A DISPUTATION Between a DOCTOR And an Apothecary: OR A REPLY to the NEW ARGUMENT of Dr. R. Burthogge, M. D. FOR Infant's Baptism; Wherein the Novelty in which it glories, is justly censured, and its Harmony proved to be no better than self Repugnancy, and a manifest abuse of Scripture.  
By Philip Cary, a neighbouring Apothecary, a lover of Truth and Peace.  Prov. 18. 17. 
He that is first in his own Cause, seemeth just; but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him.  
LONDON, Printed by B. W. for the Author, and are to be sold by R. Baldwin. 1684.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.  
I Am sensible my Title page needs an Epistle Apologetic, lest it should seem either Romantic, or ridiculous. But let it not be censured as imprudent in this learned Doctor to measure Weapons with an unskilful Apothecary; nor presumptuous in me to enter the Lists, and draw my short Dagger upon this Learned Man. It is true, the Doctor with whom I combat, is of a singular acumen, commanding eloquence, and great prudence: But yet nevertheless, it may not seem any more a slide or error in his prudentials in choosing me for his Antagonist, who am every way so much his inferior, than it was a defect in that rare Limner's skill, who to give the Picture of the late Queen a comparative addition of stature, drew her Dwarf by her side, booted, spurred, and sworded, with her Hand straining down to reach the crown of his Head. Which being duly considered, you will have the less reason to censure the Doctor as impolitic in his choice of such an one as I am, to be his Combatant. But yet lest the disparity should seem too great, he hath thought fit however to tell the Reader in p. 18. of his Epistle, That he does not apprehend it any disgrace (as some would have it) to have been engaged with me; for that I am a careful, painful, and industrious searching person, much conversant in the present Controversy; and (as he believes) can say as much for my Persuasion, as any other whatsoever. So that I hope, enough is said in a few words, to salve the reputation of my Adversaries prudence in his choice.  
A Word or two more is but necessary to obviate thy censure of my presumption in entering the Lists with this Learned Man, whose same hath more than once been resounded from the Press. And all that I have to say for myself is this, It was not choice but necessity that hath drawn me in. I was attacked by the Doctor with this New Argument, both in Front, Flank, and Rear, with so much briskness in a private Dispute; that I confess I was quite overborne, as well with the surprising novelty of the Argument, as with the rapid stream of his  eloquence; leaving him a fair Field: So that it was with me for some time, as with the silly Frogs in the Fable; who were all struck into silence and amazement, by the Log thrown down by Jupiter among them; till at last not perceiving it move, they crawled nearer to it, and perceiving it to be a senseless thing which had so affrighted them; they grew bold enough to hop without fear upon it, and over it, and round about it. Thus it fared with me, who stood a while like a man astonished, at this uncouth Argument; but coming nearer to it, I found it as mere a Log, as that was: and not cast only at me, but at all those that are the Advocates and Asserters of Infant's Baptism also: (all others, but himself, as he affirms, hanging it on Wires, or by Geometry only:) Upon this I roused up my courage; and having undertaken the Doctor in several private Letters that had passed to and fro betwixt us; though I never thought to have made the matter more public; yet the Doctor having been pleased to print his own Letters, and that by themselves, I am thereby necessitated as well as encouraged, to follow and attend his motions, according to the duty of my place.  
If I seem to be defective in that deference I own him, or too smart in any part of my reply, I beseech thee before I come under thy censure, to read those passages in the Doctor which gave the occasion; and see whether my words be above the value of the provoking cause? If thou be a competent and equal Judge, I dare refer myself wholly to thee, whether the Doctor hath not with equal absurdity, in the Book I here deal with, made Abraham the Representative of the Carnal Seed, included Baptism in the 17. of Gen. and excluded the first and grand Covenant-Promise out of Gen. 3. 1●. 'Tis to me astonishing that so clear and piercing an Eye should see a Command for Infant's Baptism in Gen. 17. and not to be able to discern the Covenant of Grace in Gen. 3. 15. his notion concerning the latter of which, you will find p. 110. of his present Discourse; where he is pleased to tell me, That the Words in the last mentioned Scripture, were not told (as I had expressed it) to Adam, but to the Serpent, as being spoken not by way of Promise to the one, but of denunciation of a Sentence on the other; with much more to the same purpose: the introduction whereof you will find at p. 99  
If I seem to be concerned above the rate of my ordinary temper, (the case standing as it doth) it is zeal for the abused Word of God that hath warmed me. I am conscious of no prejudice toward the person of the Author; neither do I love to draw the Saw of contention with any man, much less with one that is so much my superior: But necessity will make Cowards fight. Necessity (as the Doctor well knows) will make a man do greater things than this: It will at least excuse me from presumption in respect of the present Combat. But it is very probable, the Doctor may meet with rougher hands than mine in this Controversy; all sorts of persons being concerned in it, as that which bears hard upon them, and is like accordingly to be resented by them. I honour his person, whilst I detect and censure his errors, and abuses of the Scriptures. I daily pray for the desirable unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; and rest  
Thine in all Christian Service and Affection, Philip Cary.   

