A Counter-Antidote, Appendix

A Counter-Antidote · Appendix

p. 44AN APPENDIX; BEING A Reply to Mr. Shute's last single Sheet, in Answer to Mr. Collins's half Sheet; wherein the Covenant of Circumcision, &c. and free Promise of Grace, God made to Abraham, are further and distinctly opened; shewing how they differ from each other.

SInce I wrote this reply to Mr. Shutes last Book, I have met with a single Sheet, which he calls an Answer to Mr. Hercules Collins last Shift, &c.

Which discovers more of his bitter Spirit, and what ill Influences he is under,—I thought it not amiss to make some remarks upon this Sheet, tho' I suppose Mr. Collins will think himself concerned to vindicate his innocency, from his undue, Unchristian, and false charges: This Paper of Mr. Shutes manifesteth very great confidence touching his notions of the Covenant God made with Abraham, and as much ignorance: As will quickly appear to all discerning Men who shall read it.

In Page 1st he says, I have cleared and vindicated the aforesaid Antidote from that foul Aspersion, and totally confuted all the Aspersors in my last Book, in the Judgment of all wise Judicious and Impartial Persons that have read it.

Answer, Let those wise persons he speak of, first read this precedent answer to his Book and then let them impartially Judg of it.

In Page 2. he speaks of Mr. Collins his five Arguments to prove the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham.

p. 45To this Mr. Shute says, pray where do you find this distinction concerning the everlasting Covenant God made with Abraham, and his Seed?

Answer, You shall see Friend that there is such a distinction found in the Scripture, and that your reverend Ministers confirm the same thing, viz. That God made a Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such, which is removed; and also a Covenant with Abrahams Spiritual Seed as such, which runs to Christ, and all that are his elect ones (See Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham) and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to Seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Christ.

Compared with verse 29. and if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams Seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now Friend, if you say this promise which the Apostle speaks of, (which is the everlasting Covenant of Grace, God made with Abraham) was made with many, i. e. both with Abrahams natural and Spiritual Seed as such, you contradict the Holy Ghost. Paul says, And not to Seeds as of many, But you say to Seeds, i. e. all his natural and Spiritual Seed, Page 5. See also Rom. 9. 5, 6, 7, 8.

They are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children: But in Isaac shall thy Seed be called. That is, they which are the Children of the Flesh, these are not the Children of God: But the Children of the promise (Mark it) are accounted for the Seed. Is not that distinction Mr. Collins speaks of, clearly laid down in these Scripture? doth not the Apostle exclude the Carnal Seed of Abraham as such; from being included in the Covenant of Grace?

2. I need not go about to prove, there was a Covenant made with Abraham and all his natural Seed as such, since that is so clearly and fully spoken of in the Scripture; viz. That the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children, were taken into the legal Covenant and all were Members of the Jewish Church; read Gen. 17. 9, 10, 12, Dent. 29. 9, 10, 11. 12, 13. But that legal Covenant we affirm is abrogated and taken away: If it were not so, what is it which our Apostle speaks in Heb. 10. 9. He took away the first, that he might establish the Second. Compared with Heb. 8. 7, 8, 13.

Sure none can once Immagin that this Covenant was the Covenant of Grace: Also what doth the Apostle mean when he says, cast out the Bond Woman and her Son, Gal. 4. 30. Doth he not tell us by the Bondwoman is meant the Old Covenant given to the whole House of Israel, or the lineal Seed of Abraham; not the Covenant given to all Mankind in the first Adam; and doth he not tell us by the Son of the Bondwoman is meant the fleshly Seed of Abraham as such? Who were all taken into Covenant with God under the Old Testament: And yet is there no Covenant that peculiarly was made with Abrahams natural Seed, as such.

In Page 7. Mr. Shute repeats. Gen. 17. 7. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee.

Here he leaves out the following verse, wherein the Covenant is Mentioned (which he charges as an high crime in others) viz. this is my Covenant, which ye shall keep between me, and you, and thy Seed after thee; every Man-Child among you shall be circumcised. Verse 10. and ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin, and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you, verse 11.

