Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 100

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 100

p. 906SECT. 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 Plea… 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 i… 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, bu… Enthy…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 eve…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 p. 907may 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 …o…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, bu… tels us there is a kind of argumentation in Ke…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 c…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 …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 virtual…y, as all Logicians know that understand the rule about Enthymemes, though it were formed by me rightly and the monstrosity of it must …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 belongs not to one of them must needs belong to the other, and a topick rule out of Cracanthorp, and some other instances about divisions, in all which there is nothing but vanity. For let Propositions be immediate, yet w…n they are opposite as these are, some infants are to be baptised, some not, the one follows not from the other, but the contrary rather, except in those termed subaltern, which are rather subordinate then opposite. His instances of consequences upon a sufficient division, they are all impertinent here, where there is no division of term, but the same terms are in both Propositions. In his answer to my instances he would make a difference between the Propositions about infant Bap…ism and the Lords Supper, and ordination to be Bishops, that the one is in a capable subject, not the other; but he shews not that an infant is capable of Baptism any m…re then of the Lords Supper, or a boy of ordination; nor if they were doth the force of the argument …old more in the one then in the other: and therefore it's his ignorance to say, the scruple here will be, whether infants are capable of Baptism or no …ut it is whether this …llation be good, Some are not, therefore some are to be baptised; which if right, it will follow in the other instances of Communion and o…dination as well as in it. That which he saith of my grant of the capacity of Ba…tism, because I grant they may be elected and believe and would if I knew it of infants baptize them, follows not; for though my ignorance hinders not their capacity in themselves, yet it hinders their capacity from mee, I being not warranted p. 908to baptize any believer till his faith be manifested to me.

Sect. 2. Mr. Cr. goes on to scribble after his usual manner. He had thus dispu…ed, To whom belongs the essence of Baptism they may be baptised, But to some infant, belongs the essence of Baptism, Ergo. To this I said, This Proposition, the essence of Baptism belongs to infants, may have two senses. He replies, as if I distinguished of a two f…ld essence of Baptism ▪ which he terms a Chymaera, the essence of a thing being but one and indivsible; whi…h shews hee hath some smattering in Metaphisicks, but is impertinent to the thing in hand. For be it all granted, yet a Proposition which speaks of the essence may have a two-fold sense; and the senses I conceived of his words were rightly set down, and more favourably to Mr. Cr. then his words did deserve. For this Proposition, To some infants belongs the essence of Baptism, must have one of those senses, or a worse, to wit, either that infants are in the definition of Baptism, so as that there is no Baptism but of infants; or that Baptism is of the essence of infants, so as that they are no infants without Baptism, which are absurd. And to speak truly, the whole argument is ridiculous, take it what way he will, except he give the same sense which I did, and then the minor and the conclusion are all one, and the major meerly tautological, To whom the right administration of Baptism belongs they may be lawfully baptized, But to infants, &c. Ergo ▪ In the other sense it is more vain. For if the essence numerical of Baptism belong to infants then not a moral right is asserted, but either a present or a future event, and so the minor Proposition should be, Some infants are baptized, which is a thing discerned by sense; or shall be baptized, which were a prediction, but nothing to the point about moral or legal right. To understand it of the specifical essence, makes no sense but what is worse. His proof from the definition is also as vain▪ For it is a proof of the same by the same: But he tels me, It is not all one as to argue infant Baptism is Baptism, therfore it is right baptism, but it concludes infant Baptism is baptism, therefore infants may be baptized, which is the question by this inference put out of question. To which I reply, this talk … to me like the words of a crazed man, there being no question between u… about the baptism of infants, whether they may be baptized, that is whether this may be done to them so as that they be passive subjects of it, I never denied that infants may be thus baptized, but the question is whether it may be lawfully done by him that doth it, and then to say they may be baptized is all one as to say infant Baptism is right baptism, and so his argument from the definition is that which he denies not to be vain, infant Baptism is baptism, therefore it is right Baptism.

But he thinks to prove from the definition, that infant Baptism is right Baptism, and he sets down his conceits of Baptism, that it is a relation whose fundament is the Divine institution in…olding infants in all nations in severall families, which if he onc… p…ove, he needs prove no more, but here he doth not attempt it, but excepts against me for denying Baptism to be a relation, but an action or passion with a relation superadded, and he brings against me sayings of Divines who call it a signe, which I deny not in respect of the use, but that shews not the nature of it, no more then p. 909Circumcision is in its nature a relation, because it is a signe of the Covenant in its use, the carrying a scepter is in its nature a relation, because in its use it is a sign of royalty. What he saith, that I tell not whether it be action or passion, and not to be placed in one category is to be placed in none, is answered by his own confession, that in Baptism is included baptization which is both action and passion, which is enough to shew that Baptism is in its nature either an action or a passion, and may be put in either predicament, and that in different respects a word may be put in divers predicaments, and his talk false, that nothing formally can be placed in two categories, and the rest of his talk about the genus of Baptism being a signe, and other passages to be but mistakes.

But he attempts to gain his …urpose by this argument, Every Sacrament is a relation, But Baptism is a Sacrament, Ergo. To which I answered, both premises …ight be d…nied, and as a reason of the denial alleged, … That the term [Sacrament] being but a term invented by Latin Fathers, may be laid asi…e. He replies, that the 12. Tables and Tully mention it, therefore it was long before the Latin Christian Fathers; True, but not in the sense in which Baptism is termed a Sacrament. But, if the word Sacrament be laid aside because a Heathen word, then should also the terms Bishop, Pre…byter, Deacon, be laid as…de also. Answ. No, f…r they are Scripture terms, not so the t…rm Sacrament in the Ecclesiastical sense: Yet again, then Trinity, Unity, Humanity, Antipaedobaptist must be laid aside. Answ. It followes not, yet what … said of Sacrament I say of them, they may be laid aside, when an argument is drawn from them, as here from the word Sacra…ent. He adds, Besides is there not foreign mystery in the original? Answ. It is, but never in the use in which the term Sacrament is used as now it is defined.

2. I alleged that there is no common nature of Sacraments (not as Mr. Cr. of a Sacrament) express'd in Scripture, This he saves is untrue in the sequel. For what consequence? There is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture, therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament, more then in this? There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture, therefore faith is not an infused grace.

