Is/vp 
 
 553/4- 
 
I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a. 
 
 
 •^» 
 
 .5 
 
 
 £? 
 
 
 
 « ■• 
 
 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 In 
 
 i 
 
 *z ^ 
 
 Q_ 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 jSp IB 
 
 >-t— 
 o 
 
 
 *s 
 
 5 
 
 
 ^S 5 
 
 CD 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 c* o 
 
 bfl 
 
 p\ 
 
 •25 tH 
 
 =5 
 
 £ 
 
 & 
 
 s 
 
 £ 
 
 «5 
 
 ■» M 
 
 «j 
 
 *S 
 
 •3 M 
 
 c/> 
 
 ^ 
 
 *- P4 
 ^ 
 
 
 S3 
 
 If 1 
 
 ■o 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 % 
 
 0) 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 £ 
 
 0) 
 
 
 '**> 
 
 CL 
 
 1* 
 
 
 
 /^S32L_ 
 

 
I Truth Prevailing 
 
 Againft the 
 
 Fierceffc Oppofition? 
 
 BEING A 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 O F 
 
 Dr. ^USS EL's Taie Narrative 
 of the Wort/mouth Difputation. 
 
 Wherein thofe unjuft Reflexions caft upon divers 
 Minifters, and others of the Baptift Perfwa- 
 fion, in that Partial Account publifhedby the 
 Presbyterians 7 are difproved, and their falfe 
 Accufations detected and refuted. 
 
 Alfb, a Sermon upon Afat. 28. 19. by Mr. John Wil- 
 liams, late Minifter of the Gofpel j" with his Letter 
 to Mr. Leigh concerning the Difpute. 
 
 As aho an Anlwer to the Presbyterian Dialogue, by 
 another Hand. 
 
 '> , 
 
 Publilhed by Mr. JOHN SHARP, Minifter of 
 the Gofpel, and Paftor of the Church of Chrift at 
 Froome in SomerfetJJrire, who was Moderator at 
 the Difputation in Port/month. 
 
 London^ Printed, and fold by M. Fabian at 
 Mmers-Cbaffel in Cbctyfidc, 1 700, . 
 
( i" ) 
 
 ^ 
 
 THE 
 
 Epiltle to the Reader. 
 
 E were engaged about a year fince in a 
 publick Deputation at Portfmouth upon 
 thefe two Qufftlons^ viz. i % Whether* ac- 
 cording to the Commiffion of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jefm Chrifi, Adult Believers are only the proper 
 Subjects of Bapt/fm y and not Infants ? 2. Whether the 
 Ordinance of Baptifm, at appointed by Chrifi, is to be 
 adminifired by dipping, plunging (or) overwhelming only, 
 and not ctherways f 
 
 The occafion of that Difputation appears from the 
 Preliminaries figned on their part, by Mr. Samuel 
 Chandler, and Mr. Francis Williams^ two Presbyte- 
 nan Minifiers, in the following words, Whereas by 
 Mr. Chandlers late preaching on the Ordinance of 
 Baptifm, feveral Per Tons have taken offence*, and upon 
 defire of fatisfa&ion, its mutually agreed between 
 us, whofe Names are under- written, That thefe two 
 Points be amicably difputed, &c. So that M,\ Chan- 
 dler'.^ Sermons were the caufe of the Offence, and their 
 defire of Satisfaction the occafion of the Difputation .* 
 And as for Dr. RufTel, he knew not of that Agreement 
 till afterwards, fo that he could not pojfiUy be the 
 Aggreffor. 
 
 When the Difpute was over, the Doctor having ex- 
 traordinary occafion ( by reafon of his Wife's Jllnefs, and 
 other prejfmg Affairs ) return d for London the next 
 morning j but before he could reach home, an Advertife* 
 mem was printed in the Port-man (fitppjofedto be pro* 
 
 A 2 wU 
 
(iv) 
 
 cured by their importunity) giving dn unfair and biased 
 Account thereof to the World. And jome time after 
 they publiftjed another Advertifement in the Flying-Poft, 
 full of Vntruths, as I have formerly told them. And 
 this, together with the Noife and Clamour they 
 made in the time of the Difpute, by which the People 
 were kindred from hearing what was fpoken, were the 
 Reafons why it was thought meet to make it publick ', of 
 which they had a particular account in the Dedication: 
 And whatever be the Confequence, they muflnot throw it 
 upon us, but take it to themfelves. 
 
 As touching our Narrative, we think it may deferve 
 the~Title of a True Narrative ; for it was publifhed 
 with all faithfulnefs, as to what was there delivered^ 
 according to the befl account we could get either from 
 our own Memories, or the Copies we could procure : And 
 if they had been minded to have inform d us of any thing 
 further, they fljould not have refufed us a fight of their 
 Copy when defird. But after all this noife of Omiffions 
 and Alterations, &c. if they can fay no more, nor give 
 any better Demonjiration of what they have faid than 
 what dotk yet appear, we mujt needs tell them that our 
 Narrative will ft and good, notwithfianding all their Cla- 
 ?nor againft it -, and theirs will appear to be (not an 
 impartial, but) a partial Account. And this we may 
 further affure them, that as they have manag'd it, they 
 have been fo far from giving us any further light or 
 f at isf action therein, that they have wholly fruftr ate d the 
 great Expetlation of divers of their Friends : For, when 
 they faw thofe Advert if ements they publified from time 
 to time complaining againfi our Narrative, and that 
 Certificate they fent into the Weft* wherein they boa ft of 
 their great Vitlory over us, which they faw wasftuff d 
 with fuck great jwelling words of Vanity, at the fame 
 time charging our Narrative to be full of palpable no- 
 (ormu FMfods\ and defiring them to fufpend their 
 
