Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3
Sect. 10. That Isa. 49.21.23. is a prophesy of the reducing the Jews from Babylonish captivity is evinced from v. 19, 20, 21. in that the description of the places wast and desolate, the land of their destruction, the place which was too strait are meant of the land of Canaan, and Mr. Cr. himself thus v. 20. the place is too strait for me, that is the Land of Canaan is too narrow to contain the whole Church, and he himself expounds after, thou hast lost the other, v. 20. of the natural seed of Abraham, and the being desolate, a captive, and removing too and fro off Jerusalem: But he will have it meant of the time after the destruction by Titus, and the dispersion after it, for we never find it verified literally that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity (as the words point) to contain the Jews. But where do the words point that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity to contain the Jews. The words point at the multitude of Jews after the return from the Babylonish captivity, at which time according to Zechariah his prophesy, ch. 8.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. the Jews mightily increased and prospered, and the place desolate confessedly being meant of Canaan and Jerusalem, and the Jews the Captives, the sense of v. 22, 23. is meant undoubtedly (in the first sense of the words) of the Jews reduction from captivity, which was not true of them after the destruction by Titus, therefore of their return from Babylon by Cyrus, and other Persian and Grecian Kings and Queens favor. The like may be inferred from v. 24, 25. for therein i • foretold that they which were taken captive (who were the Jews) should be delivered. But Mr. Cr. saith,
Sect. 11. Mr. Cr. speaks thus. He says (meaning me) if by standard be meant baptism, which the Scripture never calls God's standard, and the bringing should be to Baptism, then the sense should be, that supreme Magistrates, as Kings and Queens, should bring infants in their arms, and carry them on shoulders to Baptism, which no story mentions to have been done, and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophesy, in which words there is neither veri • y, nor consequence if sense. First he says, if by standard be meant Baptism, who makes a Thesis of his Hypothesis? or affirms that by standard is meant Baptism? To which I reply, Mr. Cr. of whom the relatour of the Dispute p. 35. saith, That to give me satisfaction (which he needed not) he told me, that by standard he understood some visible Gospel Ordinance, as Baptism, without an &c. to wit, Preaching, Praying, with many more ; nor had I any reason to conceive he understood any other since he named no other, nor did he say Gospel Ordinances, as if he included the genus (as now he would evade) but some Gospel ordinance in the singular number. Now I said Baptism is nowhere called God's standard, and he hath nothing to reply hereto, but that it is so in this place, the Genus being predicated on the species. But this i • but a begging of what he should prove, that by standard here is • eant Baptism in pa • ticular or Gospel ordinances in general. Sure the phrase of setting up the standard is very unsuitable to the use of baptizing, which was not by setting up, but putting down into the water. And if Mr. Crs. words or the text do not necessarily speak of Kings and Queens bringing in their arms and on their shoulders to baptism, my reasons are the same, and of a like force, if meant of the people. For no story doth mention carrying infants on shoulders to Baptism by the people, and such a thing is too frivolous to be made the matter of this prophesy, which expresseth some great and wonderful thing to be done by God's extraordinary incitement and power, of which kind that is not. Though Mr. Cr. grant the phrase of nursing fathers and mothers Isa. 49.23. to be metaphorical, yet he applies the words before (which are alike m • taphorical) [ they shall bring thy sons in their arms or bosom, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders, v. 22.] according to the proper sense of the words, when he saith, the people should bring sons in their arms and daughters upon their shoulders to Baptism, now if the words v. 23. be metaphorical so are those v. 22. which is also acknowledged by Mr. Cr. 1 In that he grants that in story it is not found that infants have been brought to Baptism on sho • lders. 2. In that they are said to be brought to the standard, which is according to Mr. Cr. Baptism, but that is not a 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 endeavor 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 whilst his father is in the service of the State, is by the courtesy of the Camp enrolled in the soldiers 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 Isaiah's time, to whi • h he might be conceived to allude, and it is too ridiculous to go about (as Mr. Cr. doth) to explain a metaphor alluding to an use in Isaiah's time by an use nowhere shown to be but in the Low Countries in our time. That Mr. Gataker in the cause of infant Baptism interprets innumerable places against me, • s an untruth▪ Though Esther were a • ew, yet a Queen of the Gentiles, and •• ese things foretold Isa 49.22, 23. were fulfilled in Cyrus time, and i • Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes and Darius time also, yea and a • ter t • em in Alexander the Great, and some of his successors, and their Queens as Grotius conceives, in his Annotations, who also and Mr. Gataker show how the prediction of bowing down and licking the dust of the Jews feet was fulfilled, though not in Esther's time (as I said the prophesy of Queens being a nursing mother to the Jews was) yet in the times after afore Christ's 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. • 9.22. is a prophesy of infants visible Church membership 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 prophesy of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and their prosperity in Judea after their return a • ore Christ's inearnation, and yet were it understood of the times of the Gospel, I shown how it might be understood of grown men persuaded by the preaching of the Gospel, as Junius in his Annotations, which Mr. Cr. abusively