Doctor. ‘AN Argument for In­fants Baptism, dedu­ced from the Ana­logy of Faith, and Harmony of the Scri­ptures. In which in a method wholly New, and upon Grounds not commonly observed, both the Doctrine (of Infants Baptism) is fully asserted, and the Objections against it are obviated.’

Apothecary. Analogy and Harmony are Words of a taking sound, and delicious Air, melodiously chiming in the Readers attention. But it is not very pro­bable, that that Discourse should deserve so pompous a title, which abounds with self repugnancies, and contradictions. To give the Reader a taste, 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 [Page 3] 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 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 5] 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, 'tis 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; [Page 6] 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 [Page 8] 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, 'tis matter of admiration to [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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. 'Tis like there is as much sincerity in [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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. 'Tis unaccountable how so learned, acute, and perspicacious a man as [Page 14] 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 15] 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 occasional Discourse (which I held almost a year and three quarters agoe) about Infants Bap­tism, to engage any further in that controversie.’

Apothecary. It would scarce be worth the Rea­ders time to be informed of the nativity of this Controversie be­twixt us, were it not to undeceive him, if he take me (as who that reads your Letter but would) for the first aggressor: I will be short and plain. The occasion was thus, A Gentleman in the Neighbourhood lying sick, the Doctor was sent for to administer to him; and I was then [Page 17] also obliged to attend him; The Doctor being an active, discursive person, was pleased, if not for pa­stime, yet at least to gratifie the com­pany (amongst which the Lady to whom he dedicates it, was one of the chief) to provoke me to dispute the point of Infant Baptism with him: I declined several times the Ladyes im­portunity, in that respect; though the Doctor was ready, as well know­ing my distance, and insufficiency to cope with so acute and learned a person; but all would not do, dis­pute I must, and being unawares for­ced into the lists, a new Argument never drawn before in this field of Controversie, was now drawn, and brandisht formidably against me, till at last I was overthrown, and shame­fully insulted over as a vanquished per­son; my Sword being as it were broken over my head with great triumph.

I bore these insults as well as I could: but the Reader may easily imagine the anguish I was in, espe­cially considering so many spectators present as there were. If I had not been so much confounded as I was, [Page 18] I might then have told him as I did afterward; That as it was no disho­nour to Melancthon, so neither can it be to any that disputes for truth, not victory, to answer as he did to Eckius, Cras tibi respondebo. However, though I had no intention to have appeared in my own vindication, against a man so much my superior in place and parts; yet when I consi­dered how the truth which I profess lay at stake, (though I had almost lost the sense of the Doctors Argu­ment) I did after some time give him a Letter; which occasioned his first Letter to me, by way of An­swer, wherein the Grounds he goes upon are laid down, and which af­terwards he proceeds to illustrate in his following Letters; which being now made publick, I judge my self under a necessity, to publish the Co­pies of those Letters of mine, which I have sent unto him also, upon that subject, that the Reader may the bet­ter be enabled to pass his judgment upon the state of the Controversie between us; which I suppose could not but prudently have been suspen­ded, upon a partial Information only.

In order hereunto, I have thought it necessary, to draw up the follow­ing Scheme of what hath passed be­tween the Doctor and my self, in re­ference to the principal Argument in dispute between us; the thread whereof might not otherwise have been so clearly discerned, through the interposure of divers other in­tercurring passages, in the several Let­ters that have passed between us. After therefore I had dispatcht my first Letter to him; in his Reply (cutting off what is superfluous and not to the point) he was pleased thus to bespeak me:

Doctor. Though I cannot believe my self obliged by the occasional Discourse The Doctors new Argu­ment for Infants-Baptism, p. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 52, 53. (which I held about a year and three quarters ago) about Infants Baptism, to engage further, and that deli­berately too in that Controversie; yet having received from you so large and so elaborate an endeavour for my satisfaction, — I may not be so much wanting, either in civility to your desires, or in obedi­ence [Page 20] to the call that I believe in them, as to decline the incumbence and obligation they put me under to answer: and so either to receive my self a further illumination in the Point before us, or (which is bet­ter, and which I hope) to give it.