(v) 
 
 Judgments till they had a view of their \ Anfwer : It 
 made their own People to abufe us, and rcflecl upon us by 
 their over Credulity ; and filled them with an Expecta- 
 tion of fome great things to be difcovered when theirs 
 fhould come out into the World. But at lafi (after fix 
 months time) when it came to their view, they found their 
 Expectations frufirated : For, in/lead of giving them a 
 more clear account, they hadfo torn and mangled it, that 
 it feems to them to be in a mojl mifijapen form, jcarcely 
 intelligible : And not fo much as one of thofe vafi num- 
 bers they boafied of could be procured to tcflify to the 
 truth of what they had certified under their hands, 
 This made divers Presbyterians to own the Truth, and 
 fubmit to holy Baptifm upon Profeffwn of Faith, as fe- 
 ver al had done upon the Difputation : For when they 
 faw there was Railing infiead of Reafon, and pretended 
 Probabilities in the room of folid Arguments; and a. 
 falfe Abfiratl of Mr. ChandlerV old patctid up Ser- 
 mons, taken out of other Mens Works, infiead, of thofe 
 new Arguments they were in expectation of; and not 
 one fingie Scripture Tefiimony either where it was com~ 
 manded, or any Example of any one Infant that was 
 baptized^ either by John the Baptifi, Chrift or his Apo- 
 files, or any other Primitive Mmfier what fo ever ; it 
 was fujjicient to convince any confiderate judicious Per- 
 fins, that they had been hitherto mifled by thefe blind 
 Guides, and that they had no defign (let their pretences 
 be what they will ) that this Gofp el-Ordinance fljould be 
 refiored to its Primitive Purity, and firfi Infiitution y 
 according to the Commiffion of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jefus Chrifi, which they know to be agreeable to our 
 Practice, and have confefi it fo to be. For, 
 
 Mr. Chandler in the Sermon he preach d Nov. 24. 
 
 1698. on 1 Cor. 12. 13. faith thus. I come to the 
 
 fifth thing propofed, to (how the Subje&s of Baptifm, 
 
 who are qualified for the receiving of this Ordinance. 
 
 A 3 Here 
 
( vi) 
 
 Here we are to confider, either who are qualified irr 
 the fight of God, or who in the fight of the Church : 
 That is, to whom God will apply the inward Grace 
 Signified in this Ordinance, and who Men may ad- 
 mit to Baptifra, as not being able to judg of the 
 Heart. 
 
 Firft therefore in the fight of God, Repenting Be- 
 lievers are to be baptized, they have an undoubted 
 right to this Ordinance. God hath been gracioufly 
 pleated to order it, that all thofe that turn to him by 
 Faith in Chrift, with refolution of Subjection and 
 Obedience to him, fhould be admitted to this Ordi- 
 nance,^ wherein he fignifies and feais he will give them 
 remiltion of Sin, adopt them into his Family, and 
 give them Right and Title to Heaven. Thefe were 
 the Subjects of Baptifm when the Ordinance was 
 firft inftituted and appointed. Then it was neceflary 
 Men fhould repent and believe, otherwife they had 
 no right to this Ordinance. While Men remained in a 
 ftate of Judaifm or Heathenifm, till they give up them- 
 felves to Chrift, fubmit to the Lord Jeius, they had 
 no right to this Ordinance : Therefore you read, Re- 
 pent and be baptised , and, // thou belu vefi with all 
 thy heart , thou mayft. So that if w r e w T ei e lent into 
 an Heathen Nation, we ought to engage them to re- 
 pent and believe before we admimiier this Ordi- 
 nance to them. 
 
 2. In refped: .of the Church, profeft Believers are 
 to be baptized. God, he doth nor give the inward xxk{ 
 of this Ordinance to any but thole that a&ually re- 
 pent and believe : But the Church. cannot fee the Heart : 
 Where Men therefore make a iolemn Profeflion of 
 Faith and Repentance, there they are to be admitted 
 to this Ordinance. Where Men have a competent 
 imderitanding of the Principles of Chriftian Religion, 
 ,aj:d fokmnly profefs to devote themfelves to the Lord 
 
 Jefus 
 
( vii ) 
 
 Jefas Ghrift, and contradid: not this Profefiion by 
 notorious Ungodlinefs, or an openly wicked Life, 
 thefe we ought to admit. 
 
 Would not any Man that had been a Stranger, and 
 beard Air. Chandler preach fitch Doctrine, have taken 
 him for a B apt iff Preacher ; and not a Presbyterian ? But 
 pray how doth he acquit himfelf from being avJqk^Iah^t.0", 
 condemned in himfelf ? His Anfwer is this, If any 
 through miftake, orr neglect of the Parents, have not been 
 baptized, they ought to jwmit to this Ordinance, as 
 thereby profeffing they give up thcmfelves to God. The 
 fame with what he faid at Portfmouth in our very en* 
 trance upon the Difpute, viz. he did own that Adult 
 Believers were the proper Subjects of Baptifm, 
 Dr. RufTel faid, Then yon own our Practice to be 
 right. Mr. Chandler faid, Tes, if they have not been 
 baptized in their Infancy. Dr. RuiTel replied, Youfup- 
 pofe they are to be baptized by virtue of fome Commifii- 
 on, and that it is by the Commiffion of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jefus Chrift. Mr. Chandler anfwer d 9 Tes, I 
 do fo. 
 
