Scriptures that any of the Fathers of that time had heard of that Revelation I do not say they had not heard but I say the Scriptures do not so much as hint they had and though the Scriptures tell us that in that time Righteousness was preached by the Spirit yet they do not in the least tell us that Christ was preached by it And surely had the declaration made concerning Christ in the Third Geneâ—â—â—… been in the Account of the Scriptures a Covenant or Promise of him to Adam c. I should much admire that the Apostle would insist so highly as he doth on the being of the Promise of Salvation by Christ for but some hundreds of years before the Law when had this been so he might have insisted on thousands and the Apostle Peter dates the Covenant of Grace from Abraham Act. 2. 25 26. and before him the Psalmist Psal 105. 8 9 42. But secondly on supposal that it had pleased God to transact with Adam or any of the old Fathers before Abraham in way of Covenant and Promise for grace Eternal Life and Salvation yet that Covenant and Promise could not be the Covenant of Abraham in which it pleased God to Promise to be a God to him particularly and to his Seed after him For the Covenant of Abraham could not be before Abraham himself existed And therefore seeing the believing Gentiles do not claim Eternal Life and Salvation from by and under Adam or any other of the Antient Fathers before Abraham nor by vertue of any Covenant Transaction that hath passed between God and them or any of them but only from by and under Abraham by vertue of the Covenant of Promise made with him It is as clear that the Termes Conditions and Methods on and in which it pleased God to transact with all or any of those old Fathers be those termes and methods any whatever they are nothing to us as that the Termes Conditions and Methods he is pleased to transact upon with Abraham in the Covenant of Promise are all in all to us That is in plain English That it is nothing in the least to us believing Gentiles whether the Fathers before the Flood or after the Flood before Abraham were in Covenant or not in Covenant were signed or not signed seeing we claim not from by and under them as Heirs to them but it is much to us on what Termes it pleased God to transact and deal with Abraham and under what Conditions and with what duties Abraham did receive the Covenant and Promise whether himself and his must be signed or not signed seeing it is from by and under him and by vertue of the Covenant of Promise made with him that we do claim and hold And surely if we do claim and hold in by and under Abraham by the Deed and Charter made to him we must also claim and hold as he did under the Duties and Conditions in that Deed and Charter and now is it not to deny the Conclusion after Concession of the Premises for you to deny Believers and their Children must be signed when yet you do acknowledge they are under Abrahams Covenant which as I have proved requires such signing Ay! but you will say the Patriarchs were in the Covenant of Grace before Abraham all as much as we and yet signing had no use among them and therefore the Incumbence and Obligation to sign and to be signed by vertue of the Covenant being founded not on the substance of it but on the Administration cannot be Immutably and everlastingly the same And indeed it must be acknowledged that signing was not in use among the Fathers before Abraham at least not in the Account of the Scriptures the Scriptures being deeply silent touching any such thing but then the Scripture is as silent touching any Covenant transaction made with those Fathers as it is touching signing by vertue of such a Covenant So that you are too positive Sir and without Book to affirm them as much in Covenant as we and their Children as Holy by vertue of a Covenant transaction as ours But supposing though not granting a Covenant transaction to have passed between God and the Fathers before Abraham for Grace Eternal Life and Salvation through the Messiah and supposing also no signing by vertue of that Covenant for all that space of time which however on supposal there was such a Covenant is a hardness to think yet in regard that Covenant could not be the Covenant of Abraham though there was no signing then the Obligation to sign and to be signed by vertue of the Covenant of Abraham which as I have shewed doth indispensibly and necessarily require it is as Immutably and Everlastingly the same and in the same Scriptural Sence as the very Covenant it self is so It is for Everasting though not from Everlasting it is Everlasting à Parte Post though not à Parte ante I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an Everlasting Covenant c. Everlasting not a parte ante as from Everlasting for before Abraham was this Covenant could not be between God and Abraham to be a God to him and to his Seed after him and therefore it must be understood a parte post as a Covenant to Everlasting And in this sence the Obligation and Duty of the Covenant is as capable of being Everlasting as the Covenant it self which was the third particular to be demonstrated What I have discoursed already might justly supersede any further answer to what you offer in the following Paragraph about the Church Membership of Infants on occasion of my saying that the Church is one though the Testaments be not and that Children were Members not only of the Legal but of the Gospel Church and that for above Four Hundred Years before the Law It being Gospel that was Preached to Abraham for you say on that occasion that the Gospel was Preached too to Adam at the time that he was told that the Seed of the woman should break the head of the Serpent But I have proved that it was not told as you express it to Adam but to the Serpent as being spoken not by way of Promise to the one but of denunciation of a Sentence on the other nor in the Account of the Scriptures was the Gospel Preached to Abel Enoch Noah c. nor were they in the Account of the Scriptures in and under any Covenant of Grace for Eternal Life and Salvation much less in and under the same Covenant with believing Abraham and his true Seed The Covenant of Grace in the Promise of the Messiah for Salvation and Eternal Life being in the Account of the Scriptures first transacted with believing Abraham and no otherwise And here by the way observe as a matter of no small moment that Almighty God did no sooner in the Account of the Scriptures transact with man in way of Covenant for Eternal Life and
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
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
reply to the Argument and give a Sense more congruous But if you do approve It why in your Answer do you cloud and darken it with words and make as if you disowned it as a False One But a true Sense it is you do not you dare not deny it Ay but if true you say It is not to the Purpose That I grant may be not to Your Purpose but sufficiently to Mine No say you not to That neither for then the Females should only be reputatively Baptized because they were only reputatively Circumcized As if Females were not Actually to wear a Sign they are equally capable of with the Males because they were but Interpretatively to wear a Sign they were not capable of but so Thus far I have followed you step by step and written in a Fashion not mine own but yours both to make you sensible of the great Provokativeness and of the as great Unfitness and Undecency of it But I am weary of this Drudgery and therefore in what remains resolve to content my self with summing up the Substance of what you offer and that as well without improper Reflections as with all the Clearness and Fulness I can and so return my Answers The first thing offered by you of any moment is to This Sense That the Immediate Obligation which was laid upon Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations was not to keep the Covenant in the Sign of It in General Terms as I would have it but only to keep the Covenant in that Particular Sign of Circumcision there being say you no other Sign mentioned or implied but that Gen. 17. 