there and some of the things the letter mentions I spake and do still avouch The two men mentioned were unknown to me I slighted neither though being wearied with preaching I did forbear to speak much and was willing to get into a dry house from the rain I was willing to have conference with Mr. Vaughan who seemed modest and intelligent The other Opponent I found before to be a man of talk who could not blush That which the second Epistle writes of my being wounded and vaunting is meerly fabulous and I think the like of the short time of conceiving the Dispute and Sermon It displeaseth me not that the business should be truly stated which is the end of this writing though it displease me that such unworthy tricks are used to deceive people as those which appear in the publishing this Disputation and Sermon I intend not to lengthen the businesse by insisting on the falsity of the reports of my Answer It is not improbable I might in five hours dispute with one who talked so fast as to give no time to consider of what he said answer not so cleerly as I would had I had the arguments to view and examine deliberately I presume it will be sufficient for cleering truth if either I shew how my Answers are misreported or how they are to be amended SECT. III. Mr. Vaughans dispute is answered TO begin with Mr. Vaughans dispute Had it been framed into a Syllogism it had been thus They that were admitted lawfully into the Covenant of grace by Circumcision may be admitted into the Covenant of grace by Baptism But infants were admitted lawfully into the covenant of grace by Circumcision Therefore they may be lawfully admited into the covenant of grace by Baptism To which had it been thus formed I should have said 1. That it is false that either by circumcision or baptism infants or other persons are admitted into the Covenant of Grace yea Paedobaptists themselves suppose they are in the Covenant of Grace before and therefore they are baptized Nor doth Mr. Vaughan shew how persons may be in Congruous sense said to be admitted into the Covenant of Grace 2. If it were true yet it is certain that infants of unbelievers were admitted by circumcision as well as infants of believers and so his medium proves as well the baptizing of unbelievers infants taken into a believers house as believers But in the manner he framed his reason I denied the consequence And when he urged it must be either because the Covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance withthat which is now actually in force with believers their children or secondly because baptism succeedeth not in the room of circumcision I did rightly say I could deny your division For there is another reason viz. because there is not the same command of baptizing infants as there was of circumcising them and yet that the disputation might proceed I denyed the consequence for both those reasons And to what was replyed I answered rightly that the Covenant now in force according to Gal. 3. 14. was not to the natural seed of Abraham but the spiritual nor is it true That all the children of Abraham were circumcised for the females were not or that They that were circumcised were consequently admitted into the Covenant For even Mr. Vaughan presently tells us That Ishmael though circumcised belonged not to the promise Now what is it to be admitted into the Covenant but to be admitted to the promise or participation of the Covenant what he replyed further That the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. was made alike in the same extent and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham even the natural is most palpably false For none but the spiritual seed of Abraham by believing as he did have the promise of righteousness which is the covenant of grace and Ishmael is expiesly excluded Gen. 17. 19 20 21. and he grants himself None but the children of Isaac were children of the promise nor were the Jewes who were broken off because of their own unbelief Romans 11. 20. comprehended in the covenant of Grace Romans 9. 8. proves cleerly that the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed as it was a covenant of Evangelical grace was not made to all his natural seed and so not to any of his natural seed because they were by natural generation of him but because elect of God And it is false which Mr. Vaughan saith The children of Isaac he should have said Isaac and after him Jacob are not called children of the promise in regard of any peremptory election or aesignation to faith and salvation For the contrary is manifest from verses 11 12 13. Nor is it any thing contrary to the absolute decree of reprobation that Paul lamented desired and prayed for the Israelites but his lamentation doth rather prove it that they were rejected and desires and prayers may be even for that which may not be as when Christ prayed to have the cup passe from him His reasons why the children of Isaac are called children of the promise are not to his purpose but against him For 1. He doth thereby tacitly imply that none but the children of Isaac were children of the promise and therefore none but they in the Covenant of grace 2. If the reasons of the children of Isaac their being called children of the promise were the inheritance of Canaan and the descent of Christ then only Jacob was a child of the promise not Esau and so it remains the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. was not made to all the circumcised nor they by circumcision admitted into the Covenant Gen. 17. 3. After his explication it is cleer that the Covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with believers and their children contrary to what he said before 4. After this doctrine none are now children of the promise sith there are none that inherit Canaan according to that promise nor from whom Christ descends and then if the promise be the same with the covenant of grace none are now admitted into the same Covenant and consequently none to be baptized according to Mr. Vaughans reasoning What he saith he might have added That if none but the elect and faithful can be admitted into the Covenant there is no subject left for the ordinance of baptism I deny it It goes upon this mistake that none are to be admitted but those that are admitted into the Covenant of grace and known to be so Whereas persons that are disciples and believers by profession at least are to be admitted to baptism and no other ordinarily whether they be admitted into the Covenant of Grace or not Nor are we to baptize upon A judgement of Charity of thinking no evil for then we must baptize Turks infants as well as Christians nor upon a faith in the seed or the parents
