7 A True \K RRATIV OF THE tportJmcutfj-Diti n, BETWEEN of the Presbyterians^ audo'h. f Perfv/aijoii, concerning the Sli of Baptifm. Id in Mr. teillijmt's 1 iog-pface, Wcdncfdcj^ FebntdfJ 2 2. 1 6o;twe , MvKie- j in Scnmrrfiijhi) e. rator. } Truly .^Yi' front the Original Copies, taken at- /neb/ Mr , Town Clerk Porcj/r, , aud the other by Mr. Samuel Rit :. ivulUm AY inrj to C Ztt, '/, lopp. <* ) % n Account of the Difputatioh at Portsmouth* February 2 2d. 1 between the Presbyterians and 2> tiflsy concerning Baptifm. The Nantes of the Difputanto. For the Presbyteries, | For the BapHflsl Mr.g)amuel CfjanUlct oiFarsbdnt. Dr. Miiliam HufleU of Lorn Mr. 3Letg;t) of tiepcru Mr. Jofyi ®$UUiam0 QiEnji-^noi Mr, J&pUnfon of J-Iungerforj, in V/iltfiire. Moderator. I Mr* Joijn 8>l)arp of From:, \ Moderator. THE above-mentioned Difputants being come to the Place of Meeting, between the Hours of Nb e and Ten in the Morning j and having took their Places, Mr. Chandler the Presbyterian Minifter, after having made his Apology to the People, repeated the Queftions ta be Difputed, viz... QuelL 1. Whether according to the Commiffion of onr Lord and Savionr Jefus Chrijl, adult Believers are only the proper x Subjects of Baptifm, and not Infants} Que ft. 2. Whether the Ordinance of Baptifm, as appointed by ChriJ}, is to be adminiftred by Dipping 7 Plunging, or Over* ibetming only y and no ether wife f Thefe are the Two Articles ( quoth he) we are to Difpute of at this time : Ws deny, and They affirm. Then Dr. Ruffdliov the Bapti/ts began thus; If Chrift (fays he) hath nowhere required any of his rVljnifters to- baptize Infants ; then the Baptifm of Infants is not accor- ding to the Commiffion of our Lord and Saviour Jefus £lirifi, — But Chrift hajia no where require4 any to Bap- tize ( s ; Command to his A potties, to go into all the World andfreAc, the Goftel to every Crea; d fuch as were made DifcipleS by their Preaching, thfcy fhculd F^tize and none other. And in. Matt. 28. 19. They are con manded to Difciple .all Narions, and to Baptifce. fuch of thsjq v] n t ey had made Difciples by teaching/a I have fljewed you how that Infants not bein^ cap#i>>, thrs tobem^de Difci- ples, theycrnnot beSubJQtfs of. Baptism, intended in that Commififon, thai you grant the confequence of die major, and by denying my minor you fay they are capable. — Sir, you are bound to give a direct aafwertomy Argument, — Mr. Chandler I deny the confequence of your major. — Dr. $.njfd!. By fo doing you fay though they have no know- ledge tod-fcern between good and evil, yet they are capa- ble to be made Difciples by the tniiiiftry of men, how can this poflibiy be true. — Mr. Chandler. They have no know- ledge, yei are capable of being incompleat Difciples. — Dr. MuffeHl It by complcat you me2n perfectly fo, I know no fuch Chriflian in the Woi Id, but I hope this doth not hin- der but that there may be real and actual Difcip'es of Chiift, made fo by the minifiry of men, and fitted for Hojy Baptif&. Mr. Chandler, we allow Infants are not capable of to dif- cern between good and evil, nor of being made compleat Difciples. — D. Ruffe 11. Then the confequence neceflarily follows that Infants are not at all intended in the Com- mhTionof our Saviour, Matt. Therefore now it is high time I defcend to a new Argument. Argument 3. If the Apoftle Paul did declare all the Coun- fells of God, and kept back wtothing that was profitable for the Church of God, and yet never daclared the Bap- tifm of Infants to be a Gofpel inftitution, according to ChrifPs ComhTion, then it is no Gofpel infritution nor any part of the Council of God, nor profitable for his Church. Mr. Chandler, Your Arguments are long.— Dr. Kujfell^ Not fo long nor fo hard to be underftood. Upon which Mr. Leigh Anfwered, That he deny'd that the Apoftle Paul did never declare Infant Baptifra to be a Gofpel inflitu- tioa W (6) Wionir-D. Knffell. Then you deny tny Minor, which I thus I prove. If the Apoftle Paul haith fo declared it, it is foioe ' whereto be found in the Writings of the New Teftament, but it is not anv were to be found in thofe Writings, Therefore the Apoftle Paul did, never fo declare it. Mr. Leigh, You know that St. Paul wrot divers Epiftles, and in them different Subje&s; fo that it is as if a Man fhould write a Book of feveral things and when he hath finiftedit, one comes and Guts off* fix Leases thereof, and after this there is a queftion, whether fuch aMin hath writ any thing aboup fuch a particular fubjett. Now it doth not follow, that Becaufe it is not contained in the reft of his Book, that therefore it is not in the Six leaves that wer$ Cut off. Dr. RvfelL If Mr. Letgh fpeaks ad rem, as I fuppofe he thinks he doth, then I thus refer upon torn. fiJft: tnat he doth by this allow, that there is no mention imde of In- fant Baptifm, in any of thofe Writings of the Apoftle faul\ that we have bound up wich the reft of the Holy Scriptures, he fuppofes there may be fomethmg laid of it in thofe fix Leaves, that were Cut ofFafter hehad finifhed his Epiftles. — Now the AfTembly of Divines, tells us_that the Scriptures of the Old and New Teftament are the on- ly Rule to direft us in mattets of Worfliip, but whether Mr. Leigh be of their mind I cannot tell.— Mr. Leigh. Yes I am. — Dr. RuffdL Then what do you mean by it, 1 know not} But / believe they meant what we have in the Bible, and not in what is contained in thofe fix Leaves that were Cut off, other wife they DefignM to put a trick upon the whole World, which I do net fuppofe But as touching thefe fir Leaves^ I conclude our Bretheren have not them in their cuftody, becaufe I never heard them fpeak any thing ia the leaft concerning it ; But if Mr. Leigh or his Bretheren have them in their cuftody, I defire they would produce them, and when they have fo done *, if they will pleafe to favour us fo far, as firft to prove that thefe were the very fix Leaves that were written by P*«/, we will take the pains to examinthew, and if it appears ttj# there ( 3) fit Infants; therefore the Baptifm of Inftnts it not aocor- 'i'lRg to our Lord and Saviour Jdus. Mr. Chandler. If ycu will allow good Confluences drawn from Scripture, 1 will deny your minor. Dr. Rfijfdl. Then you muft fuppofe that Chrift has re* quired fome' to Baptize Infants. Mr. Leigh. We diftinguifn between Confequential Truths and Exprefs Words. Dr. Rfijfell. So do we \ but I hope our Lord's C mmiiBoa about Holy Baptifm, is delivered in Exprefs Words, and not in Confequentials, the Term in my Argument is I do not fay there commanded or required ; and if you ve the Baptifm of Infants any where by Chrift, is fuffi- /qcnr. — Mr. Ltigh. will you allow good Scripture confe- rences in this Cafe, or do you expect plain Scripture words. — Dr. Rvjfd!. I fay again the term I ufc admitcs of any proof, he is not thereby obliged to produce any exprefs com- ;^nd, if he can do it without, for if he can prove that thrift: hath any way requefted it, it will fufnce Mr. Robv>- r on \ fuppofe Mr. Chandler cannot give an inftance nor no k Spdy in the Company ; you hence refer that none in the *« $/orld can. — This is in EfFect to give away your caufe, when 10 many Men of Parts and Learning are here prefent, if none are able to give us an inftance from Scripture, for In- Jant Baptifm, we cannot expect any Body elfe (hould. — Therefore if Mr. Chandler will confefs he hath no inftance to give, I will proceed to a new argument. This Mr. Chandler refufed to do, and yet would give no inftance, Dr. Rujjcll. If Mr. Chandler can give no inftance, here are divers other Minifters and Gentlemen, of greac \ 'arts and Learning, have none of them an Lftance to pro- duce, if you thus refufe to produce it, thePeople will think you have none to give. Whereupon Dr. R»fiB{peak to this effect. Gentlemen, perhaps you may think I have but one argument *, if you will fay no more to this*, I am noc willing to tire the Auditory take notice (by the way) that my firft 'Argument ftands good, till you give your inftance to to the Contrary. Argument, 2. Jfhfams are mt capable to be mstde Difeifks according ^S* 1 ^^;™?***^ nikry of men • FhV ,|L « be made Difcipfcs by the mi- .,. i v * men, f oi the ceiifiitt nmM.rriJ i s 16 hi (7) is any fuch thing contained in them, as Mr. Leigh fpeaks of, we will allow it. Mr. Leigh Hereupon wasvery angry, faying what do you talk of our bring the keepers of them ; and what do you talk of the New Teilament, is all the New Teftameot .of the Apoftle PauPs Writings.— Dr. Ruffclt. I do not confine your Writings to V*vH Epiftfes, much lefs pre- tend all the New Teftament to be his, as you would infi- nuate to the People \ But my words are, it's no where fo declared in the Writings of the New Teltatnent, and pray produce oneinftance if you can; for that will put an I flue to our Ccntroverfie. 1 further add, that if Pad never | taught Infant- Baptifra in the Church oiEphcfm ; nor in the Church of Corwth^ nor in any other place : I hope you will then acknowledge it to be no Gofpel inftitution, nor any part of the Coui-fel of God 5 nor yet profitable for the Church of God : And there is no Record in Holy Scrip- tures of his lb doing. — Mr Leigh, 1 fay Paul** Writings * are not the Hundreth part of what Paul Preached, we can- not fuppofe that in thofe Six Chapters to the . Ephefians t he. could contrive to put down the whole of his Preaching I to them. Dr. RnfeU. Sir, you niight have fpared all this Labour, for I am fatisfi'd the People will not trouble themfelves to feek for it any where elfe, but onTy in the Writings of the New Teftament ; and if they will take my Word, I can allure them it is not there to be found, and I perceive yott think fo too, or elfe you need not refer them to Paul's Ser- mons, which are not written. I have heard indeed of feme unwritten Traditions that are lock'd up in the Popes Breaflr, to be delivered out as he finds occaflon, for the ferving of a turn, butl never knew that the Presbyterians were ever intrufted with any fuch Treaflire.— Mr. Leigh. If Pari did not declare it if we have other places apparent and plain* at leaft confequential it is fufEcient. — This is not an an- fwer to my Argument. — Mr. Chandler. We deny the con- ference, Pad might fpeak of it fomewhere elfe, though His wt§»vad ifl |js Epiftles^Mr, Rpbfafm. You are to , prove '( s ) : prove that, bccaiife "Paul did not ftun to declare toll Cnurchof Efheftss the whole con fell of God , thcreforelhc Baptizing of infants mull be found there, or elfe it is no ]lt the of counfel of God .-lays! Mr. Leigh. However we will it pofe the thing (but not grant it) that Paul has not fpt eri of infant Bapiifm. —Mr. Williams. If you iuppofeicl will take it for granted, if we may not fay fo. Thus ert ed their oppMluon to this Argument. Dr. Rujfdl. I J| now proceed to another Argument.. Argument 4. Chrift's Gommiilion doth fhew who are i be Baptized } But it doth not /hew that infants are to ] Baptized. Therefore confequently infants are n-t the Sal fedts of Baptifm, according to Chrift's Cr>mmifflon. — M dLeigh. I deny the Minor. Dr. RuffelL By to doing you for pofe ;t fht:w it. I therefore thus argue : If the Commit on doth fhew that Infants are to be Bap n <{ ; Mr, Lei\ or fome other Perfon, can ihew it us in the Comrmffioi But it appears that neither Mr. Leigh noranv other Pet fon is able to (hew it us in the Commiffion ; Therefore th Commiffion doth not (hew that infants are to be B^ptizec Mr. Leigh. It is included in the Word [all Nations;] that d prove it is not. — Di\ Rrffell. Yon have bro igit anlnflancc and it is your bu fine Is to pro^e and make good your in ftance, otherwife my Argument Hands fiirn and untouch cd j But if I fhew there are fome QualJfiations require in the Commiffion, and prove that thofe cannot be foun< in Infants, then Infants cannot be included in the won all Nations ; 1 tell you he hath commanded us to Baptiz< ibme Perfons, but he hath not commanded us to Baptize 3ny Infants ; Which I thus prove. — If thofe that Chi ifr. ir f»is CommilTion hath commanded to be Baptized, mud firfl be made Difciples according to that Commiffion 5 then la fants are not to be Baptized by vertne of that Commifhon Therefore infan is are not to be Baptized by rertue of thai Commiffion. — Mr. Leigh. I deny your whole Argument, that all that Chrifl requires to be Baptized ate Difciples, sad that Infants are not capable. — Dr. Ruffdl. Ifnoothei Vat Difciples are ^exptfel^d in th« Go^misfion, then the Mapj i Major is true, and if Infants are uncapable to be made Dif- ;ciples, then the Minor h true alfo.— Mr. Leigh. You talk of the Commiffion*, It is the good confluences Iinfifbup- ^on, and fay Pcrfons are not to be compleat Difciples before | they are Baptized, iior actually taught before they are Dif- ciples.— Dr. RujfelL Perhaps you mean a Man is nor; a compleat Chriftian, if he hath not attained to the higheifc Perfection, he is capable of in this Life, although he hath been a real Chriftian for many Years, I fpeak not of fucll a Completion, but of fuch that are aftual Difciples made by the miniftry of Man. — Mr. Leigh. i fay there is no fleceflity of being Difciples in your fence, before they are Baptized. — Dr. RuffelL Then I will prove there is a ne- S ceftity :, For if our Lord in his Commiffion did not require his Apoftles to Baptize any, but only fuch as they made^ Difciples by teaching, then there is a neceffity they.ihoulcf be actual Difciples before they are Baptized. Mr, Leigh. I deny the Minor,—- Dr. Rnffell. Then I will | R.ead the Commiffion. — Mr. Leigh. You need not do that, we all know the Commiffion very well. — -Dr. Rufell, I will Read my Mafters Corn million:, Matih. 28.. 19. Co )&. I therefore and Difciple all Nations, Baptizing them in the name * of the Father , and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofti &c, Mr. Rohinfon. Is this your Argumenc ? And then- fee Bauls very Load, faying , Mr. WMUms, Will you fuffer him. to Preach here. 'Dr. Rujfell, What: do you talk of Preaching , arc you afraid of the Commiffion, I hope it is not fo bad with you, as it was with fome formerly, who flew from the light of the Scrip- ture fas Batts do from the light of the Sun) will you fly from the light of the Commiffion, of our Lord and Savi- our Jefj* Ghriffc. — Mr. Leigh. No Sir, no fuch thing.— Dr. Rujfell. If you Ihould you would dire&ly op'pofe MtJ Calvin, For hefaiih, There is no mention made tf Infants m the Cextmiifion. and further faith, we may as well appl7 thefe words in iThef. 3. 10. That if any would not work wither Jhall he Edt. To little Infants and £> keep Lheoi fronft Food EiM th? Starve, as to apply wbas is faid in tbe.Cpm- Will thus argue from therZJ^r* 5 lt is <*»>erwifc • Prcfs co,n„4d in o^ W^'t 11 .' r If the " be Z'ng of f „ ]e Perf0 " t„^ .here h miSfl0a f ° r the B *Pt neither there nor no ^ elfr V* "£° CXprefs commaR ftnts then the B^pt^jf a ^f Ba Pti*ng of In that Commiffion. fr ™S °t Infants is not contained i, Hon of our Lord in hoj BVvti£l^T therCommii n ^; %9 , mdM Jl ,f p ffi J 6 what i s recorde( '■ere Is no other, therefore thJS th - ^ Wor istrue > °" I deny the Sequel of >S^ "f^-Mr. Z«^ now upon the Commfflfo 37^: Mf BuE *• an w-f;y, good confeqnences deri^H f * ' We are fo > °BI are fufficient.-Dr S m , f ? m the 'Commifuon I h ad rather walk ; x Shr a ? fUC 5. g00d "^ do you; But our Lord, then by fe h JonS?" 8 C ° ^ConW^ deceived.-Mr. pI^I f^Z^^ l ^ b = ther do, or what your OpinSr E i W f ha6 ? m had «- 7~Mr.W. J denytheL TeLf'tL M^^^^^- a'-e to Baptize none but Slfj MaJOrj ThaE they manded.-Dr. i?#// Then I ,L 7 ** CXpre % «Mn- m f ncr of .to w ^ g JJ^J» WJ ^ there be no What are ex-prefsiy commanded °hen P f e ? nyotherb « M;.jor is true : But there i ™ 1' ° £ , he % uel of the them to Baptize any Shir ITT of u aH «wa n ce g ,>« commanded 1 , theid^lteftJX S?J the ? are e W S £ But Mr. Z«V£ was nlSLl m I- e ma,or is true. V o«t diftinguiftfng. uSn «w h 8 '?L a g£neraI denial "ith- h s former%rgum 8 ent S U , PO wi r e J S'^fiW «■ * that there is an ermwi . had alr eady flawed Cteft's Commiflion..--Mr El/, r ? ' 2e ' by vertl,e of ESto £ ~r « y BESSS5 • ''" ,lV -A. * > 1 •*.¥ '.i r ( ii ) then the Minor is true.— Mr. Leigh. I alow tba* the com mandis exprefTed, But I fay theSubje&sare to be brought in by confluence. — Dr. RuffcU. Then will I prove that the fu'bjefts arc exprefs'd, If Chriftdid command his Apo- fties to Baptize fuch as believe and are made Difcipkb then the Subjc&s are exprefTed.— Mr. Robin fen. You mu f fay all the Subjects —Dr. Rufell. By your favour Sir, the is no need of that. For Mr. Lf^denys ***** ; " sr if you; think otherwife, pray tell the People fo.— - For then I conceive that your Baptizing their Infants will do them no good ; For you cannot alter the decrees of Heaven : Or if you will believe as the Papift do, that Grace is con- veyed to them barely by the aft done ; Notwithftanding the Children are wholly pasfive in it, pray tell us fo. — Mr. Leigh R<-firfed : to anfwer to the former, but gave is Vnlwer to the latter: No, we deny that. Ba"ifi. If noneca n % < ,; >ve o~ **<*/*« rV ; (b Authority, but for his Judgment-, it being the Traflation PjSl of a Man, that very well underftcod the Original : And W although he was not accounted one of the beft of Men , yet he was accounted one of the beft of Schollars in ■/ his time. But will you deny this Scripture, ^^8.35, A 37. .When the Eunuch propofed Baptifm, Philip tells him, // thov bclteveft with all thine Heart, then may ft. The Con- V trary (that fairly offers it felf) is this ; That if thou doeft not believe with all thy Heart, thou may ft not. And up- on this the Eunuch, declared his Faith before he was Bap- tized ; Therefore it follows, they muft have adlual Learn- ing, and the Minifter mull alfo know it before he Baptize them.— Mr. Leigh. The Eunuch was a Profelite, and his Infants if he had any, were to be taken in alfo, Philip comes to him, and he requires a Confesfion of his Faith, be- cause he was a grown Man. Yet had he had an Infant with him he had, had a right to this Ordinance after he believed, when by your opinion it mutt be call: out, befaufe not capable of adtual believing.— D. Ruffeil. IfuppofeMr. LLttok has forgot himfclf to talk of an Eunuchs ha-^g / Children, it p?:u>>* -**nffw* jfjins a Ao»jwi„ •. tor IF?, .ls ' r are not at all intended in this Cornmiffion, as I have already fhew'd you; and as Mr. Calvin doth alfo affirm. But I hope Mr. Leigh will ailow our Saviours words to be true; That alfo his Apoftles Preach'd to, according to hisCom- niifllon, if they did not believe they ftwdd he damPd, for of fuch it is faid, He that bdieveth not, is Condemn d already y becattfe he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. But as touching Infants, I am fir from Be- lieving that God hath decreed them (as fnch) to Eternal Damnation. I will rather believe that all Infants, dying in their Infancy are elected, thon conclude that any of them are damnM, and I fuppoie you cfo not know the con- trary ; If you do, I defire you would tejl the People fo. — < Mr. Leigh. What doyou putthatupon us for.— Dr. Ruf- fell. Becaufe I do think it's Reafonable you fhould tdl the People what your opinion is, feeing you have ilarted it; for you fee I have given my opinion freely about k ; and I B 2 if ( M ) whetlieY they are. Difciples or no, before they muft advett- ture to Baptize them.-- Mr. Leigh. This purely refers to 1 grown Perfons ; and by the fame Argument you may fay Infants muft not Eat ? becaufe it isfaid in another place, f He that cannot work muft not eat. — Mr. Williams. Nay, Sir, it is he that rcill not work, not he that cannot. It ishe that is able and will not. For I hope you will provide for your Parents, when by reafon of Age they are not able to work for themfelves* — Mr. Leigh. I would know whether In- fants are not as capable of believing in Chrift, as of com- ing to Chrift . ? Now they are faid to come when thdr Parents brought them, for Chrift fays Suffer little Children to come unto me : And 'tis mofl probable they were brought in the Arms to Chrift, why may not they be faid to believe, when they do not a&ually belieye ; If imputatively they are faid to come when their Parents brought them ; Sq why may not they be faid to believe, imputatively when their Parents devote them to Chrift, altho the Children do . not actually believe ; but only the parents. — Mr. 'WillUm. I deny the Parents Faith was ever imputed to the Chil proee it if you can. — Here Mr. Leigh nor any other Pe fon were able to da it. — Mr. Leigh. 1'fchallinge you t give one inftancefism Scripture, of any one Born of be lieving Parents, that were Baptized at Age, and I wil give you the Caufe. Dr. RuJJell. I will inftance in Contain- tine the Great, whofe Mother Htltna was a Chriftian, and yet he was not Baptized till he was confiderably in Years Befidesis Ihere any account in Hiftory, during the firft ^cc Years, that any one of the Fathers, or eminent Biihops of the Church, that were born of Chriftian Parents, were Baptized till they were about 20 or 30 Years of Age ^ Anc if any of you know the contrary, I defire you would (hey it.—Mr.Lf^fc. What do you tell us of the Fathers 1 W- are not bound to abide by their Teflimony, — Mr. Will Ams. Was not the Mother of our Lord a Believer wh; Chrift was Born. — Mr. Leigh. What do you ask m queftionfor ? every Body knows that.— MrM r Uliams t 1 do you believe it ?— Mr. Leigh. Yes, I do believ . Vvh { ( *5 ) tfcen.— Mr.-'M^w"- *£hcn here is a Scripture inftance for yotu f the Child of a Believer, that was a Belie-ver before he was Bora ; nd yet he was not Baptized till he came to Years, and this we can rove..-lflpon tlys the People fell a Laughing at Mr. Leigh, and his lountcRance changed pale ; and he was under fome 'confternation of iiri, (o that he could not pre'fently recover himfelf ; but at 1 aft his de- a d Spirits rallied again, and then he {poke to this Effect, -Mr. Leigh, s ■ i difcourfe was grounded on the CommuTioii, now was this before he Commiflion, or after it >- Dr. J^ffilL It is a miftake Mr. Leigh* iVe were not now upon the Commiflion, but upon your qu^ftion. And ; think Mr. Williams has given you an Anfwer every way fuitable to t, and the Challenge you made us ; and yon are bound to take it ; , to which he made no reply. — Mr. Leigh. 1 will prove that fome In- re vifible Church-Members from Matth. 19. 14. Suffer Jittle Children to come unto me (faith Chrift) and forbid thsm not, for of fuel* yc the Kingdom of Heaven. Dr. %uffell. Do you bring this to prove ftiic theic Children were Baptized? Mr. Leigh, No, I do not pre- :end to any fuch thing.— Dr. Kujfdl. What then do you bring it for % Mr. Lei^h 1 bring it to prove that Infants are Churck-Members.— Mr. Witttms. If infants are neither Members of the Univerfal Vifible Church , nor yet of a particular Confhtuted one : Therefore they are noC members of the vifible Church at all.— Mr. Leigh took no notice of this Argument, buc went off from it, and Infants are part of a Na- tion, and therefore, might be Baptized.— Mr. WiWi ims replyed, Though Children arc part of a Nation, yet not of a Nation modified accord- ing to Chrift's Commiifion. The moderator making no Anfwer, Mr. IVWiams Cud, It was all Nations Diicipled. Upon this Dr. ^«$?//and fclr. Williams did both defirethem to prodnce one inftance for Infaut- Baptifm out of the Word of God. And this they did very many times ; but ne inftance was produced ; at length Mr. Williams defired them in thefe words } Bmheren I wqhH beg of you to produce one inftance f or Infant Baptifw ; it mil refcB upon you ij l you do not. What will the Peo* pie fay, when they are gone ? jo many inflames defired, fi many Mi* niftcrs here, and not one inftance produced : They muft needs conclude there •tvas not one to he produced.— Notwithftanding tmY, the rnmifters were Cl- ient ; and not a Man did reply to it. ~ — Dr. fyjjell. if Infants are capable to be made Difciples of Ch rift by the Minitiry of Mers without the ufe of Reafon, then the Beafls of the field are alfo capable ^ buc the Beafts of the "Field are not capable, therefore Infants are not ca- pable.- .Mr, Robinfon. Take notice Dr. Kuflcll hath ranked theic ! infants among the Bruit Beafts, and that if they became of his Opini- on, they muft look upon them as Dogs or Catts, or Hoggs, &?•——» >r. Ruffell. Hold, Mr. Kobinjon, I have already told you how great a efteem I have for your little Infants ; that I will rather believe that .11 Infants Dying in their Infancy are Elected, than I will conclude are Damnd*, I bting this to lhew the abfiudity of fuch a Noti- tnd you are bound to lhew the difparity if you can. Suppofe there • Twenty or Thirty new Born Infants in a Room, and the ableft and Learned'!* among you mould preach to them in order to make them Difciples, according to Chrift. s ComrniiTion, I believe you would have no ^Stfowtft, tf^n %tAniky$y had (as theftgry goes) who vtnderook ti ( I* ) I Inftruft the Piggs, or as fome other? have done (even Popiih Sail I preach to the Fowies of the Air, &c- : Of which I could furnifhyou \\H divers Inftances. And now I demand of any of you, to take off d Relation, and mew the difpirity if yon can. Upon which they where 1 filent, and none of them would undertake to fhew the difparity. Leigh, It is time to Proceed to the othes Queftion , whither the CL- dinanceof Baptifm as appointed by Chrift, it f s to be adminiftred \ Dipping, Plunging (or) otherwife. — — ■ Dr. RyJJell. The Holy Scr L tures lhewsus the right way of Baptifm, as appointed by Chrift. j butt doth not fhew that it ought to be done by Sprinkling } therefore Sprin ling is not the right way of Baptizing. — Mr. Lergh. Sir, You mull bring in that Dipping is abfolutly neceiTary \ What do you talk oifprin \\ ling.— Dr. JtyJJelL I hope you are not afhamed of your practice. Bi if you will difown Sprinkling to be the right way of Biptizing, I am cor tented, I will not then infift upon it. -— Mr. fyberfoiy We are not dii courting of that now } you are to prove Dipping the only way, and yoi mud and fhall prove it. — Dr. KyJJdl. Mult and mall, is for the King and not for Mr. fioberfon ; If there can no inftance be given that ever tin Apofiles did B:ptize other way then by Dipping; then ours istherigh way of Baptizing ? but there can be no Inftance given, that ever the A- poftles did Baptize other ways then by Dipping, therefore ours is the righ way of Baptizing. — Mr. Chandler,But-l can fhew great probability thai many in Scripture times were B -.prized by pouring a little water on the Face, and there is no Certainty that Dipping was ever ufed. Dr Huffell., How doth chat appear ? — Mr. Lergh. It might be done othe; ways then by Dipping ; and a probability is the moft you can pretend t< for Dipping. Therefore I require you to prove tint Dipping was intend ed in thofe places you bring it for. i Dr. Rujjlll. It is Expreffed ii Mark i. 9. $efw came from Nazareth of ' C 'alilee ■, and not Baptized of -foh in Jordan , and fobn 3* 23. And tfobn was Baptizing in J^non, n at to Salim hecatfe there was mucb Water there. It is from this apparent that botl Chrift and fohn Baptized byDioping the Body in Water ; elfetheyneec not have fought Places where had been great plenty of Water 5 And AUs 8. 38. 