 By all this it appears thefe Presbyterians own that 
 Chrift hath commanded Adult Believers to be baptized^ 
 and they are the proper Subjects intended in our Lord's 
 Commiffion : So that at beft, if Infants are the Subjefts 
 of Baptifm, they are but improperly fo. But (by his 
 Confeffion) if Infants are not at all intended in that 
 Commiffion, then thofe that we baptize upon Profeffion of 
 Faith are the only proper Subjects of Baptifm (according 
 to Chrift' s Commiffion) and Infants are not the Subjects 
 at all. And till he an fivers like a Logician to Dr.RufleVs 
 firft Argument, and produces his Inflance upon his uni~ 
 verfal Negative, and fhews as where it is written, that 
 Chrift hath required any of his Minifters to baptize 
 any one Infant, the Controverjy is fairly iffued, and it's 
 we, and not they that have obtained the Vi&ory r or 
 A 4 ra+ 
 
( viii ) 
 
 rather, that Truth is ftrongeft, and hath prevailed. 
 
 Thefe Men are juft like the Pharifees, &c. in our 
 Saviour's time, who acknowledg'd that the fifth Com- 
 mandment did oblige the Israelites to honour and relisve 
 their Parents in their Neceffities: But by an Invention 
 of their own, by putting a falfe Glofs upon the words, as 
 appears by their Talmud (treating of Vows) Chap. 10. 
 a Man is bound to honour his Father and Mother, ex- 
 cept he vow the contrary. This our Lord takes notice of 
 in Mat. 15. 4, 5,6. Mark 7. 10, 11, 12, 13. by the 
 name of Cor ban, a Gift. In Pool'j Annotations you 
 have thefe words ; As touching this word Corban, the 
 tnofi free and unconflrained fenfe feemeth to be this: The 
 Pharifees were a very covetous Generation, and had a 
 /bare in the Gifts that were brought unto God for the 
 ufe of the Temple, or otherwife ; thence they were very 
 z.ealpm and diligent in perfwading the People to make 
 juch Oblations : And when any pretended the need that 
 their Parents fiood in of their help, they told them, that 
 if they told their Parents it was a Gift (i.e.) that 
 they had vowdfuch a portion of their Eft ate to a f acred 
 uje, that would before God excufe the?nfor not relieving 
 their Parents, &c. and that they were not obliged by 
 that Precept to honour and relieve them any longer. 
 Thus he tells them that by their Traditions, under pre- 
 tence of a more religions expounding the Divine Law, 
 they had indeed deftroyd it, and made it of no effect 
 at all. 
 
 In like manner, if yon ask thefe Presbyters, Whether 
 jefus Chrift gave Commiffion to his Minifters to baptise 
 Believers f MrX£\$\jhallfpeak for them his words are 
 thefe, We muft all confefs, that Jefus Chrift gave 
 Commiftion to baptize Believers when at the Age of 
 Maturity. 
 
 But if this Queftien were put to the Pharifees, Whe- 
 tbsf fach Jews were obliged by that Command of God 
 
 ta 
 
(«) 
 
 to honour and relieve their Parents, who had [aid to 
 their Father or to their Mother, Corban ? Their Anfwer 4 
 was, He is free, and they fuffered him no more to do 
 ought for his Father or his Mother. 
 
 In like manner, if yon ask thefe Presbyters, whether 
 fitch Perfons are obliged by that Command of Chn'/i to 
 be baptized in his Name when they come to years of 
 Maturity and do believe, who have been baptized in 
 their Infancy ? Their Anfwer is (as the Pharifees of 
 old) they are freed from that Obligation, and they will 
 not fuffer them to be rightly baptized according to ChriJPs 
 Commiffion : Whereas Mr. Chandler confeffes they ought 
 fo to be, if they had not been baptized in their Infancy. 
 
 Now for af much as there is no other Authority for In- 
 fant-fpr inkling, but what the Pharifees had for their 
 Corban, i. e . the Command or Tradition of Men, why 
 may not we apply the words of our Saviour (to the Pha- 
 rifees) unto thefe Presbyters ? Thus have ye made the 
 Commandment of Chrift for holy Baptifm of none effect 
 by your Tradition of hf ant -fpr inkling \ and thereby 
 render 'd the Word of God of none effebl : And that it*s 
 vain Worjlnp that is taught by the Precepts of Men, yon 
 ?nuft be forced to acknowledg, or deny the words of our 
 Saviour : And if Will-worfljip, vain Worfinp, Afens 
 Commandments, and Human Traditions be not forbid- 
 den in the Word of God, there is nothing forbidden \ 
 but Men are then at liberty to do what they pleafe in the 
 Worftjip of God. Why you ( that are of this Opinion ) 
 'jlmdd keep up a Separation from the Church of England^ • 
 unlefs it be for Humour and Inter eft, I cannot imagine* 
 But to proceed. 
 
 Thefe learned Annotat or s fay, That altho the Jews 
 did forfome trail: of time keep to the Divine Law, yet 
 in procefs of time they abufed that Text, Deut.4. x 4» t0 
 found a new Invention upon it : That bejides the Law 
 written in the five Books of Mofes, GojpL delivered to 
 
 hint 
 
CO 
 
 him in the Mount divers things which were not written, 
 which he delivered only by word of month to the Sanhe- 
 drim, which arc to them as much a Rule of Judgment 
 as any part of the Law which was written : By which 
 means they gained themfelves a liberty of making the 
 Law of God what they pleafed. 
 