He that is born in thy House, and he that is bought with thy Mony, must needs be circumcised: And my Covenant shall be in your flesh; for an everlasting Covenant, verse 13. these Verses he Cites not.

Now Mr. Shute Judges this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, and that for two reasons (as I suppose.)

1. Because 'tis called an everlasting Covenant.

2. Because God promised in this Covenant to be the God of Abraham, and the God of his Seed after him in their Generations, which no doubt refers to his natural Seed as such. Taking in both those of his off-spring that did believe in Christ to come, and such also that did not so believe that proceeded from Abrahams Loins by Isaac.

1. As to the Term everlasting, I have shewed in the precedent, Answer, that some times in the Scripture it is taken with restriction, and denotes only a long period of Time, viz. during that Dispensation, or until the M…ssi…s should come…; the Priesthood of Aaron is upon the same account called an everlasting Priesthood.

Indeed this Covenant could continue no longer than the Token of it abode or was to abide in their Flesh: Read the words again verse 13. and my Covenant shall be in your Flesh for an everlasting Covenant.

p. 462. Circumcision being as our Adversaries say, the Seal of the Covenant, now, say I, since the Seal, namely Circumcision, is broken off and gone, as it was it at the death of Christ: I ask what is become of that Covenant it was a Sign or Seal of, is not the Covenant gone and dissolved, when 'tis cancelled? …, read your Annotators on Gen. 17. 13. And …r the sign of it, say they, it is so called, because it was to indure through all Generations till the coming of the Messias, the word Olim here and elsewhere rendred everlasting or for ever, being … used to express not only simple Eternity, but any long continuance for ma…ages, … some time for a Mans Life, Exod. 21. …. Deut. 15. 17. … King 9. 3. thus Mr. Pools Annotations.

This being so, to what purpose do you make such a stir about the word Everlasting?

…ly. As to this second reason, viz. God in that Covenant gave himself to Abraham to be his God, and the God of his Seed in their Generations.

1. Answer, I would know whether God is now in Covenant with Abrahams natural Seed as such; or are they not rejected? how then could this be the unchangeable Covenant of Grace?

Read my 14. Arguments in the precedent Answer, to prove the Covenant of circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace.

2. Was God the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed as such; by way of special interest? if so, they shall no doubt be all Eternally saved; as well as all the Children or Carnal Seed of Believers: Which you will not admit of.

Therefore consider that God may be said to be the God of a People, two manner of ways.

1. By the free promise or Covenant of Grace, in a Spiritual Sense: Or by Divine Union with him, through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; 'tis this gives special interest in God to all Adult Persons, and thus he was not the God of all Abrahams Carnal Seed, no, but of a few of them only comparatively, for tho' the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sands of the Sea, yet but a Remnant shall be saved.

2. God may be said to be the God of a People, by entring into an external, outward or legal Covenant with them; and thus he was the God of Abraham, and of all his Carnal Seed or Off-spring, or whole House of Israel: Under the Old Covenant, or Dispensation of the Law: God made them as a Nation, a peculiar People unto himself, and was said to be married to them.

See Dr. Bates one of your own Ministers in his Sermon preached at Mr. Baxters Funeral.

1. He shews that God is the God of all Mankind by Creation.

2. God is the God of a People, upon the account of external calling and profession; and thus, saith he, the posterity of▪ Seth, are so called; and the intire nation of the Jews &c.

Friend, This I desire you to weigh well, for God was not by way of special interest, in a Spiritual Sense the God of Abrahams Carnal Seed as such: Therefore it was this external Covenent, no doubt that Mr. Cotton intends when he says the Ministry of John the Baptist did burn as an Oven, and left the Jews neither the Root of Abrahams Covenant, nor the Branches of their own good works, Co… ton on the Covenant Page 21, 22 Friend, you speak as if your Ministers had … those notions of yours into you, about the Covenant God made with Abraham; I am satisfied you abuse your Ministers; I am sure Dr. Owen taught you no such Doctrin, as I have already shewed; and I shall here again faithfully cite two or three passages more of that Reverend Minister of Christ: See his Exposition on the 8th Chapter to the Hebrews, Page 219, &c.