Answ. It was not my sequel; but this, therefore the term Sacrament may be laid aside, and no good argument is from the definition of a Sacrament to prove Baptism to be a relation.

The term grace or grace of God, I do much question whether any where in Scripture it be applied to inherent qua…ities in us, or good acts proceeding from us, and I conceive that the use of it in that manner hath occasioned or strengthened the errour of justification by inherent righteousness, because we are said to be justified by grace, and do wish that when approvers of Preachers are directed to examine persons of the grace of God in them, the thing had been otherwise expressed, and that such an expression as the gift by grace, or the like were used; yet I deny not there is in Scripture a common nature of those gifts by grace in us which accompany salvation, and that faith is a gift by grace infused, inspired, or wrought by the spirit of God.

Mr. Cr. saith further, untrue in it self, for though not in one place p. 910there may be in many places of Scripture compared together a common nature of Sacraments compared together. And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture Rom. 4.11. a seal of the righteousness of faith? This is the judgement of the Ancients, and the most of the Divines of the reformed Churches ▪

Answ. That neither the text Rom. 4.11. nor the Ancients do so define a Sacrament, is shewed before; and however the Divines of the Reformed Churches do define thence a Sacrament as the seal of the Covenant, yet not (as there it is expressed) a seal of the righteousness of faith; But of this I have said enough before sect. 31.

What I said of Austins definition of a Sacrament, that it is a visible signe of invisible grace, as imperfect (which I proved by instances) was without a miscellany of absurdities; …f the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove were a signe or seal of Christs office of Mediatorship and not of his righteousness of faith, yet it was a visible signe of his holy qualifications, Luk. 4.18. Joh. 3.44. and so of invisible grace, and consequently a Sacrament by Austins definition; Christs washing his Disciples feet, shewed his love and humility, ergo, by Austins definition must be also a Sacrament; and holding up the hands in prayer shews faith in God; kissing the Bible in swearing shews appealing to God as Judge or hope in his word, which are invisible graces according to Austin, and according to his definition Sacraments. And though it be added in the Common Prayer book Catechism, ordained by Christ, yet it is not so in Austins definition used by Mr. Cr. in the dispute, and if it had, holding up the hands in prayer had been a Sacrament, being ap…ointed 1 Tim. 2.8. And for the addition in the Catechism [as a means to receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof] I know no Scripture that ever made Ci…cumcision, the Passeover, the Lords Supper, or Baptism, meanes to receive invisible grace, and how fa… and in what manner it assures I have before sect. 31. and elsewhere shewed. Enough of Mr. Crs. vain pra…le in this section.

Sect. 3. Mr. Cr. quarrels with my reconciliation of my own words, denying all invisible Churchmembers were to be baptized, but affirming it of vi…ible. He tels me, 1. This distinction is not fitly applied, for the proposition was meant of visible Churchmembe…ship. But 1. however it were mea…t the expression was, God appointed infants Churchmembers under the Gospel, and this might be understood of invisible as well as visible Churchmembership; and therefore it was fitly applied to take away the ambiguity of the expression. 2. It was fitly applied also to …l…er my meani…g, and to free my words from contradiction. 2. He tels me my proposition is not true, for all visible Churchmembers are not to be baptized, then all ba…tized before (they being visible members) were to be baptized again. But what is this but wrangling, sith the proposition was his own, and I granted it with that limitation in his own sense, of them that were not yet baptized? He tels me of the state of the question between us, which is impertinent to the present business of cleering my words.

He adds, Invisible and visible members differs as Genus and species, all invisible members are visible, but not all visible members invisible, p. 911the invisible being extracted out of the visible; now if all invisible members be also visible, it will inevitably follow they may be baptized, whether visible by profession, or by prerogative and promise of parents or sureties of infants.

But what a dotage is this? Doth visible Churchmember praedicari de pluribus specie differentibus in quid? If it be asked what is an invisible Churchmember, will any that is in his wits say hee is a visible Churchmember? Is not this a contradiction, to say all invisible members are visible? How is it proved that any are visible members of the Christian Church, but by profession of faith? The like dotage is in what he saith after, that there is an intrinsecal connexion of th…se termes [actually to receive into Covenant under the Gospel, and to appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel] that they are as essentially coincident as to bee a man and a reasonable creature▪ which makes this proposition to be aeter…ae veritatis, those whom God did actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel. For is the one to be defined by the other? Do not these terms express existences restrained to hic and nunc (for sure actual receiving and appointing are singular acts in ti…e) not essences? If these speeches of Mr. Cr. be according to Metaphysical and …ogical principles, I am yet to seek in them, as having not heard or read of such principles before. And if God did promise before the Law, fore…ell under the Law, actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, or appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel without faith or profession of …aith, then infidels are actually in Covenant under the Gospel, and so justified; then is Mr. Baxters dispute against Antinomians, about the condition of the Covenant and justification false, and if they be Churchmembers without faith or profession of faith and to be baptized, and the truth of Mr. Crs. proposition, those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive in…o Covenant under the Gospel, those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel, have no dependence upon …aith or profession of faith; then Mr. Baxters 20 arguments in his 2d. dispute of right to Sacraments against Mr. Blake are fal…e; so that I need no more but to leave Mr. Cr. to be chastized by his magnified Doctor Mr. Baxter about this point; and so enough of this section.

