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.
This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A62869 of text R206989 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing T1811). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread
Approx. 107 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 24 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
EarlyPrint Project
Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO
2017
A62869
Wing T1811
ESTC R206989
99866067
99866067
118327
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62869)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 118327)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 113:E738[7])
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.
[2], 44 p.
Printed by Henry Hills, and are to be sold at his house at the sign of Sir John Old-Castle in Py-Corner,
London, :
1654.
Annotation on Thomason copy: "may. 26".
Reproduction of the original in the British Library.
eng
Tombes, John, 1603?-1676 -- Early works to 1800.
Cragge, John, -- M.A. -- Early works to 1800.
Vaughan, Henry, 1617 or 18-1661 -- Early works to 1800.
Anabaptists anatomiz'd -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800.
Anabaptists -- England -- Early works to 1800.
A62869 R206989 (Wing T1811). civilwar no A plea for anti-pædobaptists, against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers, entituled, The anabaptists anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a pu Tombes, John 1654 20141 8 50 0 0 0 0 29 C The rate of 29 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the C category of texts with between 10 and 35 defects per 10,000 words.
2000-00 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2001-07 Aptara
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2001-07 TCP Staff (Michigan)
Sampled and proofread
2001-07 TCP Staff (Michigan)
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2001-11 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
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
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
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
Law
,
they
are
in
Covenant
under
the
Gospel
,
whereas
the
meliority
of
the
Covenant
is
not
placed
in
the
extent
to
the
sort
of
persons
,
for
then
it
should
be
extended
to
more
sorts
than
the
Covenant
of
the
Law
was
,
but
to
the
meliority
of
the
promises
,
which
were
of
better
things
,
or
better
terms
,
then
the
promises
of
the
Law
,
but
not
to
any
other
than
elect
and
true
believers
,
and
so
not
to
infants
as
the
natural
seed
of
believers
.
And
for
that
which
he
saith
,
This
unchurcheth
the
one
half
of
Christendome
,
and
leaves
them
no
ordinary
means
of
salvation
,
if
he
mean
by
Christendome
all
that
are
commonly
called
Christians
,
I
grant
it
,
if
the
infants
be
the
one
half
of
them
,
and
their
unchurching
be
in
respect
of
visible
Church-membership
,
but
count
it
no
absurdity
.
nor
do
know
what
ordinary
means
of
salvation
he
conceives
they
are
left
without
except
baptism
,
which
I
take
not
to
be
an
ordinary
means
of
salvation
without
faith
,
and
therefore
think
it
no
inconvenience
to
say
that
infants
are
without
ordinary
means
of
salvation
,
which
are
the
preaching
the
word
,
&c.
yet
are
saved
by
the
election
of
God
,
redemption
of
Christ
,
and
work
of
his
Spirit
.
What
I
said
,
that
the
Covenant
under
the
Gospel
was
made
onely
with
the
spiritual
seed
of
Abraham
,
was
right
,
and
determined
so
Rom.
4.
11
,
12
,
16.
Rom.
9.
7
,
8.
Gal.
3.
29.
John
8.
39.
&c.
Nor
is
it
true
because
the
partition
wall
is
broken
down
,
therefore
there
is
the
same
Covenant
national
to
the
natural
seed
of
believers
as
was
to
Abraham
,
but
that
therefore
as
the
Apostle
speaks
Ephes.
3.
6.
The
Gentiles
(
to
wit
believing
Gentiles
,
Rom.
1.
16.
)
should
be
fellowheirs
,
and
of
the
same
body
,
and
partakers
of
his
promise
in
Christ
by
the
Gospel
.
Nor
is
it
ture
,
That
the
Gospel
Covenant
is
made
with
the
whole
visible
Church
,
as
the
Gospel
Covenant
is
expressed
,
Heb.
8.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
And
if
I
denied
the
Major
pag.
29.
in
the
first
argument
,
I
confess
I
was
mistaken
through
inadvertency
,
whether
by
reason
of
Mr.
Craggs
fast
speaking
,
or
some
humane
infirmity
,
or
some
other
occuirence
now
not
remembred
,
I
cannot
tell
.
But
I
deny
the
Minor
understood
of
the
Gospel
Covenant
,
Heb.
8.
10.
and
the
whole
visible
Church
being
taken
without
any
Synecdoche
for
every
visible
Churchmember
.
But
I
perceive
by
Mr.
Craggs
words
page
30.
If
the
Church
in
regard
of
outward
administration
of
Ordinances
(
which
is
the
question
)
were
only
the
elect
,
&c.
that
the
terms
Church
and
Covenant
were
so
ambiguously
used
by
him
,
that
I
knew
not
how
to
conceive
of
his
meaning
,
and
his
fast
speaking
would
not
permit
me
deliberately
to
consider
his
words
,
and
therefore
no
marvel
I
desired
liberty
to
explain
my self
,
and
to
enquire
into
Mr.
Craggs
meaning
,
it
being
impossible
for
me
otherwise
to
answer
appositely
,
and
to
make
the
disputation
profitable
for
finding
out
truth
.
As
for
that
which
Mr.
Cragg
saith
,
That
it
was
the
question
whether
the
Church
in
regard
of
outward
administration
of
Ordinances
were
onely
the
elect
,
it
doth
untruly
suggest
as
if
I
so
conceived
,
who
,
though
I
hold
the
Church
invisible
are
the
elect
onely
,
and
that
the
Gospel
Covenant
of
grace
,
Heb.
8.
10
,
11
,
12.
is
made
to
them
only
,
yet
have
still
granted
that
the
Church
visible
consists
of
others
than
elect
persons
,
and
that
outward
ordinances
may
lawfully
be
administred
to
them
upon
their
profession
of
faith
in
Christ
.
But
Mr.
Cragg
by
confounding
these
terms
[
to
be
in
Covenant
,
to
be
subjects
of
baptism
,
&c.
