sign is equivocal According to you it is Baptism according to my sense and the plain Scripture it is Circumcision That Isaac and all believers of the Old Testament lineally descending from Abraham were obliged to keep the Covenant in Circumcision the declared and determinate sign of it I grant That there is any other sign besides that in this 17. Chapter I deny and you have not offered the least proof for it besides your own Paraphrase upon the Words which is to dictate not to dispute Qu. 2. You demand Have not I proved that the Seed there is Isaac in the Spirit principally Sol. If by Isaac in the Spirit you mean the believing Gentiles I Answer No but I have rather proved the contrary to wit that the Seed there mentioned is to be understood of Abraham's Natural Posterity by Isaac only And the reason is plain because the Seed mentioned in the 9. Verse are expresly commanded in the 10. to be Circumcised which doth not at all relate unto the Believing Gentiles but must of necessity be understood of Abraham's Natural Posterity only That the Holy Ghost under the New Testament makes Isaac a figure of Christ and of them that are born after the Spirit I deny not But that Abraham as well as Ishmael should in this place stand for the Carnal Seed and Isaac for the Spiritual Seed only as your Question implies and your Paraphrase expresses and that Abraham Ishmael and the rest of the present Family as standing for the Carnal Seed should be here contradistinguished to Isaac in the keeping of this Covenant in the sign of it is what you have not and I presume never will be able to prove This Phrase the Seed as it stands in your Question would indeed intimate such a contradistinction the Seed being an emphatical expression but there is no such word in the Text as the Seed however you have adventured to put it in as more sitting your turn than those Words the Holy Ghost was pleased to use in this 9. Verse thy Seed The Text puts them in conjunction in the same Promise and Obligation you in contradistinction and accordingly alter the Phrase to ground your notion upon it But did Abraham in the business of Circumcision stand indeed for the Carnal Seed as you say as well as Ishmael How then did he receive Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of Faith Qu. 3. Doth not God say you distinguish between ye and the Seed And is not Circumcision enjoyned only on the Natural Carnal Family of Abraham in the term ye as it is distinguished from the Seed Sol. No there is no such distinction but of your own making The terms of every distinction must be opposite else it is no distinction but here they are conjoyned as one party in the Obligation And the Seed which you would make one member of the distinction is a self created term as I have told you upon the former Question It is thou and thy Seed after thee in the 9. Verse pointing not only at Isaac but at all Abraham's posterity in their respective Generations during the continuance of that Administration And then it follows in the 10. Verse This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. meaning Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations which had been spoken of just before so that God doth not distinguish between ye and the Seed as you say he doth Nor doth it appear that Circumcision is enjoyned only on the Natural Carnal Family of Abraham in the term ye as it is distinguished from the Seed but rather the contrary Obj. But then you do also tell me That the subject of the Obligation to Circumcision in particular which is in the 10. Verse is altered it is not there say you Thou and thy Seed as all along before but ye and ye is Abraham and those then with him in the Letter But Isaac was not there who was the promised Seed Sol. Could Gods mind I pray you be more fitly expressed in the sense I have pleaded for than to say This is my Covenant which ye shall keep in the 10. Verse meaning Abraham and his Seed after him spoken of in the 9. It is true the Words thee or thou are not to be found in the 10. Verse nor was it fit they should for it would have been altogether improper to have said in the 10. Verse This is my Covenant which thou shalt keep between me and you c. because God intended that his Covenant should be kept by more than one even by the Seed of Abraham before mentioned as well as by Abraham himself And therefore it is most fitly expressed as it is in pursuance of the sense I have pleaded for This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. And whereas you tell me That ye is Abraham and those then with him in the Letter but Isaac was not there who was the Promised Seed What do you drive at in this expression would you have me believe as your words do seem to import that Isaac the Promised Seed was not to be Circumcised because he was not there when the command of that kind was given to Abraham and the rest then present with him in the Letter It is true Isaac was not then present with him as being not yet born but yet he was as much comprehended in the term ye as Abraham himself for the command in the 9. Verse concerned the Seed of Abraham as much as Abraham himself and therefore so doth the term ye in the 10. Qu. 4. Again say you Why doth God distinguish the ye from the Seed between me and ye and thy Seed by which I suppose you mean those words in the latter part of the 10. Verse Sol. I answer That as far as appears to me God doth not distinguish the ye from the Seed except as one was present the other future