39. And they went both down into the Water, buth Philip and th Eunuch, and hi Budti^ed him\ ±And when tby were com? up out of the Wt ter. H-re we have an account that they went both Down into the Water : therefore if Phiip had not put the Eunuch into the Water and covered hin with it why fhould they go down both into the Water ? A little of i would have ferved the turn. ~- And Mr. Willi wis the Presbyterian laid, he thought there had r-een little (aid tothepurpofe — Upon which Dr fyjfiil reply'd, Mr. W'iliidriiS) I think there hath been a great deal mor< laid, than hath been anfwered : but if you are not fatisfied, we will wavt all that hath been faid, and I will difpure it over with you de novo. Mr Wfliarns fhrugg'd and Anfwred no } 1 am not very well. Upon which \\ was thought meet by them to put an end to the Deputation. And Mr Leigh) (after he had made a fpeech to thank the Governor, and the Mayoi for their Civility towards them, and the Baptifts returned thanks alfo, foe then concluded in Prayer; and (odiiinis'c the Aikm-bty. It was be- tween: the hours o/ffk an/i feven of the Clock whea tte fitoti «itfc& * I N I S* ■ *~ { To the Honourable Major General Earl, ''-Governor ; Colonel John Gibfon, Lieutenant Governor, of His M&)e flies 'Oarifon of VoTtimouth'.and thelVcrflvp- ful Henry Seager, Efq; Mayor of Portiinouth. Honourable Sirs^ WITH Hearts full of Loyalty and Thank- fulnefs to our Rightful Sovereign King William, we humbly lay thefe Papers at your Feet, who procur'd for us a Grant from his { Majefty, publickly to vindicate the Common Caufe of the Reformed Churches, and fettle the wavering among us in the belief and pra- ctice of thofe truths, which tend very much to the advancement of Early Piety and Reli- We appeal to you, the Honourable Go- yernourand Worfhipful Mayor, as to Difin- terefted Perlbns, and moft proper Judges of the Truth and Impartiality of our Account. which is, -what was taken by the Pens of the Scribes, without any material alteration. We thankfully acknowledge your Condefcending a 2 Good- The Dedication. Goodnefs, in Honouring us with your pre- fence and preventing diforders, during the time of deputation. May you ftill continue maintainers of Ju- ftice and difcipline in your refpe&ive Ports : May your Names be tranfmitted to Pofterity, as Glorious Reformers of a corrupt and dege- nerate Age, in conformity to the Injunctions and Example of our Gracious King : May o- thers be excited and influenc'd by your Exam- ple : May thefe hopeful beginnings be car- ry'd on, that there may be no prophane Swearers or Debauchees in your Streets, and Vice andWickednefs may be put out of Coun- tenance and not able to {hew its Head : This is, and fhall be the conftant Prayer of, - Tour Honours X)bli°d Humble Servant. SAMVBL CHANDLER. To all the Pious and Sober mongfl them that deny, or doubt of In- • fant Bapifm. Brethren in our Lord, TH E matters in difference betwixt you and us, are not ib great, as the angry and uncharitable on ei- ther fide wou'd make em feem > there may be fome (we doubt not) both with us and you, that do Hereticate and Damn each other on ti e Account of their difagreeing Judgments about Eaptifm; (Nor is it to be wondered at, if choie who are ftrangers to ail fenous Re- ligion, mould put the refpeclive differing Opinions in the place and ftead of it: ) But we were willing here to let the Wo. Id fee, there are. with us, and ( we Charitably hope) wit\you alio, thofe that are both of a founder Judgment and of% much better Spirit. We areperfwaded, there are many amongft you, who Y tho you do difTent from us in iome leffer matters, yet) are agreed with us in the moft important and concerning things. Wherever there are real Chriftians on both fides,in any Concroverfie, ( as we make no queftion but there are in this} it is moft certain, the things wheiein they are a- greed, are greater, far greater, rbanany wherein they can differ. When all the great fuuftantials of Chriftianiry are out of doubt, both with you and us, that which fhaii af- terwards remain as a difagreed, or doubted thing on. ei- ther fide, muft needs be Comparatively very fmail, and not worthy of the Heat and Zeal too commonly laid out upon it. And we muft profefs for our own parts, f tho wherein we differ from you, we are verily perfwaded, the truth is a v ! on The* "Preface. on ciir fide, yet reckoning it to be only truth of an infe- rior N'-.ture) it has not been without regret,' that we have betii eisg^g'd in this Contention; The t Di/putatiun it felt" was not what we lough ti of was forward to *, it was not we that gave the Challenge : Nor when given, would we J<£ve accepted it, had it not been fo circumftane'd, as that our refulai wou'd mpft probably have redounded to' the detriment and difhoncur of what we believe to be the Truth : ^ any, efpechlly the more injudicious part of the Auditory, before whom the Challenge was given, notbe=» Ing likely to judge otherwile, than that what we main- tain wou'd not bear a publick hearing, fhou'd we have declined a Difputation^ which we were fo publickly pro* vok'dto.- And for this Publication of it, 'tis what we are alike puflive in : The World fliou'd have had no after-trouble about that Deputation, might we have been the choofers : But rlnce your Dr. Rujfel* has abus'd the World with a jnoft talfe and unfair Account of that matter ; we are ne- ceflitated in our own defence, as well as that of the iTruth, to Publifh the enfuing Papers. We wou d not therefore, that either-what was faid by us at the Difputa- tion, or is further added in thefe our Reflections fhoud be smifunderftood by you : This is not work that we take ^pleafure in,but what we have been conftraind to :* And if any Reflections fhou'd occur that may feem too fevere ; i"we wou'd here declare, they proceed not from difplea-> Ifure againft the whole Body of thofe whofe fentiments agree with yours, nor againft any one barely for that reafon : But we cou'd not but manifeft a juft indignation againft the Egregious falfehood and uncharitablenefs of lum that publifh'd the late (pretended) Narrative : And ( "we defire, that no one of the Pious and Sober amongft you, wou'd apply to your felves, what was only intend- ed as a Rebuke to him, or thofe who are too like him« Nor will the reft of you ( we hope) take it ill from us, that we expofe, as it deiei ves, that which is fo bafe, tho* it be found with a Perfon that pretends, in the prefent Controveriie, to fall in with you. You will not, you cannot once imagine, that his Concurrence with you in this Point of Baptifm, will hallow or excufe all that de- ceit and falfejlmd that appears in him: Nor can you your felves The Preface. fclves like it, that he ftiou d endeavour to fupport y66rj eaufe with lies. ; , - , , ■ . ,' This being premised, we are in hopes, the following Papers, if they {hou'ddo no^ooiamongft you, may ac leaf* be look'd into without doing him. So far as they re- port matters of fa^ we can boldly, and without, fear o£ being put to {name, appeal to the ^/i-knowing-GodfsLnd to the Numerous 'dfcmbfy who were Witnefles, that they are uridifguifed Trtuhs i And fa far as they contain •Matters of Opinion on one fide or other, we leave you and *11 others to judge for themfelves* " Yet (as we have already intimated) we wou'd not that the matters -contended about in thefe Papers, fhoud be over-magnified on either fide ; 0r that it {houd be fup- pos'd we differ further than we do: And 'tis a much grea- ter pleafure to us, to offer any thing that may tend to if arrow and lejfen t than to Enhance the differences there are betwixt you and us. After we had been rir'd with an impleading contention, we therefore ( as a reftefhment tc* our felvesj undertook this mere delightful .fervice ; here to attempt, fo faras ma^be, (notwirhftanding little dif- ferences) to reconcile, and bring nearer to each other the. Pious and Sober on both fides. . To which end we .{hall, firft, menjtion to you how far, and wherein we appre- ; hend we are agreed : And thence manifeft in the ficond. place, how inconiiderable the things are, about which we differ. >. , , i I. .-We are agreed, (without doubt) in every thing that is of ahfblute neceility to faivation : This is as certain as that there are Chriftians ( that are truly fuch) on both, fides; that there are t\\ok that flyall be favd on both (ides: Nothing that does Efjentially constitute Christianity is controverted betwixt us: And even with reference to this very point of Baptifm^ we are verily perlwaded, there is a nearer agreement betwixt the truly Pious ahd,Serious on both fides, than is commonly confiderd. Particularly, (i.) It is, it muft needs be agreed by all. fuch, that there is no pollibility of faivation, for any Soul in our A- poftate World, but only in and thro* Chrift, ^#.4. 12. (2.) 'Tis aifo agreed, that the Covenant of Grace does: fix the terms, upon which Chrift will be a Saviour to any:, That thence only it, is to be known, whom he will faye, and whom he will not be a Saviour to. a 2 * (3.) -> The Preface. (3*) Tis alio undeniably plain, and what cannot but be agreed amongft us, that according to the Conftitution of that Covenant, Chrift will be the Saviour of none, but fuch as are Jincertly devoted to God : He never was, nor will he ever be the Saviour of any others ; but fuch he has always been a Saviour to, Jer. 31. 33. Pfal. 119. 38. H a miftake, fuppcfe it to be on your iide, or on our*s, 'tis far from being a damning one. j. We will firft (as we think we have'juft reafon) fup- pofe the miftake to.be with you ; yet we dare not, nor do Account it a fatal, or undoing one. Thofe of your way, that agree with us as above ( and all the Pious and Sober part of you, we &ke it for granted, do) do only differ from us in a Circumftance. ^ou agree with us, that your Infants are to be entered into Covenant with God in Chrift, and ferioufiy devoted to him, &c % You on- ly The Prefaced ' ly doubt, whether it may be done \n this Ordinance : Nov tho we are perfwaded, that they fhoud not only be eri ter'd into Covenant, but aifo that this folemnity of Bap- tifm fhou d Accompany, and add force to the furrendcr we make of 'em to God : Yet we do not Account it fo abfolutely necefTary, as if tHe falvation either of the Pa- Kent or Child were fufpended on it. We read indeed that Baptifm faves us^ i Pet. 3.21. But the Apoftle to pre- vent miftake, immediately explains himfelf, and tells us, he does not intend it of the External Ceremony* but of the Anfrcer of a good Conference : Our unfeigned con Cent to the Bapti/malCovenant fop our felves,and for thofe tfet we have Power to confent, and accept it for \ arid our- (incere devoting our felves and them in that Covenant to God in Chrift, is indeed necefTary to theirs, and to our own falvation > and this is that Anfmer of a good ConfcU tnce ? which the Apoftle calls for : But where this is found, tho' the External Ceremony fhoud be omitted ( whether thro' the miftake of the Parent, or thro* the abfenceo£ a Minifter ) we don't think God will, nor are we any of thofe who dare, pafs a fentence of Death in fuch a Cafe. • And for the point of dipping, we reckon it to be yet much lefs material : The necejfity of it we do indeed op- pofe; and doubt not but the Ordinance of Baptifm (fofar as concerns this Controverfie) is Lawfully AdminifWd, If water be apply'd to a Perfon, in any other way or man- ner; fo it be done with the awful and folemn mention of the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft: But yet, fupporlngit be fo ordered, that the Life of the Perfon be not hazarded by it ; nor any breach made upon the Rules of modefty, we do not Condemn the Practice of Dipping : And in thofe two Cafes, all that are truly Pious amongftyour felves, muft (upon deliberation) needs dif- allow it, as well as we. 1. And now we will fuppofe the miftake to be on our part : We m\ke no difficulty of it, to own that we are faK lible: As wife and good Men as we are, nay, far wifer and better than we, have been miftaken ; and 'tis no wonder if in many things we be fo ; Nay, we doubt not, but in fome things at leafi, we are fo, becaufe we are Men : Tho* we do not know, that in any Principle of Religion we are *o 5 for that we dare not knowingly Err: Wherein fo- ever. ■ - The Preface. ever we are convinc'd of a miftake, we do, and we are willing to retraft it : But we may be in an errour, and may not know it * And we will for a'whiJe fuppofe (tho' we have never yet feen rea- fon to grant) that, as to the matters in difference betwixt you and us, we are under a miftake : Yec neither caa the miftake on our fide endanger the Foundations, fuppofmg we fliou'd be mi- staken. For, As to the Point of Irfant-Baptifm, if it (hou'd prove to be a miftake, 'tis only a Circumftantial one, a miftake as to the timeoi Adminiftration : This is the worft that can be made of it, if we (hou'd be miftaken : And where is the damage, fuppofing we fhou'd be too early laid under the moft folemn Bonds to be the Lords ? Tho' by the way, we fee not how this can be done too foon. We do not, we dare not reft upon our having been bap- tiz'd in Infancy, as if that wou'd of it felf fave us : We do indeed reckon it to be Valid B'aptifm, and that we do not need to be Bap- tifd again, when we become Adult ; but we don't think our In- fant.Baptifm will ftand inftead of Regeneration, or exempt us from the neceffity of Faith, Repentance, or a life of ferious Holinefs, when we are Adult ; Nay, weiook upon our felves ( by Vertue of that Baptifm) to lie under unalterable Bonds and Obligations hereunto. And now, tho' it (hou'd be fuppos'd, we are under a miftake, astothettrae, when this Ordinance (hou'd be Admini- ftred, yet can it have no hurtful influence upon us, or upon any of thofe great, and important Principles of Chriftianity in which we are agreed. «■ •* ■ Or again, if you fuppofe us alfo miftaken as to the manner of application, while we do not (as you) dip, or plunge the Perfon baptiz'd wholly under water, but only apply a fmall quantity of water to 'em, moft commonly by Pouring it upon their Faces : Yet neither can this furely, (if a miftake) be by you Accounted a very dangerous one ? No part of ferious Religion can be thought ro be endanger'd by it. The Kingdom of Chrift does not confift in Dipping ; fo as that he that is Vipfd (hall be fav*d, and he that is not Vipfd (hall be Damrt'd : You your felves dare not lay fo great a ftrefs upon it. What / Shall a Soul that is trulf Penitent, and with ferious Actings of Faith and Love, gives up it felf to God in Chriit, a Soul that refolvedly lies at his Foot, that will not wickedly depart from him ; Can you think luch a Soul (hall yet be rejected by him, meerly becaufe in. their Bap- tifm they were not Dipp'd under water.' This is what upon feri- ous deliberation, we are perfwaded, none of you dare avow. III. Now then, fince it appaars, that the matters in conteft betwixt you and us ( at leaft amongft the Pious aad Sober on both The Preface; both fides ) are To mconfiderable- and comparatively fmall ; we wou'd make if the rr. r o<- -)ur ( requefl to you, thai they may accordingly bq ownd and look'd'up n bv you. do not enhance, or over-rate t he V *m : By rfiis A.-ans, a happy mutual agrees: -at flight moft probably beetfetted, h weverall the ill effect, tnainins; difagreemcnts vvou'dbe prevent- ed or remov'd (;.) No *a more likclv man this to promote an Agreement afflongft ih : Apprehenfians thai the differences are greater, and the mi flakes more dangerous tha,i ^eyare, dc naturally influence both fides to look with ftrangenffs unon ead other, and prejudice 'em againft what is, or tnav be oirer'd on ei- ther fide : But were it rightly confider'd, how little the difference is, it wou'd yet tend to make it lefs • by foftening minds on each fide, and preparing 'em with greater impartiality to entertain whatever convincing evidence is laid before "em. Or, (z.) If it wou'd not remove our differences themfelve^, it wou'd (at leaft} prevent all the ill effects of 'em : For inftancc, why might we not live, and live like Chriftiuns ( notwithstanding the remain- ing differences in our Opinions) ? Why might #e not pray with, and for each other ? Why might we not, according to the Rule of the Gofpel, look favourably upon each others miftaKes, and receive each other to Love and Communion, avoiding doubtful difputations, Rom. 14, throughout the Chapter. Wefolemnly declare, we are ready thus :o receive you ; we dare not but re- ceive all whom we are perfwaded, our Lord hirn r elt- will re- ceive : Let there not be a breach maintain'd on your Part, while we impofe no 'fulfill, or fo mi» Jj ds mfpe&ed Term of Commu- nion on yoih Or, fuppofmg upon one or other mi ftake, you ffcou'd think fit to feparate your felves from us, from our Aficm- hYie*., yet, at ieaft, we beg, you wou'd in your d ifrin£t Aflem- bli.es fee to it, that the great and uncontroverted Principles of Chriftianitv may be ordinarily, and with greateft warmth and earnc^tnefs infifcedon ; and let not your Heat and Zeal be laid out upon the little things in which we differ : Let your endea- reurs be rather to make Men Chrijiians, than to make 5 em sbiti- pxicbtyrifts 5 and (hew that you prefer the interefts of our com- mon Lord, before thofe of your particular Party. For a dole, would leave thofe Words of the Apoftle with you, Phil. 3. *<«i6. Hevenbelcfsy whereto we hive already attain' d y ht us rval^ fy t'?e fame KultJqfrUs mini the fame things : And if in anything ye he <)■:;■) t*ife C0 ' Aceais i in hi * ^ count of the nZZT^WT 4 ' ¥<&' H ^uld have confuted his [Under upon the Learned Dr. Smith, as if he defend h fm thu ts Accounted for cohere. Mn Webber after- ward* An Introdu&ion. wards declares his utter' dijlik? of the difipute, andw\fitid\ had never been ; And before my felj and Mr Smith, deny" that the Letter in the Name of the Church at Gofnor Narr. p. 2. vat wrote with his Knowledg or confent. Then fore we Impute not the Faijbood of the matter, as if M\ Chandler had inveigh' d again ft andridiciA d their Pratlice nor the falfe Grammar in that Letter to him. Air. Rin exprefisd his hearty forrow by Letter {as well as otherwift in thefe following words ■— - {after having fent me the not 6 tf my Sermons , and deliver d a Copy of the Difiputation t Mr, Smith.) lam troubled at the Sad Effects of th Difiputation. 1 mean the difference it hath rais'd amon thofie, that I hope are all the People of God : And the Grie it may have \ccaftorid to any of his faithfull Minifters : An faft of all tkat^J have contributed any thing towards it Thd it hath been by deficient and no other wife: and as Jpra^ God forgive me \ fo 1 beg your pardon, and crave a fhare u your Prayers. I always refhetledycu, as a Mini ft er ofChril JefiUs \ have prayd for the Saccefis of your Miniftry, an t have heard you with a great deal of Satisfaction, and 1 hop < have profited by it '-, and (kail continue to do fo, andfo at tend your Adintftry without the leuft Prejudice, and I hopi with better Succefs than formerly. I am, Sir , yours in al Chriftian Service. Samuel Ring. PortfmoutlvViay 29.99, H'iis u the true Copy of Mr. Ring's Letter to me, who according to his promifie u finally attends cur Lecture ai Portfmouth, Now let the World Judg whether my Preju- dice again ft the growth of the Church at Golport, could put me upon this wor\\ or whether I ever inveigti d againft them'-, many of them can teftifytothe contrary, to whom I have, and (kail bear an hearty love and good wilt ; own them as excel- lent Servants of Chrift, and be very willing to contribute my Afpftdncc, to help them forward in their way to Heaven But alas ! 'Tts A4r* Bows and his party that are afraid of the growth of Mr. Webbers Congregation'. And therefore didfhfpend from their Comnvmion y one Ifaac Karmari by Name, a Joyner in Portfmouth, for hearing Air. Webber: this the Young Man told me him (elf and as!(d my advice about it\ and Mr, Bows told me himfel? before Mr. Francis Wiiii- aa*S, that if he could Believe that qht Doctrine of Original Sin y An Introdudlion, Sin, he floould think^lnfants hid need of Baptifm: jinttwon- derdthe People of Gofport jhould Scruple the Practice of Infant Baptifm^ and yet maintain the DotJrineof Original Sin, This Man it feems -wants not exprefs Corhmandor Example , but only to be feelingly acquainted with the uni* verfal Corruption of Humane Nature ; and then, would rea* dily Embrace our Pratlice. I Pray God open his Eyes^ and convince him of this great truth \ which is of far greater weight than this of Baptifm. b • ( o AN . . ^ABRIDGMENT # OF THOSE' SERMON THAT WERE ' The Innocent Occafion of the Difputation. eEre I mirfl unavoidably dip my Pen in tre Wa~ try Controverfy : I Jove not to meddle with matters of Difpute, efpecially where Sober and Gaod Men areatOdds: But I cannot do right to my Subject, .without mentioning the Grounds of our. Pra&ice, both as to the Subjefts of Baptifm, and the manner of its Adminirtratiott, I fliall aceording%to the order of the Difnutation, Firft, mentis toft^t \ offend, as to the Subje&s of Bap- tifm. j{ he could. Firft 13; i. I (hall prove from Scripture, the warrantablenefS of Infant Baptifm, or of the Baptizing the Infants of Believing Parents. Here I fhall not burden you with ma- ny Scriptures, that might be produced : but only mention fome few that I think mud clear. Firft Ffom Mat. 28. 19. Go,Difciple aR Nations Baptizing- them. From hence I thus argue. 1. The Infants of Believing Parents are Difciples, ^nd therefore ought to be Baptizd. Now we have a plain Texc that thefe Infants are Difciples, in* Atts 15. 19. Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke Hp%n the Necks of the* Difciples , 'which neither our Fathers nor vee were able to bear? This Yoke was that ofCircumcifion, ave^ y painful ordinance, AdminhTred to Infants of 8 days ''old *, this Yoke thefe falfe Teachers would impofe not on- ly on the Gentile Chriftians but their Infants too,andthefp- fbre St. Paul was acus'd by them, that he taught, they • fhould not Circumcife their Children nor Keep the Cuftoms of Mopes, Acls 21. 21. Now when our Saviour I fays Go, Difciple all Nations : The Apoftles mud need 1 underftand, that fuch as were Difciples in the Jewifh State, fhould be admitted to this ordinance in the Chri- flian Church. ' ■ 2. Infants are a considerable part of a Nation, and therefore we cannot fupooie, they fhould be excluded, except they were excluded' by Name or good Confe- quence. . . 3. Ail Nations, is here put in opnofition to the one Nation -of the Jews, As if our Saviour had faid, where- as the Jews have hitherto been the peculiar People of Cod, and admitted to peculiar Priviledges, now I admit all Nations to the fame Priviledges, the Jews only enjoy M before ; Eph. 2. 12, 1 3. Now it was a great Privi- ledg among the Jews, that their Infants were dedicated and devoted to God, and admitted into his Church, and ' Covenant, in their early years ; therefore the Apoftlel mull: needs underftand, when our Saviour faid, all Nati* ons fhould be Difcipled, that the .Gentiles, and theil^ Children fhould be admitted |o the fame Priviledges the Jews enjoy 'd before. '(4) 4: Our Saviour muft needs intend Infants unlefs he had excluded thei-n. If he would not be any longer a God in Covenant with them, he would have raz'd out their Names. Suppofe the words had run thus : Go y ~Difcifle all Nations, Circumcifag them \ the • Apoftfes muft have underftood that their Infants were intended, and why not the fame, when . only the rite is alter d ? Or fuppofe it had run, Co, Difclplc the Jews y B^tl^lng them ; They muft needs admit Infants that were ad- mitted before. So that whereas our miftaken Brethren call for an exprefs Scripture^ for Infant Baptifm, we have reafon to anfwer, there needs exprefs Scripture to revoke that Priviledg and Covenant Intereft which Infants in- joy'd before. If it had been Chrifts intention to have txrludtd Infants from the Church, there muft have been a pohtive Law, where fuch an intention of Chrift mould have beeu exprelVd : for nothing can make that unlawful, which was a. Duty before, but a direcl: and .„.„. lL exprefs prohibition from rhe Legis* * StiJmg-Fhzt inn. Um himfeIf . * who ^ hath p c _ ^ °* 7 * . wer to Reicind, as well as make Laws. ^ You know there was a great Con trover fy, whe- ther Circumcirlon fhculd continue or not, Atts 21., 11: and certainly there would have been a far greaser, if, upon their coining to chrift, theirlnfants had been excluded the Church, and ranked with Heathens j but feeing we find no Objections made about this matter, nor thar our Saviour ever revoked this Priviledg, we "may be afford they ftili enjoy it. 5. The Practice cf Baptizing Infants was cultomary among the Jem ; thofethaAavebutdip'd their ringers in the Jewijh Writings ktw y that ' not oniy Profeljtes (as Mr, Tombs acknowledged;) but Native 'Jews them* {ehesj were admitted into the Church by Cinumicifion, as an initiacirij .nee ; by gaptifra, as a.puri fying Cere- mony, to waih them from Legal Uncieannefs, w- , they might ignoraMy contract ; and by Sacrifice to ex- piate thei; Sin '-, arid that thi« was not a Corrupt Traditi- on, but £i-j\mdtd on thole many Texts, that leqyire warning from uncieannefs : And therefore this Practice is grounded on, Gen. 35. 2. Exod. 19. 10. by rhe Gem era (■■■>) ' twera Talmud, and Mawrmides. Now therefore feeing • rfantswcre chus admitted by B apt if m, and our Saviour as pfedSQ t. ach p r this cuitom into a Chriftian Sacra- ient, we have reafbn to believe that Infttnts a/e admit-* ow t.s uerore. # Another Scripture is in Ai. 38, 39. Recent att£ t Baptized, fior the t is to yon And to your %ild?en\ ana to thefe afar off, even & "many as the oar dd full call. The . Apoftte ■ Peter doth n this place perfwade thef? he had convinced , fthe greatnefcef their Sir, in murdering rhe Lord of ;!o:y. \y to return roGod, and rhen Incoura- £5 them to hope, fiiey mould again be received into 'avour With God : And, fays he, the promifewill be made not only to you but to vour Chrldceri to\> : And 3 Genrile World »al/o, Even to as .many as the ,oid our God mail call. Thence I argue. 1. This promife, was the £reat promife co Abraham. tome pretend* it is oniy that promife \\Jgc4 2. 8. Gods giving extraordinary gifts of the Spu ; r ; That their Jons and Daughters ihould Prophecy. Buc this dannot be. becaufe that promiie was not fuiirilfd to all afar ot£ gate afl the {jjtfts of Tongue. \ Do. all Propliecv ? The jromife fignifysThe great promiie K.:; tfcK&V to Ajraliam\ J mil be a God to thee and to thy feed, Gen, 17; 17. Therefore this is cail'd the promife Gal. 3.14. That the he ,reat Bieifing that God would*be a God to him and Kis feebV Now if this great Bierling come to thQ Gentiles, Then they and their keri ought to receive the: 1 of the Covenant; tht Children of me premise oi;gbt ip nave the S^al af&xed to if. 2. The Spoftle ufeth rtlefe words to comfort the J€w\ that had Imprecated Divine Vengeanceon them- 4 felvesand their C iildrtr», Irtjahrs as w'-rll as others : a etitfe that lies on the unfeelevIng^Btf to this 6*?'. His bfood he upon us and our Children \ no doubt t buy many of thole, that were pricked at the heart at Pete*; Sermon, joyr/d with the, rabble in that Loud cry ; Crmtfte kim y Crucify C6J Crucifiehim, and were concern'd not only for themfelve but their Children too ; therefore the Apoftle ufes thi Argument, if you penitently return to Cod by faith ti Chuff, the curie. ftiall betaken off from you.and u Children, you and yours mall be admitted again, anc not only fo, but thofe that are afar off, the Gentil< World, when calTd. 3. If the words were to be reftraiiVd, only tothoft thai believe and recent themfeives, and concern not theii Infants ; this would be an Argument to perfwadc the Jews, to continue in the Synagogue ftill, rather thar toi come into the Chriftiari Church. While Synagogu* xvorfhip flood before Chrifts coming, God had pro rnis'd happy Priviiedges, to themielVes and .Children but now if afterwards their Children muft be caft off and looked on as no other than Heathens, and ftranger, to the Covenants of promife, this would incline then rather to continue in the, Syn.igogue, than enter uii to the Chriftian Church. A Third Scripture is mRom. u. 15, 25. In thofe ven ies, thefe following things are containd. ^ 1. The Apoftle (peaks of breaking off frem and gra- ffing into *th'e Viable Church ; that the Itobelieving Jem were broken off from that Vifible Ch«fch, to whici: they were related before, by their pofitive unbelief, an( rejecting Chrift ; and that the Gentile Believers wen grafT'd.irf, and Co partook of thofe Priviiedges, frt>rr. which the Gentiles were broken off. 2. Some only were broken off, the reft that Believ'd injoy'd- the fame Priviiedges they did before, v. inth Now this was a great Privileelg, that God would be I God to them and to their feed : Therefore they ftill in joy'd the lame. 3. What Priviiedges the Jswt left, the whole body fnail be relief d to, when, the fhlnefs of the Gentile* ih.ill come in, v, 2$. therefore their Infants mall b< reffor'd to the fime Priviiedges they injoy'd before. 4. The Believing Gentiles are admitted to the Privi ledges the Jews injoy'd before*, grafted into the fam Olive-Tree, v. 24. Seeing Jewifh infants were intereiiecp in the Church and Covenant of God, the infants of Be lieviaj II i ^ (7) ying Gentifcs are alfo ip Covenant, and confequently ,g l t to have Baptjfm, the Seal, applyed to them. 4. A Fourth Scripture is in i Cor. 7. 