]
misleads
unwary
hearers
and
readers
.
The
next
text
Mr.
Cragg
brought
was
Isaiah
49.
22.
whence
he
would
prove
that
Infants
should
be
Churchmembers
under
the
Gospel
.
To
which
my
answer
was
at
first
(
though
it
was
otherwise
taken
)
that
it
is
a
prophecy
that
the
Gentiles
should
bring
back
the
Jewes
,
not
only
infants
but
others
,
from
captivity
,
which
the
words
before
verse
19
,
20
,
21.
and
after
verse
24
,
25.
do
plainly
evince
;
and
this
is
given
as
the
meaning
by
the
New
Annotations
made
by
Mr.
Gataker
,
who
doth
on
verse
23.
say
,
it
was
fulfilled
in
those
Persian
Potentates
,
Cyrus
,
Artaxerxes
,
Darius
,
Ahasuerus
.
Nor
is
there
in
the
Contents
of
the
Chapter
(
which
Mr.
Cragg
without
ground
makes
the
judgement
of
the
Church
of
England
)
any
thing
to
the
contrary
,
but
the
words
,
which
are
[
18.
The
ample
restauration
of
the
Church
,
24.
The
powerfull
deliverance
out
of
the
Captivity
]
do
rather
confirm
this
.
If
any
people
laughed
at
this
,
they
shewed
their
ignorance
,
and
Mr.
Cragg
shewed
his
heedlessness
when
he
said
,
That
it
was
an
addition
to
the
text
that
the
Gentiles
should
bring
the
lewes
,
when
the
very
distinction
of
[
thy
children
]
from
[
the
Gentiles
]
shews
it
meant
of
the
Jewes
,
otherwise
it
should
have
been
[
their
children
]
in
the
third
person
,
not
[
thine
]
in
the
second
;
nor
can
it
be
meant
of
Gods
children
as
his
,
for
then
it
should
be
[
mine
]
in
the
first
person
,
for
God
speaks
those
words
.
Though
I
deny
not
but
the
words
may
be
accommodated
to
the
times
of
the
Gospel
,
but
not
to
Mr.
Craggs
purpose
of
bringing
infants
to
baptism
,
which
hath
no
colour
from
the
text
.
Which
appears
by
considering
Mr.
Craggs
answer
to
my
questions
put
forth
needfully
to
cleer
the
text
.
For
1.
if
by
[
standard
]
be
meant
[
baptism
]
which
the
Scripture
never
calls
Gods
standard
,
and
the
bringing
should
be
to
baptism
,
then
the
sense
should
be
that
Supreme
Magistrates
as
Kings
&
and
Queens
should
bringinfants
in
their
arms
,
and
carrythem
on
shoulders
to
baptism
,
which
no
story
ever
mentions
to
have
been
done
,
and
is
too
srivolous
to
be
made
the
matter
of
that
prophecy
.
2.
The
terms
[
nursing
Fathers
,
and
nursing
Mothers
]
shew
it
to
be
a
Metaphor
,
wch
Mr.
Cragg
granting
,
though
it
follow
not
,
that
nothing
could
be
gathered
from
it
,
yet
it
follows
,
that
Mr.
Craggs
application
,
which
is
according
to
the
proper
sense
of
the
words
,
is
not
right
.
What
I
said
,
that
it
was
fulfilled
in
Hesters
time
,
I
said
rightly
,
and
Mr.
Gataker
before
me
in
those
Annotations
of
his
which
are
taken
for
the
most
incomparably
learned
,
and
Hester
as
a
Queen
among
the
Gentiles
,
might
well
be
stiled
a
nursing
mother
to
the
Jewes
.
I
will
not
trouble
my self
to
examine
Mr.
Craggs
dictates
,
but
refer
the
Reader
to
the
notes
of
Mr.
Gataker
.
As
for
what
I
said
,
that
though
it
should
be
understood
of
the
times
of
the
Gospel
,
yet
it
might
be
meant
of
grown
men
perswaded
by
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
as
Junius
in
his
Annot.
was
true
.
Nor
doth
the
bringing
in
the
bosome
being
a
Metaphor
prove
they
were
infants
.
And
if
so
,
the
Church
is
spoken
to
,
and
the
children
were
both
the
Gentiles
children
,
and
yet
[
thy
children
]
that
is
the
Churches
.
And
so
there
's
no
interfering
in
my
words
.
The
next
text
was
Isaiah
65.
20.
in
reading
which
Mr.
Cragg
left
out
those
words
,
nor
an
old
man
that
hath
not
filled
his
daies
,
nor
would
read
them
,
nor
the
words
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
ou●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
●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
Te●●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
●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
co●●●●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
,
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
a
Canaanitess
,
nor
Ruth
a
Moabitess
when
they
joyned
themselves
to
the
God
of
Israel
prohibited
,
or
there
children
illegitimate
:
yet
this
is
not
the
same
with
Covenant-holiness
,
intituling
to
Church-ordinances
,
but
legitimation
intituling
to
be
reckoned
in
the
genealogy
and
inheritance
of
Israel
.
The
last
argument
Mr
Cragg
used
was
this
,
They
that
Christ
took
up
in
his
arms
,
blessed
,
said
,
the
Kingdom
of
God
belonged
unto
them
,
pronounced
a
curse
upon
those
that
despised
,
and
would
not
receive
them
,
are
holy
with
a
covenant-holiness
;
But
Christ
lock
up
little
children
into
his
arms
,
blessed
them
,
said
,
the
Kingdom
of
God
belonged
unto
them
,
pronounced
a
curse
upon
those
that
despised
,
and
would
not
receive
them
:
therefore
little
children
are
holy
with
a
covenant-holiness
.