but both together making one party in Covenant This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee c. For I have already proved that ye in the beginning of this Verse must of necessity comprehend all those that had been before mentioned in the foregoing Verse that is Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations But then whereas God saith This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you This can be understood in my opinion no otherwise than thus Between me and you that is Between me and thou Abraham together with thy Son Ishmael and the rest of the Family now present with thee and not only between me and you now present but between me and you and thy seed after thee before expressed Every Man-child among you shall be Circumcised Qu. 5. In fine say you why all along in the 10. and 11. Verses and afterward both in the imposition of Circumcision and in the intimation of the end and use of it doth the Holy Ghost use a restrictive term and
Spiritual Seed yet this makes not him a third party no more than it did Abraham whose Children the Spiritual Seed are as often called as they are Isaac's Your next Paragraph is remarkable and seems to me the giving up of your cause for lost You there tax me for a bold abuse in saying That you intimate that Baptism is immediately intended in the 9. Verse of Gen. 17. Mark your own word not instituted but intended Whence I argue If Baptism be neither there instituted nor intended if it be neither in the Letter nor intention of that Text it is not there at all And all the noise you have made about it is but a beating of the Air. And whereas you do also tell me the sense is indeterminate and general Here you leave me a fair Field for whether the sense be determinate or no. I appeal to all the rational World to determine except you will dare to interrupt the Spirit of God in a continued Speech break the series of his Discourse put a stop where you please before he hath spoken out and catch one part before the other which determines the sense be uttered as I told you in my last and then call it indeterminate and general But this is not to be endured among men you your self would not suffer it to be thus handled Much less will God suffer it Doth not God in the same breath as I may say determine the sense and tell you wherein the Covenant is to be kept namely in Circumcision Do not these Words immediately follow the former This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. Every Man-child among ye shall be Circumcised And do they not determine the sense What a liberty do you take not only to interpret this Text but rend one part from another and put periods where you please But why do I beat the bush when the Bird is fled Baptism it seems is neither in the Letter nor intention of Gen. 17. 9. And if so the Dispute is ended and we are where we were before Had there been a sign or the sign in the 9. Verse distinct from that in the 10. the one Baptism the other Circumcision Ishmael the subject of the latter as a representative of the Carnal Seed and Isaac of the former as a figure of the Spiritual as your former Discourses ran then Isaac must have been Baptized or else you make him a strange Figure But now you yield he was neither Baptized in his own person nor Baptism so much as intended in the 9. Verse And what more satisfaction can I expect from you you may distinguish the thou and ye and you and thy Seed after thee as subtilly as you can But though you acknowledge Baptism is not the immediate sense of Verse 9. Yet it may be you will tell me it is the remote sense Yes sure remote enough and out of the ken of all men besides your self But I pray you Where do you find this remote sense and what is the immediate sense if neither Circumcision nor Baptism be there The Covenant it seems according to this reckoning may be kept without any sign which yet you would not allow in your former Papers But pray tell me How was Abraham and his to keep it in the general indeterminate sense which is neither in the one or the other sign I am afraid this will puzle you if not you it doth such a soft Head as mine Did not you tell me in your last The Covenant must be kept in some sign and yet here it may be kept without any Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee that is in the sign of it But that must not be understood say you in any particular or determinate sense but in general only for though Baptism is intended yet it is not immediately intended but remotely only But you may distinguish as you please Baptism I am sure is not to be found in the express Words of the Text and you your self do now acknowledg it is not in the immediate sense and I have proved that the sense cannot be general and indeterminate what need any more ado then to darken Counsel thus by Words without knowledge there seemed once a sign or the sign in the 9. Verse distinct from that in the 10. but now it is vanisht and there is no sign there at all only in a general indeterminate and remote sense that is in no sense So that Abraham and his according to your interpretation were obliged to keep the Covenant in a nonsense way Your next Paragraph runs you into as bad a slough as the former You say you thought to have dismist the point but that something came into your mind It had been well you had kept to your first intention and have let that objection of mine that came to your mind alone as you have done many others You had asserted that Abraham stood