and but a taste of this harmonical Discourse In his Epistle to the Reader p. 18. he saith The Point in controversy is not a point of human learning Here for the main is no need of Greek or Hebrew or of the subtleties of the Schoolmen or of exactness of Criticism Analogically and Harmonically whereunto he delivers himself and that upon the main Point and very Hinge of the Controversy in these Words p. 88. If you say I am too Critical I say this is a Text that must be understood Critically The Apostle was as critical upon it as I or any Man can be when he observed it is said Seed as speaking of one and not Seeds and what he saith is the proper Key to unlock the Text. In his Epistle p. 5. he tells us He was concerned to see an Article of that importance as Infants Baptism is to hang on Wyres only and by Geometry And that he could not see it owner of sure and solid foundations unless it be as he here layes it Harmonical with which if that be to Harmonize is what he saith p. 79. Where he highly applauds Mr. Baxter's Arguments as abundantly proving the Church Membership of Infants The Wyres then on which Mr. Baxter hang'd it were it seems a solid Foundation or else an abundant proof is none In p. 122. He calls my Opinion an upstart Opinion or Novelty not of above an Age or Century In Harmony wherewith if that be so he saith to this purpose p. 74. That 't is probable those that would not suffer little Children to come to Christ were of my Perswasion If so my Opinion according to the Doctors own Concession is no late upstart opinion Having done with the Harmony I shall next reflect upon the Novelty of the Doctor 's Argument Wherein saith the Doctor in a Method wholly new New and wholly New are Charms as powerful as Analogy and Harmony 'T is the nature of Man saith Seneca magis nova quam magna mirari to admire things new rather than great and worthy But I must tell you Doctor that Innovators hear not well among the Judicious And that of all Men you should not scoff at New-light as you do without cause in many parts of your Discourse You have blessed the World with a new Light if your Argument have as much of weight as your Title Page and Epistles have of Pomp and Ostentation A Light which will alter many receive Schemes as you say Epistle p. 19. But how alter many why not all If your Argument be wholly new and the Doctrine of Infants Baptism hanged before but upon Wyres and by Geometry as you say it must alter All the former Schemes And this being the only solid Foundation it alters them deservedly For why should so great an Article as Infants Baptism hang any longer by Geometry as Mahomet's Tomb at Mecca is said to do When you have laid a solid Foundation for it 't is fit it should stand upon its own Basis hereafter This is a bold attempt a brave Word for the Cause you mannage brave indeed if it succeed well and that you convince the learned World by it That all former Assertors and Champions of Infant Baptism did but Wyre-draw the Scriptures and hanged all by Geometry But I must here mind you That the Licians suffered none to propose a new Law but at his own peril that if the Reason thereof were not approved he that offered it might pay for the novelty The Church of England together with all the Advocates and Asserters of Infants Baptism are more concerned in this passage than my self Let them look to the old Foundations I am principally at present at least concerned about this New one wherein I fight and indeed can fight against no other Party or Person in the World but Dr. Burthogge seeing I now oppose that which no man ever urged or asserted beside or before himself which is a good Breast-work for my security against all other adversaries Indeed you have chosen a New ground to fight upon not so much with such a Poultron as I am but all the learned that will stand by their old Arguments And thus Sir you have strawed the Readers way with flowers of Rhetorick and charmed his ears with melodious sounds New and wholly New and not commonly observed Certainly this is every mans Money and I am confident would be so if your Book-seller Mr. Jonathan Greenwood's Shop at the Crown in the Poultry did but stand over against the New-Exchange at Athens if it be not New none will regard it and if not wholely New some body would share stakes with you when you come to divide the spoils in the Field of Victory And Social glory is but an half-Mooned honour All or None is the game for him that aspires to the reputation of a Non-such Doctor Epistle to the Reader p. 5 The Argument I go upon as I do mannage it is not common and hath little Authority to make it good beside that of sound Reason good Sense and Scripture Harmony Apothecary That it is not common as you do mannage it is undeniable And that it hath little Authority to make it good besides sound Reason good Sense and Scripture Harmony you voluntarily confess And indeed if it have these three Vouchers it hath enough I value not other Authorities that shall come after these more than supernumeraries or a cast upon the full measure ex abundanti But then your three Vouchers must speak home to the point in plain and intelligible words for should these fail you too as I am much of the mind they will you are then by your own acknowledgment left utterly alone And Wo to him saith Solomon that is alone Those that err with a multitude of learned and grave Men will scape better in the crowd than he that stands single and naked as you do But Sir if your Argument be wholly New and the only solid Foundation of the great Article of Infants Baptism all others hanging it upon Wyres and by Geometry as you speak And that yours be as here you add supported by sound Reasons good Sense and Scripture Harmony such a poor smatterer in Logick as I am would be apt to inferr That certainly all the old Schemes which it alters must needs be irrational nonsensical and confused For I should think sound Reason removes or alters nothing but what is so far irrational as it alters it and good Sense nothing but what is Nonsensical nor Harmony any thing but what is confused and jarring For my Natural Logick teacheth me that Sense fights not with Sense but Nonsense Reason opposes not Reason but what is Unreasonable and Harmony nothing but Confusion and Disorder And verily Sir 't is matter of admiration to me and I believe will be so to your Readers how all the Sense Reason and Harmony came to be center'd within the compass of your Pericranium and that in so searching and critical an Age and in so
