relation unto Christ his ceasing from his works and entring into his rest as the 7th day Sabbath was in relation to God his ceasing from his works after his making the first creaâ—ion and entring into his So iâ— followeth v. 10. Which to be meant of Christ and his entrance into his rest which he makes to be his passing into heaven v. 14 inferred from his entring into his rest v. 10. he endeavours to prove by 5 reasons Answ. 1. The coherence beâ—ween Heb. 4.9 and v. 10. doth rather intimate that he that is entred into his rest v. 10. is a term common to all the people of God mentioned v. 9. and the exhortation v. 11. doth also import tâ—at the person that enters into his rest v. 10 is meant every believer Nor is any one of Mr. Cs. reasons convincing of the contrary For 1. let the translation be mended as Mr. C. would have it yet it may be true of every believer that he also hath ceased from his worâ—s as God did from his own works 2. Seeing then v. 14. may point out to what is said Heb 3. â— 2 3. 3. If Heb 4 10. cannot be meant of ceasing from sin yet it may be from labâ—rious works and sufferings as Revel 14.13 and such rest may be 〈◊〉 with refreshing and looking upon them as good 4. That v. 10. should be taken for a proof of v 9. is not necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being not always causal or ratiâ—nal yet if it were it might be thus The rest of the people of God in heaven shaâ—l be a Sabbatism like Gods for such of them as shall enter into their rest shall cease or have ceased from their sufferings and painfull works as God did from his in the beginning 5. What he saith that Christ were not Lord of the Sabbath as he saith Mark 2.28 Luke 6.5 unless he had entred into his rest or as p. 75. he could not be Lord of the Sabbath unless he also had a rest which he entred into as God did into his iâ— without proof and is false sith Christ speaks of his being Lord of the Sabbath at that time afore he entred into his rest and doth imply that which some would call blasphemy that Christ as God had not been Lord of the Sabbath unless he had entred into his rest as man But were it granted that Christ by reason of his entring into his rest as man was Lord of the Sabbath doth that prove that Heb. 4.10 is meant of Christs entring into his rest or is it not rather a baculo ad angulum But were it granted that Heb. 4.10 were meant of Christs entring into heaven yet the rest before mentioned is rather thereby confirmed to be meant of rest in heaven with Christ then rest on earth on a weekly sabbath sith the argument is strong thus Christ is passed into his rest in the heavens therefore there is a rest remaining for the people of God there but hath no strength thus Christ is entred into the heavens to rest therefore there remains to the people of God a weekly day of rest on earth Lastly this very reason quite overthrows Mr. Cs. building For he would ground the week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest and this day he would have to be the first day of the week and the reason for inferring a week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest is taken from the rest of God after the first creation whereby the 7th day Sabbath was sanctified Now if there be the like reason of keeping a week day Sabbath because of Christs rest as there was of keeping the 7th day Sabbbath because of Gods rest then it will not be the first day of the week which must be the Sabbath for that was not the day of his entring into his rest but another day to wit the fifth day of the week as may be gathered from Acts 1.3 Mr. C. himself p. 76. though he say that it is very probable that the ascension day was on the first day of the week yet confesseth it not to be clear and the reason of the probability from Act. 1. by the computation of the forty days from his resurrection and the mention of a Sabbath days journey from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem occasioned as is likely from their making that journey then upon that day v. 12. is so slender that I know not that ever any learned man did conceive so with him and the computation of forty days from his resurrection being on the first day of the week though the day of the resurrection contrary to the common computation should be excluded will not fix the Ascention day on the first day of the week but two days at least short of it And for the mention of a Sabbath days journey Act. 1.12 it is clear from the words that it was onely to shew the distance of the place from Jerusalem not to shew that day to have been the Sabbath day I list not to trouble my self about the reason of using that expression rather then another it being not material Yet were it granted it had been on the Sabbath day it had not been the first day of the week for that is not termed in Scripture certainly not in the Acts of the Apostles the Sabbath day What Mr. C. adds But albeit his rest was not compleated till he passed into the heavens yet he first entred into it at his resurrection which being upon the first day of the week there needeth no more to fix the command of the Sabbath on that day doth overthrow his arguing from Heb. 4.7 9 10 14. whence he would deduce the Christian Sabbath because of Christs entring into his rest at his passing into the heavens Which hurts not others as Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. Rediv. part 4. sect 23. who confesseth the words Heb. 4.10 not to be spoken of Christ though he allude to them I have insisted on this point by the way because Mr. C. makes use of it for infant Baptism but to how little purpose the sequel will shew Mr. C. for proof of infant Baptism p. 20. layes down this position that what the Lord confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed it to us even to all believers after Christ to the worlds end which I grant if understood of spiritual Evangelical promises which accompany salvation but not if meant of those peculiar blessings and priviledges which were promised to Abrahams natural seed Yet in his proof of that position I conceive sundry things not right which are vented by him as p. 28. that the voice of Christ meant Heb. 3.7 is an inviting us to celebrate his day of rest in his house in the worship of the Gospel which he means of a weekly Sabbath and a particular Congregation and outward worship as sundry passages following shew and this he makes a part of the Gospel p. 31. and the believer that neglects it comes short of the promise of entring into Gods
have cause to repent of our judgements â—nfants may be inwardly sanctified and God hath taken them into Covenant with their parents and would have us look on them as separated to himself which is ground enough to build our charity on as to esteem them holy as grown persons There is no difference but this in it That concerning the holiness of persons at age we trust our own judgements and in judging of infants we trust Gods word who hath comprehended them under the promise with their parents there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgement of those of riper years as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith on infants And Gods promise though never so indefinite is a surer ground for hope then my probable judgement which is the most I can have of the generality of professors of ripe years is much of it false as that God hath taken infants into Covenant with their parents thay are comprehended under the promise with their parents God would have us to look on them as separated to himself by the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers we onely account them holy by a judicious charity and all impertinent forasmuch as professors of faith are accounted visible Saints not by a judgement of charity but of certainty from their profession which is visible and so are qualified for Baptism not from hopes of real holiness or faith of Covenant holiness which do not entitle to Baptism without certainty of profession What he adds That holy is a pure religious word that in my sense it would be no considerable medium for argumentation that else were c. hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue to be in a peculiar state of seperation to God visible Churchmembers with the believing parent contains nothing but unproved dictates often before refuted What he adds of cold comfort in my sense and of strength and sweetness in his is alike frovolous For the speech of the Apostle was to be no otherwise consolatory then so far as it might satisfie their consciences of the lawfulness of their continuing together which is clearly done by my Analysis and exposition of the Apostle and not done at all by his way For what is a priviledge of the children which perhaps they shall never have or if they have it is nothing to take away the defilement by the infidel for satisfaction of their consciences concerning living together