I Was at the Point of making a Re­solution before I receiv'd yours (of June 9.) wholly to neglect that Libellous Disputation (as it is called) be­tween a Doctor and an Apothecary; as a thing that doth not only betray the Unsincerity, the Artifices, the Impotent Passions of him that wrote It; but that to a Prudent and Judicious Reader, doth (as is said of the Viper) carry in its own Bowels, Causes that in time will destroy it.

But seeing you Advise me that it may not be unfit that something be said to it; and I know we ought not to have too good an Opinion of the World, which generally, being malici­ous, and invidious, is apter to take im­pression from a witty Calumny and De­traction, than from the soundest and most solid Reasoning and Argument, on these and the like considerations, I now resolve to Reply.

But in doing so, that I resemble not my Adversary, whom not only I, but many sober and indifferent Persons do condemn for Impertinence, for False­hood, for Bitterness, for Peremptori­ness and Presumption, and for such other Courses as (to use the Expression of a Noble Person) tend rather to Rumor and impression in the Vulgar sort, than to the likelihood of any good Effect. For this Reason, I am determined in Replying to him, to propose unto my self for my Example, That wise and Religious Bishop of whom when he re­turned Answer to a Pamphlet much (it seems) of a nature like to this before me. My Lord Bacon says, ‘That he remembred that a Fool must be An­swered, but not by becoming like unto him, and considered the matter which he handled, and not the Person with whom he dealt.’

The Points therefore that I will go upon, shall be only these: First, To shew nakedly and truly the Occasion of my engaging with my Adversary in this Controversy. Secondly, To shew the Unfairness of his Proceeding in the Publick Management of it, together [Page 3] with the motives, which (as I suppose) induced him to the Unfairness. Thirdly, To Note but as it were in passing, and by the By, the Undue Aspersions which he casts upon me, in reference to my Argument; together with the Malice is in them. Fourthly, Briefly again to state the Argument I made, and to de­monstrate, That as it is not a Log (as he calls it) nor Vncouth, so that he is still extreamly Affrighted at it. (for he dares not touch it;) and still hath cause to be so.

As for my Engaging with him; the first Occasion (as I have said already) was purely Accidental, and it was drawn on I scarce know how; he says, by the importunity of the Lady, my readiness to comply with it, and his unwariness; and let it be so. But a casual, passing, undesigned Discourse it was; a Discourse that as it did begin, so I thought it would have ended in the same place; for my part, I scarce had one Thought of it afterwards. But as for any Insul­ting upon him, of which he now com­plains, and never before that I know of; and with which he thinks to be­speak the Affections of his Readers (for [Page 4] indeed he needs them) and to excuse his own Acerbity; he cannot produce one Witness of any; I am sure, by me: I can many, even of Persons that were present at the whole Discourse, to At­test the Contrary. But that he was Insulted upon, and that (in his own Terms) his Sword was as it were broken over his Head, and with Triumph, you must believe it; and yet all the while, the Weapons on both sides, (They) were but Words; and you can hardly think, He lost His, THEN; who, still, speaks Swords and Daggers.

But you will tell me; Well: All this, hitherto, was but a Transient Ac­cidental Discourse, such as might hap­pen every day, when Persons meet who are of different Perswasions, and there is an End. But how came it afterwards to be so Solemn, and so Deliberate, as from Words that are but Birds in the Air, to become Writings, which are as Bears at the Stake? Truly as to this, one would think, by what my Adver­sary writes, and by the Fashion in which he writes, in his Epistle, and in Pag. 16. 17. that nothing but Resent­ment on his part, of the Insolence and [Page 5] Affront that then was offered Him, and a motion of Vanity on mine, to Answer his Challenge, drew on this second En­gagement; Little else can be inferred from what he hath written concerning it. But indeed, on my part it was nothing less than so, and nothing less on his neither, Pretendedly; for all was Conscience, nothing but Conscience and enquiry after further Light, with which in a Letter that he sent me above a year and half (he calls it in his usual figure, Sometime) after, he importuned my Answer, and prevailed. For who is there, but would have believed (as then I did) that it was Conscience, pure Conscience that Acted him; if he had received from him (as I had) a Letter so concernedly Penn'd, and with so much movement: with so much im­portunity, and so much seeming sin­cerity; and if he knew him not any better than I did at that time; for thus his Letter, bearing Date Sept. 9. 1681. doth speak in so many words.

UPon this Occasion Honoured Sir, (and that Occasion was a motion he made me, about Perfecting the Prin­ting [Page 6] and Publishing of a Book of Dr. Worsley's) I shall also take the boldness to remind you of a Conference you were pleased sometime since to entertain with my self upon the subject of Infants Baptism, when you were pleased to in­sist upon the Covenant made with Abra­ham, wherein God Promised to be a God to him and to his Seed after Him; from whence you Argued, that in as much as by Vertue of that Covenant both Abraham and his Seed after him were to receive the Sign of Circum­cision; and in as much as the Apostle doth expresly tell us, that the Blessing of Abraham was to come upon the Gen­tiles, through Jesus Christ; it thence followed, that the Believing Gentiles and their Posterity also, as being the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, had a Right to Baptism, which is the Seal of the same Covenant under the New Testa­ment Administration. Having since that time therefore Revolv'd this Argu­ment of yours in my Thoughts over and over, I could not satisfie my Conscience till I could either come to some satisfa­ctory clearness in my own mind con­cerning the Cogency thereof, or other­wise [Page 7] till I had drawn up something or other in writing, that might at least be a sufficient Justification unto my Self in the way of my present Practice. And after many fervent Addresses and Petiti­ons to Heaven, that as I might not mistake my way, so that I might not Oppose or neglect any part of the Hea­venly Truth; I have at length drawn up the Inclosed paper, which I do therefore now humbly offer to your se­rious consideration, with this Earnest desire, that if after all that I have now said, you shall yet Judge me to be under a mistake in the Present Point in reference to my Opinion about the spirituall seed of Abraham, that you will please at least to suggest to me what you think may be substantially Ob­jected by way of opposition there­unto. I hope dear Sir, that it is the Investigation of Truth that both you and my self also do aim at, which should be Dearer to us than all the World be­sides; and therefore if notwithstanding what I have now offered, you shall still apprehend that I have mist it in my present Search and Reasonings con­cerning it, I beseech you to endeavour [Page 8] my Correction and better Information therein.

I have indeed drawn up the Enclosed Paper by way of Postscript to a large Discourse in Reference to Infant Baptism, which I had before Compiled, wherein I do consider and give answer to all the most material Arguments which are usually Insisted on for the Justification of the Practice of Infant Baptism. And therefore also in the Present Paper you will perceive that I do touch upon some other Ar­guments than what you were pleased to Insist upon in the formention'd Conference, that I had with you upon this subject. I know dear Sir, that you'll not be Offended with me for making thus bold with you, and that you will not Reject what may be substantialy offered for the discovery of Truth, though by never so mean a Hand. Now that God would be pleased at length to send forth his Light and his Truth, that all that Love and fear him may Serve and Worship him with one heart and with one shoulder, ac­cording to the Primitve Pattern, is the Earnest desire of your most Af­fectionate and Humble Servant P C.

Now Sir, is there in this whole Let­ter the least Insinuation of any Re­sentment in him? the least of any In­sulting over him? or Abuse put upon him? in that which here himself calls but a Conference; the softest word in the world? If he had any Resentment at that time, how often hath the Sun gone down on his Wrath! How deeplv was it dissem­bled! how subtilly masked over with the fair Pretences of Conscience! of Enquiry after further Light! and of Longing for Satisfaction! and All, how faced with seeking of God!— This Letter was that which drew me on in this business; which being a Business of Conscience, as I then believed it, (and who in my Circumstances but would?) I pursued it in my first Reply, with all the Fairness and Candor imaginable: But was Answer'd with so much Pre­sumption, Asperity, and Arrogance, that I must have been as void of Sence, as He of Civillity, and Sincerity, not to have seen at last (though somewhat of the latest) that it was not Conscience, and a willingness of Receiving, or of Giving further Light, as was Pretended; but Rooted Malice, and a Lust of [Page 10] Revenge that inspir'd him. Conscience was but the Bait, the Hook was uu­der; Let him Print his First, Second, and Third Answers, as he sent them to me, and then let the World judge, if it went any less.

And this Reminds me of the second Head on which I am to Discourse to you, and that is, of the unfairness of his Proceeding in the Publick manage­ment of this business; and of the Motives, that (as I suppose) Induced him to this unfairness.

His unfairness is, that when it was but Letters only that had been Written by him to me on this Occasion, and Letters only that are Referred to by me in those I Published: as also, seeing I wrote not any but on this urgent Importunity; and when I Printed what I wrote, I was so Candid, so Just, and so exact, that in the Publication which I made, as I Omitted nothing so I added nothing but what I put a Mark upon, that all the world might note it. I say the unfairness is, that, for all this, this seeker of Truth and one who as himself tells us, dayly prayeth for the desireable Vnity of the Spirit in the [Page 11] Bond of Peace, that he instead of Pub­lishing the Letters which Indeed he sent, and as he sent them, should Print a Base and Fictious Disputation that never was in Reallity, as the Sum of all the Letters that went between us. Where as indeed, he but presents the World with Pieces, and Patches, both of his own Letters, and of mine; and withal, in those Patches (he) so Industriously Disguises, Alters, and abuses the Argument I manage, that tis as impossibly to see it in his Libel in its true Proportions and Figure, as to believe, that Base and Barbarous Methods (such as these he uses) are Proper means, either of Attaining unto the Bond of Peace, or, unto the Vnity of the Spirt. Thus four Letters, which are the Main ones, are suppressed; the first of which I even now repeated. This is his unfairness.

