concerns the Obligation there is nothing expressed in the whole 17. of Genesis but what relates to Abraham and his Natural Seed and Family only Under the Gospel indeed the Believing Gentiles are taught what God now requires of them as their duty by way of Restipulation But as this place of Genesis gives no hint at all of Gods mind in that respect so neither was there any necessity thereof God only then designing to signifie unto Abraham together with his natural Seed and Family what was their present duty under the then present Administration and not otherwise You your self cannot but acknowledge that the Obligation mentioned in the 10. Verse must of necessity be understood in relation only to the Natural Seed of Abraham because the Seed there spoken of are expresly enjoyned to be Circumcised And if so then it clearly follows that the general obligation lying upon the Seed mentioned in the 9. Verse must be understood in the same sense also For to say that the Spiritual Seed under the Gospel must be understood in the 9. and the Natural Seed only in the 10. is a most harsh way of the interpretation of the word of God it being utterly improbable that there should be such a sudden transition from one Seed to another without any notice given thereof But as this would be to make the Scripture unintelligible to a vulgar Capacity so the Words in both Verses being but one continued Speech and the Spirit of God plainly speaking in both of one and the same sort of Seed on whom the Covenant of Circumcision as Stephen expresly calls it Acts 7. 8. was then to be imposed and there being not the least hint in that whole context of any other sign that God intended should be observed in the Gospel-day there cannot easily be a greater violence offered to the Word of God than to endeavour to fasten such a sense as you do upon it But certain it is God never intended to leave his instituted Worship to such ambiguous uncertainties which require such a circumlocution of Words and Arguments for the demonstration of them as you are forced to use in the present case in your second Letter and which a common capacity cannot comprehend when all is done I know you have endeavoured to confirm your exposition of this Text in Genesis from the like form of Words in the Fourth Commandment in relation to the Sabbath But I suppose I have given you a sufficient answer to that in my second Letter which I need not here repeat Doctor P. 134 135 Consider seriously how plain and easie a sense this is I have of the Words in dispute Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee Between me the Lord and thee Abraeham 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 Verse 8. 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 World in the Spirit and Mystery to Isaac in the mystery Verse 9. And therefore thou Abraham and thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit shall keep the sign of my Covenant Verse 10. 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 9. 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 Apothecary Your Paraphrase upon the Words is two ways faulty For first it is forced not natural nor obvious And Secondly it is repugnant both to the Text and to it self First to the Text in forcing one Sign upon it more than it ever intended viz. Baptism Secondly to it self and the Text too For if the Natural Seed were to keep it in this Sign viz. in Circumcision and the Spiritual Seed in the Sign viz. in Baptism and if Isaac be the Spiritual Seed then it follows if Isaac sustain only the capacity and relation of the Spiritual Seed he ought not to be Circumcised which he was if of the Natural and Spiritual Seed too as you make him he should be both Circumcised and Baptized also which he was not Yea according to your reckoning Abraham himself as well as Isaac should have been Baptized For if the Sign in the 9. Verse be Baptism as you intimate the Obligation there is on Abraham and Isaac too in the Letter as well as on the Seed in the Gospel-day For thus runs your own Paraphrase upon the Words Therefore thou Abraham and thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit shall keep the Sign of my Covenant That is according to your Sense Both he and they and thou also must be Baptized 'T is true the true Sense of the Words we all know or should know at least is this Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed Verse 9. That is Both thou and thy Seed shall be Circumcised as the 10. Verse declares And so the Words run smoothly without jarring suitable to the plain scope of the Spirit of God in the following Words But according to the course that you take I do not see how you can possibly avoid the absurdity but that the sense must be plainly this Thou even thou Abraham shalt be Baptized as well as Circumcised as also thy Seed Isaac in the Letter together with thy Seed Isaac in the Spirit or thy Spiritual Seed in the Gospel-day as the proper Sign of that Covenant which I have now made both with thee and them Doctor P. 160 161 162. It is a bold abuse you put upon me when you intimate as my Opinion That Baptism is immediately intended in the 9. Verse Whereas you know I have told you ten times over That I understand the keeping of the Covenant there generally for keeping of it in the Sign of it whatever the Sign at any time be and not particularly and determinately for keeping of it immediately either in Circumcision or in Baptism Indeed in that moment when the general Obligation was imposed of keeping the Sign neither Baptism nor Circumcision in particular
was yet Instituted though Circumcision was in the very next Moment I confess had the keeping of the Covenant in the sign of it which is the duty enjoyned in the 9. 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 9. to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it viz. In that Sign which then should be the Sign when they became Seed Apothecary In this you seem to me to give up your Cause for lost You now tax me for a bold abuse in saying That you intimate that Baptism is immediately intended in the 9. Verse of Gen. 17. Mark your own Word not instituted but intended Whence I argue if Baptism be neither there instituted nor intended if it be neither in the Letter nor Intention of that Text it is not there at all And all the noise you have made about it is but a beating of the Air. And whereas you do also tell me the sense is indeterminate and general Here you leave me a fair Field for whether the sense be determinate or no I appeal to all the rational World to determine except you will dare to interrupt the Spirit of God in a continued Speech break the Series of his Discourse put a stop where you please before he hath spoken out and catch one part before the other which determines the sense be uttered and then call it indeterminate and general But this is not to be endured among men you your self would not suffer it to be thus handled much less will God suffer it Doth not God in the same breath as I may say determine the sense and tell you wherein the Covenant is to be kept namely in Circumcision Do not these Words immediately follow the former This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. Every Man-child among you shall be Circumcised And do they not determine the sense What a liberty do you take not only to interpret this Text but to rend one part from another and put Periods where you please But why do I beat the Bush when the Bird is fled Baptism it seems is neither in the Letter nor intention of Gen. 17. 