in disparity of Religion I have done with this scribler I shall a little examine what some others have said with as much brevity as the maintenance of the truth will permit and hasten to an end SECT LXXVII Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7 9 10. is shewed to be succesless and so useless for proof of Infant Baptism THere is a Treatise intituled The Covenant of God with Abraham opened by Mr. William Carter which pretends to clear the duty of Infant Baptism and in his Epistle to the Reader saith the root of this matter is the Covenant of God with Abraham which because of the eminency of the Author and the publishing it in observance as is said of the commands of the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London rather then for any shew of strength in the discourse I shall examine that if this Review come to their hands they also may discern their mistakes Which I think necessary to be done because he also as other Paedobaptists use to do is not afraid upon his own conjectures for they are no better to charge us who baptize not infants as breaking Abrahams Covenant as small friends to Christs Kingdome waving and neglecting the right way of increasing that Kingdome and of exalting his Throne and power in the world taking-up ways unnatural unsafe and false Letâ—s then see what he writes Afore he meddles with the point of infant Baptism which he saith is the thing he especially intended in his discourse he endeavours to deduce the Christian Sabbath as it is termed from Heb. 4. I omit that he saith p. 3. that Heb. 2.15 16. the birthright vendible is their priviledges in the Church and worship of the Gospel and that p. 6. he expoundâ— the holding â—ast â—he confidence or liberty and the rejoycing of the hope Heb. 3.6 by holding fast the ordinances and priviledges of the Gospel Which if he mean as he seems to do of the oâ—twarâ— priviledges and worship it appears that he mistakes sith the birthright not to be sold and the confidence and rejoycing of hope are greater matters which no hypocrite may attain to and are plainly intimated Heb. 12.14 15. to be the seeing of God the attaining his grace and the estate Evangelical mentioned v. 22 23 24. which they might sell though they never had it by their Apostacy from their profession of Christ through whom they were in expectation of it at least in appearance And in like manner the boldness liberty confidence or râ—joycing of their hope must needs be of something yet attainable and not to be attained without holding it to the end v. 6 14. and which no unbelievers could attain to which are not true of bare outward Chuâ—ch priviledges and Gospel worship but of that salvation mentioned Heb. â—â— the grace brought in the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1.13 whereby we are Gods house Heb 3.6 are partakers of Christ v. 14. But I shall insist somewhat on that he saith p. 8. that by to day if ye will hear his voice in that Psal. 95.7 is meant the Christian Sabbath day by whiâ—h he means the day which in the New Testament is termed the Lords day or first day in the week which I conceive not right for these reasons 1. The day Heb. 4.7 iâ— a limited or definite day and that must needs imply this meaning This is the day in which if ye hear his voyce and harden not your hearts ye may enter into â—ods rest if ye do not this day ye will come short Which if true then as Mr. C. expounds it though they should hear the voice of Christ and not harden their hearts on the week day yet they should not enter into the rest promised which I think will be counted absurd and evacuate the hopes by all the week day Lectures 2. From Hâ—b 3.13 I thus argue To day Heb 3.7 is the same with the space of time which iâ— called â—o day v. 13. This is so evident in the Text that every one that reâ—ds the â—ext will easily perceive it sith it is plain that the calling it to day is meant â—f the calling it iâ— that place v. â— and the words lest any of you be hardened shew it But to day Heb. 2.13 is meant of any day oâ— every day wherein Christians might exhort one another therefore not restrained to the Lords day but either extended to tâ—e whole space of time they live
either the rest is not a believers personal rest by faith or that it is of the same kinde with a meer weekly Sabbath dayes rest but rather the contrary It is distinguished from the seventh day Sabbaths rest and so it is also from the rest which the Israelites had by Joshuah's conduct in the land of Canaan which the Authour mentions v. 8. as well as the seventh dayes rest v. 4. and therefore the seventh dayes rest opposed to the rest v. 7 9. doth no more prove the day of rest to be a day of the same kinde as the seventh day Sabbath was then the day of rest in Canaan by Joshuahs leading Yea sith the seventh days rest mentioned Heb. 4.4 is onely Gods rest it is apparent the day of rest is of different kinde from an ordinary Sabbath dayes rest Neither doth the term although impart any such identity of kinde but that God spake of another rest of his athough hee had rested long ago when his works were finished from the foundation of the world Yea the words Heb 4.10 Hee that is entred into his rest hath also ceased from his works as God did from his which expresseth the rest for the people of God yet remaining v. 9. do shew that the day of rest is not till a mans works bee ceased which I know not how to understand of any other works then his works of labour and sufferings which are not till the end of this life and therefore the sabbatism or day of rest is not here the keeping of a weekly sabbath but a day of rest as is meant Revel 14.13 which though it bee not every dayes enjoyment yet it may bee a Christians personal test by faith onely that is that rest which by faith onely is entred into or obtained And though it were entred into by all believers from the foundation of the world yet it was not so conspicuously as when Christ entred into the heavens However those Hebrews and the believers to come after had not then entred into it That the Sabbath days rest was in use before proves against Mr. C. that the rest was not of the same kinde unless in manner of a type or shadow as one thing like that 's resembled by another may in a Catachrestique manner be termed of the same kinde with that which resembles Mr. C. adds Fourthly it is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in Gods house in his worship So the Apostle concludeth v. 9. There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the celebration of a Sabbath for the people of God a word comprehending the Sabbath and worship put together as was before observed And the coherence of the words Psal. 95. implieth as much Psal. 95.6 7 8. It appeareth also from the Apostles wherefore chap. 3.7 His house are we wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith To day if yee will hear his voyce c. So as if the question bee what voice Or what day The answer from the Psalm and from the Apostles inference must bee this the day of worshipping the Lord our Maker and of resting with him in his house and his voice whose house we are inviting us to it Answ. Sabbatism in the notation of the word imports no more then rest what it imports in the use of it I cannot discern but from this place sith I know not where it is used in the New Testament but here nor in any other authour afore this Here it appears not to import any more then rest sith it expresseth but what is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 8 10 11. though I conceive that the matter shews it to bee meant of a holy rest it being thâ— rest of Gods people But that the word comprehends rest and worship put together I do not conceive For the word aâ—ludes to the Sabbath Gen. 2.2 3. quoâ—ed Heb. 4.3 4. Now Gods â—est imported not worship though his appointâ—ng us to rest on the Sabbath and to sanctifie it doth import our worship of him Nor do I think the coherence of the words Psal. 95.6 7 8. doth imply that Sâ—bbatism Hâ—b 4.9 comprehends the Sâ—bbath and worship put together or thaâ— Psal. 95.7 To day if yee will hear his voyce is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his woâ—shiâ— sith in those words there is not the word Sabbatism and the Exhortation To day if yee will hear his voyce doth not appâ—ar to have been on the weekly Sabbath daâ— the Psâ—lm being not as the 94th Psalm intituled A Psalm for the Sabbath and it is more likely that to day if you will hear his voyce intimates the day at the end of every seven years in the solemnity of the year of release in the feast of tabernacles when all Israel was come to appear before the Lord in the place which he should chuse and the Law was to bee read before all Israel in their hearing Deut. 31.10 11. at which time of the year every year they had gathered in their Corn and Wine Deut. 16.13 and then they had no harvest and so it