 From whence we alfo may obferve, that they did not 
 deny this to be written that is recorded in the fifth Com- 
 mandment ; but that the other was alfo intended and in- 
 cluded in it, which they endeavoured to perfwade the 
 People to believe, by their falfe Gloffes upon the Text : 
 For they confefs it was not expre/ly written in the Law, 
 but that it might be intended, tho not exprefi : And 
 that it was delivered by word of mouth, tho it be no 
 where fo written in all the Word of God : For they call'd 
 it a Tradition of the Elders. 
 
 Whether Covet oufnefs (as in the Pharifees) lies at 
 the root of this Practice of Infant-fpr inkling, themfelves 
 are the beji Judges : But this they confefs, That it is not 
 expre/ly commanded in the Word of God: But they en- 
 deavour to per J wade the People that it is intended there- 
 in ( altho they cant produce one In/lance of any Infant 
 that was bapiiz^ed} and by their corrupt Expofit ion of 
 fome Paffages in holy Scripture, and their falfe Gloffes 
 (likethofe of the Pharifees') they prevail upon their ig- 
 norant and unthinking admirers to believe it upon their 
 word, altho there is not one fy liable of it recorded in the 
 holy Scriptures. 
 
 But when this will not do, they tell them it was the , 
 Practice/}} the Church for many Ages, and they have 
 'reafon to believe that it was taught by the Apojlles, altho 
 there be no mention of it in holy Scripture. For in p. 1 3. 
 of their own Account they fay, that Paul might declare 
 it, tho the New Tejlament fbould not difcover that he 
 did. And iu p. 15. Paul might have declard the 
 Baptifm of Infants an hmdred times over, and yet it 
 
 might 
 
( xi ) 
 
 might not be left on Record in his Eplfile to the Ephe- 
 fians, nor any part of the JSfew Tefiament that he did fo 9 
 I therefore demand of thefe Presbyters, that if they be 
 not of the Papifis Opinion, that Infant-Baptijm is an 
 unwritten Tradition, what moved them to life their very 
 Language ? Had they not a fit opportunity to produce a 
 Scripture-infiance if they had been able ? But it feems all 
 the skill they have, with all their pretences to Learning, is 
 not fufjkient to inable the?n to find it out ', and therefore 
 we mufi fiill charge it upon them as a Script ureAefs 
 Practice, and a mere Human Invention, without the 
 leafi JJjew of either Precept or Example to be found for it 
 in all the Word of God : And confequently we mufi reject 
 it as an unwritten Tradition, and, Will-worjlnp ', and 
 (as fuch) forbidden by the holy Scriptures ', and that from 
 the Pens of the moji learned Pedo-Baptifis, in their Ex~ 
 pofitions of the fecond Commandment. 
 
 And feeing thefe Men grant this Practice of theirs is 
 not exprefi in the Writings of the New Tejfament, let 
 them tell us the reafon of this total filcnce therein ? Why 
 did not our Lord command it if he intended itfiould be 
 pratlifed ? Why did not the Apofiles fet it down in their 
 Writings ? What can be the reafon why thefe holy Men 
 jhould not make Jome mention oj it in the many Books 
 they have purpofely written for our In fir -action ? Why did 
 the four Evangel fis conceal it ? The Ads of the Apofiles 
 make no mention of it when they fet down in writing fo 
 many thoufands of Men and Women that were baptised ? 
 s How comes it to pafs that the Apofiles Peter, James, 
 John and Jude, who wrote fuch excellent Epi files, jhould 
 not fay one word about it f But above ail, the Apofile 
 Paul, who wrote fourteen admirable Epijtles, and fpeaks 
 in them jo often of this holy Ordinance of Baptijm, 
 who profeffes he did declare all the Counfel of God, and 
 kept back nothing that was profitable to be known, and 
 praifes them for keeping the Ordinances as they were de- 
 livered 
 
(xii ) 
 
 livered to them y and declares^ that as he received them 
 of the Lord y fo he had delivered them * ? does not in all 
 his Epifiles make the leaft mention of Infant-Baptifm. 
 Is not this alone a great Argument againft your 
 Practice ? I pray confider it: For the Apoftle faith y Let 
 every Man prove his own Work. Tou affert it y and 
 therefore it lies upon you to prove it. 
 
 But to evade this y you make ufe of the fame method 
 againft uf y as the Papiftsdo againft the Proteftants y when 
 they demand of them to give fome formal Paffage in 
 Scripture that doth expre/ly and by name deny what they 
 affirm y viz. where it's faid expre/ly that there is no fire 
 of Purgatory y and that the Pope of Rome is not the 
 Head of the univerfal Churchy and that the Mafs is not 
 a Propitiatory Sacrifice. Now this method of Deputa- 
 tion is accounted in the Papifts an unjuft caviling to de- 
 mand fuch unreafonable Proof y or elfe to pretend the 
 Prot eft ants cannot anfwer them. The Turks may as rea- 
 fonably demand of the Pap>fts y where there is to be found 
 any formal Paffage in Scripture that faith expre/ly that 
 Mahomet is not a true Prophet , &c. and then pretend the 
 Papifts cannot anjwer them. Andfurely if it be unjuft 
 caviling in their own efteem y when de?n.wdled of them, it 
 muft he the fame in themj elves when they demand it from 
 the Proteftants. 
 