Sect. 4. He terms this an untruth, that a person may bee in Covenant, who i… not yet born or conceived as my i…stance of Isaac implies, and saith; It may bee confuted insito argumento, by an argument inbred in the terms, for he implies and that right, that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant, but none who is unborn, and unconceived as Isaac Gen. 17.22. is a person.] But this is false, he may be a person though not in present but future existence. Those Ephesians who were el…cted before the Foundation of the world, Eph. 1.4. were persons when elected, for they were singular men, though not then in actual being but future. Mr. Crs. reasoning in this, is like the reasoning of Adam Medlicot my neighbour, in his book stiled Comfortable doctrine for Adams off-spring, p. 99▪ Who will not have any particularly elected before the foundation of the world, because then p. 912they were not any where men, and p. 96. that none is absolutely elected till he believe, because not in Christ, and if not in Christ not in election, and one is elected before another because in Christ before another. And in his Honey found in the Lions Carkass, p. 102. Although the purpose of election and reprobation was fully in God before time, yet there could be no absolute or real election or reprobation of men and women, until they had a real and absolute beeing. Surely infants are in Covenant no otherwi…e then by Gods promise or mans vow, or some such act in their behalf, and this may be afore they are in being, and consequently they may be in Covenant afore they are in actual being. If I do not mistake, Mr. Cr. both here Sect. 5. and in the 3d. Part Sect. 9. makes those with whom the Covenant was made Deut. 29.10. to have been in Covenant, but doubtless the Covenant there was made with the posterity yet unbegotten v. 14, 15. for no other can bee meant by him that was not with them that day, all that were born or begotten then of the Congregation of Israel, whether by nature or Proselytism being present, as the words v. 10, 11. shew, and the end of the Covenant being to prevent the Apostasie of their posterity v. 18. therefore the unbego…ten were in Covenant. Nor is it a good argument, A man is in Covenant, ergo he is, any more then a man is elected therefore he is, these termes being termini diminuentes, as Logicians speak; and the verb (est is) in these speeches not noting the present existence of the subject of these propositions, but of the act of the person who elects or covenants. A child unbegotten may be said to be in a copy or a deed, and so in covenant in respect of the assuring an estate to him wh…n hee shall be existent.

But Mr. Cr. tels me, 2ly. It is a false suggestion that to have a Covenant made to one is to be in Covenant, if by having the covenant made to (for the phrase is somewhat strange) …e meant (as he can mean nothing else) a promise from God to be and be in covenant, for a promise may be made to or of one, long before he hath any being, nor executed or performed till long after his being; Then to be elected and …o be in covenant would be both one, then Mary Magdalen and Paul while a persecutor were in covenant, nay from eternity to be in covenant would precede outward an… inward calling, conversion, profession and prerogative of birth, then which nothing can be more ridiculous.

Answ. It is so far from being ridiculous, that to me it is very plain to be in covenant precedes calling, and to be in covenant is to have a covenant made to one, and that a person is said to be in covenant with God by Gods promise to be his God though the man be not existent. This is in my apprehension that which Paedobaptists mean by being in covenant, for they usually say infants are in covenant, which sure they mean of Gods promise to them, for they prove it from Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.39. Nor can they mean it of any other being in covenant, sith there is no act of any infant or any other for him, that can denominate him in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel, but Gods promise, which is long before the being of those to or for whom it is made, Tit. 1.2. Gal. p. 9133.16, 17. And thus two Kingdomes are said to be in league and covenant, and they that are born many yeers after may be said to be in covenant by vertue thereof. This being in covenant may be, though the things covenanted be not executed or performed till long after the being in covenant, as persons first enter into covenant and then perform. And yet to be in covenant and to be elected would not be both one, though attributed to the same persons, si…h there is a different formal conceit of them, election being an immanent act, covenant a transient, that from eternity, this in time, as to be justified and sanctified are not both one, though to the same persons. Nor is it any absurdity to say Paul was in cove…ant while a persecutor, nor that to be in covenant precedes conversion, sith i… is by vertue of being in covenant that one is converted, Heb. 8.10. Rom. 11.26, 27. As for being in covenant with God by prerogative of birth, I know not of any such in the time of the Gospel.

Thirtdly (saith Mr. Cr.) It is of the same leven of untruth, that Isaac was in Covenant when he was not yet born, which his own quotation, Gen. 17.21. proves against him. For he saith he will establish a Covenant with Isaac in the future, not that he does establish a Covenant in the present.

Answ. Surely Isaac was a child of the promise, Rom. 9.8, 9. and Jacob, v. 11. afore they were born, and …nsequently in the Covenant; and when God said he would establish his Covenant with Isaac, he meant no other then the Covenant made with Abraham, and therefore it was made to him then, and he in Covenant, though confirmed and performed after.

Mr. Cr. saith of my speech, that a person is not actually received into Covenant till he is born, and by some acts of his own eng…geth himself to be Gods, That it is founded upon the basis of this mistake, that every Covenant must be expresly and actually mutual between both parties; and talks after his foolish fashion, as if it were an argument sophistically (though sillily) drawn a negatione unius speciei ad totum genus: But this is his meer cavil. For my reason added, receiving importeth an offering, which is to be done by profession, shews I inferred it otherwise. Against which his exception is in these words, as if more were to be required for admission of visible members into Covenant, then was for admission, or actual receiving of Christ as God▪ man and Mediator to be visible head of the Church. To which I reply, When and how Christ was visible head of the Church, is a point that requires much discussion. To be head of the Church imports direction, government, &c. To be visible head, is to do these things discernably by reason from something sensible. That he was visible head of the Church till he was manifest to Israel, and how he was visibly head of it but by his preaching, calling Disciples, or how he was actually received as such but by believing on his name, Joh. 1.11. or how he was admitted visible head but by Johns Declaration, his Baptism of him, the Spirits descent on him, and his Fathers Proclamation of him, or how any according to the Evangelical order are admitted visible members into Covenant but by their own profession of faith, and thereupon being baptized, I understand not. But p. 914as for my speech, I see not how it imports that which Mr. Cr. would have it to do, but onelyonly, That being actually received into Covenant doth import an offer or tender on his part who is to be received, which however it might be under the Law, yet sure in the Gospel is no other way but by the persons own profession; and this neither smels rank of Heresie nor Blasphemy, but Mr. Crs. conceit as if under the Gospel some might be received into Covenant, and admitted as visible members representatively by others, who are their Proxies, and engage for them, they being but meer passives without any voluntary act of their own, is but an innovation from what Christ or his …postles appointed o… practised; and his acknwledgement that it is not necessary that a Covenant be mutual, that the Covenant Ezek. 36.26. Gen. 15.8. & 17.9. are such as wherein one party maketh the Covenant without mentioning the other but as patient, serves me to prove what I assert before, sect. 45. against Mr. Bl. that a Covenant is not always a mutual agreement, and that a person is said to be in Covenant in that a Covenant is made to him, and this may be to persons not actually existent, against Mr. Cr. in this Section.

Mr. Cr. to prove that God did promise to Abraham that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel, alledgeth Gen. 17.7. and thus a…gue. He that makes an everlasting Covenant to Abraham and his seed after hi… in their generations, pro…ed that infants should be in Covenant und…r the Gospel; God made an everlasting Covenant with Abraham and his seed after him, Ergo.

