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
A PLEA FOR Anti-Paedobaptists Against the Vanity and Falshood of SCRIBLED PAPERS ENTITULED The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a Publique 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. JOB II. 2 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered and should a man full of talk be justified Should thy lies or devices make men hold their peace and when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed LONDON Printed by Henry Hills and are to be sold at his house at the sign of Sir John Old-Castle in Py-Corner 1654. A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists against the Vanity and Falshood of SCRIBLED PAPERS SECT. I. The reason of this writing is rendred THere came newly to my hands a Pamphlet wherein the Intitler speaks like a vain braggadochio as if the book had ript up the Anabaptists as he terms them and like a Prelate had silenced them though there was but one whom with any face it could be pretended that he was anatomized or silenced who yet speaks and writes for the truth which these Opponents do endeavour to disgrace and rejoiceth that he lives to find that these men have no other thing to charge him with than his contending for a reformation of that prophane abuse of infant-sprinkling and that they have no other encouragement from him to persist in their Paedobaptism but a fond hope of his returning to that sinful practice The Libel hath a Frontispice which pretends to shew the manner of the Anabaptists dipping but most falsly sith it represents it to the eyes of the Beholders as if they held persons by the heels when they baptize them which is otherwise than their practice The pretended manner of Laying on of hands and Washing of feet is unknown to me if they do use it yet they have such likely proofs from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practice and command John 13. as might have deterred the Author of this Frontispice from exposing the ordinance of Baptism and those other rites to contempt had he any reverence to holy things and regard to Chrisis appointment But the Frontispice of Dr. Featlies book and this with the Epistles and other passages do give occasion to intelligent persons to conceive that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christs Ordinance and that they have little mind to search for or receive truth but to expose them that are for believers baptism and against infant-sprinkling to the contempt of light and profane wits and to the hatred of the ignorant and superstitious common people And I conceive that this book is published by men of that spirit who seek to make odious the endeavoured reformation of ignorance superstition profanenesse and ungodliness which abounds in those parts and to uphold those either loose or formal pretended Ministers who take upon them to teach but do indeed as Elymas the Sorcerer Acts 13. pervert the right way of the Lord Surely did they seek the truth in love they would not so insult over tender consciences as they do encourage the looser sort and deter the enquiring souls from the wayes of Christ For my self as I have found from others so I deprehend in these men the same unrighteous spirit in their reporting my answers and publishing them in print without my revising of them though it were proposed and as I remember yielded by one that in a private way I should have his arguments sent to me in writing for the other after 2 Copies of his Sermon sent me yet I wrote to know whether he would own them nor did publish any thing though I had sent some animadversions on the notes I received of which I was told one copy was shewed to Mr. Cragg himself and not disowned by him And I do account it a shameful practice which these men and another before have used towards me that after I have been drawn to a verbal extemporary dispute and no common notary agreed on yet my answers are published by them without ever allowing me the sight of them that I might either own them or amend them afore the printing and publishing them But I see faction so prevails with them that like as if they were of the Romanists minds they allow themselves liberty to use any arts as pious frauds to bear down the truth of Antipaedobaptism And this they do with so much insolency as may stir up the inconsiderate to trample upon their Antagonist and create prejudice against the truth Which hath necessitated me in this hast to write this SECT. II. A view of the Epistles is taken WHo the J. T. P. or J. W. is I know not What the first Epistle saith of Austins rule it is neither true for then the observation of an Easter and sundry other superstitious rites should be from the Apostles nor if it were true is it true of infant-sprinkling that the whole Church held it sprinkling being not used in sundry ages instead of baptism and infant-baptism as it is now used opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen and only the Popish doctrine disclaimed by Mr. Cragg of the necessity of baptizing infants to their inheriting heaven taught by the writers called Fathers As false it is that the baptizing believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicolas Stork and others there named it being commanded by Christ practiced by the Apostles continued in the first ages without any infant-baptism and when infants were baptized it was very rarely onely in case of danger of the neernesse of death to the infant and when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought the reformation of this was sought with the first some hundreds of years afore Luther As vain is the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism which is indeed true baptism whereas the true cause is the shining forth of light from the Scriptures and other Authors not discerned formerly as now The true reason why our books and practice are permitted is because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone lest they haply should fight against God The Epistlers reasons are but his own ignorant surmises Though disputes are useful yet such unworthy artifices as I find in and after them are a just reason for me to wave them especially with such men as I have met with What the successe hath been of the disputes mentioned its not so proper to me to enquire The publishing of that at Bewdley in so unbrotherly manner hath I imagine diverted many from the truth who if they had not been willing to be deluded had never been caught with such a cheat as is the mock-titled book Plain Scripture proof for infant-baptism The rest of the disputes have not gained that I hear any credit to Paedobaptism but on the contrary among the intelligent It is true I was importuned to visit some friends at Abergaveny and did preach
