but two Covenants that all the elect under the Law were in the Covenant of Grace c. Then in Page 134 Shews what a Straight he is in and knows not which to wonder at most 1. At our boldness and confidence and imposing our sallacious corrupt Doctrins upon the People 2. Or at the Peoples ignorance to suffer themselves to be so horribly deluded and imposed upon Answer I do not much wonder at such lines because I know who wrote them and in what Spirit but Sir you should first have proved any Doctrin we maintain to be corrupt and fallacious 2. That we impose those Doctrins upon the People Dare you falsly charge and condemn the innocent we are not yet convicted nor tryed at a lawful Bar But both you and we must appear at a righteous and just tribunal ere long You proceed to renew your charge against me for leaving out everlasting Covenant Friend I quoted those Verses that concerned the point I had in hand and have cited that Verse and answered it too where circumcision is called an everlasting Covenant see Ax laid to the Root and I will now recite what I there wrote 2. Part Page 1â— viz. the Covenant of circumcision was called an everlasting Covenant My Answer there to this is as followeth Answer 'T is not unknown to our Opponents that the word everlasting sometimes signifies no more than a long continuance of time and so extensive was the promise of Gods peculiar favours to the natural Seed of Abraham and the original of their claim therefrom that the severity of that â—aw afterwards given to them was so far restrained as that notwithstanding their manifold breach of Covenant with God and forfeture of all legal claims of their right and priviledges in the Land of Canaan thereby that they were never cut off from that good Land and ceased to be peculiar People unto God until the End or period of that time determined by the Almighty was fully come Which was at the Revelation of the Mâ—ssiah and the setting up his Spiritual Temple under the Dispensation of the Gospel and thus far the word everlasting doth extend 'T is said God promised to give the Land of Canaan to Abrahhm and to his Seed for ever and again Gen. 17. 8. for an everlasting inheritance whereas 't is evident they have for many ages been disposessed of it Nor may this seem strange if we consult other Texts where the same Terms are used with the like Restriction for the Priesthood of Levi is called an everlasting Priesthood Numb 25. 13. And so the Statutes to make an Atonement for the Holy Sanctuary and for the Tabernacle and for the Altar is called an everlasting Statute Levit. 16. 34. Yet we know they all ended as did the Covenant of circumcision in Christ See more in Page 14. Ax laid to the Root 1. Now let any person see what blame this Man doth in Justice deserve for saying I have not mentioned the word everlasting in all my Book viz. circumcision being called an everlasting Covenant you also see what little argument lies in that to prove the Covenant of circumcision is a Gospel Covenant or appertaining to the Covenant of Grace Reader in those Sermons I laid down eleven arguments proving that the Covenant of Circumcision was part of the old legal and external Covenant God made with the Jews or the natural Seed of Abraham so not belonging to the Gospel Covenant and because thou
they are not able to help him c. Doth Mr. Collins question Gods power or intimate God cannot work without help of the Creature 2. That he doth tacitly declare that God is not able to make them capable of the Reception of Grace Because they are not of years to exercise iâ— as if Mr Collins did not know God was infinite in power 3. That Adult persons do qualifie themselves for the reception of Grace or at leastwise are Copartners with the Spirit of Grace in the working of it 4. If this be so saith he then it is not Gods Grace but Mans work c. Which are all false Conclusions and great abuses cast on Mr. Collins and no ways to be inferred from his positions In Page 73. he renders the Baptists to be cunning deceivers take his words i. e. I am not saith he all together ignorant of their devices and stratagems by which they uphold their opinion in which their Principles are enveloped and lie Dormant In Page 115. he says Benjamine Keach doth reckon Abraham of greater antiquity than Christ. Answer This is a false charge likewise and no such consequence can be gathered from my words to which he refers as my Answer shews in this reply In Page 126. he saith this Author is for the saving Elect Dying Infants by some other Covenant and not by the Covenant of Grace Answer This is also false and a great abuse for I no where hint any such thing but say 't is impossible any Infant or Adult Person either should be saved by any other Covenant but that tho' I say they may be saved and not be Members of the visible Church as some Infants were before God made known the Covenant of circumcision and set up the legal Church of Israel In Page 134. he calls our Doctrin a fallacious Doctrin and knows not which to wonder at most viz. our boldness and confidence Or our Peoples ignorance to be so horribly deluded and imposed upon What Enemy could reproach us worse In Page 113. saith he Thus I have given you one broad side more by which I have brought your opinion by the Lee and all the Carpenters and Calkers in the Nation cannot save it from sinking Answer Friend you mistake our cause and opinion is an firm and as sound as ever and needs no Carpenters nor Calkers to mend those Breaches