In
this
Argument
I
denied
the
minor
,
after
some
debate
about
the
way
of
forming
of
it
,
in
which
I
imagined
that
fallacy
I
do
not
now
upon
fight
deprehend
,
&
particularly
I
denied
,
that
Christ
pronounced
a
curse
upon
those
that
despised
and
would
not
receive
them
.
Then
he
alleged
Mat.
18.
2.
whence
he
argued
,
They
to
whom
belongs
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
are
holy
&
in
covenant
:
But
to
little
children
belongs
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
;
therefore
little
children
are
holy
and
in
covenant
.
In
which
Argument
any
Reader
may
perceive
he
proved
not
what
I
denied
,
that
Christ
pronounced
a
curse
upon
those
that
despised
,
and
would
not
receive
little
children
or
infants
,
and
yet
that
Text
he
alleged
did
not
say
of
little
children
,
that
to
them
belongs
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
but
those
that
were
not
to
be
offended
,
v.
6.
despised
,
v.
10.
were
to
be
received
in
Christs
name
,
v.
5.
were
not
little
children
in
age
,
but
little
ones
in
spirit
,
which
appeared
in
that
they
are
said
to
be
believers
,
v.
6.
and
to
be
converted
,
and
become
as
little
children
.
To
which
,
as
the
Relator
himself
sets
it
down
,
Mr.
Cragg
said
,
The
meaning
is
not
,
that
the
little
children
are
converted
,
which
is
a
grant
of
what
I
alleged
,
that
the
little
ones
not
to
be
offended
,
despised
,
but
received
,
were
not
little
children
in
age
,
but
affection
of
humility
.
Mr.
Cragg
added
,
But
it
hath
relation
to
the
Desciples
in
the
first
Verse
,
who
must
be
converted
from
their
actual
sins
,
and
become
as
little
children
which
have
no
actual
sin
.
At
which
words
it
is
true
,
I
said
,
and
that
justly
,
O
how
unhappy
are
the
People
that
are
seduced
with
these
Toys
,
Are
you
not
ashamed
?
To
which
he
replied
,
and
it
seems
is
not
ashamed
that
it
is
printed
,
I
see
nothing
worthy
of
shame
:
whereas
if
this
speech
of
his
were
true
,
then
this
is
a
truth
,
Except
men
be
converted
from
their
actual
sins
,
and
become
as
little
children
,
which
have
no
actual
sin
,
they
shall
not
enter
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
:
for
this
is
the
meaning
of
Christs
words
,
Matth.
18.
3.
according
to
Mr.
Craggs
interpretation
,
which
whosoever
believes
must
of
necessity
despair
of
Heaven
,
sith
as
James
saith
,
Chap.
3.
2.
In
many
things
we
offend
all
:
and
John
1.
Epist.
chap.
1.
ver.
8.
If
we
say
that
we
have
no
sin
,
we
deceive
our selves
,
and
the
truth
is
not
in
us
.
That
which
Mr.
Cragg
added
,
that
the
Disciples
were
believers
which
are
meant
Matth.
18.
6.
and
not
the
children
,
and
yet
saith
,
his
argument
remains
unanswered
,
hath
more
of
impudence
in
it
.
For
his
argument
being
that
Christ
pronounced
a
curse
on
them
that
despised
and
received
not
little
ones
in
age
,
and
yet
confessing
that
this
was
meant
not
of
little
ones
in
age
,
but
Disciples
,
believers
in
him
,
it
is
the
heighth
of
impudency
to
say
his
argument
is
unanswered
,
when
his
own
confession
answerd
it
.
Justly
here
,
after
five
hours
time
,
having
promised
but
one
,
did
I
breakoff
,
and
having
had
experience
of
Mr.
Craggs
meet
cavilling
at
Rosse
and
Abergaveny
,
dwelling
many
miles
from
that
Town
,
and
finding
nothing
in
him
,
and
those
other
Paedobaptists
I
have
answered
,
but
a
spirit
of
wrangling
,
I
yielded
not
to
any
other
Dispute
,
nor
shall
for
time
to
come
,
being
now
sufficiently
taught
by
experience
what
dealing
I
am
like
to
have
,
yield
to
such
disputes
.
As
for
that
which
Mr.
Cragg
saith
,
He
was
hurried
to
that
extemporal
discourse
through
importunity
,
I
do
not
believe
it
,
being
advertised
before
,
that
if
I
came
to
Abergaveny
he
would
oppose
me
.
That
the
speech
of
him
that
said
I
answered
nothing
,
was
the
speech
of
an
impudent
,
brazen-faced
fellow
,
I
think
any
will
judge
who
reads
this
my
writing
.
For
Mr.
Baxter
,
whatever
his
worth
be
,
yet
how
justly
I
might
say
(
though
the
words
set
down
were
not
used
as
the
Relator
expresseth
them
)
that
I
have
answered
all
he
saith
against
me
,
will
appear
in
the
Review
of
the
Dispute
between
him
and
me
,
and
others
,
of
which
part
of
it
is
printed
,
part
in
the
Press
,
and
the
rest
(
if
the
Lord
permit
)
shall
not
be
slackned
.
Mr.
Craggs
arguments
from
John
3.
5.
Romans
11.
and
other
places
,
if
they
be
not
in
his
Sermon
(
to
the
examining
of
which
I
now
hasten
)
yet
are
they
in
other
books
answered
by
me
:
I
shall
take
some
view
of
his
Sermon
on
which
I
had
made
some
Animadversions
before
,
according
to
the
imperfect
Copy
I
had
then
,
and
sent
them
to
A
ergaveny
,
but
have
them
not
now
by
me
in
London
,
yet
however
in
this
straight
of
time
I
think
it
necessary
to
write
thus
much
.
SECT.
V.
Mr.
Craggs
Sermon
is
examined
.
FIrst
he
saith
[
and
is
baptized
]
pag.
72.
to
be
a
conditional
qualification
,
and
yet
in
the
dispute
he
denyed
that
repentance
is
a
condition
of
baptism
Acts
2.