9 10 in which the latter words are only Exegetical of the former Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore c. in the 9th Verse and how the 10th explains namely in Circumcision And seeing this Objection hath something in it very pertinent for I will do you all the Right imaginable I hold my self obliged in order to the removing of it and consequently to the further illustrating and clearing of my Argument to shew First That the Immediate Obligation and Incumbence mentioned in the 9th Verse cannot be to keep the Covenant in but Circumcision and consequently that what is said Verse the 10th is not meerly Exegetical of the Obligation in the 9th Secondly That the Immediate Obligation and Incumbence in the 9th Verse is to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it this is Primary And then that that which is added in the 10th Verse is but a Secondary Institution of a Particular Sign for that time And Thirdly I will shew That there is a plain Intimation and consequently more than a meer hint that some other Sign must be observed by the Seed than that of Circumcision As for the First That the Immediate Primary Obligation and Incumbence mentioned in the 9th Verse cannot be to keep the Covenant in Circumcision only and consequently that the 10th is not meerly Exegetical of the 9th is evident For if the Primary and Immediate Obligation in the 9th Verse were to keep the Covenant in Circumcision then the believing Gentile shou'd be as much obliged to keep the Covenant so as the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham seeing Those are equally at least if not more principally comprehended in the Seed than These This is evident for the Subject of the Obligation is in all respects the same with That of the Promise In the Promise it is I will establish my Covenant between Me and Thee and thy Seed after Thee in their Generations and in the Obligation it is Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations The same Subject in all respects in Both. And therefore seeing the Subject of the Promise is at least as Comprehensive of the Spiritual as of the Carnal Seed of the Gentile that believeth as well as of the Hebrews the One is no more to be exempted and discharged from the Duty and Obligation than the Other and if Circumcision be that Duty and Obligation Both are equally bound to submit to That All the Seed is in the Obligation as much as in the Promise the same words to express it and I hope you will not distinguish nor limit where the Scripture doth not And if the Primary and Immediate Obligation of the Covenant cannot be as you may see it cannot to keep it in but Circumcision it follows that It is to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it in general Terms and then afterward in Circumcision to begin with as the first Sign So that This must be the Sense of the Text I will Establish my Covenant between Me and Thee and thy Seed and therefore Thou and thy Seed shall keep my Covenant in the Sign of it and that Sign at first and for the time being the present Dispensation among Those that shall descend from Thâ—â— according to the Flesh or be adjoyned to â—hem shall be Circumcision This is a fair a plain and easie and natural Sense a Sense which no Exception from the Words themselves can lie against and therefore a Sense as much to be preferred before Yours as that which is Convenient ought to be before that which is Not. And This I evidenced in my former Letter from the very Grammar of the Text. But besides what I have said in my former Letter in demonstration of the Sense given that which doth abundantly confirm it to be the True is That the Limitation of the Subjects in the Particular Obligation to Circumcision ver 10 11. is very different from That in the General Obligation ver 9. For whereas it was said Vers. the 9th Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations when he comes in the 10th to institute Circumcision he saith not This is my Covenant which thou shalt keep Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations But This is my Covenant which you You shall keep between Me and You and thy Seed after thee And the being of it a Sign and Token is restrained also And it shall be a Token or Sign of the Covenant between Me and You A Sign for this Time and People and Administration He saith not for You and for thy Seed after thee If you say I am too Critical I say This is a Text that must be understood Critically The Apostle was as Critical upon it as I or any Man can be when he observed it is said Seed as speaking of one and not Seeds and what he saith is the proper Key to unlock the Text. And yet in regard the Text hath been Interpreted by very few in this manner to add some more Illumination to the Sense I make of It I propose to be considered that not only other Scriptures but even this Scripture doth make Distinction between the Family of Abraham that then was which in the Mistery represented all his Carnal Descendants between that and the Children of the Promise which
between God and him and though they all did worship and honour God in way of Sacrifices in all which the Blessed Jesus the true Lamb of God was figured and represented and though Jesus Christ himself saith before Abraham was I am yet that it pleased God to transact with all or any or either of them before Abraham in way of Covenant or Promise for Eternal Life and Salvation or that Jesus Christ was Preached to them or otherwise exhibited then in Types and Figures which we are not told they understood is no where said or recorded or so much as hinted in the whole Scripture Our Saviour saith indeed that Abraham did see his day but he saith not nor do the Scriptures say that Adam Abel Enoch Noah c. saw it What might be Preached by the Spirit further then the Scriptures tell us and then the Holy Ghost is pleased in them to Reveal to us is no proper subject for our now Inquiry We are now to mind but what is Preached by the Scriptures and Recorded in them Remembring that the very silence of the Scriptures is Mystical as is evident in the case of Melchizedeck who though whatever Learned Cunaeus thought he were a Man and consequently was not really without Father without Mother without Genealogy without beginning of dayes or end of Life yet for great ends he is taken and expresly said to be so and that because nothing in the Least is written and recorded in the Holy Scriptures touching him as to these particulars And shew me any Scripture that but hints a Covenant made with Adam Abel Enoch with all or any of the Antient Fathers before Abraham or Promise made to them or any of them of Grace Eternal Life and Salvation wherein Almighty God did pass his word to be a God to them or either of them and their or either of their Seed after them I do not doubt but God was a God to them all as I doubt not that Melchisedeck had a Father Mother Genealogy beginning of dayes and end of Life but as the Holy Scriptures do no where mention any of these in Relation to Melchisedeck so they no where intimate that God before Abraham was a God to any of the Antient Fathers in a way of Covenant or promise for Grace Eternal Life or Salvation and therefore the least that can be said if we should be prevailed to acknowledge any such transaction must be seeing the Scripture is so deeply silent in it that as there is a mistery in the silence of the Scripture touching Melchisedeck so there is a Mystery in the silence of it touching any such Covenant or Promise if any such were to the Fathers and that as Melchisedeck to be a figure of the Eternal Priest must be brought in in Scripture as a man dropt out of the Clouds without any mention of Father Mother c. So likewise to the end that Abraham might be according to the Scriptures what in the Divine Council he was appointed and set up to be namely the Father of all the faithful or express Believers in Christ there must be no record in the Sacred Scriptures of any Promise of Christ before as made to any other or of any Explicit belief and Faith in him before for had there been either how could Abraham possibly be understood in the account of the Scriptures to have been the Father and so the first of all the faithful of all Believers in Christ He only is first before whom no other is Christ I deny not may have been Preached before Abraham and also promised by the Spirit but he is not Revealed in the Scriptures so to have been either Preached or Promised The Scripture is entirely silent as to any such Transaction If any such Covenant or Promise were of Christ before certainly in the account of Scripture it is as none and so must be looked on of us as none not the least impression or footstep of any such concern appearing I acknowledge the old Fathers to be said to have had faith in God but they are not said to have had any in Christ and these Faiths are so distinguished that they may be Actually divided you believe in God sayes Christ believe also in me The Old Fathers did believe in God they believed both that God was and that he was a Rewarder but Abraham did not only believe as they did in God but he also believed in Christ. If you ask me but is not God 〈◊〉 a Rewarder in and through Christ and not otherwise I answer yes and yet it is possible they might believe in God and not believe in Christ They might believe God to be a Rewarder as some Heathen do though they did not know him and therefore could not believe him to be so but in Christ That God is and is a Rewarder are Points of Natural Religion But that Christ is and God a Rewarder in Him are Points of Revelation I acknowledge that what you say is commonly taken for granted viz. That the Promise of Christ the Seed of the Woman was made to Adam And so much is true that Jesus Christ is introduced by the Psalmist as speaking of himself and saying that in the Volume of the Book or as some do render it in the Head of the book it is written of him and so though happily the Psalmist may have Aspect upon something else I grant it is Gen. 3. 