 Juft foyou Presbyters ferve w. It belongs to you that 
 impofe this Opinion of yours upon w^ and oblige others to 
 believe it y to make the truth of it appear from holy Scrip- 
 ture. Tor no one is bound to believe that which cannot 
 be proved, to be true. Tou fay that the Infants of be- 
 lieving Parents ought to be baptized y but we deny it. 
 It's not our bufinefs to prove our denial by /hewing f on. e 
 formal Paffage in Scripture where it's faid in terminis 
 that Infants are not to be baptized y it's enough for us to 
 tell yea that there is neither Command nor Example for 
 it m all tfre holy Scripture ; And till yon give your In- 
 flame 
 
( xiii ) 
 
 fiance where it is fo mitten, we fiall neither believe nor 
 practife it : For till that be done, the Controversy betwixt 
 yon and us is at an end : And (in my opinion) yon had. 
 better have forbore ingaging in it at fir ft, feeing yon have 
 fo little skill to manage it. There was oneprefent at the 
 Difpute who wrote thus to his Friend in London, Sir y 
 We have feen the grofs Abufes of the Difpute printed 
 by Mr. Chandler ,&c. who makes Lies his Refage,&c. to 
 favour his bad Caufe. But as a Minifter of the Church 
 of England faid, If Chandler and the reft had no bet- 
 ter Proof for their Separation from the Church, or Ar- 
 guments to defend it, they were grand Schifmaticks ', for 
 they proved nothing. Another Minifter of the Church 
 of England that was alfo at the Difpute, told a friend of 
 ?nine, that he had feen our printed Narrative, and did 
 declare that it was a very good Account of the Difputa- 
 tion. Alfo a Doctor of Divinity, who came to give me 
 a Vifit, told me that a Country Parfon of his Acquain- 
 tance who heard the Difpute, did declare to him his great 
 Diffatisfaclion againft the Presbyters both for their weak 
 and ill management of themf elves in that Difpute ; and 
 did alfo declare to him that the Baptifts were too 
 hard for them. And this was no mean Man among the 
 Clergy that gave him this account. I thought meet to put 
 this in print, to put a flop to their vain-boafting. 
 
 As touching their Account of the Difpute, if it had 
 beenfutable to their Title, the World had heard nothing 
 further from us about it ', for we defire no other but that 
 it may be truly known what paft therein on both fides ; 
 And if they had not given fuch fever e and uncharitable 
 Reflections upon divers Perfons of our Perfwafion, both 
 Minifters and others, upon the dead as well as the living^ 
 and foforcd us to write in ourjuft defence, they had not 
 received any harjh Language from us ; for we do not think 
 that an advantage to any Caufe : but what we have done 
 of that kind, we may fay with the Apoflle, they have 
 
 compeH'd 
 
( xiv ) 
 
 ' comteird m to do : Fw we have not nfed this method out 
 of any prejudice again ft: their Ferfons, but to defend our 
 
 felves from their unjuji RefleBions, and to vindicate that 
 Truth they oppife," and which we believe in our Confci- 
 ences to be the Mind of God, in oppofition to that hitman 
 Invention pratt ii 'ed by them. 
 
 We have alfo took care to publifb tne Tejt internals jsnt 
 to us by particular Ferfons, according to their direction 1 
 leaving out fome things we thought might too tmteh expofe 
 Mr. Chandler and Mr. Robinfon \ for which 1 am jure 
 we defer ve their thanks. If what is contain d therein i>t 
 not delivered with that Accuracy as fome may expect, let 
 them confider its not every Mans Talent jo to do } nei- 
 ther do matters of Fact always require it. • 
 
 Whereas we have caufed to be printed an Anjwcr to 
 their Dialogue, written by a Friend to that I ruth we 
 profefs, who lives in the Country ; and gave it to Alr^teW 
 when he came to London, with liberty to print it, if he 
 fawgcod : Andakbo (for fome prudent reafons) his Name 
 is not thereunto afxed, he will not be wanting to vindicate . 
 what he hath witter?, when ajuft occafion f hall pre jent. ■, 
 The Reafons for its brevity are thefe. I. BecaUje 
 he himfelf had bat little ti?ne to prepare for it. 2. The 
 reafon w)iy / mzde no ixlargement, was becaujc I never 
 faw their Dialog till after Mr. Sharp fljew d me t,,e 
 Anfmr to it. 3; Our time together was vey Jhort, 
 and we did not think fit to alter another Mans Copy 
 -4. Mr. Sharp being Moderator, w dJ not think it Jo 
 % for him to engage in it 1 and if the Author had not 
 been refers to, they flmld have had no Anfwer from 
 km, As for Mr. Sharp, he de fired me to make an Apo- 
 logy for him with refpeel to his brevity, Sec. But as I 
 knew not of any need there is for me to do it, jo my li- 
 mits in tins Epifik will not permit me to inlarge 
 
 As for that new-fafbionedway of burrymg with a I *rf 
 only on the Head, which thofe Dialogue-makers feem to 
 
( xv ) 
 
 be fo pleafed with, as I know not any that pratlife it fa 
 Ifijallleave it to themfehes as I found it, without any 
 Remarks upon it \ not fuppofmg the Reader will be fond of 
 the Invention. But any whimfical Conceit fcrves thefe 
 Presbyters to imploy their Wits upon in ridiculing our 
 Prattice of the holy Ordinance of Baptifm, as commanded 
 and jubmitted unto by the Son of God. If it be fo 
 grievous in their Eyes why do they not anfwer what their 
 own learned Authors have J aid for our manner of Bap- 
 tifm, before they thus refleB upon it ? For, as one of their 
 own Mmifiers hath told the World in print (face the 
 Portfmouth Difputation) that their excufmg themfehes 
 from that manner of Adminijlration we tfc (by dipping 
 the V erf on under Water) becaufe of the J coldnefs of the 
 Climate, is m his opinion but a cold Plea. And notwith- 
 /landing their outcry againfi hs, themfehes could pratlife 
 it upon Mr. Fox, toferve a turn. 
 