Animadversions, and Reflections, upon a late Discourse of the Acute and Learned Dr. Richard Burthogge, M. D. against a neighbouring Apothecary, Entitled as followeth,  

Doctor. AN Argument for Infant's 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 Infant's 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 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 Infant's Baptism is, to hang on Wires only, and by Geometry. And that he could not see it owner of sure and solid foundations, unless it be as he here lays it. Harmonical with which (if that be to Harmonise) is what he saith, p. 79. Where he highly applauds Mr. Baxter's Arguments as abundantly proving the Church Membership of Infants. The Wires then on which Mr. Baxter hanged 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 Persuasion. 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 altar many? why not all? If your Argument be wholly new, and the Doctrine of Infant's Baptism hanged before but upon Wires, and by Geometry, as you say; it must alter All the former Schemes. And this being the only solid Foundation, it altars them deservedly. For why should so great an Article as Infant's 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 manage; 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 Infant's Baptism, are more concerned in this passage than myself. 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 Poltroon 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 Rhetoric, and charmed his ears with melodious sounds, New and wholly New; and not commonly observed. Certainly this is every man's Money; and I am confident would be so, if your Bookseller 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 wholly 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 manage 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 manage 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 acknowledgement, left utterly alone. And Woe 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 Infant's Baptism; all others hanging it upon Wires, 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 Logic as I am, would be apt to infer, That certainly all the old Schemes which it altars, must needs be irrational, nonsensical, and confused: For I should think, sound Reason removes, or altars nothing but what is so far irrational, as it altars it; and good Sense nothing but what is Nonsensical; nor Harmony any thing but what is confused and jarring: For my Natural Logic 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 me, and I believe will be so to your Readers, how all the Sense, Reason and Harmony came to be centred within the compass of your Pericranium; and that in so searching and critical an Age, and in so celebrated, and long bandied a Controversy 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 yourself.  
Doctor. 
Epistle. etc. 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, etc. were first guided to, or encouraged 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 tyre 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 travelled and searched 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 yourself 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 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 Wires, 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 remembered, one of the Schoolmen said, etc.) 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 yourself; whose skill I hope is greater in the Tongues, than it appears to be in the interpretation of Scriptures. They say, That if the Workman's hand were his Rule, he could never err in working: I applied it by saying, That if your Glosses and Interpretations be as authentic 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 repaid 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 yourself, 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 mere 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 you, who have altered all Schemes that the learned of the Age have drawn, in reference to Infant's Baptism, and adventured to call them Wires, 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 plaster 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 mere 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 mere opinion. That's modestly insinuated, like a Man conscious of his liableness to mistakes; and that his own Argument may hang upon Wires, and by Geometry, as well as other men's: But then I am stumbled as much at the backdoor of your Epistle, as I was at the fore-door of your gaudy 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 mere Opinion to some degree of Faith: for should they all approve, and applaud it; (which I am persuaded 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 Judgement, 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 myself obliged by the occasional Discourse (which I held almost a year and three quarters ago) about Infant's Baptism, to engage any further in that controversy.  
Apothecary. It would scarce be worth the Readers time to be informed of the nativity of this Controversy 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 also obliged to attend him; The Doctor being an active, discursive person, was pleased, if not for pastime, yet at least to gratify 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 Lady's 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 Controversy, was now drawn, and brandished 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, 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 Doctor's 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 public, I judge myself 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 judgement upon the state of the Controversy 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 myself, 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 dispatched 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 myself obliged by the occasional Discourse 
The Doctor's new Argument for Infants-Baptism, p. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 52, 53.  (which I held about a year and three quarters ago) about Infant's Baptism, to engage further, and that deliberately too in that Controversy; 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 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 myself 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 myself 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 arising from it, that Abraham was himself.  
Thirdly, I will show 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 show 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 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 baptised 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 privilege 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 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 offspring, 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 elsewhere given you, I deny.  
In your fourth Proposition, concerning a twofold 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 alleged for the justification of such a notion: though I grant that there is an external and internal holiness now arising among Gentile Professors: the latter from the Covenant; the former from a mere pretention to it.  
In these four Propositions lies the main strength of your New Argument for Infant's 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, yourself 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 expressly, 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 you) it leaves us to the Grounds and Reasons of the Old Testament. Now I suppose, yourself 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 baptised, 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 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 God's 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 easy 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. 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 (God's 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 baptised? 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 Household, that they were baptised. And Acts 16. 31. It is promised to the Gaoler, That on his Faith, not only himself but his Household 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; there is a visible Salvation on another's Faith; Believe thou, and thy House shall bt saved. And why the House on his Faith? and how saved, but externally, because baptised? And there are many Scriptures to like purpose.  