was the fittest time to resemâ—le the rest remaining â—o Gods people yet so far was it from being the weekly Sabbath day that as Ainsworth notes on Deut. 31.11 The Jewish Doctors say that if the day of the assembling of the people happened to bee the Sabbath day the reading of the Law was put off till after Yet were it the Sabbath day it doth not follow that it is meant of a day of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his worship for the weekly Sabbath was not celebrated in the house of God that is the Tabernacle or Temple but in their dwellings Exod. 16.29 And therefore if the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore Heb. 3.7 did refer to whose house ye are v. 6. though I conceive the inference is made from the words if wee hold fast the confidence and reâ—oycing of the hope firm unto the end yet it proves it not to bee a weekly Sabbath of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship For the weekly sabbath was not celebrated in Gods house and if it were each Christian or the Church were not fit to answer Gods house in which it was celebrated sith they are not the place where that made the worship of God accepted as the Tabâ—rnacle or Temple that is proper to CHRIST and his body John 2.19 Heb. 8 2. but the persons by whom it is celebrated and who worship God Lastly were all this granted that Heb. 4.7 were meant a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship yet this might be meanâ— of the rest in heaven often called Gods house where the Elders cast down their crowns before God and worship and praise him and not the weekly Sabbath Fifthly saith Mr. C. Because the Apostle understands it of a day to be kept upon the same ground in
the token of Abrahams Covenant and yet the command Gen 17.9 â—0 1â— 12 13 4. bindâ—th not Nor is the other speech true For by the same authority according to Mr. C. the Passeover the Lords Supper were made tokens of the same Covenâ—â—t and yet â—or duties in stead of Circumcision 7. If when circumcision ceased there was 〈◊〉 be a duty in stead thereof by vertue of the command Gen. 17.9 and because of the promise of an everlasting possession v. 8. it must extend to the New Testament to the spiritual seed and be of a spiritual blessing by the same reason Circumcision being made an everlasting covenant v. 14. the command Gen. 17.9 should be of a spiritual keeping of Gods Covenant and the Circumcision that comes in the stead of Circumcision in the flesh should be Circumcision of the heart and obedience which the New Testament seems to intimate Rom. 2.26 28 29. 1 Cor. 7.19 Phil. 3.3 Col. 2.11 8. It is supposed but not proved that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision But Mr. C. thinks to prove it onely by the way he takes in to illustrate his conceit about Gen. 17.9 something about the Sabbaâ—h Exod. 20.8 11. of which he saith thus The like manner of institution we have concerning the Sabbath therefore those who deny infant Baptism oftentimes deny the Sabbath and not without cause for there is the same reason of both and we may illustrate the one by the other The Lord intended in time to change the day from the 7th day to the first of the week as he intended in time to change the token of Abrahams Covenant Therefore in the 4th Commandment also the command is not primarily fixed upon the 7th or any day to be remembred and kept holy but upon the general duty that the rest day of the Lord be remembred and kept holy what ever that day fall to be Remember the Sabbath day that is the rest day to keep it holy and the Lord blessed the rest day and sanctified it And the remembrance and keeping of the 7th day is in the Commandment made a duty for this reason because that was declared to be then the day wherein God had entred into his rest after his making of the world And upon the same account when after the travel of his soul in the new creation he entred the second time into his rest as is declared that he did Heb. 4.9 10. because that was upon the first day of the week when he rose from the dead therefore by vertue of that command Remember the rest day to keep it holy the first day of the week is now to be remembred and kept holy in as much as that is now the rest day of the Lord our God as formerly the 7th day Answ. That those who deny infant Baptism do not or need not deny the Sabbath is shewed in my Examen part 2. sect 8. in my Praecursor sect 15. in the second part of my Review sect 3. and what Mr. C. haâ—h said for his opinion of inferring the Lords day Sabbath from Heb. 3 4. hath been examined before and shewed insufficient for his purpose That which now he brings from his conceit of the command Exod 20.8 11. is to me very doubtfull and yet were it certain would not answer Mr. Cs. expectation His conceit is doubtfull to me for these reasons 1. because if his conceit were right when it is said Remember the Sabbath day and the Lord blessed the Sabath day the term Sabbath day should be conceived as a genus or species comprehending under it the rest day of the Jews and the Christians and such other rest days as God should appoint to be observed Bâ—t against this are these things 1. That I find not where the term Sabbath day is meant or applied to any other then the 7th day of the week I grant that other days are termed Sabbaths Sabbaths of rest Levit. 23 24 32 29. but no where that I yet find is any day besides the last of the week termed the Sabbath day 2. The blessing of the Sabbath day Exod. 20.11 was the same with the blessing Gen. 2.3 For it is a narration of what God did in the beginning and that day was the seventh in order after the six days in which he created his work 2. Me thinks the Evangelist Luke 23.56 when he saith they rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment which commandment is that Exod. 20.8 11. and that Sabbath being by the confession of all the last day of the week doth plainly expound the fourth Commandment of that particular Sabbath which was the seventh day in order from the creation and the last day of the week I confess there are difficulties from this exposition concerning the evacuating of the fourth Commandment which being besides my present business I shall not now insist on it being sufficient for my present purpose to shew why I conceive Mr. Cs. exposition doubtfull 2. Yet were hiâ— interpretation granted it would not serve his turn here For 1. keeping Gods Covenant Gen. 7.9 is without any example or colour of reason reâ—trained to seals as they are termed of the Covenant and made the genus to Circumcision and Baptism as the term Sabbath may be to all Festivals 2. If it were yet there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism as of the Sabbath and the â—orns day the one being a moral command and the other meerly ceremonial 3 If the meaning were Gen. 17.9 that a duty were commanded in general to keep the token sign or seal of the Covenant then it is a command concerning any token of the Covenant the Passeover and Lords Supper as well as Circumcision and Baptism and if so then they are to be observed according to the rule there v. 10 11 12 13 14. and if so they are to be applied to male infants of eight days old as well as Baptism or according to the rules delivered in the institution of each rite and if so the command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. will make nothing for infant Baptism unless it can be proved ouâ— of the institution and practise in the N. T. But to prevent this Mr. C. saith SECT LXXXI The succession of Baptism to Circumcision and their identity for substance to us is shewed to be unproved by Mr. Carter Mr. Marshal Mr. Church Dr. Homes Mr. Cotton Mr. Fuller Mr. Cobbet from Col. 2.11 12. or elsewhere 2ly FOr answer further it is to be considered that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision and is the very same for substance to us as Circumcision was to them before Christ namely the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed as appeareth Gal 3.27 29. As many of you as have been baptixed into Christ have put on Christ. And if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise By which we see that whatever we have as Abrahams