As for my sentiments on this Sub­ject, without concerning of my self in other Arguments insisted on by others, and also touched and reflected on by you, I will immediately pro­ceed to display and lay out the Ar­gument for Paedobaptism, as it is founded on the Covenant or Blessing of Abraham, in all its force and evidence; and to do it to some purpose, I will demonstrate,

First, That the Covenant of Abra­ham, which is called the Blessing of Abraham, or the Promise of the Spirit, is still in force, and is that Covenant of Grace the true believing Gentiles are under.

Secondly, That in respect of that Covenant of Promise, which is cal­led the blessing of Abraham, and the promise of the Spirit; all the seed that hath the benefit of it, are under e­qual obligations to the duty and in­cumbence [Page 21] arising from it, that Abra­ham was himself.

Thirdly, I will shew that the duty and incumbence, arising from that Covenant or Blessing, to which A­braham was obliged; was by way of restipulation, to dedicate and give himself, and all that was his, to God; and in token of that dedication of himself, and all that was his to God, to wear himself the sign of that Cove­nant; and to put it as a cognisance, and badge, and mark of God upon all that were his, and were capable of it.

Fourthly, I will also shew that from Abraham's dedication of him­self and all his to God, there arises a distinction of holiness, into inter­nal and external; absolute and rela­tive; and that this distinction of ho­liness is Evangelical.

From all which it will follow; That the true believing Gentiles, which are the Seed of Abraham, and as much partakers of the blessing of Abraham as himself, are as much ob­liged to keep that Covenant of Promise, in the sign and token of it, as Abraham and his natural Seed [Page 22] were: that is, in token of the dedi­cation of themselves, and all that is theirs; every Father of a Family is to take the sign of God upon himself, and to put it upon all is his, and capable of it; and to be sure our Children are ours: And since circum­cision is no longer that sign, but Baptism is; it is the duty of every Father and Mother of the Family, both to be baptized themselves, and to see that all that are theirs, their own, their property, under their dominion, and at their dispose be so. And I think as it is a duty in the Parent, or Father of the Family to give; so it is a priviledge in those that are so, to be given to God, and to have his sign upon them.

Apothecary. Sir, I have received yours, and shall immediately proceed to consider and give answer to the Argument for Paedobaptism, founded on the Co­venant, or blessing of Abraham, as it is now represented and insisted on by you. And as to the four Propositi­ons [Page 23] on which your conclusion is founded; I must beg your patience to see that frame of Argument, which you have so strongly built and forti­fied, dissolved in these following di­stinctions I have made upon them; and consequently your whole Argu­ment falling with it.

In your first Proposition I only al­low the Spiritual essence of the Co­venant to descend upon believing Gentiles: but that the additaments, and appendages, being variable things, and separable from it, do not neces­sarily descend with it. As I have elsewhere, at large, evinced unto you.

In your second Proposition, I al­low that the Seed of believing Gen­tiles that have the benefit of Abraham's Covenant, and to whom it is made, are under an equal obligation unto those proper duties and services now required of them, as Abraham was himself; understanding it of the adult believing off-spring, and not the infant Seed of believing Gen­tiles.

In your third Proposition, I allow that the believing Gentiles are obli­ged to dedicate themselves, and all that is theirs to God, as Abraham was. But inasmuch as there is a dou­ble dedication; the one by Baptism; and the other by religious Education and fervent supplication: this latter dedication I allow: the former, as it respects our infant Seed, for the Rea­sons I have elswhere given you, I deny.

In your fourth Proposition, con­cerning a two-fold Holiness, Exter­nal and Internal; absolute and rela­tive, arising from the Covenant: though I grant that so it was under the former Administration; yet I have elsewhere proved, that as for any External or Relative Holiness then arising from the Covenant, it is now abolished. And as I have al­ready also demonstrated that the 1 Cor. 7. 14. doth not at all prove the continuation thereof in the Gospel day; so neither is there any other Scripture, that I know of, that can be pertinently alledged for the justifi­cation of such a notion: though I grant that there is an external and [Page 25] internal holiness now arising among Gentile Professors: the latter from the Covenant; the former from a meer pretension to it.