celebrated and long bandied a Controversie as this no Man should be so fortunate to light upon the solid grounds of sound Reason good Sense and Scripture Harmony before or besides your self Doctor Epistle c. p. 5. To the Question How I came to hit upon it Apothecary You have seasonably anticipated me I was just going to put the Question What benevolent and auspicious Star guided you to this New Discovery We know that little circumstances are noted by Historians as most memorable and famous things by which the renowned Adventurers such as Columbus Drake c. were first guided to or incouraged in their New Discoveries You may therefore well imagine as you here do that upon your first discovery of this Terra Nova all the amazed and admiring crowd would soon surround you and even tire you with this Question How you came to hit upon it How you did I do not know for my part I have viewed the Text Gen. 17. 9. where your New Discovery is said to be with the best Eyes I have and can see nothing more than what the old solid Interpreters that travel'd and searcht that spot before you or I were born have already discovered And I am sure they tell us of no such Sense as yours no not a Man of them as your self confess It is justly therefore a wonder to me How you came to hit upon it and it was very seasonable to put it in the place where you did for certainly it is a Question hanging by Geometry upon the lip of every man that reads you Isaac asked Jacob just such another Question concerning his Venison How camest thou by it so soon my Son and he said the Lord brought it to me 'T is like there is as much sincerity in your Answer as in Jacob's And I believe there is You insinuate that you were concerned to see such an Article as Infant-Baptism hang but upon Wyres and therefore sought for a better and at last found it or digged it out of the Quarry of sound Reason good Sense and Scripture Harmony and so challenge the honour of the first Discoverer Ego primus inveni is no common badge of honour in my opinion it is no great matter who first found it but whether it be worth the finding Doctor Epist p. 17. I take it to have been a piece of vanity in him speaking of his present adversary to tell me as he doth that as he remembred one of the Schoolmen said c. Because I have reason to believe he understands the Schoolmen as little as Greek or Hebrew Apothecary The passage I referred to in the Schoolmen is very intelligible by any man that was never skilled in the learned Languages as well as by your self whose skill I hope is greater in the Tongues than it appears to be in the interpretation of Scriptures They say That if the Workmans hand were his Rule he could never err in working I applyed it by saying That if your Glosses and Interpretations be as authentick as the Text you can never err in the Interpretation Did this grate I fear many passages will grate more though in none I design your exasperation before you and I have ended Did I deserve to be called John Duns his Scholar for this I had it not from John Duns alias Scotus though if I had I may as well say He was a dunce without dulness as one somewhere calls Naaman's sin a sin without guilt It is not the first time a pleasant fancy hath sported with the name of John Duns nor the first time it hath been well repayed for such wanton sport This subtle Doctor was once sitting at Table with Charles the bald Emperor and King of France and behaving himself a little rustically and homely as I do with you the Emperor jestingly asked him Quid interest inter Scotum Sotum What is between a Scot and a Sot He Answered Mensa the Table I dare not be so vain to say turn the Table with the story no no I acknowledge you a man of parts every way my superior being not worthy the name of John Duns or Dr. Burthogge's Scholar But you see the greatest men even Emperors as well as your self cannot so sport with impunity Doctor You conclude to the Reader thus Epist p. ult That you are much confirmed in the Grounds you have laid as to the verity of them by their undergoing one kind of Test without any loss yet before you advance them from being points of meer Opinion to be points of some degree of Faith you are willing they should undergo all others Apothecary 'T is unaccountable how so learned acute and perspicacious a man as you who have altered all Schemes that the learned of the Age have drawn in reference to Infants Baptism and adventured to call them Wyres and Geometry should be capable of Confirmation from such an illiterate soft-headed Dunce as you represent me in these your Letters to be What can I add to you but to be confirmed Ai and much confirmed in those your very Grounds by their undergoing my Test seems to be not only a plaister to heal my soft pate which you have often broken but such a Crown put upon it as I am ashamed to wear But whether your Dictates have passed my Test without any loss belongs properly to the Reader to judge 'T is possible he may think you have lost your design your own and his understanding too if he have but patience to trace you through your intricate involved and mystical interpretations and Paraphrases However this is a commendable strain of modesty That before you advance them from being Points of meer Opinion to be Points of some degree of Faith you are willing they should undergo all others It seems then all that you have so confidently argued for and concluded in these Letters is not yet in the least degree a Point of your Faith but meer opinion That 's modestly insinuated like a Man conscious of his liableness to mistakes and that his own Argument may hang upon Wyres and by Geometry as well as other mens But then I am stumbled as much at the back-door of your Epistle as I was at the fore-door of your gawdy Title page for I must ingenuously acknowledge I do not understand How the consent or approbation of your Readers is capable to advance your Argument from being a meer Opinion to some degree of Faith for should they all approve and applaud it which I am perswaded few will do yet when all is done your Faith relying upon humane Grounds could be advanced no higher than to a humane Faith except you ultimately resolve it into your Readers Judgment as the Papists do theirs into that of the Church And thus much for your splendid Title page and charming Epistle I now come to your Letters the occasion whereof you thus hint at and but hint in your first page Doctor Dear Sir I cannot believe my self obliged by the
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
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