14. Elfe were nr Children under/;, but now are they holy. Hence I* ^ue. T f the Children of Believers are holy, then thisordi- .nee ought to be Admiuifterd to them. The only diffi- ilty here, is to underftand what is meant, by holinefs in is place. 1. Internal Holinefs cannot be afcrib'd to all the In- nts oi believers. Becaufe we find by fad experience, ut many of them fham.efully * Apoftarize from God, id thereby plainly fhew, the Seed of Grace was never them, 1 John 3. 9. 2. Neither can it be under ftobd of bare. Legitimacy, i our miftaken brethren pretend. For, 1. The Word is never us J d in this fenfc, in all the rripture. 2.The Children of Heathens,if begotten in Lawful Wed - ck, are Legitimate, as well as of Believers : therefore lis can be no diftinguifning mark,as in this place. 3. The ApolUe's Argument would be weak and un- >ncluding, if he fhould only prove that they were awful Man and Wife, becaufe their Children Wfrtf awfully begotten* The Quertion proposed' to the A po- le was this. Suppofing a believing Wife Marry'd re an nbeliever, or e contra, whether the believer fhould well with the unbeliever, or part one frcm another. he Apoftle Anfwers, Jf the unbeliever be willing to abide, let them do ft, or the unbelieving Wife is Jattclified by the Husband, vd elfe were tour Children unclean, hut now are they bly. 3ecaufe one Parent is a believer, therefore their ■hiidren/aice peculiarly related to God, and in Covenant ath him. > .Now if. bars Legitimacy were intended, then the Ar- ument would run thus : You have no Reafon *to queftr- n,' whether you are Man and Wife, becaufe* y our Chii- ren are Lawfully begotten. * Can any believe any could ueition the one, and yet grant the other ? » 4. This would not aniwer the Corinthians Scruple : 'hey, did not queftion, whether co-habiting with llnbe- believers Jievers, expos d them to Fornication ; but, whether would expofe them to Areiigion, or at leaft, great Ten ptationfc Now, fays the Apoftle, How Knowefl thon JMan, bxt thou may ft fave thy Wile ? However, vol Children are holy, becaufe dnfe is a believer. 3. By holineis is meant Relative or Federal Holinef That the Children of Believers are Separated to Go( enter 'd into a new Relation to him, by vertue of h Covenant. ' Thus the Jfraelites are faid to be a holy Pec pie, becaufe Separated to God as his peculiar Treafun Deut. 14. 2.26. 19. the Infants of Believing Parents ar thus'holy, as related to*God and enjoying diftinguifhin marks fotf Favour, therefore ought to have this diftingtfifh ing ordinance apply'd to them ? 2. What Priviledges are the Infants of Believers In vetted in by Baptifm ? i. They are folemnly admitted into the VifibleChurch no longer itrangers to the Covenants of Promife, bu more nearly related to God, than the Infants of Hea thens. 2. Peculiarly interefted in the Churches Prayers j w<| are bound indeed to pray for all Men, but more peculi arly for the Church of Gcd, Gal: 6. 16. 3. Have a Title to Gccis peculiar care. God gives hi: Angels a charge over .them, Map. 18. 10. 4* They ftand nearer to^ and are tne more efpecia! Objects of the promiies of Grace, #44. 3. 59. In fants are cali'd by Gods Name, theretbre tho'GcdsGraa is free, yet we have more Reafon to hope, the promifei will be made good to them than others The vein o! Eleclion frequently runs ih the Channel of Believing Parent?, and their feed. 5. They are put into a new Covenant Relation. A* Abraham receiv'd the fign of.Circumcilion^s a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, to himfeif and feed, Rom. 4. 1 1 So this ordinance of Baptifm, fliall be a Seal of the Righ- . teouIneisof.Faith, to Believers and their feed. 6. If they dye during their Infant State, they fliall be f aved . Our Saviour ufeth this Argument for the proof of the Resurrection. / .am the God of Abraham Mat. 22. 32. Now for God, to be the God of any, is to ( 9 ) to diftirrguim them from others by his rewards ; he did not do thus fox Abraham s and his family, in this World, therefore. there is another, Hcb. n. \6. Now when God is faid to be a God to Believers and their l'eed, the mean- ing is, he will be a rewurderof them i therefore if they dy in .their Infant State, they have a promife to rely on, that God will receive them to Salvation. Whereas other* mull leave their Children to the unfathomable depths of Divine Mercy, as they do the Heathen World. 3. The Practical .ufes of Infant Baptifm beyond that of 'Years. This 1 do the rather, to take oft the Common Objection, that Infant Baptifm is an ufelefs Ordi- nance. 1. By Baptizing our Infants. we practically own our Original Pollution. Thoie Baptizdat Riper Years owii themfelves Sinners by Practice ; but do not neceflarily own, that there is a Fountain of Sin within : But when we oiler our Children to be Bapriz'd, we acknowledge that we have been inihuments cf conveying polluted Natures to our Infants \ and that they need warning by the Blood and Spine of Chrift. Thus the Prophet fets forth our (infill State, by the Pollutionsof a new born In- fant, t^ek^ 16. 4. ^ Hereby we practically acknowledg the Ncceflicy cf Gods\free Grace, in order to our recovery. As an Infant cannot^ conrrioute to his Baptifm, but is purely pa And thus rob him of a great pare of his Subjects, and indeed rob theujfelves of that corny fort they might enjoy : they look upon their Infants, as in the fame cafe and State, with rhe Hearhen World. I£ thrift fave them, it is by a Prerogative cf Mercy, and lot as his Members or Covenant Children ; but for this r.lH, , ( io ) cauje Chriftboth Died, and Rofe, and revivd, that he might be the Lord, of the Dead and Living. Rom. \ 4. <): and as Chrift whillt an Infant himfelf, was head of the Church, fo he is pleased to admit of Infant Members, in Covenant with him. 4. imant Baptiirn lays ftronger Obligations on Parents, to train up their Children for God. Certainly tis a mighty Obligation on a Parent to conlider. 1. I have '•Solemnly devoted my Child to God. Solemnly promised, A before the Minifter, and in the Face of a great Congrega- tion, that I will Endeavour by hearty Prayers, SeiiOus c Inmuftions, and a Religious Example, to train up my 4 Child for God * the vows of the Lord arc upon me, 4 and I fhall add perjury to the reft of my Sins, if 1 Neg- fc left them. The Prophet makes it, a great Agravati- on of the Jfraelites Sin, that they had taken their Sons and Daughters that they had Born unto God, and Siera- hVdthem to Idols. E^cl^. 16. 21. and it follows, Thou haft (lain my Children, God calls them his Children, as born in his Family, and Solemnly devoted to him. So the fin of Chriftians will be highly Aggravated, if they bring up their Children for the deilroyer, and Neglect thole Parental In&rufticns, they have obliged themieives to. 5. InfantBaptifrn Engages Children to acquaint them- felves, with the Terms and Tenour of the Covenant. When Children are told by their Parents, how Solemnly they were entered into Covenant with God, this engages them to enquire betimes, what they are by Nature, what they may be by Giwce, and to uildetltand all th« Principles cf Religion, in order to that end. 6. Infant Baptifm Engages us againft Sin Betimes. We are prepoifefs'd with a happy Prejudice againft Sin, in our Early Years \ and this is a great advantage. Whm Hannibal was but 9 years Old, hu Father made him la) his hand u$on the Altar, and Smear \ that he ypcnld be an Irreconcilable Enemy to the Remans : And this was the Reafon he would never admit gf any Peace with them. My Friends, we were Engaged for God againft Sin, and the Devil, as our Irreconcilable Enemies, nor at 9 Yeari Old, but in our Infant State ■-, and this obliges us to feihitiki a conftant Enmity agairtft them forever 7* : ( " ) 7. Infant Baptifm is a great Encouragement for Faith in Prayer, with RefpecT: co our Children Thofe that have dedicated their Children to Gcd in Baptifm, nuy pray to God, with larger Meafurcs of Faith and Hope, than fuch as hive Neglected this Duty. They may fay, 1 Lord I have rS%nd them up unto thee ; Brought them 1 to thine Authorized Reprefentative to be lifted into thy 4 Family 3 con Tented' tor them, to the claims of thy Co- ' venant ; and the token of thy Covenant, hath betn ap- c pl/d to them \ let the Promifes of thy Covenant be 1 made good to them. They are call'd by thy Name, * do thou receive them rThey are Viable Members of thy * Church . Oh give^them the Favours rhat belong to thy *Chi!dren A Vifible Relation to God is a good Encou- ragement for Faith in Prayer. We are call'd by thy Name : Thou bearefl not Rule over them. Jer. 14. 9. Thofe that have not thus dedicated their Children to God, can only fay, Lord be Merciful to them, tfoo they are not call'd by thy Name, and make them thine. But we have* a better Plea ; and can fay, Lord they are call'd by. thy Name. & Infant Baptifm adds to the Parents comfort. Thev may comfortably hope as to their living feed, that if they are Faithful in training them up for God.he will according to his promife, If. 44* 3. pour out his Spirit and Blejfmg upon them : and as to thofe that die in an Infant State,* they have Reafon to Believe and hope, that they are happy, became God hath promised to be a God to them, and to their fe^d ■ Whereas thofe that Neglect this ordi- nance have no more Reafon to hope fev the Salvation ot rlveir Infants, thm the Heathens; niult only leave them, to the unfathomable depths of Gods Goodnefs, having no promifeto rely upon. 4. I /hall ani'wer fome Principal Objections againft this Truth. 1. There is no Precept nor Example for Infant Bap- tifm, in all the New Teftament ; This is a Common Objection, and therefore deferves a diftincl: anfver. r.To this I Anfwer: What Exprefs Command or Ex- ample can they produce for previous Examination of Per- sons that offer tbemfelres to be Baptvzd ; for Stated c 1 Prayer, ( X* ) _ Prayer, before and after this Ordinance ; or for dipping 6r Plunging the whole Body under Wafer? All thele things mil ft be deduced by consequence ; for no exprefs Scripture can be produced for them. I may add, what ex- prefs Command have they for finging Plalms in Rhime and Metre, which is the Practice of the meft Orthodox Anabaptifts at this day I I mention this the rather, to convince Mr. Webber and his adherents, what a doughty Champion they have chofen for themfelves. For this Dr. Rftjj'ci hath written Tome Animadverficns on his Brother Aliens Elfay, on hnging Ffalms ; wherein he advances the very fame Arguments, againft their Practice' of finging Pfalms, that he doth againft ours for Infant Baptilm ; and therefore hath prov'd hiinfeif a Hackny di(- putant, that hath one conftant Road, and train of Argu-. ihents,upon all occaiions. Perhaps I maybe fo dull of Ap- prchtnfioj), as not to be able to Anfwer them, therefore muft cry, Men o£ Ifrael help. The Arguments of Ruflel againft Allen, pagsqui * If it doth not appear from Scripture, or any Authentic 4 Hiftory, that the Pfalms of David were Trantlated into 1 Rhime or Metre till the 1 6ih Century ,theri it is ImpoiTible * any Church could to ting them, as our Brethren now c do ; the Major is undeniable, the Afr/ior I thus prove. 4 If it be ib recorded, you or lbme other are able to * fhowit. * Further, if Singing ,in Rhime or Metre was never * pracfie'd in any Church, till the \6th Century, then it * was, becaufe our Lord Jefus had flot commanded it * fo to be. * If our Lord had Commanded it, his Apoftles would a have fo taught the Churches. c If the Apoftles were faithful in the difcharge cf their * Miniftrv, and kept back nothing, that was profitable to * the Churches, but declar'd to them the whole Councel of " God, then they did teach the Churches all that the Lord Meius Commanded. if the Apoftles did teach the Churches to Mug in * Rhjme and Metre, then it is fomewhere fo recorded in * the New Teftament. Thus argues this mighty Man of Logick > but as he cannot diftinguifh between Rhime and Metres ( i3 ) ietre, So I can fee, neither Rhime nor- Reafon in his liicourfe: thefe were the Arguments for want of better, ie trifled with at Port/mouth \ but Mr. Webber (to whole Civility I am indebted, for a fight of this curious peice,) aui\ either Renounce his beloved Rhimes, or comply irith the Practice of Infant Baptifm, notwithftanding he Wonderful Arguments cf his Champion to the con- rary. But to return from this digreffion. 2. Th«fe Truths that were EftabliiTfd in the Old reitament, are rather fuppos'd than pofitively exprefs'd !i the New ; but the Grounds and Foundations upon vhich Infant Baptifm fUnds, were Eitablifli'd in the 3ki Tenement. Infants were then admitted into the Covenant and Church of God : Except therefore Chrifr. lad blotted their Names out of the Covenant, and Rolls >f the Church *, They are to be continued there, under he New Teftament. Thus a Magistracy w*s fetled inder the Old Teftament, but there is no precept for it mder the New > the Lawfulnefs of War was then fetled, )ut fupposd, not expreit under the New. The forbid- len degrees of Marriage, were fetled under the Old reftamciic : No need ct mentioning them again un3er he New. 3. Anf. There are many Virtual and General Com- nands for the Baptizing of Infants in the New Teiia- nent, which werementicn'd before. 4. Ani. There was no need of an exprefs Command, )ecaufe it was the conusant Practice of the Church, when :he Scripture was written, in conformity to the Pra&ice )f the Jews, for many Ages before. } cannot here exprefs ny felf better, than in the words of *,-//• :he Learned Light fnt \ If Bap- * %$* f f .11m sudd Baptizing of infants had ' ' :x:en as itrange and unheard of a thing, till fohn Baptift :ame, as Circumcirion was, til 1 , God appointed it to Abraham ■> There would then no doubt, have been an exprefs Command for Baptizing infants, ts there was for Cijcumcihng them. But vvl.en die Baptizing of In- fants, was a thing commonly known andus'd, as appears by llnconteitable Evidence from ajl their Writers ; there iced not be expreis AfTertionv* that fudi and fuch Per- form ( «4) fori? were to be the Obje6ls of Baptifm, when it was as well known before the Gofpel began, that Men, Women and Children were Baptizd, as it is to be known that the Sun is up when it mines at noon day. 5. There would need a Pofitive Command, to exclude Infants, who were admitted into Covenant before. The Jews were extremely tender of their Priviledges, and you know there was a great difpure among them, whe- ther their. Children mould be Circumcis'd, Atis. 21. 21. Now if their Children were wholly cart out of Co- venant, this would have enraged them much more feeing therefore, there is not one word in Scripture, that once mentions the unchurching of Inftnts, not one A- poille, that once queilions or discovers ir, the believing Jems did not once Scruple it, nor the unbelieving . once 1 charge it on Chrift ; nor the Councel in Atts 15. Reveal it, tho" they fctut taught Infants mould be Circumciz d, did fuppofe they were Chufch- Members . I fay feeing all thefe things are True, Infints are Church-Members ilill, 1 and confequentl v ought to be Baptiz'd. ! 6. There are Examples of whole Houfholds that were Baptizd in Scripture, and we may well conclude, as' Abrahams Children, In L»k. 1 9.9. Ghrift iaith to Zacchetu. Salvation %g come to this Houfe y for that he a/fo is tb& Son of Abraham. ZacchoM was a Publican, and a ga^ xh^tx oi t\\t Roman Tribute ) and perhaps a Genrile, bui upon his Faith in Ghrift, he become? a Spiritual Son of Abraham, and Salvation comes not only to himfeii, bur hisHoufe ; God becomes a Gcd to him and his. So when we read of Lb many Koumolds Baptiz'd, upon the Pa- rents and Mailers Believing, we have Reafon to conclude their Infants, were Baptiz'd, as Abraham and his were Circumciz d. 7. There is no Jnftance of any Ohriltian Child, whofe Biprifrn was defend jtiil he came to Years. There was great Reason that they who hui bren Jews or Heathens betbre, fhouid upon their undertaking Chriltianity, be Baptiz'd at Years : as Abraham at the fir it Institution of Cirarumciiion was •v.i'cumciz'd, when he was old ; but we may well fuppofe, thei* Children (as AWahams y ) were 1 B«ptiz'd with t'vero, and afterwards in their Infant State. Now" Jow it is utterly unaccountable, that in that long tract of me, between St. Mathews Go/pel and the Revelations^ hen many Chriftian Infants were grown adult, We louid read of none that were Baptiz'd, but only or rm and Heathens, I fay this is unaccountable, and leretore luppofeth they were Baptizd in Infancy. Ob], 2. Infants are uncapable of performing the Duties rcrcquir'd to Baptifm. Of conreifmg their Sins, Mat. ,6. Of Repenting, AEls i, 38. Of gladly receiving the rord, Acts 2.41. OfBeiieving, Mar, 16, 16. 1: Infants are admitted on the account of their Pa- ints fauh. As the Infants of Believing Jews, lb are the itants of ChriitJans \ nor is this at all unreafonable. For as ifants contract Cuiit from their Parents, why 'nay they ot alfo partake of Mercy, on account ot their Parents ; scept God be more incline! to A&s of Juftice, than Mercy ? lS many were heal'd of their Bodily difeafes, by the aith of their Parents, Math, 15. 28. So why may ley not be admitted into Gods Churoh on the ime account ? As the Jewijh Infants, Covenanted with Jod, in and by their Parents, Dettt. 29. 11. 12. So /hy may not Chriilian infants Covenant in and oy them? ls Children are laid to coins ro Chnft, being brougiit 1 the Arms of their Nurfes or Parents, Lak. 18. 15. 16, o why may they not be laid Spiritually to come to Chrilf, , a the Arms of their Parents Faith ? As Parents enter their Jhildrens Names in Leafesand ( ovenanrs, and the Chii- Ircn are oblig'd to itand to thc-fe Covenanrs 7 and do in* dv thefePriviledges, when they come to V ears' ; So why nay they not enter their Childrens Names into the Cove- unr, and Church of God, tho' at prefent they are unca- )able of Per forially Engaging themfeives ? 2. Infants are oblig'd to thefe duties as foon as they are :apable \ and their Early Engagements in Baptifm, lay he more itrong and forcible Obligation upon them to do b. It afterwards they revolt from God, their Sin will be tiore highly aggravated, as adding Perjury and Apoftacy :o the reil of their Sins : and this may be on^ Keafon why, bmetimes, rhe Children ot Believers are worfe fhan )thers, becaufe they Sin againft greater Li^ht and Love, nd ilronger Engagements than other nacn n and there fore ( 16 ; fore juftJy provoke the Holy Spirit to forfafce them. T Levitts of a Month Old arc faid to keep the charge of tl Sanctuary, becaufe they were devoted to this, Office, ai bound to it when capable, Num. 3. 28. So the Infan of Believers are devoted to the Service of God : Ai bound to Believe, repent, confefs their Sins, and gladi receive the word, as foon as capable. 3. Thefe Texts therefore only fhew what was requir of grown Perfons, when Baptifm was ririt appointed i the ChriitJan Church. Thofe Perfons were either Jews c Heathens before, and therefore mult Renounce thei: former. Errors, and piofefstheChriitun Faith j but this ; no Prejudice againit Infants who are to be admitted wit them. As when Abraham was Circumcizd, he rirlt. Be liev'd in God, and Submitted to this Ordinance, but ai terwards the Infants of the Jews were Circumciz'd ii their Infant State : So if we were to Preach to the lndi ans^ we mult firM perfwade them to Believe and liepen before Baptifm ; but when once they ha,d Believ'd, thei Infants would have the fame right with themfe.lvcs. 4. As to Mar. 16. 16. becaufe many are apt to inu"f on the order of the words, and argue that Faith is pu before Baptifm, and therefore ought to preceed it, I Anfwer: The order of the words is not always tc be exactly regarded. For confelling cfSin is put afrei Baptiim, Matth. 3. 6. [Belides^ this would condemr all Infants ; for , if, becau/e they cannot Believe. they ought not to be Baptizd, then for the fame Kea^ fan they rnuft ail be damn'd. Tis net positively faid he that is not Baptizd ilia 11 be damn'd ; Baptifm is no* of Abfolute N«celfity to Salvation : Bwt it is poiitivelyi (aid, he that Bclieveth not ilull be damnd. If the latter! part of this verfe be Interpreted of Grown Perfons, lb alfomuft the former .As for Groan Perfons, FaitJtl muft go before Bapcifai : But it doth not follow, that; Infants are hence excluded from Baptifm, no more than from Salvation. Our Saviour doth therefore here, only give a general direction to his Apoltles, to Preach thei Cofpcl to every Qeature, and admit the Gentiles to thei fame Priviledges with the Jews, and (hews them thei Iifue of the Execution of their Commifiion > that thofe Jews, ( l 7 ) Jevss^ or Heathens that would renounce their former rdd latry, and beiievin^.y fubmitrothe Ordinance, as a So* lemn Entrance into the Church, (hould be faved; buP thoic that wilfully perfifted in unbelief, £hou dbedamhU So that thisisnoPrejudiceto Infants,who are iiili in Cove- nant with God thro their Parents Faith,and were fcever caft out. I proceed to the 2d General Que/rion. After what man- ner, the outward Element in Baptiim, ought to be «p- ply'd, whether by dipping or plunging the whole Body uncjer Water, or whether pouring Water on the Face be not fufflcient ? To which I Anfwer, i I. It is not Abfolutely NecefTary that this Ordinance [hould be adminiftred by dipping or plunging the whole 3ody under the Water. There are many miftaken Bre- hren lay too great a ftrefs on this ; but it proceeds from heir ignorance of the Scriptures. 1. The Holy Ghoit, never tifes . Bacra, which noft frequently fignifys to dip, but soce%? ; Now why hould the Holy Ghpft confecrate a nzw W >rld for this Ordinance; if dipping had b°en the only way of dmini- hlng k? Now Ba^na is always us'd where dipping is ignhVcL Mat. 26. »S« 7°k 13. 26. He that dippeth nth me in the dijh. Lul^ 16. 24. dip his finger. K*v» t$* 3. with Garments dip din Blood. 2. The Greeks word Bx^2t^,is us'd in a differing fenfe n Scriptureo Thus you read, Mar. 7.4. The Pharifess x at not except they wajh oft. Now the way of waihing among the Jews, was this ^ Servant was ready to pour water, on his Mailers bands* «nce Elifha is thus defcrib'd. 2 Kings 3. j 1. H >e k Liifha that poterd Water on the hands of his Mafter EH- ih. So we read of warning of cups and pots, Braferi feflels,and Tables or Beds, Mar. 7. 4, the Greek word is k/>r/*o.Surely they did not carry them out to a River and lip them there, but pourd water on them, and ib made hem clean. Again, Heb. 9. 10. we read of divers wafh- ngs $ Baptifms in the Greek, Now what were thefe Bap- luns but ^.13.21. /ta>/*/sjSprinkling the Book arid all the tebple; with the Blood of Calves and. Goats and Water. D that Pxttltt and Boc^t?^ fignify the faixie thing, Lee pt Injudicious People therefore, pretend, -thai ours if hl£ sVtmifm) when we find isi Scripture iliit ftitoifnif. ^- ('*) . ' and Baptifm are us'd promifcuoufly for the fame: 3* There is no certainty that dipping was ever usd ii Scripture times. All thofe Scriptures that are common!] urg'd to this purpofe, may be eafily apply 'd another way If we begin wkn Jokn the Baptift, he is {'aid to Baptiz not in,but with Water,as Chrift with the Holy Gholt an( Fire. Luk. 3. 16. Now how did Chrift Baptize with th Holy Ghoft and Fire ? but at the day of pentecoft whei the Holy Ghoft was pour'd on them. Atls. io. 45. know the learned Cafauboris witty Criticifm that in A&. 2. when the Holy Ghoft came upon them it is faid There cdme a found from Heaven as of a rufhing might wind, and it filled the Houfe. So that they were as in 1 Fifn Pond Overwhelm^ with the Holy Ghofh But t< this 1 Anfwer, it was the found that rill'd the Houfe. and not the Cloven Tongues of Fire, which were ihe Em biems of the Holy Ghoft, and fure they were not Over- whelm'd with ihdc \ but that promife was made good, I ■will pour out my Spirit. Atls 2. 17. Now the pouring out of the Spirit, is frequently reprefentcd by pouring fltit water, Is. 44 3. But feveral Scriptures are pretended for dipping ; tfi< moil material are thefe. 1, Mat. 3. 16. jefits went up out of the water. I Anfwer, he might acordmg to die Practice of tfeofe, times, go into the Water to wafh his Feet, foul with Travelling, and John might pour Water on his Face ; but the Greek word may be render'd, he went up from' the Water. The like Anfwer may be given to Mar. i. 9. Jeftuwas Baptiz d of John in Jordan. It doth not prove his whole Body was plung'd there. Nay i\i frequently fignifvs ty and if we compare this place with Mat. d 1 3- Jefits came from Nazareth of Galilee to Jordan to he Baptized of John. So here we may read the words with a Parenthefis ; And Jefus came from Nazareth of Galilee; {and was Baptiz d of John) to Jordan " m ' 2. Another Scripture is Job. 3. 23* J°bn Baptized in i.non % becaufe there was much fVater there. I Anfwer, much Water may be meant not of depth feat length, many ftreams and Rivulets, where John and his D:lciples might conveniently together Baptize of pour Water on the Multitudes,,' 34 i .'. I \. Another Scripture is A&s 8. 38. where Philip and he Eunuch are faid both ro go dewn into the Water ; whence fomc woul d infer that the Eunuch was dip 'd. I Lntwer, they m'^ht cry go dewn re, and come from hg; Warer. So the Creek may be under'd, the Water unning in the valley*. But X N nviii ml ill ci the iet- #of the Text, Phi /Up muft dip hiwftl as tveH as the Innuch ; for they been went down. Or they might go jnk.e deep, and Philip might pour Water on his Head [r Face: either of thefe Interpret a tions are probable, and yerefore it cannot Neccffarily be prov d he was dipt * beiides Ife' f:nii';telihood that he was dipt on a Journey, when eihaps he might have nocloaths to change. 4. The Principal Scripture they boaifc of, is Rom. 6.4. 'd and drown'd for their Sins, Gods Vengeance fol- v d them, and they funk as lead in the Mighty Waters: But Noah znd his Family, whofe entrance into the k, was a Type ot Baptifm, as that is an Entrance into iChriftian Church 1 Pet. 3. 21. They were only wet ththe Rain they met with in their paifage. Thus the yftians were dipd and drown d in the Red-Sea, but j Ifraelites wtre Baptized unto Mcfts, in the Cloud I the Sea, 1 Cor. 10. 2. by the dewings of the Cloud, i darning of the Waves. Thus the Lord Jefus fhall ne down from Heaven, to render Vengeance on his itichriftian Enemies, with Garments dipt in Blood. v. 19, 13. I know the ufual Objection of Naaman the •Un % of wkom it is faid 2 Kims 5, 14. he dip d him- Jclf ■ (22 ) ftlf in the River Jordan, Seven rimes , according to. th< laying of th,e Mm of God. But this Obje&'.on I tool* oft in the Difpucation it ielf Not accord ing to thefaif* reprefen\irion oF the N iTirive, butrhu>: The Propnei bids, bi n, v. 10 gs and rvafh in Jordan Seven times \ ana he jvafhel himplf y i% the Hebrew may De fendred, accord- ing to the faying of the ^ Mm of^Jo'i A.; When our Savi- our com maided die blind man r o vyu'fn in the Pooi oi Sl/oa^y Joting.-]. he had nvned to dip himffif, but on-. ly to vv Qi his Eves So Naamw rhe Syrian had no need towafhanv parr or his body, but only where he wx af- fecled with Leprofie : And therefore till t can be jrov'd, thitNatman was a Lepjr ill over, r,*is'Objertijn i> of no Force. This wasmyAhfwsr then, 'which perfectly silen- ced Ruffel. This Argument I uVd not to p ove the abfo- lute Umawfulnefs of Dipping > for I lay no ireis at all onrheModeof Ad-:»iin/fti\ition ; and tho Di-ming jeus'd in thefe places, as a Token of Vengeance, yei it may be apply'din a way of Mercy. Bur I hence argue, it is very unlikely, that this way, and no other mull: be us'd in 3ap- tifm. And this may be a fumcient Anfwer to all that lit- tle Story about Mr. Fox in the Preface, and the tiiriing Querysuponir. 2. Sprinkling, or pouring Water on the Face, in this Sacrament, i§ moft (ignificanr. We pour water on the Face, the Nobleft and Chiefeft Bart ot Man/ That part we pour water on is naked, to reprefehr our nakedneik be- ; fore God \ and this is fumcient, and (lgniricantly repre- (ents, i. The Blood of Chrift, whereby we are cleans'd from the Guilt and Filth of Sin. To this, there are particular Alluiions made in many places of Script ure,£fr£. 10, 22.' 12. 23. 1 Pet. 1, 2. 2. It fitly Repr.fents the Communications of the Spirit. The Spirit of God is promised to us under this Metaphor, If 44. 3. 52. 15, Ene^, 36. 25. Thus in this Ordinance is fignify d the pouring out of the Spirit, to' cleanfe us from that Pollution we have contracted. 