I finde is the grace of God said to be either physically or morally conferred by the Circumcision of each person rightly circumcised 2. It supposeth if infants be not baptized the grace of God is straiter in the New Testament than in the old But that is false For the grace of God is as much without Sacraments as with it Above two thousand years before Abrham was circumcised there was neither Circnmcision nor Baptism of infants nor any other Sacrament instead thereof Shall we say that Gods grace was straiter before Abrahams time than since As bad as the Schoolmen were who gave too much to Sacraments yet they held that the grace of God is not tied to Sacraments That question from Heb. 8. 6. How were it a better Covenant if all poor infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel runs upon these common mistakes that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in covenant all that were in covenant were to be circnmcised or baptized all that were not were out of covenant that the reason of the circumcising or baptizing a person is his being in covenant which are all false as I have proved Exam. Part. 3. Sect. 1. Letter to Mr. Baily Sect. 3. Antipaed Part. 1. Sect. 5. and shall Part. 3. in many Sections if God permit And to the question I answer from the next words Heb. 8. 6. the new Covenant is a better Covenant because it is established on better promises though it were imagined never a poor infant as he childishly speaks which yet I do dot conceive were in Covenant The next from Tit. 2. 11. supposeth If infants be not to be baptized the grace of God appears not to them which is of no force unless that popish conceit obtain that by it and not without it Gods grace appears to all But this is false and not in the Text Irenaeus words are not that Christ was a little one that little ones might be baptized from his example for then he would have been baptized in infancy whereas he was not baptized till about thirty years of age We need not deny Christs Redemption of infants because we deny their Baptism there 's no such connexion between them His saying of little ones that they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ is false For how were they Martyrs who testified nothing concerning Christ That of the Collect in the Common Prayer book on Innocents day that they witnessed onely by dying is vain For dying without some other expression doth not witness nor did they suffer for Christ whom they knew not but because of Herods beastly rage This speech of Mr. Cragg smels rank of the Common Prayer Book superstition in keeping Innocents day which it seems Mr. Cragg yet retains But is nothing to the proof of his major nor any thing hitherto alleged That which he saith last hath most shew of proof that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle clears it Col. 2. 11 12. Ye are circumcised with Circumcision made without hands How is that buried with him in Baptism but it is not true that he saith ye are circumcised with Circumcision made without hands in that ye are buried with him in Baptism these are predicated of the same persons and so were conjoyned but yet not so as to express how that the former was done by the latter no more than by that which follows that therein they were raised by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead yea it had been false so expounded for how could it be true that they were circumcised without hands in that they were buried in Baptism with hands Nor if this were granted were it true that it is cleared by the Apostle that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision For there is not a word to that end yea the scope is to prove that we have all in Christ without Circumcision as v. 10. c. shew and that Christ came in the place of Circumcision and the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies as v. 17. is expressed And therefore the Apostle asserts the contrary that no Rite but Christ came in the room of Circumcision If any ask why is v. 12. added I have answered formerly and the answer is not gainsaid by M. Marshall that it is to shew how persons come to be in Christ and so to be compleat in him which he usually ascribeth to Faith and Baptism Gal. 3. 26 27. Rom. 6. 3 4 5. and they are put together Col. 2. 12. so that if Baptism be conceived thence to succeed Circumcision Faith also is said to succeed it which is more agreeable to the expressions Gal. 3. 23 25. I add the Circumcision mentioned Col. 2. 