standard properly but metaphorically and therefore it follows upon Mr. Crs grant that the application of that one phrase of bringing their sons in their arms and daughters on shoulders according to the proper sense of the words is not right Nor is his endeavour to fit the metaphor to infant Baptism any better though in the Low Countries it were true that the eldest son of a Commission Captain being born there whilest his father is in the service of the State is by the courtesie of the Camp enrolled in the souldiers List on his birth-day and by the allowance of the State receives pay from the time of his nativity as he scribbles out of Fullers frivolous Treatise termed Infants Advocate p. 99. For 1. if infants be listed yet no standard is set up or hand lifted up to the people to bring them nor are they brought in their arms or bosoms in the Low Countries 2. Nor was any such usage among the Jews or Gentiles in Isaiahs time to whiâ—h he might bee conceived to allude and it is too ridiculous to go about as Mr. Cr. doth to explain a metaphor alluding to an use in Isaiahs time by an use no where shewed to be but in the Low Countries in our time That Mr. Gataker in the cause of infant Baptism interprets innumerable places against me â—s an untruth Though Esther were a â—ew yet a Queen of the Gentiles and â—â—ese things foretold Isa 49.22 23. were fulfilled in Cyrus time and iâ— Ahasuerus Artaxerxes and Darius time also yea and aâ—ter tâ—em in Alexander the Great and some of his successors and their Queens as Grotius conceives in his Annotations who also and Mr. Gataker shew how the prediction of bowing down and licking the dust of the Jews feet was fulfilled though not in Esthers time as I said the prophesie of Queens being a nursing mother to the Jews was yet in the times after afore Christs incarnation And for Mr. Crs. argument from v. 1 6 7 8 20 21. let him form it as strong as he can yet he will never prove that Isa. â—9 22 is a prophesie of infants visible Churchmembership in the times of the Gospel or their bringing to Baptism nor was I by any argument of Mr. Cr. forced to surrender up this hold that Isa. 49.22 23. is a prophesie of the return of the Jewes from the Babylonish captivity and their prosperity in Judea after their return aâ—ore Christs inearnation and yet were it understood of the times of the Gospel I shewed how it might be understood of grown men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospel as Junius in his Annotations which Mr. Cr. abusively puts into an argument as if it were alledged thus Junius says so thâ—reâ—ore it is so and denies the antecedent and conseâ—uent But neither was the consequent mine nor the antecedent as Mr. Cr. sets it down But this Janius saith that the standard Isa. 49.22 is the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth Rom. 1.16 and therefore it is meant of perswading grown men by the preaching of the Gospel and that all those things are allegorically spoken of the amplitude of Christs spiritual Kingdome and therefore not of bringing infants to baptism And for Cornelius a Lapide Hierome Cyril Haymo if they held it fulfilled in Gospel times and extended the words to grown men though they were for infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism yet they overthrow Mr. Crs. argument from thence which is of no force unless the words be understood onely of Gospel times and of infants being brought to some visible Ordinance as Baptism the contrary whereof his own Authors shew and himself grants and therefore I take all Mr. Crs. reasoning in the Dispute and this Reply from Isa. 49.22 to be meâ—r cavilling and still think it meet to refer the Reader for the discerning of my interpretation whether right or no and my yeelding that the words may be accommodated to the calling of the Gentiles without any oppositeness to my interpretation or appositeness to Mr. Crs. inference whether true or not to Mr. Gatakers Annotations which for no other reason but because however otherwise he differ from me I take to be the exactest and the most incomparable learned on that part of Scripture of any I know To Mr. Crs. defence Sect. 12. of his alleging thus Isa. 65.20 There shall be no more an infant of dayes that is infants shall noâ— be uncapable of the seal against my answer impliedly denyâ—ng the consequence and saying it hath no proof but his dictate which is thus To which it were sufficient reply to say it hath no disproof but his dictate which is without all shew of prohability there being not a word of any such thing as oâ—tward peace increase possession and long life to the Jews unless in the type aâ—d that scarce probable but of the glorious estate of the times of the Gospel held out in outward ordinances as shall appear I oppose 1. that I needed bring no other disproof but denial being a respondent but it is necessary hee should make good his sense if hee will inferre his conclusion thence 2. My disproof was right for v. 18 â—9 speaks of the outward peace of Jerusalem and her people their long life increase building planting possession opposite to their former troubles v. 16. are expressed v. 20.21 22 23. not a word of outward ordinances Against this saith Mr. Cr. And in Isa. 65.20 there is need of such an interpretation for as v. 17. the new heavenâ— and new earth and 18 19. creation and Jerusâ—lem were analogical and not proper so the 20. v. is wholly tropâ—cal and mystical There shall be no more thence an infant of days How can thiâ— be understood litterally did not infants after as well as unâ—er the captivity make up their weeke of dayes months of weeks c. It must needs relate to some thing under the Jewish Paedagogy and nothing so probably as that of theirs that nothing was clean till a Sabbath had gone over it and therefore according to Divine institution Circumcision was not tiâ—l the 8th day Mr. T. might have done well to have imparted us either his own or Mr. Gatakers descant on these wordâ— but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lions skin would not discover the whoâ—e imposture ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem Answ. That Jerusalem is analogical is not proved nor doth it follow v. 17. is tropical therefore also v. 20. any more then Isa. 11 6 7 8. is allegorical therefore also v. 2 3 4 5 9. Mr. Gatakers sense is plainly â—et down without any imposture in his Annotations which is this There shall be no more thence brought to burial by reason of untimely ends as formerly a child that hath not fulfilled hiâ— dayes but shall live and attain to his just growth and full 〈◊〉 oâ— years This sense is noâ— infringed by any thing Mr. Cr. saâ—th yea
that command is in force to all persons in Covenant as it was then Answ. The command in force then to all persons in Covenant is expressed by himself in the words before pag. 22.23 the command of Circumcision Gen. 17.11 12. when he saith All the Infants of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first signe or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord which was Circumcision so that if he mean as his words are this is his meaning in his conclusion that command which is Gen. 17.11 1â— to Circumcise the flesh of the foreskin of Abrahams males of eight dayes old is now in force to all persons in Covenant as well as it was then which neither hath nor can have any other sense taking words as they are used by other men but that still all in Covenant with God are bound by thâ— command Gen. 17.11 12. to Circumcise their male children of eight dayes old which is to maintain that which the Apostles have abroâ—â—ted Act. 15. to intangle us with the yoak of bondage which the Apostâ—e saith would make Christ unprofitable to us Gal. 5.1 2 3. But it will be said he means not the command of Circumcision but the command of signing with the first sign or seal of the Covenant Ans. If he means so he rather juggles than disputes For the words speak of the command which is Gen. 17.11 12. and that is no other than of Circumcision no such command of signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant in the Old Testament besides that of Circumcision is either there or any where else that I know of if there be let it be shewed But this is the manner of Paedobaptists in their disputes to imagine a command of sealing as they call it with the first seal the Infants of Covenanters abstractively or distinctly from Circumcision in the Old Testament Gen. 17. which is indeed a meer fiction with which they mock their auditors and readers who unwarily take what they say without examination Now this were an answer sufficient to this argument yet because this mans reasoning is so commended let 's view his proofes For proof of the Major thus he writes For when God giveth the reason of any command that reason is the ground of the command and till that reason ceaseth he is very bold with God that dare exempt himself from the practice And again If the first proposition be denied viz where there is the same reason of a precept continued there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God and who can say unto him what doest thou For the Lord commands nothing without a reason if there be no reason exprest the reason of his will is implyed which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world till he makes it appear that it ceaseth This is very clear Answ. The reason of a Command may be understood either of the reason why Cod commands a thing or the reason why we are bound to observe that command The reason why God commands is various sometimes one thing sometimes another sometimes expressed sometimes concealed And sometimes the same reason is given of very various commands as I said before I am the Lord your God is Levit. 