9. and if so the Dispute is ended and we are where we were before Had there been a sign or the sign in the 9. Verse distinct from that in the 10. the one Baptism the other Circumcision Ishmael the subject of the latter as a representative of the Carnal Seed and Isaac of the former as a figure of the Spiritual as your former Discourses ran then Isaac must have been Baptized or else you make him a strange Figure But now you yield he was neither Baptized in his own person nor Baptism so much as intended in the 9. Verse And what more satisfaction can I expect from you you may distinguish the thou and ye and you and thy Seed after thee as subtilly as you can But though you acknowledg Baptism is not the immediate sense of Verse 9. Yet it may be you will tell me It is the remote sense Yes sure remote enough and out of the ken of all men beside your self But I pray you where do you find this remote sense and what is the immediate sense if neither Circumcision nor Baptism be there The Covenant it seems according to this reckoning may be kept without any sign which yet you would not allow of formerly But pray tell me How was Abraham and his to keep it in the general indeterminate sense which is neither in the one or the other sign I am afraid this will puzzle you if not you it doth such a soft head as mine Did not you tell me in your last The Covenant must be kept in some sign and yet now it may be kept without any Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee that is in the sign of it But that must not be understood say you in any particular or determinate sense but in general only For though Baptism is intended yet it is not immediately intended but remotely only but you may distinguish as you please Baptism I am sure is not to be found in the express words of the Text and you your self do now acknowledge it is not in the immediate sense and I have proved that the sense cannot be general and indeterminate What need any more ado then to darken counsel thus by words without knowledge There seemed once a sign or the sign in the 9. Verse distinct from that in the 10. but now it is vanisht and there is no sign there at all only in a general indeterminate and remote sense that is in no sense So that Abraham and his according to your interpretation were obliged to keep the Covenant in a nonsense way THE Reader is desired to take notice that the Doctor never yet gave me any answer to this last Reply of mine nor indeed unto many other passages of a like importance contained in my sixth and last Letter to him hereafter inserted in reference whereunto he hath been hitherto wholly silent He acknowledgeth indeed in his Preface to the Reader p. 3. That he had received a Letter from me since his last but withal says That that Letter as others was so little to the purpose unless reflections and extravagancies be so that he did not find himself obliged to any other answer than what in his last is added and marked with an Asterism thus* and that as himself acknowledgeth is but little being saith he but one Paragraph and two or three Words by way of illustration And for that that is for my own part I do not see how it comes to bear upon any part of my last Letter by way of answer thereunto The Doctor indeed tells the Reader That that Letter of mine is but little to the purpose it may be it is but little to his purpose but I hope it is enough to mine But whether it be so extravagant and so little to the purpose as the Doctor would have it or whether he would not have answered it were it not for the knots
he was if of the Natural and Spiritual Seed too as you make him he should be both Circumcised and Baptized also which he was not Yea according to your reckoning Abraham himself as well as Isaac should have been Baptized For if the sign in the 9. Verse be Baptism as you intimate the obligation there is on Abraham and Isaac too as well as on the Seed in the Gospel-day For thus runs your own Paraphrase upon the Words Therefore thou Abraham and thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit shall keep the sign of my Covenant that is both he and they and thou also must be baptized It is true the true sense of the Words we all know or should know at least is this Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed That is both thou and they shall be Circumcised as the 10. Verse declares And so the Words run smooth without jarring suitable to the plain scope of the Spirit of God in the following words But according to the course that you take I do not see for my own part how you can possibly avoid the absurdity but that the sense must be plainly this Thou even thou Abraham shalt be Baptized as also thy Seed Isaac in the Letter together with thy Seed Isaac in the Spirit or thy Spiritual Seed in the Gospel-day as the proper sign of that Covenant which I have now made both with thee and them But I must a little further manifest what I but now hinted also concerning your forcing one sign upon the Text more than it ever intended viz. Baptism which is indeed the foundation of the foregoing absurdity For you tell me of the sign in the 9. Verse And this sign in the 10. the sign in the 9. Verse relating say you to the Believing Gentiles And this sign in the 10. to the natural posterity of Abraham But pray hold there Sir we must not be put off so For as far as I can discern God speaks but of one sign in both Verses I acknowledge as you say That the sense and meaning of the Phrase of keeping the Covenant in either Verse is clearly the meaning of it also in both And therefore to keep the Covenant in the 9. Verse is to keep the sign of the Covenant seeing to keep the Covenant in the 10. Verse is to keep it in the sign but then we must not make two signs where God speaks but of one It cannot be rationally denied as your self do now seem to grant but that the words in the 10. Verse are only exegetical of those in the 9. and then where are the two signs you speak of No Sir we can allow of no Rules of Addition or Multiplication at this rate when we come to interpret the Word of God for that is as I have already told you highly dangerous It is true twice one makes two a sign or the sign in the 9. and this sign in the 10. that is a sign of Gods appointment in the 10. and another of your own devising in the 9. But certainly this kind of course will not do and the mistake by this time I suppose is discernable enough only I must tell you that as far as I can apprehend it was your over earliness in giving the sense of the 9. Verse that hath led you into the present error for had you waited Gods leisure and tarried till God himself had spoken as he doth in the 10. Verse by way of explication of those general words in the 9. you had not run into that fatal mistake as now you do of making two signs where God makes but one and consequently of adding a sign of your own to that of Gods appointment As I take it one of the Schoolmen saith That if the Workmans Hand were his Rule he could never err in working And if what you please to paraphrase on a Text must be the sense you cannot fail to carry any cause you undertake for after this rate a man of an ordinary capacity may undertake to prove Quidlibet à Quolibet what himself pleases from any Text whatsoever But really Sir this is not to interpret but to wrest the Scriptures 2 Pet. 3. 