To this I said I had many exceptions; for besides those to which Mr. Cr. here replies, I might and do deny his major for another reason then I did before. For now by his words p. 254. I perceive by being in Covenant under the Gospel, he means an outward and visible Covenant, like to which he hath p. 155. and p. 261. he calls this an impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow, that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible Covenant; and p. 158. he saith, I clearly affirm with all the Reformed Churches, that all in visible Covenant a…e subjects of Baptism, and all subjects of Baptism are in visible Covenant. I must confess, Imagined that Paedobaptists if th…y would speak plainly could mean no other by the being of infants in Covenant under the Gospel but their being baptized; and so their argument, infants are in Covenant, ergo to be baptized, is but a meer tautology, or worse, they are baptized therefore they are to be baptized. But I think I have sect. 25. before shewed, that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant as the Paedobaptists use it, is either non ens or non-sense, and I now deny this Proposition, He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should …e in covenant under the Gospel, not onelyonly for the reason given in the Dispute, but also because I now perceive he means (unless he still juggle, as I fear he will in the use of the phrases being in covenant, the covenant is made, &c.) that God promised that infants should be baptized under the Gospel, which is too ridiculous a sense to be put upon the promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. much unlike Christs exposition of the phrase, Luke 20.38, 39. and seems to be the attempt p. 915of men that have for their baby-sprinkling resolved to avow the grossest absurdities. But to keep to the Dispute as it hath been printed. I said the covenant Gen. 17.7. to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations, if it be understood of the natural seed of Abraham, the everlastingness of it was but for a time, and that time afore the Gospel as in the next verse; the possession o… Canaan is promised to be everlasting, and yet the Jews now dispossessed of it. Which Mr. Cr. grants, and therefore must needs grant, that the promise v. 7 though it be termed everlasting, yet it is to be understood onelyonly of a limited time, as in other passages, Exod. …1.6. & 12.24. &c. if meant of the natural seed of Abraham.

To this he replies, How doth that follow? If it had been with a particle of exclusion, onelyonly to the natural seed, there might have b…en some colour of Dispu…e; and yet without all controversie, the everlastingness of it is extended even to the na…ural seed of Abraham; for there hath been, is▪ and will be a succession of Jewish believers to the end of the world; which proves that in his sense it's false, that the everlastingness of it was but for a time, and that time afore the Gospel.

Answ. My meaning was plain enough, that the Covenant as it was Evangelical, that is, as it contains a promise of the Spirit, justification, &c. (which is the onelyonly Gospel Covenant I know) if meant of the natural seed of Abraham, that is, the generality, or body of them was but for a time afore the Gospel, which I learned from our Lord Christ, who foretold Mat. 21 43. that the Kingdome of God should be taken from them, and the Apostle saith was accomplished, Rom 11.20. that the branches, meaning the Jewish people, were broken off by unbelief: and this is true, though it be true also that there have been a succession of Jewish believers still, they being a remnant onelyonly according to the election of grace, Rom 1….5. and thus they were not meerly Abarhams natural seed, but also his spiritual, to wit, elect and true believers, to whom I never denied the Covenant to be simply everlasting.

Mr. Cr. adds. But the truth is, it is not onelyonly meant of the natural seed, but of the spiritual seed of Abraham, both whereof successively and in part, if not altogether concomitantly (for there were always Proselytes) i… is everlasting, or to the end of the world.

Answ. If Mr. Cr. me…n, that to the natural seed, who are also the spiritual seed, the Covenant Gen. 17.7. is simply everlasting, I grant it; but this doth no way advantage Mr. Cr. For then it will onelyonly follow, that to such infants as are not onelyonly the natural seed of Abraham or a believer, but also are themselves believers, God hath promised they shall be in Covenant under the Gospel; which would not be true of all the infants of believers, or any but the elect: If he mean it as it is there meant (as appears by the next words, v. 8.) being understood of the natural seed of Abraham of the nation or people of Israel, and not of a remnant of them, it can be true onelyonly of a limited everlastingness, and not at all of the Gentile believers infants, and so is not at all for Mr. Crs. purpose.

p. 916But he tels me, It follows not, unless the same word in adjoyning verses must necessarily signifie the same thing; which if so, an argument might be drawn against the Infiniteness and Eternity of the Deity from these words, God of Gods and Lord of Lords, Gods and Lords in the latter signifies creatures, therefore in the former; but how inconsequently in both, a child may judge.

Answ. My arguing needs not proceed thus, but is good against Mr. Cr. thus, The term [everlasting] signifies a limited everlastingness afore the Gospel, v. 8. therefore it may be so meant v. 7. and if meant of the body of the Israelitish people who were the natural seed of Abraham, it must be so meant, otherwise it were not true. And for his instance, I think the argu…ent not good as he makes it; yet it follows, the term [God] doth not necessarily of it self infer infiniteness and eternity, but when it is appl…ed to the most High God the Creatour, who is the God of Gods, because it is sometimes spoken of Creatures.

But Mr. Cr. tels me, That v. 8. can be true onelyonly in one of these senses, that they had title to all the Land of Canaan, though not actual possession of it, or that it was a type of the everlasting spiritual Canaan, in which senses from Abraham they possessed it; or that the plenary, and full possession of the whole begins at the conversion of the Jews, and shall last from thence to the end of the world without interruption, because neither Abraham nor his seed had actual possession of all the Land of Canaan; none of these will support Mr. T. his declining cause.

Answ. That the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8. must be meant of that part of the earth so called is manifest from the expression, wherein thou art a stranger, or the land of thy sojournings, and might be, if need were, proved by multitudes of other Scriptures And that the seed of Abraham is that which is natural and afore their later conversion, is apparent from v. 9, 10. where the seed to whom the land of Canaan is promised are enjoyned to be circumcised, and the term possession v. 8. cannot be meant of a mere title, for that's implied in the words will give, but the possessi…n is distinct from it and consequent upon it, therefore I choose rather to untie Mr. Crs. knot by expounding it thus, I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, but not altogether, thou shalt possess a part in thy time as a pledge of the whole, as his burying place was, and thy seed in Joshua's and Davids time shall possess the whole, and this shall be not onelyonly a place to sojourn in, but a possession for them to dwell in, and that everlasting, that is, f…r many ag…s, as Phine…as his Priesthood is termed everlasting, Numb. 25.13. so long as they shall keep my Covenant and observe my statutes. Now this will serve thus far to support my cause, which is still standing and not declining, to shew that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. as it is made to the natural seed of Abraham is termed everlasting, that is, for a limited time afore the Gospel; which sense also the terms for ever and everlasting have, Exod. 12.14. & 21.6. Numb. 25.13. &c and so the major Proposition of Mr. Cr. justly denied, He that makes an everlasting covenant p. 917to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations, promised that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel.

