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.

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-bap∣tism, 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 suffici∣ent to make wise men to let them alone, lest they haply should fight against God. The Epistlers reasons are but his own ignorant sur∣mises.

Though disputes are useful, yet such unworthy artifices as I find in and after them are a just reason for me to wave them, espe∣cially 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 nei∣ther, 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, an∣swer not so cleerly as I would, had I had the arguments to view and examine deliberately. I presume it will be sufficient, for cleer∣ing truth, if either I shew how my Answers are misreported, or how they are to be amended.