16. that is To put them on the rack to force them to speak what they never meant * To which I may justly add what the Wise man saith Prov. 30. 5. 6. You will bear with my plainness herein the merit of the cause lies in it and your attempt to force the Scriptures as you do is no small evil Thus Sir your foundation fails and debile fundamentum fallit opus All the rest you have so artificially superstructed totters of course I shall now therefore animadvert upon only one word more in your Paraphrase though more might be spoken to and so proceed to answer the several Questions you propound unto me And that is the Word But in respect of which I pray you to tell me by what Authority we shall be assured that the words in the 10. Verse are indeed to be interpreted disjunctively as you do suggest while you begin that verse with a But as you do in your Paraphrase thereon but say you this is the sign c. Whereas there is no such Word in the Text nor any thing like it that I can meet with Indeed you could never expect to carry the cause you plead for but by the addition of this disjunctive word But in the beginning of the 10. Verse where there was none before For thus run the Words in their naked simplicity according to the commonly received Translation of them Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed c. Verse 9. And then Verse 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. But you have thought fit to add this Word But in the beginning of the 10. Verse to make it run the more plausibly to your own sense which it would not do without whereby you would insinuate as if God directed his speech to another sort of persons there than in the 9. and indeed if that word had been added by the unerring Spirit of God the words in both Verses would clearly enough have had quite another sense than now they have But as the case stands that word must be expunged for as far as I can see there is no reason why it should be put in God doth not say so and therefore why should you And now Sir having run through your Paraphrase I come to the Questions you propounded which are grounded thereupon In my Answer whereunto I must have an eye to your Paraphrase because I find the one is made to fortifie and give life unto the other Accordingly I shall respect both in my Answers Quer. 1. And First you demand Is there not a Word not a syllable as you express it say you in the 17. of Genesis that the Spiritual Seed of Abraham are to keep the Covenant in the sign of it Sol. I Answer That this Phrase the
sign is equivocal According to you it is Baptism according to my sense and the plain Scripture it is Circumcision That Isaac and all believers of the Old Testament lineally descending from Abraham were obliged to keep the Covenant in Circumcision the declared and determinate sign of it I grant That there is any other sign besides that in this 17. Chapter I deny and you have not offered the least proof for it besides your own Paraphrase upon the Words which is to dictate not to dispute Qu. 2. You demand Have not I proved that the Seed there is Isaac in the Spirit principally Sol. If by Isaac in the Spirit you mean the believing Gentiles I Answer No but I have rather proved the contrary to wit that the Seed there mentioned is to be understood of Abraham's Natural Posterity by Isaac only And the reason is plain because the Seed mentioned in the 9. Verse are expresly commanded in the 10. to be Circumcised which doth not at all relate unto the Believing Gentiles but must of necessity be understood of Abraham's Natural Posterity only That the Holy Ghost under the New Testament makes Isaac a figure of Christ and of them that are born after the Spirit I deny not But that Abraham as well as Ishmael should in this place stand for the Carnal Seed and Isaac for the Spiritual Seed only as your Question implies and your Paraphrase expresses and that Abraham Ishmael and the rest of the present Family as standing for the Carnal Seed should be here contradistinguished to Isaac in the keeping of this Covenant in the sign of it is what you have not and I presume never will be able to prove This Phrase the Seed as it stands in your Question would indeed intimate such a contradistinction the Seed being an emphatical expression but there is no such word in the Text as the Seed however you have adventured to put it in as more sitting your turn than those Words the Holy Ghost was pleased to use in this 9. Verse thy Seed The Text puts them in conjunction in the same Promise and Obligation you in contradistinction and accordingly alter the Phrase to ground your notion upon it But did Abraham in the business of Circumcision stand indeed for the Carnal Seed as you say as well as Ishmael How then did he receive Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of Faith Qu. 3. Doth not God say you distinguish between ye and the Seed And is not Circumcision enjoyned only on the Natural Carnal Family of Abraham in the term ye as it is distinguished from the Seed Sol. No there is no such distinction but of your own making The terms of every distinction must be opposite else it is no distinction but here they are conjoyned as one party in the Obligation And the Seed which you would make one member of the distinction is a self created term as I have told you upon the former Question It is thou and thy Seed after thee in the 9. Verse pointing not only at Isaac but at all Abraham's posterity in their respective Generations during the continuance of that Administration And then it follows in the 10. Verse This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. meaning Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations which had been spoken of just before so that God doth not distinguish between ye and the Seed as you say he doth Nor doth it appear that Circumcision is enjoyned only on the Natural Carnal Family of Abraham in the term ye as it is distinguished from the Seed but rather the contrary Obj. But then you do also tell me That the subject of the Obligation to Circumcision in particular which is in the 10. Verse is altered it is not there say you Thou and thy Seed as all along before but ye and ye is Abraham and those then with him in the Letter But Isaac was not there who was the promised Seed Sol. Could Gods mind I pray you be more fitly expressed in the sense I have pleaded for than to say This is my Covenant which ye shall keep in the 10. Verse meaning Abraham and his Seed after him spoken of in the 9. It is true the Words thee or thou are not to be found