Sect. 5. Mr. Cr. endeavours to draw Gal. 3.8. to his purpose, to prove a continuance of the Gospel Covenant to the end of the world, to Abraham and his seed, by paraphrasing it thus; That the Scripture foretold that God would justifie the Heathen through faith, that is, the partition Wal… should be pulled down, and the Heathen nations should profess faith as visible members, whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible. But besides his inept expression of [heathen nations] which is all one with nations nations, he abuseth the text by paraphrasing [through faith] thus; that the nations should profess faith as visible members, when it should be, shall be true believers as Abraham was, and would justifie the nations, by whereof some should be actually justified, whereas the text mentions no other then should be justified; and v. 9. terms them, they that are of the faith, who are blessed with Faithfull Abraham, and onelyonly meant by the nations, v. 8.

Mr. Cr. tels me, 1. That I injuriously mis-report his allegation, as that he urged this argument drawn from Gal. 3.8. to prove that Abrahams natural seed were promised to be in Covenant under the Gospel, whereas he urged it to prove the Covenant Gen. 17.7. to have been a Gospel Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, that is proprofessors and believers, whether carnally descended from him or no. But sure he that reads his first argument in his Sermon p. 88, 89. and his Defence p. 256. where his words are, the minor I prove from Gen. 17.7. where the infants of believing parents are implied, it being a Covenant not only established with Abraham, but with his seed after him in their generat…ons for an everlasting Covenant, by vertue of which Isaac and all succeeding male infants were circumcised; now sure these were Abrahams natural seed, and here the Covenant is everlasting, and therefore according to Mr. Crs. reasoning to extend to the end of the world, and the infants of believing parents, who are their natural seed, are, he saith, implied; which can be no otherwise then as Abraham is imagined to be taken for each believer, and the believers natural seed proportionably correspondent to Abrahams natural seed, by prerogative of birth, as he there speaks, and then adds. In Gal. 3.8. there is implied Abrahams seed, in that it was a Gospel Covenant, and that in him all nations shall be blessed, and is directly for me, for it asserts the Covenant, and in that justification to the believing Gentiles, not onelyonly from Abraham… promise, but also a promise to them and their seed; which plainly shews that he imagines Gal. 3.8. the Gospel Covenant, to be a promise to believers and their seed who are their natural seed, as in Abraham his seed is implied, which conformably must be his natural. And if Mr. Cr. did not in the dispute mean Abrahams natural seed he went from the point to be proved, and by me denied, that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. was not simply everlasting to the natural seed of Abraham, sith they were dispossessed of Canaan. His suggestions therefore of my using officious untruths and pious frauds, are but the venome of his spirit which throughout his book he discovers, and most pestilently in that Section, for which the Lord rebuke him.

p. 918What he next saith, that when I say the thing promised Gal. 3.8. was justification, and that of the heathen and that through faith, therefore this text proves not Abrahams natural seed in Covenant under the Gospel, is, As if all this might not be, and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel, who professed, were justified and had faith as well as the heathen; which I grant; but then they were not onelyonly Abrahams natural seed but also his spiritual, to which I grant the Covenant is made Gen. 17.7. and is everlasting, and if he can prove infants of believers to be such, there's no question but they are in Covenant under the Gospel and to be baptized, till then he can never prove either from Gen. 17.7. or Gal. 3.8. that Abrahams natural seed, much less infants of believing parents to be in the Gospel covenant, which whether hee had reason to bee ashamed of attempting the Reader may judge. That the entring into Covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11. was a tran… …unt fact and not a thing perpetually binding, I had thought none would deny; nor argue as Mr. Crag doth, it was by command, Deut. 29.1. they wer… v. 29. to do the words of the Law, and that was a command, and the revealed things belong to them and their children for ever, therefore the entring into Covenant v. 10, 11. was a command perpetually binding under the Gospel, which is too frivolous to spend time in answering, and his argument, that if wives and servants were in Covenant under the Gospel much more infants, is alike frivolous, …ith he himself makes no other then believing wives and servants in Covenant under the Gospel, which when he proves of infants their being in Covenant will not be denied. This is enough in answer to that Section and most of the 8th. and 9th. Sections of the third part.

I said his allegation is vain of Heb. 8.6. to prove that if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel, whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons; He asks me, what then? will it follow, if a Covenant was made to no more then before, therefore not to all that were before? Answ. No, yet it will follow that the text is vainly alledged to prove the co-extension to persons, that speaks not at all of that thing, nor is it at all to the purpose, that it is extended to more, to wit to Gentiles. For 1. however that text speaks not of it. 2. It is extended to more nations of the world besides the Jews, but to none but believers of those nations, and consequently not to infants of believing parents as such. That the new Covenant contains promises of better things then the old Covenant, and differs more then in administrations, is shewed before Sect. 43. and yet the…e is no such thing implied as if there were salvation in any other then Jesus Christ, unless he could prove salvation were by the promises of the Law. My third Paradox (as he cals it) that the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers, is proved before Sect. 33. That there are in the Gospel Covenant promises of external ordinances made to all visible members, is more then Mr. Cr. proves or any other, and therefore I count it a figment, I know none but spiritual promises in it, which Mr. Cr. grants are made absolutely and terminated or performed onelyonly to the elect and invisible members, which is the same with my p. 919Paradox, but hath more assertors then his most gross speech, that the meliority of the Covenant consists principally in outward ordinances, manner of administration and dispensation, extent and amplitude of the proposal, not of grace and glory. He adds, of which there was alwayes the same reason; Enoch, Abraham, Eliah, Moses, were as well justified by faith, which is true, but not according to the Covenant of the Law, but by the Covenant of the Gospel, which it seems Mr. Cr. understands not, though he assume the title of a Preacher of the Gospel.