The true Motives, why he did not Publish his Three first Responsory Letters, his Second, Third, and Fourth, as well as his Fifth, and Sixth, (for why he supppessed the First of all that was sent, is Evident enough, from what hath been declar'd already,) may [Page 12] Probably be presum'd to be these (fol­lowing.)

First, He did it, to hide from the Observation of his Readers, the Just causes I had of making those Com­plaints I did in my Letters, of his un­fairness, Rudeness, and Vanity? of his bold Assertions, without Proofs, his Cunning Evasions, instead of direct Answers; his always partial, and often false pretended Repetitions; and his Triumphs before the Victory &c. which undue Proceeding, used without any provocation or any Examaple by me, and that too, by a man that breath­ed nothing but Conscience, but desire of Satisfaction, and seeking of Light in the business, and all this after seeking of God; should it be apparent in his Letters, as undoubtedly it is, and I believe he is Conscious it is; as it would have had an aspect not very pleasing unto most others, so possibly it might awaken in some of his own party that mean well, and are truly Conscientious, very strange apprehen­sions, not only of his humor, carriage, and conduct, but even of the main of his Cause. This likely he foresaw.

Secondly, He chose to act his part by way of a Dialogue, rather than of Letters, to hide from the Eyes of his own Party, the Strength and Cogency of my Argument; which being Harmoni­cal, the force and power of it lyes in the Joynts of it, and in the Reference of its parts; so that, either by the Di­viding and Mangling of the parts, or by the Hudling and Confounding of them together, (both which, at times, he hath done, in his Dispute,) the force thereof is unseen, and is lost. And in­deed, as he hath managed the business, he might well hope to perswade his own Party, whose hands likely would be as full of his Books, as empty of mine, that I had said nothing in my Argument but what he there Repeats of it; which is as true, as that the whole Chapter of the first of Genesis is in the Contents of it; he never giving but an imperfect summary (and that too, many times, with a mixture of falshood) in the Report he makes of what I did propose to be prov'd; but he mentions not the very Proofs them­selves, of what I proposed. This will appear most manifestly, by but com­paring [Page 14] his Pretended Disputation, with my Printed Letters. Had he only Print­ed His Letters, some of his own Party Probably, those of them that are Just and Prudent, would have had recourse also to mine. But now, his Disputation speaking all on both sides, they may think, there is no need of that.

Thirdly, it was done to hide the Advantage I had over him in the course of the Argument; how I gained ground, by what steps, and with what Mediums; as also, to conceal that Ter­giversation shifting and shuffling; that declining the force of my Argument; and that Insisting on little things that are by the by; with other such like Artificies, of which I accused him. All this is hinted in my Letters, and he was not ignorant, it would be plain by his own: Let him shew the Con­trary else, by Publishing them. Half an eye may easily discern, that the con­troversy was almost at an end, before his fifth Letter was written; which yet, is the first he Publishes. And surely, what ever he says, more was in it then a bare Respect and kindness to his Reader, to whom (as he tells us P. 66.) [Page 15] he would not be burthensome; Ay, there was also some little mixture of kind­ness and Respect unto himself, he knew the Burthening of his Reader (for Burthened certainly he would be, if judicious and Considerate, with Ver­bosity without sence; with Common placing without discretion; with skir­mishing about but words; and with other such unseemly and Impertinent Artificies.) he knew, such Burthening of his Reader in the Consequence would be a Renewing of that Vexation and Anguish which he had found so grie­vous, and which he Bemoans so much both in his Epistle, and in his book. P. 17.

And here, seeing I dispair, with all the Provocation I can give, to succeed in my design of induciug him to print entirely, and Bonâ cum fide, the sup­pressed Letters which he sent me, I will therefore take occasion, from his Published Animadversions, to make his other Readers sensible (for you are so already) both of the Credibility of the former Motives, and of the truth of the charge Imployed in them; by ob­serving (to them) out of many Instances [Page 16] that do occur, but one or two for a taste. The first shall be of his Candour and sincerity, the Second, of his way and Method in Arguing.

The First, which is of his Candour and sincerity, shall be in the Repetition which he makes of the first Paragraph of my first Letter, in which he pur­posedly, but ungratefully omits that part of the Period that Relates to the Movement and Importunity with which he solicited, and even com­pelled me into this business. For in­stead of adding (and so Importunate and Iterated Requests to give you the Re­sult of my most cool and serious considerations of what you have done in it.) he knowing that a passage of that significancy, would make it plain he was the first aggressor, at least as to writing, and that I came not in but on his great Solicitation; and consequent­ly, as it would detect his great in­gratitude, so it would interfere with what he often insinuates, about the Rise of the Controversy. Therefore, he Craftily Omits it, and only drawes a Line; which only notes, that something is wanting, but no body could Divine, [Page 17] it was this; the sense going on so smooth without it.

The former, is one instance of his ingenuity and of his sincerity, but we have another which do's much resemble it, (viz.) that of publishing to the world his Reflections on those little Points (for [...] you may see them to be so) in the first Edition of my Letter, which my self had altered and amended in the second; for though he knew I had Corrected and altered them; yet he slily insinuates in the margen of his dispute, (P. 28 & 32) as if he had not known it, and that the alterations are only in the Print: where­as, I printed nothing in my Letters but what I first sent him, Except That in my Last, of which I advertised the Reader, and which I marked with an Asterisme. This is so great an im­posture on his Readers, and so great an abuse, that (P. 65.) even himself doth offer something that might pass for an Extenuation, If this meanness of his proceeding should ever chance to be Noted. But this is one of his arts still; he kn [...]w that many would ob­serve the wound he gives in the Margen, [Page 18] that would not much regard the Balm he afterward applys, for the healing it; and the less, because it is not applyed directly. So much for his ingenuity and Candour.

As for his Method of Arguing; be­sides a gift he has of telling and Apply­ing of Tales, and of Capping of verses; he uses to pervert the words of his Adversary, and in things of little mo­ment, to raise a dust, and make great a doe; either to blind the Eyes of those that shall consider him, or to divert them, from what is the main in the business; for with this, Especially if it be difficult, he is but seldom used to meddle, at all; or if at all, not closely. To manifest this, I but desire his Readers, that after the peru­sall of the Title Page of my Book and of my Advertisement, they would ob­serve his Reflections upon them; both as to the matter of them; as to the manner of them; and as to the design of them. How that for the matter of them, they are made upon words only; and for the manner of them, upon words distorted from the proper and Genuine sence of their Author; and for the design of them, that they are made to expose, [Page 19] and abuse, and inodiate, and therefore some of them are often, and most ma­liciously Inculcated; and all this, with­out the least consideration of what is materiall, and substantial, and in con­firmation of the Argument.

For, as he is Witty enough in little matters, to pervert the sence of his ad­versary, to raise a Calumny on him, and to make things soberly said to pass for ridiculous; so he is as wise in greater Matters, to avoid any touch of them; and that for fear of his Head, which, he well remembers (Page 17) once al­ready was in danger, by having a Sword as it were broken over it. This I say, is a Truth, and very manifest. For in my Advertisement, all that is done by way of Argument (and that's no Inconsiderable part of it, the whole consisting of but Nine L [...]aves, and Six of them are spent that way, under four considerations) all this he wholly skips over: and, as if it was not, at all, his business, or in his design, at all, to reason and argue, but only to Calumniate, Expose, and abuse; he that hath so many words for bad, or for Impertinent purposes, hath not one word for that purpose, [Page 20] which only became him. One would think a man so much in pretentions of Conscience, and of nothing but Con­science in the case, who did only seek to give, or to receive satisfaction, should have judged it proper to have considered what was Argumentative; and that, whatever else he did, he should be sure not to have left undone the thing that most Imported those ends. But of this not one word, but while he is dealing in his Mint, Annis, and Cummin, (and yet he is not for Tything) he leaves those greater mat­ters undone. I beleive by this, that you will easily infer as I do, that really it was not Conscience, as he at first pretended, in his Letter to me; but it was Rouzed Courage as he tells his Rea­der, in the Epistle to him, that made him so concerned, and so forward in this controversy. And he accordingly manages it, not as a serious matter, a matter of Conscience, for light and In­formation; but as a business of Quarrel, and of Vanity; only to recover (if he can) his lost Credit, and that Field, which (as himself confesseth P. 17.) once he fairly left me, and now he would unfairly regain.

You see his unfairness in the Publick Management of the business between us which is the Second Head I propound­ed; I now advance to the third, which is to Note (but briefly) the Unjust Aspersions which he makes of Con­tradiction and Incoherence, and of Ostentation and Vanity, as he scents them in my Discourse; and those he runs upon, under two Heads: the First, with Respect to the Harmony; the Second, to the Novelty of it.

As to the Harmony, he says; First that I affirm in my Advertisement that in this Controversy, there is no need of of Exactness of Critiscisme; and yet, that I say, namely in one of my Letters, that Gen. 17. 9. 10. must be understood Crittically: and that the Apostle was as Critical upon it as I, or any other can be.