In these four Propositions lies the main strength of your New Argu­ment for Infants Baptism. And Gen. 17. where the Covenant God made with Abraham, is recorded, is the on­ly Text you bottom upon; the grounds of Infant Baptism, according to you, being to be found there, or no where. That they are not to be found there, will appear, I suppose, in the issue. That they are not to be found in the New Testament, your self have confessed to me in these words of your first Letter, p. 62. where you tell me, ‘That we are not to expect any New Commands in the Gospel Dispen­sation for duties settled of old, on lasting and immutable Reasons;’ and more expresly, you tell the Reader in your Epistle, p. 10. ‘That in the New Testament, no new Rule is given either by Jesus Christ himself, or by his Apostles and Followers, about the subjects of the sign of the Covenant, which sign now is Bap­tism. And therefore certainly (say [Page 26] you) it leaves us to the Grounds and Reasons of the Old Testament.’ Now I suppose, your self and all will grant that if a Rule for Infant Bap­tism is not to be found in Gen. 17. it is not to be found in any other Old Testament Text. And if it be to be found in that Text; it is incumbent on you who assert it, to prove, First, your three parties in the Cove­nant there mentioned. Secondly, your two Signs. Thirdly, that Abraham represented the carnal Seed only, in Circumcision; and Isaac the Spiritual Seed in Baptism; though himself the Head and Figure of Gentile Believ­ers, was never baptized, nor the ordi­nance of Baptism instituted for many hundred years after his death. Your proofs for all these Assertions, or rather ungrounded hypotheses, come in order to be considered, after I have traced your more general discourses.

At present all I shall say is only this; That it is apparent unto me at least, that there is an absolute necessity to keep close unto New Testament Commands about New Te­stament Worship; that Text in Gene­sis you insist on, (as far as my Eyes [Page 27] do serve me) having no fellowship with the present Argument, or co­gency to evince the Justice of the present practice. And therefore though it may be good to argue thus; It is Gods mind, therefore it is to be done; yet it is too much for us to argue, this should be, and therefore God hath appointed it; inasmuch as no Reason of ours in positive Wor­ship, such as Baptism is, but Gods will alone, gathered by some express command or example in the New Testament, can acquit an action so per­formed from the guilt of Will-worship.

Doctor. p. 54. If I thought it could be denied that Baptism is the sign of the Cove­nant of Grace, I should think it easie to evince it: But I take it for grant­ed that Baptism is now, as Circum­cision was the sign of the Covenant in the Evangelical Administration, because it is the Restipulation, and Answer of a good Conscience to God. And because it hath the same use now that Circumcision had, viz. [Page 28] to be the right of Matriculation and our Assignation. And because else (which is hard to think) there is now no such Sign and Token of the Covenant; whereas if in Circumci­sion (Gods sign) in Baptism the name of God is put upon us to mark us for his. And taking it for grant­ed, and allowing the Grounds which I have laid; you may see the Reason why in the Primitive times whole Houses were baptized? it is on the same account, and for the same Rea­sons that Abraham's whole House was Circumcised. Thus it is said, Act. 11. 14. that Peter should tell Cornelius words, by which he and all his House should be saved. And Act. 16. 15. it is said, but of Lydia, That she be­lieved: but of her and her Houshold, that they were baptized. And Acts 16. 31. It is promised to the Gaoler, That on his Faith, not only himself but his Houshold should be saved. Believe thou on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House. The Rea­der is de­sired to take no­tice, That this last passage is now left out in the printed co­py of the Doctors first Letter: though he was pleased thus to express himself in the first edition of that Letter to me. Where by the way, take notice; [Page 29] there is a visible Salvation on anothers Faith; Believe thou, and thy House shall bt saved. And why the House on his Faith? and how saved, but exter­nally, because baptized? And there are many Scriptures to like pur­pose.

