Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	abraham_n	righteousness_n	seal_n	9,017	5	9.6941	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62869	A plea for anti-pædobaptists, against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers, entituled, The anabaptists anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a public dispute at Abergaveny in Monmouth-shire Sept. 5. 1653. Betwixt John Tombes, John Cragg, and Henry Vaughan, touching infant-baptism. By John Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1654 (1654)	Wing T1811; ESTC R206989	34,969	48

actual faith but their own profession It is not true no not according to Mr. Vaughan's own grant that they were admitted into the same Covenant by Circumcision into which we are now admitted by Baptism For we are not admitted into that Covenant which hath the Promise of the inheriitng the Land of Canaan and descent of Christ from us which he before acknowledged to be promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. Neither need we say that the circumcised had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves or that of their Parents imputed to them or that Circumcision was a false seal For neither is it said Rom. 4. 11. of any mans Circumcision but Abrahams in his own person nor of his that it was the seal of the righteousness of faith to any but a believer This was my answer not as Mr. Vaughan mistook me that Circumcision was a seal onely of Abrahams own faith in particular Nor is there a word Rom. 4. 13. Gen. 177. Acts 2. 39. to prove that the Covenant or Promise was the same and alike to Abraham and his seed and to us believers and to our children Nor is it true that 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant of covenant holiness of children nor doth he bring any proof that it is so For that which he dictates that there is certainly some special privilege set forth to the children of believers accruing to them from believing Parents is false the Text ascribing nothing to the faith of the one Parent but to the conjugal relation And for that which he saith it was no news to tell them that they might have the lawfull use one of another I say though they might not doubt whether they might lawfully use one another when both were unbelievers yet it is manifest the believer doubted whether it might be so still and therefore the Apostles telling them it might was an apposite resolution of their doubt whether it be to be called news or no and their not doubting of the legitimation of their issue is the very Reason from whence the Apostle by an Argument ad hominem infers the continuance of their lawfull copulation And what I said of the use of the words sanctified and holy 1 Tim. 4. 5. 1 Thess 4 3 4 7. was right nor do I think Mr. Vaughan would have urged that Text as he doth if he had read what I have written in the first part of my Antipaedobaptism in which is an ample disquisition of the meaning of that Text to which I refer Mr. Vaughan and other Readers who shall be willing to search out the truth What I said that if Baptism succeeded Circumcision and thence infant-baptism be deduced female infant-baptism could not be thence inferred for they were not circumcised is manifest nor is it pertinent which Mr. Vaughan brings to infringe it For though Females be granted to be in the Covenant of Circumcision yet they were not circumcised and if in the eys of all Laws whatsoever women are but as ignoble creatures and so not circumcised this confirms what I allege that by virtue of Baptisms succession to Circumcision their Baptism cannot be inferred What he thought to have told me about the Proselites of Righteousness and the baptizing of their Infants I conceive I have considered and answered in the second part of my Antipaedobaptism or Full Review now in the Press in which the feebleness of Dr. Hammonds Proof is shewed It is neither true that Col. 2. 11 12. is an explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words being buried with him in baptism nor any thing said of the analogy between circumcision and baptism which Mr. Vaughan saith is so evident in this place nor if it were doth it prove that our baptism succeeds the Jewish circumcision And what he grants that Col. 2. 12. Rom. 6. 4 5. Immersion and emersion in Baptism are alluded to as the custom then of baptizing and that which he saith that indeed it seemed to him that for some centuries of years that Baptism was practiced by plunging for sprinkling was brought first in use by occasion of the Chinicks taking what further is manifest and not denied that sprinkling is not baptizing but rantizing it is manifest that in infant-sprinkling now in use there is a mockery when the Minister saith I baptize thee and yet doth not baptize but sprinkle or rantize And it was truly said by me that it is a nullity it being done neither on persons nor in the manner Christ appointed to be baptized as the Spaniards baptizing the Americans was a meer nullity and mockery Not do I know why Mr. Vaughan should say This concludes our selves and all our Ancestours even all in the Western Churches for fifteen hundred years under damnation unless he imagine with the Papists infant-baptism necessary to salvation That which Mr. Vaughan saith p. 13. of the Churches power to alter any thing from the Form of Christs institution to be confessed by all Divines and that he is none that denies it is not true except he account none Divines but the Papists For I know none but Papists that do acknowledg that the Church hath power to alter Christs institution Nor in my practice do I acknowledg it I plainly tell Mr. Vaughan I do use to administer the Lords Supper in the evening and though I do not say it was instituted by Christ to be in the evening yet because it is called the Lords Supper and the Apostle takes notice of the time 1 Cor. 11. 23 c. and the administring of it in the morning occasions many to think they must take it fasting and not a few that they are first to receive Christs body in the popish sense I think it very requisite the Lords Supper be administred in the evening The Love-feasts I finde not appointed by Christ and therefore might be altered But in requital of Mr. Vaughans advice to me I advise him to take heed of that erroneous and dangerous Tenet which avoucheth a power in the Church to alter Christs institution which serves to justifie Popish corruptions and to condemn the practice of all the Reformed Churches I fear to embroil the Church of God they do it who oppose the truth I am willing to submit to the judgment of the Church when they agree with Christ but to none but Christ in what he hath appointed It is neither true that the practise of infant-baptism much lese of infant-sprinkling hath been fifteen hundred years nor if it were is it so strange a thing that God suffered such an error as that is I thank Mr. Vaughan for his ingenuous grant and his modest carriage and with expressions of my pity of his being misled by the conceit of the Churches power by which what is meant is hard to say conceiving I have answered him sufficiently I take my leave of him and pass on to Mr. Cragg Concerning whom the Reader is to be premonished that by reason of his fast speaking and