Secondly, that I say in my Advertise­ment, that I was concern'd to see the Article of Infants Baptism to Hang on Wyres, and by Geometry, and that I could not see it owner of sure and solid Foundations, unless it be as in my Let­ters I lay it; and yet in my Letters I applaud Mr. Baxter's Argument for it.

Thirdly, that in one of my Letters, I call the Opinion of antipedo Baptism a Novelty; and yet had said in an­other, that it is probable that those who would not suffer little Children to come to Christ to be Bless [...]d, were of the Perswasion of this Anabaptist. These are his Mountains Births as to the Harmony of my Argument.

Really Sir, I know not how, with­out Blushing, and Begging of your Pardon, for giving you the trouble of so great Imp [...]rtinencys, to Enter into Discourse of things so Vain, so Frivil­ous; but since it must be done, I will endeavour to do it as Little to your Disturbance, that is, with as much so­briety and Tenderness, and with as little Amplification, as is Possible: I will but touch on these matters, and note them, without Insisting and Staying upon them.

To his First Imputation then I say, that as one may understand a Text made out and unfolded by a Crittick, who himself is no Crittick; so, that I spake of Exactness of Crittiscism; and of that too, as a Part of Humane learn­ing; as is Evident by the Coherence, [Page 23] where I spake of it. Ay, and when in my Advertisement I affirmed, that there was no need of Exactness of Critiscism, as to this Business; I then did and with a direct Prospect unto what I had affirmed in my Letter, both concerning Gen. 17. 9. 10. and the Apostle Paul's being Crittical upon it; I say, I did add by way of Limitation (for the main) that for the main of the Controversy, there was no need of it. And indeed the Controversy for the main of it, doth not depend on any Crittiscism; much less upon Exactness of Crittiscism, and least of all upon Exactness of Crit­tiscism as it is a Part of Humane Learn­ing; one need not to be a great Scholar, a great Philosopher, or a great Crittick (as he must be, to be an exact one) to understand that Text, or the Apostles Crittiscism upon it; which to, is not a Humane Crittiscism, but a Divine.

To the Second, I grant I did say I was concerned, (and so I was) to see the Article of Infants Baptism hang on wyres, and by Geometry; on which I did, and do believe it to be hung by all that do not find it (as indeed it [Page 24] is, and as I find it is, and as many others before have found it) inlay'd in the Constitution of an Instituted Church, and in the Harmony of the Scriptures. Those that lay it otherwise, do not lay it on its true Foundations. But I never said as this Wyre drawing man, whose only business is to put me under Odium, and Envy with all Partys, would make me say; That all before me hung it but on Wyres; for Those did not, even according to that saying of mine, who founded it on Abrahams Covenat, and in the Constitution of an Instituted Church; as many did before me; and as even Mr. Baxter must; seeing the Membership of Children, which is the Principal Argument he goes upon cannot be understood but with Relation to the Constitution of a Church; and it is In­lay'd in the Covenant. And where now I Pray you, Sir, is that Vanity or that Contradiction which this Lincey'd man that Looks through stone walls hath Espyed, or rather Invented? I say Invented; for when he Affirms (P. 3.) that I said I could not see it (meaning Infants Baptism) to be owner of sure and solid foundations, Vnless it be as I [Page 25] here lay it;) he Imposes Grosly; I said no such words; I only said, (Unless it were Inlaid (as I find it is) in the very Constitution of an Instituted Church, and in the Harmony of the Scriptures.) and many to be sure, If not most now a dayes do take it to be so Inlaid; All do, that Ground it on the Covenant of Abraham, though they do not All find it to be so in one way, and in the same Method.

As to his Third Exception; Give me leave to tell you, that in the last Paragraph of my first Letter, speaking of some that in our Saviours time, did forbid little Children to come unto him to be Blessed, I said in a Parenthesis, and as it were smilinglyly; not by way of Position as a thing on which I Insisted, but only Pleasantly (that some (it may be of your Perswasion) &c.) But such is the Judgment, the Exactness of Judg­ment of our great Disputer, that he takes as spoken seriously, That which was but Pleasantly spoken; making it to Contradict what other where I say, concerning the Novelty of his Perswasi­on. And to perswade his Reader the better (for none that is mine can think [Page 26] so,) that he hath grounds for what he says; he falsely represents my words, and makes me say (Pag. 3.) ‘That it is Probable, those that would not suffer little Children to come to Christ were of his Perswasion.’ Is not this an honest Disputant, or rather a cunning sophister? I said (some, it may be, of your Perswasion. And, it may be, is but happily, and that at most, is but a Possibility, and he hath made Probability of it: in a word, hath made a Serious matter of what was only intended for a Divertive one. But of this I doubt not but I shall hear again, and be Rhimed for it. In the mean time, I will Ask him one hard Question, (viz.) Where it is that I do say, (as he says I do) to this purpose, (that 'tis Probable, &c.) sure he can never find it, but where he finds, that Mahomet's Tomb at Mecca, to use his own Expression (Pag. 5.) is said to hang by Geometry; or that the Licians suffered none to propose a New Law but at his Peril, (Pag. 5.) and that is no where, but either in his own Com­mon-Place-Book, or (to speak in his own most Civil Language) within his own Pericranium; and there, Magnetism [Page 27] and Geometry, Serious and Pleasant, Licians and Locrians, Scotus and Sotus are all one: and not so much as Mensa, as a Table between them.

I have ended with the Reflexions which he makes as to the Harmony of my Argument, the which you see, are so rarely Proper, and so Judicious, that you may well believe (though he say it himself Pag. 64.) That his Reader will find (namely in his Book) somewhat of Brain as well as Tongue: and somewhat of his Brain you have already had, upon the Harmony of the Argument. Now, you shall have somewhat too of his Tongue, upon the Novelty of it.

And upon this Head; First, He Gravely Informs me, that Innovators hear not well among the Judicious) (P. 4.) As if Anabaptists were not Innovators; but all for Antiquity, and the good Old way. Secondly; He is again at his Tales, that the Licians (he should have said the Locrians) suffered none to Propose a New Law but at his own Peril) (P. 5.) as if Arguments were Lawes; or that Infants Baptisme were not setled by ours. In fine; He Adds, (and you may think from Pure love) that [Page 28] the Church of England (by all means, He is much Concerned for Her;) and all other the Assertors and advocates of Infants Baptism on the Old Foundations, are more con­cerned in one Passage than He) (P. 5.) As if all, of all orders, were fast asleep; and all like to be lost, unless a Goose a Second time, should save the Capitol. You see Sir, his Extraordinary Cour­tesie for the Church of England, as well as for other the Advocates and Assertors of Infants Baptism But I hope this Church and those other Advocates and As­sertors of Infants Baptism, will not, for all that, be Wheedled into a Mistake. You may be sure his Courtesie is but Polyphemus's; Now indeed, He fights against one; but know, he hath a Reserve for all (you now must look to your Old Foundations; He is Principally (P. 5.) at Present at least) only concerned about the new one.) Mark that, (at Present at least.) This Church, no more then others, hath no entire security (from him;) It is not a Peace but only a Cessation he grants. (He is at Present only concerned about the new one;) But time may come for the old ones too; And Really, he is Provided already if such a time shall [Page 29] come; For (as you had it before, in his Letter) He hath a very Large Discourse which he had before Compiled, in which he doth Consider and give Answer to all the most Material Arguments which are usually In­sisted on for Justification of the Practice of Infants Baptism, &c. The Church of England it seems (for all his Kindness to her) and all other the Advocates and As­sertors of Infants Baptism (though now he claws them) might have heard of him sooner; Ay, and have felt him too be­fore this; but that, unluckily for my self, but luckily enough for this Church, and for those other Advocates and As­sertors, I did come in his way; and now, the Cry is Novelty! Novelty!

Truly I think it very needless, (and I could wish that others thought so too) to Vindicate my self from his Extrave­gancies upon his Topick, and to tell you, That the Title Page of my Book on which he principally grounds Them, as it went from me, was nakedly this: An Argument for Infants-Baptism deduced from the Analogy of Faith, and Harmony of the Scriptures. And what is added, if any Imputation can be laid to it, of Gaudiness or Ostentation, it must be [Page 30] Put on the Book-seller, as the Occasio­ner of it. I acknowledge it is said, that the Method is wholly New, and that it certainly is; but it is not said as this Disputer doth Report it, That the Ar­gument is wholly New. Method and Matter are very different things, and in the very Title, where it is noted that the Method is wholly New; it is said of the Grounds, and these are Matter, not that they are wholly New, but that they are not commonly Ob­served. Implying, that they may have been, and are, by some, Observed, though, Happily, not by every Body: And who will say they were? And when I say, the Argument as I do ma­nage it, hath little Authority; 'tis ma­nifest I speak not of the Argument as to the matter and grounds of it; but as to the Method and Form of Managing of it. I say not, the Argument Simply, but the Argument as I do Manage it: the Method of Management is mine, and is New; but the Grounds on which it is Bottomed are not New; but are as Old as the Church, and as the Bible. In fine, to Alter Schemes, is not to In­novate Articles: Schemes are but [Page 31] Dispositions of Matter, and may be exceeding various, and often are, even where the Matter for the main is the same. But what if the Argument were New, and all as New as the Method? Would it to a Man of Conscience, a Seeker of Light, a Lover of Truth, go the less in Value but for That, if it is Good? It is not Antiquity any more than Novelty: It is Verity only, that ought to be considered by Conscience, and indeed that is; for, as old Argu­ments are not Entertained by it, only, because they are old. So new ones are not Rejected, only, because they are new. Dies diem docet: but I may not so much Imitate the weakness of my Adversary, as to fall a Common Placing, and therefore I say no more as to this.