puts into an argument as if it were alleged thus, Junius says so th • re • ore it is so, and denies the antecedent and conse • 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 everyone that believeth, Rom. 1.16. and therefore it is meant of persuading grown men by the preaching of the Gospel, and that all those things are allegorically spoken of the amplitude of Christ's spiritual Kingdom, and therefore not of bringing infants to baptism And for Cornelius a Lapide, Jerome, Cyril▪ Haymo, if they held it fulfilled in Gospel times, and extended the words to grown men, though they were for infants visible Church membership and Baptism, yet they overthrow Mr. Crs. argument from thence, which is of no force unless the words be understood only of Gospel times, and of infants being brought to some visible Ordinance as Baptism, the contrary whereof his own Authors show, and himself grants, and therefore I take all Mr. Crs. reasoning in the Dispute and this Reply from Isa. 49.22. to be me • r cavilling, and still think it meet to refer the Reader for the discerning of my interpretation whether right or no, and my yielding 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. defense Sect. 12. of his alleging thus Isa. 65.20 There shall be no more an infant of days, that is infants shall no • be uncapable of the seal, against my answer impliedly deny • 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 show of prohability, there being not a word of any such thing as o • tward peace, increase, possession, and long life to the Jews, unless in the type a • 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 he should make good his sense if he will infer his conclusion thence. 2. My disproof was right: for v. 18; • 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.
Answ. That Jerusalem is analogical is not proved, nor doth it follow v. 17. is tropical, therefore also v. 20. anymore then Isa. 11 6, 7, 8. is allegorical, therefore also v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9. Mr. Gatakers sense is plainly • et down without any imposture in his Annotations, which is this,
Mr. Cr. from Isa 65.20. argued thus,
Answ. This arguing is indeed childish like, as if it were argued Luk. 1.76. Thou c • ilde shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation; Ergo, this must be understood analogically, child is the subject of the question, which is to be taken properly without enallage ; and so this must be true of John the Baptist while he was a child. The like might be said of Luk. • .34. 1 King 13.2. He is but a child that knows 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 blind see, the • ame walk, the Lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, that is, such as were blind, 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 child while he is a child, 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. as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands • hey being expressions of long life. And M. Gataker 〈◊〉 rightly, the syntax is familiar, and as clear as the day light or Sunshine: the child 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 • 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 he 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 Paed • gogue long enough to know, that which his Schoolboyes 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 Owl or Bat. Answ. Yea, and too to as seeing men as Mr. Cr. though his Eagle-eye be in this as dark as an Owl or Bat at noon.
He goes on,
Mr. Cr. goes on.
Answ. It grieves me not so much that Mr. Cr. hath so much vilified myself, as that though he pretend to be a Preacher of the Gospel, yet like a terrae filius, or Grammar reader, he should show such contempt of a man then alive when he wrote it (as I conceive by the date of his Epistle) however whether alive or dead, a man very reverend, and (however he conceived of me) one of the most learned and accurate writers (specially in such things as this) of his age, and while he slights him discover so much folly and ignorance in Hebrew and Greek, as an ordinary • rammarian or student in the Bible would hardly have shown; certainly it's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster. The phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is word by word the son • 〈◊〉 hundred years, for without [ of ] it would be non-sense, it being the sig •• 〈◊〉 Genitive case, nor is [ old ] substracted, but included in that expression, it being the Hebrew expression of old or aged, as M. Gataker shows from Gen. 11.10. & 21.5. & 5.32. & 7. • & 12.4. & 16.16. & 17.1. & 25.20, 26. & 37.2. & 41.46. & 45.26. and elsewhere, and the same he might have learned from Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 5. • 2, &c. Hebr. son of 500. years, that is, going in his 500. year. An usual speech in the Hebrew Scripture of men's age or of beasts; Gen. 17.1. Exod. 12.5. And for [ he and when ] how can they be said to be superadded, when the very term [ shall die ] is all one with [when he shall die,] which shows it is not for Mr. Crs. purpose, for then it should have been, shall be born as an hundred years old, as well a churchmember as if he were ; but is agreeable to the Prophets meaning, to express long life: And therefore his jeer of excellent Arithmetic shows his folly in deriding that which was right. And for his prattle, it shows his excellent ignoran • e of the Hebrew and Greek of the • ible, Bu • torf▪ Thes▪ Gram. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. p. 360, in that piece which is termed by Amama, &c. admirandum opus 〈◊〉 , nomen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 filius periphrases & Hebraismos facit ins • gnes: ut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 filius areus Job 41.19. id est s • gitta & similes innumeri. Sic I •• an. 17.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Apud Latinos Horat. 1. carm. od. 14. Terr • filius, should one scribble as Mr. Cr. doth here, Here's a new creation of a new generation [son of the bow, of perdition, of the earth] who ev • r heard such a syntax? did the son beget t • e bow, perdition, the earth, or the bow, perdition, the earth the son? or whether is elder? Would not a Scholar say he played the fool? For this I leave him to Mr. Vaug • ans correction.