3. Pouring Water on the Face, doth moft aptly Re- prefent the Grace of God apply'd to us, rather than dip- ping, whereby it may feem, as if we fiift apply 'd our felves ( »?) elves to hira In dipping- the body is apply VI to thb Pater ; in pouring, Water isapp.y'd to the body. This aioft titly Reprefenrs, that God is thefirft Mover i our CcnverMon ; that Regeneration and Sanclitication ; his Work : Whereas the other way, inclines us rather d think that we clt n(t and purify our felves. It is no ror,der, that they who Dignity the Power of Nature, ud think by their own *ree will they change and convert hemfelves, are for this way ; but as for thofe that better nderft.md the Scrip urts, ^nd their own weaknefs, and cknoWledg that it is not in htm that willeth, nor in him jar runneth j but in God that Jheweth Mercy, Rom. 9, 6, and that God Works in # s bcth to will and to dd % wording to his own Good P leaf we, Phil. 2, 13. It ems very unreasonable for them to ufe fuch a Practice, iat Intim tes as if Man had Power to change and con- :rt himfeln" Mr. t ( I ) !■ ■> ! -^m — Mr. Chandler's Prologue. My Friends, JT U not out of Pride or Vanity ,that I now appear I in this Place, upon this occajion. Mnfi of you* vow, and I fuppofe many of you have heard, that y f tht courfe of my Leclure here, I have been dif- wfing of the Principles of Religion: Andhavtng vplaind the Creed and the horffs Prayer, did un- make to treat of the Doftrine of thtSacraments y irticularly that ^Baptiim. Thofe that then heard e know j that Ifpakewith a great deal of Modefty, \lling thofe r?/^ ^^Inftnt-Baptifm, by no hard- \ Name than Mifiafcen Brethren . when Twos ^avoidably engaged in this Difputation by a bold id confident Challenge given me, which I knew »/ how torefufe^ unltfs I would betray that Truth bich I believe to be the Truth of the Gofpel. They emfelves not being able to an fiver the Arguments 1 en ujed, have cryedoutj Menof Jfrael, come and Jp. and 'therefore have fent for this Gentleman om London. Now I defire that all things may be anaged with the great eft Fair nefs and Calmnefs y at we may debate of thefe matters as Chrtflians y at nothingmay be done that is tumultuous or dif- derly : And, as we have the Favour of the Govern- B me*t ( o me ftt both Civil and Military, fo^tb+i rve may giv them no occafic-n to repent (f .'givipg this Libert) And I hope ivc jhaii aH (if us be willing to fubmit t the Truth , as it is revealed in the Go/pel, and la our [elves open toQonvitlion. I have no more t add, but defer e aHof you to joyn with me in this on Requeft,That God would grant that Truth may pre vail. fr Jl Chand.*T K HE Quefticns to be diluted of are thefe ii ■*- order : Q. i. Whither, according to the Commijfion of our Lor, Jefns Chrljt, -Adu.lt Believers only are the proper Subjects o Bdptifm, cr their Infants alfi* Q. 2. Whether this Ordinance of Bapifm, as appointed b t Chrijt, be to be adminiflred by Dipping, Plunging, Over whelming only, and not Gtherwife ? We deny, and they af firm. Buffet. I do fuppofe it will be neceflary to underftand tow much of this, that we affirm, Mr. Chandler owns, thai we may not difpute about thofe things wherein we are a- greed ; whether you do own, that Adult Believers are the proper Subject; of Biptifnl ? Chand. If they were not baptized in Infancy, they oughj to befo at Age v Rttf. You do fuppofe then that they are to be baptized b> vertue of fome Come liffion, and that, the Commiffion ol out Lord Jefus Chrift. Chand* Yes. If Then with refpeel: to the firft Queftion, Whether A dull hell ever s only, or whether Infants alfo may be admitted to Baptifm? And I fuppofe you do expect that I fhouldb( Opponent. Chan. Yes, that was agreed- Ruf. VYcll then, I fhafl endeavour (God affifting) tc prove, Infants are not, according to c hrtft's Commijfion, th prober Sxijcfts of Baptifm. jirg. If Chriil hath no, where required any of his Mini for ( i ) iters' to baptize Infants, then the Baptifm of Infants is not according to the Gomnnffion cf our Lord Jefus Chrift. Bur Chrift hath nowhere required any of ins Miniiters, 2Tf. Ergo. Chan. I diflinguifh hereupon your Antecedent. If you nean by Chris's Requiring, his Requiring Infants cxpre£ ty, and by Name, there is no need of it: But i j Requi- ring, you mean either expreOy, or by juft tonftquence ; hen I deny your Minor. Ruf. Then you fuppofe that Ch.rift hath no where reqni- ed' ir. m Chan. No. Diftinguifh between exprefs wrds and goocj :onfequential Proof?. Ruf Ic's neceflary the peop'e mould knew what Mr "handler means ; and : Robinfon. I's he indeed they fhould ''new what he neans > but it's alfb fit he fhould l . . is uwn mean- ng. You mult not be permitted to ? n Mr. dhdndftrs neaning in your own word*. Yo.. -utinefs k :j pr<¥?e */ hat he denies. Ruf, I'do hope, Gentlemen, that yen will not thus bre^ r .: n upon us. Rob. I do (land here on purr fe to prevent Irregularity n the Difputahts. Leigh. This Gentleman is our Moderator. Ruf. Pray what is your Name ? Rob. My Name is Robinfon. Ruf. Now if you will be (ilen-t, and Mr. Chahdlir be plea- ded to teil me what pare of my^tgumeric he denies, 1 inalj proceed in the defence of it. Chan. Repeat -jtour Argumenc then. Ruf. If Chijit hath no where required any of his Mini- sters to bapcize Infants, thee theBapciim or Infants is not iccording to the ComniiflTion of our Lord J. C. But Chrift bath no where required, &c Ergo. Chan. Here, I fay, as to the Major : If you mean by re- quiring, ChritVs exprelly Requiring in To many Words, that Infants mail be bapcizedjthen I deny theConfequence; but if you mean, that by genuine confequence it cannot be drawn from Scripture; I deny the A4in»r. Rttf Ttie Term is very lax. I do n#c iay } that he h*th no B 2 ' where (4) where commanded it, but no where required it. If it b? any where required, it's enough. Give a direct Anfwcr. Leigh. Wili you allow good Scripture Confequence tel 1 be lToof in this cafe \ or do you expect Scripture words ex prefly ? Let us nut dil'pute in the dark. Gentlemen, you that are Notaries, pray obferve how ambiguoudy Mr. Rujjel exprefleth himfelf. He will not fay wh ther he'll aliowjuftSciipture-confequ^nce for fufficient Proof. Ruf. I think I givemySeniein as plain woids as I can. X.Will you have it in exprefs wordSjOt* goodConftquencei Williams. No reaton for fuch a Di- * Any way ; before, ftinclion, becaufe our brother hath the words were any ^\d * any way. where. R u f t jfc s a ji onc t0 rne, fo you prove .+ He is attemptwgto | t fc e t fa n „ . p rove i t anv way . jbift tbeOpponcmy. chanl j dcny your M ^ or# Ruf. I prove it thus. Only I would let the people know what you lay, viz,. That Chrift hath * Somewhere. The * fomewhere required his Minifters tG word is again altered baptize Infants. from anyway to fome- Leigh. Either exprefly, or by Jufl where. Confequence. Ruf. If Chrift hath any where required any of his Mini- fters to baptize Infants, then it is fomewhere fo tecordec in the holy Scripture. But it is no where fo recorded ir the holy Scripture. Therefore. Chand. This I anfwer by diftinguifhing again; If yoi mean by being fo recorded in holy Scripture,its being then in fo i.ny exprefs words, then I deny you* CcniVquence but it you mean that its not fo by good confequence, ; deny your Minor again. JRuf. Le: us not confound the people with fo many Di ftin&ions, but plainly deny what par Wke Vr. nor* jeems you $^£ t * wrol hg aguin to al* Leigh. I will make it appear, tha W s < r! ? :urs C M*- there is that recorded in Scripture W lC ' m which by juft coufequeuce will prov what you deny. .*. Here Mr. Leigh ( Ruf. If you Can prove it fo record was roiUirg (tko the epVris enough. .'. Msfpondent h*bt not to Frtrte) to offtr f roof far %he peoples fait) 'aft ion. Kol CO Rob. Fray Mr. Leigh -Mr. Rufiel muft prove, that it is not fo recorded. This is what lies Mr.Rebinfon wiU ty e P upcn you, Sir *. n to the Opponmy. Euf. I would know what part Mr. Chandler denies. Chan. I deny the Minor. Ruf. Then you fay, it's fomewhere To recorded in the ly Scriptures. Chan. It's your bufinefs to prove the Negative. Ruf If it be fomewhere fo recorded in Scripture, then r. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or feme other perfon is able to ew it. But neither Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or any O'- er perfon is able to mew it. Therefore. Chan. I deny the Minor. Ruf. It's a Univerfai Negative, you muft prove it. Iar> :al to the Moderator. Rob. This ought not to be put^upon the Refpondenf, ou muft prove it ftiil. Suppofiog that neither Mr. Cband- r,nor Mr.£*gfc,can give you an inftance,you can't prove iat none eife can. If you can, we derire you would. With You are but Moderator, Let the difputants alone. Rob, But Mr. Rujfel appeal'd to me. Rufl would have theie honourable perfons here prefenr^ > confider that I am under great difad vantage —you e to give an Inftance. Rob. This is your Popular argument to fhift the Op- onency and turn it upon the Refpondent. Ruf. If Mr. Chandler can give an inftance, why do you inderhim ? I fay its an Univerfai Negative, and I de* land only an inftance to the contrary. Leigh. Offer him the Commitfion All Nations. Robin. No reafon for it to be allow'd ; But if Mr* handler, ispleafed to take the part of an Opponent up* n him, Now he may. — 1 Suppofe, Mr. Ruflei you muft needi :now, fince you have been fo often engaged in fuch work s this, that, according to all rules of Logick, you ought o prove the Negative. You do Univerlally Affirm this 5 ropo(ition, tho' in form it runs Negatively, That no perfon can give one inftance in any record of holy Scrip- :ure, from whence we are obliged to baptize infants. B 3 How wA « ::: [I ( o How do you prove this? It lyes upon you to prove: Otherwife wemuftfuppofeMr. Rttjjel is a confident ma *nd aflerts what he cannot prove. Wi& Mr. Moderator keep your place. Rob. Sir I am in my place* I muftflOt fuffer the Di putants to break order : Mr. Chandler is Refpondent ar you are Opponents, and therefore / ay keep your place. Ruf. I would take notice of 01 thing. Mr. Cbandl hath preached to the People, Thatthere'is a plain con mand for Infant Baptifm in Scripture, and I argue upc him to give but one Inibuice, and you will noc iuffer hit to do i:. 2*eighf Ic's not Mr. Chandlers Sermon, but the Quel! on, which we now argue upon. - RaC. I hope that there are fome Honourable Perlor" ffere that do understand the nature of this Controverfy And, I fuppofe, they will think it reafonable, that thoif who have made men a noife about this Practice ought t bring fome colourable Proof for it. JSJo, not one initanc hath Mr. Chandler given. I am fure according to th, Aiies of Difpute Mr. Chandler mull prove the Negative. Rob. I deiire that the Perfons here prefent would tak" notice, that however Mr. Chandler have afferted in thi place, and very clearly proved the Baptifm of Infant c from the Commiflion of our Ld. I. C. yet you are no,! DOWtx> call upon him for proof,you having undertaken 3 prove the contrary. Mr. Chandler gives an anfwer ; he de, ny's your ajlertion, and therefore you mult prove it, anj xot (it down and fay , Do you prove the contrary, or eif< 111 take it. But if you can carry this argument no fajy ther, it's time to proceed to another. Ruf So I dehgn, if there be no anfwer given. Chan. Here is an anfwer. I deny the Minor. Ruf. I have prov'd it, according to the Judgment oi ; a!1 prefenr. Leigh, According to the Judgment of thofe that under- hand the rules of Difputation, you ought ro prove the Negative. But we will undertake to prove, that there iS f bat recorded in Scripture which will prove by juft Con^ fequence what you deny . Rob. If you wijl change fides you may. m ( 7 ) Uuf. This is no changing fides : For I do not defign to it the Opponency, only let him ng an inftance. * * r ^ Dfs. defign e~ Leigh, I would beg one favour, - ven «?» Was t0 *w* » the offering a few words. I'll un- ^ Opponency on us, as take in any Difputation, Philofo- ! can iT f T™ : £ i tv„- if. „i ' _l j * Ter <>t Mr* Jo. Willi, .cal or Divine, by tins method, to am J But ^ k wjg n the Opponency on the Reipon- m h tbe opponent it. 1 11 but- make- him bring one anc i jet expec j s f rm :>of of what he fays, and this way, u* a Scripture Proof mediately turn the Oppouencyon fer Infant Baptifm. n. — -And as for this, Here's a ntleman that underib rids the Rule" of Difputation. —I defire, Sir, you would declare whether Mr. Ruffe!^ not oblig d to prove ins Negative he hath aiferted. Dr. Smith. According to the lies of Difputation. Nezantis non : £ xtr . . . probare.* * ^, AfTerenti m- Ruf. Well, what mult I do ? r Rob. Sir, you are to prove your opofition. Here is this worthy Gentleman of 'the" me mind. Ruf. How do you mean prove ? The whole Current cf ripture fufficiently proves it. The total iilence of Scri- :ure in this matter is Proof; What is not in Scripture, '*• Rob. If you can proceed no farther upon this, then it's ne you go on. Arg, 2. Rftf. If Infants are not capable to be made Dt- iples by the Minillry of Men, then they cannot poiiibly \ the Subjects o£ Baptifm intended in ChrinYs Com naif-' dii. But they are not capable to be made Difciples by ie Miniftry of Men. Therefore, &c. Chan, Here if you mean by Difciples, A&ualand Ccm- leat Difciples, then I deny your Major. But if you lean Incompleat Difciples, fucb as are entred into a :hool in order to be initru&ed, and given up in order ) learn there, I deny the Minor Ruf. The Major is this. If Infants are not capable of eing made^ Difciples by the Minillry of Men, then they annot poffibly be the Subjects of Baptifm, ChwL * Here we expeftcd that the Dr. fbould ei- ther bxve Jhewn that this diftinBion z> (8) . Ch**A. Well then. As to your Major. That they th; are not capable of being made Difciolesby the Miniftry < Men, are not capable Subjects of Baptifm. Diftinguif between Compleat and Incomples Difciples. * Ruf. What doth he mean by d< nying my Major ? Rob. Mr. Chandler diftinguiflu groundless, or that he between Compleat and Incomples fbould have brought it Difciples. If you mean CompleatDi: into his next SyUogi/m. cip U he denys the Major. If .yo But he doth neither. mean i ncornp leat Difciples, denys the Minor. Ruf. Well, come, Tell me what he means by Com pleat and Incornpleat Difciples, by the Miniftry Men ? Chanl. I mean by Compleat Difciples, fuch as ar actually capable of Learning ; by Incornpleat, fuch pat ticularly, as are enter'd into the School of Chrift in ordc to their future Learning, as we fend Children to Schoo before they are capable of Learning one Letter. Ruf. I do not talk of that, I fpeak of their being ac*fcu ally capable of being made Difciples by the Miniftry o Men. Chand. I deny that thofe, that are capable of beinj made Difciples by the Miniftry of Men in y*ur fenfe^ an the only Subjects of Baptifm. That* what you are to prove,. * Ruf. Well, if that be the thin_ you deny, you deny, the Confe quence. And I prove it thus. our Lord in the Commiflion which he hath given for^ Holy Baptifm hath required his Difciples and Apoftles, who were Men, ro make thofe Di£ ciples by their Miniftry who were to be Baptized', then my Confequence is true. But our Lord in the Com- miflion hath, &c. Therefore. Chand. I deny the Minor. He hath not Commanded nit that were to be Baptized by the Apofiles^ firfi to be made Difei- * We feeing that the Dr. wavd di- ftindions, and ground- id his Diftiplejhip by the Miniftry of Men upon the ironiTeacIi, Mat. 23. «9- And that bxaufe it goes before the Word Baptizing. Therefore we denied the Major. i ( 9 ) J ifciples by their Miniftry in your fenfe ; I tl ink here ight to be a diftinclion. Perfons may have a right to lblick vifible entrance into the Church of God, before ey are compleat Difciples ; that, we fay, Infants have fore Baptifm, and foin a more imperfect fenfe are ifciples, but in a more perfect fenfe are made fo by iptifm. Ruf We are talking whether Infants are capable of ing made Difciples by the Miniftry of Men. Leigh. We fay, that as they are the Infants of believ- ;, "fo they are in a more imperfect Cenie really Difciples. fore Baptifm. And it's nothing, to talk of their being ide fuch by the Miniftry of Men. Will. If they are fuch, then it is by the Miniftry of :n. Leigh. That I denv, Knowing that you Ground your Af mm upon the pofition of Teach before Baptize, Mat. .19- Ruf Our Saviour hath joyn'd Difciplingand Baptizing *ether. They are commanded firft to make Difciples, d then to baptize them. Therefore, I fay, if Infants : not capable of being made Difciples by the Miniftry of ;n, they are not, according to this Commiifion, to be prized. Chan. Prove that \ * Mr. Chandler calls Ruf If Infants have no Know- for a Proof of the Ige to difecrn between Good and Confequent, and the S, then they are not capable to be £ r - M S , U \ on s tde Difciples by the miniftry of Proofof tbe Antecc, m. But they have no Knowledge, en ' ?. Therefore, dr. €han. Here you trick all this while. I told you, by fciples I meant incompleat ones, and iuch as are given in order to be inftru&cd in the School of Chrift. Ire- We you to prove that thefe ough: not to he baptized, be- ne not capable of InftruWon by the Adinijlry of Men. Ruf What do I care what ycumean: we are fpeaking theCommiifion of Chrift. Will. The Scriprurefays they muft be Difciples accord* * to the Commiifion. Ruf. We are talking of the Prerequisites to Baptifm: erefore it's plain, according to what I have told you, C and (10) and the Argument is exprefs and full, according to th words of the Text, that they muft be made DiTcipIes b the miniftry of men, if they be to be baptized : For i Mark Chrift commiflioneth to go into all the World, *t preach theGofpelto every Creature. In Mat. 28. they we. to PifcipJje all Nations, and then to baptize them. No if Infants be not capable of being made Difciples by tlf' Miniftry of men, then they are not capable Subjects 1 Bapufm. Now you denied this Confequence of the M )or, which I proved thus *. If I. * Here the Dr. blun- fonts have no Knowledge to difceil ders (igt,hu confounding between good and evil, then they a* Antecedent and. Con[ e - not capa ble of being made DiJcipl ^ mnU • . by the Miniftry of men. But, &c\ Rob. By his former diftin&ion he denies both Antec dent and Coniequent. Chan. 1 deny • your Confequen f u e. Becaufs they vvith my former Diftinction t. arc not cApahle of In- R^y: Then you fay, tho they ha' ftniZion , or cmplm m knowledge, yet ftiil they are c Vmm h tbeMt- He of bd made Di f cipIes by t j mitn c{ wzes; there- a \ c * i i hkfti x d. £*"• * only defire aSy Upofin^ # * fiert » not a, word Kch > You maul tnoully feek to hi< 6f the Confequence , your meaning. It you mean by D *>hich ti [till dtrfd \ ciples fuch as are fo in the fulleft ar but fa goes on utonthe compleateft Senfe, Prove, that i Antecedent. mud be made fudi, in order to the being baptized. Bat if you me; Difciples in the loweft SeinQ^ as it intends fuch as arc gvp up in order to be mftru&ed in the School cf Chrift, pro that. Infants are not capable cf being made fuch Difcipl This Mr. Chandler's Distinction puts upon you. We 1 not know what you mean. Rnf. The Argument is fo plain, that I doubt not but jry body of understanding may know what I mean; the: fore it's ftrange that Mr. Chandler, Leigh*, Robinfin^do r underftand me. Leigh. Vf know there is a double fenfe of the word,a accordingly ve deny either Antecedent or Confequent. Chan. You will not allow the diftincTtton oiCompleat Incompleat Difciples, nor yet Jhew it to be groundless. Rttf. Fix upon fomething. • Cha, 10 ( " ) Chan. I tc¥ yen before, If in your Argument, by Dif- pJes you mian Incompleat ones, I deny yourAfinor. But if. i ompleat o;te j, I deny the Confluence of your Major. i Z«g£ Give a direct anfwer according to-rrnV^iftinftion; I e. Either prove that Infants are not Incomple at Difciples y or \tat they arc not to be baptist d, kecaufebut Incomple at\\. e, iff capable of InftruEtion by the MiniHry of men, piRuf. Have Infants any knowledge? i Chan. No, not in actual exerciie. . Ruf. Then I proceed. If theGofpel, in the miniftraticn lit, was appointed boinforrn men what is good and what » eyil,and [i) Pants have no knowledge to difcern between ood and ien Infants are not capable of being made )ifciples by me Mmiftry of men *. * he uKes m nCm ^ Uigh. You ought to add (Incom- the at all of the di- iieat). ^ ftincHon, but goes on te ; ifo/.What doth he mean by In- prove that infants can't om pleat Difciples ? be con-pleat Difciples by Here Mr. ChanMeP is forc't to ex- tbeMmfiry of Men. il&in his diftinetion, as before. Ruf. You forget we are fpeaking according to the pmmiftion. Chand. r\ T o I don't. I fay, &c. As before. Ruf Then by Compleat you mean fuch as are A&ual- y Difciples. • Leigh A Compleat Difciple is one actually capable of vca-n ng. An -r .ompleat,is one given up as aforefaid in jirder to Learn. And we appeal to the whole Auditory, vhether or no, a child of two years old thus devoted to Learning by trie Reftgnation of tlie Parens and Accepta- ion of the Matter, id nou juftty in an imperfeel: fenfe fqenVd a Schoilar 2 R#/. Infants SchoHars / Very mean SchoHars indeed, lot Capable of Learning one word, Ltigh. I believe here is a G eritlemati who teaches School. >ir,I would fain know whether no one may be accounted Schoilar, bat he that is actually Capable of Learning ? Mr. Ridge School- Alafter. I rake all to be Difciples in ny School, provided entrance Mo- ley be paid, * whether they Learner * Here followed a \Ot-, General Laughter. C 2 R*£ ( I») .! R#f. I muft appeal to thefeHorourable Perfons, wh< W ther or no I did not tell Mr. Chandler, Compleat Difc \\i pies, fuchasare made by tie Mmiitry of Men? Whan the meaning of ail this Noife about fuch little Childre. u do you think ? ' * s Rob. Prove what Mr. Chandler deny s. F t f. Let me know, what Mr. Chandler deny's. Yw fay that they have no Knowledge, and that they are now Compleat Difciples, the confequence then is, that the ju are not intended in the CommiiTior| *' This is the Con- Mat. 28. Mar. 16. * fequsnce that hath been Chand. ^ut it into a Syllogifm. % full deny d>ani no Proof Ruf. There's no need of putting cfferd. it into a Syllogifm : For you havf granted all the Parts of my Ar G ment. Yes, every Part. You have granted. (1.) ifna Infants have no Knowledge to difcern between good \ y evil. You have in the (2.) Place granted, that accord ing to my Argument they are not capable of be ;# * made Compleat Difciples by the Miniftry of Me u - i Confequence then is,that &&., :vct n: * But the Vr. ought ** all intended in the iG&flion. tohwepou , either, ; P™- Its a moft felfe thmgyouyi thsnt there are no In- fiauate to the People, and what yoi tompkat pifciples, or your (elf cannot but know to be faife that they are excluded For that the Confequence, which from the Cemm.Jfion you would perfwade the People for Baptifm, becaufe Mr. Chandler allows, is what he hatl they hsve no %nm~ a l] a l ong denyU And if you can ledge, &c prove it, pray proceed to anothe Argument. r Arg. 3. Puf If" the A pottle Paul did declare all th Councel of God, and kept back nothing that was prof] table for the Church of God, and yet did never declare th Baptifm of infants to be an Inttitution of Chrift, Thei Infant Baptifm is not according to the Commiffion of on Lordjefus Chrift. But the Apottle Paul did declare a theCoijncel of God, and kept back nothing, &c. And yt did never declare the Baptifm of Intants^^Therefore,^ Leigh. Your Argument is very long. I deny that th Apottle Paul never fpoke of Infant Baptifm, which i par ( I? ) rt of your Minor. Prove that the Apoftle Paul never I declare theBaptifm of Infants. Ruf. If the Apoftle Paul hath [o declared it, then it's roe where to be be found in the Writings ot the new lament. But it's no where to be found in the Writings the New Teftament. Therefore, &c. Leigh. I deny theconfequence of your Major, For Paul ght declare it, thd the new Teftament fhouid not aifcover at he dv i he TeM you quote relates to the Church of ihefm. And we have not the whole of the Apoftles rrrl >nstochem, no, not the hundredth part of them, he ii;g amofig them for the /pace of two years. Now you uft ptov£ that this refer's to that Eptitle he hath left Jen-record to the Epbejians. Thu be'ng all that is left to Verity in Holy Writ of fever al hundred Sermons that he each-d to that Church, wherein he might ffeal^ often of fant Baptifm, thd it be not mention d in thisjhort Epiftle. Ruf. You then acknowledge, that it's no where recorded i the NewTeftanunt. Leigh. I deny that the Apoftle did write the whole New eftament. And then, Wculd you confine what Paul there faid to have declared to the Church of Ephefus^ what is left on record^ Viz,, that particular Epiftle we nd inferib'd to them I He had fpoken to the Church of yhefm all the Councel of God, but we cannot fuppofe alf lat he delivered to them in n yeais to be contain'd with' i the cornpafs of one fhort Epiftle, containing but fix hapters. Ruf. Is all the Councel, that the Apoftle Paul wrote, 1 the New Teftament ? Is there any CornmiiTion for In- mt Baptifm in the whole New Teftament ? Do you think ou fpeak any thing to me ? I hope you 11 own that the criptures of the Old and New Teftament are the only ule to direcl us how we may ferve and glorify God. Leigh. Yes, that I will. X$tf I refer you to that Scripture and you run toacer- ain fort of fuppofition, &c. * * Beretk Vrnd _ am not talking of any Sermons t j ?er denfs that Paul hat are not in the Scripture, but of did declare the Battifm vhat is in the Scripture. The words of Infants in bit Ser- wns, nor ajl'erts that all be Preached h left on record. are ( i4 ) are plain, A£ts 20. 20. I have kept back nothing that -»a profitable for yon, and v. 27. / have i>ot fhunned to dt\ dare unto you the whole Conned of God. And agair 1 Cor. 4. 17. He Declares, that, his ways in Chrift veerefuc as he taught every where in every Church. I c'o not fup pofe that the Apoftie Paul taught one Doctrine at on place, and another at another. New if he never t; ugh this Doctrine to the Church' or" Efihefits 7 nor 10 nfcfte elfe I hope that then you ii acknowledge v be found in the Writings of the New *T«ftarne ) til t hi never declared the Baptiim of I * ants. Leigh. \ I utterly deny it, becaufe n the Writing ( i :hl New TePcament, are not all the Sermons th • Path Preached. Ruf. I fay this, if you'll d< are before this People t\ d there is no Account that Paid did ever declare m any of th-? Writings of the New Terhmcnt )r'<- , -«nt; fuppoir -g the diiog gramed, that Pauls Epiillf not the whoie of what he Preached. That\; nothing tdi us, I fuppofe the People will not look any whe: If Paul fo declared it ? - th< * fome where to be found -. e Writings of the New Tefl But It's no where to be fpw :■ ■ c. Leigh. I utterly deny r /o^ie- quence. Ruf. Then if it be here in the New Teftarnenf, Mi Chandler^ Mr. Leigh, or feme dthei Perfon is able to ihew it. B at tr, &c. * Leigh. I fy, 'tis inel id J w the Words, -AH. Nations y Mat. 20. The Corrimiilion, * Ruf. Is Mr. Chandler of your mind. I tell . m in my Argument, that it's no; any where recorded in the New Te(t; ;hat Paul had thus declared the Baptiirn of Infants. Lnd I deny that the ComrniPiion of our I ord and Saviour Jeiiis Chiiif, tells you, that Paul cj\d declare it. Leigh, * This Word. It's may either refer to Pauls' Declaration, or to Baptifm. And this ambiguity earned fome confufm afterwards. * Here the Dr. was to prove the Ccnfe- quenty and be goes onto prove the Antecedent. * The Dr. would t&mble and we rather follow than leave -him. And gave the Words ( All Nations) fup- Qofmg b) tix IVori (it) he. meant Bapijftu on Leigh. I Anfwer, that Paul might hive declared the Bapriim of Infants an hundred times over, and vet it might no' he left on record in his Epiitle to the Ephefi- sms, AV any Part of the New Teftament that he did fo. Rob. That's the Confequtnce yon are now to prove. Becaufe it's not left on record in his Epillle to the Ephe- fians, that therefore he never declared it to. the Church of Ephrftts. Ruf I have neither Ephefus nor Pauls Epiftles in my Argument, yet you tell me. Here was a general mur- muring at the Drs. evafions, the weaknefs -whereof -was ob- vious to the Audit or y. Leigh. I'll beg a little fifence. And firft, read what this Gentleman Quotes, (A8t 20.) The Apoftle tells the Church of Ephefus, he had not fhunned to declare to them the ydaoie Council of God. From hence he con- cludes, ( Witmut Proof) that all that Paul had declared to them was written and left on record j and becaufe the Bap- iifm of Infants doth not [land on record, as being part of gvhat he declard to the Church of Ephefus., therefore that *he never did declare it. Remember, To the Church of Ephefus he fpeaks. Now or all the whole Councei of God, which he is faid to have declared to them, there is but one Epiitle containing fix fhort Chapters left upon »n record. Can this floor t record eontain all the Sermons that he Preached to -them in two Tears ? Or dare any fay, that he tiever declared to them the Baptifm of Inrants in two years 1 Sermons and Difcoarfes^ becaufe its not contained in this fhort record* And fo I have done. Ruf. But I have not done with you, the Apoftle Paul is the Perfon under con/ideraticn, and mentioned in my ' Argument, as one that did declare-the whole Councei of God, and kept back nothing that was profitable for them. * * Who doubts this, Leigh. The Church of the Ephefi- Ani what is it to the &s. Pray remember that. pirpofe? \fl#/I The Queftion under conli- demtion and my Argument is of one that did declare the whole- Councei of God. And that the Apoltle Patd did fo, I pi'cvd^ylcls 20. 