Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
grace_n baptism_n covenant_n seal_n 5,819 5 9.5412 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 6 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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
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
because they were pricked in their hearts as a sufficient qualification for baptism doth make the Apostles speech as idle which requires that which they had already if Mr. Cragg say true But who will believe Mr. Cragg that the Apostle required no more to baptism but an incompleat repentance or pricking the heart v. 38. Which it is said they had before or that he took that as a sufficient qualification for baptism and yet required more as previous to it Or who will believe him that the 3000. Jewes were baptized upon an incompleat repentance when the text expressely saith Then they that gladly received the word were baptized or that there was no new act of Peter but a recapitulation of the heads of his Sermon that he preached to them before they were pricked in conscience or were exhorted to be baptized when the text saith with many other words he testified and exhorted Or that there was any {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} putting that as done after which was done before when the text doth so expresly note the order of time {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which our Translatours render then and if it be rendred therefore it proves that which was done v. 41. to be consequent on that which was done before ver. 40. To the Argument To whom the promise of grace belonged to them baptism belongs also But the promise of grace belongs to believers and their children Ergo To this I answered out of the text when they are called or are believers not before it neither belongs to fathers nor children without calling To this Mr. Cragg replyed 1. That the verb is in the Indicative present tense which implies it is to them for the present as well to your children as to you 2. The opposition is between them and their children as near to distinguish them as to whom the promise was at present from them to whom it was afar of that is in the future But all this is frivolous For 1. the verb is in the Indicative Mood when it is said The promise is to those that are afar off as well as when it is said The promise is to you and your children 2. Their being afar off is not in respect of time but of place or dwelling and the meaning is they that are in the dispersion as it is called James 1. 1. or if it were meant in the sense that it is used Ephe. 2. 15. not Romans 2. 15. as Mr. Cragg miscites yet they are said to be afar off in respect of Gods favour or their affection to him not in respect of time Lastly it is frequent even in speeches like this to put the Indicative mood present tense by an enallage of tense for the future as Matth. 5. 10 12. I added that by children is no necessity to understand infants yet Mr. Cragg contrary to the common use as Ephe. 6. 4. Col. 3. 20. would have children restrained to infants 1. Because of the notation of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to bring forth which I think he saith falsly is given sometimes to children in the womb but if it be then it overthrowes his notation for then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is not from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to bring forth for a child in the womb is not yet brought forth But how doth it appear that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies properly a young child or that child is analogum to old and young I had hitherto thought child and parent had been Relatives and that child signifies as well an elder as a younger To that of the verb of the present tense answer is before How doth Mr. Cragg prove that their children they had were young children It is vainly supposed that the Promise is to them their children as the Jews children were in covenant with their Parents The Text makes it to belong neither to parents nor children but those that God cals Does Mr. Cragg think that the unbelieving Jews had the promise And yet they were in covenant in his sense before even the whole Nation Or doth he think that Christs bloud was not avenged on them If it were How was the Remedy as large as the Disease Next Mr. Cragg argues thus They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness are capable of the outward visible part of blessing But infants of believers are holy with a covenant-holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of which Syllogism I might have denied the major there being a Covenant-holiness according to election which doth not always instate the person in that which he calls the outward visible part of the blessing by which he means title to Baptism But I denied the minor understanding it of the outward Covenant-holiness as they call it which I truly said is gibberish and however Vossius Bullinger for Grotius I think means otherwise conceive of it or the Assembly yet it is a meer mistake and that holiness of children which is mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by me to be onely matrimonial holiness or legitimation And his argument out of Mr. Baxter I justly retorted that in six hundred times in which Holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant-holiness intituling to Baptism which is a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians And as for that he replies that Rom. 11. 16. I confessed at Ross covenant-holiness is meant I grant it but not outward Covenant-holiness intituling to Baptism but that real saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Iews elected shall hereafter be graffed in again I said Ezra 9. 2. Holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed according to the law of Moses Against this it is objected that then the meaning should be The holy seed that is the lawfully begotten Iews have mingled themselves with the seed of these Lands that is the bastards of those Lands But I deny this consequence The sense is this the holy seed that is those who were descended by lawfull generation of allowed women these have taken to themselves of the daughters of the nations whom God forbad them to marry which is plain out of the vers 1 2. so that the people of the Land with whom they mingled themselves are not considered as illegitimate in there birth but as not allowed to the Israelites and yet the holy seed is that seed which by a right generation according to Moses law was legitimate As for what he saith that Iepthe was a Saint and yet a bastard it is true he was holy in one respect as borne from above yet unholy by naturall birth And whereas he saith Moses had childeren by an Ethiopian woman and yet not unholy I grant it for the Ethiopian woman was not forbidden nor were Rahab though
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-infant-baptism Therefore saith Vossius in his Theses of infant-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
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