Apothecary. Whereas you tell me, ‘That the Reason why in the Primitive times, whole Houses were baptized, is the same upon the account of which Abraham's whole House was Cir­cumcised.’ That the reason is not the same is evident; inasmuch as Baptism did not take place in the manner that Circumcision did: For Circumcision was but in one Family, singled out from all the Families of the Earth, of the Males only, whe­ther in the Covenant of Grace or no, Children or Servants, elder or younger, at eight days old, by the Master of the Family, or others in his stead: But in Baptism it is clean otherwise, and therefore the reason of the one cannot be the reason of the other. And as to the bringing in [Page 30] of whole Families together; it was but contingently so, not always so, nor constantly so, according to any Promise or Prophecy; and when it did so happen, we find not any In­fant baptized, nor any intimation of baptizing Housholds in conformity to the administration of Circumcision, but rather the contrary; express no­tice being given, of the Faith and Repentance of those admitted unto Baptism, in the several Housholds recorded to have been baptized; whereas all were to be circumcised, that were of Abraham's Family, both Children, Servants, Slaves and all; whether making a profession of Faith and Repentance or no. And this may appear by taking a view of the several examples of Baptizing, re­corded in the New Testament; which I have elsewhere spread be­fore you.

Only at present, as to that that concerns the example of Lydia, it must of necessity be understood suit­able to the other instances, which when they express the baptizing of Housholds, they express also the be­lieving or receiving of the Word by [Page 31] the whole Houshold; and by the frequent use of the Word, which is to put the House, for the people of growth in it. As to that which con­cerns the Gaoler; it doth not appear unto me from the Scripture you men­tion, nor from any other; That there is a visible Salvation grounded on external holiness; or that any are saved by anothers faith, as you would have it: It being manifest by the following Words, That those of the Gaolers Family were saved by their own Faith, and not by the Faith of another: For though ver. 31. it was said unto him; Believe thou on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be sa­ved and thy House; yet it is expresly told us, ver. 34. That when he had brought them into his House, he rejoyced, believing in God with all his House. And that the Salvation here spoken of, is not to be understood of a ‘vi­sible, external Salvation, because baptized (as you express it) is evident:’ for that this would have been but a poor comfort to the poor trembling Gaoler; of whom it is said, v. 29, 30. That he sprang in and came trem­bling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, [Page 32] saying, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Certainly he was now toucht with a sense of his eternal state: the Re­ply whereunto must therefore of ne­cessity be correspondent.

Doctor. p 55, 56. Thus ran the Drs. first Letter to me; thô this pas­sage is now some­what alter­ed in the printed copy thereof. It seems to me to answer exactly to the Promise given to the Church under the Messiah, that magnificent one; for so Jer. 30. 31. it should be rendred, and not in the plural, as we do read it. To the letter, it is not their Nobles, as in our translation, but their magnificent one, or their Noble one shall be of themselves, and their Governour shall proceed from the midst of them. Now the Pro­mise is, that when this Noble and magnificent one, the Shiloh should come out of the Loins of Judah, and take the Soveragn Government and Power, and have the chief admini­stration of things in his own hand: Then in that glorious and Evangelical Dispensation, Their Children should be as afore-time: their Children should be solemnly dedicated, and given up to God, and put into his pro­tection; [Page 33] and in token of it be baptized, as in aforetime they were Circum­cised, Jer. 30. 20, 21.

Apothecary. I am not convinced that this Scri­pture in the 30. of Jeremiah hath at all any reference to the present pur­pose; and I presume the true sense and scope of it to be mistaken in your application of it. I acknowledge that all the Promises, precedent and con­sequent in that context, relate to the happiness of the Church, in the Kingdom of the Messiah, when that Noble and Magnificent one should come, and have the chief administra­tion of things in his own hands; amongst which this is one, Their Children should be as afore-time. But what then? doth it therefore follow, that their Infant Seed should be bap­tized, in token of their dedication to God, as in afore-time they were Circumcised? was there ever such an inference drawn from this Text before? Certain it is that there are many hundreds of places in the Scri­pture, that might easily be alledged, [Page 34] wherein Children are mentioned, where yet Infants cannot be at all intended. And it is as plain, that as for the present Words, according to the current exposition of the place, it must needs be understood of the body of the Jewish Nation, frequent­ly in Scripture called the Children of Israel; and that their being as afore­time, only points back to the most prosperous state of that people and particularly to the reigns of David and Solomon, at which time that Kingdom was at the highest exaltati­on of its prosperity and glory. I desire you therefore to examine such Expositors as you have by you upon the place. I suppose you are fur­nished with more than my self: but I am apt to think, among them all, you will hardly find your own expo­sition.

