by being admitted to the Supper also But this is a gross non sequitur For what can be more evident than that the Subjects of the Ordinance of Baptism and of that of the Lords Supper are very different as different as those of the Ordinance of Circumcision and that of the Pascal Lamb were For as the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision was above 400 years before that of the Passover so even Jesus Christ himself to intimate the same difference did institute the Ordinance of Baptism for his Disciples Baptized long before his Death whereas that of the Holy Supper being but a Commemoration of it was not Instituted but just before his Passion And these considerations lead me to the last thing of any moment which you offer a thing on which your whole Party do much insist and is that as Infants are uncapable of self Examination of preparation for the Lords Supper and of discerning of the Lords Body which are necessary requisites to a due participation of that Holy Ordinance and therefore are denyed it So they are equally uncapable of Faith and of Repentance which are the requisite conditions of Admission to Baptism and consequently on equal reason are to be refused both the one and the other But here you should have proved Faith and Repentance necessary Conditions of all admission to Baptism or Initiation into the Gospel Church I grant them to be so to that of the Adult Heathen and so they were before in some degree to those of them that would Associate with the Family of Abraham And so they were to Abraham himself for Abraham himself received the Sign of Circumcision or Circumcision a sign of the Covenant between God and him as a Seal and full Confirmation of that Righteousness by Faith which he had while Vncircumcised But then as Abraham was admitted for his own Faith but his Family in by and under him as Dedicated by Him So now the Adult Heathen if they be admitted it must be in a way of Faith and Repentance for themselves but for their Families Those in them that are not yet Adult and come to Age and in a Capacity of consenting or refusing for themselves They must be admitted as such were in Abrahams Family viz. in by and under their Parents and Heads who Dedicate them But as to this so much is said by so many others and so much is hinted also by my self in my Former Letter that I do not think it worth the while to stay longer upon it Only I find in Mr. Cradock in his Harmony of the Evangelists a Passage so full in this particular and so convincing that I should do you some wrong and my discourse more to omit it First saith he he gives them a Command and Commission to goe and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost beginning at Jerusalem Isa. 2. 3. and 40. 9. Psal. 110. 2. and declares that he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned For whereas before he confined them to Preach only to Israel now they must Preach to every Creature namely that is fit to be Preached to that is to all Nations And such as were converted by their Ministry from Heathenism to Christianity they were to Baptize So that this is not the first Institution of Baptism but an inlarging of their former Commission Neither are these words any Direction as to that other matter or receiving or admitting Infants or those that were not Infants to Baptism That we may suppose was sufficiently notified to them before both by the common practise of their Ancestors in the Jewish Religion and by the vulgar notion of Baptism whilst it was familiarly used among the Jews both to their own and their Proselite Children and possibly by Christs special direction also though not mentioned by any of the Evangelists who set not down all the words of the First Institution of Baptism which long preceded this time as appears plainly from those words Joh. 4. 1 2. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples then John though Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples Certainly Christ Instituted Baptism and gave his Apostles Commission before they took upon them to Baptize any which we find they did in great Numbers yet the Gospel does not express the words of this First Institution nor the certain time of it in the course of Christs Ministry among them but certainly it was sometime before that passage of story related in that forementioned place Joh. 4. c. To that assertion of mine That the Churches of Christ universally have had a custom of Baptizing Infants and for ought appeares perpetually you tell me with a presumption too big for a greater Antiquary so much more easie it is to tell then to do that you could easily give sufficient evidence that the Churches of Christ universally have not had such a custom And I pray you if it be so easy oblige the World and me particularly by giving it for still I think that in the time at least of St. Austin the Custom was Vniversal and that then it was taken also to have been perpetually so and this by an Apostolical Tradition But that is more Extravagant which you add immediately after and which may serve for a Specimen of your Ability to perform the boast you made before that we do not find any footsteps of Infants Baptism in the World till some Hundreds of years after Christ not till the conceit grew and took place of giving Gods Grace by it in Cyprians time But how learnedly and knowingly this is spoken may be seen in Tertullian who if you know any thing in Antiquity must be acknowledged to have been in time before Cyprian as being the most Antient of the Latine Fathers and born in the year Two Hundred and yet he in his Book de Bapt. c. 18. where for certain Reasons but I pray you mark the Novelty of the practise is not one of them he doth Dehort the Baptizing of Infants as he did also advise the deferring of Baptism to the Adult and in both was singular doth by that very dehortation plainly intimate the common practise of it Itaque saith he pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam Aetate Baptismi Cunctatio Vtilior est praesertim tamen circa Parvulos quid enim necesse est si non tam necesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri c. So Tertullian but again what can you say to Irenaeus who was before Tertullian and near the times of the Apostles when he tells us adversus haeres l. 2. 39. Christus venit omnes per seipsum salvare omnes Inquam qui per seipsum Renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros and by Renascentia is understood Baptism as is universally agreed by all learned in the Fathers And whereas I
