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 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 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
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
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
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
and none by God substituted Let them that have better eys then I find out this peculiar church-making call for I cannot Answ. My argument the Church call is altered from the way of making the Jewish Church by Abraâ—ams and Moses authority into the perswasive way of begetting faith by Ministers preaching the Gospel therefore the Church constitution is altered doth not help Seekers except it be acknowledged there is no Church now by Ministers preaching the Gospel but by meer authority of Magistrates which was heretofore the objection of Papists against the English churches bâ—t refelled by Protestants Jewel c. For I do not appropriate the Church call to the Apostles or men who could speak that which was meerly wholly undoubtedly insite implantedly the word of God as Borelius spake but to the preaching of the Gospel by any Minister of Christ or other instrument whereby faith is begotten and whereby aâ—one the Christian visible Church and all its members were called in a different way from the Jewish Church call which if Mr. B. do not see to have been the Christian peculiar church making call after his wrâ—ting in his Saints everl rest par 2. ch 6. sect 1. it seems he will not see iâ— and then wee may apply to him the Proverb Who so blinde as hee that will not see Mr. B. passeth on thus Well But may it not yet lie in the second point that they were all taken in to be a Church in one day Answ. 1. What day was that I would Mr. T. could tell me He saith Moses did it but that 's no truer then the rest For sure they were a Church before Moses time Did they begin to be a Church in the Wilderness or did Moses onely express the Covenant to them more fully and cause them oft to renew the Covenant and so onely confirm them a Church was not the circumcised seed of Abraham a Church in Aegypt and was the uncircumcised Host onely in the Wilderness the Church This is excellent arguing Answ. This is excellent answering not to deny what is objected but to propound cross interrogatories Suppose I could not assign the day is not the thing true But that Mr. B. may not lose his longing I tell him it was when Abraham circumcised his house Gen. 17.23 When Moses made a Covenant with them in Horeb Deut. 29.1 If I say Moses did it I say but what the Scripture doth Deut. 33.4 5. nor doth it want of truâ—h if it be no truer then the rest It is not true Israel had their Church call from Moses for sure they were a Church before Moses time this is Mr. Bs. excellent arguing As if the seed of Abraham a fluent being consisting of a succession of people might not have one Church call in one age another in another one by Abraham another by Isaac another by Jacob another by Moses Doth not Mr. B. himself pag. 122. tell us that Moses did cause them oft to enter and renew the Covenant I do not say they began to be a Church in the wilderness or that the seed of Abraham was not a Church in Aegypt or onely in the wilderness But this I say the Church call of that people was oft in several ages by the authority of the several Patriarchs and Rulers as God saw it needfull to bring them into Covenant for better fashioning establishing or recovering the Church fallen but for the most part by the authority of Rulers or if by a Prophet in an extraordinary manner as Elijahs days 1 Kin. 18. and that not by the way used in the Christian Church by a daily adding to the Church and multiplying it by preaching as Acts 2.47 6.1 but by authority calling the whole nation and people together into Covenant at once Again saith Mr. B. But Abraham took all his family to be a Church in one day you will say I answer First It is not proved when they began to be a Church Repl. Nor needs it 2 ly And would not Mr. T. now have a whole family made a Church in a day Is that his charity Repl. Yes and the whole world if it seemed good to God But we find not that he doth so or gives us any rule or president for us to do so in the constitution of the visible Church Christian any otherwise then by preaching the Gospel to them and baptizing Disciples or believers Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. And sure my charity must not be my rule about the use of Gods Ordinances but my Lord and Masters appointment 3 ly Saith Mr. B. And what of it had been true if the whole Kingdome either it was with their câ—nsent or without without their consent they could not be made church-members for they could not enter into Covenant with Gâ—d Answ. If this be true then no infants are church-members And though it were true that none could enter into Covenant with God who is of age without his consent which seems to me otherwise yet the consent obtained meerly by the authority of Masters or