Apothecary. Whereas you tell me, That the Reason why in the Primitive times, whole Houses were baptised, 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 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 baptised, nor any intimation of baptising Households 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 Households recorded to have been baptised; 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 Baptising, 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 baptising of Households, they express also the believing or receiving of the Word by the whole Household; 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 another's 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 expressly told us, ver. 34. That when he had brought them into his House, he rejoiced, 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 baptised (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, saying, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Certainly he was now touched 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; though 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 rendered, 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 Governor 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; and in token of it be baptised, 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 baptised, 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 alleged, 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 myself: 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 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 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 styles himself, The Root and the Offspring 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 styled 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 settled 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 mere Inventions, and unproved Dictates. And therefore though we may not expect any New commands in the Gospel-Dispensation for duties settled of old, on 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 mere Chimaera, 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 says, Thou and thy Seed shall keep 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 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 show, 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 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 itself: 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, 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 show, 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 divers; 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 the duties thereof. And,  
As for the second part of what you now offer; having diligently examined the Scripture which I suppose you refer 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 Manchild among you shall be Circumcised. Where I can find no such distinction as you observe; That Abraham and his Seed were enjoined, 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 of Circumcision; there being in that Scripture no other sign mentioned, or employed; in which the latter words are only exegetical of the former, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, etc. 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 myself obliged in order to the removing of it, and consequently to the further illustrating, and clearing of my Argument, to show, 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 merely 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: 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 show, that there is a plain intimation, and consequently more than a mere 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 extremely 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 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 offspring 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 mere Petitio Principii: or a plain begging the Point in dispute, upon 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 Manchild 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 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 mere hint, that some other sign must be observed by the Seed than that of Circumcision: For though the Substance of the Covenant on God's part, doth now belong equally to Believing Gentiles, as well as to Believing Abraham, and his Believing offspring 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 God's mind in that respect; so neither was there any necessity thereof; God only then designing to signify unto Abraham, together with his natural Seed and Family, what was their present duty, under the then present Administration, and not otherwise.  
You yourself 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 expressly enjoined to be Circumcised. And if so, than 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 expressly 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 easy 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 Household 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 Manchild 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, etc. Every Manchild 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 itself. First to the Text, in forcing one Sign upon it, more than it ever intended, viz. Baptism. Secondly, to itself, 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; than 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 Baptised also, which he was not. Yea, according to your reckoning, Abraham himself, as well as Isaac, should have been Baptised: 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 Baptised.  
'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 Baptised, as well as Circumcised; as also thy Seed Isaac in the Letter, together with thy Seed Isaac in the Spirit, (or thy Spiritual Seed in the Gospel-day) as the proper Sign of that Covenant, which I have now made both with thee and them.  
Doctor. 
P. 160, 161, 162.  It is a bold abuse you put upon me, when you intimate as my Opinion, That Baptism is immediately intended in the 9 Verse. Whereas (you know) I have told you ten times over, That I understand the keeping of the Covenant there generally, for keeping of it in the Sign of it (whatever the Sign at any time be) and not particularly and determinately for keeping of it immediately either in Circumcision, or in Baptism. Indeed in that moment, when the general Obligation was imposed of keeping the Sign, neither Baptism nor Circumcision in particular was yet Instituted; though Circumcision was in the very next Moment. I confess, had the keeping of the Covenant in the sign of it, which is the duty enjoined 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 Baptised, 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 Offspring 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 tied 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 yourself 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, etc. Every Manchild 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) than Isaac must have been Baptised, or else you make him a strange Figure. But now you yield, he was neither Baptised 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 subtly 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 beside yourself. 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 yourself 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 vanished, 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 that are in it, which he could not untie; is now to be referred to the Readers judgement.  
The Doctor tells me indeed, p. 1●4. in the latter end of his fourth Letter, which that last Letter of mine gives answer unto: That I had treated him but (as Aesop did his Master's Guests) with Tongue, Tongue still, nothing but Tongue in several dishes. I hope the Reader will find somewhat of Brain, as well as Tongue. However Tongue is good meat, and many Men much affect it; either when themselves carve it, and others receive it with admiration; or others carve it, and they receive it, well sauced with adulation.  
There is one thing more which I judge it needful to give the Reader Advertisement of; and that is, That that which the Doctor calls his first Letter, is to speak truth, no other than two Letters conjoined in one, or his first and second Letters united together: For whereas I had sent him my second Letter in answer to that which was indeed his first; by way of reply, he was pleased to send me back again, almost an entire transcript of his first Letter, intersprinkled with some animadversions on my answer: wherein, himself now acknowledgeth in his Preface; That as he thought, I had obliged him to make several additions and alterations, as well as emendations, by my answer thereunto. And this is that which he now calls his first Letter, which therefore hath a double date. If therefore the Reader find one or two passages in the foregoing Scheme, which are not 〈◊〉 to be found in that first Letter of his, as it is now altered; this which I have now said, will afford a sufficient reason for the same.  
And because I thought it might be burdensome to the Reader to peruse all the several Letters which I have sent unto the Doctor upon the foregoing subject; especially considering the substance of them hath been already presented in the foregoing Scheme: I have therefore only subjoined my two last Letters unto him; wherein the main of the Controversy between us is summed up; and though one or two passages even in those Letters also, have been already recited to make up the foregoing Scheme entire; yet the necessity thereof in that respect, will I suppose, render it sufficiently excusable to the Reader.  