15. for when it is there said that the Seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents head c. It must I confess be understood of Christ at least in the Mystery thus it is written of him but that Christ was promised to Adam is not written For what is written in the Volume or in the head of the Book concerning Christ is not written there as spoken by way of Promise to Adam but by way of denunciation to the Serpent and is part of the Sentence pronounced on him which if indeed it were within the hearing of Adam yet the Scripture doth not say it was so So little doth the Scripture concern Adam in that Transaction how great concern soever in reality he was to have in it So the Text Gen. 3. 14 15. And the Lord God said to the Serpent c. What he sayes to Adam is verse 17. 18 19. and of a very different nature Adeclaration I acknowledge there is of Christ from the beginning but in the Record of the Scripture that declaration is not noted as a transaction between God and Adam by way of Covenant or Promise All is said concerning it is in what did pass between God and the Serpent and some ad loc chuse to call it a Prophecy not a Promise of Christ. And it adds no little confirmation to the truth of what I have now discoursed that after the Revelation of Jesus Christ in what passed between God and the Serpent we have not for the long space of above Two Thousand Years the least Intimation in all the
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
AN ARGUMENT FOR Infants Baptisme Deduced from the ANALOGY of FAITH A 〈◊〉 Harmony of 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iptures In Which In a Method wholly new and upon Grounds not commonly observed 〈◊〉 Doctrine of Infants Baptism is fully Asserted and the Objections against it are obviated By Richard Burthogge M. D. LONDON Printed for Jonathan Greenwood at the Crown in the Poultry 1684. TO THE Excellent Lady THE Lady ANNE DRAKE OF Place in Buckland Monachorum in the County of Devon Madam WHat is done in the following Letters in Defence of Infants Baptism is so justly Your Ladyships upon so many Titles that to disown it by Dedicating of Them to any Other or not to own it by not Dedicating of Them to Your Ladyship would be as great Injustice as but for your Interest in Them to do the last a Presumption The First of Them is a Second Edition of a Former sent my Adversary in which as I thought the Return he gave obliged me to do I made such Alterations Additions and Emendations as might illuminate my Principal Argument without engaging me in Matters Forraign to it And to his Rejoynder unto This as so Enlarged the Second is a Reply and those that follow are Defences to Both. My Argument is founded on that Covenant of Grace it pleased God to make with Abraham and with his Seed In which as he gave Himself and all he hath to Abraham and to his Seed so he requires what is most highly reasonable he should that Abraham and all he owned and that Abraham's Seed and all they own should be His And that in Token of being so both Abraham himself shou'd keep the Covenant by wearing the Initiating Sign thereof himself and putting it on all His that was capable of it and also that his Seed should keep it in like manner Certain it is the Seed of Abraham is as much obliged to keep the Covenant as Abraham himself Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And I have proved the Believing Gentiles to be That Seed so that though the Gentiles must believe to become the Seed of Abraham yet on becoming his Seed they come also under the Obligation to observe the Covenant as much as Abraham himself I have also proved That the Covenant of Abraham is the first Solemn Formal Covenant of Grace for Eternal Life and Salvation through our Lord Christ that in Account and Reckoning of the Scriptures it pleased God to make with Man and consequently that the First Separate and Instituted Church was then appointed in the Family of Abraham So that from the very Beginning that it pleased God to Establish and Ratifie his Covenant and to Constitute and Frame a Church as did Orâ—â—â—n the Signing of the Aâ—â—â—â— so he did the Singing of Infants Therein laying the Foundations of the Common-wealth of Israel in the Membership of Children as well as in that of the Parents God never Constituted any Formal Church until he had made a Formal Covenant and the Sign of the Covenant is the Rite of Initiation into the Church None comes into the Latter but by the Former and Baptism is such a Sign I do not say That Baptism is come in the Place of Circumcision I know too well the use is made of that Expression though in it self and as meant it be most Innocent and Inoffensive But I say It cannot be denyed that as Circumcision was the Initiating Rite and Sign before the Coming of Christ so that Baptism is after it And that Now to dedicate and give a Person to God visibly and solemnly is by that Sign and Rite to Matriculate him that is to Enter and Initiate him into the Church And now Madam Is not the Baptism of Infants in the Notion I have of it a thing of High and Spiritual Nature and of great Significancy When it is not meerly Baby-sprinkling and Sealing to a Blank as some do phrase it But done in token of our Dedicating of Them unto God and in Evidence and Token that they are His. All Delivery and Surrender must pass with some Formality some Rite and Baptism is that Formality that Rite by which we Christians do pass over and assign our selves and all our Children to God The fair Stating and Illustrating the mentioned Points in which I beat a Path but little trodden is mainly the Business of the Letters of which I make a Humble Offering to Your Ladyship In writing which next to the Zeal and Deference that I ow'd to Truth I propounded to my self no greater Satisfaction than the Occasion they would give me of gratifying an Ambition I have ever had to Publish my self Madam Your Ladyship 's most Humble and Devoted Servant Richard Burthogge ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER THE Concurrence of Events that at last prevailed upon me to engage in the Controversie of Infants Baptism managed on my part in the following Letters was so little ordinary that if any be enough to make a Providence This Reader were it proper to acquaint thee with it would I am confident even in thy Iudgement be thy Perswasion otherwise what it will appear a great One The Letters themselves do intimate on what Occasion originally they came to be Written and also how to be Published and that too without my Adversaries and therefore I need not give my self the trouble of Writing or thee the trouble of Reading more in reference to these Points Only it may not be improper to do my self this piece of Iustice to add That though I do not Publish my Adversaries Letters for that I leave to him as most proper Yet I have not been wanting in mine Own to Publish all his Arguments that concern me both in all the Strength he gives them and with all the further Inforcement my self could possibly add to them This a Iudicious Reader will easily perceive me to have done and this I did as well for that Respect and Care I owe to my own Reputation as for that I owe and pay to Truth I am of Alexander's Mind I would not steal a Victory and Truth need not It is stronger than all things I acknowledge I have received a Letter from him since my Last but that Letter as Others so little to the Purpose unless Reflections and Extravagancies be so that I do not find my self obliged to any other Answer than what in my Last is added and marked thus * and that 's but little And an understanding Reader will plainly see there was not much need of that It is but one Paragraph and two or three Words by way of Illustration Some happily may admire that in a Rich and Fruitful Subject as this is I am so barren in Citations but they may please to know that seeing a Doctrine is not true because a Multitude avouch it any more than a Custom good because a Multitude follow it I do not value Authorities in the Search and Investigation of Truth further than as they are Evidences to