Doctor. p. 56. Well may the Children in the Go­spel Dispensation be as afore-time; since though the Jews are cut off, the Gentiles are graffed in upon the same stock: not indeed upon the [Page 35] legal Branch, but upon the Root Olive, which affordeth all the nou­rishment that either the Jews had, or the Gentiles have. Which Root Olive is the Covenant of Promise, that was four hundred and thirty years before the Law. Now into that state of things, wherein not the Law, but the Gospel preached unto Abraham did obtain; God was a God not only to the Father, but to the Children: yea to all his Fami­ly. And the Father of the Family did not only give himself, but all his Children, and even his Servants, all his to God. And so it is now, your Children shall be as afore­time.

Apothecary. As for the Root mentioned, Rom. 11. to which I suppose you refer: it is indeed variously conceived by In­terpreters; some understanding there­by the Covenant to be meant, some Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: and some Abraham only. For my own part; I believe that Christ himself is thereby to be understood; who is the only [Page 36] Root of the Church; and that both in Abraham's time, and before, as well as since. To this purpose him­self tells us, John 15. 5. I am the Vine, ye are the Branches. And to this pur­pose also, Rev. 22. 16. he stiles himself, The Root and the Off-spring of Da­vid. It is indeed therefore the un­speakable blessedness of Gentile Be­lievers, to be graffed in upon such a Stock, not upon the legal Branch; but upon the Root Olive; which afford­eth all the nourishment that either the Jews had, or the Gentiles have. That Root Olive being no other than Christ himself, who was indeed given for a Covenant of the people, and a Light to lighten the Gentiles. The Gospel of whose Grace was (as you say) preached to Abraham four hundred and thirty years (at least) before the Law was given. But what then? doth it therefore follow that the be­lieving Gentiles are put into that very state of things, as the promise held it so long before the Law? Where is that Scripture that says it? Jer. 30. the Scripture before mentioned, speaks no such thing: nor any other that I can meet with.

Evident it is, that though Circum­cision was in use before as well as under the Law; and though Jesus Christ himself is by the Apostle stiled the Minister of the Circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers; yet as it cannot be denied, but that it was adopted into the legal Family; and that it was also adapted unto the nature and quality of the legal Dispen­sation: So it is as evident that it is now abolished. And I can meet with no one Text in all the New Testament, that tells us that Baptism is come in the room thereof; or that it is appointed to have the same place and use in the Church of God, that Circumcision had, but rather much to the contrary, as I have elsewhere proved to you: And it being mani­fest, that the external administration of the Covenant is now changed, from what it was in Abraham's time; from thence it doth as plainly follow, that there is an alteration of the Rule, that must direct us in our practice in that respect.

Doctor. p. 62, 63. It cannot be denied but that the true seed (the believing Gentiles) are as much obliged to keep the Covenant in the sign of it, both by taking it upon themselves, and by putting it upon their Children; as Abraham was for himself and his. And this is the proper duty required of them, as they are partakers of the blessing of Abraham. Nor are we to expect any New Commands in the Gospel-Dispensation for duties setled of old, on lasting and immu­table Reasons; the obligation abi­ding, if the reason of the precept abides. A principle that is the ground of the Apostles Reasoning, 1 Cor. 9 8, 9. 10. And shall the Principle abide, and not the duty which arises from it? the Covenant abide, and not the Restipulation, without which it is not a Covenant? This you dare not say.

Apothecary. How fair and specious a structure may there be erected upon a false or a wrong Hypothesis. All this Discourse of yours proceeds from a mistake in the very foundation of your Argument: For you suppose, and would fain have it taken for granted, That the Spiritual Seed of Abraham under the Gospel, are un­der an obligation from Gen. 17. to keep the Covenant in the sign of it; and that both by taking it upon them­selves, and by putting it upon their Children also; whereas there is not a Word or Syllable there, or any where else in all the Old Testament, That the Spiritual Seed of Abraham under the Gospel, were to keep the Covenant in the sign of it; much less that they were to put it upon themselves; and least of all, that they were to put it upon their Children also. All these are meer Inventions, and unproved Dictates. And therefore though we may not expect any New commands in the Gospel-Dis­pensation for duties setled of old, on [Page 40] lasting and immutable Reasons; be­cause the Obligation abides, if the reason of the Precept abides: yet what shall we say when that which we suppose or affirm of this kind, is but a meer Chimera, or a fancy of our own Brain only? Let it once be substantially proved, either from the 17th. of Genesis, or from any other Text in the Old Testament, what you have now as­serted; and then your conse­quence shall be as readily grant­ed.