have to the Heavenly Blessedness and Salvation or as the Apostle is pleased to stile it ot the Inheritance For thus in the Third of Gallatians the Apostle carries it when Verse the 16th he affirms That to Abraham and to his Seed were the Promises made and Verse the 18th adds That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of the Promise but God gave it namely the Inheritance to Abraham by Promise And by What Promise but that ratified Covenant of Promise I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed As appears by comparing it with Verse the 16th But he asserteth This more clearly afterwards in Verse the 20th where he sheweth both that the only Title to the Inheritance is Heirship according to the Promise and that the only way of Becoming Heirs according to the Promise and so of being interested in it and entitled to it is by becoming the Seed of Abraham to become the Children of God and the only way of Becoming the Seed of Abraham for the Gentiles is by Putting on of Christ through believing For saith he if you be Christ's or the Members of Christ what then Then you are Abraham's Seed and what if Abraham's Seed what then Then you are Heirs according to the Promise In short this is the Clymax if Believers then Christ's if Christ's then Abraham's Seed if Abraham's Seed than Heirs according to the Promise for the Promise is I will be a God to Thee and thy Seed and I will give to Thee and thy Seed c. Nor doth it make any Alteration in the Case that Faith is now the requisite Condition of Salvation or that we must believe to be saved This but evidences the more clearly that the Gospel is but a Renovation of the Covenant of Abraham for as it is through Faith that we Gentiles do become Christ's and by being Christ's that we become the Seed of Abraham and consequently Heirs of Salvation according to the Promise So it was through Faith the Righteousness of Faith that Abraham the Father of the Faithful had the Promise himself For so the Apostle Rom. 4. 13. for the Promise That he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith Abraham believed God and We Christ it was through Faith that Abraham had the Promise and through Faith also that we the believing Gentiles have it as being Children not of Abraham's Body but of Abraham's Faith Rom. 4. 12 13 16. And if the Promise made to Abraham be the Ground and Foundation of all our Hopes and all our Expectations as we are Christians and it be the True Covenant of Grace to be sure it is still in being or we do but beat the Air and are at a loss our Hope is in vain and our Rejoycing in vain which God forbid And in being it is for the Law that came four hundred and thirty Years after did not could not Disanul the Promise that went before and if the Law did not if the Law could not nothing else did nothing else can disanul it This the Apostle evidences Gal. 3. 14 15 16 17 18. And surely the Promise to Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed c. is a Covenant a ratified Covenant and confirmed by two immutable things by Word and Oath In which it is impossible for God to Lie and therefore cannot be disanulled and if it be not disanulled it is still in being Here I thought to have dismissed the First Particular and so to proceed to the Second But it strikes into my Mind that you may think I have not clearly enough expressed what I mean by the Covenant the Blessing and the Promise of Abraham which did descend on the Gentiles which if so would be Matter of a fresh Dispute And therefore though I think the Scriptures I have insisted on already do sufficiently instruct us in what the Promise is yet to leave no room for any further Mistakes I shall be more express in it By the Promise the Blessing the Covenant of Abraham for under all these three Terms it is represented by the Apostle I mean that Covenant of Promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8. consisting of Two Parts a more Spiritual Part in the 7th I will be a God to thee and thy Seed and a more Temporal one in the 8th And I will give c. And I take in Both because I find the Apostle saying That to Abraham and to his Seed were the Promises made the Promises not a Promise which had left it doubtful but the Promises as speaking not of the One only I will be a God to thee and thy Seed which is the Spiritual Part but of the Other also which is the Temporal I will give to thee and thy Seed c. Thus the Covenant of Promise involveth and includeth in it Two Promises the One of which indeed is Principal the Other but Additional but Both are in the Covenant in the Blessing and consequently Both are ratified and established The Promises were made to Abraham and to his Seed the Covenant in both respects descends I know you take it for a very strong Argument That the Covanant of Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8. cannot be the Evangelical and Gospel-Covenant because it is a Mixt one and composed of a Temporal as well as of an Eternal Bequest But for that Reason I the Rather take it to be Evangelical For this is Gospel that Godliness is profitable unto all things that is in all respects in respect of this World and in respect of the Other And why so Why it hath the Promise Having the Promise of the Life that now is as well as of that to come And what is this but a Finger to point you to the Covenant of Promise as the Evangelical Covenant the Promise the Blessing that did descend on the Gentiles 1 Tim. 4. 8. And indeed the Inheritance promised to Abraham and which in by and under him is descended on the Gentiles is not only a Coelestial but a Terrestrial one also For by that Promise Abraham was not only the Heir of Heaven but also Heir of the World and so the Apostle stiles him And the same Apostle tells Vs All is Ours and Abraham being constituted by the Promise Heir of the World He and his Descendants according to the Flesh were to take Possession of it and to have Livery of Seisin given in Canaan a Livery of Seisin which was given indeed and taken but in Part of the World as Livery of Scisin usually is but in the Name of the Whole It is true Canaan only was promised in the Letter and was Inherited only by the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham But then it must be considered that in the Covenant there is more implyed than is expressed in the Letter and that as in the Letter it speaketh of the Seed which is Natural namely Isaac
Ground of their Baptism but the Parents being in Covenant the Ground of Their Holiness To be Baptized is the Children's Priviledge but it is the Parent 's Duty to Baptize them and to put the Name of God upon them in token that by their Assignment they are His. Well But you find not any Mention of Infants-Baptism in the Apostolical and Primitive Times nor any positive and literal Precept for it But do you find any mention that the Apostles themselves All of them were Baptized with Any or Any of them with the Baptism of Christ Or that Women were admitted to the Supper of the Lord Or any positive literal Precept for either And yet I hope you believe both that the Apostles were Baptized and that Women were not excluded from the Holy Communion And if you do not find in so many literal Expressions that Infants were then Baptized you may find it in sufficient Implication for you may find Whole Houses of which Ordinarily Infants are Constituent Parts affirmed to be so and that frequently and without any Exception of Infants which yet ought to have been made if it had been but for Caution on supposal that it were so dangerous a thing as you would have it be thought to understand them included Besides the Churches of Christ universally have had such a Custom and for ought appears Perpetually Sure we are from Immemorial Time which is enough to prescribe from and you cannot but know what Austin says in the Case Now Sir upon the whole I pray consider that in all the Scripture as there is no express and positive Text that Children must be Baptized so there is no express and positive Text that doth forbid their Baptizing And