for the Carnal Seed It seems I had objected Rom. 4. That he received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of Faith and therefore stood for the Spiritual Seed as well as Isaac This pinches and to clear your self to this troublesome objection you return two things First That the reward was personal and earthly for so is the sense of what you say Secondly That it was given him for his believing of the Promise to him so improbable so unlikely and in nature so impossible viz. That he should have Seed as the Stars Sir I am almost as much amazed at your Exposition of Rom. 4. as at that of Gen. 17. Did Abraham represent none in this or only the Carnal Seed And was the reward only the Land of Canaan and that reward too for his believing a thing so improbable Whither will not men run when left to the guidance of their own Reason and Fancy Look again I beseech you on the Text Rom. 4. 11. Was it not that he might be the Father of all them that believe And are all them that believe the Carnal Seed for whom he stood And is it not added Verse 23. That it was not written for his sake alone as you interpret and can do no other if you make him stand only for the Carnal Seed but for us also And was the Land of Canaan the only reward of his Faith or did he not look for another reward in Heaven Heb. 11. 10. And was this reward given him for his believing a thing so improbable and in nature so impossible your meaning may be good but your expressions sound harsh and dissonant to Rom. 4. 4. the reward not being of Debt but of Grace not for the dignity or the Act of his Faith but from Grace All that follows to the close is a meer strife about Words formerly censured by me and industriously vindicated by you with some new marks of Reproach with which you brand me And finding nothing in it but that which you nauseate and call a brabling business I pass it over being loth to give you more Tongue than needs must You shut up with a challenge of a Personal Dispute at Totnes and a Menace of printing your part leaving me to do with mine as I please As to your Challenge I dare not answer it not only because I acknowledg you much my superior and to wear a long Sword compared with my Dagger I am as you have represented me and much more you a man of renown And therefore if you offer my reputation as a Victim to your glory it will not be thereby much illustrated but besides the Law allows no such Meetings and I and my Friends are secluse and incapable of appearing on such a score I perceive you are well acquainted with Aesop's Fables I therefore recommend to you that of the Rat and the Frog attempting to go over the Water in conjunction As it fared with them so it may with us in such a congress As for publishing your Arguments I cannot oppose you but in Justice I think you are bound to publish all mine with them else you will be In vacuo solus Sessor Plausorque Theatro Triumphing and applauding all alone no Adversary being with you on the Stage which is an easie triumph To conclude I think the World will be but little enlightned by such a Discourse of yours published in your own vindication Sure I am neither the Argument you mannage or the Adversary you have chosen can add one Grain to your Reputation But do as you please and I will do what I ought and as far as I can to vindicate Truth retaining still that Honour which is due to your Person and Parts from SIR Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Philip Cary. Dartm Jan. 19. 1682. FINIS
And as to the bringing in of whole Families together it was but contingently so not always so nor constantly so according to any Promise or Prophecy and when it did so happen we find not any Infant baptized nor any intimation of baptizing Housholds in conformity to the administration of Circumcision but rather the contrary express notice being given of the Faith and Repentance of those admitted unto Baptism in the several Housholds recorded to have been baptized whereas all were to be circumcised that were of Abraham's Family both Children Servants Slaves and all whether making a profession of Faith and Repentance or no. And this may appear by taking a view of the several examples of Baptizing recorded in the New Testament which I have elsewhere spread before you Only at present as to that that concerns the example of Lydia it must of necessity be understood suitable to the other instances which when they express the baptizing of Housholds they express also the believing or receiving of the Word by the whole Houshold and by the frequent use of the Word which is to put the House for the people of growth in it As to that which concerns the Gaoler it doth not appear unto me from the Scripture you mention nor from any other That there is a visible Salvation grounded on external holiness or that any are saved by anothers faith as you would have it It being manifest by the following Words That those of the Gaolers Family were saved by their own Faith and not by the Faith of another For though ver 31. it was said unto him Believe thou on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy House yet it is expresly told us ver 34. That when he had brought them into his House he rejoyced believing in God with all his House And that the Salvation here spoken of is not to be understood of a visible external Salvation because baptized as you express it is evident for that this would have been but a poor comfort to the poor trembling Gaoler of whom it is said v. 29 30. That he sprang in and came trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas saying Sirs what must I do to be saved Certainly he was now toucht with a sense of his eternal state the Reply whereunto must therefore of necessity be correspondent Doctor * p 55 56. Thus ran the Drs. first Letter to me thô this passage is now somewhat altered in the printed copy thereof It seems to me to answer exactly to the Promise given to the Church under the Messiah that magnificent one for so Jer. 30. 