19. the promiscuous reason of moral and ceremonial and judicial commands yea that the very reason which 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. is given for the command to be obedient children not fashioning themselves according to their lusts in their ignorance but to be holy in all manner of conversation is citâ—d from Levit. 11.44 45. and is the very reason why he forbids the Israelits to eat certain meats or to touch certain things unclean by the Law And therefore by Master Drew's reasoning the reason of the precept not ceasing we are bound still to the precept Levit. 11. of abstaining from meats unclean by the Law and from touching things legally defiling But though there may be many motives to do it the rather yet the onely formal adequate reciprocal reason why we are bound to observe any thing is the command of our Lord revealed to us besides which we are to look no further nor are we to neglect it till by some declaration of his will it appears we are discharged Thus Abraham was bound to offer his son Isaac on the Altar because of Gods command without knowing any other reason yea though he had known the reason from the end to be fulfilled yet he had not been discharged till God signified it by the Angel that he should not slay him Now then to Master Drews argument Iâ— he understand the reason of the precept in the first sense his major is false the reason why God gave a precept may continue and yet the practice is not to continue as Levit. 11 44 45. On the otherside the reason of a precept may not reach and yet the precept reach as though God brought not us out of Egypt which is the reason of the command Deut. 5.6 7. yet the command pertains to us and vers 15. It is said Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day Where I presume Master Drew will say the command reacheth us though the reason of it do not And as for his inference That if it be denied where there is the same reason of a precept there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God it is true if by the same reason of a precept he understand the reason of a precept in the second sense for the reason why we are bound to observe his precept to wit the declaration of Gods will it should continue but if he understand it in the first sense for that reason which God gives why he declared his will and bound us to observe it though it continue yet the precepr may not be in force nor on the other side doth the precept alwayes cease to binde though that reason cease as is proved before Now that reason of the precept Gen. 17.11 12. which is vers 4 5 6 7 8. is a reason of the first sort and not of the latter And indeed in more positive rites which are by institution the precept continues not in force however rhe reason God used to inforce it remaine except the institution be continued Rightly Pareus comm in Gen. 8.20 to an Objection That sacrifices are to be continued because the cause is perpetual Answereth The perpetual cause of a thing necessarily co-hering with the thing as a Cause continued with its effect makes the same perpetual But the said causes or ends do not so co-here with the sacrifies of the Ancients but onely by appointment that is divine ordination which was that those sacrifices should be the confirmation of the faith of the fathers and a signification of gratitude unto the coming of
on earth or to any opportunity in any day whatsoever whether week day or Lords dâ—y wherein they might exhort 3. Bâ— comparing these placâ—s with 〈◊〉 Cor 6 2 where it is said Now is the accepted time now 〈◊〉 the dâ—y of salvation which seem plainly to intimate the same day with that which is meant Heb. 3.7 13. and that day being manifestly meant of the time wherein the Embassadours for Christ do beseech men to bee reconciled to GOD 2 Cor. 5.20 it is very probable or rather certain that to day Heb. 3.7 13. 4.7 is not meant particularly the Lords day or first day of the week but any day of a mans life wherein the Gospel of Christ is preached and reconciliation to God offered him and received by him Or as Cameron quaest in Epist. ad Heb. 3.7 That time which by the Prophets and Apostle is called the last dayes and fulness of time which is the time of the Messiah exhibited not precisely the Lords day or first day of the week Let us view Mr. Carters reasons for his conceit First it is evident that it is meant of a day of rest câ—ap 4 7 8. for if Joshuah had given them rest namely that rest of which David speaketh then hee would not aftewards have spoken of another day therefore of a day of rest iâ— must bee meant else the Apostles argument had not been concluding nor pertinent because many other days might have afterwards been spoken off although Joshuah had given them all the rest that was ever to bee expected Answ. It is true that he Authour of that Epistle doth rightly gather from the word to day that there was another day of rest yet remaining for the people of God besides the seventh day rest aâ—d the rest in the Land oâ— Canaan which they pâ—ssessed by Joshuah s conduct yet doth not imply that the day in which the word was spoken was the day of rest But thus hee gathers it These words were spoken by David many hundreds of years both after God sware in the Wilderneâ—s they should not enter into his rest who believed not and after Joshuah had setled the posterity of the unbelievers in the land of Canaan and therefore the rest in the land of Canaan is not that which is meant in Davids speech but there is implied a future day of rest to bee attained by believing in JESUS the Messiah For David if it had been meant of the rest in Canaan would not have spoken to them not to harden their hearts fâ—r fear of being excluded from Gods rest Secondly saith Mr C. It is meant of such a rest as GOD can and sometimes doth swear in his wrath against his own people who are his house and the people of his pasture that they shall not enter into it this cannot bee said of what they enjoy in their personal inâ—erest by faith onely but as for the coâ—fort of his ordinances and Sabbath Answ. To omit the unfitness of the expression sith the comfort of Gods Ordinances and Sabbath is a personal interest enjoyed by faith onely it is not true that what is said of the rest cannot bee meant of what the people of God enjoy in their personal interest by faith onely because of Gods oath For that oath doth not imply that believers shall not enter into the rest yea the Apostles inference is to the contrary v 1 6. sith some were not to enter in others were to enter in and sith GOD sware some should not hee promised some should and chap. 3.18 sith some entred not through unbelief others in whom the word is mixed with faith ch 4.2 do enter in And this is a good argument that the rest mentioned is not the Christian Sabbath day which is the first day of the week sith they that believe not come short of it it 's a consequent upon the holding the boldness confidence and rejoycing of our hope firm to the end it was then in promise to the Hebrews and remained to the people of God who were to bee warned that they came not short of it where as the Sabbath dayes rest was then in pâ—ssession not to bee expected afterwards but then in use when this Epistle was written and yet such as hypocrites unbelievers and Apostats did in some sort enjoy as well as sincere persevering believers Thirdly saith Mr. C. That it is meant of a Sabbath dayes rest appeareth by the manner of the Apostles arguing in this place in as much as the Apostle proveth it to be another day of rest besides what was in use in the Church before Another in opposition to the 7th day Sabbath and that because David speaketh of it as a rest to bee entered into a long time after although the 7th days rest was entered into from the beginning of the world in as much as hee spake as it is Heb. 4.4 5. implying a promise that some shall though others shall not enter into it Now sayes the Apostle this being spoken by the Prophet David of a time then to come and again as Heb. 4.7 9. over and beside the seventh dayes Sabbath Now from this his manner of arguing it is evident that he supposeth this day of which David speaketh saying To day if ye will hear his voice to be a day of the same kinde as the seventh dayes Sabbath was because else there had been no such opposition to bee made nor would there have been place for an although or a notwithstanding in the case as in v. 31. because any other rest might have also been entred into from the beginning of the world as a believers personal rest by faith was but that which maketh the opposition is that David speaketh of a Sabbath dayes rest to be entred into now a long time after even in the times of the New Testament of which times that Psal. 95. is a prophesie as appeareth by the Apostles application of it in this place and thereupon hee concludes it to bee another day of rest remaining for us besides the seventh dayes rest By this wee see that by to day if yee will hear his voice is not meant onely of a Christians personal rest by faith which is every days enjoyment and was entred into from the beginning of the world but of another Sabbath dayes rest besides what was in use before Answ. It is not denied that Psal 95. is a prophesie nor that it speaks of a rest to be a long time after Davids time even in the times of the New Testament nor that although doth imply a distinct rest from the seventh day Sabbath rest and an opposition of that kinde which some Logicians call disparato though others will not have it called opposition but distinction yet the words Heb. 4 3. are not as Mr. C. cites them although the seventh days rest was entred into from the beginning of the world but although the works were 〈◊〉 or finished from the foundation of the world Nevertheless this doth not prove that