Thus Sir, I have Followed my Ad­versary in his Prosecution of his two Topicks, Harmony and Novelty, and have considered his Reflections; and now, should very gladly dismiss a Sub­ject so unpleasant; and so little to Edifi­cation: but that in a charge he makes upon me, both in his Epistle to the Reader, and in other places, there is another Instance of his Falshood, Malice, [Page 32] and Calumny, Proper fruits of that Distemper (zeal you must believe it for the abused word of God) which (as him­self tells you) did put him out of his Tem­per and warmed him.) And this I might not omit, he sayes, (‘He dares Re­fer himself wholly to his Reader, whither I have not with equal absur­dity (for so he modestly Expresses it) First, made Abraham the Representative of the Carnal seed. Secondly, Included Baptism in the 17th. of Genesis. And Thirdly, Excluded the first grand Promise out of Genesis. 3. 15, &c. And he Wonders (for he is given to Wondering,) that I should see a com­mand for Infants Baptism in Genesis 17th. and not discern a Covenant of Grace in the Third of Genesis. For this matter He dares Refer Himsef to the Reader.) And indeed it is a daring matter.’

For as to the First, that I should make Abraham the Representative of the Carnal seed) As he Expresses it, simply and Absolutely; so, it is another Calumny, and is Maliciously said; for in that very Letter in which I do Explain my self as to this Particular, there (P. 157.) [Page 33] my words are these; (‘on the whole, it is not absurd, if duly weighed, to say (which yet I do not peremptorily say,) that in That part of the Cove­nant in which Abraham is joyned with the seed, He should stand for his natural posterity, as the seed doth for Christ Mystical.’) And now let the Reader judge; am I not so far from a possitive affirmation of what he says I make, that I say in Terms, I do not Possitively affirm it? What I said, is Evidently said not by way of Position of what I did conceive as certain; but by way of Proposal, of what was yet Uncertain to me, but which yet might merit Consideration: and more is to be said for it, than Happily this Disputer can answer. Indeed in Genesis 17. 10. there, under the Term (ye) Abraham and Ishmael and the rest of the Family then Present are Comprehended, and those I take it, did represent and stand for the natural Family.

As to the Second, namely Baptism in Genesis 17;) I never said in Terms that there was any Immediate Command for Baptism in Genesis 17. I knew the In­stitution of Baptism was long after. I [Page 34] only said, and still say, that an Obli­gation is lay'd in Genesis 17. 9. not only upon Abraham himself, to keep the Cove­nant, that is, the sign of the Covenant, but upon his seed also; and the Apostle says, that this seed is Christ, Christ Mysticall, or the believing Gentiles. And is this an absurdity? what I say, is in the Letter of the Text; and what the Apostle says, I hope is no absurdity. I take it for granted, because the Apostle says it, that the seed is Christ. To dis­prove that, is not to Put the absurdity on me, but on the Apostle.

As for the Third, which is concern­ing the Covenant of Grace in Genesis 3. 15) I still affirm, and still believe I may without absurdity, that though by the seed of the woman in that Text, our Saviour Christ be meant, and con­sequently, that he is Predicted there, and was prefigured also in Sacrifices; yet, that nothing there doth pass by way of Cove­nant, or is spoken of Christ there by way of promise to Adam; all is by way of Denunciation on the Serpent. I say, all that is spoken there is spoken but to the Serpent, not to Adam; and let him that thinks otherwise, but Look into the [Page 35] Text and see if it be not. I appeal from unwarie Prejudices, unto Common sense. But of this, as I have spoken somewhat in my Printed Letters, from Page the 99th. to Page the 106. So I have dis­coursed more fully (of it,) with Per­sons of a greater Caracter, and of more Integrity and Candour, than our Pre­sent Disputer; wherein, one day, the Reader may receive satisfaction. But for my Antagonist, he thought, This was a Popular Point, and that it would Affect me, and therefore only he Insists upon it, and so often Inculcates it; and is not this malicious? why had he not Argued it out? as I Expected he should, but that 'tis much Easier to Exclaim and Calumniate, than to Demonstrate and argue.

And now I am come (and very glad I am, that I am come) to the fourth thing I promised; and that is, briefly to state again the Argument I made, and to shew, how little He is in his Re­ply unto that, who is so Great, in Cal­lumniating, and in Perverting. And the method I will take shall be, First, to lay down the Grounds of the Argu­ment, and then to form it.

The Ground I go upon is this, That the Covenant Established by God with Abraham, and with his Seed, in Genesis 17. 7, 8, 9. is the Covenant of Grace; or that Original Grant, and Great Char­ter, by which Believing Gentiles al­ways did, and do Claim both Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to; As also, that Abraham is The Person By, From, and Vnder whom they Claim; as being his Seed. If Christ's then Abraham's Seed, and Heir's according to the Promise.

In this Covenant, as in all others that are Proper, there is, First, A Promise on the One Part, and then, Secondly, A Restipulation on the Other: A Promise on God's Part; and then a Restipulati­on upon Abraham's Part, and upon his Seed's.

As for the Promise that God doth make to Abraham, and to his Seed, it is (Vers. 7, 8.) That he will be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed, and will give to Abraham, and to his Seed, &c. And this Promise made to Abraham, in which Almighty God doth give Himself, and all he hath to him, is called by the Apostle the Blessing of Abraham; of which he says, That it doth Descend on the Gentiles, Gal. 3.

As for the Restipulation, which is on the Part of Abraham, and of his Seed, it is (Vers. 9.) Thou shalt keep my Covenant Therefore thou and thy Seed; In which Re­stipulation, it being the main thing on which I do insist in reference to my Ar­gument, I shall (in order to the making Clear whatever any wise Relates unto it, and so concerns our present purpose) Particularly consider, First, the Nature of the Duty in it, Thou shalt keep my Co­venant, and shew what is imported in that Expression. Secondly, I will shew the Propriety of this Duty, that it is a Duty bound on Abraham by this Cove­nant, as his Proper Duty, in Reference to it, and to the Blessing in it. Thirdly, I will demonstrate, That the subjects in this Restipulation and Duty, or the Per­sons upon whom the Duty and Incum­bence is bound, are Abraham and his Seed, and that Abraham's Seed is, Prin­cipally, the Believing Gentiles.

As for the Nature of the Duty, or what is meant by Keeping of the Covenant. It was, at Last, Agreed between us (and I in my Argument, Fol. 132. 133. [Page 38] Abundantly have Proved) that to keep Gods Covenant, which is the Duty injoyned, is to keep the Sign of Gods Co­venant; And it must be Granted Also, that to keep the Sign, is, for him that keeps it, not only to wear that Sign himself, but to put it upon all His, in Token, that as he Himself, so that All he owns, is God's. This I proved in my First Letter, from Pag. 16. to Pag. 23. and Confirmed in my Advertisement; to which I Add now another Consideration to make it further manifest; namely, that in the Covenant, (and the Cove­nant for Substance is but one and the same) whereas God is pleased to say in Genesis, 17. I will be a God to thee and thy Seed, and will give to thee and thy Seed, &c. And therefore thou and thy Seed shall keep my Covenant, and to keep his Covenant, is to keep the Sign of his Covenant. I say, whereas he speaks so in Genesis, 17. he saith in Jer. 31. 17. (where he Repeats the same Cove­nant,) I will be their God, and they s [...]all be my People; what in Genesis is expressed by their keeping of the Covenant or Sign, is in Jeremy Expressed, by their being Gods Propriety, or own: So that, these are [Page 39] Equivalent Terms; and the keeping of the Covenant of God (or his Sign,) is only to denote the Propriety that those who are in Covenant with God do All Acknowledge, All Own that he hath in them, and in All theirs. And thus it was Interpr [...]ted to Abraham; who was not only to be Circumcised Himself, but to see that all his Males, Old and Young were Circumcised; and in his Males, who only were Actually Circumcised, and only Capable of being so, the Fe­males also were Reputed Included. For (as I said in my former Discourse) ‘as the Sign was directly given Only to the Males, so the Promise also in Terms, was only to the Males, Abraham and Isaack; but then, as the Females were Included in the Males in the Covenant (for who will deny That?) so, by like Reason, they were included also in the Sign.’ It is but Reason that Concludes the Former, and the same Reason will Conclude the Latter. Besides, who will say the Females were Excluded the Passover? were they not of the Con­gregation of the Lord, and Members of the Families, or Houses, in which the Passover was Eaten, and by which? are [Page 40] they Excluded any where? And is it not plainly intimated both by Maimoni­des and by other Rabbins, that even they also did Celebrate that Feast; but yet, none Uncircumcised might.