31. it should be rendred and not in the plural as we do read it To the letter it is not their Nobles as in our translation but their magnificent one or their Noble one shall be of themselves and their Governour shall proceed from the midst of them Now the Promise is that when this Noble and magnificent one the Shiloh should come out of the Loins of Judah and take the Soveragn Government and Power and have the chief administration of things in his own hand Then in that glorious and Evangelical Dispensation Their Children should be as afore-time their Children should be solemnly dedicated and given up to God and put into his protection and in token of it be baptized as in aforetime they were Circumcised Jer. 30. 20 21. Apothecary I am not convinced that this Scripture in the 30. of Jeremiah hath at all any reference to the present purpose and I presume the true sense and scope of it to be mistaken in your application of it I acknowledge that all the Promises precedent and consequent in that context relate to the happiness of the Church in the Kingdom of the Messiah when that Noble and Magnificent one should come and have the chief administration of things in his own hands amongst which this is one Their Children should be as afore-time But what then doth it therefore follow that their Infant Seed should be baptized in token of their dedication to God as in afore-time they were Circumcised was there ever such an inference drawn from this Text before Certain it is that there are many hundreds of places in the Scripture that might easily be alledged wherein Children are mentioned where yet Infants cannot be at all intended And it is as plain that as for the present Words according to the current exposition of the place it must needs be understood of the body of the Jewish Nation frequently in Scripture called the Children of Israel and that their being as aforetime only points back to the most prosperous state of that people and particularly to the reigns of David and Solomon at which time that Kingdom was at the highest exaltation of its prosperity and glory I desire you therefore to examine such Expositors as you have by you upon the place I suppose you are furnished with more than my self but I am apt to think among them all you will hardly find your own exposition Doctor p. 56. Well may the Children in the Gospel Dispensation be as afore-time since though the Jews are cut off the Gentiles are graffed in upon the same stock not indeed upon the legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have Which Root Olive is the Covenant of Promise that was four hundred and thirty years before the Law Now into that state of things wherein not the Law but the Gospel preached unto Abraham did obtain God was a God not only to the Father but to the Children yea to all his Family And the Father of the Family did not only give himself but all his Children and even his Servants all his to God And so it is now your Children shall be as aforetime Apothecary As for the Root mentioned Rom. 11. to which I suppose you refer it is indeed variously conceived by Interpreters some understanding thereby the Covenant to be meant some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only For my own part I believe that Christ himself is thereby to be understood who is the only Root of the Church and that both in Abraham's time and before as well as since To this purpose himself tells us John 15. 5. I am the Vine ye are the Branches And to this purpose also Rev. 22. 16. he stiles himself The Root and the Off-spring of David It is indeed therefore the unspeakable blessedness of Gentile Believers to be graffed in upon such a Stock not upon the legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have That Root Olive being no other than Christ himself who was indeed given for a Covenant of the people and a Light to lighten the Gentiles The Gospel of whose Grace was as you say preached to Abraham four hundred and thirty years at least before the Law was given But what then doth
never mentions the Seed but ye ye shall keep it c. And it shall be a token between me and ye he saith not the Seed shall keep it c. nor That it shall be a token to the Seed He sayes Tâ—e Seed shall keep the Covenant in a sign but doth not say it shall keep the Covenant in this sign it shall keep a sign not this sign And why so clear up these Questions say you and you do something and without it all is nothing Sol. The reason then say I Why in the beginning of the 10. Verse and afterward both in the imposition of Circumcision and in the intimation of the end and use of it the Holy Ghost doth use a restrictive term is because it would have been improper so often to have repeated the word Seed according to the usual forms of speech generally in custome among men it being enough when Abraham and his Seed after him had been once or twice mentioned to say ye as there was further occasion to make mention of them he needed not afterward to say The