therefore it can be only consequence to Evidence either that they ought to be Baptized or that they ought not And let be weighed That Antipedo-baptism makes the Church of Christ but a Church Vnius Aetatis That it robs the Parent of a sensible Ground of Hope for his Child in case of Decease in Infancy which is That he hath solemnly given him to God and made him his Care And It deprives the Child of a solemn and powerful Motive when he is of Age to dedicate and give himself For this is a great One and this it deprives him of I am already solemnly given to God in Baptism by my Parents who had Right to give me I am His by their Dedication and that publickly made and attested and therefore I have Reason to become so by my Own I am not mine Own the Name of God is upon me I am marked for His and I must rob God of what is His own Already by many Rights and particularly by a Solemn Act of my Parents if I now refuse my Consent and do not also assign and dedicate and give my self to Him And let it also be weighed That Children are no more uncapable of Baptism than they were of Circumcision For if Baptism be the Sign and Seal of the Righteousness by Faith so was Circumcision If Then all were not Israel that were of Israel so it is Now all in Christ are not Christ If Then Circumcision which was of the Fathers or a Sign and Token of the Promise made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob were taken and put unto the Law Baptism which was of John the last Prophet and in use before John as a Rite of Initiating Proselytes and administred both to Male and Female Is taken by Christ and put to the Gospel And if Faith be made in the Gospel the Ground and Foundation of Baptism Believe and be Baptized It was at first the Ground and Foundation of Circumcision For Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness and he received the Sign of Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness by Faith which he had being yet Vncircumcized And if the Children of Abraham were Holy Ours are not Unclean In a word As heretofore there were Jews outwardly and but visibly as well as inwardly and really so now there are Christians outwardly and but visibly as well as inwardly and really And is not Baptism it self as external and visible a Thing as Circumcision Yes there is a Baptism and Regeneration of Water which is external and visible to make Christians visibly and externally as well as one of the Spirit which is Internal and Invisible to make real and true Christians The Former that initiates into the External and Visible Church The Latter into the true Assembly of the First Born And the Subjects of the Two Baptisms are no more to be confounded than the Baptisms themselves Thus I have given you all the Satisfaction that under a great variety of distractive and surprizing Accidents I was capable of giving and I have done it with the Temper and Moderation that becomes a Seeker of Truth without the Common Pomp of Figures Insolence and Triumph a Thing searce pardonable in the Heat and Fervency of a Dispute but which doth very ill become a Writer And yet if I had used any Warmness in the Argument seeing it is in the Case of Infants that cannot speak for themselves it had been somewhat Excusable and the rather for that our Saviour was so Zealous for them Himself that when some it may be of your Perswasion would not have had them brought unto Him to be Blessed it is said He was much Displeased with Them But I am not so with You for that Occasion you have given of searching out the Truth to Bowdon Septemb. 19. 81. Ian. 27. 81. Dear Sir Your Affectionate Friend and Servant R. B. The Second Letter Dear Sir YOurs of March 16th came to hand the 20th in which the Declaration you begin with That notwithstanding all that I have said your Apprehensions concerning the Matter in dispute between us are the same they were and That rather you are the more confirmed doth no whit surprize me I assure you I never had the vanity to hope to convince a Man of your Perswasion I was not the first Aggressor I well knew the Confidence that goes along with Conceits of higher Administrations and I also knew that some Dyes and Tinctures of Mind of which I took and do take That of Yours to be One are as uncapable of being washed out as Those in the Skins of Leopards and Blackamoors After a Smoothing Preface you proceed to as you call them Sober and you hope Inoffensive Reflections which yet to deserve the Epithetes you give them must have been composed of Ethicks as well as of Logick must have been Reflections on Arguments only without any squinting on Persons and must have consisted of something else than of Ambuscadoes of words of bold Assertions without Proof of Evasions in stead of direct Answers of Partial Repetitions and of Triumphs before the Victory These are the Arts and Methods of Imposture used to deceive the Vulgar but very improper in Inquiries after Truth and of no Influence no Operation in the least on
it between Me and You and thy Seed because the Covenant of which Circumcision was a Sign was a Covenant between God and the Seed too as well as between God and Abraham and his Natural Family But when he saith expresly It shall be a Sign and Token then he restrains it It shall be a Sign of the Covenant between Me and You Implying that though the Covenant be also with the Seed and Circumcision was a Sign of that Covenant yet it was specially and particularly a Sign of it as transacted between God and Abraham's Natural Person and Family and so a special and particular Sign of that Oeconomy in the Natural Houshold It shall be a Sign between Me and You and not between Me and You and thy Seed And so much for the First Objection What you next offer in Objection to my Argument is That it follows not that because the Substance of the Covenant on God's Part is Immutably and Vnchangeably the same that therefore the Duty and Incumbence is also so on ours For seeing God hath Absolute Soveraignty in and over all his Creatures and hath unlimited and boundless Right as to command so to suspend and alter the Instances and Duties of their Obedience both as and when he pleases that may be the Duty of his People at one time You should have added to make it pertinent By vertue of the same Covenant and Edict and in the same Respect which is not so at another This you Confirm because else you see not how it should come to pass that for at least two thousand Years before the Time of Abraham no such Duty or Incumbence did lie on the Patriarchs particularly not on Adam on Abel on Enoch on Noah or on the other Antediluvian Fathers of whom we do not read that any of them were Signed or that they were obliged to any Sign though you say It cannot be denied that they were in the Covenant of Grace and saved by It as much as Abraham himself or any of His. So that here is an Objection and an Enforcement and Confirmation of that Objection As to the Objection viz. That it will not follow that because the Substance of the Covenant on God 's Part is immutably and everlastingly the same therefore the Duty and Incumbence on ours is also such I answer It will follow well enough if the Duty and Incumbence on our Part be founded on the Substance of the Covenant which is on God's Part as the Duty and Incumbence in dispute