you have made In Page 140. he says Thus you see the Covenant God made with Abraham and all his Seed both Spiritual and Carnal stands fact and firm to Gospel Believers and all their Seed both Spiritual and Carnal notwithstanding Hercules with his Club and Benjamin hewed it with his broad Ax they cannot destroy it because it is an everlasting Covenant 1. Answer Are these Savoury expressions my Ax Friend is Gods word the Title of that Book was the words of the Text viz. the Ax laid at the Root and this Ax will cut down all your Thorns and Briers do what you can 2. How he hath proved that Covenant God made with Abraham and his Carnal Seed as such doth remain let the Reader now Judg. 3 How came if this be so Abraham's natural Seed to be unchurched as he himself confesses in Page 37. nay that they unchurched themselves In his Postscript Page 190. he says tho he has thus written concerning the Anabaptists and proved their Congregations to be no Churches and their Baptism to be a counterfeit and their Opinion Sacrilegious in that they Rob the Church of her treasure c. These are very hard words and also false for he has not done what he says and never will nor can he do it An Account of some of Mr. Shute's Impertinences Inconsistences and Self-contradictions IN the last place take a few of his Impertinences c. In Page 49. If you can prove saith he by plain Scripture Testimony that ever Christ or any of his Apostles c. did forbid the Baptising the infant Seed of Believers c. Answer Now how impertinent is this Where did Christ forbid Infants of Believers the Lords Supper and indeed they may have that as well as Baptism and the first Fathers that established Infant Baptism gave them the Lords Supper also 2. Where is crossing in Baptism forbid or Popists Salt Spittle or Crisom or other Popish rites These in plain words are not forbid are they therefore lawful If Christ would have them to be Baptized it would have been expressed in the affirmative and is this horribly to impose our own uncouth notions as you affirm in the said 49. Page of your Book Where hath Christ forbid Baptizing of Turks and Insidels or the Children of unbelievers In Page 98. he says the Church of the Jews was not a legal Church take his words viz. the Church of God under the Mosaick Law was not a Carnal legal Church Strange contradiction What a Church under the Law and not a legal Church he may as well say the Church of God under the Gospel is not a Gospel Church In Page 97. he distinguishes not on the Covenant made with Abraham but positively asserts that off from that Covenant God made with Abraham viz. The Covenant of Grace some of the natural Branches were broken yet in contradiction to this he shews in Page 74. from Psa. 89. That the Covenant of Grace is firm and abideth for ever and else where shews that there 's no final falling from grace all those therefore say I that are in that Covenant cannot fail of Salvation therefore those Branches never were in the Covenant of Grace In Page 25. he says God saves Elect dying Infants in no ways or means differing in any one point or part from that wherein he saves Adult believers Yet in Page 65. he owns Infants cannot exercise grace in an ordinary way and that nothing is required of them personally but passive Obedience Is nothing required say I of Adult believers but passive Obedience If there is then the way or mode of Gods saving dying Infants differs in some part or point from the way or means of saving the Adult and clear it is that more than passive obedience is required of Adult persons One while he says all Abrahams Seed are in the Covenant of Grace God made with him and he denies final falling out of that Covenant yet in Page 12. he says one of Abrahams Sons or Seed is praying to him in Hell And to be Abrahams Seed will not serve their turn He is for a Congregational Church and yet in Page 34. Speaking of the Gospel Church he says all the Seed of believers are Members as much now as the Jewish Children were under the Law And that it is the same Church State tho' in another dress and denys the dissolution of the Jewish Church Page 35. Can a natural Church consisting of whole Parishes Families and Provinces be all one with Gospel Congregational Churches of believers only Why did this Man leave the Church of England also then the Jewish
Original Covenant of works made with Alam and all Mankind in him is not intended for this is undoubtedly a Covenant different in the Essence and Substance of it from the New In Page 219. He saith but it is evident that the Covenant intended was a Covenant wherein the Church of Israel walked with God until such time as this better Covenant was solemnly introduced this is plainly declared in the ensuing context he says it was becâ—me old and ready to disappear Wherefore it is not the Covenant of works made with Adam that is intended when this other is said to be a better Covenant Thus the Doctor Friend doth not he hereby clearly lay down a Covenant of peculiarity made with Abrahams natural Seed as such or a Covenant that only and peculiarly belonged to them and 't is as plain this began in that Covenant God made with Abraham In Page 288. he saith we must grant two distinct Covenants to be intended rather than a twofold Administration of the same Covenant meerly to be intended He also shews that the old Covenant which God made with the natural Seed of Abraham could not be the Covenant of Grace because there was no reconciliation with God nor Salvation to be obtained by vertue of that Covenant Observe the Doctor speaks not of Adams Covenant but of that Covenant God gave to the whole House of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham He further shews that the Covenant of Grace untill Christ came was only contained in promise by which Covenant all that lived under the Old Testament who had Faith in it were saved to Abraham and his Seed was the promise made Gal. 3. 