1. He shews that the Covenant God made with the whole House of Israel, was not that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God made with all Men in the first Alam.

2. That it was not the Covenant of Grace:

1. Saith he, Page 224. the Old Covenant, the 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 bec…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.

p. 47Friend 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 'tis 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, 'tis 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 'tis 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 p. 48his 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 was a restipulation at their entrance into that Covenant with God, so that that was a formal Covenant, but the Covenant of Grace, he tells us was no formal Covenant; but only a free promise under the old Testament.

Therefore there was two Covenants held forth in Gods Transactions with Abraham.

First a formal Covenant made with him and all his Fleshly Seed, of which circumcision was a Sign at their entrance into it, which they thereby subscribed unto.

Secondly, The Covenant of Grace held forth only in Gods free promise to him.

3. Whilst the Church enjoyed all the Spiritual benefits of the promise (faith he) wherein the substance of the Covenant of Grace was contained, before it was confirmed and made the sole Rule of Worship, unto the Church, it was not inconsistent with the Holiness and Wisdom of God, to bring any other Covenant (Mark it) or prescribe unto it forms of Worship he pleased: Page 228.

Then he proceeds further.

1. That this Covenant did not (saith he) disannul or make in effectual the promise, but that it doth still continue the only means of Life and Salvation, and that this was so our Apostle proves at large, Gal. 3. 17, 18, 189.

2. That this other Covenant with all the worship contained in it, or required, by it, did but direct and lead unto the future establishment of the promise, in the solemnity of a Covenant, &c.

By these words and in other places he shews, that, that Covenant God made with Abrahams natural Seed or whole House of Israel, tho' it was not the Covenant of Grace: Yet it was given in subserviency unto the Gospel Covenant.

3. These things being observed, (saith he,) we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expresly make mention of two Testaments, or Covenants, and distinguishes between them in such a way, as what is spoken cannot hereby be accommodated unto a twofold Administration of the same Covenant; The one is mentioned Exod. 20. Deut 5. namely the Covenant God made with the People of Israel, &c. The other promised Jer. 31. 31. Cap. 32. 40. Which is the new Gospel Covenant as before explained: And these two Covenants or Testaments are compared with the other, 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9, Gal. 4. 24, 25. Heb. 7, 22. Chap. 9. 15, 16, 17, 18. Page 228.

These things being, so it follows that the Doctor utterly overthrows, what Mr. John Flavel and other Pedo Baptists assert about the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Sinai, to which circumcision appertained, viz. that it was only Administration of the Covenant of Grace, and not a distinct Covenant.

p. 491. The Doctor then proceeds in Page 229. to prove that the Covenant made with Israel according to the Flesh, did not abrogate the Covenant of Works God made with Adam, and substitute that in the room of it.

2. But that it revived, declared, and expressed all the Commands of that Covenant in the Decalogue, that being nothing but a Divine Summary of the Law written in the Heart.—Says he.

3. It revived the Sanction of the first Covenant in the curse or sentence of Death which it denounced against all transgressors, Death was the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of works.

`So say I, was Death, the penalty of the transgression of the Covenant of circumcision; the Male-Child the Flesh of whose Fore-skin is not cut off, shall dye the Death; which clearly shews it was of the same nature of the Sinai Covenant.

4. It revived the promise, saith he, of that Covenant of Eternal Life, upon perfect obedience, Rom. 10. 5.

So say I, did the Covenant of circumcision, in that he that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal 5. 3.

Now, saith the Doctor, this is no other but the Covenant of Works revieved; nor had this Covenant of Sinai any such promise of Eternal Life annexed to it as such, but only the promise inseparable from the Covenant of works which is revieved, saying, do this and li…ve.

Hence, saith he, when our Apostle disputeth against justification by the Law, or by the Works of the Law, he doth not intend the Works peculiar, unto the Covenant of Sinai; such as were the Rites and Ceremonies of the Worship then instituted, but he intends also the Works of the first Covenant, &c.

Let this be well considered, for 'tis from hence Paul excludes circumcision, Rom. 4. As being a work or duty opposed to Faith, and so appertaining to the Old Covenant.