Well then, the Duty bound upon Abraham, and upon his Seed by the Cove­nant, is to keep the Covenant or Sign, by wearing of it themselves, and by putting of it upon All Theirs, in Token of Gods Propriety. The Next Thing is, to shew that this Duty which is bound upon Abraham, and upon his Seed, by the Covenant, is the proper Duty of the Covenant. And what can be more plain than that it is, seeing, First, It is bound upon them in Reference to the Pro­mise, as a Consequence of it; I will be a God to thee and thy Seed, and I will give to thee and thy Seed; There is the PROMISE: Thou shalt keep my Covenant THERE­FORE, thou and thy Seed; There is the Consequent DUTY. And 'tis the only Duty mentioned, as Required by God by way of Restipulation. And indeed, Secondly, it is called Keeping of the Cove­nant, and therefore, must needs be bound upon them by vertue of the Covenant, as the Proper Duty and Incumbence [Page 41] of it. In fine, it is most highly reaso­nable that it should be so; For as God in this Covenant Solemnly, by Promise and by Oath, doth give Himself and All His to Abraham, and to his Seed; Is it not most Fit, most Proper, that, by way of Correspondence, Abraham and his Seed should Solemnly, (and that is by some Open and External Rite, and Act, and such an Act and Rite, Signing is,) give up themselves and Theirs again to God?

And here, by the way, it is Obser­vable; That, seeing the Command to keep the Covenant, is lay'd upon Abra­ham, and upon his Seed; and seeing keeping of the Covenant is keeping of the Sign of it, in Token of God's Pro­priety; it follows, That putting of the Sign on Children, and on Servants, is not done, at least not Principally, by vertue of any Title, Right, or Privi­ledge which these Children, or Servants have, by vertue of their own immedi­ate being in the Covenant; but it is done, in Consequence of the Duty and Incumbence under which the Parents and Masters are, by vertue of the Cove­nant in which they do Restipulate, and so, take on them this Duty.

As for the subjects in the Covenant, or Those on whom the Duty and In­cumbence in it is bound, which is the Third thing to be Demonstrated, they are Abraham and his seed, or Abraham and Isaac; and in Isaac, Christ mystical, or the Believing Gentiles, Abraham's Spiri­tual Seed. And that Christ Mystical, or Christ and Believing Gentiles are In­tended principally, by the Seed; I ma­nifested in my First Letter, (P. 24. 25.) in my Second Letter (from P. 128. to 132.) and in my Last Letter, from Romans 4th 13, 16, 17; which Text doth put it out of all question, that Isaac did not only Typifie and Figure the Be­lieving Gentiles in the manner of his Birth (as my Adversary would have it only do,) but that he did also stand for them, and Represent them in the Covenant of Promise. And if Isaac Represented the BelievingGentiles, and did stand for them (as he did) in the Covenant of Promise, then Certainly whatever Duty by virtue of that Covenant, was Bound upon him, That very Duty, by Vir­tue of the same Covenant, was also Bound upon them; Else, how could he stand for them and Represent them [Page 43] in it! This Interpretation of that Text is so plain, so Evident, ‘that even my Adversary in his Last Letter (P. 115.) says, I well Expounded Romans 4. 13, 16. 17.) but what he adds (viz.) that I do so to this Purpose, namely to Prove Isaac a Type and Figure of the Believing Gentiles in the way and manner of his Super-natural Birth, to which our Regeneration in Some sort Corresponds.’ That's another Falshood, another Impious Fraud, and made on Purpose to deceive his Party; that when He cannot answer me, he may yet Impose upon them. For that I had no such purpose there as he In­sinuates, is plain; for there I prove, that Isaac Represented the Believing Gentiles, or spiritual seed, not only in the Pro­mise; but in the Duty and Obligation also, bound upon the seed by vertue of that promise; and I Appeal unto his own Party, or to any man Else that is of sence in all the World, that will comparehis Letter and mine, if this be not so.

This is the Ground on which I state my Argument, which thus I Form. If the Believing Gentiles are under Abraham's [Page 44] Covenant, are Abraham's seed, and are Principally meant in the 17th. Genesis 9th. Then, the Believing Gentiles are to keep Gods Covenant: The Conse­quence is Evident, the Text is Plain for it; Thou and thy seed shall keep my Covenant. And if to keep God's Covenant there, be to keep the sign of his Covenant, by Wearing of it themselves, and putting it on all theirs, in Token of Gods Pro­priety; Then if believing Gentiles be to keep God's Covenant, they are to keep the Sign of it, by wearing of it themselves, and putting it on all theirs, in token of Gods Propriety, and Title: (Themselves must be signed, and, all theirs also must be signed.) Now, the Believing Gentiles are under Abraham's Covenant, are Abraham's Seed, and are Principally Meant and Intended in Genesis 17.9. as I have proved; and to keep Gods Covenant there, is to keep the Sign of God's Covenant, by wear­ing of it themselves, and putting it on All Theirs, in Token of God's Propriety in them, and Title to them, as I have also proved before; and therefore the believing Gentiles are to keep God's Covenant, God's sign, by [Page 45] wearing it themselves, and Putting it on all theirs, in Token of Gods Pro­priety in them, and Title to them; which Sign must be, either Baptism, or Circumcision, or some other Sign.

But for the greater Elucidation, I will break the Argument abroad, into shorter Sillogismes. Abraham's seed must keep God's Covenant; the believing Gentiles are Abraham's Seed; There­fore the believing Gentiles must keep God's Covenant. To keep God's Covenant is to keep the Sign of it; the Believing Gentiles must keep God's Covenant; Therefore the Believing Gentiles must keep the Sign of it. To keep the Sign of God's Covenant, is to wear it themselves, and to put it upon all theirs, in Token of God's Propriety in them, and Title to them; the Be­lieving Gentiles are to keep the Sign of God's Covenant; Therefore the Be­lieving Gentiles are to wear it Them­selves, and to put it upon all Theirs, in Token of God's Propriety in them, and Title to them. Abraham's Seed must keep the Covenant, and to keep the Covenant is to keep the Sign; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore THOU and [Page 46] thy SEED. A Sign of the Covenant then, there must be in the time of the Seed; Else, how shall the Seed keep it? they cannot keep the Sign of the Cove­nant, if the Covenant have no Sign. Some Sign then the Believing Gentiles, which are the Seed, must keep, by wearing it themselves, and putting it on All Theirs; and if any, Let this Di­sputer tell (as I said) whither it shall be Baptism, or Circumcision, or what; for I need to go no further. Only here, as we go along, it may not be Unfit, in Order to the Preventing of further Calumny, to Observe, that when I speak in Reference to a Sign, of taking it themselves, and putting it on All Theirs, I mean nothing but their being Signed themselves, and their seeing that All Theirs be also Signed; without Con­sidering here, or intending to Consider, who is the Minister of the Sign: But only who is the Subject.

This is my Argument, which in my Letter I did lay on four Propositions. First, That the Covenant or Blessing of Abraham, which is the Promise of the Spirit, is that Covenant of God, under which Believing Gentiles, the Spiritual [Page 47] Seed of Abraham, Are: and is the Blessing that doth Descend on the Gentiles. Se­condly, That All the Seed of Abraham, that hath the Benefit and Advantage, of the Covenant and Blessing of Abraham, is under Equal Obligation, to the Duty and Incumbence of that Covenant, of that Blessing, as Abraham himself. Thirdly, That the Duty or Incumbence arising from the Covenant, or Blessing made to Abraham, is, That, in Token of his Dedication of himself, and of All his unto God, he should take him­self, and should put upon All His, the Sign of the Covenant: which is the Mark and Sign of God. Fourthly, That from Abraham's Dedication of himself, and of All his unto God, there ariseth a Distinction of Holiness, into Internal and External, Absolute and Relative; and that This Distinction is Evangelical. From these Grounds I drew the former Conclusion: and you may take the Argu­ment from them Briefly, Thus. The Blessing doth descend upon the Believing Gentiles, and therefore the Proper Duty of that Blessing doth Descend also: and this is the Proper Duty of that Blessing, to see that both themselves, and all [Page 48] theirs be Signed, in Token of God's Propriety: and the Believer, that gives himself sincerely, is Internally Holy: and those that are given by him are Exter­nally so. 'Tis you see in the former four Propositions, (which even my Adver­sary himself doth also Acknowledge, Pag. 25.) that the main strength of my Argument for Infants Baptism Consists: and yet, it is Plain, that, hitherto, there is no need of any Criticism, much less of Exactness of Criticism, and least of all, of Exactness of Criticism as a Part of Humane Learning: either to Con­ceive, or to make it: But as it is, I pray you let us take a View of his Reply unto it; Comparing what I say for In­fants Baptism, with what he Answers to That I say.

But before we do so, give me Leave to tell you, that his way of Replying thrusts into my Thoughts a Story I have Read long ago in Keckerman, (and I hope I may be Pardoned if I shall tell one Story, when he does many) It is, that a Certain Respondent being Non­plust by his Opponent, and Unable to Conceive any Sensible Answer to re­turn to him, makes use of two Non­sensical, [Page 49] but strong words, to Chouse him. If (says he) Mr. Opponent you do take it Archepadial [...]ter, I grant it; But if Reflexive, I deny it: That is, if you take it Nonsensicaly one way, I grant it; if you take it Nonsensicaly another way, I deny it: and thus I take it, my Respondent deals with me; and he may be sure, and I believe he knows it, that I have not been the only Person who have said so of him, on this Occa­sion.