Upon the whole, since according to the Doctors own concession, Baptism is not immediately intended in those Words, Gen. 17. 9 And it being as plain, that it cannot be remotely intended there, and that much less can it be found in any other Old Testament Text. And for as much as the Doctor hath yet nevertheless asserted, in the 10. page of his Epistle to the Reader; That in the New Testament no new rule is given by Jesus Christ himself, or by his Apostles and followers, about the subjects of Baptism: I shall now therefore appeal unto the discerning Reader, whether the Doctor must not of necessity be at a great loss concerning the grounds of Infant's Baptism; which yet he tells his Reader, he hath so fully asserted, and that in a method wholly new, and upon grounds not commonly observed. Indeed it cannot be denied to be in a method wholly new, and upon grounds not commonly observed, since he rejects all other Arguments as hanging it on Wires, or by Geometry only. But I am apt to think that whatever the common Arguments will be found to have done, the Doctor's new Method (at least) doth sufficiently appear to have so served it: For if there be no rule given for it, either in the Old Testament, or in the New; than it hath no foundation in the Word of God at all: And if it hath no foundation there; the Wit of Man cannot acquit an action so performed, from the Gild of Will-Worship; and consequently from hanging it on Wires, or by Geometry only.   

My Fifth Letter to the Doctor.  
Honoured Sir,  
YOurs of October 14. hath been thus long before me; being more puzzled how than what to answer; for I find it easier to answer what is Argumentative in your Papers, than how to word the just reproofs I have to lay before you, in such clean, mild, decent, and Christian Language, as may be fully expressive of my mind, and no way justly offensive to yours. Reprehension is called by a great Divine, the Chirurgery of the Passions; and cutting work is not easy or pleasant. Here lies then the difficulty of my Province, not to stir up your Passions, whilst I am labouring to clear up the truth; that which relieves me in this point is, that I have to do with a generous Adversary; Adversarius non Personae, sed Litis.  
Augustus Caesar sharply rebuked one that delivered a Paper to him so timorously, as if he had been reaching stipem Elephanto, a morsel to an Elephant; but I hope I may approach you with more freedom with these Papers, expecting at least as much humanity, and a great deal more Christianity from you, whilst I thus Animadvert on yours.  
You tell me, My last was welcome to you; because you learn by it, that the Controversy long depending, and which you feared would be eternal, is not like to continue long.  
By way of Reply unto which, First, I give you your word eternal back again, as improper, and out of place here: sure there are no such litigations in eternity. Those illuminated Souls that have entered that state, do not mistake three for two, and two for one, as we blind mortals do: And Secondly, whereas I perceive you are willing to end the controversy, the sooner the better, say I; so you end it fairly by untying, not cutting the knots that are in it. And indeed for my own part, I had rather be sucking the Marrow of practical Truth, than exercising my Teeth always upon the Bones of Controversy.  
You blame me for applying the phrases of Plain, Scriptural, Solid, and Cogent, to my own Discourses; and of Chimaeraes, Repugnances, doubtful Consequences, ambiguous uncertainties, violence and corruption of Scripture (to which you might have added unproved dictates) to yours.  
To which I reply, That if I did not think my own to be Scriptural, solid, and cogent; they should be none of mine. And if it do not appear that yours are as I have called them, I will beg your pardon: But I doubt you have given too much ground in these, as well as your former Papers, to justify those Censures.  
You put the whole Controversy upon these two Issues, viz. the Duty enjoined, Genesis 17. 9 and the subjects of that duty, Verse 10.  
Candidly and fairly offered (say I) I do accept therefore and join Issue with you, upon this reasonable postulatum, that the English Bible may be Judge, for I pretend to no knowledge in the Hebrew; as also that you do not wrest or cloud the genuine sense by artifice or eloquence. For one of the Ancients pertinently observes; That the state and condition of the most perspicuous truth is often obscured and altered, according to the strength or eloquence of those that dispute it.  
You say, That you have abundantly evinced that by Seed in the 9 Verse, must be understood the Spiritual, as well as the Carnal Seed.  
To this I reply, That that may be easily evinced which was never controverted. I grant you that the Spiritual Seed, viz. Isaac is concerned in the 9 Verse, but that which you are to prove, is that Isaac, quatenus, or as the Spiritual Seed is there meant; I say this is what rests on you to prove; else you only say, but not dispute, and will justify me in calling your Discourses unproved Dictates; I expect I say, solid proof for this, because it is a foundation stone (such as it is) in your structure; but I doubt this will never be proved by you. I am sure not from the Scripture, which you palpably abuse, by misrendring it; In Isaac shall the Seed be called; the Text saith not so, but thy Seed. And the Apostle alleging it twice in the New Testament faith, thy Seed, not the Seed, as you do, which had you done by way of exposition only, it had been the more excusable; but an allegation is one thing, and an exposition is another. And we cannot be ignorant that when we cite a Scripture, we ought to cite it in the same syllables, and be precise to a point; forasmuch as on every point of the Law Mountains of matter hang. Now though it is true that Isaac was a type of Christ, and so, of the Believing Gentiles also; Isaac being born after the Spirit, as a Child of the Promise; and not barely after the flesh as Ishmael was; yet I deny that Isaac in the Spirit (that is, the Believing Gentiles) is at all to be understood by the Seed expressed in the 9 Verse, because the Seed there mentioned, is commanded in the 10. to be Circumcised; which doth not at all suit with the believing Gentiles; but must of necessity be understood of Abraham's natural posterity by Isaac only.  