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
following ver. 21 22. I perceived he meant nothing but fallacy and yet he added impudence to it in accusing me as urging it to deceive the people when his own course in concealing what would have cleered the text had a manifest shew of deceit and mine of plain dealing As for his interpretation There shall be no more an infant of daies that is infants shall not be uncapable of the seal it hath no proof but his dictate and it is without all shew of probability there being not a word of any such thing as ouâ—ward ordinances but of peace increase possession and long life as the verses before and after shew The like is to be said of his interpretation of the other part of the verse The child shall dy an hundred years old that is as an hundred years old or as well a Churchmember as if he were a hundred years old when the term as is added to the text To which he replyed that I do put in as 1 Cor. 10. 2. and Rom. 11. 19. But this latter is false I grant I do so interpret baptized 1 Cor. 10. 2 because otherwise the proposition were not true and the sense is plain according to this sense were baptized that is their passage through the Sea and under the cloud was to them as if they had been baptized and so did Grotius expound it which is the same with that which others mean when they say they were Analogically baptized But in Isaiah 65. 20. there is no need of such an interpretation and that I may use the words of Mr. Gataker Annot. on Isaiah 65. 20. The Syntax is familiar and as cleer as the day-light or Sunshine the child or youth that now is shall dy the son of an hundred years that is shall be an hundred years old when he dyeth Nor is this contrary to the Contents which though they be intituled to the Church of England yet there is no Canon or Act of any Synod which did ever make them so and who ever framed them yet I think it no disparagement to say that Mr. Gataker understood the text as well or better than he and this text was rightly made by me answerable to Zach. 8. 4. nor is there either absurdity or â—ntruth or blasphomy in my interpretation which might be shewed by transcribing Mr. Gatakers forementioned notes on Isaiah 65. 17 19 25. were it not I am forced to be brief What I said about Dr. Prideaux his use was true that he would require the respondent afore he answered to read the text and consider it which is necessary in Divinity disputes however Respondents be restrained in other disputes And for my Explosion at Oxford it is a meer figment and that neither Dr. Savage nor the Doctor of the Chair did avoid my argument by their answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own recital of his answer in his printed book and this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print my answer in the fit time The frivolous conceit of my fear of Mr. Craggs gunshot is foolish I do not count Mr. Craggs arguments to be of so much force as a Squib As for his argument from Mat. 28. 19. I answered that all nations or whole nations did not include every part all nations being taken synecdochically for the disciples of all nations As for his division I gave the genuine reason why infants are excepted from the precept of baptizing because they are no disciples Nor was there any defect in Logick when I did not reduce it to one of his members For capable of baptism and disciples are not terms subordinate but distinct though without opposition And though to be disciples made them capable yet there is a difference between the terms I presume Mr. Cragg thinks baptized persons already disciples yet not capable of baptism What he saith of me That I found fault with him at Rosse for translating {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} make disciples of all nations I am as sure is his fiction as that I spake any thing there to him Nor will I think any man believe I should do so except he found me now crazed in my brain that hath either read my Examen par 3. s. 12. or 13. or shall read that part of my Review now in Press in which I often assert that translation and largely answer objections to the contrary in the fifth sixth seventh eighth ninth c. of that book In which book I shall at large answer all that Mr. Baxter hath said to prove infants disciples from Acts 15. 10. As for what Mr. Cragg saith here it is frivolous For though v. 1. 5. there is mention of circumcision yet not of circumcision as acted on infants but as taught brethren and when the Apostles v. 6. did consider of the matter they did not consider of circumcision as acted but as taught and not only of circumcision but also of imposing the whole Law of Moses as necessary which was the putting the yoke v. 10. and it is ridiculous to conceive that those teachers mentioned verse 1. did attempt to do any thing to infants and therefore it is a meer wrangling to contend that the disciples on whom they would have put the yoke verse 10. were infants contrary to the constant use of the term throughout all the New Teâ—â—ament some hundreds of time As so Mr. Craggs Arguments from Acts 2. 38 39. it is false that the Apostles inference is as Mr. Cragg insinuated unless his argument have four terms that they may be baptized to whom is the promise For the Apostle expresseth a duty in the imperative mood not a â—ight in the indicative or potential it is be baptized not may be baptized as in Mr. Craggs Conclusion I excepted that those parents were not then believers which Mr. Cragg coâ—â—â—â—ied in saying They were believers in fieri though not perhaps in facto which is all one as to say they were not yet believers but in the way to it As for his saying They were believers by outward assent and disposition though perhaps not by inward assent and habit I reply 1. if they were by disposition how were they not by inward assent 2. How doth he know they were believers by outward assent and not by inward Doth he know they were hypocrites 3. What act did they shew which expressed outward assent to the acknowledgement of Christ as their Lord what Mr. Cragg saith he knows of me and tells of a ministers rule is a fault he chargeth me with as not pertaining to the dispute What he saith that Acts 2. 38. Repentance is not made a condition of being baptized is in my apprehension manifestly false For the requiring Repentance as first to be done and then Baptism to be annexed doth make it a condition of baptism as when it is said Believe and thou shalt be saved belief is made a condition of salvation His talk about incompleat repentance
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
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