Mr. Cr. saith of me, His last assertion is, that because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect, and true believers, therefore they are not to infants as the natural seed of believers: The antecedent is proved to be false, for though the spiritual part of Gospel promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the elect, yet they are conditionally proposed to all Professors; and the external part, which consists in administration of ordinances, is equally belonging to all visible members. But are the promises to all professors because they are conditionally proposed to them? If so, we may say the promises are to the most obstinate infidels, to eve…y man in the world, for to them they are conditionally proposed. Sure this is not according to the doctrine of the Scripture which makes the promises to bee the believers inheritance, 2 Cor. 1.20. 2 Pet. 1.4. Gal. 3.16. & 4.28. Heb 6.12, 17. according to the doctrine of Protestan…s, the Saints Legacy, yea Paedobaptists make them their priviledge, Rom. 9.4. though the promises there were other promises. As for an external part of Gospel promises, which consists in administration of ordinances equally belonging to all visible members, it is a mere figment no where in Scripture; And the sayings of Mr. Cr. Part. 3. Sect. 11. p. 261. [ Christ is said Heb. 8.6. to be a Mediator of a better Covenant, which could no… be, if infants, that were in covenant, under the Law, were out of covenant under the Gospel, and is grounded upon this impregnable rock, which the Anabaptists will never overthrow, that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant: that the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth right, tuition, self-profession, whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant, that what he hath said Examen part. 3. sect. 1. Antipaed. part. 1. sect. 5. touches not the true state of the Controversie, but is a confused Maze intricated with his fallaciâ decumanâ, or master fallacy of Gods making, whereas he should say, completing his Covenant onelyonly with the elect, Heb. 8.6. the new Covenant is a better Covenant not onelyonly positively, because it is established upon better promises in circumstantials, but also because it is extended to move all nations; negatively would not be better, if any sexe, age, degree were excluded] contain such a heap of mistakes and untruths as is not elsewhere usually found in the most heedless scribler. For …. if the first speech were true, then unless we grant infants to be baptized, which is in his language, to be in Covenant, either the new Covenant shall not be better then the old, or Christ not mediatour of it, which is as much as to say, if infants who were circumcised under the Law be not baptized under the Gospel then the promises of the Spirit, justification, Gods p. 920writing his laws in the heart, teaching, forgiving sins cannot be better then the promises of the Law, which assure righteousness and life to the keepers of the Law, or Christ cannot be Mediatour of the new Covanant, which if it be not a more monstrous conceit and to be more abhorred by Christians then ever any Popish conceit of the necessity of baptism to infants to prevent exclusion out of heaven, for which Austin is by Mr. Cr. himself reckoned the hard Father of infants, I know nothing. Sure all that doubt of infant Baptism, must by this reason either doubt whether it were not as good to be under the Law as under the Gospel, or whether Christ be a better Mediatour then Moses. 2. It is a monstrous boldness in him to tell us of a visible Covenant of so great necessity, and never tell us distinctly what it contains, nor where it is to be found, especially when not onelyonly my self, but his Oracle Mr. Baxter, hath written so much against it, as hee hath done in his Apology against Mr. Blake. 3. It is alike confidence in his own conceits, to tell us, that it is an impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow, that to be circumcised or baptised is all one as to be in visible Covenant, and yet shew us none that useth such language but himself. How doth hee think I or any other should answer his arguments, which are vented in such gibberish as no Dictionary or Author, or use makes intelligible? Is not his own first agument in his Sermon here pag. 254. Those (meaning under the Gospel) that are in Covenant with God (meaning outward and visible, which according to him is all one as to be baptized) ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is baptism, But infants of Believing parents are in the Covenant with God (that is in his language in the outward Covenant which is all one as to bee baptized) therefore they ought to have the seal of the Covenant, which is baptism. In which he plainly makes 1. baptism the Covenant, and yet the seal of it. 2. He argues in this manner, infants are baptized therefore they are baptized, which either merely an inept tautology, such as boyes in Schools would hiss at in a Freshman, or else it infers from baptism already done baptism to bee done, which Paedobaptists call Anabaptism, and so Mr. Cr. is turned an Anabaptist. 4. Hee tels us, this is an impr…gnable rock which the Anabaptists will never bee able to overthrow (though it be a Castle in the Air built by his imagination and will of it self vanish) that the reason of baptizing a person is his birth right, tuition, which proceeds onelyonly on that conceit as if there were the same reason of Baptizing as of Circumcising, which is oft before shewed to bee false. 5. If his words [whereby they are visibly admitted into Covenant] bee referred to the outward Covenant and baptizing, then the sense is Anabaptistical, by baptizing they are admitted to baptism, i… to [birthright, tuition] and admission bee meant as Mr. Baxter in his Book of Baptism page 24. then the sense is, by birth right persons are baptized and so they baptize themselves and need no other baptism besides Birth right. 6. Hee corrects me for saying God makes, when I should say completes, as if the Translators of Heb. 8.8. were mistaken, or Gods making his Covenant were not his completing it, or he did not complete the p. 921Covenant hee made. But this exception of Mr. Crag shews either his ossitancy or unskilfulness; sith it is the same word in Jerem. 31.31, 32, 33. foreign to strike, rendered in the Greek LXX by the Verb foreign, and so Heb. 8.10. & 10.16. which is as much as to dispose or put, and Heb. 8.9. by foreign I made although it be v. 8. rendred by foreign I will complete, so that this exception is but nodus in scirpo, out of a cavelling vein. 7. He saith, I do not touch the true state of the controversie Exam. par. 3. sect. 1. Antipaed. part. 1. sect. 5. though it be the very hinge of it, unless they mean no otherwise by being in Covenant then baptism, and then I must confess there is no controversie about the consequence of Mr. Ms. argument Infants are in Covenant, that is to be baptized, therefore they are to be baptized, but the argument to be derided as nugatory, as indeed it is. 8. He terms my dispute there a confused Maze intricated, which either his ignorance or impudence prompted him to do, sure he shews no confusedness in it. 9. He calls my proposition of Gods making his covenant onelyonly with the elect or spiritual seed, my Master fallacy, and yet it is proved from Scripture before, and acknowledged by Protestants, yea Mr. Cr. himself to be true. 10. He takes on him to foretell no satisfaction to be expected from the third part of my Review before hee sees it. 11. He saith Heb. 8.6. the new Covenant is a better Covenant, because it is established on better promises in circumstantials and extended to move all nations, which are not in the text. 12. H… saith, it would not bee better if any sexe age or degree were excluded, which being meant of the outward Covenant, it were as if he said, the new Covenant were not better then the old if an infant of a day old were excluded baptism.