Husband Which sheweth that the Holiness is only by the Conjugal Relation as one is a Husband the other a Wife not as a believing Husband or believing Wife And the Third is That in Mal. 2. 15. the word Holy is taken for Legitimate and Lawful But for all this the Sense you give of the Apostle's Reason can never be His as being altogether incongruous and improper â—o the words he uses For whereas the Apostle says The unbelieving Husband is sanctified in or by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified in or by the Husband instead of sanctified In or By you render it sanctified To both Against the common use of the Particle and Without Example For Gal. 1. 16. the Text you cite as Parallel must be rendred as it is in our Translation In me It had been a Solaecisme to have said there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for To me it must have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answerably to that Matth 16. 17. Flesh and Blood hath not revealed it to thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for Acts 4. 12. the other non Parel Parallel you cite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not To Men but Among Men No other Name is given among Men No other Name no other Person among the Sons of Men No Name among all their Names not Moses not Herod c. is the Name or Person given of God in and by which they can be saved and yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were used in construction with Any other word for To as indeed I find it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1. 5. of which see Beza ad Loc. it would not follow that it might be used in that Sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you do not bring as you do not an Example of it In the Sense you carry it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text should have been construed with either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is Heb. 9. 13. Again How is the Unbeliever Legitimated in or by the Believer Both are equal in respect of Conjugal Relation one doth not legitimate another but the Law of Nature or Nations legitimates them both to one another But here the Apostle saith The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband and therefore to be Sanctified is not to be Legitimated And observe It is the Vnbeliever is sanctified by the Believer He saith not The Believer is sanctified by the Unbeliever whereas if to be Sanctified be to be Legitimated both are equally Sanctified by or rather to one another But say you It is not said by the Apostle That the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Believing Wife nor that the unbelieving Wife is so by the Believing Husband He saith barely By the Wife and by the Husband not by the believing Wife and by the believing Husband As if it were not plainly understood when he saith of a Husband and Wife of which it is supposed one is a Christian a Believer the other not That the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband Certainly it is the Unbeliever is sanctified by the Believer especially seeing this Wife and this Husband Vers. 15. is called the one a Sister the other a Brother And also that in some Copies particularly that of Claremont Believing is added as Beza assures and so Tertullian also and Athanasius read it Again in all the Scripture the term Sanctified is never put for Civilly Legitimated and you might as well have said it signifieth Nothing as that it signifies but That For as for Mal. 2. 15. the term Holy is not in the Text for it is not there a Holy Seed but a Seed of God and that according to the Usage of the Hebrews who put the Name of God to what excels as a Mountain of God for a High Mountain an Army of God for a Great Army a Lyon of God for a Lyon that excels in Strength or Stature and so a Seed of God for an honourable excellent Seed a Seed not basely promiscuously or adulterously begotten but according to the Law and Institution of God in lawful and orderly Matrimony And if the Seed of God be an Honourable Excellent and Legitimate Seed will it therefore follow that the word Holy a word the Prophet uses not doth signifie Lawful or Legitimate And whereas you say The Seed of God can be understood in no other Sense but that of a Lawful Seed in opposition to That born in Poligamy and so conclude against Poligamy from that Text I cannot but observe that you will take for sufficient Evidence in some Points That which is not currant even with you in others For is not this an Old-Testament Text as well as Gen. 17 and yet suffices to conclude against Poligamy Though the latter must not for Baptism And tho' more is to be said against the Illation you make from the One than can against That I make from the Other For the Seed of God in the Text is not literally and directly opposed to the Issue born in Any Poligamy but in Adulterous Poligamy for words must be interpreted according to the Scope and Subject-matter and the Design and Scope of the Prophet is not to argue against Poligamy as such in which there may be no Treachery but against Adulterous Poligamy in which there always Is it being founded in Treacherous putting away Which is evident in that the Prophet concludeth not against the Former but the Latter Therefore take heed to your Spirit let none deal treacherously against the Wife of his Youth Deal treacherously Wherein In Poligamy as such No but in the Divorce then commonly in Practice which was to put away one Wife to take another or in as I called it Adulterous Poligamy Poligamy founded on unjust Divorce For saith he The Lord the God of Israel he hateth putting away Plainly the Treachery lay not barely in Poligamy or the having many Wives for to say it did is great Impiety against the Father of the Faithful and against the Generation of the Just For did Abraham deal treacherously or did Jacob or did David but in the Matter of Vriah c. Was the Church the true Off-spring of God founded in an Ungodly Seed Were not the Patriarchs the Issue of Poligamy Or can it be imagined that the Father of the Faithful the Man after God's own Heart and the Father of the Twelve Patriarchs should live and die in Treachery Perjury Adultery And yet they did in Poligamy No the Treachery lay not simply in Poligamy or having many Wives but as I said in Adulterous Poligamy or the Divorce then in Practice which was the Cruel putting away of one Wife to take another For this as Christ explains it is Adultery and consequently Treachery against the Divorced And if the Conclusion
do it also Solemnly by keeping of the Covenant in the Sign thereof our selves and by putting of it also on Them God loves Solemnity it makes for his External Glory He will be Owned to be our Lord and Owner and the Lord and Owner of our Children by our taking of his Name upon us our selves and by putting of it on them And whereas you have said with a Modesty as great as the Truth of what you say That if my Argument be truly stated and as without wresting it ought the proper Language of it will be this That Abraham being in Covenant was to be Circumcized both himself and Half his Family the same Covenant descends on believing Gentiles Therefore they are to be signed and the Whole of theirs But whether such an Argument as this This being you say the True State of the Case be convincing or no you refer to my Second Thoughts I answer That I have Reason to be at the utmost Degree of Despair of ever receiving of any good Answers from You as long as from what Cause I now enquire not you understand an Argument no better For Mine even in Your Terms of Half and Whole would run thus If Abraham and all his Seed must keep the Covenant in the Sign of it by taking it themselves and putting it on all theirs that are capable of it Then though Abraham and but Half his Family for so you compute it did keep it in the Sign thereof as long as Circumcision was that Sign yet the Seed of Abraham the true Believing Gentile and the Whole of theirs must keep it now Now that Baptism is the Sign the Sequel is evident For as but Half of Abraham's Family was capable of Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant Then All the Off-spring of the Believing Seed of Abraham are Capable of Baptism which is the Sign of it Now. And observe it I argue not from Circumcision as it is Circumcision to Baptism but I argue that because the Children of Abraham by vertue of the Covenant were signed with the Sign of it which then was Circumcision Therefore the Children of the Seed by vertue of the same Covenant must be signed with the Sign of it too which now is Baptism For the Immediate Obligation is not to keep the Covenant either in Baptism or in Circumcision but in the Sign of it Now the Sign of Old was Circumcision and the Sign Now is Baptism It is true had it pleased God to have abolished Circumcision the Sign before and not to have instituted Baptism which is the Sign now it would have been a high Presumption in any Person to go about to make One But when the Covenant remains and the Proper Obligation of the Covenant is to keep it in the Sign thereof and God though he hath taken away One Sign yet hath pleased to Institute Another What can be plainer than that as to be in Covenant is our Priviledge so that to observe and keep it in the present Sign thereof is our Duty Thus you have my Second Thoughts and make the most of them So much by way of Obviation to what you do object to my Argument I am now to reply to Yours and it is ad Hominem viz. Either the Children of Believers are in Covenant with their Parents or they are not If they are in Covenant as you say I affirm they are because I said the Children of Believers are Holy not without God in Covenant but given to God in Covenant then say you They