He then proceeds in sixteen particulars to prove that the two Covenants differ from each other, Page 236, 237, &c.

1. That they differ in circumstance.

2. That they differ in the circumstance of place, Gal 4. 24, 25.

3. That they differ in the manner of their promulgation,

4. In their Mediators.

5. That they differ in their subject matter, both as unto the Precepts and Promises, all sin forbid upon pain of Death, and gave Promise of Life upon perfect Obedience, no promise of Grace to Communicate Spiritual strength to assist in Obedience. Had,

Promises of temporal things in the Land of Canaan, in the New Covenant, saith he, all things otherwise.

6. That they differ in the manner of their Dedication and Sanction, that they differ in their substance and end, the old Covenant was Typical, Shadowy & removable, Heb. 10. 1.

That they differ in their extent of their Administration, the first was confined unto the posterity of Abraham according to the Flesh, &c. excluding all others from the participation of the benefits of it.

But the Administration of the New Covenant is extended unto all Nations under Heaven.

That they differ in their Efficacy, the Old made nothing perfect, the first Covenant saith he, became a special Covenant unto that People, that People were the posterity of Abraham, Page 232.

Sir, What think you now of two Covenants, and of a Covenant of peculiarity with Abraham's Carnal Seed? You must consult your Ministers better before you write again. I doubt not but your Pastor is of Dr. Owens Judgment in this matter.

In Page 5. you say, In my last Book I have clearly made out, that whatsoever the Covenant God made with Abraham, was to himself and Seed both Spiritual and Carnal that were in the Covenant, is the same now to believers and all their Seed, &c.

1. Answer, Then it follows, that Abrahams Carnal Seed who were ungodly Persons, were in the Covenant of Grace; for circumcision belonged to them and their Male Children as far forth as it did appertain, to believers and their Male Children who were of his race.

2. It will follow then also, that we Gentiles that believe, and our natural Off-spring have the same Right to the Land of Canaan, and all other Priviledges of the Jewish Church with Abrahams Carnal Seed. There is no ways to save your self from the greatest absurdities imaginable, without distinguishing between those two Covenants and the two Seeds, or between the Covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, &c. and the promise p. 50of the Covenant of Grace made to him, and to all his Spiritual Seed as such.

3ly That Christ should come out of Abrahams Loins according to the Flesh, and of none else was in that Covenant God made with him, and a special part it was, of the Covenant of circumcision, and was that made to the Gentiles that believe, or was it not peculiar to Abrahams Seed only according to the Flesh.

4. Also when the Apostle speaks of the Gospel which God preached to Abraham, or promise of the Covenant of Grace; he doth not mention the Covenant of restipulation in Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. But that in Gen. 12. 3. Chap. 18. 18. and Chap. 22. 8.

In thy Seed shall all Nations be Bless…d: Mark it well.

You say, The Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed was never Repealed, nor Dissolved, nor their Church State taken up by the Roots at the coming in of the Gospel; for if it had, say you, how cou…d the Blessing of Abraham, come upon the Gentiles, as promised Gen. 12. 3.

1. Answer, Is not the Jewish Church State dissolved, and doth not Dr. Owen tell you their Old Covenant is gone? Yet,

2. Do we say, the promise of the New Covenant God made to Abraham is dissolved? God forbid, for that is unalterable, and by the Vertue of which it is that believing Gentiles partake of the Blessings of Abraham.

But Friend, the Gentiles receive not the Blessings of Abraham through the Law, nor through the Covenant of Circumcision, but by Faith in the Promise of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, viz. in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed. Nay Abraham himself, 'tis evident, received not that blessedness in the Covenant of circumcision, That Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, The Apostle asserts Rom. 4. 9. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Verse 10. There was no need of this distinction, if circumcision appertained to the Covenant of Grace; we see how 'tis contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith:

And he received circumcision, a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith he had, yet being uncircumcised: That he might be the Father of all that Believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also.

From hence I argue that circumcision was a Seal to none but Abraham.

1. Because it is said to be a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith, Abraham had being yet uncircumcised for so it could not be a Seal to others, because they were circumcised before they believed.