38.
His
observation
out
of
Dr.
Buckeridge
p.
73.
is
frivolous
,
for
the
Apostle
1
Cor.
12.
28.
saith
as
well
of
Apostles
as
of
ordinary
Pastors
and
Teachers
,
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
he
for
them
,
or
,
if
he
will
,
fixed
them
.
But
it
seems
Mr.
Cragg
hath
a
special
tooth
at
Itinerants
,
though
his
Relator
claw
Mr.
Cr.
and
Mr.
W.
But
what
he
saith
,
that
it
is
too
strict
an
interpretation
to
expound
Mark
16.
15.
of
men
of
age
and
understanding
,
excluding
children
,
shews
he
little
considers
what
he
saith
.
For
if
it
be
so
,
then
Christ
,
commandeth
the
Apostles
to
preach
the
Gospel
to
infants
,
and
sith
Mr.
Cragg
is
bound
to
do
so
,
he
sheweth
that
he
sins
against
his
own
light
,
if
he
do
not
so
.
But
how
foolish
it
would
be
for
him
to
attempt
it
,
his
own
words
shew
,
when
he
saith
,
Infants
are
not
capable
to
be
taught
of
men
.
And
when
he
saith
,
That
infants
only
in
actu
primo
are
capable
of
the
first
seeds
of
understanding
,
of
profession
of
faith
,
I
would
know
,
in
what
sense
they
are
sensible
of
the
benefit
they
have
by
Christ
.
And
whereas
he
grants
,
That
baptism
is
necessary
by
necessi●y
of
precept
if
conveniently
it
may
be
had
,
it
is
all
I
assested
in
my
Sermen
,
when
I
said
all
that
would
be
saved
must
be
baptized
after
profession
.
If
Austin
were
a
hard
Father
to
infants
for
holding
they
must
be
baptized
or
not
see
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
then
Mr.
Cragg
cannot
gather
from
John
3.
5.
infants
baptism
.
From
Mark
16.
16.
is
rightly
gathered
that
believing
is
to
be
before
baptism
,
and
yet
from
Mark
1.
4.
it
is
not
rightly
gathered
that
we
must
be
baptized
,
before
we
can
hear
the
word
preached
or
repent
;
For
the
text
doth
not
express
that
John
baptized
afore
he
preached
,
but
recites
these
two
as
connexed
,
yet
the
latter
is
put
first
,
not
because
first
done
,
but
because
he
was
to
set
down
more
amply
what
he
preached
.
Though
we
cannot
know
that
the
person
to
be
baptized
hath
a
saving
faith
,
yet
a
saving
faith
is
the
rule
of
baptism
to
the
person
baptized
,
he
should
not
undertake
that
ordinance
without
a
saving
faith
;
and
in
respect
of
the
baptizer
,
so
far
as
he
can
discern
,
he
should
require
a
saving
faith
of
those
he
baptizeth
.
Dipping
over
head
,
or
baptizing
over
head
,
after
profession
of
faith
,
is
no
invention
of
man
,
but
the
Command
of
Christ
,
practice
of
the
Apostles
,
and
their
Successors
for
many
ages
,
and
infant-baptism
was
opposed
many
ages
afore
John
of
Leyden
,
who
though
he
were
otherwise
not
to
be
justified
,
yet
I
do
not
remember
that
any
hath
written
he
ever
confessed
that
he
had
that
doctrine
from
Satan
.
But
Mr.
Cragg
saith
,
Baptizing
is
in
Greek
any
washing
whether
by
dipping
or
sprinkling
.
And
he
cites
Ravanel
who
hath
made
a
Dictionary
according
to
the
present
use
of
terms
.
But
he
shews
not
out
of
any
of
the
Pillars
,
as
he
calls
them
,
of
the
Greek
tongue
,
that
baptizing
in
Greek
ever
signifies
to
sprinkle
.
He
confesses
that
Casaubon
in
his
notes
on
Matth.
3.
6.
distinguisheth
between
baptizing
and
rantizing
or
sprinkling
,
But
saith
,
The
whole
state
of
the
question
is
determined
against
me
,
because
he
addes
,
that
their
judgement
is
deservedly
long
since
exploded
,
and
trampled
down
,
that
would
have
baptizing
to
be
by
dipping
,
seeing
the
force
and
efficacy
of
this
mystery
consists
not
in
that
.
But
1.
by
Mr.
Craggs
leave
the
question
is
plainly
determined
for
me
by
Casaubon
,
when
he
distinguisheth
between
baptizing
and
sprinkling
,
for
that
is
the
question
,
not
wherein
the
efficacy
and
force
of
the
mystery
consists
.
2.
Though
Casaubon
were
a
very
learned
man
,
yet
this
speech
of
his
is
not
right
.
For
we
are
to
observe
what
Christ
appoints
,
though
the
efficacy
and
force
of
the
mystery
of
Sacrament
consist
not
in
it
,
as
we
are
to
break
bread
,
not
take
a
wafer-cake
down
whole
,
drink
wine
in
the
Lords
Supper
,
because
of
the
institution
,
though
the
force
and
efficacy
of
the
mystery
consist
not
in
it
.
Mr.
Craggs
speeches
out
of
Aquinas
and
Dominicus
à
Sato
,
are
of
no
weight
with
them
who
know
who
those
Doctors
were
,
to
wit
,
Papists
,
and
very
unskilful
in
the
Greek
language
.
It
is
as
vain
which
Mr.
Cragg
saith
the
Israelites
were
baptized
when
their
feet
did
but
touch
the
water
,
for
the
text
saith
Exo.
14.
29.
they
walked
upon
dry
land
in
the
middest
of
the
Sea
,
and
the
waters
were
a
wall
unto
them
on
their
right
hand
and
on
their
left
,
and
therefore
their
feet
did
not
so
much
as
touch
the
water
,
much
less
were
they
sprinkled
with
it
.