between us is It being 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 c. And God said unto Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations For though Almighty God be absolute Soveraign over all our Persons and also over all his own Transactions and Methods so as he may make at one time to be our Duty that which he doth not another and may transact and deal in way of Covenant with some when yet he hath not pleas'd to do so with others Yet if at any time or with any Persons he pleases to transact in way of Covenant and to confirm that Transaction by his Word and Oath the two immutable things in which it is impossible that he should Lye and also to bottom the Duty and Incumbence to which he doth oblige by vertue of that Covenant on that which is unchangably and immutably confirmed in it We can no more without a Blasphemous Imputation to him of Inconstancy and Weakness introduce him making an Alteration in the Duty than in the Promise it self seeing the Obligation to the Duty is a necessary result and emanation of the Reason of it and consequently is uncapable of being changed without a change of the Covenant the unchangable Promise of God to Abraham and to his Seed is the Foundation of the Duty lying on Abraham and on his Seed and the same Covenant as the same must alwayes have the same effects and make the same Duties Ay but then how came it to pass that Adam Abel Enoch and others the most Antient Fathers who were under the Covenant of Grace as well as Abraham and his descendants God being a God to them as well as to him did not keep the Covenant in the sign thereof if the Duty to keep the Covenant in the sign thereof be Everlastingly the same and of an unchangable nature This is your Confirmation But to manifest the Invalidity of all is said by way of Confirmation I need but to demonstrate First That though all the Fathers were saved on the account of Iesus Christ and by vertue of the Eternal Compact and Agreement between God and him he being the Everlasting Father yet contrary to what you do suppose it did not please God at least not in the Account of the Scripture to Transact with all or any of them in way of Covenant for Grace Eternal Life and Salvation before he did so with Abraham Secondly That if he had been pleased to transact with all or any of them in way of Covenant for those ends yet that Transaction could not be the Covenant of Abraham and therefore seeing the believing Gentiles do not claim the Inheritance Eternal Life and Salvation from by and under Adam Abel Enoch Noah or any other Covenanted Person or Persons before Abraham if there were any such but only from by and under Abraham nor by vertue of any other Covenant whatever made with all or any of them but only by vertue of Abrahams It is certain that the Termes which it pleased God to go upon with them in any transaction he had with them be they what they will are in account of Scripture as Little to us as those he went upon with Abraham are much And Thirdly That the Obligation to keep the Covenant Gen. 17. in the sign thereof though it were not and indeed could not be observed by all or any of the Antients before Abraham yet notwithstanding that it is in a Scriptural sence and consequently properly enough called a Duty and Obligation of immutable and unchangable nature and Everlastingly the same The first Proposition viz. That though all that ever were saved were saved by vertue of the Atonement and Propitiation made by the Blessed Jesus He being in the efficacy and vertue of his Merits and Passion the Lamb slain even from the Foundation of the World yet that at least in the Account of Holy Scripture it did not please God to transact with all or any of the antient either the Antediluvian or Postdiluvian Fathers in way of Covenant for Grace Eternal Life and Salvation before Abraham is a manifest Verity For though all the Fathers that were saved were so by some degree and kind of Faith and were so by Jesus Christ and through the Eternal Covenant as Divines call it of Redemption
for the Fathers to do and is so as I noted before in the very Covenant of Noah which you mentioned You object How then did he receive Circumcision as a seal of the Righteousness by Faith To which I answer very well for the sign of Circumcision is Annexed to the Covenant and Promise as now Established I will Establish my Covenant c. The Promise of Canaan it was made to Abraham and to his Seed before Gen. 15. 7 8. c. 18. but now is Ratified and Confirmed and in token of its being so a sign is put to it So that the signing of the Covenant with Circumcision being in token of its ratification was a sealing * the sign was a seal a Confirming of the Righteousness by faith that is of the Reward of Righteousness or of that Inheritance which God for Abrahams believing of his Promise to him so improbable so unlikely and in Nature so impossible viz. that he should have Seed as the Stars conferred upon him For so it must be understood as will appear most evidently from a view of the whole passage Gen. 15. 5 6 7. for there we have a Relation First of Gods Promise to Abraham which was of Seed as Stars in the 5th verse And then Secondly of Abrahams belief and Faith in that improbable Promise in the beginning of the 6th verse Abraham believed the Lord And Thirdly of the Reward the Lord gave him for that his great Faith and this First more generally in the latter part of the 6th verse and he accounted it unto him for Righteousness That is the Lord Rewarded him for so in the Language of the Holy Scriptures to account for Righteousness is It is graciously to give a Person the Reward of Righteousness for a thing which in it self is not compleat Righteousness And then Secondly more Particularly how he Rewarded him and that is verse the 7th by giving him the Promise of the Land of Canaan And indeed our Faith is accounted unto us for Righteousness as Abrahams was to Him We have by Divine Grace the Heavenly Inheritance for believing in Christ as He the Promise of the Temporal * though not that only for Believing Jehovah And now why might not all this be and yet Abraham * in the business of Circumcision represent his own Posterity * though I do not positively say he did and the rather because the Reward * in the Letter was Canaan which now was Sealed and Confirmed to him in the sign of Circumcision put to the ratification of that Covenant and Promise in which God had before conveighed and passed it Thus I have proved Isaac as he represented Christ Mystical or the Spiritual Seed to be intended in the Obligation verse the 9th but it seems I might have saved so much Ink and Paper for at last you tell me plainly that Abraham and all his Present or Future Carnal or Spiritual were concerned in the Obligation as well as in the Promise some way or other That is well in the Promises Temporal the Carnal Seed were concerned in the Blessings Temporal and Spiritual the Believing Seed of Abraham were concerned and both the one and the other and what are they say I but the Natural and Believing Seed of Abraham were also concerned in the Obligation verse the 9th so far you are just I but you must not be mistaken you add i. e. to be Circumcised for Isaac and all the believing Jews were Circumcised as well as Ishmael And what Dear Sir was Isaac and the believing Jews the only believing Seed of Abraham And doth Isaac stand but for believing Jews and not for believing Gentiles I pray reconcile your self unto the Apostle Gal. 3. 