2. Because also it was to assure him of that peculiar Blessing and priviledge of being the Father of all that believe.—And none had that prerogative but Abraham only.

3. Take this Argument.

If Abraham received the Spiritual Blessing, viz. Righteousness and Justification by Faith in the promise of the Covenant of Grace made to him, and received not the Blessing of Righteousness and Justification in the Covenant of circumcision; then there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant, transactions of God with Abraham. But the former, and latter is true. Ergo there were two Covenants contained in those Covenant transactions God made with Abraham.

In Page 3. Mr. Shute says, the Olive Tree or Covenant God made with Abraham, was not dissolved: For the Jews are to be grafted into their own Olive Tree again; but if the Covenant were dissolved and repealed, how can they be taken into it again; for▪ 'tis called their own Olive Tree, Rom. 11. 11, 12, 17.

1. Answer This Man mistakes the Holy Ghost: The Apostle speaks not of the Jews, as being Abrahams Carnal Seed as such, but of th…m that belong to the Election of Grace▪

2. Now who doubts but that the Covenant of Grace was their Covenant, or Olive Tree, even all of them that shall be taken into it of the Jewish race, in the latter days, as much as it was their Covenant, who were Jews and Elect ones who lived in the Apostles time.

3. It might be called their Olive Tree or Covenant, because the Covenant of Grace as it was made with Abraham, ran first to his natural Seed who were the Children of the promise, i. e. the Elect of God; hence Christ said he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel: That is, not first sent, they were first to have the offer of all New Covenant Grace and Blessings; to them appertained the Covenant and Adoption, &c. viz. in the first place.

4. Do we plead for the dissolution of the Covenant of Grace, God made with or promised to Abraham, because we say the Legal p. 51and external Covenant made with him and his Carnal Seed, as such is removed, by vertue of which they had their political Church State, and visible Church-membership and all other Fleshly and Legal Priviledges?

Or do we say, those Jews that believed or their Elect Infants were cast out of the Covenant of Grace? God forbid.

No, for if the Children of unbelieving Jews did believe, it shews they are in covenant also. In a word. All that believe, let them be whose Children they will, they are all in the Covenant of Grace: For there is now no difference, Jews and Gentiles, Old and young, bond and free, are all one in Christ Jesus. Now no knowing Men after the Flesh, i. e. upon the account of Fleshly or external Priviledges, by descent from Abraham according to the Flesh: Circumcisioa nor uncircumcision, availeth nothing, but a new Creature; old things are past away and all things are become new 2. Cor. 5. 17.

Should this Man object and say, as to Dr. Owen he speaks of the Sinai Covenant, or the Covenant made with the People of Israel, after they came out of Egypt, and not of the Covenant of circumcision.

Answer, I answer that it is evident where Paul excludes the Law as not being of Faith, nor the Covenant of Grace, but opposed unit, he also excluded upon the same Foot of account circumcision, Rom. 4. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Gal. 3. 21. Gal 5. 3. Rom. 2. 25, 26, 27. Also Mr. Sbute says, the Covenant, Deut. 29. 11, 12, 13. is the same G… made with Abraham: Take his own words …age 17. note this (saith he) by the way, he hath dropt the 13. verse, wherein is the explanation of the Covenant to be the same God made with Abraham and his Seed. Which verse doth indeed clearly shew that the Covenant of circumcision was the same (and but a farther establishment of it) with that given in Horeb, thou shalt enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, &c. viz. That he may establish thee to day, for a People to himself, and that he may be unto thee aGod, as he hath said unto thee, and hath vowed unto thy Fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

You ask, What was the personal actual sin which those young Babes committed at the coming in of the Gospel, that provoked God to cast them out of Covenant? for you do own that the Seed of believers were once in Covenant, and were Church-members; but if you cannot prove what the transgression was, then all your arguments ought to be committed to the custody of the Essex Jayl Keeper thus Mr. Shute.

Answer, You Should first prove it was a gracious priviledge to Babes or the Carnal Seed of Abraham, that they were in the Legal Covenant and national Church of Israel, before you ask that question.

The Apostle says not, that circumcision was a Priviledg, unless they kept the Law, and by it they were obliged to keep it perfectly, and hence it is called a yoke of Bondage.