Nor indeed was it under that precise notion, as Isaac was the Spiritual Seed, that the present obligation was at all fastened upon him (there being nothing of this nature mentioned throughout the whole context) but rather as he was descended from Abraham according to the flesh: for otherwise Ishmael had been excluded from the duty there mentioned, who could pretend to nothing of any Spiritual Relation unto Abraham as Isaac did; And yet it cannot be denied but Ishmael was included therein as well as Isaac.  
But our business is to show who were to be Circumcised, and in what Capacity, Respect, and Relation, you are coming to that; and in order to it, in the next place, you assert a tripartite Covenant, viz. God on the one part: Abraham and his Natural Family denoted by the Word ye, on the second part: And Isaac in the Letter and Spirit, and in him the believing Gentiles, denoted by the Seed, on the third part.  
You asked me before, How I durst distinguish where God doth not? I do not know that I did; but I think you do so here. And should I say no more but, turpe est Doctori, etc. it may be I had said enough to that: But I pray you, dear Sir, How prove you this Covenant to be tripartite, which seems to be bipartite only; by Verse 2. and Verse 4. only Abraham is considered in it as Pater Familias, and his off spring both present and future taken in with him, as one party in the Covenant; even as Noah's Covenant is expressed in the same form, Gen. 9 9 I know not what Authorities you follow, I wish you would be so just to yourself, to produce them in your own vindication; for I think you tread a very solitary and By-Path here. But by the same Rule and Reason you make it a tripartite Covenant, you may make it quadrupartite if you please, viz. God is one party, Abraham another, his present Family a third, and his Seed after him a fourth: But when a Man's Eyes are once dazzled, nothing is more common than to see three for two, and two for one, as you here do: three Parties and two Signs, which is the next thing.  
For you make two distinct Signs as well as three Parties in this Covenant: And that I may not abuse you; I will set down verbatim, your own Paraphrase upon the Words; which though you call plain and easy, it is to me the most involved, tortuous, and intricate, that ever I heard of, except origen's Allegorical, and Mystical Commentaries: But such as it is, I shall here set it down, and my own by it, that all may judge which flows most naturally.  
Thus runs your Paraphrase; speaking of the 9 Verse, say you:  
Therefore thou Abraham, and thy Seed Isaac, in the Letter and Spirit; shall keep (the sign of) my Covenant. And then speaking of the 10. Verse, you bring in that Verse with a But, thus: (But) this is (the sign of) my Covenant which ye which are now here, thou Abraham and Ishmael thy Son, according to the flesh, and the rest of thy household here, which stand for all the Seed according to the flesh as so; This is (the sign of) my Covenant which ye (for your part) shall keep as a sign of the Covenant which I have made between me and ye, and thy Seed Isaac, the Seed of the Promise, and not of the Flesh; Every Manchild among ye, ye the Natural Family, and Carnal Seed shall be Circumcised; among ye, he doth not say among the Seed. The Seed is to keep the Covenant in a sign, Verse 9 But the natural Family only are to keep it in this sign of Circumcision. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore (in the sign of it) thou and thy Seed: (but) this is my Covenant which ye shall keep, etc. Every Manchild shall be Circumcised.  
My Paraphrase. I enter into Covenant with thee Abraham, and with thine; in which Covenant I confer upon thee and them, all sorts of Blessings, Spiritual and Temporal; Temporal upon thy Natural Seed, and Spiritual and Temporal on thy Spiritual Seed. And by way of restipulation, I require, That both thou in thy own person, and they in theirs, both those that are present and future, keep my Covenant: And because thou mayest understand what I require of you; this is my Covenant, (i. e.) the sign of it to thee and them in their Generation, which thou and they shall keep; Every Male among you shall be Circumcised. This is the plain and obvious sense.  
Your Paraphrase is two ways faulty: For first it is forced, not natural, nor obvious. And Secondly, it is repugnant both to the Text and to itself. First to the Text, in forcing one sign upon it more than it ever intended, viz. Baptism. Secondly, to itself and the Text too: For if the Natural Seed were to keep it in this sign, viz. in Circumcision, and the Spiritual Seed in the sign, viz. in Baptism, and Isaac be the Spiritual Seed; than 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 Baptised also, which he was not. Yea according to your reckoning, Abraham himself, as well as Isaac, should have been Baptised: 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 baptised.  
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 Baptised; 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 yourself 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 God's 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 discernible 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 God's 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 God's appointment.  