And
if
the
Israelites
were
baptized
in
the
cloud
,
and
yet
no
water
upon
them
,
then
the
text
1Cor
.
10.
2.
doth
not
prove
baptizing
to
be
by
sprinkling
,
but
proves
plainly
that
as
Hugo
Grotius
said
they
were
baptized
,
that
is
,
they
were
as
if
they
had
been
baptized
,
or
as
other
,
they
were
analogically
baptized
,
that
is
in
proportion
,
or
likeness
,
not
formally
,
that
is
according
to
what
is
meant
by
that
term
.
It
is
without
proof
,
yea
false
which
Mr.
Cragg
saith
,
Where
is
mention●●●●●●
in
the
Gospel
of
washing
themselves
,
of
Cups
,
of
Vessels
,
of
Tables
,
this
cannot
be
meant
of
plunging
in
water
,
so
often
,
but
rinsing
.
For
water
was
not
so
scarce
but
that
they
might
do
it
by
dipping
as
well
as
sprinkling
.
He
might
have
seen
Ainsworth
on
Levit.
11.
32.
who
out
of
the
Hebrew
Canons
tells
us
,
All
that
are
unclean
,
whether
Men
or
Vessels
,
are
not
cleansed
,
but
by
dipping
(
or
baptizing
)
in
water
:
And
wheresoever
the
Law
speaketh
of
washing
a
mans
flesh
,
or
washing
of
clothes
for
uncleanness
,
it
is
not
but
by
dipping
the
whole
body
therein
.
Me
thinks
Mr.
Cragg
should
allow
Anabaptists
to
make
consequences
though
they
allow
not
his
.
And
that
John
Baptists
and
Philips
going
down
into
the
water
,
proves
something
me thinks
Mr.
Cragg
should
not
deny
,
sith
it
cannot
reasonably
be
imagined
they
should
go
down
,
not
to
the
water
,
as
Mr.
Cragg
would
have
it
,
but
into
the
water
,
whereas
for
baptizing
a
person
a
man
might
easily
have
fetched
or
taken
water
out
of
any
spring
to
baptize
with
,
if
it
had
been
so
to
be
done
by
sprinkling
,
and
not
by
dipping
.
But
if
he
please
to
see
a
book
intituled
Of
Baptism
,
written
by
an
eminent
man
in
the
State
,
he
might
see
many
of
the
prime
writers
,
even
leading
Protestants
,
gathering
dipping
thence
,
as
used
then
in
baptizing
.
The
like
they
do
from
John
3.
23.
Of
which
whatever
Geographer
or
Traveller
saith
,
Enon
(
where
John
baptized
)
was
a
little
brook
that
one
may
stride
over
scarce
knee
deep
,
and
therefore
not
capable
of
dipping
(
which
doth
not
follow
)
deserves
not
to
be
believed
in
this
.
Out
of
Rom.
64
,
we
do
not
press
a
necessity
of
dipping
,
because
of
the
resemblance
,
but
from
the
resemblance
alluded
to
shew
the
use
then
,
ingenuously
confessed
by
Mr.
Vaugban
,
and
therefore
should
be
the
use
still
.
Nor
doth
it
follow
,
we
must
ly●
three
daies
and
nights
in
water
,
the
resemblance
of
Christs
burial
is
to
be
continued
though
not
the
duration
.
Whatever
other
resemblance
there
may
be
of
our
burial
with
Christ
,
yet
we
are
to
follow
the
institution
and
practice
set
down
in
Scripture
,
from
which
he
that
swerves
(
as
Sprinkless
do
)
do
sin
against
Christs
command
,
whatever
any
Divines
or
Assemblies
of
men
say
to
the
contrary
.
It
is
well
Mr.
Cragg
confesseth
,
That
if
he
were
to
baptize
converted
Turks
or
Pagans
of
ripe
age
he
might
baptize
them
by
dipping
:
it
shews
that
it
is
only
for
infants
sake
that
the
institution
of
Christ
is
altered
,
and
so
one
corruption
hath
brought
in
another
.
What
he
addes
,
Provided
their
garments
were
not
first
baptized
or
washed
,
intimates
he
would
have
them
naked
,
which
Mr.
Baxter
would
conclude
to
be
against
the
sixth
and
seventh
Command
,
and
he
may
do
well
to
school
Mr.
Cragg
for
it
.
His
reason
is
as
foolish
,
though
the
Garments
be
baptized
in
water
,
yet
are
not
baptized
with
that
use
that
the
person
is
,
but
by
accident
,
nor
baptized
as
Bells
to
drive
away
Devils
,
Nor
is
by
baptizing
the
garment
any
worship
done
to
it
,
as
the
Church
of
Rome
doth
to
the
image
:
For
then
the
baptizing
the
body
should
be
worshipping
it
,
the
Garments
and
body
are
not
worshipped
at
all
by
baptizing
,
and
therefore
foolishly
is
it
compared
to
Romish
Superstition
and
Idolatry
.
He
that
affirms
that
baptizing
without
dipping
is
not
lawful
,
that
it
is
will-worship
,
that
the
sprinkling
used
is
a
nullity
,
that
notwithstanding
such
pretended
baptism
,
yet
baptism
remains
a
duty
,
speaks
but
truth
.
The
decree
of
the
Senate
of
Zurick
was
an
unrighteous
decree
,
which
,
whatever
state
follows
,
it
will
draw
the
guilt
of
murdering
innocent
persons
on
it
,
and
Mr.
Cragg
by
reciting
it
with
seeming
approbation
,
doth
make
it
probable
that
he
is
a
bloody-minded
man
,
who
would
rejoice
to
see
innocent
men
,
who
out
of
tenderresse
of
conscience
follow
the
plain
rule
of
Christ
,
so
put
to
death
:
which
it
s
not
unlikely
to
be
the
aim
of
his
,
or
his
Complices
printing
this
book
against
those
he
calls
Anabaptists
,
that
he
might
stir
up
either
Magistrates
or
furious
common
people
against
them
.