are the Spiritual Seed and as such entituled to the Covenant and Blessing of Abraham which I formerly denied and which cannot be for fifteen Reasons But on the contrary if I say the Children of Believers are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and consequently such as are not You should have added On that Account any wise intituled unto Abraham's Covenant and Blessing then neither can they justly pretend to any Covenant Holiness by Vertue of their Birth Priviledge which yet You say but Mistakingly I make the Ground of their Admission to Baptism when I say That God becometh not related unto any nor is any related unto God in Scripture so as to be stiled Holy but in and through the Covenant Thus I am in a Dilemma and driven from Corner to Corner but safe in none But pray consider that I never said either directly or in consequence That the Children of Believers are Immediately and firstly in the Covenant of Promise and as their Parents are I only said and still do that they are dedicated and given by their Parents to God who is in Covenant with those Parents And yet for all this even in my Opinion They may pretend if that must be the word to Some Holiness by vertue of the Covenant of Promise and This too though they be not Abraham's Spiritual Seed For though they be not themselves the Spiritual Seed of Abraham yet being the Children of those that are they become thereby intituled to the Priviledge of being Dedicated and Sacred to God by vertue of the Covenant in the Same Right and all as much as the Slaves and Natural Children of Abraham were Abraham's Natural Children and Slaves were intituled on His Account and the Children of Believers are intituled on Theirs The true Spiritual Seed of Abraham are obliged to dedicate their Children not as His but as Theirs they give Theirs as he gave His. I pray were not the Natural Seed of Abraham and his Slaves also some way Holy in and through the Covenant by vertue of the Dedication and Signing which That obliged to And as His Children and Slaves were some way Holy so are Ours also And in this Sense of Federal Holiness as it is a Relative and External Holiness do I ascribe it to our Children in and through the Covenant namely as This obliges the Parent to assign and dedicate them and they accordingly are dedicated And to be Federally Holy in this Sense they need not sure be the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham seeing All even the Natural Children of Abraham though so Holy were not all accounted for Seed In fine Observe that if by vertue of the Dedication required of Abraham by the Covenant made with him his Children were Members of the Church Then Old-Testament-Church you call it it will follow that by vertue of the same Covenant making the same Obligation and Incumbence of Dedication if It be still in force as I have evinced it to be the Children of the Seed continue Members still even in the New-Testament-Church And well they may not only for that the Church is One and the same though the Testaments be not but for that Children were not only Members of the Jewish or Legal Church but of the Gospel-Church for above four hundred Years before the Law For it was Gospel that was Preached to Abraham Gal. 3. 8. And therefore Circumcision was at first a Gospel-Sign And remember I make not the Childrens being in Covenant the
prudent and more Judicious Discerners Your First Reflection is on the Caution which I gave you about mis-improving my Concession And here after all the Evasion Circumlocution and Wood of Words in which you think to hide it is certain still that either those Pious and Learned Men who prove the Baptism of Infants from their being the Seed of Abraham do by the Seed of Abraham mean as you and I do or they do not and if they do not as you do not you dare not say but they do not especially your Presbyterian Opponents of which I would be principally understood Then should you raise a thousand times more Cloud and Dust than you have yet still it would be visible that all your Fifteen Arguments against Infants being the Spiritual Seed of Abraham in your Sense and my Concession that they are not so in that Sense do in no degree affect those Excellent and Worthy Persons For They taking Spiritual Seed in one Sense and You and I in another They for Persons of a Religious Consideration and some way Holy and You and I for Actual Believers though you may think you do oppose them and also that I do yet indeed you do not nor I neither for Opposition must be Secundum Idem Ay! But say you the Sense in which They call Infants the Spiritual Seed of Abraham is a Sense the Scripture knows nothing of But say I Whether that be so or no is still in question between You and were it out of question as you would have it what were that to me who neither did nor do insist on that Argument But in question it is and like to be so for all that You or any of Yours have hitherto said nor are They without Scriptural Grounds For are not the Children of Believing Parents some ways Christ's And can they be so and no ways Abraham's Seed Can they be Relatively Holy and Persons of a Religious Consideration or Church-Members in the Gospel-Dispensation as the Reverend most Acute Learned and Pious Mr. Baxter hath abundantly proved them can they be so and no ways Christ's Are not the Children of Christians as much Christians Externally as the Children of the Jews were Jews Externally And are there not in Christ Branches that do not bring forth Fruit That is Are there not Reputed Christians which are so but by External Profession and not by Actual Faith and Internal True Spiritual Regeneration Surely all are not Israel that are of Israel All are not Christ that are in Christ. I say not This as willing to insist on that Argument but to evidence with how much Justice as well as with how great Civility you speak by occasion of It of my Darkning Counsel without Knowledge And with a Candour truly yours and much to the purpose add That a Man may make a Shift 't is true by means of such a Distinction to avoid the Dint of his Adversaries Argument in his own Conceit at least but unless the Distinction be a well-grounded Distinction he cannot pretend so much to subserve the Truth as his own Credit thereby A Very Sober and Inoffensive Reflection In your next instead of Admiration how Capable comes in you are greatly concerned that it should be thought you said It must not be in in the Major and therefore tell me with some Emotion That you shall only need to say and which I my self do know to be true That you did not at all Admire how Capable came into my Major Proposition c. but how into the Conclusion As if had it been so indeed it had been a Prodigy in Logick to have a Term in the Conclusion that had been in one of the Premises But to answer in your own Figure of speaking You cannot but know that in the Place you Animadvert upon and where I used the term Capable I made no Syllogism at all and so distinguished not the Major the Minor and the Conclusion but only interpreted a Text Gen. 17. 9 10. Nor is the Argument I make to be disposed into but One it doth consist of Many Syllogisms and what is a Conclusion in one Syllogism may I hope be a Major Proposition in another But you proceed Whereas you tell me say you That my Admiration is more the Object of Yours after I have granted that God commanded Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed in General Terms wherein Both Sexes may seem to be comprehended you should have added to have done well As if I had not that which follows also That yet it is evident that the Males only were to be Actually signed And therefore to say That the Females were Vertually and Reputatively signed in the Circumcision of the Males is not to the purpose for according to that Rule the Females should be only Virtually and Reputatively not Actually Baptized And in this Respect therefore to say as you now do That the putting of the Sign on all those in Abraham's Family that were capable of it and the wearing of it by those may be I said must be interpreted the putting of it on all can be of no Advantage at all in the present Dispute In this Paragraph I have again an ordinary Instance of your great Candour and Sincerity which will be very Manifest when I have told you That notwithstanding a Sly Insinuation to the contrary I did add and that in Terms sufficiently expressive more than once that the Males only were Actually signed with Circumcision or else how could I argue as I did and you grant I did That the Females must be understood to be so Reputatively For if the Females were signed but in Reputation and Interpretation the Males only could be Actually signed And to confirm all I have now said I need but Repeat the Argument I made before which was as follows But your Admiration is more the Object of mine After you have granted that God commanded Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed in General Terms wherein say you Both Sexes may seem to be comprehended and indeed I say are so For if he did command in General Terms that Abraham and All his Seed you say should keep the Covenant in the Sign and Token of it and yet afterward did Institute Circumcision to be that Sign and Token which Mark this was not competent to All. How can the Generality of the Precept Thou shalt put the Sign on All Thine when Circumcision that is not competible to All Mark that again is that Sign be understood Accommodously and conveniently as it must be but thus Thou shalt put the Sign on All thine that are Capable of it and the wearing of it by These shall be interpreted and understood the putting of it on All. Thus as Now the Gentiles are Counted for Seed so Then the Females were Counted for signed This was the Sense I gave and This the Argument with which I urged it If you approved not the Sense why did you not