 There are fomany Errors in their Account, that I (ball 
 not trouble myfelf any further about them, for my leifurc 
 will not permit me : and there's fo muchfaid in the Book 
 it [elf to prove theirs to be what it is, I e. afalfe and 
 fcandalom Account, that I need not add any more. 
 
 As for Mr. John Williams'/ Sermon upon the Com- 
 miffion, we were not willing the World flmdd be deprived 
 of it, not only becaufe he hath deferved well of the Pub- 
 lick, but becaufe they are the words of a dying Man • 
 arid we hope the Reader will not fee caufe to repent of 
 that additional Charge he is thereby put to in the Price 
 ,ef the Book j for we are perfwaded it will more than 
 compenfate that f mall Charge. 
 
 m Ifiall conclude with what I did before (nctwkh/l ant- 
 ing their perverfe Confirutlion of it) that the great Je- 
 hovah, from whom we receive all Bleffings, would make 
 our Endeavours herein fuccefsful to his Glory and the good 
 ot Souls, that fo there may be added to the Church dailv 
 fuck as fijaU be faved, 
 
 WILLIAM RUSSEL, 
 
(xvi ) 
 
 Directions for the more ready finding out the par* 
 ticular matters treated of in this Book. 
 
 MR. Sharp's Animadvcrfions begin Page if, 
 
 Mr. Bowes s Letter, jf- 45. 
 
 'Another Teftimony from the principal Brethren of the 
 Church againft Mr. Chandler, to prove him a falfe Ac- 
 cufer, p. 4p. 
 
 Mr. Leddel of Gofporfs Vindication, p. 50. 
 
 An account of thole Falfhoods they charge on Dr.Ruffel,p. 56. 
 
 Dr. Ruffel's Obfervations upon their Dedication, p. 6$. 
 
 His Obfervations upon their Account of the Difpute, />. 71. 
 
 Truth vindicated, or an Anfvver to their Dialogue, p m 93. 
 
 Dr. RuffeVs Animadverfions upon their Epiftle, p. 94. 
 
 A Sermon preach'd by Mr. John Williams from the Commifli- 
 on, Mat. 28. 19. To which is prefix'd his Letter to 
 Mr. Leigh, after the Difpute, p. 128. 
 
 Mr. Ifaac Marlon's Letter to Dr. Rujfel, about the Etymolo- 
 gy and ufe of the Dutch word Doop, &c. />. 178. 
 
 Mr. Ifaac Harman's Poftfcript, to prove the notorious Falf- 
 hoods and Lies contain'd in Mr. Chandler's Poftfcript to 
 their fecond Edition, p. 181. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAge 28. line 17. for wherei nour, read, wherein our. P. 54. 
 1. 2 5. f. you, r. them. P. 90. near the bottom, for under- 
 hand, r. underflands. P. 1 61. 1. 34. f. alter, r. Altar. And 
 if there be any others that have efcaped our notice, the 
 Reader is defired to correft them. 
 
( 17 3 
 
 
 Here begins the A n i m a d-y e r.s i o n s of 
 Mr. John Sharp, Mmifler of the Gofpel^ 
 and Paflor of I he Church of Chrijl at 
 Froome in Somerfetfhire, who was Mode- 
 rator at the Uiffutktioh in Portftiiouth. i 
 
 T may bethought itrange that Ifliould appear 
 in this nature to the World, in the matter rela- 
 
 1 
 
 ting to our Oppofers Difputation and Contra* 
 JL verfy with Dr. Ruffe I \ it is not as tho the (aid 
 
 Doclor had any need of my Aiiiftance (and 
 therefore I intend no long Apology) but only for 
 thefe Reafons following. 
 
 i. Becaufe it is the Caufe of God, wherein his Truth 
 is emirtrntly concerned.. . . • 
 
 2. Bccaufe our Oppofers have condemned our Nar- 
 rative in that which ihey alio® in t he mf elves in their 
 own Narrative. . „ : . ■. 
 
 3. Be caufe Brother Williams is dead, who was. able 
 to have vindicated what he then offered ( tho he a 
 now brought in as one then rambling in Us Difcour\c a 
 See their Narrat. p. 59.). 
 
 4. Becaufe it is fit that the World ftmdd be informed 
 how unfairly they dealt by ti.s^ both at the Difpme^ and 
 now fince, in their Narrative. 
 
 . In thefe my fliort Notes I lhall not ftri&ly tie my 
 fclf to this or that particular method, but ihall begin 
 fir it to rake notice of their, declaring publickly, in the 
 Appendix to their Narrative, p. 64. that we made the 
 firft Dilturbance * whereas all that were prefent may 
 remember how they a&cd towards us, making the 
 firft Difturbance themfeives : And therefore I do afrare 
 