Mr.
Cragg
saith
,
He
hath
resolved
the
former
doubt
,
that
baptizing
is
not
dipping
,
and
yet
page
81.
the
Authors
he
cites
,
and
by
citing
approves
,
do
all
make
dipping
or
dying
one
of
the
first
of
its
significations
.
Now
he
undertakes
to
prove
that
infants
may
,
nay
ought
to
be
baptized
.
And
he
begins
as
an
Advocate
for
infants
with
this
childish
preface
,
that
those
poor
souls
cannot
speak
for
themselves
,
as
if
in
speaking
for
their
baptism
he
spake
for
them
,
when
he
doth
thereby
rather
speak
for
that
which
is
to
their
hurt
,
and
calls
them
poor
souls
,
whom
before
he
called
Saints
.
There
is
more
in
his
pittyfull
preface
,
He
supposeth
,
if
the
Apostles
had
been
asked
,
why
they
did
not
put
down
Infant-baptism
in
plainer
terms
,
they
would
have
answered
,
that
they
thought
none
would
have
denyed
it
.
And
I
suppose
they
would
have
answered
,
that
they
thought
none
would
have
affirmed
it
,
being
quite
against
Christs
appointment
,
and
their
practice
,
who
had
then
no
such
custome
,
nor
the
Churches
of
God
.
The
rest
,
as
it
is
taken
from
Mr.
Baxter
,
so
it
is
answered
in
the
answer
to
him
now
in
the
Press
sect.
3.
Le
ts
view
Mr.
Craggs
Arguments
.
His
first
is
,
Those
that
are
in
Covenant
with
God
ought
to
have
the
seal
of
the
Covenant
which
is
baptism
;
But
infants
of
believing
parents
are
in
Covenant
with
God
;
Ergo
.
He
saith
,
The
former
Proposition
is
firm
by
the
confession
of
all
Diviues
,
even
our
adversaries
,
and
cites
five
,
but
not
where
they
say
it
,
nor
is
any
one
his
Adversary
in
this
point
.
It
is
true
Ferus
was
a
Popish
Frier
,
though
more
ingenuous
than
most
of
them
.
But
doth
Mr.
Cragg
think
we
must
take
that
for
true
,
which
Protestants
and
Papists
do
avow
without
any
proof
from
Scripture
?
If
so
,
then
let
us
lay
aside
the
Scripture
,
and
read
their
books
.
But
he
might
know
,
and
t
is
likely
did
know
,
that
I
(
though
I
will
not
take
on
me
the
name
of
a
Divine
)
yet
have
denyed
,
yea
and
proved
his
former
proposition
to
be
false
Exam.
par
.
3.
sect.
1.
Letter
to
Mr.
Bayly
sect.
3.
Anti-pae
lob
.
Or
Full
Review
first
part
sect.
5.
which
shall
be
fully
vindicated
(
God
assisting
)
in
the
third
part
.
Yea
were
his
arguing
good
,
it
would
prove
infants
were
wronged
because
they
had
not
the
communion
.
For
I
can
as
well
from
his
own
medium
prove
that
they
are
to
have
it
,
as
he
Baptism
.
The
Minor
he
takes
on
him
to
prove
from
Genesis
17.
7.
But
there
is
not
a
word
of
infants
of
believing
parents
.
But
to
prove
it
he
ci
es
Cornelius
à
Lapide
,
a
Jesuit
,
for
him
,
and
yet
had
he
not
falsly
translated
his
words
,
the
words
would
have
appeared
to
be
against
him
.
For
whereas
he
renders
them
in
,
The
spiritual
seed
to
the
faithful
(
which
mars
his
sense
)
it
is
,
In
the
spiritual
seed
the
faithful
.
So
likewise
Gal.
3.
8.
though
there
be
not
the
term
Abrahams
seed
,
yet
it
is
directly
against
him
,
for
it
asserts
justification
to
the
believing
Gentiles
onely
from
Abrahams
promise
,
not
a
promise
to
them
and
their
seed
.
I
deny
not
but
that
Isaac
was
in
Covenant
with
God
,
that
is
,
a
child
of
the
promise
,
not
onely
when
he
was
but
eight
days
old
,
but
also
afore
the
seventh
,
yea
afore
he
was
born
;
but
when
he
saith
,
he
had
the
seal
(
meaning
Circumcision
)
by
virtue
of
the
Lamb
to
be
slain
,
it
is
strange
Divinity
to
me
,
who
never
heard
or
read
that
any
person
was
circumcised
by
virtue
of
Christs
death
,
but
by
reason
of
Gods
command
.
And
that
which
he
saith
,
Much
more
the
Children
of
believing
Parents
by
virtue
of
the
Lamb
that
is
already
slain
,
which
seems
to
intimate
,
that
Circumcision
is
due
to
them
much
more
,
and
that
by
virtue
of
Christs
death
,
is
a
foppery
like
to
the
Authors
ingeny
.
He
saith
,
Deut.
29.
11.
When
all
the
People
stood
in
covenant
before
the
Lord
,
their
little
ones
are
mentioned
amongst
the
rest
.
And
are
not
their
wives
,
and
servants
,
hewers
of
wood
,
and
drawers
of
water
?
Are
all
these
in
covenant
with
God
?
How
doth
he
prove
they
were
believers
infants
?
The
words
v.
4.
seem
to
make
to
the
contrary
.
It
is
no
shift
but
a
manifest
truth
,
that
those
,
Acts
2.
38
,
39.
to
whom
Peter
said
,
The
Promise
is
to
you
and
your
childdren
,
were
not
then
believers
in
Christ
,
when
the
words
were
spoken
to
them
.