were afterwards to be which were signified by the Seed and afterward were typed in Isaac the Son of the Promise it being said In Isaac not in Ishmael who then was shall thy Seed be called Now though God had said in the 9th Verse Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore that is thou shalt keep the Sign of my Covenant Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations to signifie that the Children of the Promise were obliged to that Duty and Incumbence arising from the Covenant as well as the Children of the Flesh Yet when he comes to institute Circumcision in Particular he saith of it indeed This is my Covenant or This is the Sign of my Covenant But he saith not This is my Covenant which Thou Thou and Thy Seed after thee in their Generations shall keep but which You You shall keep You to whom I speak Thou Abraham and thy Natural Houshold and Family Here it is You You and not the Seed the Spiritual Seed for Isaac in whom the Seed is called was not there he was yet unborn It is You He speaks to those present Thou Abraham and thy Natural Houshold and Family this is the Sign of my Covenant which You You shall keep as a Sign of that Covenant which I have made between Me and You and thy Seed after thee Me and You thee Abraham and thy Natural Houshold and Family here between Me and You and thy Seed after thee that Seed which shall be called in Isaac thy Spiritual Houshold and Seed And what was the Covenant or Sign of the Covenant which They and not the Seed were to keep then What No other Covenant or Sign than that of Circumcision This is my Covenant which you shall keep Every Man-Child among you not among the Seed but among You shall be Circumcized and you shall Circumcize the Flesh of your Fore-skin You still not the Seed And what was Circumcision for It was for a Sign and Token of the Covenant and to Whom it was to be so is clearly implied in the Limitation It shall be a Token a Sign of the Covenant between Me and You. Not Me and You and thy Seed after thee It shall be a Sign and Token of the Covenant in the Dispensation of it which now is between Me and You not in the Dispensation of it which shall be between Me and thy Seed It shall be a Token of my Covenant as it is between Me and You thee Abraham and thy Natural Houshold and Family But not as it is to be transacted between Me and thy Spiritual Seed If you say for I will say for you all I can imagine possible to be said with any Colour That the Sense should rather be this This is my Covenant which you shall keep That is which Thou Abraham and thy Seed after thee in their Generations shall keep And this shall be a Sign-and Token between Me and You that is between Me and Thee and Thy Seed after Thee in their Generations If you say This is the Sense of the Text I must be plain to tell you It cannot be so and that because he doth so plainly distinguish in It between You and the Seed This is the Covenant which you shall keep between Me and You and thy Seed after thee So that You which is so plainly Contradistinguished and opposed to the Seed cannot possibly be understood to comprehend It. And it is also considerable that he saith This is my Covenant which you shall keep between Me and You thy Seed not Between Me and Thee and thy Seed And yet it doth refer to Verse the 9th where it is said Thou shalt keep my Covenant Thou and thy Seed But here You is put instead of Thou to signifie that Thou in the 9th Verse must be understood of Abraham not Personally only but Collectively Abraham standing there for Himself and his Natural Family Thou and thy Seed is Abraham and Christ Both in the Mystery This last Consideration minds me of the Third Particular to be demonstrated which is That Another Sign besides that of Circumcision is clearly intimated in the Text we discourse on as a thing that should be afterwards And this is manifest for whereas he had said That the Seed as well as Abraham and under Abraham I have proved the Natural Off-spring and Family of Abraham comprehended was to keep the Covenant in the Sign or to keep the Sign of the Covenant in the 9th Verse and he instituted Circumcision but to be a Sign between Him and Abraham and Abraham's Natural Off-spring and Family and to be kept but by Them and not by the Spiritual Seed This is the Sign of the Covenant which you not which Thou and thy Seed shall keep and it shall be a Token of my Covenant as between Me and You not as between Me and Thee and thy Seed after thee What remaineth I say seeing the Seed is equally obliged as well as Abraham to keep the Covenant in some Sign as was proved before and that it was not to keep it in the Sign of Circumcision as is evident Now what remaineth but that there is some other Sign in which It was to keep it that should be a Token of the Covenant in that Administration of it which should be afterward between God and the Seed as Circumcision was of the same Covenant but in the Dispensation and Transaction of it then between God and Abraham's Person and Natural Houshold Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant as administred between God and Abraham and Baptism the Token of the same Covenant as administred between God and the Seed If Abraham was Circumcized Christ was Baptized Upon the whole Let us now review the Text and see it in the entire Sense And thus I Paraphrase it I will Establish my Covenant between Me and Thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an Everlasting Covenant c. And therefore Thou Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations shall keep the Sign of my Covenant And This is the Sign of my Covenant That my Covenant which is between Me on the One Part and YOU thou Abraham and thy Natural Family and Houshold on the Other Part and thy Seed after thee on the Third Part. I say This is the Sign that YOU for your part shall keep as a Sign of this Covenant which is between Me and YOU and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child among You shall be Circumcized and You shall Circumcize the Flesh of Your Fore-skin And this Circumcision shall be a Special and Particular Sign and Token of the Covenant as it is between Me and YOU between Me and Thee Abraham and thy Natural Houshold But as for the Seed no mention of It when he saith This shall be a Sign of the Covenant c. which sufficiently implieth another Administration to be with That afterward And I pray you mark that where he calleth Circumcision the Covenant Vers. 10. he saith You shall keep
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
Salvation through the Messiah but he obliged those in that Covenant to keep it in the sign and that from the beginning as soon as he did institute any sign of the Covenant of Grace for Parents which in the Account of the Scriptures was as soon as he Established the Covenant he did ordain it should be put on the Children also and as much commanded the wearing of it by Infants as by the Adult So that from the very beginning of a Covenant transaction for Eternal Life and Salvation or in the first making of the Covenant of Grace according to the Scriptures and we are to begin our accounts where they do the Obligation to keep the sign of the Covenant or to keep the Covenant in the sign of it was laid on Abraham for Children and Infants as well as for himself and others in Age and that by special direction And now consider once again if there be no connexion between the substance of the Covenant and the Obligation viz. to be signed Is not the substance of the Covenant on Gods part the Promise to Abraham to be a God to him and to his Seed after him in their Generations And hath not God said because I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed therefore thou shalt keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed So plainly God hath put together the Promise which is on his part and the Duty and Obligation that lyes on ours and when God hath joyned them and put them together what man or men shall dare to separate and put them asunder Again whereas you say it is one and the same Church for substance that the Old Patriarchs before Abraham and that we the Believing