 B all, 
 
( i8) 
 
 all, where-ever the Narrative may come, that it was 
 not as they relate it *, and I am ready to think they 
 themfelves might forget it, by having (b much bufi- 
 nefs upon their hands, or elfe it muft be to make thofe 
 that are at a diftance believe how well they carried it 
 towards us, tho I was forc'd to reprove the People and 
 them too, which I fhould not have done had they not 
 a&ed towards us in that manner as they did. I am 
 ready to give my Teftimony before a Magiftrate, if 
 required, that they themfelves did make the firft Di- 
 fturbance. How this might be improv'd againft 
 them, I will leave themfelves and others to judg, if 
 it were managed by their own Pens. Let them but 
 remember their Deportment towards Mr. Williams 
 when he quoted Erafmus, and ferioufly reflect upon 
 it. Alfo I would not have Mr. Leigh forget, when 
 he was charged afterwards with hilling, and he de- 
 nied it, faying, he did not hifs : Mr. Williams being 
 prefent, (aid to him, Sir, Ton did hifs; he the faid 
 Mr. Leigh anfwerd and faid, It might be an I?:ter- 
 jettion, making as if it was but a fmall thing. And 
 tho Mr. Williams is dead, there are thofe that were 
 prefent that can give evidence of this :, and I my felf 
 can give it more fully, as I received it from Mr. John 
 Williams, if there (hall be need. But I would beg of you, 
 Mr. Leigh, if you come to read this, that you would 
 not be in an heat, as you were then •, for, if you are, 
 much Water will not quench it, if I may fay by you 
 as you faid ( Nan p. 60. ) by Mr. Leddel, you beingy 
 as I fuppofe, concerned in drawing up your Narra- 
 tive. But muit this be your way of ridiculing the 
 Ordinance of Chriit ( as by us pleaded for ? ) I did-' 
 think we II ould have been better treated at your 
 hands. I mention- not this out of any difrefped: to 
 you, but that you may be fenfible that it is true what 
 is faid before, and that you were in the raiffoke. 
 
 Our 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 Our Oppofers may alfo remember how ready 
 Mr. Rob'wfon was at all times to make Difturbance, 
 faying to Dr. Ruff el, If yon know not how to form your 
 Argument, I will tell you : which the Dotlor had no 
 need of, for he offered more than th y did know how 
 by any fair and due method to evade, or than ever 
 they will be able to anfwer. I never perceived that 
 he was at a Ibis at any time to form his Argument, 
 or to give them an Anfwer. But Mr. Rob'wfon was 
 fo often in this abufive work, that Mr. B'Jjel faid, 
 Gentlemen^ Te do not fair by Dr. Ruffel, ye ought to 
 give him liberty to offer his Arguments, and when 
 he hath done, then to make the beft of them. And> 
 I fuppofe, it was for this piece of Service, that his 
 Copy was by them afterwards look'd upon to be but 
 as a Lawyers Breviate, containing only hints for ]i>k^ 
 mory, as they flight it. Append, to Nar. p. 56. 
 
 Next, when they would have fet Mr. Williams and 
 the Doctor at a difference about their different Opi- 
 nions, Dr. Ruffel replied, If I a?n not of his Opinion y 
 I am of yours, Sir, ( fpeaking to Mr. Robinfon.) Then 
 Mr. Williams laid, If you fay an hundred times as much 
 more m you do, you Jhall not fet the Do&or and I to- 
 gether by the ears : And here they fell a laughing, 
 (hewing their Rudenels. 
 
 Again, when Dr. Ruffel gave them the liberty of 
 the whole New Teftament to prove Infant-fprinkling 
 was any part of the Counfel of God, I faid, They 
 might take tt any where, from Genefis to the Revela- 
 tion, if they could but prove it. Hereupon Mr. Ro~ 
 binfon rudely faid, What, Sir, the New Teftament in 
 Genefis? But Mr.l^/to^ reply'd, Yes, Sir, the New 
 Teftament is in Genefis : To which he made no An- 
 fwer. And here I will take notice of their words, 
 pag. 66. So that Infants may be baptised, if we can 
 bring good Proof for it out of the other parts of holy 
 B % 'Writ. 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 Writ. Here thefe Gentlemen forgot that there was 
 given them fuch large liberty to prove their Practice 
 out of any part of the written Word : but, as they 
 did nothing then, fo they have done nothing fitice 
 by their printing, to bring any good Proof for their 
 Jnfant-fpr inkling out of any part of the Old or New Tc/ra- 
 tnent \ and therefore I muft conclude they cannot find 
 it in Holy Writ : for they have been in their Studies 
 before and fmce, and they knew what they were to 
 be engaged in •, and if they had not been prepared 
 before the Difpute, they fliould have taken better care 
 fince. 
 
 Alio there was much faid upon Mat. 3. 7. and 
 Luke 3. 7. between Mr. Robinfon and my felf j and if 
 any of their Notaries have taken it (or any thing 
 elfe that will ferve their turn ) let them bring it out 
 if they pleafe, yet fo as not to wrong me : For I do 
 deny that my Reply, which they have put down, 
 p. 40. was to Mr. Leigh, for it was to Mr. Robinfon, 
 and I never fpake the words as they are there put 
 down to my wrong*, it was fo much of it that I did 
 then {peak, that I do not remember all that I faid to 
 him, but yet this I do remember of the words, That 
 all that appear to be a vifible Generation of pipers ought 
 to be cafi cut of the Church, that is to fay, without 
 they repent. He did confefs that they did fufpend them 
 for a time : And I replied, By the Rules of Chrifi fuch 
 ought to be excommunicated, and they did not aft ac- 
 cording to F.vJc, if they did not do it. 
 
 Further, when upon Acts 15. 10. I fpoke, they need 
 not ftand fo long upon the former part of the Chap- 
 ter, the 9th Yerfe would clear who were the Sub- 
 jects, and repeated the words: bAx. Robinfon inter- 
 rupted me, faying, Sir, where are you now? I re- 
 plied, // I have tranfgrejfed the Rule of a Moderator y 
 I would ask the Peoples Pardon. Thus neither I nor 
 
 thofe 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 thofe of us that were to (peak in the Difpute could 
 fpeak, but he was ready to interrupt us \ tho all 
 there prefent may remember that we a&ed towards 
 them very foberly : but had we done otherwife, I 
 do not queftion but you would have heard of it be- 
 fore now. 
 