14 15 16. c. and 4. 22. c. to 31. and Rom. 4. 18 16. And remember I have clearly proved in the Correct Copy of my first Letter that Ishmael and Isaac are the former the Seed under the Law the latter Believers under the Gospel Ay! but what if Isaac stand in the Obligation verse the 9th for the Spiritual Seed or believing Gentiles what then What is this to the Baptism of Infants I answer I referr you for a further answer to the Corrected Copy of my first Letter There you may plainly see what it is to Infants Baptism I repeat it not because it would be endless to go round and say over again the same things A Circle is infinite There is another word for you to whet on but I hope you will not mistake it for God as you did the word Eternal in my last for in Eternity against common use Aeterno sed erunt tibi magna Volumina versu Tibul l. 2. The like in Cicera and in Seneca c. Upon the whole I hope I have most fully Asserted the Paraphrase I made upon the Text in Controversie The Paraphrase do I say or dare I mention that again why that that is to you the most involved tortious intricate that ever you heard of except Origens Allegorical and Mystical Commentaries And I believe you but then how well the Apostle who is my Author will escape your censure I know not but it is well for him and for me too that the Paraphrase is all this but unto you The sizes of Humane understanding are very different and yours is not the Measure and Standard of good sence or of Judgment others more unbyassed and as judicious persons will not think the worse of the Paraphrase nor the better of you for your calling it names Only as to the great adoe you make upon the disjunctive Particle but inserted in my Paraphrase I must tell you that but a grain of either the Candour of which you make profession or of true soundness of Judgment would have prevented it For that but I did not add it unto the Text I never insisted on it I only put it in a Paâ—renthesis to shew that a Particle as small as that was if understood and supplyed as the like is done many times in other Scriptures and must be done to make the sence entire see Job 16. 5. would have put my sence of the Text out of question I but put it in to make you sensible of my meaning which conceived you might leave it out again for my sence is good without it and the connexive particle now would do as well to my purpose and one of them to make the sence compleat must be understood if by you you mean restrictively those there present only in the one you you do and therefore must in both the reason is the same for both as for one Let it be granted as by you it is that God doth speak to any in the term you as present I may make good my Paraphrase against the World for the supposal of an Apostrophe is all that seemeth Harsh and Difficult in it Suppose him to mean but them there present in the first you that is to mean that in the first which you your self do grant he means in
I will display the Argument it self in all its Evidence and Force as it is bottomed on that Basis And this without concerning of my self in Other Arguments insisted on by others and also touched and reflected on by you The Mistakes you are under in your Apprehensions of the Grounds of my Argument are Two and very great ones The First That you conceive me to raise my Superstructure of Infants Baptism on this Foundation That the believing Gentiles and their Posterity are in All respects to be blessed as believing Abraham was which say you is Absurd And well you may say so for indeed Abraham had peculiar Blessings appropriated to his Person as to be the Father of all the Faithful and particularly of believing Gentiles the Father of many Nations and therefore instead of Abram he was called Abraham But though All the Blessings believing Abraham had did not descend on his Spiritual Children or his Seed the believing Gentiles yet if Any Blessing of believing Abraham's did descend as That of the Promise did it must be understood that the Obligations and Duties arising from the Nature of the Blessing which did descend or that are annexed to it if there be any Such must descend too And so that the Seed in that respect in which it is equally blessed with believing Abraham must be equally obliged with him to all the Duties and Incumbencies that are the Consequents and Results of that Blessing Your Second Mistake is That you apprehend me to conceive That every Child of a believing Parent by vertue of his Birth Priviledge and as he is a Natural Descendant of such a Father or Mother is a true Child of Abraham or a Believer for that I mean or in your own words That the Natural Posterity of Believing Gentiles barely as such are all of them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham or Believers and consequently such as are entitled on the Account of being his Spiritual Seed or Believers unto Abraham 's Covenant and Blessing And in Opposition unto This you much enlarge shewing the many great Absurdities and ill Consequences of it even to Fifteen Arguments which truly as to any other who hath Sense I think and I am sure as to my self are all needless and might all have been spared Certainly I demand not half so much to enforce the Argument I used I think not every Child of a Believer to be a Believer himself in any Sense much less that Saving Grace is as Original as Sin or that it comes by Traduction All I postulate to build my Argument is That the true believing Gentile doth not forfeit by believing his natural Right to his Child but that the Children of True Believers now under the Gospel are as much theirs and in the same Right as the Natural Children of Abraham were his This is all the Question that I beg and this sure you will not deny me Only by the way I pray you to make no more of my Concession than I intend it for for when some Pious and very Learned Men have argued for Infants Baptism from the Children of Believers their being Abraham's Spiritual Seed they mean not I suppose by calling them Abraham's Spiritual Seed as I do and as you do that they are Actual Believers and consequently Children of the Faith of Abraham but only that they are Persons of a Religious Consideration and in some sense Holy and related to God And meaning but So though I acknowledge Children not to be Abraham's Seed in the Sense I mentioned as Abraham's Seed is taken for Actual Believers and you have proved by Fifteen Arguments that they are not nor can be Abraham's Seed in this Sense my Concession gives you no advantage nor do your Arguments signifie any thing against Them who using the Expression in Another Sense are nothing concerned for if They take Spiritual Seed in One Sense and You in your Arguments take it in Another you do not really oppose them though you may think you do nor are your Arguments pertinent and the Dispute between you as to that is indeed but Strife about Words Thus I have with all the Clearness and Fairness imaginable let you see your Two Mistakes about the Argument I urged and therefore seeing you do not apprehend aright the Grounds on which I go in it I am only obliged to you