Doctor. p. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. I pray consider, That not only Abraham was under Obligation to keep the Covenant in the sign of it, but the Seed of Abraham also; that is, all those to whom the Co­venant is made, are equally obliged to the observation thereof in the sign of it: (and therefore) not only Abra­ham was obliged, but his Seed too. For as God is pleased to say; I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed: and I will give to thee and to thy Seed: So he sayes, Thou and thy Seed shall keep [Page 41] my Covenant. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore; (and not only thou, but) thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations: Thou, thou and thy Seed.

So that if the Believing Gentiles be (as indeed they be) the true Seed, and principally intended in the Promise; (For it is Seed, not Seeds; Seed speaking but of one, and that one is Christ; and Christ not personal only, but mystical, or Christ with his members; for it is of many in one: for the Seed which is to keep the Covenant, is to do it in their Generations; not in his Gene­ration, but in their Generations, and that is plural.) I say, if the Believ­ing Gentiles do become the Seed of Abraham, (as they do) they come also under equal Obligation to observe the Covenant, with Abraham him­self; for it is, Thou shalt keep the Co­venant therefore, thou and thy Seed. And to keep the Covenant (as I have evinced already) is for him that is in it, in token of his dedication, and assignment of himself, and of all his to God, not only to wear the sign of the Covenant himself in his own [Page 42] person, but to put it upon all his that are capable of it; so to mani­fest, that he owns not any interest or propriety at all in any thing, or title to any, but what he returns to God; and that both himself and all his, are the Lords. And are not the Believing Gentiles as much obliged to assign, and dedicate, and give all, as Abraham? Yes, doubtless, and are as much bound to shew, and own, and declare they do so, as he.

And though (as you object) Circumcision, that at first was the sign and token of the Covenant, is taken away; yet it will not follow, that the Obligation to observe and keep the Covenant in any other sign or token doth cease with it. And to demonstrate this, it must be mind­ed, that as the equity and Reason of the command doth hold in Baptism, as well as in Circumcision; and for any other sign and token, as well as for this; and to the Seed as well as to Abraham; God being as much a God to the one, as to the other: So also that in the form of the Words, the obligation imposed upon Abraham and [Page 43] his Seed, is in the First place, to keep the sign and token of the Co­venant, or to keep the Covenant in the sign of it. And but in the Se­cond (place,) to observe circumci­sion; namely, but as it is that sign: So that a plain distinction is made between the Obligation, to observe the Sign and Token of the Covenant, (or to keep the Covenant in the sign and token of it) and to keep it in Cir­cumcision, as that Sign and Token; the Former arising from the very na­ture of the Covenant, (Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore) and there­fore of as perpetual obligation and existence, as the Covenant it self: But the Latter is more positive and secondary. Wherefore, though there be an alteration in the second, it will not follow that there must be one in the First; or that the Covenant ought not to be observed in the Sign and token of it, if for certain Rea­sons, Circumcision be no longer, but something else be that Sign and To­ken; the taking away the Second, doth not destroy the first, for being before it, it may be without it. Thou shalt keep the sign of the Co­venant, [Page 44] that is first; Circumcision is that Sign, that is Second: And why one in the first place, and the other but in the Second, but to shew, the Covenant must be kept in the Sign of it, even when no longer Circumcision, but some other thing is in the Counsel of God ordained to be that Sign?

Apothecary. As to the first part of what you now offer; though I do acknow­ledge that the true 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 [Page 45] time of its Institution; which de­termines both the subjects and the duties thereof. And,

As for the second part of what you now offer; having diligently ex­amined the Scripture which I suppose you referr to; viz. Gen. 17. For my own part, I must needs profess, I can find no such distinction there, as is suggested by you: for thus run the Words, ver. 9. God said unto Abra­ham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. Ver. 10. This is my Covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee; every Man-Child among you shall be Cir­cumcised. Where I can find no such distinction as you observe; ‘That Abraham and his Seed were enjoyn­ed, first to keep the Covenant in the sign of it; And in the Second place, to keep it in Circumcision, as that sign.’ For the immediate Obligation which was laid upon Abraham, and his Seed after him in their Generations, was not to keep the Covenant in the sign of it in gene­ral terms, as you would have it; but to keep it in that particular sign [Page 46] of Circumcision; there being in that Scripture no other sign mentioned, or implyed; in which the latter words are only exegetical of the former, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, &c. in the 9. Verse; And how? the 10. Verse explains, Namely, in Cir­cumcision.