For
,
1.
the
Apostle
exhorts
to
repentance
,
therefore
they
had
not
yet
repented
,
and
so
were
not
believers
.
Mr.
Cragg
himself
,
pag.
78.
in
this
Sermon
saith
,
Repentance
is
a
fruit
and
effect
of
faith
,
therefore
according
to
him
,
not
before
it
.
And
in
the
Dispute
,
pag.
52.
he
made
them
believers
in
fieri
,
with
an
incompleat
repentance
,
though
perhaps
not
believers
in
facto
,
2
.
v
.
40.
he
exhorted
them
with
more
words
,
and
then
v.
41.
some
of
them
gladly
received
the
Word
,
and
were
believers
.
Yet
Peter
said
to
them
before
they
were
believers
,
The
Promise
is
to
you
and
your
children
,
nor
is
there
a
word
in
the
Text
that
makes
it
clear
,
that
as
soon
as
they
were
believers
their
children
were
in
covenant
with
them
,
and
to
be
baptized
.
His
second
argument
is
,
Such
as
were
circumcised
under
the
Law
may
be
baptized
under
the
Gospels
:
But
infants
of
believers
were
circumcised
under
the
Law
;
Therefore
they
may
be
baptized
under
the
Gospel
.
He
cites
Whitaker
saying
,
all
the
Anabaptists
shall
not
be
able
to
resist
this
argument
.
I
answer
,
notwithstanding
so
learned
a
mans
conceit
,
it
hath
not
the
force
of
a
feather
so
as
to
need
resistance
.
To
it
I
answer
,
1.
Indirectly
by
retortion
.
Such
as
were
circumcised
under
the
Law
may
be
baptized
under
the
Gospel
:
But
infants
of
unbelievers
,
as
the
males
bought
with
Abrahams
money
of
the
stranger
,
not
of
his
seed
,
Gen.
17
,
12
,
13
,
23
,
27.
persons
out
of
Covenant
as
Ishmael
,
Gen.
17
,
19
,
21
,
25.
were
circumcised
under
the
Law
:
Ergo
.
If
the
one
be
irresistible
so
is
other
.
2.
Directly
,
by
denying
the
Major
if
it
be
universal
;
if
not
,
the
syllogism
is
naught
,
concluding
from
particulars
.
His
proofs
are
vain
.
That
from
Austin
is
of
no
force
,
unless
it
be
supposed
,
1.
That
by
circumcising
under
the
Law
,
and
baptizing
under
the
Gospel
,
the
grace
of
God
is
conferred
,
which
is
a
popish
conccit
.
Circumcision
did
binde
to
the
keeping
of
the
Law
,
but
never
that
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
are
propounded
to
us
as
our
rule
.
His
testimony
out
of
Bellarmine
intimates
that
Bellarmine
said
,
There
is
no
impediment
to
infants
baptism
,
because
the
case
is
clear
,
as
if
Bellarmine
would
not
have
said
it
,
had
the
case
not
been
clear
,
whereas
it
is
more
likely
to
be
false
than
true
,
because
Bellarmine
a
Jesuit
saith
it
;
yea
it
is
manifestly
false
;
for
the
institution
being
onely
to
baptize
Disciples
,
prohibits
baptizing
of
infants
,
which
are
not
such
,
but
for
want
of
being
Disciples
uncapable
of
Baptism
.
But
Mr.
Cragg
in
his
fourth
Argument
will
prove
infant-baptism
commanded
,
Matth.
28.
19.
because
Nations
are
commanded
to
be
baptized
.
To
this
I
answered
before
in
the
Dispute
,
and
my
answer
is
,
and
was
,
Nations
are
not
commanded
to
be
baptized
without
any
other
circumscription
,
but
Disciples
of
the
Nations
,
Mr.
Cragg
confessed
,
pag.
48.
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
is
,
Ye
shall
make
Disciples
,
and
then
baptizing
is
of
Disciples
.
His
speech
,
Infants
are
not
uncapable
of
Baptism
,
because
they
have
not
faith
and
repentance
,
because
Christ
was
baptized
without
repentance
,
is
frivolous
,
for
there
is
not
the
same
end
of
Christs
Baptism
and
ours
,
and
therefore
though
repentance
were
not
required
of
him
,
yet
it
is
of
us
,
and
the
want
of
it
makes
infants
uncapable
of
Baptism
.
It
is
false
,
that
God
requires
no
more
of
persons
in
Covenant
,
and
born
of
believing
Parents
,
to
their
Baptism
,
but
a
meer
objective
power
or
receptability
,
as
he
cals
it
,
as
was
in
the
world
at
its
creation
,
or
in
the
regeneration
,
which
he
new
makes
us
.
And
it
is
meerly
false
,
that
upon
any
such
account
as
he
speaks
of
,
many
whole
families
were
baptized
,
or
that
any
infants
were
included
.
The
very
Texts
which
speak
of
the
baptizing
of
the
housholds
either
there
or
elsewhere
speak
of
their
fearing
God
,
Acts
2.
2.
that
all
the
houseshould
be
saved
by
Peters
words
,
Acts
11.
14.
had
repentance
and
the
like
gift
with
the
Apostles
,
v.
17
,
18.
had
the
word
spoken
to
them
,
Acts
16.
32.
believed
,
v.
34
,
Acts
18.
8.
addicted
themselves
to
the
Ministery
of
the
Saints
,
1
Cor.
16
,
15.
Which
shew
no
infants
were
meant
under
the
houshold
,
for
they
did
none
of
these
things
.
Mr.
Cragg
goes
on
Argument
5.
They
that
are
capable
of
the
Kingdom
and
the
blessing
which
is
the
greater
,
are
capable
of
Baptism
which
is
the
lesser
:
But
infants
are
capable
of
the
Kingdom
and
the
blessing
which
is
the
greater
:
Therefore
they
are
capable
of
Baptism
which
is
the
lesser
.