for your charitable Endeavours towards my Satisfaction but not in the least for any Effect of those Endeavours It now remaineth that I perform what I promised in the Second Place which is To lay out the Argument for Pedobaptism as it is founded on the Covenant or Blessing of Abraham in all its Force and Evidence which to do to some purpose I will demonstrate First That the Covenant of Abraham which is called the Blessing of Abraham or the Promise of the Spirit is still in being and is that Covenant of Grace the true believing Gentiles are under Secondly That in respect of that Covenant of Promise which is called the Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit or the Spiritual Promise all the Seed that hath the Benefit of it are under equal Obligations to the Duty and Incumbence arising from it with Abraham himself Thirdly I will shew That the Duty and Incumbence to which Abraham was obliged arising from the Covenant or Blessing given to him was by way of Restipulation to dedicate and give himself and all his to God and in token of that Dedication of himself and of all that was his to wear himself the Signe of the Covenant and put it as a Cognizance and Badge and Mark of God upon all his that was capable of it Fourthly I will also shew That from Abraham's Dedication of himself and of all his to God there arises a Distinction of Holiness into Internal and External Absolute and Relative and that this Distinction of Holiness is Evangelical And having evidenced these Four things I will then proceed in short to form my Argument In order to the evidencing of the First Particular which is That the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham which is called the Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit or the Spiritual and Evangelical Promise that this is still in being and is the Covenant of Grace into a Participation of which the true believing Gentiles are taken I only Premise That That is the Covenant of Grace the believing Gentiles are under Which is the true Ground and Foundation of all their Hopes and of all their Comforts and Which by having a Title to it and Interest in it doth give them a Title to and Interest in the Coelestial Inheritance the Heavenly Country the Everlasting Mansions in the Father's House and in a word to Salvation And This the mentioned Covenant the Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit is and doth This is the true Ground and Foundation of all the Hopes of Gentile-Believers and of all their Comforts and a Title in This is the only Title they
demonstrate this it must be minded that as the Equity and Reason of the Command doth hold in Baptism as well as in Circumcision and for any other Sign and Token as well as for This and to the Seed as well as to Abraham God being as much a God to the One as to the Other So also that in the Form of the Words the Obligation imposed upon Abraham and his Seed is in the First place to keep the Sign and Token of the Covenant or to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it And but in the Second place to observe Circumcision namely but as it is that Sign So that a plain Distinction is madâ— between the Obligation to observe the Sign and Token of the Covenant or to keep the Covenant in the Sign and Token of it and to keep it in Circumcision as that Sign and Token the Former arising from the very Nature of the Covenant Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore and therefore of as perpetual Obligation and Existence as the Covenant it self But the Latter is more positive and Secondary Wherefore tho' there be an Alteration in the Second it will not follow that there must be one in the First or that the Covenant ought not to be observed in the Sign and Token of it if for certain Reasons Circumcision be no longer but something else be that Sign and Token The taking away the Second doth not destroy the First for being before it it may be without it Thou shalt keep the Sing of the Covenant that is First Circumcision is that Sign that is Second And why One in the first Place and the Other but in the Second but to shew the Covenant must be kept in the Sign of it even when no longer Circumcision but some other thing is in the Counsel of God ordained to be that Sign And indeed it is much that the taking and the putting of the Sign of the Covenant should as it is be called keeping of the Covenant Must not we Now keep God's Covenant And to the end you may see the Harmony of the Scripture and with it the Cogency of that Illation which I make from the Form of the Words here see the like Form of Words in the Fourth Commandment in relation to the Sabbath bottoming the like Illation Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy that is first and as it is first so it is primarily Moral and Eternal and unchangeable But the Seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord that is in the second place and is but secondary and positive What Doth the Obligation to the First and that which is Primary in the Command cease because there is an Alteration in the Second and that not the Seventh but the First Day of the Week is now the Sabbath of the Lord Who will say it So though Circumcision be no longer the Sign and Token of the Covenant but another thing be It 't will not follow the Covenant is no longer to be observed in the Sign and Token of it because not Circumcision but that other Thing is now become that Sign and Token Which you will conceive the better if you bethink that Circumcision was not abolished in the Gospel as it was of the Fathers but as it was of Moses a Distinction Christ himself makes or not as it had relation to the Covenant of Promise as the Sign of it as if in that respect it were a weak and carnal thing but as it was Adopted by the Legal Mediator and made a Sign of that Administration and Covenant in which He had to do for afterwards who so was Circumcised did become a Debtor to the whole Law and therefore if the Law did cease Circumcision could not continue But remember it was on an Evangelical and Gracious Consideration that Circumcision did become the Sign of the Legal Covenant or Administration For why was it Were there not other Matters enough to make Signs of but that Circumcision which was a Sign of the Promise must be Impropriated to be the Token of the Mosaick Covenant Why was it then Not truly as you may think to make an Alteration in the Promise in respect of the Subjects to which the Sign Thereof was to be given or of any Priviledges or first and immediate Duties and Obligations of It but to establish and confirm the Promise For Circumcision the Sign and Token of the Promise was in Divine Wisdom annexed to the Legal Covenant as the Sign and Token of That for the same Reason that Jesus Christ himself who was the Capital Seed to whom the Promise was made was made the Minister of the Legal Circumcision He was the Angel that spake with Moses in the Wilderness or that gave the Law and He in the Days of his Flesh but preached to the Jews It was for the Truth of God to Confirm the Promises to the Fathers for so saith the Apostle Rom. 15. 