But he seems to be more consid • rate in what follows.
Answ. The words contain not such an absolute universal longaevity, as Mr. Cr. would make to be the consequent of our interpretation, but a length of days opposite to former troubles v. 16. in which so many died by war, famine, and pestilence, which therefore comparatively is reckoned as universal, as in like manner Jeremiah ch. 50.20. speaking of the same times saith the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for & there shall be none ▪ that is, as formerly to provoke God to cut them off by g • ievous deaths, as before the captivity. And according to this i • that of Zech. 8.4. and I said without any vaunting Nebuchadnezzar like language, as Mr. Cr. abusively chargeth me with Isa. 65.20. was rightly made by me answerable to Zech 8 4. which doth not intimate, that the Text was made by me, and not by the Holy Ghost, but made answerable, or correspondent, which arrogates no more to me then if I had said, made clear, made manifest, &c. Nor is any experience or History contrary to this, that the Jews after their return from Babylon 〈◊〉 , prosperity, increase and long life in Canaan a great while together, and were honored by divers Persian Kings, Alexander the Great, and some of the • recian Kings, and the Nations near them iu • ject to them. The Contents of the Chapter were never by any Synod or Parliament interpretatively entitled to the Church of England, nor are to be accounted anymore valid, then Mr. Gatakers notes, who though a single man, yet had his notes approved by other Annotators, and in some sort by the Assembly at Westminster. Yet the Contents of the Chapter being v. 17. The blessed estate of the new Jerusalem, and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel. 21.4. being put, show, that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favored by them then mine. And the speech being to be understood comparatively to the former times, was true of the Jews after their return from the captivity at Babel. V. 25. exp • essing the Jews peace notwithstanding the Samaritan neighbors, was true at the same time, although both were accommodated to the Gospel times, and the calling of the Jews yet to come. Nor is it any strange thing in that Prophet to make th • restitution of the Jews from Captivity as answering to making new Heavens and Earth, as Isa. 51.16. & 44.24, 25, 26. & 45.12, 13. Yet I deny not that 2 Pet 3.13. Revel. 21.1. the words are rightly applied to some other great work of God resembled by this and to be yet accomplished. That the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2. were actually baptized or washed under the cloud it raining upon them, and in the Red Sea, the water touching their feet at least, after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage, and blowing upon them with th • sprinkling thereof, is nowhere set down Exod 13. and 14. N • r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Author to be termed Baptism formally, and therefore it can be no other then similitudinary Baptism which is there meant, as the eating Manna and drinking Water was a similitudinary partaking of the Lord's Supper, and Grotius did rightly expound [1 Cor. 10.2. were baptized ] by [ were as if they were baptis • d ] and yet Isa. 65 20. is not rightly so expounded shall die as an hundred years old, there being no need of such an interpretation, nor anything leading to it in the Text, but the expression is of long life; nor if it were meant so, i • it proved that infants must be Church members, and capable of some seal under the Gospel, unless there were no other w • y▪ then that in respect of which he might be as one an hundred years old. Had Mr. Cr. sought the clearing of truth, he had been willing to read out the whole that his dealing might not be taken for deceitful. By my refutation of Dr. Savage in Latin, some years since Printed, it may appear wh • t • er Text, Dr. Savage or the Dr. of the Chair did avoid my argument. The rest of M. Crs. argumen • s are the same with what others have urged, and have been answered in this and the former parts as this Review ; nor do I find that Mr. Cr. hath added anything of moment to them, to which I need make further reply. As or his ••• nts, quips, misrecitals or mistakes of my words, mis-reports of my actions, together with his own mistakes in Logic, Grammar, Divinity, th • y are otherwise discernible then by a particular answer in Print to each part of his Book. I presume the Christian and equal Reader will think it unnecessary to make anymore reply to what i • written of infant • Baptism, till something be found written which better defends it then those have done who are here answered. If any other think it fi •• I should answer him also in particula • , he may conceive that if I did p • rceive anything that might not have an answer in that which is already written, or had in it any difficulty, I should have done it: But being conscious to my fell • that I have not declined the answering of any out of contempt of the person, or sense of the difficulty of doing it, but because it is thought that I have been too large already, and that to answer every mere quirk of wit is unnecessary, as knowing that however light wit • that love to show their skill in disputing be taken with them, yet solid conscientious men will be led only with good proofs out of Scripture which may show the institution of Christ, I do here supersede from this work and commend it to his blessing, of whom and through whom and for whom are all things, to whom be glory forever.