11. is either Circumcision made without hands or Christs personal Circumcision therefore if the placing of Baptism after v. 12. prove its succession to Circumcision it proves onely its succession to that made without hands which was not the Ceremony commanded Gen. 17. or to Christs Circumcision not to the common Circumcision of others Yet were a succession granted this proves not it must be in Baptism as in Circumcision without a like command as I prove Antipaed Part. 2. Sect. 2 3. No more than because the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Priests of the Law doth it follow the Ministers children must be Ministers anointed c. as it was in the Law So that Mr. Craggs irresistible argument is as easily blown away as a feather And I hardly imagine any Anabaptist so called to be so weak but that he is able to answer it by telling Mr. Cragg that his first Proposition is false unless there were the like command to baptize infants as there was to circumcise them If the third argument arise thence it hath its answer thence that it is frivolous talk in Mr. Cragg to speak as if denying infants Baptism were putting out of the Covenant disfranchizing and circumcising supposed being in Covenant was a seal of the covenant of grace His proof that the Gospel puts not infants out of the Covenant is true of the elect infants and the covenant of grace expressed in the Gospel And yet his proofs are silly New born babes desire milk little childeren are humble and are proposed herein as paterns to us therefore they are in Covenant whereas this is as true of infidels children as of Christians and therefore proves the one in Covenant as well the other and both these acts of little childeren are onely natural not virtuous and so give not evidence of their being in covenant nor doth the Gospel give them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the Rule of our perfection For there is neither commendation of them 1 Pet. 2. 2. nor Matth. 18. 3. nor making them the rule of our perfection any more than Sheep and Doves Matth. 10. 16. but onely those virtuous qualities which are resembled by their natural qualities
and spit against the Sun That the text Isai. 54. 13. is not meant of infants of believing parents as such but of such as having heard and learned of the Father come to Christ is plain from those words of our Saviour John 6. 45. alleged here by Mr. Cragg himself as expounding the Prophet The seventh argument is All that have faith may be baptized But some infants have faith Therefore some infants may be baptized But 1. the major is not true of faith onely in seed or act secret and not made known 2. Mr. Cragg alters the Conclusion which should have been That all infants of believers may be baptized But then he durst not avouch the minor that they all have saith at least in semine the contrary being manifest from Scripture and experience He proves his minor 1. From Matth. 18. where he saith Christ expresly calls them believers But Christ calls not little children in age believers ver. 6. it had been ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending of little children in age who are offended with none so much as Nurses for dressing or chiding them when they cry but the Apostles and other Christian disciples are there meant 2. They are said to receive the Kingdome of God Mark 10. that is the grace of God remission of sins and life eternal now the Kingdome is not received but by faith in Christ But onely elect infants dying do receive the Kingdom either by faith in the seed not in the act or by faith in the act secret only and yet are not to be baptized till they make profession not are all or any children of believers as theirs elect 3. Saith Mr. Cragg They please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Answ. The like argument is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort It is impossible to please God without faith therefore election which supposeth pleasing of God presupposeth faith The answer is that Heb. 11. 6. the pleasing of God is meant of the works as Enoch pleased God walking with him and so infants please not God and therefore may be without faith not of the persons in which sense infants may please God that is be beloved with a love of benevolence though not of delight without faith 4. Faith must be allowed them or not salvation for faith purifyeth the heart Acts 15. 9. and no unclean thing shall enter into heaven Answ. Faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean which is not denyed may be in infants though neither Isai. 65. 20. sayes any such thing and Austins words express nothing but his own conceit according to the language of his time but faith in seed or act unknown doth not intitle to baptism The eighth Argument was answered before by denying the major and minor and his calling those that expound 1 Cor. 7. 14. of legitimation gross Anabaptists doth but involve Melancthon Camerarius Musculus c. in the same censure and that it is no bastard as Dr. Featley called it but a genuine exposition is demonstrated at large in my Anti-paedobaptism first part and t is granted That Pagans children are holy in the Apostles sense if lawfully begotten for the sanctifiedness of the yoke-fellow and holiness of the children is not ascribed to the faith of the one parent but to the conjugal relation between them Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and root are Abraham not every believer The lump and branches are Abrahams children by election and faith not every believers nor all Abrahams natural children and the holiness is meant of saving holiness not meer outward visible holiness The breaking off and grassing in Rom. 11. 17. are meant of the invisible Church in which sense Parents and children are not broken off or graffed in together See my Anti. paedobap first part Nineth Argument tells us Of dangerous absurdities if infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel But this is not all one as to be baptized we may grant them to be in the Covenant of grace and yet not to be baptized and to be baptized and yet not in the Covenant of grace But let us view the absurdities First Infants saith he would be losers by Christs comming and in a worse condition than the jewish infants were they with the parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Parents with Children to baptism Answ. 1. I rather think that by being not admitted to Circumcision the condition of Parents and Children is the better by Christs comming sith as Mr. Cragg teacheth here page 100. Circumcision is the yoke Acts 15. 