Gentiles as well as believing Abraham himself did and do belong unto I answer it is one and the same Invisible Church But if we take a Church visibly and Formally as now we are to take it when we do speak of Church-Membership Namely for a Corporation or visible Society of Holy Men framed and formed under certain special external and distinguishing Laws and Institutions for Spiritual ends Then I say so taking it we do not read in Holy Scriptures of any Church any formal Church any more than of a formal Covenant before Abraham It being in his Family that it pleased God to lay the first Foundation of the Common-wealth and Polity of Israel and to form to himself a special Corporation and Society of Men under visible and distinguishing Tokens and this is properly called a Church For indeed a Church is nothing but a Company of called ones visibly Associated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Church is termed so from calling Now as in the Account of Holy Scripture Abraham and his Family were the First that God transacted with in way of Covenant for Grace and Salvation through the Messiah So in the same account of Holy Scriptures the first visible gathered Church was in Abrahams Family Abraham being the first that God in the Holy Scriptures is affirmed to have called out from his own Kindred and his own Countrey to another that he knew not which calling of him from his own Countrey to another that he knew not was a figure and by our Apostle is interpreted to be so Heb. 11. of the true Spiritual calling of a Christian which is a calling out of and from the present evil World unto the Heavenly Country the New Jerusalem that is above Not but that before Abraham there were Righteous and good men who in their Lives and Conversations divided from the Communion of the World Men that lived justly and Righteously and so were truly called out of the World but yet they did not at least the Scripture doth not Intimate they did actually divide and separate from others into distinct Societies under any external and distinguishing Rites before Abraham yes there were Righteous and good men before Abraham divided from the Common in the Piety Sobriety and Justice of their lives there were Sons of God distinguished by their Piety and Righteousness from the Sons of men before The Sons of God took unto them the Daughters of Men The Sons of good Men Marryed the Daughters of bad But they were not Actually divided into distinct Societies and Corporations under distinguishing Rites and Ceremonies before and therefore there was not a visible Organical Church before And if what I now assert be true as true it is for the Holy Scripture no where intimates not in the least any such Formalization Incorporation or Distinguishing Association of Righteous good men for Spiritual and Holy ends before Abraham then certainly no reasonable man hath any cause to admire that before Abraham there should be no signing I mean no use of any Initiating Rite and Rite of Matriculation or of entring into the Spiritual Corporation and Society of the Church for no Matriculation no Initiation into any Corporation or Society is to be conceived before the Corporation and Society it self be Constituted and Formed Nor can any Rite and Ceremony of Matriculation or Initiation be conceived extant before Matriculation and Initiation it self be so No wonder then if no signing before Abraham seeing no Formal Church before Abraham But yet assoon as it pleased God in Infinite Wisdom to ordain the Incorporating of Holy Men into a visible Society for Holy and Spiritual ends by making a Formal Covenant with them and so distinguishing and dividing of them from others he was then pleased to assume into that Society as members of it Children as well as Parents Infants as well as Adult ones And to ordain that the Sign of the Covenant as the Rite and Ceremony of their Initiation and Admission visibly and externally into the Society of the Righteous or into the Church should be put upon them and this in deep Council the better to perpetuate his Church So that from the beginning of the constitution of a Church Infants were admitted unto Membership in it and this is the Nursery of the Church What you next tell me viz. that there are other signes of the Covenant besides Baptism for instance as Circumcision of old I believe you meant the Passover of old so the Lords Supper now of which Infants are not by vertue of the Covenant or any Administration of it taken to be proper Subjects This after what is said already is altogether impertinent ◠for the Sign we dispute about is that Initiating Sign only which is the Rite of admitting persons into the visible Organiz'd Society of the faithful a Society afterwards called the Common-wealth of Israel It being of this only that Gen. 17. 9 10. from which I argued can be understood and this Baptism is as Circumcision was Nor was the Passover ever such a Sign nor is the Lords Supper one now Ay! but if Infants are capable of being Initiated into the Church of Christ by Baptism then say you they cannot justly be denyed the Proper means of nourishment and growth
affirmed Antipedobaptisme to make the Church of Christ a Church unius aetatis you mistook my meaning when you took it to have been that your Opinion was but a Novelty though that be true too and that seeing the Church of Christ cannot be without a true Baptism and true Baptism in your sense of Anabaptism hath been not much above an Age or Century particularly since the time of Muncer whom Munster calls Monetarius least he should be thought of Kin to him and since John of Leyden and Knipperdolling That therefore before the arising of these new lights the true Church for many hundred years had no existence and being For to do my self right and you no wrong I meant it not in using that expression I alluded in it to L. Florus who speaking of the Romans in their Civil Original under Romulus while yet they had no Women and so no hope of Posterity sayes Res erat Unius Aetatis populus virorum and I intimated by it that Antipedobaptisme by grubbing up of Infants and throwing them out of the Church doth indeed destroy the Nursery of the Church and so in one Age after the Extinction of the old stocks doth put it in no small hazard of being utterly extirped And now having this occasion I dare in demonstration of the Justice of the hint almost appeal unto your own Experience if of the Children of Persons of your perswasion within the compass of your own knowledge that are Adult and come to years of Discretion and were not Baptized in their Infancy by some Relation or Friend one almost in ten is any wise Baptized and so entred into any Church either yours or ours for growing up dislike of your Opinion for the most part doth keep them from you And Shame of being Baptized in Age a thing disused and as things of that nature commonly are a thing that makes talk and gazing keeps them from us And thus being in no Church are visibly in the state of Heathens In your next remark when I make the denyal of Infants Baptism a robbing Parents of a sensible ground of hope for their Children in case of the decease of any of them in Infancy you do me manifest Injustice to Insinuate a meaning of Opus operatum a thing as far from my intentions as words But I have sufficiently expressed my Sentiments in that particular in the Paragraph reflected on to those that are considerate and candid and therefore there remains no more to be said of it now But as to what you offer in the last place concerning the Powerful Motive to dedicate himself to God which I said Antipedobaptisme depriveth a Child of namely that for your part you are of opinion that nothing can be a greater hinderance to him than Baptism since he is hereby induced to reckon himself already a good Christian and in a state of Salvation as having had the Sign of the Covenant already applyed to him in his Infant State without looking after the new birth and being acquainted with the Mystery of Spiritual Regeneration c. I profess I was astonisht to read it both for the Scandal and offence it cannot but administer to those of a contrary perswasion as also for the ill reflection which with too much Colour it may be interpreted to imply upon the Wisdom and Counsel of God who both before the Law and under the Law was pleased to Institute the Signing of Children with the Sign of the Covenant which doubtless had it been an impediment and hinderance to their Regeneration and to Salvation much more if a most powerful one he in his infinite goodness and clemency as well as wisdom and conduct would never have done And do you indeed think that the Circumcision of Children instead of being a furtherance to the work of Regeneration in them was truly a hinderance to it and that that which God intended for a meanes of Conservation and Perpetuation of his Church was really and in effect a way to destroy it Where was the Wisdom of Almighty God if he knew not what means were proper towards the