I hope, you will not think I go about to Abuse him, it is the very Truth I tell you; for what Distinct, what Pro­per Sence is there in what he says in An­swer? or what Application of it can be made to either Proposition? which yet, he would be thought to Reply unto; but, inded doth only Elude: for, in An­swer to the several four forementioned Propositions, he speaks Thus.

‘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 I have Elsewhere at Large E­vinced [Page 50] unto you.’ Here he should have told us, what is the Essence, what the Spiritual Essence of the Covenant, and what the Additaments, and should have Applyed it.

‘In your Second Proposition, I Al­low that the Seed of Believing Gentiles that have the benefit of Abraham's Co­venant, and to whom it is made, are under an Equal Obligation unto those Proper Duties and Services NOW re­quired of them, as Abraham was Him­self; Understanding it of the Adult Believing Off-Spring, and not the In­fants of Believing Gentiles.’ My Se­cond Proposition speaks of the Seed of Abraham, (viz.) the Believing Gentiles: his Answer of their Children only.

‘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 in as much 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.’ [Page 51] I say there, that Signing is the Proper Duty of the Covenant; what is This to That?

‘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 first of Cor. 7. 14. doth not at all prove the Continuation thereof in the Gospel-Day, so neither is there any other Scripture that I know of, that can be Pertinently Alledged, for the Justification of such a Notion. Though I grant that there is an Ex­ternal and Internal Holyness now arising among Gentile Professors, the Latter from the Covenant, the Former from a meer Pretension to it.’ You see his demonstrations (as he calls 'em) His Proofs which should be Here, are all Elsewhere. But what if they were here?

What in all This is to the Business in hand? for if the Promise or Blessing of Abraham do descend upon his Seed, the Believing Gentiles; and the Proper Duty of that Promise or Blessing (which Descends) doth also Descend; and to be Signed themselves, and to see that all theirs be Signed also, in Token of Gods Propriety and Title, is That Proper Duty: then let him Talk ‘Of Spiri­tual Essence that doth Descend, and of Appendages that do not; of Pro­per Duties and Services now required of them, understanding it of Adult Believing Off-spring, and not the In­fant Seed of Believing Gentiles; and that the Dedication must be by Reli­gions Education and Supplication, not by Baptism.’ I say, let him talk in this fashion as long, as long as he lives: it will certainly follow for all That; that the Proper Duty Now Requir'd of Believing Gentiles, is to sign themselves, and t o see that All theirs (their Children also) are signed; which as I said, must either be with Baptism, or with Cir­cumcision, or with some other sign; Let him tell which, or what. For Mark it, shall the Blessing descend, and not [Page 53] the Proper Duty of that Blessing? Is not to keep the Covenant, as much a Duty Bound upon the Seed, as the Pro­mise, a Blessing made to it? Ay! is not Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed, as Plainly said, as I will be a God to Thee and to thy Seed, and will give to Th [...]e and to thy Seed? And if to keep the Covenant be, (as it is agreed to be) to keep the Sign, Let him distinguish as he will, (‘with Spiritual Essence, and Ap­pendages; with Proper Duty now, and then; with Dedication by Religious Educa­tion, and by Baptism.’ That is, with Ar­chepodialiter and Reflexive: Certainly, to keep the Sign, is as much the Proper Duty of the Seed, and as much bound upon it, and All as fast, as the Promise it self is made unto it: And if the Gentiles that Believe, are (as I have proved, and as the Apostle says they are) That Seed; Then, to keep the Sign, is as much the Proper Duty of the Gentiles, that Believe, and as much bound on them, and All as Fast, as the Promise and Blessing there, is made unto them. And this is not only high Reason, but God's Express WILL: Thou shalt keep my Co­venant Therefore thou and thy Seed. It is [Page 54] God's Mind, therefore it is to be done: and that this is a proper way of Argu­ing, himself says, Pag. 27.

You may think it is impossible to speak more Plainly, and more closely to any Point, than here I have to this; and that certainly the 17th of Genesis 9th. is very much to purpose, as to an Ob­ligation upon Gentile Believers or Abra­ham's seed, with Reference to the keep­ing of some sign, and in the last Result, to the keeping of Baptism; and happily you will think there needs no more than what is said already, to make it manifest, and beyond Dispute. But Sir, if these are your thoughts, they are not my Adversaries; he tells me plainly, that if I will find a Rule as he spakes) in Genesis 17. or (as my self do word it,) If I will find any Obligation there upon believing Gentiles to keep the sign, in the way I have mentioned; ‘it will be incumbent on me to prove, First; my three Partys (as he calls them) in the Covenant there mentioned. Secondly, my two signs; Thirdly, that Abraham Re­presented the Carnall seed only in Circumcision, and Isaac, the spiritual seed in Baptism.’)

I know it must exceedingly surprize you, to see me put on three new issues; Especially, seeing in his fifth Letter (P. 71.) All was fairly and Candidly Agreed (for so he speaks,) to depend on two others, (viz) the Duty and the Subjects; And seeing also, he might as well have put me upon Proving that the POPE is Antichrist, that the Earth is a Planet, or that there is a world in the Moon, as on Proving the Points he Mentions; so little they are to the purpose. For, whither three Partys are in the Covenant, or but two Provided Abraham's seed be included in one of them, and that seed be Believing Gentiles: and though but one sign be spoken of Determinately and Particularly, and no more, and that one be Circumcision; Provided Genesis 17. 9. be understood of Signing generally: and though Abraham Represented not the Carnall seed only in Circumcision, nor Isaac the Believing Gentiles at all in Baptism, seeing he was never Baptised: Yet, if Isaac Represent­ed the believing Gentiles in the Cove­nant, namely, in the Promise verse the 7th. and 8th. and in the Obligation and Incumbence verse 9th. Though he [Page 56] did not Represent them (as Certainly he did not) in Baptism; (yet) It will as clearly follow, That the Obligation and Incumbence which was Bound on Isaac verse the 9th. as He Represented the Beli [...]ving Gentiles, was, in him, in that verse bound on most fast upon them; As, that the Promise and blessing which in verses 7. 8. was made to him, was in those Verses, in him, made and Confirmed also unto them; and if that Obligation and Incumbence be to keep the Covenant, and to keep the Cove­nant be to keep the sign; they must as surely keep the sign, by vertue of that Covenant; as, by vertue of it, hope for the Blessing. The Duty is as much Bound on the seed, as, the Promise is made to it; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed. This (I must tell him again) is as Plainly said as, I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed, and give to thee and to thy Seed; and the same Seed is under the Obligation, that is within the Promise. These are not things that are barely said, but are Abundantly proved before, and Evident in the Text.

I know he says (P. 50) ‘that as to what concerns the Obligation, there is nothing in the whole 17th of Genesis but what relates to Abraham and his Natural Family ony, &c. God only then designing to signifie unto Abraham together with his Natural seed and Family, what was their Present Duty under the Then Present Administrati­on’) And that God did signifie their Present Duty under that Administration is beyond dispute; for therefore he In­stituted Circumcision, as that Duty. But that in that whole Chapter He should signify nothing as Duty and Incum­bence, but with Reference only unto Abraham and to his natural seed and Family, can no more be said, than that he Signified nothing there as a blessing pro­mise and priviledge, but unto Abraham and to his Natural Seed and Family, only. For, the same persons, plainly, are in the Duty and Incumbence, that are in the blessing an d promise, I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed; I will give to thee and to thy Seed; and therefore thou and thy Seed shall keep my Cove­nant. And who shall be believed? the Apostle that said, that that seed is [Page 58] Christ, Christ Mysticall; or this Disputer that saith, no seed is meant there, but the Natural Seed and Family. But shall the Seed indeed be within the promise and blessing, and not under the Duty and Obligation? when yet the same Cove­nant, and God in the same Continued speech, and to the same Persons under the same Denomination, (viz. Abraham and his Seed) doth both bind on the Duty and make the Promise: who, but such a Tender man as This is will dare to say, that one must still abide, and the other be lay'd aside; that we may take the blessing but leave the Duty? Certainly they that will not look to the Old Testament, for new Testament Dutys, must not Look to the Old Testament, for new Testament Priviledges. We must not claim by the Old Testa­ment Promise and blessing, if we will not be under the proper Duty and ser­vice, of that promise and blessing.

But to Return to his three Points, of which he says, it is Incumbent upon me to prove them, ‘if I will find be­lieving Gentiles any wise concerned in the 17tth. of Genesis, with Reference to Signing; the First is, my three Partys; the Second my two signs; the Third, [Page 59] Abraham's standing for the Carnal seed in Circumcision, and Isaac's for the Spiritual in Baptism.’)

To the First, that the Covenant is Tripartite; though still I say as I have said already, that, as to my Argument, I need not stand thereon; yet, it is Evident enough, from what I urged in my last Letter, (P. 155. 156.) to which I Expect a distinct Answer. And in­deed, the three Partys are Distinctly Noted, and are God, Abraham and Abra­ham's Seed; for first, the Covenant is made between God, and Abraham, singly and separately, in his own person, Genesis 17. 2, 4, 5, 6. But then, in verses 7, 8, 9. Abraham's Seed is taken in as well as Abraham's self; and so, the the Covenant, which, had it been only between God and Abraham, would have been but Bipartite; Now, another party being taken in or Added, Namely, Abraham's seed; becomes Tripartite.