As I take it, one of the Schoolmen saith, That if the Workman's 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, etc. 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, etc. Verse 9 And then Verse 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep, etc. 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 fortify and give life unto the other. Accordingly I shall respect both in my Answers.  
Quer. 1. And First, you demand, Is there not a Word, not a syllable, as you express it (say you) in the 17. of Genesis, that the Spiritual Seed of Abraham are to keep the Covenant in the sign of it?  
Sol. I Answer, That this Phrase, the sign, is equivocal. According to you, it is Baptism; according to my sense, and the plain Scripture, it is Circumcision. That Isaac and all believers of the Old Testament, lineally descending from Abraham, were obliged to keep the Covenant in Circumcision, the declared and determinate sign of it, I grant. That there is any other sign, besides that in this 17. Chapter, I deny; and you have not offered the least proof for it, besides your own Paraphrase upon the Words; which is to dictate, not to dispute.  
Qu. 2. You demand; Have not I proved that the Seed there is Isaac in the Spirit principally?  
Sol. If by Isaac in the Spirit you mean the believing Gentiles; I Answer, No: but I have rather proved the contrary; to wit, that the Seed there mentioned is to be understood of Abraham's Natural Posterity by Isaac only. And the reason is plain, because the Seed mentioned in the 9 Verse, are expressly 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 enjoined 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 conjoined 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, etc. 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 enjoined 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 than 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. Can God's 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, etc. 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, etc.  
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, etc. 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 Manchild 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 never mentions the Seed; but ye, ye shall keep it, etc. And it shall be a token between me and ye; he saith not, the Seed shall keep it, etc. nor, That it shall be a token to the Seed. He says, T●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 custom 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, etc. Nor that it should be a token to the Seed: But ye shall keep it, etc. 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] Butler 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 expressly 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 acknowledge 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 divers, 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 denied, but that Abraham, being in Covenant with God himself, was expressly 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 of spring also; whether believers or no: Yet it is expressly required that the persons to be Baptised be Believers themselves; for thus runs the Gospel Commission, Mark. 16. 16. He that believeth and is Baptised, shall be saved. And so Acts 8. If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest, etc. 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 Baptised, must make (at least) a profession of Faith and Repentance, themselves, before they can be duly admitted thereunto. And therefore to Baptise 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 Baptised 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 Baptised: But is there a word or syllable there concerning the Infant Seed of believers, that they also must be Baptised? Or must we forge a commission out of our own Brain to this purpose, where the Scripture itself is silent? Let the Spiritual Seed then keep the Covenant in the proper sign of it in their own persons; and when you can produce any testimony from the Scriptures, that, because Believers themselves are in Covenant, their Infants must now be signed also; I hope we shall not sail to be conformable to the Divine Precept. But for you to pretend to a plain, downright, Scripture proof for Infant Baptism from the words insisted on; as far as I can see, while the World stands, you will never be able to make good what you would pretend unto upon that account.  
Thus having stated the Issues on which the thing in controversy between us now depends; and having answered your Questions, I hope I may also take the boldness to say, That I have done it with the candour and fairness that becomes a seeker of truth; and shall therefore still beg of God to lead both you and me into the way of all truth, that the remaining darkness on your mind or on mine, in our present searches after it, may at length be dispelled. Thus resteth,  
Honoured Sir, Yours in all Christian Service and Affection, Philip Cary. Dartm. Dec. 15. 1682.   

My Sixth and last Letter, which was never yet answered.  
Honoured Sir,  
I find your last of a different complexion and stile from your former; abounding with sarcasms, Jeers, and opprobrious terms; and all strangely connected with pretences of candour, lenity, and soft Words, and that you dare not allow yourself such a liberty as I take in this kind. At this I am astonished, and provoke you to show one opprobrious term applied to your person in all my Papers. Your person I honour, when I censure and detect your mistakes. But I see it is time to turn the Cask upon its Head, when it's come to the Bottom, and runs so foul and dreggy. I know no use of scoffs in Controversy, but to distract an Adversary, and fill up the defects of sound Reason.  
I perceive you are very angry with me for telling you; That when a man's Eyes are once dazzled, nothing is more common than to see three for two, and two for one, as you do; but I hope you will readily grant that it is incident to the wisest man on earth at some turns to have his Eyes dazzled, unto a misjudgment and misapprehension both of things and persons. And I hope you do not reckon yourself the only infallible man in the World, but that it is possible even for you to have your Eyes dazzled sometimes as well as others. And therefore unless you reckon yourself above the reach of humane imperfections, I see no just reason you have to be offended at such a reflection as that was.  
I have indeed in divers other passages of my last Letter, used a Christian freedom with you, which seems greatly to startle you; but if you will be offended at a serious, Christian reprehension, because it is of a cutting nature, Heb. 4. 12. I cannot help that; and therefore though you condemn it as Butcherlike, I shall more willingly bear the unjust imputation of such a censure, than be really guilty thereof, as you seem to be in yours. But you could not give a more convincing evidence of the weakness of the cause you are engaged in, than by being forced to fly unto the use of such kind of Weapons for the defence thereof; certainly softer Words, and harder Arguments would have been more proper for you.  