Hee tels mee pag. 140. His consequent is also unsound, for the internal and spiritual part may be made intentionally to infants as the spiritual seed of believers, and yet the external part and that of Ordinances to infants as the natural seed of Believers, as well under the Gospel as under the Law; In which passage the phrase spiritual seed of believers is a new notion, intimating that believing fathers beget them spiritual, contrary to John 3.6. and that there is in the Gospel promises a part which is of ordinances, which is a figment, and that belongs to the natural seed of believers which is fal…e, and that my consequent is unsound for that reason, which if it were good the consequent is sound nevertheless.

What hee adds, if the external part under the Gospel belong not to infants, the Gospel and that made with Abraham are two distinct Covenants and essentially different, and that made with Abraham and his seed carnal, as the carnal Anabaptists affirm, their portion no better, then Turks they made (as Calvin observs) as beasts, whereas the Covenant Gen. 17.7. is everlasting] is true thus far, that the Covenant Gen. 7.17. so farre as it did assure righteousness to Abrahams spiritual seed by faith was the Gospel Covenant the same with ours, made in Christ and everlasting, but this is nothing to prove that there was such an external part of outward ordinances belonging to infants in that Covenant. But that Covenant is mixt, Mr. Cr. himself p. 922saith, there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings in it though in the main the Covenant were spiritual, and that part belonged to the Israelites by nature onelyonly, not to our children at all. So that Mr. Crags terms of carnal and gross put upon us, and Calvins observation are but reproaches and calumnies by Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists, devised and used by them wickedly to make us odious: but in time their wickedness will return on their own head.

Sect. 7. Mr. Crs. speeches of infants sad condition without baptism, are like the Popish talk of the necessity of baptizing infants that they may enter into Gods kingdome. By denying their baptism we deprive them not of Gods Covenant. The priviledges Rom. 3.2. & 9.4. were peculiar to the Jews; Did he write with heed, he would not say they belong to infants of Gentiles under the Gospel. When I say Baptism is not an ordinary meanes of salvation without faith, I mean that no ones baptism but the baptism of true believers is an ordinary meanes of salvation, which is true, though there may be true baptism without true saving faith if it be professed. His talk of preaching to infants by presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached without manifesting to the understanding, is another of his wild conceits. It's no contradiction to say infants are not saved by ordinary meanes, to wit, preaching the word, &c. and yet to say they are saved by election, redemption, the work of Gods spirit, sith by ordinary means I understand and so do others, the Word and Sacraments and Christian discipline.

It is false he saith of me p. 146. that I confess if I knew infants were elected I would baptize them, or that here I acknowledge of the species or sort of believers infants, that they are not onelyonly elected of God but redeemed of Christ and have the work of his spirit. Sect. 8. the major of his Syllogism [That which was proposed and entertained with success amongst the Jews, which were the natural seed of Abraham, was not onelyonly made with the spiritual seed of Abraham] p. 147. is denied, he is grossely mistaken in conceiving believing Jews were not Abrahams spiritual seed: and his arguing that many of the natural seed of Abraham were believers under the Gospel, Rom. 4.11, 12. to prove it confirms the contrary. For all that are true believers (not every professour of faith) or elect are Abrahams spiritual seed, and this I often expressed plainly, and Mr. Cr. knew well enough; but says I speak ambiguously, that he may have some colour for his random roving talk of persons in visible Covenant being children of the promise and Abrahams seed, which is much of it non-sense, unproved dictates, and quite beside the meaning of the texts Rom. 4.11, 12, 16. & 9.8. which make none Abrahams seed, and children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelical, but true believers or elect persons, as is amply before proved Sect. 28, 29. The rest of his scribling in that Section runs on these two mistakes, 1. That there is now under the Gospel a national Church as the Jews was, and that the expression Ephes. 3.6. may be applied to this whole Nation. 2. That there is such an outward visible Covenant which God hath made with such a whole visible National Church, which is not proved from Deut. 29, 10, 12. Joh. 1.11. Psal. 50.5. Joh. 15.2. two of which speak not at all of the Gospel Covenant, p. 923nor of Gods making a Covenant with them, but of theirs with God, the 2d. is expresly meant onelyonly of true believers, the 4th. of being a branch in Christ (which it's true may be meant of a visible professour) but not of being in the Gospel Covenant of grace, in which none any where are said to be, nor is God said any where to make it to any but true believers or elect persons, as is proved Sect. 33. There is not any thing Sect. 9. that I need reply to, saving that he grants that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. is made onelyonly to the elect, if by the Covenant I mean the end, event and success thereof, which I confess I do, and acknowledge that I abhor any conceit to the contrary, as if God should make a Covenant to any, which should not have the end event and success answerable to his promise, and therefore this Covenant promising things, which none in the event have but the elect, can bee said to be made by God to none but them, unless we will charge God with falshood, mutability or impotency.