2. It was not for the Sins of little Babes, that the Legal Covenant and Legal Church was dissolved, at the coming in of the Gospel: But it was the will and pleasure of God to take that Covenant away, that he might establish the second and better Covenant. And God it appears hath done Infants no hurt hereby, since the promise of God made to Abraham, touching Salvation by Christ in the Covenant of Grace stands fast for ever, and is brought in, and established to all the Elect, both of Jews first; and also of the Gentiles. True, the unbelieving Jews were cast off for not believing, for had they believed they had pertaken of like Gospel Grace with those that did believe: But the believing Jews and their Children did no longer abide in that national Church to which they once belonged, nor were their Children until they believed, received into the Gospel Church; yet I affirm that was no Spiritual loss to those Babes, seeing there was no righteousness nor Salvation to be had by the Law, Legal Covenant, nor circumcision.

Mr. Collin… will not say that believers and their Seed only were in the Legal Covenant and in the Legal Church, but all unbelievers also, and their Children who sprung from Isaacs Loyns, were in the same Covenant, and were Church-members, and that by Gods appointment too; as far forth as were the godly or believing Jews, and their Children: And Friend, it should appear that among Abrahams Carnal Seed there were but a very small remnant that were believers; Tho' all were in the Legal Covenant then, and where Churhmembers.

3. Say you, You must prove that the Gospel brought less Grace with it, than the Abrogated law carried way.

Answer, The abrogated Law had no Grace in it at all; Grace came not by the Law, but by Jesus Christ; the Law is not of Faith.

4. Here (say you,) you confound …nd contradict your self; for you say the Church is established p. 52upon better promises, which I do own and have proved in my Book, but the Church State is the same, and therefore that of it self is a sufficient argument to prove that all Children of Christian believers are still in Covenant.

Answer, Must the Carnal Seed be Members of the Gospel-Church as under the Law, or is it else not a better Covenant that God has established? Friend, many other external Priviledges as well as that is gone, the Sons of our Minishers as such, have no right to the Ministry now; yet all the Sons of Ministers as such, had that right under the Law: Besides, we have no Land of Canaan nor glorious external Temple, no promise of gathering earthly riches, no Political State of Government among our selves; yet is the Gospel Church State & Gospel Covenant better than that under the Law.

An Account of Mr. Shutes scurrilous language as to the rest of this Sheet: I shall only make some remarks on his hard reproachful and Opprobrious words and abuse of Scripture.

IN Page 2. he compares Mr. Collins with the Jews, as if his Arguments were of like nature with theirs who said, we have a Law, and by our …aw he ought to dye.

In Page 5. You do but beat the Air, and Shoot all your Arrows against a Brazen Wall, and there is no more Work for the Club nor Ax.

Answer, He may perceive he was mistaken, for the Ax hath not done with him yet.

He in the said 5. Page abuses that Text, better promises, these are his words, viz. for the promises are better, and that chiefly because circumcision was changed for Baptism.

Answer, Doth the Holy Ghost there refer to this change, or is Baptism a promise or a precept?

He abuses that Text in Acts 15. 10. the former (saith he meaning circumcision) wherein Infants were chiefly concerned, was such a Yoke as they nor their Fathers were able to bear, they were not able to see their Childrens Flesh cut off, and we have an Instance of this in Zipporah, what made her in such a passion with Moses her Husband, as that she called him a Bloody Husband twice? Why she tells you her self, it was because of the circumcision.

Answer, In this he seems to charge the Holy God, who appointed and commanded circumcision, as if it was more like a punishment of criminals than an ordinance of God; as he calls Di…ping of Believers in the Name, &c.

2. Was it from the pain that circumcision put the Infants to, that the Apostle calls it a Yoke, that neither they nor their Fathers could bear? or was it not rather because it lay them under an obligation to keep the whole Law? for our Apostle, so says in Gal. 5. 3. I testifie again to every Man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law, compared with Rom. 2. 25.

3. He abuses that Text Exod. 4. 15, 16.

Let him read his Annotators, she called her Husband a bloody Husband or a Spouse of Blood, because she by Blood as it were, redeemed her Husbands Life. God being provoked against Moses, as the 14. verse shews, and she prevented his danger by circumcising her Son.