rest and is a departing from the living God Heb. â— 12 in tanto though not in toto In which speeches as there is much mistake and wrong interpretation of the Text which speaks not of such a week day rest or the house of God in the second capacity as he terms it or of entrance into his rest as his house in that capacity so that speech is very dangerous Now this entrance into his rest as his house in this second capacity is that which the Apostle chiefly speaketh to here when he saith Take heed brethren of an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God And that in case the people of his pasture and sheep of his hand even his own children will not hear his voyce but forsake his worship refusing his offer in this Gospel rest as they did in Canaan rest he will also swear against them as he did against these that they shall not enter into his rest Which if true then they that are not convinced of the weekly Christian Sabbath as many godly and learned Divines in forreign parts and in these Nations are not those who do not on that day joyn in the publike and solemn worship as prayer preaching breaking bread and that too in a particular gathered Congregation as Seâ—kers and many other persons whereof we cannot but judge many of them to be godly these are chiefly meant by the Apostle as those that have an evil heart of unbelief depart from the living God God will swear they shall not enter into his rest Nor will the limitation in tanto help to free his speech from those horrid consequences which it is liable to if it be true which he saith that the Apostle chiefly speaketh to that entrance in his rest as his house in the second capacity Heb. 3.12 and to expound Gods swearing that they should not enâ—er into his rest in that sense if they did not hear his voyce inviting to keep the Sabbath makes the speech inept thus If ye will not keep the Sabbath I swear ye shall not keep the Sabbath Nor do I conceive what he saith p. 34. is right that Christ gave his Saints the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven Matth. 16.18 and from that gift to Peter the Saints do claim their Church power each according to their place and station in the Church for they have it as Peters that is as stones in that building or if you will as confessours which makes them to be stones in the house of God For neither by the Keys is meant all Church power nor are the Keys given to the Saints much less to them as stones or confessours though such things are supposed oft times but not proved But I hasten to the view of what follows being the chief thing Mr. C. infers his infant Baptism from SECT LXXVIII Mr. Carters exposition of Gen. 22.16 17 18. as if God promised to make every believer a blessing so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents is refuted THat which is Mr. Cs. basis for his fabrick of Infant-Baptism is from the Covenant of God with Abraham Gen 22.16 17 18. which he saith contains four things 1. That God would bless Abraham and with him all believers with all spiritual blessings in Christ Rom. 9.7 Gal. 3.16 8 9 29. and this agrees with Gen. 3.15 Which I yeeld Secondly saith he more particularly in Gods promise to Abraham is contained something peculiar unto him and which believers are to claim particularly from his promise made to Abraham as namely in the second place that God would not onely bless Abraham and in him all believers but also would make them blessings and that chiefly and in the first place to their families and not onely so but also to Nations Gen. 12.1 2 3. So Gen. 18.18 This promise Peter alledgeth and explaineth to the Jews Act. 3 25. The word is all the families of the earth The same word we have Ephes. 3.15 The Covenant maâ—e with Abâ—aham therefore as by this place we see that we have it in that of Gen. 12.1 where it was first made and given so also that it respecteth families and posterity else he had said all the bâ—lievers or all the people of the earth not all the families of the earth shall be blessed And he could not have said to the Jews ye are the children of the Covenant had it not respected the children of the pâ—ople of God Nor is it to be restrained onely to the Jews for the promise is concerning all the famiâ—ies of the earth therefore it followeth in the next words v. 26. unto you first And this blessing as it is first laid down Gen. 12. and here repeated by the Apostle we see is a blessing both upon the people of God themselves and upon their families Nor is this promise to be restrained onely unto this that of Abraham and his seed should Christ come although that also be included because what we receive from Abraham we have it all in Christ for so all those of the line of Christ were blessings to the world as well as he And because here is something intended applicable to all believers namely that they also shall be blessings in their generations and because a blessing upon families is intended also for so the words run thou shalt be a blessing and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed therefore I say it must not be so restrained But the meaning is that in his Covenant with Abraham he hath thus far limited himself and discovered his mind and purpose that his choice shall not be proportionâ—bly all over the world alike but that it shall be by families and nations so as he will ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together and not by eqâ—al numbers in each part of the world alike Had not his election been so limited to families and nations neither Abraham nor believers could have been said to be blessings in spiritual things either to their families or to any other where they live as now they are because God so blesseth onely his elect Ephes 1.3 4. Answ. The sum of this I conceive to be that God promising to Abraham he should be a blessing Gen. 12 2. that in him all the families of the earth Gen. 12.3 all the nations of the earth Gen. 18.18 shall be blessed in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed Gen. 22.18 did promise that every believer should be a blessing in his generation in spiritual things to his family and neighbourhood and thereby God haâ—h limited himself to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together and not by equal numbers in each part of the world alike Which exposition is many wayes faulty and the conclusion inferred from it either false or uncertain and yet if it were true and certain would not yeeld
Pemble vind Fidei sect 2. c. 3. sect 4. c. 1 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham who had not to glory before God nor was justified by works Rom. 4.1 2 c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former when he saith Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith But of this by the way That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house 1 Tim. 3.15 2 Cor. 6.16 and separate Act. 13.2 2 Cor. 6.17 that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament though it were true yet proves no more but this that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described the Old Testament is necessary but not that which is to be proved that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old Mr. C. adds p 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.24 Mar. 10.14 Acts 15.10 Mat. 28.19 which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review I need onely to refer the Reader thither Yet I add it is but said without any proof that 1 Cor. 7.14 that children are termed holy because they come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth and separateth from that which is common or unclean For 1. there 's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents 2. Nor that the scope analysis allusion in the Text leads to such an exposition 3. Nor doth it follow that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth God blessed Noah and his sons Gen. 9.1 yet all of them were not sanctified yea many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons Psal. 107.38 Ierem. 