10. of which the Apostle saith Neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear it and is so farr from being the seal of the Covenant of Grace that they are Mr. Craggs own words Circumcision was the seal or ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the doctrine and the Law meaning of Moses 2. But were it imagined a pure Evangelical privilege yet sure it is not such a privilege but Parents and Children did well without it afore Abrahams time and all the females from Abrahams daies till Christs I suppose what ever privilege it were it was abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without infant-baptism except a meer empty title of visible Church-membership which yet will not stand them so much in stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper be such an inestimable treasure as is not recompensed with the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the Spirit instead of the carnall Promises Ordinances and Church-state of the Law The second is answered already though infants be not baptized Grace is larger under the Gospel being extended to believers in all nations then under the Law to the Israelites and some few Proselytes The third is a speech that hath neither truth nor sobriety of expression nor proof it is but a bugbear to affright the ignorant people to make use of such as he is and to make odious them that will not baptize infants as counting them as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Canniballs even as they make them odious that will not burie their dead as not affording them Christian burial though they are buried as Christ was without a Priest but burying as dogs But we know how to put a difference between Believers and Pagans children in regard of the love God bears to us some promises he hath made to us concerning them the hopefullnesse of them by reason of prayers education example society confirmed by many experiences that are comfortable all which things we should be contented with and not complain for want of an imaginary privilege which is indeed no privilege but a dammage to our children I for my part look upon the children of believers unsprinkled as precious and rather more hopeful than those that are And I think Mr. Cragg as hard a conceit as he hath
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 for then it should be extended to more sorts than the Covenant of the Law was but to the meliority of the promises which were of better things or better terms then the promises of the Law but not to any other than elect and true believers and so not to infants as the natural seed of believers And for that which he saith This unchurcheth the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation if he mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians I grant it if the infants be the one half of them and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but count it no absurdity nor do know what ordinary means of salvation he conceives they are left without except baptism which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that infants are without ordinary means of salvation which are the preaching the word c. yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his Spirit What I said that the Covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham was right and determined so Rom. 4. 11 12 16. Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 3. 29. John 8. 39. c. Nor is it true because the partition wall is broken down therefore there is the same Covenant national to the natural seed of believers as was to Abraham but that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles to wit believing Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. should be fellowheirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Nor is it ture That the Gospel Covenant is made with the whole visible Church as the Gospel Covenant is expressed Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. And if I denied the Major pag. 29. in the first argument I confess I was mistaken through inadvertency whether by reason of Mr. Craggs fast speaking or some humane infirmity or some other occuirence now not remembred I cannot tell But I deny the Minor understood of the Gospel Covenant Heb. 8. 10. and the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every visible Churchmember But I perceive by Mr. Craggs words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the question were only the elect c. that the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvel I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. Craggs meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. Cragg saith That it was the question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them only yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. Cragg by confounding these terms to be in Covenant to be subjects of baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers The next text Mr. Cragg brought was Isaiah 49. 