8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was the Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises unto the Fathers I say for This Reason as also which is an Amplification of it perhaps to shew that there was no Salvation and Inheritance by the Works of the Law Circumcision which had been the Sign and Token of the Promise made to Abraham was taken and applied to be the Sign and Token of the Legal Covenant which came by Moses to Become which indeed by the capable Ceremoniality of it in some respects not as it was a Sign of the Covenant for there is nothing like a Ceremony in being but that but as it was confined to one Sex and in the Execution and Performance of it to a certain Day it was very Proper and Fit The Reason I say it was applied to the Legal Covenant besides the Fitness of it was for the Truth of God to Confirm and not either to Destroy or Alter the Promise made unto the Fathers God taking the Token of the Covenant of Promise and putting it upon the Legal Covenant to be a Sign of it to shew he had his Covenant of Promise still in Remembrance For Doing so He could never look on or so much as think on the Law but He must also remember the Promise the Sign and Memorial of the Promise being thus annexed and put to the Law Thus Circumcision the first Sign and Token of Abraham's Covenant though it were Adopted into the Law of Moses and made a Sign and Token of that Covenant in which he Mediated it was So but for the same Reason that Jesus Christ himself was made the Minister of it That is not in Derogation of the Promises made to Abraham and his Seed or of any Priviledges and Duties and Incumbencies arising from Them but in Confirmation of them It was for the Faith of God to confirm the Promises to the Fathers And therefore though as Adopted into the Law of Moses and made a Part and Member thereof it must consequently be annulled and cease therewith
his Hundred Eyes can spy a fault here I but if it cannot be spy'd happily it may be felt for say you it is a Palpable abuse of Scripture in misrendring it And is it so but what then if both the and thy too had been omitted and His put in Sure the sence had still been good and the Argument good still and the Scripture not abused For Allegation and Application of Scripture even by Christ Himself and by his Apostles who I believe would not abuse it by misrendring is not as might be manifested in a hundred Instances alwayes as you would have it to a syllable and in termes but to the sence and present purpose and sure I am that the Seed of Abraham should be called in Isaac is to my purpose and is the sence of Genesis 21. 12. * as much as Gal. 4. 30. is to the sence of Gen. 21. 10. and to the Apostles Purpose Thus over subtile you be without Discretion without Judgment and without Candour and this 't is to be Learned in Schoolmen and to have subtle John Duns Scotus for a Master But to our business Whereas I had said I have abundantly evinced that by Seed in the 9th verse must be understood the Spiritual as well as the Carnal Seed you reply that that may be easily evinced which was never controverted As if it had not been in the Controversie all along and been the main of it and acknowledged to be so in your former Letter whether the Spiritual Seed were meant in the 7. 8. 9. and 10th verses as well as the Carnal and is not this the first Issue in which you have joyned Well but whatever it was before my business now as you assign it is to prove in your terms that Isaac quatenus Spiritual Seed or which I think you mean or mean nothing to purpose that Isaac as he represented the Spiritual Seed or Christ Mystical is meant in verse the 9th And this I think I have sufficiently evinced already and that after your Concession it needeth no more Eviction It being indeed a Figure of speaking called in English a Bull to say the Spiritual Seed is meant as well as the Carnal as you say and say it was never controverted and yet that the Spiritual Seed as Spiritual is not meant for if the Spiritual Seed be not meant as Spiritual then the Carnal Seed only and not the Spiritual as well as the Carnal is meant This should suffice by way of Rejoynder But because as you affirm this is a Foundation stone such as it is in that structure I have raised and you are so over confident for nature will have its course that I cannot prove by Scripture that the Spiritual Seed as Spiritual is meant in the 9th verse besides what I have done already in my former Letters which stands altogether on this foot and which you have not in the least reply'd to and besides that I cannot conceive if the Spiritual Seed be meant at all as you grant it is but that it must be meant as Spiritual for it is you must tell me how else it can be meant I say besides all this you shall have a Text a plain Text for it But before I Cite the Text I will assume as certain and agreed between us to make it come home what you have asserted very fully in a former Letter and also I have proved viz. that the same subject in all respects is meant in the 9th verse that is in the 8th And taking this for granted I affirm that the Apostle sayes all as much as you would have me to prove when Rom. 4. 13 16 17. He argues in these terms For the Promise that he viz. Abraham should be the heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed by the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith therefore it is of Faith that it might be by grace to the end that the Promise might be sure to All the Seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham clearly implying the Promise would not have been sure to all the Seed if it had not been so to both Seeds who is the Father of Us all But to apply the Text. Either the Promise made to Isaac for in Isaac Abrahams Seed is called was made to him and so the Obligation lay upon him quatenus as he represented the Seed of the Faith of Abraham or it was made to him and so the Obligation lay upon him as not representing that Seed If you say the Promise was made to him and so the Obligation lay upon him quatenus as he represented the Seed of the Faith of Abraham then it was made to him and the Obligation lay upon him quatenus as he represented the Spiritual Seed for the seed of the Faith of Abraham is the Spiritual Seed but if you say the Promise was made to Isaac and so the Obligation lay upon him as in his own Person only or only as the Legal either mere Carnal or believing seed descended from him then the Promise is not sure to all the seed not to the Seed of the Faith of Abraham under the Gospel because this seed then is not Entituled to it as seed for it is in Isaac that Abrahams seed is called according to Gen. 21. and so the Apostle who makes good their Title as Abrahams seed and consequently as they were in Isaac was really out of the right if you be in it But I have mentioned a Concession of yours in a Former Letter and make use of it least therefore you either should forget it or should by some Evasion which I cannot think of Elevate the force of it and so Create me new trouble hereafter I will cite the passage now but with this precaution that I do not say you understand precisely the same persons as I do to be intended in the 8th and 9th and 10th verses but I say you grant there and there make much of it that the same persons or subjects be they what they will are to be understood as meant in the 9th and 10th verses which are so in the 8th For say you God having promised in the 8th verse to give unto Abraham and to his Seed after him the Land wherein he was then a stranger even all the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession and to be their God In the very next verse he is pleased to proceed to declare the Incumbence now to be fastened on them upon the forementioned account c. So that you grant the same persons are under the Incumbence and Obligation that are under the Promise and are so in the same respect as being in the Obligation upon account of their being in the Promise and the Apostle is plain that the Promise is to Abraham and to all his Seed the Seed which is of the Faith of Abraham or the believing Gentile as well as the Seed which is of the