20. Compared, with v. 27. Ihave\kept back^ nothing that was profitable for you, but have fkewed yon __ _ ( Itf ) ySu ani taught, Sec. Teftifying to Jews and Greeks, Sec* y.yl6. He doth not only lay, 7*^ ^ < Kok Here is a fophifm ; fa vs L T^l ? '° a . Comrniffion, nor any XrlclfXZ n f^ in th e then it is not in the Commffion Ho,y S( *We^ Infants are nor at all inten^i ^ ?* Infarlrs > t! ien But, ^ Therefore, 4' nd6d ln Chnfts Commiffion. I dfnftS^ Cny tbe f ^ el of * «*r, and then I tifJSSZ taiySfe «&** *■* this, ani s^nand for feme Perfons to be B ntLw" h Xp ' - fs comJ > prefs command for the Baptizing of VnSc- ls no , ex - . * Jne X celk, iPmf , » n «eceflary confequence tha Re y. *»* A ^. not mcluded in the GmSS ^ » - #. yo ^deny both Parrot ^ ^S=r! £ theS &5&S " ** 'That ««** * Mag %iii a fomt p pSf r f rco for W. Then you do f~„ Lord hath exprefly cop^'- rf J H "otwuhftanding our .teed .in the CommS ^ d ^T Peifes ^ b^Bap- Hath Chrifi two fo cfcl S£ a fome f the ^mber. Pre/Iy command to be B antiz5 ' ,° W £* ne doth » not command ? c »Ptiz^, and another that he doth Leigh. ( *o •Leigh. Put your Proof of the fequel of the Major into Syiiogifm. Ruf We are upon the Commiflion. L^igh, I fay, Prove thee onfequence of your Major. ■ Ruf. If no perfon be to be baptized but what is exprefly quired to be fo by Chrifts Commiflion, then the confer uence of the Major is ue ; i. e. That the Baptifm of in- ittts is not contained in i CommiJJion. But no perfon is > be baptized, &c. Theiefore. Leigh, I deny your Minor. Ruf. That which I ait) to prove is this, That there are o perfons to be baptized but what are exprefly required \ the Commiflion. I prove it thus. If the words of the lommiflion areanexprefs command tc theApoftles of our ,ord, to direct them whom they mould baptize, then the 4inor is true. But the words ofthe Commiflion are, &c. rherefore, &c. Leigh. I deny your Minor. Ruf. If there be no other Commiflion of our Lord and faviour J. C. for holy Baptifm, but what is recorded Mat. |8. Mar. \B. then the Minor is true. But there is no other, ire. Therefore, &c. Leigh. I deny the fequel of the Major. Ruf. We are now upon the Commiflion. u Leigh. That we are ', and we fay , That whatever by good confequence is fairly deducible from the Commiflion, is the true fenfe of it. Ruf. They are not to baptize any but fuch as they are exprefly commanded fo to do. Leigh. I deny it. RuJ.fri there be no manner of allowance given them to baptize any other than whom they are exprefly command- ed, then the confequence of the Ma jo* is true. But there is no manner of allowance, &c. Therefore, &c. Leigh. Now I deny your Minor.* Ruf I ft&recur ro my former Argument. If there be an ex prefs command in die Commiflion to the Apollles, for the Baptifm of ail iv.zh as they are required to baptize by vertue of that Commiflion, then my Minor is true. But, &c. Here follows a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes. R.li for all thofe they are >,o baptize by vertue of theCom- midion,they are to have an expreis command from Chrifl: fo ( «.) fo to do , then there is no allowance in the Commiffion to baptize any other perfon. But for all thofe they are required to baptize, &c. Therefore, &c. Cy.nl. I deny the Minor. Leigh. I d i ft ingnifti between the command's being ex- preft, and the Subjects of it. Chand. Prove that all theSubjecls are expreft. Ruf. If the words in theCommiflion,about holyBaptifm, be a command of Chrift to the Apo- * Here the Dr.waves ftles *,then my Minor is true. But they the Aifunttion, that he are a command,^. Therefore. my wrap up btmfelj £ e i g ^ We a jj ow it > s a CO mmand, \ and the Auditory m con- but deny that aU fhe ^fe are ex _> f u * m ' prefi I fay, I allow the command to be exprefs, but deny that all the Subjects are expreft; fome are taken in by good confequence. Ruf. If Chrift hath commanded his Apoftles to Bap- tize (uch as do believe and are made Difciples, then fuch are to be Baptized. But &c : Therefore &c. L. I find, in the firft place, a fault with your Syflo- gifm. The M fuch as do believe are the Subjects of Baptifm ; It ought to be, Such are the only, or all the Subjects of Bap- tifm; and tloHs^ in the Second Place ^ 1 deny the Sequel. Will. Then I am to prove that Believers only are intended. If Believers are the only Peribns that are in- cluded in the ComrniiTion,then no other perfons are. But Believers are the only &c : Therefore. L. I deny your Minor, W. I will prove it in Mark 16. laft. He that believ- eth is Baptized, &c. Hence I Argue that Believers are the only Subject to be Baptized. L. To this I Anfwer, Firft. If Previous Actual Be- lieving bz made Univerfally NeceiLry to Baptifm, it is much more (o to Salvation, and Contequently no Infant can be fived, For the following words are he that Believeth not (hall be damned. Ruf. I do not affirm any fuch thing, I would rather fay that all Infants dying in their Inhncy are Eleft, and fo faved, the contrary to which I believe Mr. Chandler * Here the Dr. fern, cannot prove *. voiUiM to turn off th>j DifputAtion, to Original Sin, which thofe of his Proftffwn deny. L.Yes C*0 L. Yes, We knr w your Cpinicn about this well enough? Ikave jonrCcn] ( Jfion h n^Pccket. Butifycu wiilaflert :hat actual believing is nectilaiy to Baptifm, then 'tis io to Salvation j for it fellows, ta that belieztth not jh all be dam* ied. Wil. If believers are the only Subjects of Baptifm, accor- ling to the Commiilion, then Infants are not the Subjects )f Baptifm : but Believers are the only Subjects, &c. r here fore, &c. L. I deny your Minor. Wil. Then pray fhew me where any others are in the Ccmmiflion. L. In the words (all Nations). ) Wil. In the words {all Nations) ? No, fay I, It's all Nati- ons fo modified. It's all Nations dilcipled. L.\ deny it. This u not evident from this Text, Wil, Go^ difciplemto me all Nations, baptizing them. The word them is relative to all Nations difcipled. If therefore there be none but believers, and fuch as are taught in the pDmmiflion, then Infants are not intheCommiifion. But there are none but believers, &c. L. I deny your Minor. Wil. If Infants are not capable of being taught, then they^gre no Difciples. But they are not, &c. Therefore. K L. I -deny it, i. e. the Sequel. Wil. If Infants are uncapable cf learning Jefus ChrifF* then they are uncapable or being difcipled unto Chrift. Bur, &c t L. I deny the confequence of your Major ; That be- caufe they are uncapable of learning Chnif, therefore they are uncapable of being Difcipled to Chrift. Will. I fay, If Infants are not the Subjects in theCom- mifTion *, neither are capable of * Htns a lalUcy ; he being taught and inftru&ed, then will fsvp fuppofe his own they are not the Subjects of Bap- con'lufion.andtbeSum of t ifm. But, &c : Tfterefcr/e, &i* n bat tved/n/d before, jr. / j eKJ t ^ at t \ ]€ y are not the ^ S ub'yll: s. And the Creek word fignify's to make Difciples. I deny rhat they are uncapa- ble of being made Difciples, becaufe net capable of learning. wit. Cm), ■ Wil. If to be a Difciple of Chrift is to be a Schollar of Chrift, then Infants that are uncapable of Learning Chrift can be no Difciples. But, &c. Therefore, &c. L. I deny ftill the Sequel of the Major. Will If he that hath learn't nothings no Schollar, thercjji becaufe they are not capable of learning Jefus Chrift, $ They are no Scholars of Chrift. But, &c. Therefore &*m L. I appeal to all here prefent, Whether they do not , count that child an Incompleat Schollar, that is refigned^ by the Parent and accepted by the Maftei^tho'ithath not learn'd any thing. And now I deny youxMinor. Wil. Tell me where Chrift's School is for teaching In fants, and who is Chrift's School-Mafter ? L. Jefus Chrift himfelf is the School-Mafter. 1 Wil. Jefus Chrift is the great School-Mafter, but his Mini-f Hers are appointed to make Difciples by teaching. Now you fay a Child is a Difciple as foon as he goes to School. ^ L. I fay, the resignation of the Parent, and the accepta- tion of the,Mafter, cdnftkutes the Relation. Wil If he that hath been at School,and taught by his own . confent, muft appear to be a Scholar of Chrift by his havV ing actually learn d, before he be baptized, then Infants that are entred, according to your faying,muft not be bap- tized. But he that hath been at School, &c. Therefore. L. I deny your confequence. Wil. I prove it thus. The Eunuch * He was here to was content to be taught * ; Philip prove the Conference, teacheth him: Yet afterward he muft and be brings an in- j cnow w h eC her he believed, before he fiance to prove the An- baptized him# Therefore Infants, en- ■ teceaent.,and but barely „. : j j' r : a. akrts the Confe era according to your laying, muft | i/w e on) g not ^ e baptized, becaufe they are not content to be taught, &c : And Erafmus, tho' he was none of the beft of Men yet he was accounted a great Schollar in his day, he reads it, When they have learned dip thou theni. L. Here are two things that this old Gentleman ar- gues from, the firft is, The Inftance of the Emxth. The Second is, The Authority of Erafmus. \ * What is a man's mil. Not from his Authority, but Authority in this caje but Judgment *• bis Judgment ? Rob. J ( h J Rob. Did Era/mus mite in Englifh* You (ay, you do not understand Latin. fVil. In Englijb* Here the people brake out into a great Laughter, Ruf. Is Erafinus in your efteem Co mean . a Scholhr, that there muft be fuch Laughing at the old Gentleman s jiientioning the Name of F.raf. mm ? * *Tle pesple t.. _', n - )/temberfbip ? Then as to Erafmus, he hers. But the ' ,• Lti w;.s an Interperjdent between a Vapift net tkejeafe to dqcwtr and ProteMmt ; .and many of theie ttHs mfid,ke t Gentlemen, in their great Zeal againft . Infant-baptifm, will call it a peice of Popery, and yet can make ufe of the Name of ?.n Half-Papifl when it ferves their Cmfe. Wil. If the Administrator muft have an account of the Subjects Learning, before he be baptizd,then Infants are ' not the Subjects of Baptifm. But lie muft, &c Therefore. ' L. I deny yoi*r Minor, That he tha$ adminifters the Or- dinance mull always have an account cf the Subject Lear- ning. , . tf J VVil. I will prove h flrflby that.o£ Philip. : If thou belie* v?ft with all thine heart , thou majefi. The uont.ary where- unto is, Jfthoudoft not, thou may eft not. Again, Mat. 28, Go teach all Nations^ baptizing them, &c, The word is re-. E htive («) SSSf SSSbSK- They m ^ have an account dent™ Difciples or not. This is the Antece- L. Ail Tvations? Wil Nay all Nations Difcipled. thh %JZy- Buc P l0V ? it. What! perhaps you think c anfe 'f -Tl, Ca kV n0t be th « Ailtecedent w T "m; be *# Yes, cWrii is of the Mafculme GerMr and mS*- MlS£ 2*^ ^-ndagrees^hS- ™» ■ icnougnt »«^«T lw @( Ti had been a Verb. *£I anlWer to what he fays ; he fays that «ur* 5 is of tttv&t!KVthYS f T' i ha ; H h lo ^ ** be met with in thcGrlek J P * ^^ to fcSiftf twty^unLV ^ in S themfelves Chnft But, S?,. TiSe,^^ ° f *"* ^^ t0 < L. / deny the fequeJ of the Major. * Vr LeipJ, «r a r n ? WOrk I10t iet h ^ not eat, but mkm^tt^l £ ,t 1 l 1 S nnot * »* therefore not. a****;; Swr^^^^ ^ .fee, frr /»/*,„ *'**f "»* «* *^w r*/ g^ ) and will, than infants are incapable j aYS farther, bid I of b'eing Difciples. But, &c* There- jnfoertd bef fore, &c. F/oris, All Nation L. I deny the fequel of the Ma- U-fq; ad Na&eami | jor, viz. That infants are uncapable of being Difciples. Will. If a Difciple and a Believer be the fame thing, then the fequel of the Major is true. Buc a Difciple and believer are the. fame thing. Therefore, L. / diftinguifli upon the Minor, it's not Univerfal- > ly and in all refpe&s the fame thing. Thofe may be Dif- *cip!es that are not actual Believers. Will. He that is a Difciple of Chrift according to the Com million, is a Believer. But infants are not capable of bdieving. Therefore. He that is a Believer ;n Mark., is a Difciple in Matthew. L. Thit I deny^ and anfacred it before. It's net Vm- verfally true, Will. If the effence of faith confift in the Acl of the undemanding and will, then infanes are uncapable of believing, i?ut, &c. L. i acknowledge, The Act of faith co;;fi£s in the AB of the unierftanding and the will^ and that Infants are un- capable of actual believing, but not of being Difciples in an impei lect fenfe*. Bat I would fain know if * The comray&fos- ihfants arc not as capable of beliey- "/»., h f b m *" ke:: ing Imputatively, as of coming to P r0 " J ™- Chrift when brought in the Arms of * , , other Pcrfons. * JW. 19.14. , Will. They can do both alike, as well come to Chnil as believe in him ; by believing I mean actual bdisyidg. Tiiis I acknowledge, E 2 L. 1 -■ — ■ ( *8 ) I. v arinQtChildren in a Spiritual fenfe to ne tc I ImputptiveJy* ~as well as to come to ally when only brought; in others Arms. and -believing are the feme. Tho' he tha he Arms cf the Parents faith cannot be I to believe, yet Imputative!} he may. i!3 they ccme to Chi. ft when they were brotigl et they rreexprefly faid to come to Chrift- And may they hot as well be faid to be -capable of Spiri- tual as of Ccrooral coming when they were brought to him ? Why can they not come Spiritually by Imputation^, as before ? Will.They cannot come Spiritually unlefs they actually .believe: A child cannot thus come to Chrift without a fight of Chrift and alio of himfelf. L. I clo own in a proper and ftrict fenfe, none can be faid thus to come to Chrift but adult performs ; yet in a more large fenfe., they may as well be laid to believe on Christ Imputatively when their Parents believe and de-^ vote them to ChrJft, as to come to. Chrift Corporally; Syhen ^rotight in their Arms. Vou know Chrilt lays, furTer little Children to come ro me. It's moft .probable, ^heie were brought in Arms to Chrift. Why may they not be faid Imputatively to believe, as well as Imputa- tive^ L ' ej- WzV. I deny that the parent's faith was ever imputed to the Child. .. ;, ; L. Vou know the dift'nclion of Believers, In foro Dei, & In foro Ecctefet. whicr. I fuppofe you'll allow. And raider the notion of believers In pro EecleJi^The Parents faith may be imputed to their Children. TVil. We do fay that a Perfon is not a Difciple of Chrift before he have learned * Here is nc notice til;n Chrift*. of the pifiinBion, < •;., the L. Then do we fend Children old thing aflerted* to School became they have lear- ned, or that they may lean, ? • Ruf. I think we mould now fee whether we can.pp0i- bly by force of Argument bring you to give an inltance. Therefore I argue thus. ( 2 9 ) Arg. 5. If the Apoflles of our Lord never did Baptrz® j.ny Infants, then theBaptifm of Infants is -not according to the Commiflion of our Lord Jtfus ChriiL But the Apoittes of cur Lord never did,&c : Therefore. chand. I deny the Minor. Ruf If the Apoflles did Baptize any Infants, it is fome whereto be found in the writings of the new Teftamenr. But it's no where to he found, &c. L. I dcnyyoiu* Major. Ruf. If there be no other rule to direct, us concerning Holy Baptifm than what is in the new Teftament, then, becaufe it's no where to be found in the writings of the new Teftament, the Apoflles did never Baptize any In- fants. But there is no chei rule &c ; Therefore &c.^ L. You are come from an Example to a Rule. I fay it may net be recorded in the writings cf the New Tefta- ment, and yet the Apoflles might Baptize Infants. But this is not. granted, only iuppoied, that it's mt recorded. It is not recorded in the New Teftament ( what you pra&ife) that Grown Children pfiBelievers were, when fault, Baptized. \ challenge you to product oneinftance of any, born of Believing Parents, baptized at Age. Ruf. That's no buiineis of cms. Don't think to fham oft the buiineisfo. • We have called for your Inftance fe- deral times of an Infant Baptized 3 and you have npt been able to give it. _ L. It's the cuftom of thefe Perfons to Baptize Grown Perfons the' Baptized before, and yet there is no Scrip- jhjre for it. They talk much of our having no Scripture for Infant Baptifm, and of their having Abundance for {heir Practice. Now kt them give one Inftance of what is their Practice, viz : Of one Person born of a believer Baptized at years, and HI give them the caufa WiL Giveyoui" inftance fbrThfarit Baptifm, er elfe I People will go away, and conclude you have (jone. L. Give your inftance to prove ypur Practice, or elfe 1 pope, the Peopl« .: ^ away iarisfy a you have none to give, hrwasby I iipmarion of the, learned Froiii the Death pf Chrift to the Death of Stjokn. &e Apottie near ? ::ix Yearsj in which time many Thwfands 0/ the Chil- dren L ( jo) dren of Believing Parents became adult, yet we chal- lenge you to produce one Inftance m all that time of any of their Children Baptiz'd, when adult. Ruf. The Emperour Conftantine was born of a Christi- an Parent, and yet not baptized till adult. L. But not becaufe they then thought the 'Children of BelievingParents had no right toBaptiim,but becaufe they thought that fins committed after Bapcifm were unpar- donable ; therefore, tliey oftentimes * Bsfrtes,CovM<\- defend it till Death. * -ffefides, this is tine's faxhefmns *Pi- not to thepurpofe, becaufe a Sbrip- gan, and Coriftantine ture inftance was calfd for. had a defire to bs Bap- Will. We are able to produce fe- t'tfd in Jordan, be- vera [ inftances where grown beiiev- II eaitfc Chnjtwts. ers were ^aptiaed, but you not one of Infant 2?aptifm. L. That was at the firft planting of theGofpel : Give an inftance of a grown perfon, defcending from believing Pa-. rents, that was baptized when adult. Rtif. If this were any thing- to the purpofe, I would* then fay fomething to it. But I wonder you fhould talkl thus, when it was pra&ifed a great many years in theChurch to give the Lord's Supper to In- * The Vr, alkwd it fants *: to be the firft 60 s yizrs , Z. Was it ? Then (adhominem) they\ m I remember* were Baptized, became they were not to receive that Ordinance before they were baptized We demand an inftance of any child of a believing 'Parent that was baptized when adult. Give this, and we will give yon the Qaufe. mk Was the Morher ot our Lord Jefus Ghrifl a belie- ver? L. Yes. WiL Well then, there's the Son of a *Obferve, by Belie- believer 1 baptized at age *. Here r[ lt Vers wjs before under- Anabwifts fell a laughing, and fom>. (tool a ChnfrUn Belie- cry ^ ou|? ; t > s £. H ^ ij> s done. A nJ , £ % ver , by themf-lves, a whil Mr< /^attempting fever wherever ^ of , -^ fp £ fc Cju1q * b J vsnev.'-: ,'•• v to , , 4 ' &*;«/« : zVe/t/w war neard - the word i 1 am other finfe. Befits, it&&grjnt?d $ewi ard lu- jtnotube H V,/t d//a -; r £? J frt»t? oj .. t. L. I thought our difcourfe had been grounded on the Commiilion. Wat this before or afterthe Commiilion i 5 Here the people laugh' i again. Ruf. What do they laugh at ? Not at what the Old Gentleman faid, but at what Mr. Leigh fays *. The Old Gentleman * Iridcel the people gave a right inftance. laughed, both r>a; y . Rob. It's not at all to the purpofe. Ruf. Mr. Williams's inftance was fufficiently to the pur- pofe} for that Mr. Leigh called for an inftance of the child of a*believing Parent, baptized ac grown years. The Vir- gin Mary was a Believer. Rob, ThoMr. Leigh did exprefs himfelf in fuch general ^Terms, yet the whole (train of the difcourfe fufficiently manifefts, he meant the child of fuch a believer as was properly Chriftian. The Virgin Mary was undoubtedly a believing Member or the Jewiih Church j bur this is rot to our purpofe; for we want an inftance of the child of a Chriftian Parent, after Baptifm was inftituted by our jLord, that yet was baptized at grown years. The in- ^ance of -our Saviour doth not agree to fuch a cafe as this is. For that Chriftianity, as diitinguifhed from Jtt daifm, had not then a being, and the Virgin Mary was nor in this fenfe Chriftian, nor w : a? baptifm it felt then iSnftituted by our Lord ; and therefore this inftance can ftgnify nothing.tothe cafe in hand. Will. I have given an inftance cf the Child cf a believ- ing Parent, baptized at Age. Give us an inftance of any Infant that was baptized. L. As for that. Our Lord Jedjs Chrift is not to be imitated in that particular. Rh[. No ? Will. Do you prove he was not. L. If he were, then there is no Pcrfon to be baptized 'til! 30 years of Age, nor baptized at ai!> unlefs Circum- cifed at eight days old. And thus their Scripture inftkricc % with their triumph upon *Y, vanijhed. Will. I demand an inftance of an Infant that was bap- L. I demand an exprefs prohibition. ^- — = — - ■■— ( 3? ) i Will I demand an exprefs prohibition of Salt, Cream Oyl and Spittle. L. I Anfwer, (i.) The cafe is not parallel. . Voufpeak of the fubflance, we of the fiibje&s of baptifrn. (2.) In- ; fonts are included in the words. Ail Nations. But Sa/t; ). Cream, Ojl, Sec. are not in the word Diiciple, or Bap- ' tize. ■' ■ . Rob. What need of ah inftance when we have a rule ; Now r Mx, Chandler, if you pleafe, you may take the Part ' of an Opponent. And prove our practice to be agree- able to Scripture. Mr. Chandler turns Opponent. Arg. 1. Chand. Viiibie Church Members ought to be baptized. But: fomejnfanrs are vifible Church Members. Therefore fome Infant, &c Ruf. Adult believers may, but not Infants. Rob. What^ this to the purpofe we are upon ? Which vt Mr. Chandlers propositions do yen deny ? Ruf. Let him repeat his Argument. Chand. Vifible Church Members ought to be baptized. according to ChrirVs CommuHon. But iome Infants are vj viiibie Church Members ; There- * i, 1 l ** fore,, dr. Mark that. M* Ru r j d fhe M{ * &&M?$ J** That all V1 (ible Church^ tibebapmeL Members are to be baptized , accord- ing to Chriiis Commiiiion, I prove thus. If there be no I^recept 01* Ex- ample in all the Word of God, iince Chrift ordain d bap- tiim, that makes any other ordinance the vifible means ofentfing a Perfon into the vifible Church, then vifible Church Members ought to be baptized, But there is no ; &c. Therefore " ftyfi This is to fay. Becaufe they are Members, there- fore they are to be made Members. Chand. No. Becaufe they are Members, they. ought to be folemnly Recognized as Members : Like the Coro-. nation of a King. He is a King before he is Crowned,' but he is Crown'd that he might be ovvn'd as King. Will. If baptifrn be the initiating ordinance into the Church, then they were not Chureii Members before;. . / Chand* V 3 3 / Chand. I fay, baptifm is the folemn invefting figri. Ruf. That baptifm is an initiating ordinance, I grant Rob. This Argument was brought to prove that vifible ChurchMembers ought to be baptized. VfilL I deny that Infants are vifible * r j ?e ' M iy>r is Church Members in their Infancy. * ^ t ^ he dsa ) £s ^ L. Ill prove that fome Infants, Minor ^ after a n>bil7 y are Church-Members in their Infan- you will find the Ma- C Y S Suffer little Children to come jor fdently taken up unto me^ for of fuch is the Kingdom of again. He ay en, Mat 19. 14. Hence I ar- gue ; Thole that belong to the Kingdom of Heaven,' i. e. the Church- Militant here upon Earth, are vifi- ble Church-Members. But tome Infants belong to the (kingdom of Heaven, i f e. The Church-Milk ant hereon Earth. Therefore, Will. I deny the Minor. That text proves it not. ' L. If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken any otherwife in this Text to make good fenfe of the Text, then it muft'bc (0 taken, i.e. Tor the Church- Militant \here on Earth. But it cannot be taken any otherwife to 'make good fenfe of the Text Therefore &c : And this I prove by an Indu&ion ofparticulars. There are vari- ous acceptations oftfis Expreifion, [TheKingdom of Hea- ven] in the Word of God. Sometimes it hgnifys, TI\g (Laws and Prorriifes of the Kingdom *, it doth alfo iignify the Graces by which we obferve thofe Laws and believe thofc Promifes. Thus it's reprefenred by a grain of Mu- rtard-feed. Sometimes the Kingdom of Glory. And fometimes it figniries the Church-Militant. Hence there- fore I thus argue. ; If in this place it can neither iignify the Laws and Promifes of Gads Kingdom, nor the Graces by which we obferve thofe Laws and Embrace thole Promfe, nor the Kingdom of Glory ; hen it mtift figni/y the Church- Militant here upon Earth. But it cannot Iignify either of the former, Therefore it mull iignify the laifc,^. the Church-Militant. -Will. I deny the Minrc. I fay i I Iignify s the King- dom of Glory. F X, C 34 L a If it be nonfenfe fo to underftand the words then they are not fo to be underftood. But its nonfenfe, &c : For then the Kingdom of Glory mult confift in part of poor little weak things, fuch as Infants are : Whereas after Death all arc perfect in the Kingdom or Glory, whatever they are hereon Earth. Will. I thought it had been, to fuch belongs the King- dom of Heaven. Chanel. Mat. 19. 14. In the Greeks it is, 7WK7wr, of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. L. That is ; of fuch it conflfts in part. If we mention the Kingdom of England or France^ and fay, of fuch is the Kingdom, &c ; It's to be underftood, In part it con- ilfts of thefe. Will. I deny that the Vifible Church in part conflfts \ of thefe. If they are neither Members of the Univerfal 1 Church, nor of a Particular Church, then the Church doth not in part conftft of thefe >But, * He Mfwers not 0* •" Therefore, &c. * my kmment by ma\- L. I Anfwer. Now you relin- ' ing good fenfe of the guifh my Medium. But farther, If- Text amy other way. they are Members of the Church at But now break's rule all, then they are Members of the and turns Opponent. Univerfal Church vifible. But they are Members of the Church. There- fore, &c. \ Will. I deny the Minor, /. e. That they are vifible Mem- bers of the Church. L. There are two forts of Members of the Univerfal Church. There are Members in foro Ecclefia, and Mem- bers in foto Call. In which of thefe fenjes do yon deny they art Members of the Church ? Will. If by the Church, you mean the vifible Church, I deny your Minor. Here for about four or five lines, there is great confufion in what our fcribes have written. But this I take to be the fenfe of it. L. If they are Members cf the Church in any fcnfe n they are Members of a Particular or the Univerfaj fdi, and if of a Particular then of the Univerfa, which includes it ; and therefore they are Members or vifible Church. But they are Members of the Church / ■4 ( 35 ) hurch in feme fenfe, and for Proof hereof I return to y Argument which you have nor been able to Anfwer ; f fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. The Church Mili- ar. WILL I diftinguifh, as to the Kingdom of Heaven ; It's lere meant of the Kingdom of Glory. L, It of the Kingdom of Glory, then it's nonfence. at, by the way, the Kingdom of Glory either is put for le Happinefs or Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory. If le Happinefs, then the words mult run thus. Of fitch Hie Children is the Happinefs cf the Kingdom of Glory. If ie fubjecls, then thus. Of fitch little Children are the fbjetls of the Kingdom of Glory, Now neither of thefe. is life ; Therefore cannot be meant : but my fir ft interpret a- on (lands gocd flill. Will. I diftinguifh between a right Tide and Pofleff.