Doctor. p. 84. 85. Seeing this Objection hath some­thing in it very pertinent: (for I will do you all the right imagi­nable) I hold my self obliged in or­der to the removing of it, and con­sequently to the further illustrating, and clearing of my Argument, to shew, First, That the immediate ob­ligation, and incumbence mentioned in the 9. Verse, cannot be to keep the Covenant in, but Circumcision, or in Circumcision only. And con­sequently that what is said, Verse 10. is not meerly exegetical of the obligation in the 9.

Secondly, That the immediate Obligation, and incumbence in the 9. Verse, is to keep the Covenant in the sign of it; this is Primary: [Page 47] And then, that which is added in the 10. Verse, is but a secondary institu­tion of a particular sign for that time. And,

Thirdly, I will shew, that there is a plain intimation, and consequent­ly more than a meer hint, that some other sign must be observed by the Seed than that of Circum­cision.

Apothecary. Sir, I must needs tell you; That notwithstanding all the pains you have taken, in your second Letter, toward the proof of the three parti­culars, now mentioned by you: you are yet extreamly defective therein.

For, First, You have told me indeed (to this purpose) by way of confirmation of your first particular, ‘That the immediate Obligation and incumbence mentioned in the 9. Verse, cannot be to keep the Co­venant in Circumcision only: be­cause as God promiseth to be a God unto Abraham, and his Spiritu­al Seed: So the Spiritual Seed, as [Page 48] well as Abraham himself, are equal­ly bound to keep the Covenant. And since the Spiritual Seed of Abraham under the Gospel, are no way obliged unto Circumcision; some other sign therefore (say you) must be intended in the Text.’ But this is not home enough to the pur­pose; for the Argument would ra­ther run thus: That therefore it is the more convincingly evident, that the Spiritual Seed of Abraham under the Gospel, are no way concerned in that Obligation; because without giving the least hint of any other sign: Circumcision, the only sign there mentioned, hath relation to Abraham, and his natural off-spring and family only.

Secondly, Whereas you tell me, ‘That the immediate Obligation and incumbence in the 9. Verse, is to keep the Covenant, in the sign of it; which you say, was Primary. And that which is added in the 10. is but a Secondary institution of a particular sign for that time.’ This being without a substantial proof, is but a meer Petitio Principii: or a plain begging the Point in dispute, upon [Page 49] which the stress of the whole de­pends. For as it is evident that the words in the 10. Verse, are only ex­egetical of those in the 9. And as it is evident that neither in the 9. nor in the 10. is there any other sign men­tioned, but the sign of Circumcision only: So it is as evident that the words in the 9. Verse, do neither express, nor give any intimation of any sign at all, that God intended should be annexed to the Covenant, as the token, badge, or cognisance of it; there being no such term, or a syllable of that sound in the Text: For there God only commands Abra­ham to keep his Covenant; and doth not say: Thou shalt keep it in the sign of it: that being your addition only. In the 10. Verse, indeed we have a particular explanation of what had been delivered in general terms in the 9. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after the; every Man-child a­mong you shall be circumcised. So that it is apparent that the latter words are only exegetical of the former; and are therefore the Primary, and not the Secondary Institution of [Page 50] a particular sign, as you would have it.

And Thirdly, your assertion there­fore is groundless, when you tell me, ‘That there is a plain intima­tion in the 9. Verse, and conse­quently more than a meer hint, that some other sign must be ob­served by the Seed than that of Circumcision:’ For though the Substance of the Covenant on Gods part, doth now belong equally to Be­lieving Gentiles, as well as to Be­lieving Abraham, and his Believing off-spring then; yet as to what 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 [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 [Page 54] 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, [Page 55] 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.

'Tis 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) [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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 [Page 62] 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.