16. That was the Covenant of Grace therefore say we the Covenant of circumcision and Sinai Covenant where there was mutual stipulation betwixt God and the whole House of Israel could not be the Covenant of Grace besides 't is said that that Covenant they broke and by so doing lost all the external blessings of it as the Prophet Zach. Chap. 11. 10 14. shws because of the Jews unbelief and putting the Messiah to Death God broke his Covenant with that People Zech. 11. 10. And I took my Staff even beauty and cut it asunder That I might break my Covenant which I made with all the People What is become now of your everlasting Covenant God made with all the People of Israel or natural Seed of Abraham Is it not gone are his Carnal Seed as such still in Covenant with God or are they not with their external legal Covenant cast out Sir the everlasting Covenant of Grace that stands firm 't is true that is confirmed by the Oath of God and Blood of Christ but the Covenant in which was contained circumcision and all the Legal Rites and Jewish Church and Church-membership is gone and taken away The New Covenant is not according to that Old Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel or Carnal Seed of Abraham if it be not according to it then it was not the same in Essence nature or quality See Jer. 31. 32. 1. This saith the Doctor is the nature and substance of that Covenant which God made with that People viz. a peculiar temporary Covenant c. Page 235. Mark it Reader He adds and concurs with the Lutherans who deny that by the two Covenants is meant only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant but that two Covenants substantially distinct are intended `1 Because in the Scripture they are often so called and compared with one another and some times opposed to one another the first and the last the new and the old 2. Because the Covenant of Grace in Christ is eternal immutable always the same obnoxious unto no alteration no change or abrogation neither can these things be spoken of it with respect unto any Administration of it as they are spoken of the Old Page 226 227. 1. He shews again that by the Old Covenant is not intended the Covenant of Works made with Adam Page 227. When 2. We speak of the New Covenant saith he we do not intend the Covenant of Grace absolutely as though that were not in being and efficacy before the Introduction of that which is promised in this place For it was always the same as to the substance of it From the beginning it passed through the whole Dispensation of times before the Law and under the Law of the same nature and Efficacy unalterable everlasting ordered in all things and sure Again he saith when God renewed the promise of it to Abraham he is said to make a Covenant with him and he did so but it was with respect unto other things Mark it especially the proceedings of the promised Seed from his Loins but absolutely under the Old Testament it consisted only in a promise And as such only is proposed in the Scripture Page 227. it appears that the Doctor understands the Covenant God made with Abraham as we do viz. the promise to Abrahams Seed viz. Christ and all Eternal blessings with him to intend the Covenant of Grace but whereas it is said God made a Covenant with Abraham c. that has respect to other things that which concerned his natural Seed and out of whose Loins Christ was to come That 's the Covenant of peculiarity he proceeds and gives three reasons why the Covenant of Grace could not absolutely in it self but in the promise of it only be called a formal Covenant Page 227. 1. Because it wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the Blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged unto it before this was done in the Death of Christ it had not the formal nature of a Covenant c. 2. This was wanting saith he it was not the Spring rule and measure of all the worship of the Church i e. this doth belong unto every Covenant properly so called that God makes with the Church that is the intire rule of all the worship that God requires of it which is that they are to restipluate in their entrance into Covenant with God but so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament for God did require of the Church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto but now under the New Testament this Covenant with its own Seals and appointments is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship wherefore the new Covenant promised in the Scripture and here opposed unto the old is not the promise of Grace Mercy and Life and Salvation by Christ absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a Covenant given unto it in its establishment by the Death of Christ c. Page 227. 1. Now pray observe does not the Doctor clearly hint thereby that no Rite Sign or Seal properly of the Old Testament can be a Rite Sign or Seal properly of the New Covenant how then could circumcision be the Seal of the said Covenant of Grace 2. It is evident in the Covenant of circumcision there