22. whence he would prove that Infants should be Churchmembers under the Gospel To which my answer was at first though it was otherwise taken that it is a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring back the Jewes not only infants but others from captivity which the words before verse 19 20 21. and after verse 24 25. do plainly evince and this is given as the meaning by the New Annotations made by Mr. Gataker who doth on verse 23. say it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus Nor is there in the Contents of the Chapter which Mr. Cragg without ground makes the judgement of the Church of England any thing to the contrary but the words which are 18. The ample restauration of the Church 24. The powerfull deliverance out of the Captivity do rather confirm this If any people laughed at this they shewed their ignorance and Mr. Cragg shewed his heedlessness when he said That it was an addition to the text that the Gentiles should bring the lewes when the very distinction of thy children from the Gentiles shews it meant of the Jewes otherwise it should have been their children in the third person not thine in the second nor can it be meant of Gods children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Though I deny not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel but not to Mr. Craggs purpose of bringing infants to baptism which hath no colour from the text Which appears by considering Mr. Craggs answer to my questions put forth needfully to cleer the text For 1. if by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never calls Gods standard and the bringing should be to baptism then the sense should be that Supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bringinfants in their arms and carrythem on shoulders to baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too srivolous to be made the matter of that prophecy 2. The terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers shew it to be a Metaphor wch Mr. Cragg granting though it follow not that nothing could be gathered from it yet it follows that Mr. Craggs application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right What I said that it was fulfilled in Hesters time I said rightly and Mr. Gataker before me in those Annotations of his which are taken for the most incomparably learned and Hester as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be stiled a nursing mother to the Jewes I will not trouble my self to examine Mr. Craggs dictates but refer the Reader to the notes of Mr. Gataker As for what I said that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be meant of grown men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospel as Junius in his Annot. was true Nor doth the bringing in the bosome being a Metaphor prove they were infants And if so the Church is spoken to and the children were both the Gentiles children and yet thy children that is the Churches And so there 's no interfering in my words The next text was Isaiah 65. 20. in reading which Mr. Cragg left out those words nor an old man that hath not filled his daies nor would read them nor the words
of the Anabaptists and their children yet would he be ashamed to say as he doth here of them That they are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals But that which he closeth with sheweth he was minded to affright the poor ignorant people as the Popish Priests did of old Fourthly saith he They would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the children of God but would all be damned for out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation Answ. By Covenant he means doubtless no other than the outward covenant which is not shewed to be any other than baptism and indeed we do no otherwise put them out of the Covenant than by denying them baptism which being presupposed Mr. Craggs speech must needs imply that denying baptism inferrs all this Which cannot be true without conceiving That all that are unbaptized are without God without Christ without hope in the world not the children of God but of the Devil will be all damned have no salvation Which is not only more than what the Epistler makes hainous in me all that would be saved must be baptized after profession though it were understood by me onely of necessity of precept which Mr. Cragg himself asserts to be imported Mark 16. 16. but worse than Austin sayes whom Mr. Cragg himself called the hard Father of infants and saies went too far worse than the Papists themselves speak of the dying unbaptized Which shews that he preached this Sermon with a bitter and furious spirit His closing speech out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation if understood of the Covenant of saving according to election I grant that neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily is there salvation if of the outward Covenant as they call it that is the outward administration of Seals it is certain there may be salvation unless profane contempt or willfull neglect against conscience do hinder salvation The speech out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants of the invisible Church A person of years that believes though he be joined to no particular visible Church if there be not prophane contempt or wilful neglect against conscience may be saved But they that are only negatively or privatively out of the Church visible meerly for want of age to understand the faith and ability to make profession may ordinarily if by it be meant frequently constantly be saved though they be not ordinarily saved as ordinarily notes ordinary means preaching the word and profession of faith His last argument is That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Ergo The minor is denyed The blessed success he proves not In my Exercitation I shew many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that imbraced it only but even from the tendency of the practice it self I may ruly say that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a root of corrupting the Churches and losing the gifts of the Spirit conferred at first commonly at baptism by laying on of hands as I think except some few any other corruption in the rites of Christian Religion But Mr. Cragg thinks to draw it down from the Apostles daies He begins with words of Dionysius Areopagita holy men have received a tradition of the Fathers which very words shew it was not Dionysius Areopagita mentioned Acts 17. he would doubtless