many words I was often uncertain what to apply an answer to at the dispute SECT. IV. Mr. Cragg's Dispute is examined AS for his Preface I let it pass His first Euthymene pag. 16 Some infants may not be baptized therefore some infants may be baptized is so frivolous that I neither did then nor do now think it worth any thing but contempt For if the reasoning were good it must be resolved into this Syllogism All that may not be baptized may be baptized Some Infants may not be baptized Ergo Some infants may be baptized there being no other way according to Logick Rules to make it good Any man of common sense might see the foolery of that Argument For if it be good he might in like manner say Some infants may not have the Lords Supper therefore some infants may some boys are not to be ordained Bishops therefore some are I denied the consequence and Mr. Cragg not sensible of his folly prints a Syllogism which shews he proved not what was to be proved which when I would have rectified by shewing what he should have concluded he run on so fast in his vain prattle that the Reader may easily perceive I had reason to say What would the man say The next Argument is concerning the essence of Baptism which he saith belonged to infants therefore they may be baptized and then insinuates me to have been driven to absurdities in denying that Baptism is a relation and Austins definition of a Sacrament To which I answer 1. This proposition the essence of baptism belongs to infants may have two senses 1. That the Baptism of infants is true Baptism that is is according to transcendental verity such as hath the nature of Baptism and in this sense I grant the Proposition is true and so it is true that an infants eating bread and drinking wine is true eating and drinking the Lords Supper it hath the essence of it but this I did not imagine he meant and therefore denied his minor till his next Syllogism shewed he meant it and then I perceived I should have denied the major But his quickness and multiplying words would not permit me to recall my self 2. The other sense is this the essence of Baptism that is that which is of the essence to right Administration of Baptism belongs to infants in which sense I denied it nor doth his Argument from the definition prove it for it is all one as to argue infant-baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism As for the absurdities he imputes to me I deny them to be absurdities For I take Baptism to be either an action or passion though Christian Baptism have a relation superadded and so in the use is a sign and the genus of it which is of the essence I should make an action As for the other absurdity I do confess that the term Sacrament being but a term invented by Latine Fathers may be laid aside nor is there any common nature of Sacraments expressed in Scripture And I confess I take Austins definition if it be his that a Sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace to be but imperfect sith it may be applied to the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove Christs washing of his Disciples feet a persons kneeling and holding up his hands to pray the kissing of the Bible and many other actions which are not Sacraments I confess I was weary of these quirks and imagining that he used them onely to weary me and blunt my attention and to make some oftentation of himself I replied not to his vain talk but called for Scripture-proof As for that which he saith I denyed all that were Church-members were to be baptized and yet affirmed it in my Sermon in both I said true the former being understood of invisible the latter of visible Church-members In the Argument pag. 24. Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospel But c. Ergo Had not Mr. Craggs quickness hindered me I had shewed the vanity of the major as well as denied the minor For if he mean by Church-members visible Church-members and by actually receiving into Covenant understand such an actual receiving as is without any act of faith or Profession of the persons received into Covenant as I conceive he doth I deny the major But I also denied the minor In the next Proof he changeth the term of actually receiving into being in Covenant Now there is a manifest difference between them sith a person may be in Covenant that is have a Covenant made to him who is not yet born as Isaak Gen. 17. 21. But he is not actually received into Covenant till he be born and by some acts of his own engageth himself to be Gods receiving importing an offering which is to be done by Profession As for his Proof from Gen. 17. 7. I had many Exceptions against it First that 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 of Canaan is promised to be everlasting and yet the Jews dispossessed now of it Which Mr. Cragg grants and therefore must needs grant that the Promise Verse 7. though it be termed everlasting yet it is to be understood onely of a limited time as in other passages Exod. 21. 6. 12. 24 c. if meant of the natural seed of Abraham Nor is he resieved by saying They shall have Canaan again for however the Possession was not everlasting that is at all times particularly not in Gospel-times As for his Proof of the continuance of the Gospel Covenant unto the end of the world to Abraham and his seed the very Text he allegeth Gal. 3. 8. doth manifestly express the thing promised to be justification and that of the Heathen and that through faith that had not the man a face which could not blush he would have been ashamed to have urged it to prove that Abrahams natural seed were promised to be in Covenant under the Gospel And his next allegation is as vain that because Deut. 29. 10 11. The whole congregation of Israel are said to stand before the Lord with their little ones to enter into Covenant therefore the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. is to continue to infant natural seed of Abraham to the end of the worlds whereas the speech is onely of a transient fact not of a command much less of a promise of something perpetually future and what is said of the little ones is as well said of wives hewers of wood and drawers of water and therefore if thence be concluded a continuance of covenant to infants a continuance of covenant to wives and servants will be concluded His allegation of Heb. 8. 6. is as vain For he brings it to prove That if infants were in covenant under the

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