Your Answer I have considered both in the whole, and in its parts. In the whole it seems to me, one great impertinence; repeating what had been answered before; and sliding by the substantial part of my former and latter Answers; fastening only upon some by expressions (which yet I am ready to vindicate) as fit subjects for your pleasant fancy to expose me to contempt and laughter. But this stirs no other passion in me but pity toward you, that herein act beneath yourself: and I would have it leave no other effect or impression on me, but humility; who am all that you call me, and much more; and desire to be vile in my own Eyes before the Lord, though I have not deserved this usage from you.  
But to the parts of your answer: You begin it with a collation of my Papers of the 29. of September, and my last; and fancy that at first glance you have found a contradiction in them. Upon which supposal you set your foot upon me, and thus insult; who is it now that is dazzled?  
Reply. Yourself still (say I) for you fancy to see what is not in these papers. I had said in the former; That the Text, Gen. 17. 9 mentions no sign at all, or gives the least hint of any: and so I say still, there is no such term, or a syllable of that sound in the Text: but say you, in mine of the 15. of December, I acknowledge one sign: True, I do so, as included in the sense, though not expressed in the terms. And so doth Junius in his Note upon that place, Foedus metonymicè pro foederis Symbolo. And if in this you find a contradiction, your triumph hath some footing, else all the mirth is marred, and my modesty salved. I am where I was: no sign mentioned at all in the 9 Verse, and but one that is or can be allowed in the sense of that whole context.  
As for my slipperiness in your next Paragraph, and a soft place in my Head; it is well my soft head can find a fair way for me to slip from betwixt your fingers, when you thought you had caught me in a contradiction, and insulted so loudly in that conceit. But, Sir, you may sooner find two soft places in my Head, than two signs in that context.  
Your triumph being ended upon that; you presently find another as bad as the former, setting my two papers a scuffling again, about another contradiction. For, say you, in my former Paper, I understand by the Spiritual Seed, Christ and the believing Gentiles; but in this, the person of Isaac.  
Rep. Who that shall read my last Paper, would think that ever you had read what here you undertake to answer? Sir, you abuse me in this, by a misrepresentation of my plain Words and Sense: For I tell you in my last, that I acknowledge Isaac was a Figure of those born after the Spirit; and that the believing Gentiles as Isaac was, are the Children of the Promise. Had this been heeded, all the pains you take in your first page, to evince Isaac to be a figure of the Spiritual Seed, might have been spared; for it is what I have plainly acknowledged; though it be nothing to your advantage; except you could have proved your two signs; and that Isaac in the sign, was a representative of the Gentile believers, who therefore with all theirs must be baptised, as Isaac was. All that deserves to be 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 tract, 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 choosing 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 Butterfly.  
Thus Goliath 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 Profane 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 denied, then charged as an error 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 candour 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' 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 Authentic, 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 Controversy 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 descendants 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 aught 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 offspring 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 Manchild 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 yourself? 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 Gen. 17. And that Isaac was signed by it as a Type or Figure of the Gentile Believers (as you now seem to affirm, and your Paraphrase imports) I deny, and never expect with all your Art and Sophistry to see evinced. And indeed you make him a strange Type of the Gentile Believers in point of Baptism, if he himself were not Baptised, nor such an Ordnance as Baptism, at that time instituted; he was a type of that which neither was, in itself, nor passed upon him. As to any concessions of mine, you have your liberty to make what use you please of them. If I have by inadvertency dropped any word repugnant to this sense (as I know not that I have) evince it, and my recantation shall be your satisfaction. In sum; I own Isaac to be a type of the Believing Gentiles in the point of the supernatural birth. I deny him to be so in the point of Baptism; and desire you among all the types in Scripture to show one like this you plead for, that he should represent us in the Ordnance of Baptism, when he himself was never Baptised, nor such an Ordnance in being for many hundred years after his death.  
But whereas you tell me, That you have mentioned a concession of mine in a former Letter, and lest I should either forget it, or should by some evasion which you cannot think of, elevate the force of it, and so create you new trouble hereafter; you will cite the passage now, etc.  
To this I reply, That the passage you now cite, being as little to your purpose as the former; I shall only therefore tell you; That I study no evasions to elevate the force of what I have said; I suppose that word was the fault of your Scribe too: But for all that you may justify it for aught I know; but if you mean elude, I must say, I need no evasions either to elude the force of my own concessions, or to elevate the force of yours.  
And now, say you, it is time to tell you what Authors I follow, they are Scriptural ones, such as Paul, etc.  
Rep. There are few errors in Theology, but pretend to Scripture Authority. Sir, our business now is the Exposition of a Text. And Paul never told you of two signs and three parties in that Covenant. If he doth, I desire you to produce him for it, and he shall be more to me than a thousand Authorities: I say, show me that Text where Paul tells you of two signs in that Covenant; the one Baptism, the other Circumcision; or that Abraham was to represent the Carnal Seed, and Isaac the Spiritual. Paul I have read, and Peter too; but whence your notion is, I cannot tell. I think he was as much a stranger to it as I and all others, both Ancient and Moderns, were, before you were pleased to gratify the world with this new light.  