To
which
I
answer
,
The
major
is
false
:
if
it
were
true
,
it
would
follow
infants
are
capable
of
the
Kingdom
and
the
blessing
,
which
is
the
greater
,
therefore
they
are
capable
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
Ordination
to
the
Ministery
,
Church-discipline
,
which
are
the
less
.
Though
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
infants
be
admitted
by
God
who
knows
who
are
his
without
any
visible
expression
,
yet
into
the
visible
Church
persons
are
not
admitted
without
visible
testimony
of
their
faith
,
of
which
sort
were
all
added
to
the
Church
Acts
2.
47.
Not
one
of
those
Texts
Mark
10.
13.
to
17.
Mark
9.
14
,
36
,
37.
Mat.
18.
2
,
3
,
4.
Matth.
19.
13
,
14
,
15.
Luke
9.
14
15.
Luke
18.
15
,
16.
severall
,
nor
all
joyntly
prove
,
infants
visible
Church-members
.
The
kingdom
of
God
,
Mark
10.
14.
is
not
the
visible
Church
,
for
into
it
such
as
are
not
humble
,
as
little
children
may
enter
,
which
our
Saviour
denies
,
v.
15.
but
the
same
with
the
Kingdom
,
v.
23
,
24
,
25.
into
which
it
is
so
hard
and
impossible
for
a
rich
man
or
one
that
trusts
in
riches
to
enter
,
which
is
called
v.
17
,
30
eternal
life
.
It
is
false
,
that
Christ
saith
,
The
Angels
of
little
ones
in
age
see
the
face
of
his
Father
which
is
in
Heaven
;
But
of
little
ones
in
spirit
,
who
are
converted
and
believe
in
Christ
,
Matth
,
18.
3
,
6
,
10.
for
whose
sake
they
are
sent
,
Heb.
1.
14.
They
are
but
Paedebaptists
dreams
,
that
the
three
Evangelists
recorded
Christs
blessing
little
ones
to
check
Antipaedobaptists
,
or
to
declare
that
which
Mr.
Cragg
cals
a
precious
truth
,
though
it
be
a
very
ly
,
and
may
be
gathered
to
be
so
even
from
the
story
.
For
sure
if
infants
had
been
to
be
baptized
,
Christ
would
have
then
appointed
them
to
be
baptized
,
and
blamed
his
Apostles
for
not
doing
it
.
And
therefore
Mr.
Craggs
questions
are
answered
by
questions
.
1.
Doth
Christ
take
children
in
his
arms
.
and
would
be
have
all
put
out
of
his
visible
Church
?
Answ.
Doth
Christ
no
more
but
take
them
up
in
his
arms
,
lay
his
hands
on
them
,
and
bless
them
?
And
shall
we
presume
to
do
more
without
any
warrant
of
his
,
even
to
admit
them
into
his
visible
Church
by
Baptism
?
2.
Would
he
have
us
receive
them
in
his
Name
,
and
yet
not
receive
them
into
his
visible
Church
,
&
c
?
Answ
:
Where
doth
Christ
ever
bid
us
receive
little
children
in
age
?
Where
did
he
ever
send
them
,
that
they
might
be
received
in
his
name
?
must
we
make
Christs
words
to
import
that
which
we
would
in
another
censure
as
a
spice
of
madnesse
,
when
he
hath
told
us
plainly
they
are
his
Apostles
,
and
other
Preachers
he
hath
sent
whom
we
are
to
receive
in
his
name
Mark
9.
41.
Luke
9.
48.
though
they
are
as
mean
and
contemptible
as
a
little
child
?
How
should
children
be
received
but
by
providing
Nurses
?
would
Christ
have
us
provide
Nurses
for
little
children
?
our
Lord
Christ
expresseth
a
cup
of
cold
water
to
drink
,
as
some
part
of
the
reception
in
his
name
Mark
9.
41.
Is
this
a
thing
fit
to
entertain
an
infant
with
?
This
is
enough
to
answer
Mr.
Craggs
frivolous
questions
.
And
in
answer
to
the
words
of
Mr.
Baxter
,
who
is
the
godly
and
reverend
Divine
he
means
,
I
say
for
my
part
,
seeing
the
will
of
Christ
is
that
I
must
walk
by
,
and
his
word
that
I
must
be
judged
by
,
and
he
hath
given
so
full
a
discovery
of
his
will
in
this
point
,
I
will
boldly
adventure
to
follow
his
rule
to
baptize
disciples
professing
faith
,
and
had
rather
answer
him
upon
his
own
incouragement
for
not
admitting
by
baptism
those
he
never
appointed
to
be
baptized
,
than
to
adventure
upon
the
doing
like
Uzzah
upon
mine
own
head
that
which
doth
prophane
the
ordinance
of
baptism
,
and
corrupt
the
Church
of
Christ
.
Mr.
Craggs
sixt
argument
is
;
Infants
are
disciples
;
therefore
they
may
be
baptized
.
The
antecedent
he
would
prove
from
Acts
15.
10.
in
that
it
was
circumcision
which
was
the
yoke
,
which
he
proves
from
ver.
5.
But
he
confesseth
it
was
not
circumcision
only
,
but
the
attendants
,
and
that
it
is
no
shift
,
but
a
cleer
truth
,
that
it
is
not
circumcision
as
acted
on
infants
,
but
as
taught
,
imposed
on
the
consciences
of
believing
Gentiles
,
with
the
rest
of
Moses
his
Law
,
as
necessary
to
salvation
by
some
teachers
(
which
cannot
be
said
of
infants
)
is
so
manifest
from
the
text
,
that
I
dare
boldly
say
,
they
that
assert
that
by
disciples
Acts
15.
10.
are
meant
,
do
but
wrangle
against
cleer
light
,
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
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
.