Sect. 10. That Isa. 49.21.23. is a prophesie 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 Jewes. The words point at the multitude of Jews after the return from the Babylonish captivity, at which time according to Zechariah his prophesie, ch. 8.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. the Jews mightily encreased and prospered, and the place desolate confessedly being meant of Canaan and Jerusalem, and the Jewes 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 favour. 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, That one Democritus would not be enough to laugh at, nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that head, that would attempt from hence to draw an argument to prove the fore-going conclusion: the words are these, even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away; from whom? From Cyrus, Arta… …rxes, Darius, Ab…su…rus? That would imply a contradiction, for he confesses that these were nursing fathers that did bring back the Jews from captivity; the prey of the terrible shall be delivered, children are not preys to their nurses, nor are their nurses terrible to their children.) But we need not make the mighty and terrible the …ame p. 924with the deliverers or nurses. The Chaldean Princes were the mighty and terrible to whom the Jews were captives and a prey, and Cyrus and others after deliverers and nurses. Yet did we make them the same persons there were nothing ridiculous in it, sith the Jews were at first their captives, and prey, and they terrible to them, and yet not long after deliverers and nurses. So that we may retort Mr. Crs. words thus; One Democritus (except such a scoffer as Mr. Cr.) would not bee enough to laugh at, nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that Craig that makes such a silly refutation. What he adds to disparage Mr. Gattakers notes may be dispelled by reading the notes, nor is he alone in the sense hee gives, Grotius in his annot. agrees in that thing with Mr. Gattaker. And for the contents of the Chapter though there is not sufficient reason to ascribe them to the Church of England, they being made by one Translator though allowed by others without any Canon, or Act of Parliament establishing them, yet I see not that they make against my sense, but the making the content of v. 24. to be the powerful deliverance out of captivity, did in the Dispute and doth still seem to make for my sense of delivery or returning of the …ews out of the Babylonish captivity, which being derided by Mr. Crs. party shewed the levity of their spirits, to whom this book shews him to be too like. Which is seen in his alleging my words (not p. 14. as he cites them but p. 16.) against my reason; which he makes my interpretation, though if hee had added my words [and if so] it would have appeared that I spake not those words as my interpretation. And for his allegation of Gods saying to Moses thy children which thou hast brought out of Egypt, I remember not where it is used; but [thy people Exod. 3….7.] And for Mr. Crs. reconciliation, I do not conceive it may be congruously to speech so paraphrased, the Gentiles shall bring thy sons, that is the Churches by spiritual succession, the Gentiles by natural generation, Gods that is mine by adoption. It may be accommodated mystically to the conversion of the Gentiles as shadowed out by the reducing of the Jews from captivity, and yet make nothing for infants Churchmembership or Baptism. For though I yeeld in the litteral sense infants to be comprehended, yet in the mystical sense humble persons, or mean contemptible persons, or new born babes, this is believers desiring the word, may be meant. If the words be mystically meant, yet the words are not a prophesie of a prophesie, but as many speeches are which have a double meaning, as Gen. 15.5. & 17.4, 5. Exod. 12.46. one more open, the other covert. And Mr. Crags purpose from Isai. 49.22. were not to prove it foretold that infants under the Gospel should be brought to baptism, but to prove the propositton in question, that God foretold that infants should be Churchmembers under the Gospel, whence infant Baptism will follow; it seems Mr. Cr. understands not the bringing of children in arms and upon shoulders of bringing infants to baptism, and how else in a litteral sense they by bringing in armes and on shoulders become Churchmembers I yet understand not, and am out of hope ever to do.

Sect. 11. Mr. Cr. speaks thus. He says (meaning me) if by standard be meant baptism, which the Scripture never cals Gods standard, and the p. 925bringing should be to Baptism, then the sense should be, that supream Magistrates, as Kings and Queens, should bring infants in their armes, 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 prophesie, in which words there is neither veri…y, nor consequence if sense. First hee says, if by standard bee 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 sith 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 no where called Gods 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 unsutable 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 prophesie, which expresseth some great and wonderfull thing to be done by Gods extraordinary incitement and power, of which kinde 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 armes or bosome, 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 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 p. 926arms or bosoms in the Low Countries. 2. Nor was any such usage among the Jews or Gentiles in Isaiahs time, to whi…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, …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 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. …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 a…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 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 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 onelyonly 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 me…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.

p. 927To 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 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 shew 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 hee should make good his sense if hee will inferre 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. And in Isa. 65.20. there is need of such an interpretation, for as v. 17. the new heaven… and new earth, and 18, 19. creation, and Jerus…lem were analogical, and not proper, so the 20. v. is wholly trop…cal and mystical. There shall be no more thence an infant of days; How can thi… be understood litterally? did not infants after as well, as un…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 ti…l the 8th▪ day, Mr. T. might have done well to have imparted us either his own or Mr. Gatakers descant on these word…, but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lions skin would not discover the who…e imposture, ne foreign 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 …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 hi… dayes, but shall live and attain to his just growth and full … o… years.] This sense is no… infringed by any thing Mr. Cr. sa…th, yea his question, did not infants &c. …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 J…wish Paedagogy, nor that it was the reason of circumcising the 8th. day, nor do I see what hi…, 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 p. 928prediction 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 r…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 i… hee were an hundred years old, therefore children may bee bapt…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 s…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 c…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. ….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 …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. as the dayes of a tree are the dayes 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 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 …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 p. 929literal 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 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 t…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 foreign 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 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 shewed; certainly it's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster. The phrase foreign 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 shews 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 elswhere, p. 930and 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 mens 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 shews 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 Arithmetick shews his folly in deriding that which was right. And for his prattle, it shews 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 foreign filius periphrases & Hebraismos facit ins…gnes: ut foreign filius areus Iob 41.19. id est s…gitta & similes innumeri. Sic I…an. 17.12. foreign, &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 Scholler 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. According to which interpretation, the words must carry this sense, There shall no more infants di… when they are young, nor an old man till he … filled his days, for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old, I wonder in what age this was performed, that no man died till he had compleated his century, no mortal disease, nor use of Physitians, but every man might certainl… know the day of his death.

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 Ieremiah 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 Iews after their return from Babylon …, prosperity, increase and long life in Canaan a great while together, and were honoured 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 p. 931England, nor are to be accounted any more 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 Ierusalem, and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel. 21.4. being put, shew, that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favoured 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 neighbours, 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 no where set down Exod 13. and 14. N…r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Authour 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 Lords Supper, and Grotius did rightly expound [1 Cor. 10.2. were baptised] 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 any thing 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 Churchmembers, 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 deceitfull. 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 any thing 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 Logick, Grammer, Divinity, th…y are otherwise discernable 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 any more reply to what i… written of infant… Baptism, till some thing 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 any thing that might not have an answer in that which is already written, or had in it any difficulty, I should p. 932have done it: But being conscious to my fel… 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 meer quirk of wit is unnecessary, as knowing that however light wit… that love to shew their skill in disputing be taken with them, yet solid conscientious men will be led onelyonly with good proofs out of Scripture which may shew 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 for ever.

AMEN.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Tombes, Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 (1657)