have said I have received it from blessed Paul not have told what other holy men have received from the Fathers whom Mr. Cragg vainly conceives to be meant of the Apostles But the books that go under his name have been so often by so many learned men Papists and Protestants proved to be meer counterfeits that either it is much ignorance or much impudence that this is produced as his Salmasius sundry times speaketh of them as certain that the Author of them was not till the fifth age The Apostolical constitutions appear by many observations of Scultetus and others not to have been written by Clement but of much later time Irenaeus his words make nothing for Mr. Cragg as he cites them nor as they stand in his own works Origens speeches are in the Latin books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foisted by him and these its probable were so as being so expresse against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most Ancient testimonies he could for Original sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vossius in his Theses of infant-baptism We less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprians testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and innumerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the Ancients did not baptize infants and in that case the communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing parents till they came to years and then they were first catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before baptism It is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant-baptism Some Churches never had it some Churches five hundred years ago of the most godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers only If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists hereticks it was for other tenents than this Mr. Baxter himself saith no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. Yet Mr. Cragg bespatters Anti-paedobaptism thus it robs the Scripture of its truth infants of their right parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining somewhat will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venome behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians Will any believe that from the tenet which doth so stifly maintain an Ordinance should spring the errour of being above Ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that tenet which doth so strictly insist on the Scripture Let Mr. Cragg shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if only the persons and not the tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian religion is the mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Cerinthians Nicolaitans Gnosticks c. Such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in a pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence The like may I say of the judgements of God Those in Germany were by war the events that have happened in our daies should teach us to be sparing in our judging Mr. Cottons speech was according to his prejudice Solomon Eccles. 9. 1 2. Christ Luke 13. 1 2 3 4 5. teach us more sobriety than so easily to pronounce of Gods judgements If we should judge of men and tenents by outward judgements Job had been condemned justly One man had his house burned that did not sprinkle his child thousands have had their houses burned who did and perhaps upon occasion of that abuse by means of provision for the feast May not we as well say God thereby judged against infant-sprinkling Thousands have prospered after their refusing to baptize infants thousands have fain into calamities after they have baptized them May not we this way as well decide for Antipaedobaptists as against them Divines that maintain the Scriptures to be their rule should not thus judge of what is true or false by Gods dealing with mens persons which is often upon secret reason not discemable by us but by his word which is our rule and wherein he hath revealed his mind The rest of Mr. Craggs speech is as vain Doth this benefit come to parents and children by infant baptism that God is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. 16. what a ridiculous conceit is this The text saith that through the faith of the persons it is that God is not ashamed to be called their God not their God and the God of their seed much less a word of infant-baptism as if such a benefit came by it All the benefit he talks of that comes to infants is either a meer empty title or else it comes to infants as well without baptism as with it The Devils dealing if it be as Mr. Cragg saith makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended baptism is but not that the Baptism is right Enough of this frothy unconcocted Sermon calculated for the ignorant and superstitious common people and the profane loose Gentry who mind not godliness in earnest and for the blind Teachers of those parts who know not the Gospel but mind their own profits more than the understanding of the truth From whom the Lord deliver the dark parts of this Land and provide teachers for the people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many parts The blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch FINIS