- n. Here is a vacancy Three tilings. It's true, faith ives a right to baptifm according to the Commit? jon, a rofeifion of that faith gives a right to the Adminiftrati- Q of that ordinance, and its the Commiiuon that au- lorifeth the Administrators. Ruf. This Text yon produce hath no Relation at all to ie Commijfion, nor is Baptifm in the leaf intended in the fXt. — \ L. Mr. Rxjfel, I'll propofe this queftion to you. Whe- ler, both whatChrift faid and did, together wirh what ie Apoifles faid and did, be the belt explicat : on of thrifts Commillion ? And then, whether, I may not ar- ' ue from Chriits own Words, For vifible Church Mem- ?rjbip and fo for baptifm ? Ruf. I do allow that what Chiift faid and did, and /hat the Apoflles fafdand did, is a very good interpreta- ion of theCommiilbn of our Lord. And J do lay, that nly adult Perfons are intended in the Commiflion > And lat the Apofties never did baptize ny other than adult believers, * * &w he *4" '*> L. Then I hope, we may argue **'« 4 t the feeni torn Chriits own Words. Did he m which, n the maw leak pertinently or impertinently ? °f m > W* 8 * f pertinently, how comes he to fay, f fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven^ unlefs he meant the F 2 vifible ( 1* ) vifible Church, which alone makes fenfe of the Text. But is this an Anfwer to my Que (lion, to fay that Adult believ- ers are only intended in the Commij/ion* Ruf Yes, if your queilion relate to water baptifm. L. If the Kingdom of Heaven in part confirms of In- ; fants, then Infants ought to be baptized. But, &c. Therefore, &c. Rob. Pray Mr. Ruflel, which of Mr. height proponV tions do you deny ? L. Give me an Anfwer directly. Ruf: I demand an Expo/itioa. What do you mean by the Kingdom of Hea- * Here the Dr. ven?* could not tell what to L. I mean the Church and King^ fay, and therefore will ^oro e f God here on Earth. have all over a^ain. %„f j deny y Qm M [L jr% h. I prove it from the forecited Scripture. If by the Kingdom of Heaved, Mat. 19.1s fignified the Church vifijble here on Eartrf *, Then Infants do in part make up the Church. .But &&: Therefore &c, Ruf I deny youx Minor. L. If we mult make good fenfe of Scripture then it mud fo fignify. But &c. Ruf I deny the Confequence of your Major. L. If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken in an>^ other fignifkation to make good fenfe ofltin that place^ then it mud fo be taken. But it cannot &c : There- fore. , Ruf I deny your Minor. L. If you can produce no other good Interpretation that cm make good fenfe of that Scripture, Then &c\ Ruf I deny the Confequence of your Major. It doth not follow becaufe I cannot do it, that therefore it cannot; be done. L. Then I fay ii\ neither you, nor any other perfon caii produce any other] good Interpretation that can makj good fenfe of that icriptine, Then &c. Ruf Is this a^bod way of arguing ? If it be, then i was fo in me as well as you. Rob. Mr. Leigh. It was not fair, therefore not allowe them. You rnuii not put the Proof upon the Refpon dent. heigh y \ ( J7 ) Leigh. I was not driving them to Proof, but goitfg to prove my Jjjertionby an Induction of Particulars, as I have already done and that I fhalldo again, If the Kingdom of Heaven here fignifys neither the Laws nor Prcmiies of the Kingdom, nor Graces by which thefe Laws and Prornifesare obferved and embra- ced, nor JefusChriiYs Management of his Kingdom, nor the Glory of Heaven, nor the Subjects of Glory, then it muft fignify the Church-Militant here upon Earth. But it fignifys neither of the former. Therefore the laft. * * w *° re P c f ■\ Ruf. I deny the Minor. titbuisN3ufeom,but LA prove it by a Recapitulation b f c % m ^r CDU i d , of thofe Particulars. Of luch little t^f Children are the Laws and Promifes ' of the Kingdom, offuchare the Graces by which we obferve and embrace thenv of fuch is Chriils Management of his^Cingdoin, of fuch. is the Kingdom of Glory, of fuch is the Happinefs or Subjects of Glory. Now is there - any good fertfe in all this. Ruf. Its meant or the Kingdom of Glory- L. By the Kingdom of Giory you muff mean either the Happinefs or Subjects of the Kingdom. It ic be ta- ken Lr the Happinefs of the Kingdom of Glory, then I ask whether little Children are the Happinefs of Heaven ? If for the Subjects; then I ask whether of fuel, conliitsthe Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory, when every one be- longing to that Kingdom, i.e. asdiftintlfrom the Church- Militant^ immediately upon his expiring is compleat, e- Ven an Infant 3 days 6ld? Ruf. This is very uncharitable, to exclude Infants from Heaven. I would rather incline to fay, and I am fure the contrary to it Mr. heigh can never prove, that all Infants belong to the Kingdom of Glory, than that none do. *L; Yes we know your Judgment of that matter well enough. But you wilfully mifreprefent my feflfe. 1 do not fay that none who dy Infants go to the Kingdom of Giory, but that none are Infants when they come there. But the Text fays, Of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. This therefore is what I aflert, that it is abfurd to fay that the ( ?8 ) Che Kingdom of Glory is, in any part of it, made up of weak impafeft things as little Infants are ; And there- fore; that the Kingdom of Heaven, here fpoken of, mult m.'an the Church- Militant here on Earth which is in part nude up of firch, Here Mr. Rnffel was filent for a * AnX thus to . no considerable time. * purpofe but to (pen I time R b. What Mr. Ruffe Jh a ve y ou no Mr. Ruffel would bauc rep i y to ma ke to ail this; Pray,if you tbefmtw again. liaVe any thing to fay> kt *< ^ it ; Ocherwife, be Co kind as to tell ths People, you can give no Anfwer, that we may go on to fomewhat further. Ruf. My Anfwer is thk That whereas you have un- dertaken to prove that Infants are the Subject of Bap- tifm, according to Chrifts Commiifion, you bring a Text for it that hath neither the word Baptifm in it nor the Commillion of our * This poor dry eva* Lord. * M you fee, he bath L * v wefl then> jf we Q 7Jn'ni U - n^ fra * ™Y T ^ of Scripture the ?e* £ ri * ht oHnfmrs to Baptifm, it muft • '■■ not be allowed, unlefs we rind it in the clofe of the Evangelists, where is what you call the Commijjlon\ or unlefs the word Baptifm be in it. Rob. Mr. Ruflei. They are not obliged to have the mention either of Baptifm or the CommitFion of our Lord in the conclusion of every Sylloglfm. They had it in the tirft. They then told you; That fuch as were Mem- bers of the Church-Militant on Earth were to be Baptiz'd according to the Commillton of our Lord 1 . And this was" the cafe of fome Infants, Yoxs. denyed any Infants were Members of Chriib Kingdom, or Church-Militant here on Earth, and to prove this they brought that Text. And I fuppofe the whole company was Satisfy 'd tljat it doth fumciently prove what it was produced for. /md now you dare not deny the Ma'for) if you do I doubt not but they are ready to prove it. VFill. If Church Members have been denyed Bap- tifm, then Church-M nuberlhip is not the ground of Bap- tifm. f ?9) K 2: k%% Minor. '^ !±«* mi. If Church-Members came to KKrS fohn to be Baptized, and were de- Vd y t0y bccaufc they iyed, then Church-Memberfhip is could do nothing elfe. s not the Ground of Baptifm. But &c. L. I deny the Minor. WW. I prove it, Mat. 3. When he Caw the Multitude md many of the Pharifees and Sadduces ccme tohisbap- :ifm, he (aid to them ; O Generation of Viper 7, Sec. L,I deny that they were we are not now talking about the management of Church Members, but who are the Perfons which ought to be ejteemed fo ? Farther, it is nee die fs to exclude thofe from Adult Church- Member fhip who never offered themfelves to it. Its as if we fhould fhut ou?\ doors againft a ¥ erf on, who never attempts an entrance. To this Mr. Sharp made no reply. Wil. Miniiters are to Baptize none, but thofe that are difcipled by the words of the Com * Obftrvs bow be million. * \ leives- his Argument , Chanct Here's the Confequence and runs to -cubit bad. f jf been worn tbredbare yyn No here is no Genuine Con- be J ore ' fequence. The Commiflion menti- ons no more but Diiciples and Be- : lievers. And if you can rind one Perfon more befides * The poor Mm runs Difcipies and Believers, do it r * tgafa from confequence Ruf It doth appear by all that zo exprejs words, tbo • hath been faid, that our practice is confeentenke wut allow ailow'd. * ed before. Rob. Not your practice. L. We do not allow your practice, unlefs to fuch as *&mefhber,tbisre<. have not been baptized. * fers totke Subj&s. on- VVUL We agree, , that thofe that h 9 mJbe 'nam*. are not baptized ought to be bapti- zed. (4<) zed. You are bound to baptize none, but Tuch as youara bound to Preach to. L . I deny it. Rptf. Have Infants the ufe of reafon? Chaud. No. * * Mow you fee the Rttf. It infants, without under- #'• very plainly tufas ftanding, are capable of being made ll)e opponent, becaufe Difciples, by the Miniftry of Men ; he ccnlddo ™king el fo Then may the -Beafts of the Field. i°T^fJt hts m fi But the Beafts of the Field may not, M* f enm in hls (^Therefore. Nmmve. L. /appeal to all prefent. Is it as proper to take Pigs and Dogs to School, as little Children of a year and h#( old ? Are thofe Co capable of the Parents rejignmon and Imafters Acceptation as thefe ? If infants might keep the charge of the Sanctuary from a month old and upward, they may be citeemed Believers and Difciples. But, &c< ■■■ Rtif. I wonder you will maintain therhing upon Rich filly foundations/ * A ™f e Anfv*t L, Pray Anfwer the laft Argu- from *pty VoZoriis fnent. nn ?; * Ruf. There is nothing of Chrifts Commiilion in it. L. Unlefic we can prove infant baptifm in the clofe of one of the Evange lifts; No proof is to' be allowed- I Will. I thought it was to be argu- ed according to the Commiilion, * * ri' s **' faly. but I fee; &C. An[mr\l bfc . f lerg~ Rob. If you be of Mr. ^#2's mind, faunas tedious fot then you may turn your Children StmesUwnniu cut to the Dogs and Pii;s, and Beafts of the Field. It is moit infufTerabie ; I never heard fuch an Erpr--fion in my Life. But you may fee what the Principles of Ana- baptifis naturally lead Men to. Here the -Anabaptifts being fliamerVJy lonplufs'f, Mr/ heigh sppiy'dhimfeif to the Mayor and Uovei lou^inthis manner: Jjbu fee they are not able to anrver out ftrflj Argument but are entirely gravelfd. The Ruleo < fputaticn oblige us to go no farther in the OpponencVo Yet we will be at your command, VVe have fix Argu-; merits more at hand 5 if you pleaie., we will proceed j C:*» ? offer them. Or, if you pleafe, we will proceed to the Se- cond Quell ion. Sharp. Anabaptift Moderator. Let us have a precept or an example. Rob. A precedent we need not give, here is a precept brought and yet no Anfwer given to it. Rt Rob. That which by Undenyable Confequence obliges us to it tho' there be not, in exprefs words, a require- ment thac we Baptize Infants. One would have though f^Jdr. Rujfel fhould have allowed ,tho' they are not capable of Dutys, yet they a«'e capable of the Priviledges; Here an Anfwer to our Jail: Argument was again and again call'd for, but none given. ^ Rob. Pray Mr. Chandler ^ let no more time be loft, but proceed to another Argument. Ar«. 2. Chand. If fome Infants be the Difciples of Chrift, then, according to the Commiflion of our Lord, fome Infants aie to be Baptized. But i'ome Infants are Difciples. Therefore &c. Rfif. I deny your Minor. \ Chand. Thoie that the Holy Ghoft in Scripture calls Difcrjles, are Difciples. But the Holy Ghorf in Scripture calls fome Infants Difciples ; Ergo they arc Difciples. Rptf. I deny your Minor. » . Chand. I prove jt from that Tasr. A-Fls 15. 10. Now therefore; why, tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the Difciples ? Upon Infants the Yoke of Cir- cumcifion was kid, They are call'd Difciples. Ruf. I deny that Text proves it. Chan, if this Yoke were laid upon the neck of the Difciples, then Infants are Difciples. But &c : There- fore Orr. Ruf: 1 deny that there is any fttch thing in the Tex: ei- ther exfrrefs'd or intended. Giand. The ciifpure was cccaiicn d by fome faifc Tea- chers, that had faivj, except Chriftians were Circumcifed, and kept the Law of Motes ± they could, not be feved. , New fays the Apcftie, Why do you lay a Yoke upon the < neck of the Difciples &c : This V oke 4 was the Yoke of Crrcunicifion, which was laid on the heck of fome in- fants. I?*/- (43 ) Rh[. No Infants can be here intended, for thofe, who are called Difciplesin this verie, are called Brethren and Believers in the gth verfe, And therefore it couid not intend infants. L. We will read verfe theFirft. Except ye be Circumci- fed after the manner of Mofes. Now I ask you what was the manner of h.ojes ? Ruf. To cut the foreskin of their Flefh. L. Suppoie we were to teach this People,, as the Juda- izing Cbriftians did them > Exctpc you are Circumcifed after. the manner of Mofes you can't be faved, no -ioubc but they would underttand the manner of 'Mofes to intend, not only all the Circurnitances of it, but, thac their chil- dren muftalfo be Circumcifed, this being after the man* fter of Mofes. Here I will form this Argument. If thofe are called Difcipies ^ who were to be Circumcifed after the manner of >kfes, Then Infants are Difcipies. But, &c : And fo ought to be Bap i^ed. No they themfelves allow that Difcipies ought to be Baptized. Kfif. It's the Gentile Believers chut aie there called JDifciples. Chand. ■ It is aU upon whom the Yoke of Gircumci- fion was laid, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear. ( Will. They could bear the Yoke of Circumcision.' * Chand. They were not able to bear it. The Holy Gholt, faysfo expretly; which fignifys the Painfullnels and Troublefomenefs of that Ordinance. L. What you fay of moment is this. That Children are able fo bear the Yoke of Circumciiion, therefore that Yoke is not there intended, but the whole Ceremonial Law. We allow the Ceremonial Law was included- but Circumcifion was here chiefly intended. Will. If Circumciiion was binding to keep the whole Law, then this is not the Yoke that neither we nor cur fathers were able to be^r. But it was fo, Gal. 5. 3. ? L. Thus far I think the old Gentleman is in the right, that the Apoftles are here and in the Epiille to the Gal. endeavouring the fame thing, driving them off from the observation of the Ceremonial Law. But herein he is G 2 mi- »-***^ ^^m^.**^^ sat ( 44 > rniilaken, He would have cut Circuniciflon , one of the prime and rm$ pf'>4gh. If I were ro attrhep-rt pfajiiu i: i g Chri- $ian and werejto perfwad6 all triefe Gentk hat they were to obierve Cin umcifion according to t> ~ Law' 1 cf 2tfbfes.\ And did .odl thole D/oiples, who were (o Circumcifed ; Would they not take it to be furncienrly plain that their Infant were intended as well as them- ielves. And therefore, that I called iheir Infants Dif\ ciples. Rvf If you bring a Text, and I {hew you feveral weighty considerations, why it I cod in your (enle : I expect i , thefe. Rob. Is it not enoi . •. Leigh fiitws that this Text will admit f no other fenfc ? WilL^ If fo be^ thi£t were brought in, it would not follow that they were Ducipies, for thofe that were Circumcifed were not Difciples. ^ L. You fay, the Qualification was, they muf! be be- , lievers and have their hearts puriiied by taitii. I Anfwtr. Thefe Judaizing Chriftians wculd "perfwaoe them to| Circumcife after the manner of Mofes, And fo to take the Toke not only themfelves t but aljo on their Infants. Now all | thefe, (45 ) thefe, without diftint~lion, on whom this Yoke was about to be laid are called Difcipies^ aid therefore their Infants. VVill. After the manner o t Mofs j Thae relates to the Form, not the SnbjeHs. tier e again is a vacancy in the Notes of ot*/ ' F< ie h • . ' en a great deal of time fpent about this . i ^ument. The Subftance of \f\ was faid on both fi6,> i tl is : Lt Igh have urged, that fu h as are viz. the refan- blance between Dipping and a Burial. And Primitive Prattice.Mr, Chandler, denies this refernUance between Dipping and Burial, to conclude for Vip- pi"i.* have doth ; but inftead there of\ he infifts upm his fecond Argument drawn from Trimitivi p y a- clice. Hereupon there was no room ( without contention) to urge any thing more againjt their firft Argument, But you have it \uvj\ci- ently Anjwered in the brief ConfumhriU ( 49 ) L. Prove that tji of e Texts where you render [baptfltnj by dipping,do truly and nefejjarify iignify Dipping. Take what Text you will. Ruf.i chufe that of our Saviour, Mar. 1.9. He was baptized of John in Jordan. The Greeks prepofition is, &$■ Into. And to fay, he was wafhed of r John wo Jordan M not fenfe; therefore it ought to be render d thus, He was dipped of John into Jordan. , L. The preposition, us, fignifies [in} in the New Te- stament, as well as into ; To here, he was baptized cfjobn in Jordan, is the true fen/e of the Greek. Now wc will allow thus far. That what was com- modious and uiuaily pra&ifed cn-ather weapons without /any burthen, in that warm Country, might be observed in baptifm. It is laid, that all Judea and the Country round came to John and were baptized of him in Jordan. In thofe hot Country* the cultom was to go bare leg'd, in iandals. Now they might go into Jordan a little way, and then have water pour'd upon thern ; and if fo, al- lowing that the Word &x7i7i<£6> figmfies to wajh, They "might be f aid in th& manner to be wAjhci in Jordan without we leap necefity of Dipping, I will offer it to the Com- pany whether this Da not a fair interpretation of thole words, Mar. j. 9. Chrift came to John and was barrzed'' fpi him m Jordan 9 ue. He went a ft ep into tbjwat/r and come into the world i.^t^v ko;##v 4 1 Tim. 1. , 5 . He went into theSy- \ ^^reek. nagogue,^_ : : And to into >M + GoodGc ^ kftiUm t\c, t& -f Jaxfi&n .This doth imply? that he was Baptised or dipt into Jordan, as thefe other Texts, that he came into the Synagogue, tkc. L. This Gentleman produceth tiiree places where ?,$ fignifysinio, and I can produce three times three, where it cannot heniry into, but raufi £ rT r r * t "ti r ' r a rfsre *r? were o(~ Iignify In. The force of vour Ar- *•■ /, . , to J v 1 • i tn^torejidMt they gave gumenc lies upon uc which you T! f m . 7!t would have render i Into, w here it H fig. . . ( 5°) fignify 's In. Then, "kdd this to what I offer'd before, as a pro- bable Interpretation contrary to yours^ it's evident that there's no neceflity of Dipping, from this Text. Rob. There can be nothing beyond a probability avert- ed on our fide or yours. Chand. Well, prove that jWri£6> fignifys abluo, To waflo frequently in Scripture. Thither we will go,That*s our tale. Ruf, According to all Lexicographers the primary fig- nification of the word (W-rifc is, merge ^ immergo, to Plunge, Overwhelm. • L. But by the way, you prove your Practice from the Prime and Native Signification of the word. Suppoje it were mergo, to Plunge, and not abluo, (which jet we deny) You cannot argue from the Native Signification of a ' word, with any force, wb en the Scripture acceptation of it is different: Ruf. I did urge the CommirTion of our Saviour: Chand. You/are to prove that Dipping is the only way. If the word will bear thefenfe o&wajhingor pouring wa- ter, then dipding is not the only way. < \ L. You argue from the Prime and Native Significati- of the word. Ill appeal to the Learned. If this be a good way of arguing \ Then the Mathematics inuft include all kind of Learning. Becaufe it corners from Mccrt&va to v learn. Then every Ttuth that is skill d but a little in Phj- fickl, way be call d a Phyfician y becaufe it comes from (£vyic. Nay, and every Fpot-bey, fent with a Letter^ maybe caked an Angel, becaufe' 1 Ay y^Q" fignifies Mefienger. To know therefore the fenfe of the wOrdZa&nfa i* this ordinance, we muft confider in what fenfe the word is ufuallj taken inScrip- ture. And to fay it fignifys to Dip, where the ordinance is mention d, is plainly to beg the Queftion, to affert the thing without proof ; Therefore, rightly to under ft and the fenfe of the word, we mttft have recourfe to thofe places where the word is ufed, and the ordinance not intended. Now I re- quire one fuch place of Scripture where the word G^ri^a fignify's to dip neceffarily. Ruf. No there is no need of producing fuch a place. I {hall prove it from the itory of the Eunuch and Philip. He commanded the Chariot to Hand i\\U 3 and they both went (5i) went down into the water, and then, when he had put him under water, * * rhe Text Ac **» they both came out of the water. 3 8 - hatbjun a word of L. I deny that the word [Bap- ***»& hm mder th the] fignifys to dip in any place water ' of Scripture, or to put under water, i. e. Necejjarilj. Ruf Mat. 3. 6. They were Baptized,/.*?, ciiptofyofc* in Jordan. L. How doth it appear that they were dip'd. ? Ruf. The Afcmbly, The Continuators of Poel, Calvin, Dr. ' Hammond allow it. Chand. That's nothing to us. I defye you to prove that the word 6<$rTJ?a * n an y Text of Scripture iignify's )to dip. Ruf. What then ? You deny what Dr. Hammond, the Aftembly, the Dutch Annotations have faid v L. We cannot fay they have faid Co: s We have not their Books at hand to turn to. Befides, fuppofe they fhould, that's no Pi oof. We are no Papifis, to pin o&r faith on other Mens Sleeves. ' In the next place. Whereas Mr. Rujfel hath brought the paffage of Philip and the Eunuch, That they went down into the water and came up cut of the water. It might as well be rendered, They went LJl , „ * * /to and came from tte water * Now . r V* * °f& T / e ' if they came by a River's fide, they N»™* might go down cut of a Chariot to the water, and when the 'Eunuch was Baptized, they came up from the water. Is not this a fair fenfe of thefe words ? They went to and came from the wa- . .-. ter*. Again if you argue from the . * v ,r ?• ',,;] word 3*1%, I can tell you of Se- g$ *&**: in * J ven Places, where the word is ufed . and not applyed to the ordinance, And you cannot prove that it Mjgnifys to dip in any of them. / argue ™ en - If there are ieveral Texts of Scripture, where the word cannot poffibfy bear this fenfe \ Then it doth not necefla- rilybear it. But&c. Ruf. I deny the Minor. '• L. I prove ic by ibme Infhnces 5 Mark. 7. 4. Except K 2 the* ( SO they wafli, they eatnof tow pm f> vV&oy^'tki except they be baptized. But can it be imagined that they were plun- g • over head and ears every time they went to meals? Ru}. The word is foiiietiroes render d dipping m our Engiifh TranUation, as, He that cii'ppe^h with me in the chin. L, The word is there Cxr^, not QxtztiZu '•> befides, this would avail your caufe but little, for can you fup- pofe that he dip't himfelf over head and ears in the difh? A Gentleman in the Company. I'm fure he woulcl be; foul and fawcy then. • Ruf. But &ocaT& r . is a Diminutive from Ca^r^'*), 'A Gentleman [aid to his Neighbour. Becaufe Qoc'ZJt'j is a (mailer word, be thinks it mptfi be its ■ *This v&ole pajfage Diminutive. * hath been attcj ted i>y the X .I find the WCrcf to fehiTy no more M^bat m etbe then Vrar, ye$ he went, and,as we read, dipped. T\ T ow fince he obferved the' command of the Prophet, ic is plain diat:£«Qri£a doth not neceffarily fignify any thing but wafhing. Ruf. What is the word in the H/vrew? . Chan. There are two words, aT. i and /2t3: And the [Prophet commanded 'him, VPH J rvl if is added, ac- cording to the word of k\\q Prophet, ^0tt*T, .where it is plain the words are u fed promifcuoufly ; and 7Dt9 figni- ries no more than ¥m. So alfo we may ooferve, Chrift commanded the blind man to vvafh in the Pool of Silo- am. Mull it be faid, that he was dipt theie ? or can it be proved th&tJVaamtn was dipt, becaufe \$m*nirap before Mr. Chandler was born, * and * We have good In- to ferisfy the Auciircry that he did fo, tdligence thxx the turned to the Fird Chapter of Cenefis, Vr. pu^Vd. thus en where he read fome part of a verfe' *&* l ame ir ° r ^ at * jorvrifes. And then again turned to K Mdl ( *^ Daniel, and could not read the fmeume before ' words yet. After fome time more, Mr. Ru§el pretend- ed to read iome words, but with a low Voice. Chand. We come not here, Mr. .Rutfel, to know whe- ther you underftand Hebrew^ouly tell us what the word is in this place. V hicb he could not do. L, We can produce feveral other texts or Scripture, where j3,:stt.£& cannot figriify Dipping, as where we read of their wafting Beds or Tables, the word is Bap- tize according to the Greel^ i Ruf. I deny it. Chand. Thgre is aht L. What warn Beds, or Tables, by Dipping them under Water ? Or muft it be by pouring Water on them &c ? Upon the whole, the Application of a little Water in Baptifm, efpecially in thefe Cold Climates, is ground- ed upon what Chrift quotes. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice. Now it being not NeceiVarily implyed St Scrip ture that Dipping was the ancient Practice, we fay, that having a fair and probable way deducxble from Scripture, we 7/wft reft therein, having recouife to that general rule. Davids hunger was a fair excuie for eating the fhew- bread, which is call'd Moll Holy, and L.awfnl only for the Priefts toEa:. Therefore, if Dipping in Cold Weather* and Cold Climates, do tend to the Prejudice of a Perfor/s Health, yea to. Endanger Life, ani it be nop certainly fix: ( J4 ) fix titf Scripture, as the only way of Adminiftrlng the Ordi- nance, we may nfe our own way, as y in General, mo ft agree- Me to the won of God, Ruf. They think, tho* they Transgrefs a Rule, God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice. L, No. This is not fo. We obfervc the rule, a Moral Irecept, which take's place of a Ritual^when oppojite \ Much more is itObligatory when its not evident that any Ritual one doth oppofe it. Chand. If in thofe hot Countrys they had dip t, or been obliged to dip, this would not hold in fuch Climates, tjidatfuch Seafonsof the Vear wherein the Life of a Perfon would, this way, be Manifeftly expofed to Dan- ger* , | Mr. R#jfc/ here attempted to read feveral Quotations, ■that he had Gollecled out of the Aifemblies A nnot. Pool, Dr. Ham. &c. which had been before difowned. And therefore the People refufed to hear him, as being nothing to the purpofe, however he fpake to this effea. Ruf I hope the People will obferve, that you areforc'd * to dirfer from the Kevd. AJFembly of Divines,#f. Chand. The Bible, the Bible is our Religion. Rob. Mr. RttQel, we are not afhamed to own our felves Proteitants, with whom it is a Fundamental Principle, \ that the greeted and belt of Men are fallible; And there- fore our Affent is not concluded by the meef words of one or other name how great foever. We pay a juft defe- rence to the very worthy names you mention d, but we cannot think oar felves obliged to believe every thing they fay: If you have any Solid Reafons to offer, or the clear evidence of any Text of Scripture, to deter- mine this point, pray let us hear it before we dote up the day. Nothing being faid, he, applying himfelf to the People, added. Rob. A great deal of loofe ditcourfe you have heard, upon this laft Quellion. Mr. RxJJel was obliged by all the Laws of Deputation, to prove, that according to the 'Commiflion of our Lord, Baptifm was to be adminiftred by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming, and no otherwife. Some attempts he_madc towards it, of the weaknefs of which) on which, I doubt not but, you are all fenfible ? And tkierc- fore (which yet they were hot obliged to)Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh undertook to prove that it was not Neceflariljr tobefoAdminiftred. For the clearing of which, they have manifefted that the word Qgaji^Q in the Greek as well as 72D in the Hebrew doth not, necerTarily, fig- nify any thing more than only to Wafli, or, to apply water toaPerfon, without determining whether it f&all be by dipping a Perfoninto water, or pouring water up- ca him, or any other way ; To that water beapplyed, it is all that can neceflfarily be concluded from the words.: Of this rhey have given clear evidence both from the Old Teftament and the New. } And now upon the whole, we are willing to refer it to your own Judgments, whether you willbeperfwaded to account your own Baptifm a Nullity, becaufeit hathnoc been adminiitred in the way of thefe Perfons. if you can without any Solid Reafon, or without fo much as the-evidence of one (ingle Text of Scripture be Satisfy ed, jyoii may then take what our adverfaries have faid for iSatisfa&ion. But 5 (irice it hath been fully proved, tftii Chrift hath only required that Perfons be Solemnly en- tred into his Church by Baptizing or Warning them in the Name ot Father, Son and Spirit, and hath not deteimi- jped, lb far as dothipppar, whether this wa flung fhall be performed this way or that, we are willing, I fay, to refer it to the Judgment of you all, whether our w^.v of Adrnl- ihaticn be not the molt, commodious: F INI S. I have compar'd this Oofy ys>Hh the Original, viz, Mr t MakbyV and my own, and find it exalliy a- grceable thereto* Witnefs/rnyli-'.nc!, ffeidthiytf >/ 7l W. SMO'H. ( i4 ) .