To this, His answer is in the Sixth Let­ter, in which he glorys as Unanswered; and there he says, (P. 121.) ‘that there was a Covenant Between God the Father and Christ, and after that a Covenant taking in all his seed, [Page 60] called the Covenant of Grace, and (says he) doth that make it Tripartite? are not Christ and Believers consider­ed as one Party?’) you see how The­ologically and how Divine-like he speaks (if this be he that speaks and not some Supervisor) as if the Covenant of Redemption, which yet (to Note it by the by) is never called, in Express Terms, a Covenant, in all the Scrip­ture; as if that Covenant were the same (Covenant) with the Covenant of Grace, and that what passed Between God the Father and the Son before the Worlds were, was the very same with what passed between God and Abraham and his seed, in time. The Covenant of Redemption indeed was Bipartite, it was between God and Christ only: But the Covenant of Grace is Tripartite, between God, Abraham, and Abraham's seed or Christ, for Isaac the seed, is Christ. In the Covenant of Redempti­on are but two named, but in this Cove­nant of Grace are three Partys. But on this, as being a Logomachy and strife about words, I do not much Insist.

‘The second Point to be proved, is, (he says) my two signs. And that Baptism [Page 61] and Circumcision are two signs, is not hard to be proved; But doubtless, That is not his meaning; he hath the Con­fidence to say, ‘That I do make two signs, not only under the two admini­strations, but Two Determinate Par­ticular signs in Genesis 17. namely, Baptism in the 9th verse, which says, (but falsly,) I call The sign; and Cir­cumcision in the 10th for saith he (P. 80.) 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. (P. 114) he says; But say you though Isaac was Circumcised, and Ishmael too, yet there are two signs in that Text Circumcision and Baptism.) And (P. 115.) He says, But that there is any such sign as Baptism in Genesis 17th. 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 &c.’)’

You Sir, who have Perused my Letters, know very well how false and [Page 62] how Imposturous an Imputation this is; and Bad is that Cause, which cannot be upheld but with Impostures, Lyes, and Forgeries. But (for the Rectifying of others, who happily have not seen those Letters, and who, otherwise, may be too Credulous to this Inventor,) I must say, I was so far from Affirming any thing of any Tendency to what he Im­pudently fastens upon me in the former Passages, that I never once thought it; I only Affirmed, that Isaac (Abraham's Seed) did Represent and stand for Be­lieving Gentiles in the Covenant, both as to the Promise and Blessing given to them and to the Duty and Incumbence put upon them; This I did say, and but this; and this, Let him Confute it if he can.

Nor did I ever say, that there were two Determinate and Particular Signs, namely, Circumcision and Baptism, either Instituted, or immediately intended in the Seventeenth of Genesis; I said, that in the Seventeenth of Genesis, there was a double Obligation, namely, First, a more General One, Verse the Ninth, imposed upon Abraham and upon his Seed, (viz.) Isaac in the Spirit Princi­pally; [Page 63] and that was in General Terms to keep the Covenant; and to keep the Covenant, is to keep the sign of the Covenant, which I said, must be un­derstood Generally, for keeping the Co­venant in the sign of it, whatever the sign at any time be: and not Particu­larly and Determinately, for keeping of it Immediately in Circumcision or in Baptism, or in any other Particular Sign. Secondly, the Particular Obliga­tion is in Verse the Tenth, and This is laid upon Abraham and his Natural Fa­mily, but not, in Terms, upon Abraham's Seed: and it is an Obligation unto Circumcision: This being the Particular Sign of the Covenant for That Administration of it.

But to this he tells me, (Pag. 58.) You tax me (and I believe by this, you see that I had reason to tax him) for a bold Abuse in saying, that you intimate that Baptism is immediately intended in the Ninth Verse of Genesis, Seventeenth. Mark your own word, not Instituted, but Intended: whence I Argue, if Baptism be neither there Instituted nor Intended, if it be not in the Letter, nor In­tention of that Text, it is not there at All.

Here this Wyre-drawing man, in­stead of giving Satisfaction to my first Taxation (as he calls it) shamelesly in­curs a second; for his perversion of my words, in what he says, is so Notorious, that truly it was for Pitties sake I passed it over in my last Letter, without a Re­ply; and yet he Tryumphs in it, that This was never Answered. I said, and do say, that Baptism is not immediately intended in the Seventeenth of Genesis, Ninth, and that the Sense of that Verse is General and indeterminate; whereas, if Baptism, or Circumcision either, were immediately intended, it must have been Determinate and Particular, not speaking (as it doth) of Signing in General, but of signing with This or That Particular Sign, which it doth not immediately.

‘But I pray you Sir, Observe here his Extraordinary Skill in making of Ar­guments, for thus he forms His: ‘If Baptism be neither Instituted nor In­tended in the Text,’ (He should have said immediately intended, for so I did:) and again, ‘If Baptism be neither in the Letter nor in the Intention’ (for so he varies again, to Tenter it unto his [Page 65] Purpose, for I never said so.)’ What then? then it is not at all there; well con­cluded: If it be not at all there, it is not at all there. I said, it is not Immediately intended; This he Reports; (if it be not in the Letter nor in the Intention,) and that you will say, is very wisely said of him; As if the Letter and the Inten­tion were Opposites, and that That were not in the Letter of a Text, which is intended in it; nor That intended in a Text, which is in the Letter of it; whereas all other men, but he, do think that That is intended in a Text, which is the Sense of it; and that to be in­tended is no more than to be meant. And may not that be mediately, I do not say Remotely, as he doth, to make a Quibble upon it (Ay, Remotely enough) may not that be mediately meant and intended, which is not so immediately? and that Secondarily, which is not so Pri­marily? Yes, doubtless. And So all Particular Instances are intended and meant in General Propositions; not Im­mediately and Primarily, for so the Sense is only General, Else the Proposition were not so; but Secondarily and Mediately. And thus Baptism may be intended in [Page 66] the Seventeenth of Genesis Ninth, Thou shalt keep my Covenant, my Sign, Thou and thy Seed: not immediately, for so the Sence is but General and Indeterminate, God not having yet Discovered in what Par­ticular Sign or Covenant, either Abra­ham, or his Seed should keep it; but it may be mediately intended, as it is a Par­ticular Sign of the Covenant. I do not say, that the Sign of the Covenant must be kept generally and indeterminately; but I say, that those words Verse the Ninth. Thou shalt keep my Covenant (or my Sign) therefore, thou and thy Seed.) must be un­derstood Generally, and Indeterminately. But though the Sense be General and Indeterminate in the Ninth Verse, both as to Abraham and to his Seed, yet in the Tenth it is determined, as to Abra­ham and to his Natural Family; though not as to his Spiritual Seed. And if Determined but in the Tenth, it was not yet Determined in the Ninth.

I thought once to have said no more upon this Particular, than what I had be­fore; my meaning and intention in it being so Perspicuous, to Prudent and Understanding Readers; and his Ab­surdity and Grosness in Opposing it, so Plain and Manifest. But the Opinion of the Many, with whom the Last word is always a sufficient Answer, hath made it Necessary that I should say more. And therefore, once for All, to put my meaning out of Doubt (if it can be yet in Any,) I will here a little further Il­lustrate it. And to this Purpose; it having pleased God to say in the 17th. of Genesis, 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed; Understand­ing, by keeping the Covenant a keeping the Sign; Let us suppose he should have added, in the Tenth Verse; Circumcision is the Covenant or Sign which thou Abraham shalt keep, and Baptism the Co­nant or Sign thy Seed shall keep. Would it not in this Case, be very Evident that keeping of the Covenant or Sign in the Ninth Verse, must be understood but Generally, and Indeterminately, not, as yet for a keeping either of Circumcision, or of Baptism in Particular, but Generally [Page 68] keeping Gods Sign be it what it will, when he shall Please to institute it. Now as God hath said, Thu shalt keep my Cove­nant therefore, thou and thy Seed in the Ninth Verse, so he hath said PARTITIVELY, This is the Covenant that thou shalt keep, for so the Seventy render it; or, That YOU shall keep, (Distinguishing YOU from thy SEED) for so the Hebrew. But though he say what Covenant, or Sign it was that Abraham himself and his Pre­sent Family should keep, he leaves un­said, as not proper yet to say, what Sign or Covenant the Spiritual Seed of Abraham should keep; for that Seed being yet Un-born, it was but Reason that the Covenant or Sign it was to keep, should not yet be Instituted. Ishmael was at the Institution of Circum­cision, Isaac was not there. Ishmael that stood for the Natural Family, He was there; Isaac that stood for the Spiritual Family, was then Vn-born; and this Timing of the Institution, of Circum­cision, as Inoted before, should be in­sisted upon; it signifies much.