Governours through fear or hopes without teaching and free acceptance of Christ upon the preaching of the Gospâ—l doth not make a visible member of the Christian Church however it did in the Jewish I do not think the Americans forced to be baptized by Spaniards or other people by the conquests of Charls the Great and other Christian Princes afore they knew Christ by teaching made Christians were such though there was some consent out of fear of loss of life or liberty if they were not Mr. B. adds And never was any such thing attempted Even Joshua treads in Moses steps and bids them chuse whether they will serve the Lord or not Jos. 24. Answ. Whether Abraham had the free consent of all his house to enter into Covenant with the Lord or whether he did circumcise some and take them to his Family Church without their consent is uncertain However if Abraham had a slave refractory which he was loath to lose yet he must circumcise him against his will because of the command with the penalty Gen. 17.12 13 14. And in the circumcising the Sichemites what was done and attempted is known Neither Moses nor Joshua did so leave it to the Jews liberty but that they would have cut off from the people by death any that refused to acknowledge God or that set up an Idol Asa's Covenant was of putting to death whosever would not seek the Lord God of Israel 2 Chron. 15.13 Whereas there is no such Law in the Christian Church that whoever shall not believe in Christ shall be put to death Yet further saith Mr. B. And it being with their consent that the nation were church members may not the like be done now What may not any or all the nations of the world be added to the Church if they will consent and enter the Covenant Answ. Yes they may so many as upon knowledge of Christ do freely consent to receive him in all
makes visible churchmembers in the Christian Church 6. Saith Mr. B. I desire no means to convince any man of your strange abuse of the Text but onely that he will read it Ye stand this day all of you c. and that he may be to thee a God He that can considerately believe Mr. T. that the word thou v. 12. doth not necessariâ—y comprehend the little ones if I knew him I would tell him that I will not undertake by Scripture to convince him of any thing at all And I say again in sobriety that if the Papists had as plain Scripture for their Religion as it differs from ours I would not delay a week but would turn Papist c. Answ. Mr. Bs. words onely express his confidence in his conceit which in this and many more things I conceive to come from his hasty determinations without weighing all objections to the contrary But I desire both him and the Reader to let me know what that entring into Covenant is which may be termed the infants act afore he censure my interpretation of thou as not comprehending little ones necessarily but as noting some instead of the rest as a strange abuse of the Text sure it was no act of words or sign shewing any consent or assent to the Covenant or Oath of God And if as Piscator conceives in his scholie it were by passing through as the word in the Hebrew is the â—arts of the divided living creatures in testimony of the covenant I say again surely neither little ones nor all the rest did pass between the parts of the the beasts divided but some in stead of the rest I think they will not say it was their bare presence which was the entring into Covenant for their standing there was before it and the entring into Covenant a consequent of it I do not accuse him as he knows who hath done of being a Papist nor dare I absolve Mr. B. from yeelding too much in some of his writings for Papists Arminians and Socinians advantage in sâ—eking to avoid Antinomianism and Anabaptism But I hope both Mr. B. and his Reader will be more sober and wise then to go over to the Papists upon this declaration of Mr. B. who if he did not suggest to the people as if it were my impudence to deny it at the Dispuâ—e I was mistaken and so were others and I intreat him to pardon my mistake But Mr. B. adds Where he saith that you v. 14. is distinguished from them that stand c. I answer 1. I think not but from them that were absent q. d. not with you onely but both with him that is here that is you and him that is not here Answ. I find no interpreter who doth not render â—â— v. 15. by the adveâ—sative and the Tigurine Divines render it sed et but also which shâ—ws a plain distinction of you v. 14. from him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God and if I understand any thing in this kind Mr. Bs. exposition is not good sense to expound not with you onely but with him that is here with us that is you For v. â—5 him that standeth here is opposed to you v. 14. and you onely being an exclusive terme must exclude the rest and when it is said with us meaning himselfe and you v. 14. it is meere non-sense to expound it thus him that standeth with us if us comprehend him that standetâ— there as it doth according to Mr. Bs. exposition Besides the different