Seed should keep c. Nor that it should be a token to the Seed But ye shall keep it c. And it shall be a token to you But whereas you tell me That God says the Seed shall keep the Covenant in a Sign But doth not say it shall keep the Covenant in this sign it shall keep a sign not this sign And why so I answer That God doth not say That Abraham or his Seed should keep the Covenant in a sign nor in this sign nor indeed in any sign distinct from that which is expresly mentioned in the 10. Verse viz. The sign of Circumcision for that is the only sign spoken of or so much as hinted at in that whole Chapter And therefore for you to make two signs where God speaks but of one as I have already told you is no small transgression The ground of which mistake seems to have been your over hastiness in giving the sense of the 9. Verse before the proper season whereas you should have waited till God himself had spoken as he doth to that purpose in the following words but by this means your interpretation and Gods being put together though yours was needless while Gods was in place on a sudden up starts the appearance of a double incumbence where but one was intended Qu. 6. Lastly you demand Is not the same the subject in the obligation in the 9. Verse that is in the promise Spiritual in the 7. and temporal in the 8. Sol. Yes and the same that is in the 10. also that is Abraham and all his whether present or future Carnal or Spiritual were concerned some way or other In the Blessings temporal the Carnal Seed were concerned In the Blessings Spiritual and Temporal the Believing Seed of Abraham were concerned And both the one and the other were also concerned in the Obligation mentioned Verse 9. i. e. to be Circumcised as the 10. Verse declares And it is plain that Isaac as well as Ishmael the Believing Jews as well as the Carnal were constantly Circumcised and not one to keep it in one sign and another in another as you suggest without any ground from this Text. But to leave as little matter as may be for further ventilation though I do acknowledg that Isaac was a figure of those born after the Spirit And that the Believing Gentiles as Isaac was are the Children of the Promise And though I do also acknowledge that since the taking down of the partition-Wall by the death of Christ the believing Jews and the believing Gentiles are no more distinguished and of different Seeds as many or diverse but are made one in Christ Yet I deny that the Holy Ghost in this Text points at any New Testament sign with which the Spiritual Seed were to be signed in the Gospel-day their obligation to wear the Gospel sign being wholly left unto the time of its institution which determines both the subjects and duties thereof And therefore though it cannot be denyed but that Abraham being in Covenant with God himself was expresly commanded not only to wear the sign of it himself but to put it upon his Children also And not only so but on his Servants Slaves and all yet you can produce no command to this purpose under the Gospel in respect of Baptism I know very well this is the point you drive at But as you have yet produced no Scripture proof for the maintenance of your assertion of this kind but Gen. 17. 9. so I have already proved that those words concern the Natural posterity of Abraham only And though Abraham's being in Covenant was a sufficient ground for him at the command of God to put the sign of it upon his off spring also whether believers or no Yet it is expresly required that the persons to be Baptized be Believers themselves for thus runs the Gospel Commission Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved And so Acts 8. If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest c. Which qualification was not required of those to be Circumcised as the condition thereof whether of Infants or those at Age so that now it is not enough to say as the Jews did in John's time We have Abraham to our Father But those to be Baptized must make at least a profession of Faith and Repentance themselves before they can be duly admitted thereunto And therefore to Baptize Infants that are uncapable of either is no other than to cross the Gospel Rule And I could never yet meet with two Rules in reference to Baptism one relating to Infants and another to those of Age but that which relates to the adult only and consequently unto such alone as are capable of the terms which the Gospel now requires And indeed if it were granted that the believing Gentiles are intended as the proper subject of the Obligation mentioned Gen. 17. 9. Yet you cannot from those Words substantially prove that the Infant Seed of Believers are to be Baptized with their Parents For there God only saith Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And that is all There is no mention in that Text of putting the sign on their Children also as was the case in Abraham's time It is true by the Seed there spoken of you understand the Spiritual Seed in the Gospel-day and by keeping the Covenant you understand their keeping it in the proper sign of it belonging to the Gospel that is Baptism but where lies the ground for Infant Baptism in all this For if we exempt Abraham as not being at all concerned in the Gospel Obligation which you say is there intended and allow that it hath relation only to the Spiritual Seed in the Gospel-day let those then that are such when they desire it be Baptized But is there a word or syllable there concerning the Infant