in the 10. Verse nor was it fit they should for it would have been altogether improper to have said in the 10. Verse This is my Covenant which thou shalt keep between me and you c. because God intended that his Covenant should be kept by more than one even by the Seed of Abraham before mentioned as well as by Abraham himself And therefore it is most fitly expressed as it is in pursuance of the sense I have pleaded for This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. And whereas you tell me That ye is Abraham and those then with him in the Letter but Isaac was not there who was the Promised Seed What do you drive at in this expression would you have me believe as your words do seem to import that Isaac the Promised Seed was not to be Circumcised because he was not there when the command of that kind was given to Abraham and the rest then present with him in the Letter It is true Isaac was not then present with him as being not yet born but yet he was as much comprehended in the term ye as Abraham himself for the command in the 9. Verse concerned the Seed of Abraham as much as Abraham himself and therefore so doth the term ye in the 10. Qu. 4. Again say you Why doth God distinguish the ye from the Seed between me and ye and thy Seed by which I suppose you mean those words in the latter part of the 10. Verse Sol. I answer That as far as appears to me God doth not distinguish the ye from the Seed except as one was present the other future but both together making one party in Covenant This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee c. For I have already proved that ye in the beginning of this Verse must of necessity comprehend all those that had been before mentioned in the foregoing Verse that is Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations But then whereas God saith This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you This can be understood in my opinion no otherwise than thus Between me and you that is Between me and thou Abraham together with thy Son Ishmael and the rest of the Family now present with thee and not only between me and you now present but between me and you and thy seed after thee before expressed Every Man-child among you shall be Circumcised Qu. 5. In fine say you why all along in the 10. and 11. Verses and afterward both in the imposition of Circumcision and in the intimation of the end and use of it doth the Holy Ghost use a restrictive term and
Gen. 17. And that Isaac was signed by it as a Type or Figure of the Gentile Believers as you now seem to affirm and your Paraphrase imports I deny and never expect with all your Art and Sophistry to see evinced And indeed you make him a strange Type of the Gentile Believers in point of Baptism if he himself were not Baptized nor such an Ordnance as Baptism at that time instituted he was a type of that which neither was in it self nor passed upon him As to any concessions of mine you have your liberty to make what use you please of them If I have by inadvertency dropt any word repugnant to this sense as I know not that I have evince it and my recantation shall be your satisfaction In summ I own Isaac to be a type of the Believing Gentiles in the point of the supernatural birth I deny him to be so in the point of Baptism and desire you among all the types in Scripture to shew one like this you plead for that he should represent us in the Ordnance of Baptism when he himself was never Baptized nor such an Ordnance in being for many hundred years after his death But whereas you tell me That you have mentioned a concession of mine in a former Letter and lest I should either forget it or should by some evasion which you cannot think of elevate the force of it and so create you new trouble hereafter you will cite the passage now c. To this I reply That the passage you now cite being as little to your purpose as the former I shall only therefore tell you That I study no evasions to elevate the force of what I have said I suppose that word was the fault of your Scribe too But for all that you may justifie it for ought I know but if you mean elude I must say I need no evasions either to elude the force of my own concessions or to elevate the force of yours And now say you it is time to tell you what Authors I follow they are Scriptural ones such as Paul c. Rep. There are few errors in Theologie but pretend to Scripture Authority Sir our business now is the Exposition of a Text. And Paul never told you of two signs and three parties in that Covenant If he doth I desire you to produce him for it and he shall be more to me than a thousand Authorities I say shew me that Text where Paul tells you of two signs in that Covenant the one Baptism the other Circumcision or that Abraham was to represent the Carnal Seed and Isaac the Spiritual Paul I have read and Peter too but whence your notion is I cannot tell I think he was as much a stranger to it as I and all others both Antient and Moderns were before you were pleased to gratifie the world with this new light You come again p. 5. with your pinching and amazing distinction as you call it of ye and the Seed to make the Covenant tripartite Rep. I thought I had said enough to that before that those terms do distinguish the present and future Seed of Abraham but not as two distinct parties in the Covenant but as different persons both being but one party though some were present others future For this you upbraid me and say this is to affirm and deny the same thing But how can you say or think so And why do you abuse your self as well as me in so affirming Good Sir use your reason and ingenuity to better purpose May not many persons though some be present others absent be all one party in Covenant without a contradiction Let Deut. 29. from the 10. to the 16. decide that But for this and no other reason you judge my head to be unsetled If so it is well for me I am in an able Doctors hand you have skill and I have Hellebore but blessed be God there is no need for either yet From one absurdity you strive to run me into another deriding me for affirming that the members of a distinction ought to be opposite Rep. What shall I now do I am no Academick but a poor silly Countrey fellow and in the hands of a learned Doctor at whose Feet I should rather sit than dare to dispute a Point of Logick This you say is new a new light but that I hope will not offend you your whole notion being so a new light altogether your Exposition of Genesis 17. being such as no man before you ever made on that Text. But though that were answer enough ad hominem it will not justifie me who censure you for novelty This put me to my shifts and made me inquisitive after some Systems of Logick and I have found two if they be of any credit with you viz. Stierius Cap. 6. Reg. 3. who saith Omnia membra dividentia debent inter sese pugnare Are fighters opposites And Doctor Sanderson who saith Compend Log. p. 68. Membra condividentia sint contradistincta opposita But you tell me My Head Tongue and Hand are distinct but not opposite True in themselves they are not but if once brought into a distinction I