is a nullity that notwithstanding such pretended baptism yet baptism remains a duty speaks but truth The decree of the Senate of Zurick was an unrighteous decree which whatever state follows it will draw the guilt of murdering innocent persons on it and Mr. Cragg by reciting it with seeming approbation doth make it probable that he is a bloody-minded man who would rejoice to see innocent men who out of tenderresse of conscience follow the plain rule of Christ so put to death which it s not unlikely to be the aim of his or his Complices printing this book against those he calls Anabaptists that he might stir up either Magistrates or furious common people against them Mr. Cragg saith He hath resolved the former doubt that baptizing is not dipping and yet page 81. the Authors he cites and by citing approves do all make dipping or dying one of the first of its significations Now he undertakes to prove that infants may nay ought to be baptized And he begins as an Advocate for infants with this childish preface that those poor souls cannot speak for themselves as if in speaking for their baptism he spake for them when he doth thereby rather speak for that which is to their hurt and calls them poor souls whom before he called Saints There is more in his pittyfull preface He supposeth if the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-baptism in plainer terms they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it And I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have affirmed it being quite against Christs appointment and their practice who had then no such custome nor the Churches of God The rest as it is taken from Mr. Baxter so it is answered in the answer to him now in the Press sect. 3. Le ts view Mr. Craggs Arguments His first is Those that are in Covenant with God ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is baptism But infants of believing parents are in Covenant with God Ergo He saith The former Proposition is firm by the confession of all Diviues even our adversaries and cites five but not where they say it nor is any one his Adversary in this point It is true Ferus was a Popish Frier though more ingenuous than most of them But doth Mr. Cragg think we must take that for true which Protestants and Papists do avow without any proof from Scripture If so then let us lay aside the Scripture and read their books But he might know and t is likely did know that I though I will not take on me the name of a Divine yet have denyed yea and proved his former proposition to be false Exam. par 3. sect. 1. Letter to Mr. Bayly sect. 3. Anti-pae lob Or Full Review first part sect. 5. which shall be fully vindicated God assisting in the third part Yea were his arguing good it would prove infants were wronged because they had not the communion For I can as well from his own medium prove that they are to have it as he Baptism The Minor he takes on him to prove from Genesis 17. 7. But there is not a word of infants of believing parents But to prove it he ci es Cornelius à Lapide a Jesuit for him and yet had he not falsly translated his words the words would have appeared to be against him For whereas he renders them in The spiritual seed to the faithful which mars his sense it is In the spiritual seed the faithful So likewise Gal. 3. 8. though there be not the term Abrahams seed yet it is directly against him for it asserts justification to the believing Gentiles onely from Abrahams promise not a promise to them and their seed I deny not but that Isaac was in Covenant with God that is a child of the promise not onely when he was but eight days old but also afore the seventh yea afore he was born but when he saith he had the seal meaning Circumcision by virtue of the Lamb to be slain it is strange Divinity to me who never heard or read that any person was circumcised by virtue of Christs death but by reason of Gods command And that which he saith Much more the Children of believing Parents by virtue of the Lamb that is already slain which seems to intimate that Circumcision is due to them much more and that by virtue of Christs death is a foppery like to the Authors ingeny He saith Deut. 29. 11. When all the People stood in covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest And are not their wives and servants hewers of wood and drawers of water Are all these in covenant with God How doth he prove they were believers infants The words v. 4. seem to make to the contrary It is no shift but a manifest truth that those Acts 2. 38 39. to whom Peter said The Promise is to you and your childdren were not then believers in Christ when the words were spoken to them For 1. the Apostle exhorts to repentance therefore they had not yet repented and so were not believers Mr. Cragg himself pag. 78. in this Sermon saith Repentance is a fruit and effect of faith therefore according to him not before it And in the Dispute pag. 52. he made them believers in fieri with an incompleat repentance though perhaps not believers in facto 2 v 40. he exhorted them with more words and then v. 41. some of them gladly received the Word and were believers Yet Peter said to them before they were believers The Promise is to you and your children nor is there a word in the Text that makes it clear that as soon as they were believers their children were in covenant with them and to be baptized His second argument is Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospels But infants of believers were circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel He cites Whitaker saying all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this argument I answer notwithstanding so learned a mans conceit it hath not the force of a feather so as to need resistance To it I answer 1. Indirectly by retortion Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But infants of unbelievers as the males bought with Abrahams money of the stranger not of his seed Gen. 17 12 13 23 27. persons out of Covenant as Ishmael Gen. 17 19 21 25. were circumcised under the Law Ergo If the one be irresistible so is other 2. Directly by denying the Major if it be universal if not the syllogism is naught concluding from particulars His proofs are vain That from Austin is of no force unless it be supposed 1. That by circumcising under the Law and baptizing under the Gospel the grace of God is conferred which is a popish conccit Circumcision did binde to the keeping of the Law but never that