2. If she referr'd to circumcision it self, as he takes it, yet she being a Midianitisb Woman t…t would not Justifie him, thus to reflect on that Holy Rite and Ordinance of God.

In Page 6. says he, so this question may be sent to Essex among the Barren Jayl Keepers.

Is it safe to Scoff and make a sport when we write about Sacred things? He also reflects upon the whole party of the Baptists; as if we were fallen from our former Principles about humane learning.

I cannot (says he) but observe how much this People are swerved from their first Principles: For it is not long since they decried humane learning, and also making a trade of preaching,—But if they can get a few Shreds or broken fragments of learning, or a learned Man on their side, they are ready to make an Idol of it, and now they make a Trade of Preaching, Page 16. &c.

Answer, It appears 'tis the whole party he strives to bring into contempt: But let him take heed of belying so gracious a People as the Adversaries themselves confess them to be; did we ever decry humane learning, because p. 53we believe and ever did that it is not an essential qualification in a Minister? We are no more for it now than ever we were and we did and do believe that those who preach the Gospel, ought to live of the Gospel.

He renders Mr. Collins no better than a Jesuite; take his words, this Man hath confidence and deceit enough to make a swinging Jesuite, &c. Page 16.

Again, he says, This deceitful Man hides the Sense and meaning of them from the World; Doth not this saviour of great malice? Page 16.

He says Infants have Faith, yetin Page 10. (of his Book) he asketh what personal Faith a Child is capable of acting in an ordinary way; or what good Fruit such Children are capable to bring forth?

1. In Page 8. he renders those false Teachers, who say that the Covenant God made with Abraham is repealed, viz. the Covenant of circumcision; he may see that we deny that the promise or Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham is repealed tho' we say the Covenant of circumcision God made with him is repealed.

2. Such he says are false Teachers who say the Church State under the Law was Carnal.

3. Such as deride and Scoff at habitual Faith in dying Infants; Mr. Collins owns not such Faith to be in Infants is he therefore a false Teacher. But how does he prove he derides or Scoffs, &c.

4. Such who take upon them the Work of the Ministry without Gods Call, or being gifted or qualified he says are false Teachers.

Such we grant are not true Ministers; but doth not he, think you, refer to such who were not trained up in School Learning? I doubt not but our call from God to the Ministry is as good as others have, tho' may be not every ways so well qualified as we ought; yet humane learning is no qualification left by the Holy Spirit in the Scripture.

In Page 7. he says, In this Authors former Book he hath by excluding Infants from Baptism exclud them from Eternal Life and Salvation; dying in their Infancy. How false that is let all Men Judg who have read Mr. Collins Book, he refers unto Page 41.

In Page 10. he says, How wilfully blind and dishonest are you thus falsly to quote my words. I can see no reason for those Unchristian expressions, in Page 11. he says I suppose he means a long White Shift, as if we Baptized Persons in a White Shift: What sport is here for the Enemies of Religion? Tho' I deny that Women were Baptized in that undecent immodest shameful way and manner, saith he.

He means by Dipping the whole Body: God saith he, never appointed an ordinance to draw out and gratifie Mens lusts, Page 11. O see what contempt he doth cast upon that way of Baptising, which all Christians used for many hundred of years in the Church, and which Christ appointed to the end of the World.

You represent to the World, as if our way of Baptising were immodest, and done not as comely, or of good Report; for this you are to be accountable to the most high God. Friend, if you please to come and see our Order in the Administration of that Ordinance, I doubt not, but you will be convinced of your Error, and be forc'd to say, That the Subject goeth with more Sobriety and Modesty, to the Sacrament of Baptism, than thousands do to the hearing of Gods Word, or to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

In Page 12. Therefore, saith he, there is no more work for the Club nor the Ax; you may lay them by as useless, or hang them up in Merchant Taylors Hall. You may know what he intends, and is not this like those who said, is not this the Carpenter, &c. see what a strange Prayer he makes in Page 15;

Where he pleads his Innocency, God is a gracious God; and I think the Man is acted in Zeal, but not according to knowledg; in Page 11. he says, Our Author hath Coined a brand new Epithet, to cover that unseemly Luxurious way of tripping and Dipping Women, &c.