Salvation of his Creatures And where his Goodness if he ordained what he knew improper It is certain if Baptism by being put on Children in their Infancy in token of their being given to God in Covenant be in it self a hinderance to their Regeneration Circumcision which was put on Children in Infancy and in token of their being given to God in Covenant could be no furtherance and consequently was a means of all others most improper to continue the Church and so a means equally unworthy both of Divine Prudence and Wisdom and of his Goodness and Mercy Thus I have finished my defence of the Argument for Infants Baptism from Gen. 17 and I think have answered all is capable of being opposed against it and yet seeing I know not but you may have more I now offer that if you have any thing else of any Moment to object either against the Argument it self or against what is offered now in the defence of it If you propose it so it be without unnecessary digressions into common places and without popular trappings and it be with the Candour and Sincerity and with the modesty and temper that becomes a lover and seeker of Truth I shall answer it chearfully and therein give another Instance how much I am Bowdon April 1st 1682. Dear Sir Your True Friend R. B. The Third Letter Dear Sir YOur Letter of the 29th of September in Answer to that I sent you the 21st of April though put into so good and safe a hand came not to mine before this 14th of October and then open Happily it had occasion to call in on Friends and many times the farthest way about is nearest home However though late come I do assure you it is Welcome for I learn by it that the Controversie long depending and which I fear'd would be Eternal is not likely to continue much longer And that after all the Exclamations of Evident and most Evident of Plain and most Plain of Scriptural of Solid of Substantial and Cogent which you make on what You say and of Chimera's of Repugnant to Scripture of doubtful Consequencies and ambiguous Uncertainties of violence to the Text of Corruption of Scripture and of Addition to it on what I prove The whole now is to determine on two Issues the one Relating to the Duty enjoyned Gen. 17. 9. the other to the Subject of that duty what is meant by the Seed and what by keeping the Covenant As to the First Issue which concerns the Subject of the Duty for I will begin with that I have abundantly evinced in my last Letter and yet you take no notice of it that by Seed in the 9th verse must be understood the Spiritual as well as the Carnal Seed and that because the same Seed is meant in the 9th verse that is in the 7th and 8th verses the same subject in the general
Circumcision then were keeping of the Covenant because Circumcision was the then sign of it then keeping Baptism now is keeping the Covenant because Baptism is now the sign of it To keep the Covenant â—here is as I have proved to keep the sign And now consider seriously how plain and easie a sence this is I have of the words I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee between me the Lord and thee Abraham and thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit to be a God to thee Abraham and to thy Seed after thee Isaac in the Letter and Spirit And I will give to thee Abraham and to thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit all the Land in which thou art a Stranger Even the Land of Canaan in the Letter to Isaac in the Letter and the World the whole VVorld in the Spirit and Mystery to Isaac in the Mystery and therefore thou Abraham and thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit shall keep the sign of my Covenant But this is the sign of my Covenant which ye which are now here thou Abraham and Ishmael thy Son according to the Flesh and the rest of thy Houshold here which stand for all the Seed according to the Flesh as so This is the sign of my Covenant which ye for your part shall keep as a sign of the Covenant I have made between me and ye and thy Seed Isaac the Seed of the Promise and not of the Flesh every Man-child among you ye the Natural Family and Carnal Seed shall be Circumcised Among you he doth not say among the Seed The Seed is to keep the Covenant in a sign verse the 9th but the Natural Family only are to keep it in this sign in Circumcision Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore in the sign of it thou and thy Seed But this is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. Every Man-child shall be Circumcised Ay say you but in the sign of it is your Addition only Not so say I it is but my Explication according to the Scripture Ay but when God did tell Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed had no more say you been added Abraham could never have understood that God intended hereby this Covenant was to be observed in any external sign true say I had not God explained his meaning Abraham might well have doubted of it but why doubt you Since more is added and in what is added God explains himself and shews that by keeping the Covenant he meant keeping the sign of it Ay but a sign is a common separable accident to a Covenant in general well but it is not so to this in special Other Covenants have been you say without a sign but to be sure in this a sign is made necessary For to keep the Covenant is to keep the sign Ay say you but let go this 7th of Genesis which is no more to purpose then the first and then I will answer what else you have to say Yes very likely as you have what is already said and if I will throw away my weapons you will fight me In fine what say you so important an ordinance to depend on consequence from an Old Testament Text Yes say I and on the consequence of this Old Testament Text depends all the New Testament Doctrine of our Inheritance and Heirship See Gal. 3. And now Dear Sir is there not a word not a syllable as you express it in the 17th of Genesis that the Spiritual Seed of Abraham are to keep the Covenant in the sign of it Have not I proved the Seed here is Isaac in the Spirit Principally doth not God distinguish between ye and thy Seed is not Circumcision enjoyned only on the natural Carnal Family of Abraham in the term ye as it is distinguished from the Seed is not the same the subject in the Obligation in the 9th verse that is in the Promise Spiritual in the 7th and temporal in the 8th you cannot deny it if you read the Text. If you design me any satisfaction it must not be by blending and confounding things that differ nor by common placing and keeping off in generals but you must come up close to the matter and shew why the subject in the general Obligation verse the 9th is in all respects the same with that in the Promise both the Temporal and the Spiritual but the subjects of the Obligation to Circumcision in particular which is in the 10th is altered It is not there thou and thy Seed as all along before but ye and ye is in the Letter Abraham and those then with him there But Isaac was not there he was the Promised Seed Again why doth God distinguish ye from the Seed between me and ye and thy Seed In fine why all along in the 10th and 11th verses 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 and never mentions the Seed but ye ye shall keep c. and it shall be a token between me and ye He saith not thy Seed shall keep it c. nor that it shall be a token to the Seed He saith thy Seed shall keep the Covenant in a sign but doth not say that they shall keep the Covenant in this sign They must keep a sign but not this sign Clear up these questions and you do something and without it all is nothing Thus I have briefly stated the issues on which the thing in Controversie between us now depends and I have answered your objections and am bold to say again that I have done it with the candour and fairness that becomes a seeker of truth I mince not what you say I raise no dust to hide your strength or blind the eyes of a Party I do not frighten you with the threatnings on diminutions of Scripture as you do me with those on Additions such common placing here is out of place and is fooling I love not Tragical Declamations instead of Argumentation Nor yet am I by noise and clamour and harangues of words which take with the people but not with the wise to be diverted from pursuing advantages I know where I pinch you and yet I hate to cry Victoria while the field is disputing I am a lover of plainness as well as a seeker of all truth and therefore use as little Artifice in arguing as I do in Professing my self October 14. 1682. Dear Sir Your Real Friend R. B. The Fourth and Last Letter Dear Sir IN your former Letter of September the 29th you told me that the words in the 17th of Genesis â—9th Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed c. do neither express nor give any the least intimation of any sign at all that God intended should be Annexed unto the Covenant c. for there God commands Abraham to keep the Covenant in
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