— *- Some Juft Reflections on Dr. Ruffe!'.? fre* tended Narrative. ? A 1 ^ I S with great Regret, that we are again .diverted from more p'eafmg and ufeful Studies to dip our* Pens in this Watry Controverfy, and undertake this *■* Invidious Service. As we were Necemtated by the Anabap'tifis Challenge to the Difpucation it felt, fo had fhev not (by Publiftiing a ftlfe account,) laid us under a like'NecefTicy to Vindicate the "■ ruth and our felves, the World hiA never more heard of this matter. In thefe our Refie&ion.O we mall Manifeil the Author's Egregious Falfhood, m fome parts of his Narrative, his Trifling Impertinencys in others, arid the llncharrable Principles that have drop'd from him. The Narrative is pretended to be Tranicrib'd from Mr.\ Bijfd's and Mr. Ring's Copy's. Now we can afftire the World.'* that Mr. Bijfrfs Copy was like a Lawyer's Breviate,c6ntainiiig only hints for Memory, and may be all contain 'd in a or 4 pages, and hardly one word of it in this Narrative. As to Mr. \ings+ we have taken the pains to compare it with this account, and find feveral hundred Falfhoods, Additions, Alterations and O- miffioos. It is an ill omen thus to Humble at the Threshold ; and . what begins with a Falfhood, we have Reafon enough to Mi- itruft. B^ to the Narrative it (elf, we (hall (as to fome parts) mew it's Egregious falfhood as to matters of fact, and that bv its OmhTions of fome, and mikiting other particulars, as well as potitive falfe affertions. i.It is Fgregioufly falfe by Reafon ©fksOnvfEons.Not that eve- ry Omiflion of a word or Sentence, (perhaps) would have ren- der'd it fo ; but fuch Omifiions as alter the very State ot the Df~ putation, and make it look like an- ther thing, than it truly was ? are undoubtedly to be call'd FaUhocds. Should any ont pretend- ing ( 57) ing to report the Pfalmifts Senfe, ?/. 14. i. leave out the firft .words, anciaiTure the world he faid, there u no God- would not this be call'd a Notorious Falfhood ? tho the FaHfriefs of it lies, in not relating the whole Sentence. From whence it may be collected, That it is not only averting what was never faid, but alfo the Orniffron of fomething that was faid, may bring an Hi- storian under the Guilt of Falfifying. And whether it be not to in the prefentcafe, we {hall leave the World to judge, inthefe few Inftances. Mr. Leigb, upon their frequent preffmg for an Inftance from Scripture,^ of our Practice in Baptizing Infants, happily retort- ed the Argument upon themfelves, ar.d challenged them to pro- duce one Inftance of their Pratt' cc, as theirs differs from ours. For all that know us, know we alfo baptize fuch as are ^d u It, up- on the Profeffion of th£ Chriftian Faith, that were not baptiz'd ) in Infancy ; Nay, that we fhould re ; ufe to baprizethe Child of an Heathen, cr other Notorious Infidel, funlefs adopted by fome Chriftian) till he become adult, a?.d make a credible Profeffion of Chriftianity. M r . Leigh therefore prsfVd them for one Scrip, ture-lnftance of a believing, meaninga ehriftian Patents Child, w.hofe Baptifm was; J e!ay'd till adult. And withal, told them, That from the Death of Cfarift to the Death of Sr. fob&i accor- - Hmgtothe compjitarion of the Learned, wa~ about tfo years, in ^vhichcompafs of Time, multitudes of Chriftians Children were become adulti Dr. JJujJe/ mentaon'di we the Great as a Scripture -Inftance, Ahich wasjuftiy ridicufd : N?r. Witiiams, as he acknowledge to us afterwards, thought it not of any Force, ■J and by the intimation of his Son, alledges the Inftance of our Lord, asborriof a Believer- of tne Virgin Mary. To which Mr. Leigh repiyM, / thought we bad hcen fjfetfejng of the ComrniQi- on ; mm thit was b?f;,rs the Commiffton. Intimating, that the In- ftance was not pertinent, relating to a Baptifm that preceeded the Commifti >u of cur Lord ; and therefore our Difputation was noway concerned in it. Notwithftandiflgtfeis* Dr. Rujjel would have it a pertinent AnfweSr, Chrift being the Child of a Believer. And to this he reports no Antwerp but makes Mr, Leigh feekto be Opponent upon ff, as if confounded with this Inftance, /up-. 35. Whereas, immedi Jtely upon the Reply of Dr. RhJJ'cI, Mr. Rpbinfon, our Moderator, adds, Jho Afr. Ltfigh exprejs'd birrfdf in fi general Terms , yet the whole (train of the Vifeeurfe did Suffici- ently mamjeft that an InjJance of the Child of a Believer, proper)* Chriftian, reus caU*d for r Novo the Virgin Mary was a Jew, arid not tb:n a Cbrifiian: Nor tcm Cbrift'an Baptifm then injlituted. With more to the fame p;*rpofe. Mr. Leigb alfo further reviv- ed, That Chrift upas not to be imitated in that, beuufe then no Per ■• I «l&2 ( 5» ) ought to be baptised till 30 ; nor except circumcis i i At 8 day's old , as the Reader ma/ le<- in the toregoing Narrative. After which Dr. Rujfel ofFer'd nothing. _ Now we appeal to all the World, whether when ib large and diflinct a Reply was made, both by- Mr. Rvb'mfon and Mr. Leigh, this man hath fairly reprefented our Caufe, when he takes no notice at all of it. But if this Gentleman, or any of his Friends, can yet produce one Scrip- ture-Inftance of the Child of a Chriftian Parent, baptiz'd at grown years, it will be fomewhat to the purpofe ; and they may have the confidence to call for Inftances from us, and to pretend that theirs (as diftinguilh'd from ours) is the Scripture- way, and moil agreeable to the Commiffion of our Lord : Bat till then how unreafonable is it for them to expeft Jnftances of our way, when they have none to produce for their own ? , Again he hath omitted to tell the World, (what all that were prefent well Remember,) that he was put to Silence by what was ora'd from Mat. 19. 14. to prove Infant M [4. to prove Infant Members of the other wife tell the People, that we might proceed. To which Dr. %j(t / made a very weak reply , that in this Text there is not a , word of Baptifm, or the Ccminiilion -, and Mr. W. infteadof ' Answering took the Opponcncy, as in the Narrative. But not one word ttmre from that Argument could be got homDr.lUijfeL Beiidestko' he hath conceal'd yet he cannot (hknfelf) have forgotten-* hat the id. Argument en 1 ur pa:t,wherc he was again . Silence" was.fum'dnp by Mr. Robinfon in the words o; our Na- ! ratiw : 1h:n we refer'd it cq the Gentlemen prefent, whether we fcetijd pffei any more Arguments on the. 1$ Queftion, and it was thought wholly needlefs, Mf. Kobinjrns doling Speech c. ',•'//' < n< .fiicn, is .'-ho whchy omitted. . We jbpibeai io mention hep , how he hath omitted fuch paiTa- acs ■* did ruflSciently expofr his Ignorance to the Learned part of the c rnpany: Such as were bis telling us pace ad again, that pm^Mn % 'j%,U v a -' J r ' iC Mafculme Gender, agr< ting with i;>rifc%hen Greek Verbs admknet of Genders, tho' Hebrew do • and his faying \\q T £,v 'lopfjnvp a:, if it had been with an C'».^j and I Ccif-mm. So \$ 7< £ ; < vtOtf^uaV- Faults for which a $■>[! r] i--oy would def iv, ihelafh, cr he • < fi d to conclude his fir ft Argument, c?/. ( han m h the words of the Que- , it v. I mfcer'd (:ho s hit Na*r:-rive hatl not ) ;.ith how gieitt difficulty he foriu'd his S)Uo&ifa-> and r 4 ( 59 ) and how many attempts he made before he coiild bring the words of the QuefKon, into the conclufion : Infcmuch that our Moderator offer'd him his Afliihnce. Thefe and feveral other particulars which quite alter the Face of the Difputation, were by no means to be omitted : Nei- ther can that be call'd a True Narrative, that fupprefieth the Truth in fuch Jnftances as thefc. 2. This Narrative is falfe, in regard of its ftrange mifplaeing fomc Particulars ; on which account ihe Reader can form no true Idea of the Difputatioji. So, for inftance, what he fays concerning qcut** and P ?h Vciift, $*& 34- (io farasit ^ true) fhould ha^e ccme in in the m-iditof Mr.Wtflttfms's ram- bling Difcourfe, betwixt Dr. Kuffel's 4th and $tli Arguments ; and that about the Beads of the iield. y fcoirfd have had ks place jbetwixtthe iftand zd Argument on our part for Infant Baptifa % when Mr. Williams and Rnfjel v»ere both Rambling again. And had thev been found in their proper places, as in Mr. Xm^s Cc- py, which Narrative ft'fl'el ptetends to tranferibe, thev w6ufyila .".e f it True. The Qsniilioa of ibme things th a ! \t alter the Fa ~e of the Difputation, might be} I. to a is n -< Irapterr c Copy : But this muft needs be a Contriy'd and Qv 1- berate Palfhood ; nor hath he a right to be Beiiev'd in any thing, chat dare Forge and Pubiimfuch an imtrech. Bj b: caufe the Preface i almeft/Jfte continued Fallhood, we mail particularly take notice of it. 1. He declares Mr. Bows and Mr. Webber were the fob caufe of his being Engag'd in the Difputation, whereas Mr. Web* her hath dedar'd to Mr. Smith and Mt, Chandkr, that he utter- I 1 ly (6o) ly difliked the difpute from the Beginning, arid was only thus far ccncern'd ; feeing they would Engage lie advis'd father to Dr« Ritjffl than htam w cS- y , whom Mr. ~^nvs h~c\. pitch'd upon. A Mac that denys both r. umanity of Chrift, cgainft whompr. Me/ hath Printej c.n Honed Pro- tcftation. And this Man tho overturning therundamentals of Chiiiiiai.ity ishugg'd bj Mr. Bern : Becaufe he agrees with him, in the darling Morions of Believers Baptiftti by dipping; Which,, he tcld the Woriniptul the Mayor of Portfmouth, wa^ a Fundamental of Religion. Thus uncharitably doth this Man' ihut us all out of Heaven, and confine Religion to his own par- ty, while a denyer cf Chrifts Deity and Humanity hath been fince, as well as before the Difputation, admitted into hisTul- pit, While he, as a MefTen&er of the Churches, was travelling buiily to fpread falfe Reports againft us. a. Another fallhood which is indeed from the wrong Infor- mation of Mr. Leddetl, (that Man of heat, which much Water cannot Quench,) is this ; that he fliould twite* go to Mr. Smith to compare Copy s and he refus'd to do fo, altho' his Copy was then finhVd. This is a downright falftiood as appears by •the annexed Teftimoniai. Tcfonvince the World of the falfenefs of what it [did in the i Page efthefirfl leaf 'of Dr. Ruflefs Dedicatton,with Refpeft to my [elf ; J do declare,, that Mr, William Leddeli mver came to r.ie but once, when he as^d me whether I had Tf&jprib'd what 1 wrote at the Difputation ?- I told him J had net, but intended u do it. He farther faid if / had- or « when J had done it, he defired to have it to read ever ; and I Jhould have Mr. Samuel Rings Coppy which wk Trarrfifzbed 5 to which T Anfwered, that Jhadbut anhiperfecl Account of the Matter, which I Believe U the moft that any Scribe who wrote at the difpute, could truly fay of what 1 bey wrote, it being fo fulf of confufion occafioned thro* the UnabaptiSs lorfe andjbuffiing wa? of Arguing. Mr. Led- del never intimated to me any defign they had to Print the Difputation, nor did 1 think they redly ir.icr.ded any fitch thing, becaufe not long be- fore, In my own and fcveral other Per jm shearing, Mr. Leddel did pro* tell again ft Printing it. J had net whin he came to me Tranjcribed cue word from my Copy, neither was it fi>r,ifbed (ill about 14 Days fince ; had 1 tyown their defign of Printing I » ould have gotten my Copy ready for them: U 'hich might have prevented Dr. Ruilel from Pub- HJhing fomany untruths totbt World, Wimefs my hand the 10 day of July,Vj?5>, William Smith. (6i) The Truth of the above Relation, idoatteft • bsingpefent when Mr ieddell came to Mr. Smith, and fyicwing what U fard about the time. . of Transcribing hit Coppy to be True* Witnefs my bm£ the Day and year afovefatt. William Wallen. 3. Tt is falfe that Mr. Chandlers Sermons were the occafion of theDifpute, and rmuh more, that this is agreed to by us. As he afierts pr. pag. 2. We are all of Opinion, Mr. Bow'/ Impu- dent challeng was the occafion of it, tho* Mr. Chandlers Ser- mons 'were the Innocent occafion of that challenge. So that ac- cording to the Proverb, he might as well have faid Tenterden Steeple was the caufeof Goodivin Sands. ■ 4. It is felfc that it lay upon us to prove our Practice, when 'in the Preliminarvs they that made* the challenge undertook to be Aflerters, and Dr. RujJ'el took the Opponency upon him- felf : He hath alio abus'd Dr. Smith, who told him as he was AiTertor he mult prove, but Negantit non eft prohare. 5. It is falfe that as he lavs pr. p?g. 8. Mr. Robinfon fhould in the midftof the difputegivc him the lye, and yet could not make any thing cut about it. This fentence contains as many Tallhoods as can poifibly be crowded into fo narrow a com- pafs. That Mr. FpUnfon fpeaks with a loud voice, is what all that know him, know to be falfe. Yet this Gentleman ven- tures to fay pag. 13. he bawl'd very loud ■ again pag. 3 : iiiiams com- plained that Mr. -" w £cte ■ d his hounds, he replytt; if he did fo, it was Jtyflhl conftrai l'd him to it. Bar as to Mr. Kobinforis abufing /?;#/, hepofitively declares he levafl laid or thought any fuch thing. Much more m -id under this head, but the uneipedjbed news o the D Oid Mr John Witliamt, reftrained cur Pen ; to God he is gojie to give his account, and we (hall tread foftlyover his grave! 7. It is a falfeMifreprefealation, that Mr. Fafrrt fhould ac- fcnowledg they gaind any Credit to their caufe by the Difputati- on, as appears by the following extract of a fetter from him. ' I Solemnly appeal to the g ( eac God, who b;;it knows what ' c were my words, that to the beft of my Remembrance, I fpake * to M$ V/iUUms after this manner. Mr. Williams^ I muft tell ' you, an4 that not as mine own bentiment oniv, but (I c Believe I may fpeak it,) as the Sentiments of the reft of my * Brethren, that whatever Credit- (not your caufe) but ye may c have gain'd, is wholly owing iioto you. To which Mr, Willi- . ' am repiy'd, don't Si: put that upon me. I Anfwer'd, I will c fpeak it, for you a.-guM with more Simplicity, and lefsSubtilty * than $$*l) and 10 v, tie the fairer Difputant. Thefe words * thus in Civility foofcen, hau a plain. Reference, not to the caufe * difputed, but Perfons difputuvv. not to the ftrength of Argument \ * but form and manner of arguing, (in any things Mr. Faml cfFers * that (hew this was his feafc, which we think' it needlefs to c repeat, btcaufe the words thus Circumftanc'd carry their own.. * Evidence with them,) he concludes his Letter thus — I new leave ' it to the Judgment of the Ingenuous, whether it can be fairly ' dedue'd from fry words, that we were conlcious of any Credit c gain'd by them to their caufe, or whether they are not confei- 6 ous dieir caufe was wounded, and intereft finking, when they * readily catch at fc vain a fhadow, to fupport their Caufe and c Reputation. I will add no mo e, but that having perus : d the Nar- * rati ve, find it fo hall of Fraud, Partiality, FaMhood, and Mifre. c preff.ntation ; that this Inifance may ferve as a Specimen, if not e of the whole, yet of the great eft part. Attefted by George 1 i* Arret. 8. It is Faiie, that the Advertifement in the Pod-Man was ours. And we cannot but ftand amazd at the Confidence of the man who dares lay any thing. It was well Known to Old Mr, John W'lUUmt, bcforfche&dt G>fpo;t, that the Honourable Cilo- nd ( th. * 1699. J. GIBSON. This we are wei! -afford Br. RpJJHtenew, as being told fo, by fome of Mr. Chandlers Friends at the Cojfee-Houfc in AlcUrfgate- [fieet; when he gave the Honourable Lieutenant Governour "inch Scurrilous Names, as we will not foul our Paper with. NotwUbilanding this, this Man hath the Impudence, to dedi- cate his falie Narrative to him ; Indeed with a Diminutive Title as if he were not ] ieurenant Govenour, Receiving an Imme- diate Commifilcn from the King, but only deputy Govenour, deputed by Major General Earl. This he fhould have enquir'd into, before he had dedicated his Book to him. This Noble Gentleman is afpevs'd and ridi- ' cufd as one of cur Unthinking admirers Nar. p<*g, 7. and a fquirte; cut cfFooliHi Adverti laments, words that neednoothe: Infective than the Bare Feiation, 3 ag. to. what he adds further, that we would not give him th* Civil Title of £r. tiar he took his degree at CfitSridk, gdmitted is a Member of that Ho i. ( 6 4 ; Honourable Senate, and that not Ex gratia ; is partly falfe. That he was cheated a Mandamus Dr. by KJH James in i6S8. vv £ underftand, and with bow great a Price this Tool bought that priviledg, we leave the World to Jndg. But what he means by a Senate at Cambridge is beyond our underftanding. That he was not regularly chofen as one well furniuYd with the Learned Qualifications requir'd, his Ignorance in Greek, we think to be a fufficient Evidence. We could alfo inform him to whom he apply 'd himfelf for the better underftanding of the Latine Tongue. That he alfo kept a Cofee-Houfe in Bartbohmerv-Clofe, is well known to the Neighbourhood there. But fuppofmg he he had been a Regular Dr. in Phyfic, as he ftiles himfelfy this may no more qualify him for a Divinity Difputation than be- ing a Coffeeman. So that why he mould infill on his Title, in this cafe, we know not. Here we fhall alfo take notice of. another Falfhood,' thatthis{ bold Gentleman hath Publifh'd amongft. and by his Friends in endon. Tho' he have not adventujr'd it into his Narrative •• one of us hath been affur'd by a Perfcn that had it, from the Mouth of an Anabaptift of confr.ierable note in London, that Dr. fiuffel, to put it out of doubt, that he and his Friends had carry\i the day at Portjm^uth, added, the Bifhop of Salisbury had received a Lerer from Colonel Gib{m, wherein he applauded their/, e. the Anabaprift's performance. That ftich a. report hath fpread abroad we are well affur'd. But tlgit it is moft Egregioufly falfe, that Right Reverend Perfon w*hole name . he hath nude ufe of, hath given us leave to affure the WorW He doth indeed own he had a Letter from Colonel Gibfon, hi£ near Kinfman, Relating -o the Difpu cation. Bat to a purpofc quite oppofite to what this fa ifi&fier reports ; and adds, that not only the Letter he Received, but one directed to the Id. A. B. of Canterbury, 'did Reprefentthe difputation as much to our ad- vantage as could be deiirM. To" this fettle his Lordihip was pleas'd to exprefc himfelf to Mr. Robiwon our Moderator, (who waited on him on this oc- .cafion)and Generouiiy allow'd us to make ufe of his Name, for the undeceiving the VVo;ld in this n.atier. 9. It is falfe, what he intimates pr. pag. 1 1 . that when we were pinch'd upon an Argument, we made a Noife and Cla- mour that hindred the People from hearing what was faid. Whereas all that were prefenr, we denbtnot, well Remember, the fir ft ^iftnrbance we had of that kind, was that mention'd in the Narrative, pag. 35. when the Anabaptists (upon the mention ot our Saviour, as an Inftance of the Child of a Be- lieve., -V t Saptizd till adult) rudely enou&h fet up a fljout. And r ( ^ ) And Wlr Jf'ebber Ignorantly cry'd, Tis done !*%k done / Tho' the Triumph was but fhoit liv'd, for fofoon as Mr. Leigh reply'dto the Inftance, the Body of the People return'd 'em their Civility, and fet up another Ihout at them. Befides which, there was no further Noife or Interruption of that Nature, till that rude Companion of Children and Beafts of the ; F.eild, of which more afterwards. The laft Interruption was , when Xgjfel would have put us off with a bundle of Humane Teftimonys* inftead of proof, and we had once and again protefted again$ them, and given our Reafons vi^. that we had not the Authors at hand, to try the truth of his Quotations ; befides that (hould they have faid what he would have them, their Teftimo- ny. would not neceflarily Engage our aflent, rhev being but fallible men. When after this he yet would trouble us with . his Impertinent long Quotations, ths People rcfus'd to hear J him, and .continued to.hifs till he gave over reading; *mt what was faid at the doling up of .that head by ts, doth fuffi- ciently Manifeft no Human .Teftimony can pinch us : It was the Ridiculous weaknefs and not the force of the Argument couch'd in his iTeftimpnies that occafion'd that noife. And if there was any thing in it, that was a grievance to him 5 Let him thank his Anabaptift Friends that gave the fir ft Examp'e. 10. It is falfe, that Mr. Fox was dip'd by Mr IVVlixms's ad- vice, Who was not then in the Country, nor did Mr. Earte know him. That it. was done by Mr. Chandlers advice, is alfo falfe; for he was then it London. But. that none of us v\ould f refufe to dip a Perfon in fuch a cafe, is true. We never pleaded /.againlt dipping as one way, but as theonly^way ; notagainft 'its Lawfulnefs, bur. Neceftity. . So that this Inftance is brought in to no purpofe ; and Brother buJie (liould have inform'd him- felf better in the Circumftances of. thisftory, before he hid con- vey'd it to London. Nay he was -dip'd not at Gofport but Ha- vant. •■,.. , Wefhall purpofely wave the Falfticouk in £% Narrative it felf, becaufe our own account doth furEciently manifeft them* We fh :ll only add that ihe Con chlion of the £ook is as falfe as the reft. For he. i ays/ 59, 60. fbaiQodwar.$!eas!4 to make tbs beari?2g of the- difpute, of fuch uft to feveral Ptrfns \ That they veere fully convinCd and did in few days after, (ubmit them* (elves to b dip'd in iVater • whereas we can hear of ^unpre- judiced Perfon.% Who were anv way inclin'd towards Anabap- tifm, by any thing that was oiFci'd m the Difputation. And we challenge them to Name us one Perfon fo convine'd. Thofe that were fix'd in their Prejudices, might perhaps take their weak Arguments aad TrifiingAnfwers for afumcientConfutation K q( , (66) of Infant Baptifm : But we provoke them to Name one unpre- judiced Prfon that did fo. And do offer, for one fnch Perfon fo nan/d by them, We will, if they demand it, tell them the Isiames of feveral'who did ftionaly incline to Anabaptifm before, who by that Deputation were let right and fully fatisfy'd^that tl.e Anabaptift caufesothreft on weak Unfcriptural Principles, how loudly foever they pretend to Scripture. CHAP. II. TJAving thus far manifested , how little Regard the Ana- y * baptift Vr. had to Truth in his Narrative,this were enough to be ofFer'd by way of reply ; nor need there any thing more to difcredit an Hiftory, than to mew that it is falfe. But we fhall fo far condefcend to the weaknels of Injudicious Perfons ; as to animadvert alio on the Trifling Impertinencies, his Narra- tive abounds with. i. AH the Arguments they offer'd were Trifling Cavils. The Firft was deiign d to turn off the Opponency upon us. The zd. fuppofes what was never granttd them, that the only Com> miflion and univerfal direftory for Baptifm is contained in Mat. 1%. 19. Mar. 16. \6. For indeed if this were Chrifts only t Com- , miflion, then his Diiciples did Baptize job. 4. 2. without his Commimon^ forthis Command was not then deliver'd : again, if this Command were defign'd as an univerfal directory, Then previous Examination, difcourfes of the Significancy and Obligation of this Sacrament, ftated Prater before and after, arebeikies the Commiffion. Nay, the Apoftles did deviate from the Commiffion, when thev Baptiz'd only in the Name of the Lord Jefus or of the Lord,^#j 10.Vlt.19. 5. this is therefore no other than extending the Commimoa to the Gentile World; fuppofing that the Practice of it both as to manner and Subjects was well known before, only then confined to the loft ineep of the Koufe of Ijrael, So that Infants may be Baptiz'il if we can bring good proof for it out of the other parts of Holy Writ, thV it could not be.prov'd from ChrifVs Command : For the whole Scripture is the will of Chrift 5 and his will dilcern'd in this Matter, is his Commiffion. But fupppofing (not gran- ting) ihh to be an univerfal directory, We diitinguifli'd be tween Diiciples, that are compleat or Incompleat. Incom- pleat may be made by the Miniftry of Men. 1. . (6 7 ) i. As by the Treadling of Men, Parents may be converted and conftrain'dtogive up all they have and are to God, and fo their 'infants thus confider'din their Parents, they are remotely made Difci pies jby the Miniftry of^len. z. They are iin mediately made Difciples bv the Miniftry of Men ; by the Parents devoting them to God ; and bringing them to his Minifters to be folemnly dedicated to him. j5r. Xujfd's vain attempts to take off this diftinction, may be taken notice of in the foregoing Narrative, to which we re er the reader, as alfo to obferve ths little Arguments they further us'd, and weak Anfwers they gave to our Arguments. 2. His Reflections in the time of the Difputation it felf and what he hath added, are equally Trifling and Imignificam. For Inftance. i. What he infmuafes p. 6. as if in effect we gave away our jcaufe, becaufe we refus'd (at that time) to give an Inftance, where there was any thing recorded in Scripture, that did ob- lige us to Baptize Infants, whereas it then 1jv oa them to prove the contrary : Our bufinefs (who were the Refpondents) was to attend their proof, the time was not yet come for us to produce our own. It was agreed that they who had reflected on the Doctrine of Infant Baptifm as falfe and wholly untrue ; Ihould 5 rove that it was fo. Yet this Trifier when he had undertaken to prove, that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptifm, At the very firit would have put it upon us to prove they were fo, and would perfwadejhe company we gave away our caufe, unlefs we did as he directed. This was Doctor like Truly .' And one /fould not grudge, (however he came by it) to give him the Title, who does fo powerfully carry ail before him. You have his whole fenfe in thefe few words. Gentlemen, if I prove that Infants are r.ot the Sublects of Baptifm, you will allow I perform what I have undertaken, pag. 5. now this I'll make fo plain, you (hall not be able to anfwer or evade the force of my Argument. Thus I argue ; if they be the Subjects of Baptifm, Mr. Leigh, Mr. Cbm&Ur or fome Body elle is able to prove it. But therefore they are not fo: And no,v I hxve effectually done your bufinefs ; for if you fay vou can prove it, let's hear it ; if not, you give away your caufe. To chis fenfa doth this mighty Man of Logic Flour ifh at the entrance, and Wonderful Feats no doubt he thinks he hath done in it : But fucn Egregious Trifling is hardly found among any pretending to the leaft degree above common fer-fe. And it was fitter to have been hils'd cut, than fo foberly reply'd to as it was. K 2 T. (68) • i. What / Do you prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptifm, bv putting us to prove that they are. Wonderful i this 'tis to be a Dr. and to know more than all the World fcefides. . For till this Dr. came upon the ftage, thefe 2 things were always very differing (to make proof ot a thing, and put ano- ther to prove the contrary.) This Gentleman undertook to prove p. 5. but (as if he repented of his ram undertaking) he very courtecufly invites us to change fides with him, and there- by tree him of a burthen that was too heavy for him. •■ 2. Hor is every thing untrue, the contrary to which we.can- not prove true. w e cannot prove that this Narrative, J^tjjel e- ver was at Cambridge, or took his Degrees there ; but would he have us therefore take the contrary for certain Truth f Yes, we muft, according to his method. If "ne boldly aflertagainft us, That he never was at Cambridge, we defire they would prove it before we give Credit to 'em. In his way they'll prove it too, and then we muft needs grant it. Well, we wait only for the Proof. Thus it is. You cannot prove that he ever was at Cm- bridge, or took any Degree there- Therefore, behold, he> was not. The ftrange Effects of Logick ! 