sign of it whatever the sign at any time be and not particularly and determinately for keeping of it immediately either in Circumcision or in Baptism Indeed in that moment when the general Obligation was imposed of keeping the sign neither Baptism nor Circumcision in particular was yet Instituted Though Circumcision was in the very next Moment I confess had the keeping of the Covenant in the sign of it which is the duty injoyned in the 9th verse been a keeping of it particularly and Determinately in either Baptism or Circumcision Then as you object either Abraham must have been Baptized if Baptism had been intended particularly or else Isaac in the Spirit the believing Gentiles the true Spiritual Seed must have been Circumcised if Circumcision had immediately and particularly been meant But that term being understood but generally and indeterminately Abraham and his Seed are only obliged by it to keep the Covenant in some sign In that sign Respectively which should be the sign of their Respective times And thus Abraham did keep it in Circumcision the sign in his time And so did Isaac in the Letter as the Natural Off-spring of Abraham in the sign that then was But Spiritual Isaac or the believing Gentiles could not keep it in the sign then They not having being then and so no particular sign was ordained for them then but when ever they should be They being the Seed of Abraham are tyed by the Obligation verse the 9th to keep the Covenant in the sign of it viz. in that sign which then should be the sign when they became Seed And on this occasion it may not be omitted to be noted that though Isaac in his own person as a Natural Descendant of Abraham was Circumcised as in that Capacity he ought to be yet being to sustain the Person of Abrahams Spiritual Seed and in the Mystery to stand for and be a Type of that Seed which is of the saith of Abraham he was not as Ishmael who was the Type and Figure of the Seed which was of the Law present at the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision designed to be the sign of the Legal Seed Ishmael was one of those that God did speak to every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised but Isaac was not there He was unborn This Timing of the Institution should be of some significancy To this I add for greater Illumination of the Holy Mystery that even the calling of the Natural Seed in Isaac and the appropriating of the Promises in the Letter to the Seed of Abraham as it did derive by Isaac was Mystical And shewed that as all the Promises of God are yea and Amen in Christ so that Christians and true Believers are in him the true Inheritors of the Promise in the Spiritual meaning of it and indeed why else should the Seed be called in Isaac Gen. 21. 12. were it not for a Mystery For if by Seed there is meant as in the Letter it is only the Carnal Seed one would think it should have been more proper to have called it in Ishmael the Type and Figure of that Seed than in Isaac who represented Another and so indeed it would have been if but the Carnal Seed had been called in Isaac without any Relation any Aspect at all unto the Spiritual Here also it may not be improper to observe the difference in the several Blessings which it pleased God to conferr on Ishmael and Isaac Gen. 17. 19 20 21. no mention in the least of any Seed in the Blessing of Ishmael though in the fruitfulness is promised to him there be an implication of Children but in that of Isaac there is mention of Seed The Covenant is Established with him and with his Seed after him As if the term Seed was Mystical and Spiritual and did not only signifie Natural Children but Spiritual also Judge now whether Isaac be not both in the Promise and in the Obligation too to be considered as he represents the believing Gentiles the true Spiritual Seed All that I have offered hitherto is on occasion of your first Reason to evince that Isaac in the Spirit or Isaac as he represented the Spiritual Seed is not intended in the general Obligation verse the 9th and that was taken from Isaac himself I will now proceed to the second for so I do reduce to order what you in some confusion have written without any and this is from Ishmael For say you it was not under that precise notion that the present Obligation verse the 9th was fastned on him viz. Isaac there being nothing of this nature mentioned throughout the whole Context but rather as he was Descended from Abraham according to the Flesh for otherwise Ishmael had been excluded from the Duty there mentioned who could pretend nothing of any Spiritual Relation to Abraham as Isaac did and yet it cannot be denyed but Ishmael was included therein as well as Isaac But this requires little Answer as running altogether upon Mistakes For Isaac in the Letter is meant indeed but Isaac in the Spirit principally Again there is as little in the whole Con-Text mentioned of Christ and yet I hope you will not exclude him too from being meant as there is of the Obligations being fastned on Isaac as he represented the Spiritual Seed And as for Ishmael it was Abrahams Duty to Circumcise him and he Circumcised him as he did his Slaves under the Notion of his own his Property and not precisely as his Seed And if Ishmael himself was under any Obligation to Circumcise his as I conceive he was it was as he was comprehended in the you to whom expresly the command of Circumcision was given he was also obliged in Abraham * But that he was obliged to do it as being Abrahams Seed by vertue of the general injunction Gen. 17. 9. I positively deny For that Seed only and no other is obliged by vertue of the general injunction there which is the Object of the Promise before That Seed only which is in the Promise in verse the 8th is the Seed put under the duty in verse the 9th now Ishmael was farr enough from being the Object of the Promise in verse the 8th so far that He is expresly and in Termes excluded from it The Scripture not only saying In Isaac shall thy Seed be called but also cast out the Bond Woman and her Son for the Son of this Bond Woman shall not be Heir with my Son with Isaac Gen. 21. 10. And now bethink also how can the Spiritual Seed as well as the Carnal in your sence that is Isaac as well as Ishmael be in the Promise and the Obligation too as you say they be if Ishmael were not Heir of the Promise nor at all in it And here I had dismissed this point but that it comes into my mind that against Abrahams standing * with Ishmael c. in the business of Circumcision for his Natural Posterity which yet is usual in the Scriptures