12.1 much less is it true that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy yet not blessed 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24 are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers or that they are to be accounted holy by us till God hath purified their hearts by faith Acts. 15.9 And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation till they profess the faith such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation without profession of faith by each person so accounted there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples upon their own profession so judged no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith though wee know not them to be inherently holy or in the Covenant of grace Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy because they are not onely within the Covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate 1 Cor. 7.14 that it had been but affirming the thing is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards or that he â—scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11 and 9.12 is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect 11 c. to the end of the Book that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered without shewing the insufficiency of the answers if hee meant candidly as one that endeavoured to clâ—er the truth But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building that upon this account not onely children of believers but also nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations To this he answers The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for nations they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy Ref. I reply the objection in form stands thus They which come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. must be reputed holy This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. â—04 and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism I subsume But nations yea all nations come under the word of bâ—essing from God in as much as that word was not onely confirmed unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. and if the word families bee taken as Mr. C. seems to take it for housholds and all housholds then the same objection is concerning all in housholds servants wives as well as children they come under the bleâ—â—ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition Ergo according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition
sine Baptismo compeâ—ere salutem ex illa maximè pronuntiatione Domini qui ait nisi natus ex aqua quis erit non habet vitam c. However Ambrose and Augustine determine of the salvation of grown persons without Baptism if they believe desire to be baptized be Martyrs yet both they and many more held both Baptism and the Lords Supper to be necessary for infants unto salvation by an Apostolick tradition as M. Perkins Demonst. of the probleme in the point of Baptism proves though perhaps they could not reasonably grant the one and deny the other That Calvin was a mâ—n well versed in Antiquity for his time it 's not denied nor that he was a man well acquainted in the Scriptures yet that in neither he was in this point in the right is so fully demonstrated before that I may safely say Calvin was not therein Calvin as he is in his opposition of the Papists And if Mr. M. or his friend think it not meet to be tied to Calvins judgâ—ment in the point of the Sabbath and Lords day and Usury notwithstanding his skill in Antiquity and Scripture the same in equity is to be allowed to us about the point of Baptism I like Mr. Ms. acknowledgement with Riveâ— that tradition is in most points uncertain and therefore he that will build sure must build on the Scripture and therefore we must necessarily come to arguments from the Scriptures which if they evince not the thing we shall in vain call to Tradition If Mr. M. had not fiâ—st in his Sermon forestalâ—ed his hearers and readers with the pretence oâ— the Churches possession for 1500. years and upwards and Dr. Hammond resolved all his proof of infant Baptism into his exposition of 1 â—or 7.14 which he had no way to make good but by Tertullian and some of the Ancienâ—s I had spared this labour of shewing tâ—eir and and the Ancienâ—s mistakes Thaâ— Doctrine and practise of Baptism of Infants â—hich Austin saith to be according to the sentence of the Gospel is rejectâ—d by Proâ—estants who iâ— they would in this as in other things they have done 〈◊〉 according to Scripture and all their own principles must baptize no infants till they be made believers till then they do but prevaricate and profane the holy Ordinance of Baptism SECT XCIX Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled I Return now to Mr. Cragg Part 1. sect 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths outvying the number of the lines in which he is a false accuser In the first he misâ—recites my words which were not that the Epistle affirms that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork but thus As false it is thâ—t the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named which were true For though it was not in those words said by me that the Epistle did so affirm yet it is true 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practised Anabaptism me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers or that they baptized them or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them 2. The very words of the Epistle are the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork then Phipher c. there you have the spring and rise of it and therefore in my words there is no untruth but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech and slâ—nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation and the first â—uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers The 2d thing he chargeth on me as untruth was not expressed as Mr. Cr. inâ—inuates that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists but thus the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism which cannot be denied to be true unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing or the baptized no believers or that they call it not Anabaptism It is also false that he saith of me that my judgement and practise is that all that will be saved must be baptized again when they become actual believers and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can The 3d. untruth as he calls it is that baptising of believers without infants or excluding infants had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and he notes that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism which is another thing had its spring thence But he neither shews what other thing Anabaptism is nor doth he prove it to be an untruth but by rendring my own instances against it invâ—lid But therein he dâ—tâ— buâ— abuâ—e me who alledged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth nor is there any thing said by him but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defence and is aâ—swered before here sectâ—â— â—â— 98. The 4th untruth he châ—rgeth me with is that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ and he thâ—â—ks to â—vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19 But he saith â—othing but whâ—t is â—â—â—ully refuted before Review part 2. sect 5 c. part 3. sect 97. and elsewhere so that I neeâ— say no more here to it The 5th untruth he imagines is that infant Baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denied by the Anâ—ipaedobaptists the proof lies upon them But by his â—â—ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists to prove they did baptize infants sith they claim a right to it which muâ—â— be proved by precepâ— oâ— example of the doing it validityâ—o â—o shâ—w infant Baptism not to be according to Gods will sith in meer positive instituted worship wherein â—od hath set down what he will have done he will have it so done and no otherwise It is proâ—ed bâ—fore Review part 2. sect 5. c. part 3. sect 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age de facto are vain there being no intimation of any such reasonâ— in the History of the Apostles Acts Yea the story is against his surmises for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities and in them they went from house to house Acts 16.15 34. 20.20 Hierusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins which cannot be meant of infants Though infants be a parâ— of a Nation yet Mat. â—8 19 Is. 2.2 by nations no infant is meant nor Luk 19.19 is inâ—ant Baptism intimated The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act.