numbers of him that standeth here with us and you do shew that they are not the same And I thinke I may say as Mr. B. I desiâ—e no meanes to convince any man of Mr. Bs. strange exposition but onely that hee will read the Text. But he saith 2. Were it otherwise yet it were onely from the people of other nations that stood among them Answ. 1. If Mr. B. mean thy stranger which is in thy Camp v. 11. I expect some reason why you onely v. 14. should exclude them more then the little ones and wives rather me thinkâ— you onely should include those menâ—ioned v. 10. and him that standeth with us here this day should mean those v. 11. And the plain sense seems to be this that though the Captains Elders Officers men of Israel who were to enter into Coâ—enant did by themselves onely covenant yet Moses in Gods stead did make that Covenant and Oath not onely with them to whom his speech was directed but also with the rest v. 1â— 2 If he mean the strangers not of that congregation or Church of Israel surely the Covenant was not made with them as here Moses saith it was with him that standeth here with us this day Mr. B. adds of me Where he saith some entred into Covenant in behalf of the rest I answer 1. God entred into Covenant on his part immediately or by Moses the Mediatour with them all and not with some onely Answ. Be it so yet on the other part some entred into Covenant in behalf of the rest and so thou v. 12. comprehends not little ones v. 11. for sure if in behalf of any some entred into Covenant and thou comprehend not them them they were the little ones 2. Saith he I doubt not but the parents entred their children into Covenant and not the infants themselves which shews that God hath given parents this interest and authority Answ. 1. This is a confession of what I aver and of which Mr. B. and his followers have made such exclamations against me For if thou v. 12. entred themselves into Covenant and infants entred not themselves into Covenant then infants are not comprehended under thou v. 12. But so it is Ergo. The consequence is plain of it self the minor is for the first part the words of the Text unless Mr. B. will say that thou shouldest enter into Covenant is not that â—hou shouldest enter into Covenant thy self which is a gross absurdity and the other paâ—t is Mr. Bs. own and thus Mr. B. hath justified me in that which he counted so strange an abuse of the Text. 2. For my part I doubt whether the parents entred the children into Covenant and do rather conceive that the Captains Elders Officers v. 10. did enter into Covenant by some solemn act of passing between the parts of a beast divided or otherwise in stead of the children wives and servants v. 11. and not the parents for the infants 1. because the distinct mention of those v. 10. under the titles there used do intimate that they were representatives of those v. 11. now v. 10 persons are not expressed under the tiâ—le of parents but under other relations 2. Because it being a national covenanting it seems most suitable to the end of it that it was done by national Officers 3. If there were any other then those persons the solemnity could not be likely done with decency the number being so great as could not
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
where terms Baptism the Sacrament of regeneration nor if the expression be allowed will it follow Baptism is to be but once Foâ— 1. it doth not follow natural birth is but once therefore supernatural new birth which is onely so metaphorically is but once as it follows not we die naturally but once therefore we die to sin or through sin but once Natural birth hath not degrees therefore neither regeneration 2. Baptism is not regeneration though it were yeelded to be the sacrament of regeneration and therefore though regeneration could be but once yet Baptism might be often 3. â—hose that hold intercision of regeneration and faith which I do not will say that regeneration may be often and faith begin ofâ—en 4. Baptism may be termed the sacrament of regeneration either as the cause or sign of it If as the cause of it so it should rather follow it should be often administred as the word is often pâ—eached to beget us again If as the sign so it may often be used to signifie it though it be but once done as the breaking of bread is oft used to signifie Christs death though he died but once The 3d. argument from once Circumcision is of less force For neither is it true that our Baptism succeeds Jewish Circumcision nor is it proved that in no case a person might be twice circumcised nor if both these were granted will it follow that the rule of circumcising but once must be a rule to us of baptizing but once any more then the Jews Circumcision was tied to the 8th day therefore so must our Baptism Yet this reason of Mr. Cr. may be thus urged against infant Baptism Circumcision was tied to the 8â—h day therefore to circumcise on another day were sacriledge Baptism is tied to Disciples or