think they would Should I ask you did you write your Letter to me with your Tongue or Hand And you Answer not with my Tongue but with my Hand I think they would be put in opposition But away with this prattle I am out of my faculty and will not in this contest with you What is a Dunce to a Doctor Your next Discourse is to little purpose fain would you establish your tripartite Covenant and therefore shew me first a Covenant betwixt God and Abraham which was bipartite then comes in his Seed with him and this must needs make it tripartite Rep. There was a Covenant betwixt God the Father and Christ and after that a Covenant taking in all his Seed called the Covenant of Grace doth that make it tripartite Are not Christ and Believers considered but as one Party This notion vanishing all your over subtle distinctions of thou and ye and you and thy Seed vanish with it I must still say you are singular and I hope too modest to think that Wisdom was born with you I have told you in what sense I allow a distinction betwixt Abraham and Ishmael Isaac and all that were to come they were distinct persons but one party in Covenant and all to be signed with Circumcision And you adventure far without guide or warrant in affirming Abraham to represent only the Carnal Seed for Believers are as often called Abraham's Children as Isaac's I say all these forementioned terms signifie no more but Abraham and all his whether present or future as one party with him and it is not my notion but yours that makes the Scripture unintelligible For both Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's Seed and both obliged to be Circumcised And though Isaac in the manner of his birth was the figure or representative of the
Spiritual Seed yet this makes not him a third party no more than it did Abraham whose Children the Spiritual Seed are as often called as they are Isaac's Your next Paragraph is remarkable and seems to me the giving up of your cause for lost You there tax me for a bold abuse in saying That you intimate that Baptism is immediately intended in the 9. Verse of Gen. 17. Mark your own word not instituted but intended Whence I argue If Baptism be neither there instituted nor intended if it be neither in the Letter nor intention of that Text it is not there at all And all the noise you have made about it is but a beating of the Air. And whereas you do also tell me the sense is indeterminate and general Here you leave me a fair Field for whether the sense be determinate or no. I appeal to all the rational World to determine except you will dare to interrupt the Spirit of God in a continued Speech break the series of his Discourse put a stop where you please before he hath spoken out and catch one part before the other which determines the sense be uttered as I told you in my last and then call it indeterminate and general But this is not to be endured among men you your self would not suffer it to be thus handled Much less will God suffer it Doth not God in the same breath as I may say determine the sense and tell you wherein the Covenant is to be kept namely in Circumcision Do not these Words immediately follow the former This is my Covenant which ye shall keep c. Every Man-child among ye shall be Circumcised And do they not determine the sense What a liberty do you take not only to interpret this Text but rend one part from another and put periods where you please But why do I beat the bush when the Bird is fled Baptism it seems is neither in the Letter nor intention of Gen. 17. 9. And if so the Dispute is ended and we are where we were before Had there been a sign or the sign in the 9. Verse distinct from that in the 10. the one Baptism the other Circumcision Ishmael the subject of the latter as a representative of the Carnal Seed and Isaac of the former as a figure of the Spiritual as your former Discourses ran then Isaac must have been Baptized or else you make him a strange Figure But now you yield he was neither Baptized in his own person nor Baptism so much as intended in the 9. Verse And what more satisfaction can I expect from you you may distinguish the thou and ye and you and thy Seed after thee as subtilly as you can But though you acknowledge Baptism is not the immediate sense of Verse 9. Yet it may be you will tell me it is the remote sense Yes sure remote enough and out of the ken of all men besides your self But I pray you Where do you find this remote sense and what is the immediate sense if neither Circumcision nor Baptism be there The Covenant it seems according to this reckoning may be kept without any sign which yet you would not allow in your former Papers But pray tell me How was Abraham and his to keep it in the general indeterminate sense which is neither in the one or the other sign I am afraid this will puzle you if not you it doth such a soft Head as mine Did not you tell me in your last The Covenant must be kept in some sign and yet here it may be kept without any Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee that is in the sign of it But that must not be understood say you in any particular or determinate sense but in general only for though Baptism is intended yet it is not immediately intended but remotely only But you may distinguish as you please Baptism I am sure is not to be found in the express Words of the Text and you your self do now acknowledg it is not in the immediate sense and I have proved that the sense cannot be general and indeterminate what need any more ado then to darken Counsel thus by Words without knowledge there seemed once a sign or the sign in the 9. Verse distinct from that in the 10. but now it is vanisht and there is no sign there at all only in a general indeterminate and remote sense that is in no sense So that Abraham and his according to your interpretation were obliged to keep the Covenant in a nonsense way Your next Paragraph runs you into as bad a slough as the former You say you thought to have dismist the point but that something came into your mind It had been well you had kept to your first intention and have let that objection of mine that came to your mind alone as you have done many others You had asserted that Abraham stood for the Carnal Seed It seems I had objected Rom. 4. That he received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of Faith and therefore stood for the Spiritual Seed as well as Isaac This pinches and to clear your self to this troublesome objection you return two things First That the reward was personal and earthly for so is the sense of what you say Secondly That it was given him for his believing of the Promise to him so improbable so unlikely and in nature so impossible viz. That he should have Seed as the Stars Sir I am almost as much amazed at your Exposition of Rom. 4. as at that of Gen. 17. Did Abraham represent none in this or only the Carnal Seed And was the reward only the Land of Canaan and that reward too for his believing a thing so improbable Whither will not men run when left to the guidance of their own Reason and Fancy Look again I beseech you on the Text Rom. 4. 