his question did not infants c. â—onfirms it That it must needs relate to 〈◊〉 under the Jewish Paedagogy is not proved nor that the conceit nothing was clean till a Sabbath was gone over it was of the Jâ—wish Paedagogy nor that it was the reason of circumcising the 8th day nor do I see what hiâ— if it were granted makes for his sense There shall be no more an infant of dayes that is infants shall not be uncapable of the seal while their age is measured by dayes as the Jews infants that might not be circumcised till a week had passed over them For there is neither mention of seal nor in capacity of it nor of circumcision nor its limiting to the 8th day and Mr. Cr. leaves out thence that is from Jerusalem which shews it 's meant of infants there being and so not of Gentiles infants and the prediction is of an event of great moment not of a capacity of a thing which might never be in the event and if it were is of small or no importance nor is an infant of dayes well paraphrased by while their age is measured by dayes For an infant of dayes is all one in regard of dayes an infant or child as the opposite term on old man shews and his expression is either non-sense or else it is vain to suppose that a person is an infant while his age is measured by dayes for a person of many years hath his age measured by dayes and if the meaning be an infant that hath his age measured by dayes not by one day or some hours is capable of the seal then it should imply that an infant of one day old is not I am blamable for spending time in râ—futing such fooleries but the intolerable insolent brags of Mr. Crags dispute and scribling necessitates me Mr. Cr. from Isa 65.20 argued thus The childe shall die an hundred years old or as well a Churchmember as iâ— hee were an hundred years old therefore children may bee baptâ—zed under the Gospel and here p. 174. of me he saith He denied the consequent which I made good first ab impossibili because to take it literally would imply a contradiction For it is impossible being a childe to die a hundred years old childe is the subject of the question which is to be taken properly without enallage shall die an hundred years old the predicate that cannot otherwise be affirmed of it but analogically resembling in sâ—me capacity and qualification them that dies an hundred yeares old Answ. This arguing is indeed childish like as if it were argued Luk. 1.76 Thou câ—ilde shalt bee called the Prophet of the Highest for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his wayes to give knowledge of salvation Ergo this must bee understood analogically childe is the subject of the question which is to be taken properly without enallage and so this must be true of John Baptist while hee was a childe The like might bee said of Luk. â— 34 1 King 13.2 He is but a childe that knowes not that in such passages as these there 's no need of imagining an analogical predication but that they are to be understood sensu diviso as when our Lord Christ saith Luke 7.22 the blinde see the â—ame walk the Lepers are cleansed the deaf hear the dead are raised that is such as were blinde lame lepers deaf dead not in sensu composito such as are when they see walk are cleansed hear are raised so in the other place not he that is a childe while he is a childe but he that is now or shall be once a child shall afore he dies be an hundred years old which agrees with the rest of the verse and v. 22. handsâ—hey â—hey being expressions of long life And M. Gataker 〈◊〉 rightly the syntax is familiar and as clear as the day light or Sunshine the childe or 〈◊〉 that now is shall die the son of 100 years that is shall be 100 years old when he dieth So Gen. 11.10 Gen. 21.25 c. To which Mr Cr. insolently â—eplies I had thought syntax had been Gramatical construction according to rule not literal interpretation or univocal not analogical praedication I say for Master Gataker that hee may think still that syntax is Grammatical construction according to rule not literal interpretation Mr. Gataker saith nothing to the contrary yet literal interpretation is to be according to the rule of Grammatical construction he may think Syntax is neither univocal nor annalogical praedication there may be Syntax in imperfect speeches that are no enunciations nor in them any predication of one thing on another Mr. Cr. hath been a Paedâ—gogue long enough to know that which his School-boyes might tell him there 's Syntax between a Noun Adjective and Substantive a Noun and a Preposition or Interjection where there is no predication He adds of Mr. Gataker And this Syntax he says it as clear as the day light or sun shine perhaps to an Owle or Bat. Answ. Yea and too to as seeing men as Mr. Cr. though his Eagle-eye be in this as dark as an Owle or Bat at noon He goes on And what is this Syntax that is so clear The child or youth tâ—at now is shall die the son of an hundred years that is shall be an hundred years old when he dieth the child or youth there is one addition for the Text mentions not youth which is a distinct age from childhood Answ. It may be an addition to the English translation but not to the Text sith as Mr. Gataker shews the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to Joseph at 17 years old Gen. 37.2 to Benjamin Gen. 43.8 when he is deemed to have been above thirty but that 's the ill luck of it that then it will not serve Mr. Crs. turn for his infant Churchmembership visible in the time of the Gospel Mr. Cr. adds That now is there is another the child was not yet it was a prediction Answ. So it might be and yet the child one that then was when Isaiah spake it nor is it any more addition to the Text then if he had said the child that shall be nor any untruth in the speech as expounded by Mr. Gataker Mr. Cr. goes on There is a third son of by addition put in old by substraction taken away excellent Arithmetick besides here is a new creation of a new generation son of years who ever heard such a Syntax did the son beget the years or the years the son or whether is elder That is shall be an hundred years when he dieth here is an exposition of an exposition and a fourth addition he and when being superadded Answ. It grieves me not so much that Mr. Cr. hath so much vilified my self as that though he pretend to be a Preacher of the Gospel yet like a terrae filius or Grammer reader he should shew such contempt of a man then alive when he wrote it as I