believers Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.15 16. therefore to baptize infants who are not Disciples or believers cannot be justified without sacriledge at the rate of Mr. Crs. reasoning The rest of that Section and the next Section need no other answer then what is already made there being no argument needfull to be answered nor any thing almost but scostiâ—g Rhetorick cavils misâ—representations of my words and the passages aâ— Disputes which were rightly represented in the 2d Section of my Plea SECT C. The arguments of Mr. Cragg for infant Baptism are re-examined MR. Cr. in the dispute at Abergavenny began thus Some infants may not be baptised therefore some infants may be baptised and this the Relator who was likely to be himself or one whose relation he viewed and approved terms an Enthymema To which in my Pleaâ— answered 1. the consequence could not be made good according to Logick rules but by adding this Proposition All that may not be baptized may be baptized 2. That it is like these arguings Some infants may not have the Lords Supper therefore some may some boys are not to be ordained Bishops therefore some are To this he replies Part 2. sect 1. 1. That the Relator and I were both mistaken Which if true it was ill done that he did not rectifie the thing ere iâ— was printed 2. That my censure of this arguing as frivolous arose from ignorance or inadvertency that betrayed me to a double mistake 1. That there was no way of arguing consecutive by two Propisitions buâ— Enthyâ—ematically so that they were immediately reducible to a syllogism compleat in mood and figure 2. If an Enthymema and reducible that it must necessarily be resolved into his syllogism as he calls it All that may not be baptized may be baptized some infants may not be baptized ergo some infants may be be baptized Truly this is so frivolous and deserves so much contempt that a fresh man would laugh at it And then he goes on I would gladly know to what mood of the first figure for it hath sub prae his monstrous syllogism belongs consisting in the premises of two negatives in the conclusion of an affirmative whereby as eveâ—y Puny knows two Maximes are violated 1. That of pure negatives nothing is concluded 2. That the conclusion should follow the unworthier part whereas he extracts an affirmative conclusion from negative premises Answ. I am content that an ingenious fresh man judge whether there were any ignorance inadvertency or mistake in my answer to this arment and whether there be not gross ignorance and Sophistry in his argument and in the reply impudent boldness to avow such a shamefull act and that any wise conscientious Christian judge whether the argument at first or this reply could come out of any other then a wrangling spirit bent to baffle a respondent and make sport for a company of vain auditors and readers without any care befitting a Christian teacher to clear truth At first when I denied the consequence he proved it not but brought a syllogism concluding another thing then the consequence and whereas then his syllogism appeared to have four terms he brings another syllogism in which he would infer that because subcontraries may be both true therefore that proposition Some infants may be baptized must be true as if because both may be true it follows that proposition must be true whereas every fresh man knows that though both may be true yet it is true also one may be false and that may be the proposition he infers notwithstanding the â—oâ—ce of that rule Now in the reply he discovers the same spirit Though his relator with whom he must concur or else they juggle with Readers term his dispute an Enthymema yet he would not have it so conceived buâ— tels us there is a kind of argumentation in Keâ—kerm syst Log. l. 3. tr 1. c. 1. defined one sentence or proposition following another without disposition of the medium as in conversions But doth he shew there is any such câ—nversion or any other way of consecution of sentences allowed by Keckerman or any Logician in his argumentation Then when I had reduced it to that syllogism to which the Enthymeme was to be reduced according to Logick rules he hath the impudence to term this my syllogism and â—o suggest as if I were not able to make a syllogism or reduce that to a syllogism which was reducible whereas the syllogism was his own virtualâ—y as all Logicians know that understand the rule about Enthymemes though it were formed by me rightly and the monstrosity of it must â—ie at his door not mine who value little his judgement of my abilities better known to others of better esteem then to him And for the way he new forms it it is quite another argument then what he made at the dispute and of which the minor is to be denied which is thus There are some infants besides them that are excluded Baptism but this is contrary to the antecedent in the Enthymeme Some infants may not be baptised which should be the minor He adds that the force of the argument lies in the immediatoness of the propositions that what