11. Was it not that he might be the Father of all them that believe And are all them that believe the Carnal Seed for whom he stood And is it not added Verse 23. That it was not written for his sake alone as you interpret and can do no other if you make him stand only for the Carnal Seed but for us also And was the Land of Canaan the only reward of his Faith or did he not look for another reward in Heaven Heb. 11. 10. And was this reward given him for his believing a thing so improbable and in nature so impossible your meaning may be good but your expressions sound harsh and dissonant to Rom. 4. 4. the reward not being of Debt but of Grace not for the dignity or the Act of his Faith but from Grace All that follows to the close is a meer strife about Words formerly censured by me and industriously vindicated by you with some new marks of Reproach with which you brand me And finding nothing in it but that which you nauseate and call a brabling business I pass it over being loth to give you more Tongue than needs must You shut up with a challenge of a Personal Dispute at Totnes and a Menace of printing your part leaving me to do with mine as I please As to your Challenge I dare not answer it not only because I acknowledg you much my superior and to wear a long Sword compared with my Dagger I am as you have represented me and much more you a man of renown And therefore if you offer my reputation as a Victim to your glory it will not be thereby much illustrated but besides the Law allows no such Meetings and I and my Friends are secluse and incapable of appearing on such a score I perceive you are well acquainted with Aesop's Fables I therefore recommend to you that of the Rat and the Frog attempting to go over the Water in conjunction As it fared with them so it may with us in such a congress As for publishing your Arguments I cannot oppose you but in Justice I think you are bound to publish all mine with them else you will be In vacuo solus Sessor Plausorque Theatro Triumphing and applauding all alone no Adversary being with you on the Stage which is an easie triumph To conclude I think the World will be but little enlightned by such a Discourse of yours published in your own vindication Sure I am neither the Argument you mannage or the Adversary you have chosen can add one Grain to your Reputation But do as you please and I will do what I ought and as far as I can to vindicate Truth retaining still that Honour which is due to your Person and Parts from SIR Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Philip Cary. Dartm Jan. 19. 1682. FINIS
remarqued further in your first page is that grave and worthy note with which you close it and for which I thank you That to start a sense of the Spiritual Seed which was not thought of before is doubling And a Hare is used to double when near run down Rep. Your Note is weighty and the Hare you hunt is not so near run down but that she will double once more and double your own words upon you too Have not you started a new sense of Gen. 17. which was never thought of by any Father or Commentator before no Author ever going in your track but purely novel And is not this according to your own observation doubling Really Sir you convince me that harder and steadier Heads than mine may now and then nod and forget themselves But from fishing for more contradictions you fall in the next place a lamenting your misfortune in having to do with such an Adversary who being prejudiced in adherence to an opinion long ago conceived is obliged to do all things to maintain it with such a one as is not susceptible of light yea with such a one as being prepossessed winds and turns and wriggles and will not admit of plain sense In a word one that will not see that thrice one makes three That is neither consistent with himself or his principles a Proteus a capering Will with a Wisp an ignis fatuus which in effect is no other than a soft-headed Fool. And all this vomited out at one gush by a man that in the very next words wipes his Mouth and professeth he dare not allow himself such a liberty as I do that holds it undecent and unchristian to sharpen his Pen and calls him a Butcher rather than a Chirurgeon that delights in cutting and tearing and slashing when there is no need of it that commends soft Words and hard Arguments when mean while soft Words are as great a rarity as hard Arguments in all these your Papers except these be such But what need you so to bewail your misfortune though I am not an Adversary considerable enough for you to raise your honour upon yet I am one of your own chusing and provoking and the softer and simpler you find me the easier will your victory and triumph over me be only perhaps you reckon it inglorious to enter the lists with such a contemptible thing as I am No generous Eagle stoopeth from on high To truss a Titmouse or a Butter-fly Thus Goliah despised that poor Stripling that came against him with a staff and a stone An Elephant scorns to fight a Mouse yet Sacred Story tells us the event of the one and Prophane History of the other which I speak not in a way of boasting but to let you know that you do not well thus to hector me with such kind of language as you do In your next Paragraph you fall severely upon me for noting your fault in corrupting the Text by changing thy Seed for the Seed the latter being more emphatical and fit for your purpose In your defence whereof it is very observable how you twist wind and turn to apply your own Phrases for first you charge it as a mistake in your Scribe but after it had been denyed then charged as an errour in the Scribe Lest you should seem to err you undertake the defence of the before acknowledged mistake with a Quod scripsi scripsi But is this becoming the candor and ingenuity of your character Who is it now Sir that is obliged to do all things to defend his Opinion to say and unsay deny and defend the same things We need not Argus's hundred Eyes so dull a fellow as I am discerns this shuffling with half an Eye And though this course be bad in you and the worse because you before condemned it though unjustly in me yet the medium you have chosen to defend that alteration of the Text is a greater crime than to let it pass as the Scribe's mistake for you tell me that Christ and his Apostles did thus in an hundred places A sorry help at a dead lift How hard is the case now with you that you are forced to such a shift as this Christ and his Apostles were infallible are you so too Every variation they made was Authentick and Canonical Scripture are yours so too Dare you compare If you have equal authority we know where to find an infallible Judge of all controversies on Earth nearer home than Rome though I believe John Duns Scotus never heard of any besides him that wears the Triple Crown But to our business say you it is time to come to the business say I for all this while you have been beside it and thereforenow I expect soft Words and hard Arguments I therefore diligently attend your next Paragraph wherein you say the main of the Controversie lieth Here you make use of my concession That the Spiritual as well as the Carnal Seed Isaac as well as Ishmael are concerned in those Verses in Gen. 17. 