But, in Regard my Adversary will be Apt to tell me, that the case I put is but supposition, and one may suppose any thing; I shall therefore take the Text as it Lyes, and only ask him two or three Questions, to which I do Expect Direct and Categoricall Answers. The First is, whither Circumcision were Actually Instituted in the 9th. verse? for if it was not, (as indeed it was not, for it was not Instituted but in the 10th.) then certainly to keep the Covenant in verse 9. could not be Determinately to keep Circumcision. I ask him again, If this pro­position, Circumcision is Gods Covenant, or Gods Sign, be an Identick proposition, and do signify no more, than that Cir­cumcision is Circumcision? for if he say it signifies more (as I should think he will,) then the Term Covenant or Sign, in it, must signify Generally and Largely. In fine, I would Ask him if when it Pleased God to say, this is my Covenant which you shall keep, every man Child among you shall be circumcised, He then said no more than what he had before in verse the 9th. thou Shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed? For if God do say no more, or no other in verse 10. [Page 70] than he had said before in verse 9. then he saith but the same again; But if he do say other, or more, (as undoubted­ly he does, for now and not before, he tells what the Covenant is,) then keep­ing of the Covenant verse the 9th. must be understood but generally; as certain­ly it must, and I have Evincedit must; in some measure in my First Letter (P. 25, 26, 27.) but more expressly, in my Second; from (P. 85. to 91.) and most fully in my Last, from (P. 150. to 154.) In these Places you will see the Vanity of his Boast (P. 62.) (viz.) ‘that the sence cannot be Gene­ral and Indeterminate, for a General Indeterminate sence is no sence’.) Thus, General and Appellative Expressions are Nonsensicall to this man, and (owe no man any thing but to Love one another,) at this Rate, shall signifie nothing; (as indeed, it seemeth not to signifie much with Him; because it is not said Owe not James, Peter, John, or Paul, but (owe no man,) nothing but Love.

And so much for his two signs;) a Fiction of his Own, which he would fasten on me; whereas I never spoke, or thought of two particular signs, as [Page 71] Actually Instituted in the 17th. of Genesis, but only of signing Generally, spoken of verse 9. and of a Particular sign instituted In verse the 10th; Thus I spoke, and still speak; which no more doth signi­fie two signs, than when one shall say, (God made man a Reasonable Creature, and Peter is a man,) He speaks of two men; of one in the former proposition, and of another in the Latter.

As to the Third Point which he would put me upon, which is to Prove, ‘That Abraham Represented the Carnal Seed only in Circumcision, and Isaac the Spiritual Seed in Baptism) I have spoken abundantly what my sense is, as to the former, already: and, as to the lat­ter, I have also already shewed it a Ca­lumny as to the Implication that Isaac was Baptised, and in Baptism was a Type.’ But though he was not a Representative or Figure of the Spiritual Seed of Abra­ham, the believing Gentiles, in Baptism; seeing he never was Baptised; yet that he was a Representative of them in the Covenant of Promise, and that as well in the Duty and obligation, as in the Pri­viledge and Blessing of it, is, I think, by this, beyond all Dispute. But of all [Page 72] this I have said enough before; Isaac was not a Representative of the Be­lieving Gentiles in Baptism, but in the Covenant.

As to the 1 Cor 7. 14. from which I prove there is an External Relative holiness under the Gospel, as well as an Internal and absolute; He Roundly tells his Reader (P. 24. (for he never told me so before;) ‘That as he hath already Demonstrated, it doth not at all prove the Continuation of any External or Relative holiness arising from the Covenant.’) But Sir, you must not be too Easy in Believing of him as to Demonstration, for I Assure you, after what I answered in my First Letter, (from P. 33. to 49.) which once you thought beyond Ex­ception, and, I hope, still do, I never Received the least reply in any of his Letters as to That; and therefore, what he speaks (P. 24.) of Demon­stration here, It is as what he says of it in many other Places, and with Reference to many other Particulars (viz.) But a Vision of his too much heated fancy, and a Popular charm. The world must know that he hath [Page 73] done great things some where, but he cannot tell where himself.

Not that I would have you think too Confidently, that here he is Catcht; for though he have Affirmed, as you may see he hath, that he has already Demonstrated, when Indeed he has not; you must not presently believe he cannot make it out: for this, as Difficult as you or I would think it; It is an Easie Atchivement to a man of his Performance. He that can find a sign in Genesis 17. 9, as implyed in the sence, (for so he speaks P. 105.) when yet himself says, the Text mentions no sign at all or gives the least hint of any; He I say that can Affirm, the Text Mentions no sign at all, nor gives the least hint of any, and yet can Interpret what he sayes, (as he does,) that there is no such Term, or a Syllable of that sound in the Text; that is he that can say a thing is in the sence of the Text, that is neither mentioned, nor Hinted in the Least, in the Terms of it; He may say what he will; you must not think to hold him; if you think you have Him fast in the very Terms, he will give you the slip by a Syllable of the [Page 74] sound; and salve his Contradictions with Nonsense. To be Mentioned and Hinted, which (with all others) is, to be Express'd and Imply'd in a Text; by this Interpreter, shall be understood of Sounds, and not of Senses, Ay, though it be said, no Mention nor hint of any sign; And he that says (any sign) cannot be understood to mean the sound (sign.)

The Mention of the 1 Cor. 7. 14; Reminds me of his Amazement, (P. 128.) for he is often Amazed; Amazed much he was, at my Exposition of Genesis 17. 9. 10. and now again Amazed almost as much, at my Interpretation of Rom. 4. in my Argument (from P. 166. to 168.) And indeed, nothing but a Mazement can Excuse his great mistakes; as, that I should say the Reward to Abra­ham was Personal and Earthly, and was of Canaan only; and that my Ex­pressions have a sound that is Harsh and dissonant to Rom. 4. and 4.) My design in Touching on this Text, was only to Evince that Abraham's Re­ceiving Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness by Faith (which he had urged, was nothing Contradictory [Page 75] to what I said Concerning His stand­ing with Ishmael, and the Rest of the Family Gen. 17. 10. in the Business of Circumcision; how that they stood for and Represented there the whole natural Houshold. That Canaan was the Reward of Abraham's Faith, who but such a Sophister, dares soberly to Deny it? the Text is plain for it. Genesis 15. 17. But that Heaven also was not his Reward, I did not say; no more then the Text doth, which though in the Letter it doth but Men­tion Canaan, yet surely, it did not Ex­clude Heaven. And as for the Danger, and Dissonancy in my Expressions to Romans 4. 4. I ask him; was not the Reward given to Abraham, for his Believing? How else was it that his Faith was Accounted unto him for Righteousness? for though the Reward was Infinitely much Superior to any Desert of his Faith, and was a Thing that God in Justice, was no ways Ob­lig'd to make; yet a Reward it was, and a Reward (in the very Idea and Notion of it) is of and For something: A Reward it was, but a Reward of Grace, not of Debt; God gave it as a [Page 76] Gratuity, for what Abraham did; but Abraham could not have Demanded it as his due, or a Debt.

After this He tells me ‘(P. 129.)that all that follows to the close’ (namely, ‘in my last Letter from P. 169. to the End’.) is but strife about words; In which he finds not any thing but what doth Nauseate.) But you Sir, will find a Vindication in it of that (But) incerted in my Paraphrase; and also a Demonstration in it that (ye) in Genesis 17. 10. even from his own Concessions, cannot be understood of Abraham and that his Seed which is in verse the 9th. but must be meant of Abraham Ishmael, and the Rest of the Then Present Family; and Consequent­ly, that Circumcision was not then Enjoyned on the Seed as it stands in the 9th verse, for the Believing Gentiles; but only on the Natural Family; which was the Main thing to be Proved.

I do not know I have omitted any thing of Moment, (for his Scoffs, Jears, Gibes, &c. are of none) among his Reflections: no, nor any thing in His Last Letter, that is to the purpose; Except a So­phister [Page 77] will think I should consider his Logick (P. 120.) and, because Stierius and Sanderson, and indeed other Logicians, Generally, do say, (and he must be a very Mean One that doth not know so much,) that Members of a Division must be Opposite; Meaning not properly, that they must be Enemies; but that they must not Interfere and be Coincident; That therefore, it must be concluded, That All Distinction is Opposition; that Disparates are Opposites; and that God, Abraham, and his Seed, cou'd not be Distinct Partys, if they were not Opposites, and even Enemies to one Another. But if any think so, I Leave him to the Care of this Apothecary, and to Hellebore. You may be pleas'd to see what I have said in my Argument (P. 153, &c.) as to This.

Upon the whole, Sir, you cannot but Observe how Little Reason there is to Trust my Adversary in Citations and how much cause I have to make you and All his Readers this Request, that you never believe that I Affirm, or deny any thing which he, hereafter, though with never so much Confidence shall Report I do, unless you first con­sult [Page 78] my own Writings, and see it there: And I would also desire of Him, that seeing he is so much given to mistake my Meaning, He would never Report my sence, But in mine own Terms; and That is but a fair Request.

In fine, I am not much Afflicted that my Adversary gave me this Oc­casion of Writing again on this Sub­ject. I know that Truth, Like silver, will appear the Brighter for being Burnished. The more He presses this Controversy, the more the Subject of it will come in Discourse; and Dis­course, in Time, will Ripen and Mel­low Notions in the Minds of Men, which At First, seem hard and Harsh. Nor will his Pious Frauds, His Ray­ling upon Arguments instead of An­swering of them, His unsober Reflect­ing on His Adversary instead of Argu­ing with him; His Base Hints; or his Direct Scurrillitics, which Even now Dis-serve his cause with Wise and Good-men, Uphold it Long with any. These are mean, Unmanly, and Unchristian Methods, and (Let him Note it) never used but in Extremity, and when a [Page 79] Case is Deplor'd; which His being, I hold it time to End this Trouble