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