8 9 10. Rep. It is true they were so both the one and the other were to be Circumcised but not quatenus Spiritual but as the Seed or natural descendents of Abraham But this say you is a Bull if so you had need beware for Bulls have Horns and will push and so will this For If the proper subjects of Circumcision were the Spiritual Seed quatenus Spiritual then none but the Spiritual Seed ought to be Circumcised whereas Ishmael and thousands more that were not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham were and ought to be Circumcised But say you though Isaac was Circumcised and Ishmael too yet there are two signs in that Text Circumcision and Baptism And therefore though Isaac in the Letter was to be Circumcised as the Natural off-spring of Abraham yet Isaac say you was both in the Promise and in the Obligation too to be considered as he represents the Believing Gentiles the true Spiritual Seed And thus also runs your Paraphrase upon the words as it is expressed in your former Paper 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 you and thy Seed Isaac the Seed of the Promise and not of the Flesh Every Man-child among ye ye the natural Family and Carnal Seed shall be Circumcised Among ye he doth not say among the Seed The Seed is to keep the Covenant in a sign Verse 9. But the Natural Family only are to keep it in this sign of Circumcision Rep. What pity is it that no man in the World should be able to see this besides your self I before acknowledged Isaac to be a type or figure of the Believing Gentiles but not in Baptism but in the way and manner of his supernatural birth to which our regeneration in some sort corresponds as you well expound to this purpose Rom. 4. 13 16 17. but that there is any such sign as Baptism in
that are in it which he could not untie is now to be referred to the Readers judgment The Doctor tells me indeed p. 1â—4 in the latter end of his fourth Letter which that last Letter of mine gives answer unto That I had treated him but as Aesop did his Masters Guests with Tongue Tongue still nothing but Tongue in several dishes I hope the Reader will find somewhat of Brain as well as Tongue However Tongue is good meat and many Men much affect it either when themselves carve it and others receive it with admiration or others carve it and they receive it well sawced with adulation There is one thing more which I judge it needful to give the Reader Advertisement of and that is That that which the Doctor calls his first Letter is to speak truth no other than two Letters conjoyned in one or his first and second Letters united together For whereas I had sent him my second Letter in answer to that which was indeed his first by way of reply he was pleased to send me back again almost an entire transcript of his first Letter intersprinkled with some animadversions on my answer wherein himself now acknowledgeth in his Preface That as he thought I had obliged him to make several additions and alterations as well as emendations by my answer thereunto And this is that which he now calls his first Letter which therefore hath a double date If therefore the Reader find one or two passages in the foregoing Scheme which are not 〈◊〉 to be found in that first Letter of his as it is now altered this which I have now said will afford a sufficient reason for the same And because I thought it might be burthensome to the Reader to peruse all the several Letters which I have sent unto the Doctor upon the foregoing subject especially considering the substance of them hath been already presented in the foregoing Scheme I have therefore only subjoyned my two last Letters unto him wherein the main of the Controversie between us is summed up and though one or two passages even in those Letters also have been already recited to make up the foregoing Scheme entire yet the necessity thereof in that respect will I suppose render it sufficiently excusable to the Reader Upon the whole since according to the Doctors own concession Baptism is not immediately intended in those Words Gen. 17. 9. And it being as plain that it cannot be remotely intended there and that much less can it be found in any other Old Testament Text. And for as much as the Doctor hath yet nevertheless asserted in the 10. page of his Epistle to the Reader That in the New Testament no new rule is given by Jesus Christ himself or by his Apostles and followers about the subjects of Baptism I shall now therefore appeal unto the discerning Reader whether the Doctor must not of necessity be at a great loss concerning the grounds of Infants Baptism which yet he tells his Reader he hath so fully asserted and that in a method wholly new and upon grounds not commonly observed Indeed it cannot be denied to be in a method wholly new and upon grounds not commonly observed since he rejects all other Arguments as hanging it on Wyres or by Geometry only But I am apt to think that whatever the common Arguments will be found to have done the Doctors new Method at least doth sufficiently appear to have so served it For if there be no rule given for it either in the Old Testament or in the New then it hath no foundation in the Word of God at all And if it hath no foundation there the Wit of Man cannot acquit an action so performed from the Guilt of Will-Worship and consequently from hanging it on Wyres or by Geometry only My Fifth Letter to the Doctor Honoured Sir YOurs of October 14. hath been thus long before me being more puzled how than what to answer for I find it easier to answer what is Argumentative in your Papers than how to word the just reproofs I have to lay before you in such clean mild decent and Christian Language as may be fully expressive of my mind and no way justly offensive to yours Reprehension is called by a great Divine the Chirurgery of the Passions and cutting work is not easie or pleasant Here lies then the difficulty of my Province not to stir up your Passions whilst I am labouring to clear up the truth that which relieves me in this point is that I have to do with a generous Adversary Adversarius non Personae sed Litis Augustus Caesar sharply rebuked one that delivered a Paper to him so timorously as if he had been reaching stipem Elephanto a morsel to an Elephant but I hope I may approach you with more freedom with these Papers expecting at least as much humanity and a great deal more Christianity from you whilst I thus Animadvert on yours You tell me My last was welcome to you because you learn by it that the Controversie long depending and which you feared would be eternal is not like to continue long By way of Reply unto which First I give you your word eternal back again as improper and out of place here sure there are no such litigations in eternity Those illuminated Souls that have entred that state do not mistake three for two and two for one as we blind mortals do And Secondly whereas I perceive you are willing to end the controversie the sooner the better say I so you end it fairly by untying not cutting the knots that are in it And indeed for my own part I had rather be sucking the Marrow of practical Truth than exercising my Teeth always upon the Bones of Controversie You blame me for applying the phrases of Plain Scriptural Solid and Cogent to my own Discourses and of Chimaeraes Repugnances doubtful Consequences ambiguous uncertainties violence and corruption of Scripture to which you might have added unproved dictates to yours To which I reply That if I did not think my own to be Scriptural solid and cogent they should be none of mine And if it do not appear that yours are as I have called them I will beg your pardon But I doubt you have given too much ground in these as well as your former Papers to justifie those Censures You put the whole Controversie upon these two Issues viz. the Duty enjoyned Genesis 17. 