3. Nor if we can prove it, doth it follow we needs mud ? ef*\ pecially when he had undertaken the Opponency. We that flood upon our Defence (as Refpondents) were only to attend to what they had to offer, and fhow the invalidity of it : but were by no laws of Difputation, that ever yet were jtablifli'd to the World, oblig'd to change fides with them and take the proving; part onus. Tho' this we declare we were ready to do in due time, but it was noway fit to be done at the beginning of the Difputation, unlefs this Doughty Dr. had faid in plain words (as he did in effed in his firft Argument,) Gentlemen, I have undertaken more than I can do. And therefore tho' I cannot prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptifm, I ihould take it kindly if you would pleafe to prove the contrary. 4. And as to his pretence, that his Propofition was an Univerfal Negative ; Therefore we were oblig'd i>y it to give our Tnftance : It is a great miftake, and contra- ry to all the uncontefted Rules of Difputation, nor eould any order poflibly be obfeiVd, if it mould be admitted. For how eaf/ were it for an Opponent in any cafe, thus to oblige the Respondent to crange places with him— which what confufion it would create, any one that hath an infight into thefe things, will ealily imagine. That Rule h*th therefore (as far as we can find) univerfally obtain'd. * Ntuur a 6 9 ) Heuttr Vifputtfttium alterm partes fufcipiat t neqn$ epponcns , in partem RejponAsntu involet, &ut contra, ; And confequently a very Principal part ofthe work of a Moderatot lies, in keeping F each within their proper Limits. Regimen prafidU in eo lonfifth, ut diligemer attentat^ utr um Opponent 1s 3 Re fppn dens fuo officio fungantur tiecne : Si utrumque aut alterutmrd ab Officfofuo recedentem confpexe- rit, eum fui mutter's admcneat, & intra Umites continent, ne extra cleK (uti diet Solei) evagentur. r. RutleJ, or Mr. John Williams, had an Infirmity that fometimes difabled him from )pea\(mg for a confiderable time ro- geb tr. We took tiil the morning to confider of the Propofal, and then at the Hour and Place prehYd we gave th£t Liberty to them, provided the fame mi^ht be allow'd to us, which was con- ( 7<> ; coofented to. Upon which it -was refolved on both fides, that the Difputants fheuld be aUorv'd to afftft each other , gs they Jaw ac- cafion. With what Face now can this man irffinuate to the world, * that Mr. Lei^h, in the midi of the Difputatkn begg'd leave to fpea^ ted cmiid not b< admit; ed but upon Terms : And all this only to fe{ off that Falfe Lie, vi%. That Mr^ Chandler quitted the Plate of a Vifputant. But to return to what we were upon : Mr. Leigh helped tut Mr. Chandler with t)i* Vijl'nftiow. We grant he was helpful to him, and was chofrn for that purpofe, and was not Mr.- Williams alfo to the beft of his skill helpful to Vr. Xujfel ? But Mr. Ltigb helped out Afr. Chandler, and Mr. Williams did his beft to help ott Dr. Rujj'd, tho thro the badnefs of the Caufe,he ' neither did, nor could help him our. But Mr. Robinfon helpt too with his Diftinctions. Tis falfe; and his own Narrative (as it happens ) will maoifeft it to be fo ; for that Diftinction there ( reeation'd by Mr. Robinfon, is there mentioned not as his own, but Mr, Chudkr\ • and it was only mention'd to fhew the no cccafion he had to (penc* Time in propofing fuch frivolous Que- ftions ; a fufficent Anfwer to which he had already had from Mr, Chandler. There only remains under this head, Mr. Leighs and Mr. Ro- binfens helping out Mr. Chandler wich their Equi vocable Exprefli* ons. But this (Equivocable) like the {Senate at Cambridge,) is a word of the Famous Drs. own coining, and therefore he beft knows the meaning of it. Equivocal w- hive often heard of, but equivocable we know not what to make of, unlefs by this, added to the Hebrew and Greel^ I:ltances of his Learn- ing, we be left to collect that (as he fays) he was Created a Vr in the moft proper fenfe Ex Jnhabili Materia. Vo&o* ex non dotito* Yet if he intend Equivocal Expreflions, tho he charge them up- on us, they are h ; s own peculiar Talent. Perhaps few Jejuits fcerein equal or exceed him at that fort of Weapon. If any thing faid by us, was grievous to him, it was net that we us'd Equivocal Exprc fficns of our own, but that we repeated and di- ftinguiuYd upon his. 3. How impertinently doth he Trifle, when he over-loaded his 3d Argument with a multitude of Proportions ? Tho Mr. leigb deny'd firir, That the Apofile Paul did never declae that Iti- fart-Bspifm is 1 c'cjpel Mjtkution : yet could he never have it prov'd. Sappofe he did ( which yet he neither did nor can ) prove that Paid never declar d it in his Writings, yet how will he ever prove that he never dedar'd it at any time by word of mouth? which yet if he aflkrt, he muft prove. And how fri- voloufly doib he afterwards talk of oar having in our Cuftody any '(7i ) any fuch unwritten Tradition ? We never did aflert, the Apoftlc Paul did declare any fuch thing by word of mouth that is not written, only faid, he might do it> and put this wonderful man to prove he did not. And how intufferably weak and trifling are all the Refle&ions he hath under this Head caft upon us ! While this was the Sum of what was laid to his Minor or Antecedent.But afterwards we deny'd alfo his Major or confequent; that unlefs Patd declar'd the Baptifmof Infants, it was no part of the Counfel of God, which (by his own account) he neve* ptov'd 5 nor is it indeed capable of proof, unlefs what Paul declar'd muft ftand inftead of the whole Scripture to us. And tho the Apoftle tells us, he had not fbunn'd to declare, yet he never telis us that he had actually declar'd the wh At Counfel of God, Ms ao. 27. cUK. ums&tTwfuV. The word intimates he did not prevaricate withthem^ or fraudulently keep back anv tiuth, that in the *courfe of his Miniftry among them, he had a call from God, to . deliver to them : He he did not 00 as Peter faultily did Gal.2,u. \}Z3isit\Ki,;«ytho with -drew, fought Subterfuges thro' a mean and Timorous Spirit, conceal'd the truth when it was moft efpecially to be own'd by him; and for which the Apoftle rebuk'd him v. 11. now (fays he) I did not from any fuch mean or bale Prin- ciple, fupprefsor hide from you, or mifreprefent to you any part of the Mind of God s but have freely and boldly declar'd to you, fo far as I had opportunity, and there was any occaf:- on for it, the whole Counfel ot God. Not that we can imagire the Apoftle had any opportunity to declare the whole of what *Godhadat anytime, by any MelT-nger, tevtal'd of his Coun- fel. Norwastjjcre occafion he ftiould fpend his Time among them upon fuch Points with which tlsey were well acquainted be- fore ; efpecially while he had himfelf immediate Revelaticfhs from Heaven to communicate to them. If therefore it couid (as it never can) be proved that Paul never faid a word of In- fant Bantifm to them, it would by no means follow that it is co part of the Counfel of God ; but only, that it was no part of what was immediately reveal'd from Heaven to himfelf, nor a- ny thing that he needed to infift upon among them, who might otherways and fufkiently be inftru&ed about it. We might therefore (when we had deny'd the confeqnence) with juft Rea- fonfay asp. 21. Suppofe but not grant that Paul had not fpo- ken a word of Infant Baptifm, yet they cannot in the leaft ad- vantage their caufe by it. And fo our Oppofition ftands good againft that Argument, even as Jie himfelf doth reprefent the clofing of it. 4. His Reflection upon us efpecially upon Mr. Rsbinfm, for rraii gto admit him to harrangue the People upon the words of ( 7* 9 of the Commiffion is (if poffible) yet more trflling.Was !:? not not allow'd to argue from the Commiffion ? And was not that all that was fit to be allow'd him * Was he interrupted in react ing the Text?* What would the Man have.' Why verily he wanted to illuminate us and our hearers with his Preachment upon the Text. Poor Ignorant Souls! He perhaps apprehend- ed we could not undcrftand the Commiffion without his help : In the pre fence of fomany Minifters and particularly of him that had the right of the place ; he might have had the Civility to have ask'd leave, or to have forborn till invited to it. Be- tides he knew our company came together, not to hear a Ser- mon efpecially from him, but to attend a Difputation : The man muft by all means Preach and having nam'd a Text, he begins, 71?U dnmnijjion if very folemnly delner'd, wherein our Lord tells ui, that all power in Heaven and. Eanh is given to him, and by vertue of that Forcer. — And here he takes it ill to be interrupted. — And wci muft be reflected on as Lucifuga Scriptur&um, Bats and Owls that are afraid of the Commiffion, and fly the light of the Scrip- ture, becaule we would not fufFer him to go on with his Imper- tinent Harangue : As it it was all one to refufe to hear a Text of Scripture read,to as hear his Comment up'c n it : How exceffive- ly doth this man dote on his own Labours / 5. How Egregioufly doth he trifle p. 24. when becaufeout Moderator would not f ufter Mr. Cdvins Authority to Itand for an Argument, he Rejects as if he had no efteem for hira. Whereas there are few Name* fince the Apoftles days, for which he hath fo great a Veneration. What/ is it impoffible : , in this Dr's opinion, to have a Veneration for a Perfon,unIefs w6 take his, ipfe dixit, and fwallow down all he fays without chew- ing. But doth Mr. Calvin any where lay, That the whole of the Commiffion isexprefled in Mat, 18. 19. Mar. 16. 16. Andth* he fay, Infants are not exprefly mention* i in wit Command, yet we are lure his Comment on.the Place (which will beft difover his Judg- ment) fays, That God include* Infants in /peaking to their Var&ns \ and fo that Baptifm, when apply'd to Infants, is n< t fepa rated from Faith and teaching. And this he fpeaks in oppolitionto the Anabaptists, who made a great noife againft Infant-Bap tifm 9 upon this Pretence.See his own words, Harm. Evang.in A6u.28.19. . Vtvxm. quia doce>e priui jubst Chiii^ qium Bapti\xre \ tftgxnm credentes ad Bdprifrmim vult recipi, viietnr non rite adminijirari Baptif- m&s, nifi fides p-acejprit : atj; hoc pratextu multum tumuliuati fan jinabaptifta contra Pado-Baptifmum ; Solatia tamen non difficilis eft. And fo goes on to anlwer this Argument. Wherein he hath thefe Words, Qua olim Judjeisd.it. 1 juit pronvffw, Jnier gentes yuotfo vige* *tboik t nttejfeiQ, En £>m 11m & Se minis r«/, Gen, 17. 7. It* w r ( 73 ) W qiu fide in Ecctefiam Dzi tngrcjji funi y v?de>ms cum fui fobole cenfe- ri in Chrijti meri&fis , G? in j^lit'is Herediutem pmul voc-xri. N" e c vero jepdrsturhcc moJo Baptij/ma a fii' vel DoUrini^ qui a licet pusri Infantes nondum per at At era percipient Vei gratiam? T>em tamen eo- rum parentes compellans ipfos etism compleftitur. If this Famous Dr. hath not yefl^ttiin'd fo considerable a Proficiency in the La- tin Tongue, as to confrrue this, there are many Worthy Doctors of LheColledge wiHalTil't him. Let thejudcious confider whe- ther C.ihins Judgment and this Gentleman's be the fame con- cerning thi- Command ; and what a vain Flourifh it is to bring in Calvin on this occaiion. What he foon after adds, p. 24 . to refttct onMr. kebinfon, as interrupting him, is as little to the purpofe. He that pretends to Learning, and needs to hear any , irfbre of an Hypothetical Syllogifm, than the Mt]or, or confe- r, is none ot Sdcwns wife men. Twas as, well known to Ppbinfw what would follow as to Dr.R. the Speaker. How is it then that he iofinuates as it he anfwered a matter before he heard it? 6. As &> wjiat he fays p. to. about ErAfmm's skill about the Etymology of a G>eeh Word, 'tis moil: ridiculouily impertinent. Mr. VFitiums had a little before, very honeftly acknowledge, that.for his pare, lie neither knew what bslong'd to GreeJ^or hijuu and \ec pfefently quotes Erx{mu< as reading the C Inmiflion. Go Teach all Nations, and - when they have karn'd dip them. Mr. Fjbinfon remembring what he had (aid before, admir'd to hear him quote Erafmus : and therefore ask'd him whither Erafmus ever wrote in Englilh ? Or how he. knew that he fo read the Commifiion ? But th$re was nor a wjrtf "aid by any one abc.ut Erafmux'sskiMio, the Etymolcgj' of a Gree\ worefpbut he muft frill be trifling* j. The fVory of the Eunuch p. 3 1. is like aU the reft 5 for Mr. heigh faid not that the Euntch had Children, but if he had had One or mote.thev mull not be look'd on as the Children of a Pa- $4* igHe confider'd him not as an Eunuch but as a Chriftian. lie- frJesfnight he not have adopted ones? Nay, might he not have V 5 to _ V Children, and be afterwards raade an Eunuch ? Betides all this we will tell the Dr. what he never knew before, and what i$ better worth his Learning than Old Womens Fables. And that is, that the word D^D is Equivalent totu^^©-, and (jgoi; fys not onlv Eunucbus eviretfSf; but Princeps, MiniUer regix*. Thu> Potiphiir is calfd an Eunuch or Officer of Pharaoh, tho' he had a Wire if not Children. Gen. 39. 1. So Gen. 40. 2. The chief Butler and Baker are call'd Eunuchs or Officers. iter. 2?. 2. Tie Ncblesaai Princes of judah are call'd by this tame Name in the Iicbrerv and Gret^ and it is not probable they wereaU Eviri;:. Woris have a d^errn; S:^?':«i r .;o:i in lUfFer* \ v 74 ) ing Ages ; and tho' this word bear an Infamous fenfein this Ag^, \ et f >rmerly it bad a more Honourable Signification. It would be we think profane and grating to Chriltian Ears, for any ro rail the fweet Ordinance of fingingPfalms, by the Name of Ballad Singing, as this Dr. doth in lus Animadverfions upon his Brother Men's EfTay on that Subjeft. Tho* he Juftify's himlelf from the Old Tranflarion that calls the Song of Songs, the BaUad of Ballads • he might as well fav Paul was a Knave, becauf$ the fame Tranllation calls him the Knave inftead or Servant of Jefus Chrifh To applv this to our purpofe, the word Gunucb tho' now us'ft in an Infamous, wa^oriceus'd in ari if on ible fence, and the moft Learned Critics tell us that thisN< Man h^d nojuclv Infamoas Character, but was high Treafiirc. "hambeilain +o Queen Candace. A Lapide, M?no- cbi^Lud. de . m in hoc. Si that all the Vr, here hath fail's nothing but vait b bling: And me r hinks what he fays of tlta Turks Seraglio^ is tooTufcious for a man of his Gravity. But if* e-er h?had been entr in tnat Academy, the World had never rung with fuch fcahdalcu Reports Turpia-diftu-, concerning him. 8. Another Trifle v. u find, p. 32. That them cannot agree with Nations, hecaiife them is Mafcnline 9 ani Nations Neuter , but Re/r> tivKvicwn Antecedentc concordat genere, numer & Perfona. A'as^ poor Dr. I did you read this in your Latin or Greek Grammar ?* Net in your Gn ek certainly ; for there you might have found fomewhat better for the purpofe. That by the Figure Synth- fis , qiw A<"foreldtivim adintell>fium feu j'enfum non ad voeim conforma- lur. And you have a Scriprure-Tnftance for it, Gal. 4. h#. T"'. yv. ^S *<, 5F(xXn difiva .Nay,had you been abl£.to read your Cr-- k Tc ftament you might have met with iftftantes as to this *crv .void, Ms i<. 17. 21. 25. 26. 17. Kev, 2. 26- 17- 19* W* '1 hie 1 places , 3 ft agrees with 5; and gUTX^ So that "'; iot a rule in the Grammar to this purpofe, it would e h .en bigblv fit to have Subftituted one lor this very occafion, rtba'; all -hefe Texts fhould be accounted falfe Greek : and 'V we; !- isafotfd Anfwcr worthy noting down, tho' the . r. red'ing it rive leaves after forgot himfelf, and fa id we had 1.0 r )i ■■' Arfwtff. But the Vr. hath retourfe to Mr. Gcfnold f< r h ; s Afliftance, who tells him that the Antecedent muft be 1 h Wi h, as he laid' in the difpute, but the Noun ^a3«t?>V • h - wh c- is this to be forirtd ? It is not in {he Text, untefs the he the Noun. But if the Dr. had been as well acquainted v. f- his Greek. Grammar, as with' that Beloved Book of Mr. t lds t he might have prevented Our Trouble aad the hi rifh of the Father s of tht frft Ages ; we Remember it was mention'd in the Difputarion, nor is it in & Copys; tho' we Remember the Dr. pretended .. firft £00 Years, Infants were admitted to Commui Lords Supper, upon which one of us reply'd^ r .lu cwnconfeilion, they were Baptiz'd, othe: m(1 theothc , ment would not be adminiftred rothem ; uhn.1] Silenced ; ; and we heard no mo re of the Fathers that day. Buc Dr. date'' be fo lardy, as o abide by the T«ftimony i Fathers, ~we will Joyn IfTue with him here whenfoetf pleafes. 10. How Impertinently doth he Harangue, (b- r way * ApolGgy chiefly; pag. 35. 16. 37, for his 1 aving fei oir T nfa. 3 upon a level with b: utes. fcm all that he ca r ' fay, can m vsi * x cufe that beaftly Companion. Nay, to ma e le matter rt'oi ej after he had thought of it aga'n at LonJ. >w, where he drew 1 the greateft part of this Ap-iosv, as v e pjppoe, for we h " little of it at Ponfmcwb j Yet it ill he ha ; h the Face-, to chilli age us to ihewthe Difparkv if we can : As it it was hi, nY' : 1 • nion, that there is no iiitterer.ee between our * hildrei' and our Dogs. We muft confefs we fa id little t^rr, as thinking it ra- ther deferv'd ftripes than an Anrwer. And the Honourable Colonel Giblon did ptofeijs to us, (thedav after the Difputa'.r n) that he was fo offended at it, true he would chereupon have quitted the place, had not fome' Gentlemen near him P-rdyaiI 7 d with him to flay, telling him if he went off, th:re was Dinger, L a the "1 ( 16 ) the provok'd Multitude would do him fome mifcheit. And truly an higher affront cannot be put upon any Parent, than to make his Infants no better than Brutes. But he bears us in hand, he hath a mighty eQeemfor cur Infants* even a greater than we have, for he hath over and over given it as his Opinion, that they are all fav'd that Die in Infancy. Now the Infants of Believing parents we find in the compafs of a promise. God will hi their God and the God of their feed. Gen. 1 7. 7. So far therefore we tnay fafely go. But feeing God hath not told us, how he deal; wi f h the Infant': of others, we dare not pretend to enter into hi i Secrets, or to tell what we do not. know. Tis enough forus, t at God will accept the dying Infants of fuch as have fincerely devoted 'em to him* And for others, they are not concern' d how God will deal with them. That Man can never be truly concerned about the Salvation of his Child, that never wa c - Solicitous about his own. But after all, what ftrange kind o r Salvation, what before unheard of Heaven hath ihis Gi nth-man difcover'd for Creatures, between whom and beafts fhereisnodifparity/ What.' No difference* no unlikenefs at all .' tor we nope he may have Learning enough to know the Englifli ofVi'pdritM* Well ! (whatever this Dr. can fatisfy him- ftlt wvith,) wed:, both for our felves and dear Babes, wait arid pray for fuch a Salvation and fuch a Heaven, out of which are excluded all Dogs and Hogs, and all of beaftly Capacities and Inclinations, whether you take the Word Brute in a Natural or Moral Seufe. Yet left tl is Man mould think his Retortion, as he calls it, unanswerable, we aad, rhere is a vaft difparity be- tween Beaftb and the Youngeit Infants. For (as, „wis, hinted in the time of the DifputationO (tho 1 this Narrative not only omits but deny's it,) Siippofing them utterly uncapable of the Dutys, yet no one can deny but they are capable of the # Bleffings and Priviledges of the Baptifmal Covenant. They are capable of being Pardon'd, juftify'd, 5"an£titVd and Glorified , and is it fo *kh Brutes ? But further, Infants are ca- pable of being oblig'd to the Duty? of the Covenant, tho' they be not in a pi eient Capacity to din barge- them. Thus the jff* yrijh Infants by Circumdiion were oblig'd to the Dutys of that < v \ erant, tho 5 during their Infant ftate they could not actually di/harge them, it they had not been thus oblig'd how could th-^y upon their after-forfaking God, be cali'd Covenant Breakers, as we fini they are £^. 16. 8. 59. and oft efe- vv. e/e. "Fieir C;rwr;:ifion maJe them Debtors, Wrought, them u- .ation to the Law, Gal. 5. 3 . Laftiy, Infants have a Fund;; mental fed remote Capacity, to diicharge the Dutys of the 'he Covenant ; tho* thev u, *• . Tliey have a Pri£i c W°P *r" imme °:ate Capacity fo, perhaps in prefentexercife- >I R ? r °"» tho ' th ev hive it not tween them and Bea/r^Th^ r « » there vet no dilparf » " b f they are capable of the mwr 5 f 00n as thev have a hi;™ « the D utysof tL l C B JS°f ^e Cofpel Covcnlat ' Srd*J eonfidefd in it, they ^ve Lb l^k V" / hat rema »* to b e Nature, ., d0 h remotei ; e • '^ «ef nable underflow of thefe Du-vs, and tkd? f them for the dilcVef Caoaatatechem to come und r ow"^ a " d ; «a^ Infants ( a , uncapable as T« P bll §ations thereto : So thi Ceverfincethe-ewasaSacr/ml ° f ^ have been ? 1 alonf SoJemnlyente,y Joc;"™ n e ( nta . p f 0lnt ed for that pu ,m,^f ,that any Brutes were. ^ ant WIth God, tho" we nev« find jMp^T^il^^K* Man mew Hm the only wayof & mo inftead cf provmg that Dipping yprmkbng is the way. that v woula have put usto prove ,|at *at K Is nota Lawful way h e " ** 0nl ^ ^ ^ Gran" fton was not wherher 7bl ? never P : ove - But the o„ ; Plunging, OjeTwtSf^feV But » h «her S ,g|" ■ndcrftood the tL' . he , N * rae brfo >e. But with *£*£" make it lortas^ * 'i^eas himfelf, a hard iJ I tha£ « an Indufti-n t ad f O«ewhat tofay. This £ C ? W0H,d >ndorhn.-r a -i m .> ^ J ^ ( wnich the Nature o?nn t 5 A- he late Bi^^^V^* J^nt' £*t* naiatton of one. Wha »- 7»---a\e *s Wonderful ■? tr.'^ ' e matr »/ - ia he-acids a*fpm»rvi~ :- i at «ins ■ iJJ * termor : But becaufe ( 78) becaufe the main ftrefs oF the Anabaptifts caufe in this point lys upon it, We fhall not fatisfy our felves to have gravel'd them in 'he Difputation, when we deny'd both parts of the Argument as thev fornVd it ; neither of which thev were able to pnve: But for the help of fuch as need it, Shall fet this matter in a clear Li&ht ; In ©rder to which let it be con- jfiJer'd, : i. It is one thing for nstohe Buffed with Chift in Bap- nm y and another thing for Baptifm to reprefent a Burial. Reformer the Apoftlefa'ys: The latter only Dr. Hpfftl and his Brethren. We are (as the Apoftle largely Treats. Kom. 6. 3.4. 5.6.) Baptifdintn Chrijis Death ^urial\ Retime ft ion. That 5s, we arefolemnly enter'd into the Chriftian Covenant, which is founded in, and fecur'd by, the Dearh, Burial, and Refurrecli- j on of our Lord : Which thereupon fnoft ftrongly obliges us to Die unto Sin, rife to,and walk in, newnefs of Lite : But where doth he fav a Syllable to intimate that our Baptifm muft repre- fent thefe things? Our Baptifm is to oblige us hereto, and is accordingly urs'd by the Apoftle, for that purpofe, throughout this context : But we would beg any one to fhew us any Intima- tion, that our Baptifm is to reprefent thefe things. : 2„ And if Baptifm muft reprefent thefe things, it muft repre- fent all as well as any of them. There is at leaft as great if not greater evidence from the Context, That the Death of Chrift, the manner and liberie fs of it, as that tie manner of his B«- rialihould jpe Reprefcnred in our Baprifm. For befides that' we are faid to be Baptiz'd into bt* Death^ v. 3. we. are } alfo faid to b? planted in the lii&nefs of hi* Death, v. <;. whereupon v. 6, it telibwsj cur Old Man is Crucify d with kirn. But we are no where faid to be planted in the likenefs of his BuriaC Now what is there in your Adminiftxation, that doth reprefent the fekenefs of Chrifrs Death, his Crucifixion ? By the fame Rea- fon that you would prove dipping neceffary in Baptifm, a Pa- piftor any orher Perfon may prove crofling neceflary too, and therefore the fame Anfwer will Invalidate both : i. e. that nei- ther of them are requird to be reprefented. 3. Tis as Trifling, what he adds pag. 39. where he fays WbCi dandier granrs that Baptifm doth figniiy a Burial and Re- ftirrettion; Mr. Chandler only fuppos'd, did not grant it : Be- fides if he had granted it, it would not thence follow, that it ir-ufV neceflkiil^ be by dipping. For, T. In our way, by pouring water on the Face, we reprefent Ch 1 i :ts Dea'hj the pouring out of his Blood and Soul : His Burial ; The Face, ! the Principal part of Man being put tinder water C'7S>) Water, or having water posred on it, as Earth is poured on a D^ad Body : His Refurrection • When the Child is taken upanddeliver'd again to its Parents or Offerers. This is a luffio'ent Allufion in Chriftian Sacrament*, which are Com- Tiiemorative of what is paft ; and there needs not a more exact Re- femblanc-\ Nay, it is as fignitican: as breaking Bread, and pouring out Wine, to Repr'efenc the Sacriiic'd Body and Blood pf (Thrift. 2. If they will keep ftrictly to the Significancy of a Burial, the perfon to be Baptiz'd muft not walk into the water, but be taken up by the Baptizer, and cafl: down into ir. for indeed there is only this diifere nee between our way and theirs : We Baptize the Face, and they Baptize the head and moulders too : Unlefs the Perfon going down into the Water, may be faid to baptize himftlf. And then there are more Se-Bjptifts among them than we ever underftoocl before. 3. The Anab'ptiffc in Holland are i'o fenfibleof the no necefli- ty of Dippina, that the general way among them at AmjierJam is to baptize by pouring Water upon the Head, We Heed not fend Dr. Rujjel crofs the Seas (as he would us to the Turks Serag- lio), but to a p'ac? better known, the Amfterdam Coffee-houfe, to e; quire int> th. 36. thev came unto a cer- tain Water, and v. 38. they west into. This Dr. Kujfel con- rirm'd and thereupon, (as they reprefent the Matter,) Mr. /f/f^concefs'd.Thereisawordfcryou. "lis well we undoiftanda' little Latine : Otherwile *.tis Man y ould cmitc Sflerue u ;. But to ( 8i ) ' to the Point : whoever told them there were 2 differing words in the Greek, told them true. An 4 we are very ready to coricefs, or (as we would chufett) fpe with an Accusative, well admits fuch a reading." And v. 38. they went both down out of the. Chariot unto this Water. How well do thefe 2 vertes Anfwer each others and where's the difficulty this wonderful Critic hath left upon us ? But ; What need, of going down to the Water> unlefs he were to be Hp\i ? A Ihik might have been brought up into the Char ist if Sprinkling would have ferv'd the turn* In anfwer to which we fay. 1. His going down to, or into the Water, doth no more prove that the Eunuch was dip'd, than that Philip was ; for both went down. 2. 'Tis Improbable he was dip'd, being then on a Journey, and laving no cloths to change. And if yotf ftill ask why they went down f 5. Tis not certain, they were provided with a veflel to fetcli ■p Water in. 4. There was not convenient Room in the Chariot for the performance of the Action, and what was to attend it. 'Tis' not to be doubted, but it was attended with Prayer : your Pelves, ,we hope, would not adminifter Baptifm without Prayer, before, Br after,, or both, B«t what Rocm could there be in a Chariot^ for thefetwo Perfons to place themfeWes in a Praying pofture ? It would neither admit them, (at leaft if of the Modem form) to ftand nor kneel without uneafinefs— Which alone might be a fufficieht'Reafon, for their corning down out ot the Chariot, if there were no other. 16. How he trifled about Hie Hebrew Bible, and how .fafly he Represents.,, that matter appears by our Narrative. Mr. fyne had given over writing long before this, and Mr. Bows and Mr. Webber were afliam'd of their GoJiah, and therefore about this time bafely deferted and left him alone. The true account in fhort is this. Mr. Chandler told Vr. J^jfel that B*pti%<> was fo far from always iignifymg to dip, that BapH it felf fcmetimes (ignifys to wet or warn ; And mention'd that Text. Van. 4«.3|V Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the dew of Heaven, in the Gree^t is t£x*% mlfia, Be- was confsuajtd wirt Sv^S *£ * **" feed o»a£»nff BelWe* i4&J^» we »«ai feralJb fib &ea«*6 «wf& Argome&te to defosd *&dr f¥a£&c«. Why-/ W«caMafitl£S£§be^c^'i|jk &a^ grieve aaytkat truly Fear fjex!* To faasratrastfe prowM, a *nadial»Qt wfekh fo di»* %.g90ii.|feto^ife 1i taJhsraeit dear'-d • ftroio Scriprjre Teffi. isosfc to fe&ve t&e Grades of God wcfo&Jed abosxt k: Tk fegge tftfcfka&d ise gdevoas to any.- Yes{%« he) ltw& t^sShsGrkf^fthem^sisr^yEt^G^im^^^tuI Wc are at aldsi© ksowtfeeEeaSaa why It ihovm he. grkvoss t# any fuels, afidtac fe wt$ eo£ feel? tw ear. Howercr (iky we,)' «s*sitiQo£&e |§sie£<3f foc& 3$ were perfwadedof this Truth / Wctttiaey *pev*d£0&a7efc£&ar*dBg aid Ik fumi&d wjri Atg^sseess we the ddmce of k i Has catft be bis meaning. Everyone is pkss'd m fee what hehe&ercs 10 be tfee truth, Ikasa clear £|ght—*iBO& ttut were for tibe Bap&Ss. of Infjna ooiddfiotbegrkv^ ark: No, tier fee detfc. sot fay, but tfcofe tlsat f£.&€*oi, that tmiy ¥e& him, wcce gtkustat it* So ckit <«dLMjtt)aa®etSt2tass&r laUoc SaL^ilk k th