In Page 18. he would suggest that Mr. Collins is possessed with a Devil: People say there is a Maid, saith he, possessed in Wapping; for my part I think there is a Man poss…ss…d also; hard words.

In Page 20. he boasts as if Anabaptism it self hath resigned up the Ghost, and this may serve for its Funeral Sermon. In Page 21. he breaks out, I cannot tell what to think of this Man (meaning▪ Mr. Collins) That should dare to have the confidence, as to put out such scu…rilous abominable false and scandalous things. Friend, what shall we think of you and your Papers?

In Page 23. he renders the answering Books that are put out against Infant Baptism, a raking in Dunghils, and therefore such a one as he, he thinks, is fit to do it.

In Page 191. of this last Book he, says that they (meaning the Independant Congregations) are not true Churches, or else we are not: I know no reason for this, for I doubt p. 54not but they are true Churches, as well as we, they being godly Christians, tho' I do believe they may be less compleat Churches: Then those who are Baptized upon the profession of Faith, or not so orderly in their constitution besides they have received (as we Judge a Tradition of Man in the stead of Christs Institution.

This man says, he can have Communion with those of our opinion, yet says our Baptism is a counterfeit and we guilty of Sacriledge, Page 190.

But Friend, I see not how they can have Communion with you without repentance, considering all the hard words uttered by you: You know who saith Men must give an account of all their hard Speeches, &c.

God grant those I have mentioned, and these following may not be laid to your charge calling our Baptism a mock Baptism, and us diving Anticovenanters, preaching without a call suggesting as if under Diabolical possession, calling Jesuite, swinging Jesuite; calling Dipping, which was the Apostolical way of Baptising, more like a punishment of criminals, &c.

Asserting that we make no better of Infants than Dogs, calling our Doctrin Mountebank, &c. and a Minister a C C, by which 'tis concluded you intend Coxcomb, asserting we have crasty positions, uncouth glosses, that we mince and limit the fundamental Doctrin of Mans Salvation,

To conclude, let the Reader take notice of this, viz. Were it not more for the Honour of God and Love to Truth, I had not concerned my self with so lin…le an Antagoni… as this is. … and in reproach call some Arminians, Sacinians, others gone back to Judaism, some gormandisers feasting on Legs of Muiton; in some places reflecting on Mens honest callings God by his providence called them once unto; that our Doctrin damns Infants, &c. whether these Speeches he ought not publickly to acknowledg as evil?

Is not this as bad as to call his Brother Raca, i. e. a vain person in anger or malice.

Cant Men write upon controversible points without such bitterness, and reviling language? I desire Friend, you would go to God in Prayer, and intreat for pardon through Christs Blood, and no longer rest in such a Spirit and practice: Christ is at the Door, take heed of smiting your fellow Servant. But should you instead of answering our arguments proceed still after the same manner, we shall find out another way to deal with you, viz.

Bring our Charge against you for Right and Justice to the Congregation you belong unto: The Lord send, and increase Love and Charity among his People, and unite them together in one Spirit, which he will suddenly do and wipe off our reproach; to whom be glory and praise for ever and ever,

Amen.

ERRATA.

IN Page 5. line 7. for Burkie read Burkit p. 8. l. 20. blot out Blood, p. 16. l. 37. f. contained r. contrived, p. 19. l. 28. f. Comma, r. Period. Also in several other Places you will find false Pointing or Stops.

P. 22. blot out the comma in l. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. they being this Authors words; p. 27. l. 10. add Gen. 17. 8, 9. there begins the Covenant of Peculiarity. p. 32. l. 29. f. purity r. parity, p. 38. l. 3. f. usurp'd r. absur'd, p. 39. l. 18. f. ratifie r. ratified, p. 41. l. 39. f. have r. have had, p. 42. l. 3. f. tho' r. the, p. 29. l. 31. add as to outward dispensation, p. 43. l. 1. f. Natural Church r. National.

FINIS.