9. and the subjects of that duty Verse 10. Candidly and fairly offered say I I do accept therefore and joyn Issue with you upon this reasonable postulatum that the English Bible may be Judge for I pretend to no knowledg in the Hebrew as also that you do not wrest or cloud the genuine sense by artifice or eloquence For one of the Antients pertinently observes That the state and condition of the most perspicuous truth is often obscured and altered according to the strength or eloquence of those that dispute it You say That you
have abundantly evinced that by Seed in the 9. Verse must be understood the Spiritual as well as the Carnal Seed To this I reply That that may be easily evinced which was never controverted I grant you that the Spiritual Seed viz. Isaac is concerned in the 9. Verse but that which you are to prove is that Isaac quatenus or as the Spiritual Seed is there meant I say this is what rests on you to prove else you only say but not dispute and will justifie me in calling your Discourses unproved Dictates I expect I say solid proof for this because it is a foundation stone such as it is in your structure but I doubt this will never be proved by you I am sure not from the Scripture which you palpably abuse by misrendring it In Isaac shall the Seed be called the Text saith not so but thy Seed And the Apostle alledging it twice in the New Testament faith thy Seed not the Seed as you do which had you done by way of exposition only it had been the more excusable but an allegation is one thing and an exposition is another And we cannot be ignorant that when we cite a Scripture we ought to cite it in the same syllables and be precise to a point forasmuch as on every point of the Law Mountains of matter hang. Now though it is true that Isaac was a type of Christ and so of the Believing Gentiles also Isaac being born after the Spirit as a Child of the Promise and not barely after the flesh as Ishmael was yet I deny that Isaac in the Spirit that is the Believing Gentiles is at all to be understood by the Seed expressed in the 9. Verse because the Seed there mentioned is commanded in the 10. to be Circumcised which doth not at all suit with the believing Gentiles but must of necessity be understood of Abraham's natural posterity by Isaac only Nor indeed was it under that precise notion as Isaac was the Spiritual Seed that the present obligation was at all fastened upon him 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 to nothing of any Spiritual Relation unto Abraham as Isaac did And yet it cannot be denied but Ishmael was included therein as well as Isaac But our business is to shew who were to be Circumcised and in what Capacity Respect and Relation you are coming to that and in order to it in the next place you assert a tripartite Covenant viz. God on the one part Abraham and his Natural Family denoted by the Word ye on the second part And Isaac in the Letter and Spirit and in him the believing Gentiles denoted by the Seed on the third part You asked me before How I durst distinguish where God doth not I do not know that I did but I think you do so here And should I say no more but turpe est Doctori c. it may be I had said enough to that But I pray you dear Sir How prove you this Covenant to be tripartite which seems to be bipartite only by Verse 2. and Verse 4. only Abraham is considered in it as Pater Familias and his off spring both present and future taken in with him as one party in the Covenant even as Noah's Covenant is expressed in the same form Gen. 9. 9. I know not what Authorities you follow I wish you would be so just to your self to produce them in your own vindication for I think you tread a very solitary and By-Path here But by the same Rule and Reason you make it a tripartite Covenant you may make it quadrupartite if you please viz. God is one party Abraham another his present Family a third and his Seed after him a fourth But when a Mans Eyes are once dazled nothing is more common than to see three for two and two for one as you here do three Parties and two Signs which is the next thing For you make two distinct Signs as well as three Parties in this Covenant And that I may not abuse you I will set down verbatim your own Paraphrase upon the Words which though you call plain and easie it is to me the most involved tortuous and intricate that ever I heard of except Origens Allegorical and Mystical Commentaries But such as it is I shall here set it down and my own by it that all may judge which flows most naturally Thus runs your Paraphrase speaking of the 9. Verse say you Therefore thou Abraham and thy Seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit shall keep the sign of my Covenant And then speaking of the 10. Verse you bring in that Verse with a But thus 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 which 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 ye ye the Natural Family and Carnal Seed shall be Circumcised among ye he doth not say among the Seed The Seed is to keep the Covenant in a sign Verse 9. But the natural Family only are to keep it in this sign of 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 My Paraphrase I enter into Covenant with thee Abraham and with thine in which Covenant I confer upon thee and them all sorts of Blessings Spiritual and Temporal Temporal upon thy Natural Seed and Spiritual and Temporal on thy Spiritual Seed And by way of restipulation I require That both thou in thy own person and they in theirs both those that are present and future keep my Covenant And because thou mayest understand what I require of you this is my Covenant i. e. the sign of it to thee and them in their Generation which thou and they shall keep Every Male among you shall be Circumcised This is the plain and obvious sense Your Paraphrase is two wayes faulty For first it is forced not natural nor obvious And Secondly it is repugnant both to the Text and to it self First to the Text in forcing one sign upon it more than it ever intended viz. Baptism Secondly to it self and the Text too For if the Natural Seed were to keep it in this sign viz. in Circumcision and the Spiritual Seed in the sign viz. in Baptism and Isaac be the Spiritual Seed then it follows if Isaac sustain only the capacity and relation of the Spiritual Seed he ought not to be Circumcised which