You come again, p. 5. with your pinching and amazing distinction, as you call it, of ye and the Seed, to make the Covenant tripartite.  
Rep. I thought I had said enough to that before; that those terms do distinguish the present and future Seed of Abraham; but not as two distinct parties in the Covenant, but as different persons; both being but one party, though some were present, others future. For this you upbraid me, and say this is to affirm and deny the same thing. But how can you say or think so? And why do you abuse yourself as well as me in so affirming? Good Sir, use your reason and ingenuity to better purpose. May not many persons, though some be present, others absent, be all one party in Covenant, without a contradiction? Let Deut. 29. from the 10. to the 16. decide that.  
But for this and no other reason, you judge my head to be unsettled. If so, it is well for me, I am in an able Doctor's hand, you have skill, and I have Hellebore; but blessed be God there is no need for either yet.  
From one absurdity you strive to run me into another, deriding me for affirming that the members of a distinction ought to be opposite.  
Rep. What shall I now do? I am no Academic, but a poor, silly, Country fellow, and in the hands of a learned Doctor, at whose Feet I should rather sit, than dare to dispute a Point of Logic. This you say is new; a new light; but that I hope will not offend you; your whole notion being so, a new light altogether, your Exposition of Genesis 17. being such as no man before you, ever made on that Text. But though that were answer enough ad hominem; it will not justify me who censure you for novelty. This put me to my shifts, and made me inquisitive after some Systems of Logic; and I have found two, if they be of any credit with you, viz. Stierius, Cap. 6. Reg. 3. who saith, Omnia membra dividentia debent inter sese pugnare. Are fighters opposites? And Doctor Sanderson, who saith, Compend. Log. p. 68 Membra condividentia sint contradistincta, & opposita. But you tell me, My Head, Tongue, and Hand, are distinct but not opposite. True, in themselves they are not; but if once brought into a distinction, I think they would. Should I ask you, did you write your Letter to me with your Tongue or Hand? And you Answer not with my Tongue but with my Hand; I think they would be put in opposition. But away with this prattle; I am out of my faculty, and will not in this contest with you. What is a Dunce to a Doctor?  
Your next Discourse is to little purpose; fain would you establish your tripartite Covenant; and therefore show me first a Covenant betwixt God and Abraham, which was bipartite; then comes in his Seed with him, and this must needs make it tripartite.  
Rep. There was a Covenant betwixt God the Father and Christ; and after that a Covenant taking in all his Seed, called the Covenant of Grace; doth that make it tripartite? Are not Christ and Believers considered but as one Party? This notion vanishing, all your over subtle distinctions of thou, and ye, and you, and thy Seed, vanish with it. I must still say you are singular, and I hope too modest to think that Wisdom was born with you. I have told you in what sense I allow a distinction betwixt Abraham, and Ishmael, Isaac, and all that were to come; they were distinct persons, but one party in Covenant, and all to be signed with Circumcision. And you adventure far without guide or warrant, in affirming Abraham to represent only the Carnal Seed: for Believers are as often called Abraham's Children, as Isaac's. I say, all these forementioned terms signify no more but Abraham and all his, whether present or future, as one party with him; and it is not my notion but yours that makes the Scripture unintelligible: For both Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's Seed, and both obliged to be Circumcised. And though Isaac in the manner of his birth was the figure or representative of the Spiritual Seed; yet this makes not him a third party no more than it did Abraham whose Children the Spiritual Seed are as often called as they are Isaac's.  
Your next Paragraph is remarkable, and seems to me the giving up of your cause for lost. You there tax me for a bold abuse, in saying, That you intimate that Baptism is immediately intended in the 9 Verse of Gen. 17. Mark your own word; not instituted but intended. Whence I argue; If Baptism be neither there instituted, nor intended; if it be neither in the Letter, nor intention of that Text; it is not there at all. And all the noise you have made about it, is but a beating of the Air. And whereas you do also tell me, the sense is indeterminate and general. Here you leave me a fair Field: for whether the sense be determinate or no. I appeal to all the rational World to determine: except you will dare to interrupt the Spirit of God in a continued Speech, break the series of his Discourse, put a stop where you please, before he hath spoken out; and catch one part before the other which determines the sense be uttered; (as I told you in my last) and then call it indeterminate and general. But this is not to be endured among men; you yourself 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, etc. Every Manchild 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) than Isaac must have been Baptised; or else you make him a strange Figure. But now you yield, he was neither Baptised 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 subtly 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 yourself. 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 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 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 yourself 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 vanished, 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 dismissed 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 yourself 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 mere 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 brabbling business, I pass it over, being loath 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 acknowledge 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 easy triumph.  
To conclude, I think the World will be but little enlightened by such a Discourse of yours, published in your own vindication. Sure I am, neither the Argument you manage, 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