 They made an Apology of their not being willing 
 to have a publick Dilpute before the People - , and I 
 having heard (bmething of that the night before, 
 told it to fome of our People there : they told me 
 that they would have difputed them in private, if 
 they would have difcourfed it according to the Scrip- 
 ture. When they were thus making their Apology, 
 I replied, that they might have had it in private, if 
 they would have difcourfed it according to the Scrip- 
 tures, and that they had been offered it before we 
 came thither : This they could not deny, and alledged 
 no further ^ and yet they would plead their Inno- 
 cency fmce on purpofe to blame us. 
 
 Mr. Leigh offered to argue it with me, but I re- 
 plied, / thought Dr. Ruffel and Air. Williams were 
 able to ?nanage their ovm Arguments, and therefore there 
 was no need of that : Yet I have been heartily lorry 
 fmce, that I did not offer then to change a plain Propor- 
 tion with any of thofe our Oppofers, it being fo fair an 
 opportunity to bring you to the Scripture, by which 
 means the People would have had more light into the 
 Truth. And when the Arguments on our part were 
 brought to bear, and were back'd by the Scriptures, 
 I delired our Oppofites to grant, or denv, or diitin- 
 guifli, or give another fenfe of the Scriptures, but 
 they would give none. 
 
 When Mr. Robinfon was giving the aforefaid un- 
 fair Reprefentation to the People, I delired he would 
 forbear, if not, I would oppoie him-, and yet he 
 went on ( as he ufed to do in the Difpute ) and gave 
 
 B 3 a 
 
(") 
 
 a further account to the People. I defired him again 
 to defiff, and if he would not, I could not, nor would 
 forbear him : but, if he would give the Dotlor leave 
 to fpeak for himlelf, I would forbear *, and fo with 
 much ado I did get him to forbear. 
 
 When I was called upon to conclude in Prayer, 
 and it was faid it was my place, Mr. Rob in fort would 
 not leave off, but as he began, fo he did continue to 
 the end, and (aid it would De but vain Repetitions if 
 he fhould : I replied, I would offer no vain Repeti- 
 tions for them *, I hop'd I made Confidence of the 
 Duty of Prayer as much as they did elfewhere, and I 
 would not do it there for them. 
 
 And now I would not have them talk too much of 
 their Copy 7 and condemn others*, I would have 
 them to remember, that Mr. Smith was not capable 
 to repeat one of the Dotlor s Arguments when he was 
 call'd upon to do it, after that Mr. Liegh had denied 
 one part of it, and the Dotlor defired him to repeat 
 it, and he could not do it, which the Doctor improv'd 
 upon him, and faid, Do you not know what you 
 deny ? And if he fail'd in the prefent, I know not 
 what he might do afterwards : But I do not queftion 
 their Abilities to help him out. And as for Mr. Ring's 
 Copy, they pretend in their Narrative to find a mul- 
 titude of Falihoods, Additions, Alterations and O- 
 mifiions in it \ but neverthelefs it is judged that 
 he is as good a Writer as the other *, and as for 
 their Narrative, it will be particularly examined by 
 the Doll or himfelf j and how many fuch faults he' 
 will find there, our Oppolers mav judg themselves, 
 that have gone fo large as they have done. They 
 have made them fpeak on our fide as mean as ever 
 the-, can, and as full for their own. But I believe 
 that ah who look into the nature of the management 
 of the Matter and the Arguments, will fall in with 
 * thofe 
 
c 23 ; 
 
 thofe that are moft agreeable to the Word of God, 
 and are fairly drawn from thence. For, I hope, all 
 Perfons will confider, that if our Oppofers had Ar- 
 guments offered them by fuch mean Men as they have 
 repre fented the old Gentleman to be j what would 
 they have done if they had had Men that had been 
 thorowly furnilhed for that work? The lefs they 
 make us, I think they make themfelves the more 
 mean. Could they not much eafierhave overturned 
 their Arguments without fo many Reflections ? Can 
 they think that will credit their Caufe, or make 
 them look greater ? Doth this agree with that Cha- 
 racter which the Pofi-man gave of the DoBor, as op- 
 pofmg Infant-Baptifm with all the Subtilty and So- 
 phiftry of the Schools ? Surely that doth not agree 
 with, this diminutive De cription they now give of 
 him : They could know little of his Abilities in the 
 facred Languages, for they did not difcourfe much at 
 that time out ofany*of them \ and if thev had, what 
 advantage would it have been to them to have known 
 one anothers Abilities in the Languages, unlefs they 
 could have convinc'd him by their Abilities ? But tho 
 they profeis to have them, neither he nor others that 
 wanted Conviction from them, had it by their giving 
 us one initance of Precept or Precedent for their 
 Practice of fprinkling Infants, inftead' of baptizing 
 or dipping them when Adult Believers, that it was 
 either commanded or practifed by Chrjft or his A 
 ftles : for I my felf mould have been glad to hav 
 ceived Conviction then or now by their Writing, „ 
 it have any foundation in the Word of God •, an< 
 yet it feems they would have us believe it without, 
 and blame us for not believing it upon their word. 
 We could eafily believe it, if it was as eafy for them 
 to prove and maintain it, as commanded t>r grounded 
 in the revealed Will of God, to be obferv'd and 
 B 4 practifed 
 
( 2 4 ) 
 
 pra&ifed by them and us. But until I receive fucn 
 convincing Light and Satisfaction from them out of 
 the Word of God as the Rule for our Practice in this 
 matter, I (hall, notwithstanding their Abilities in 
 Languages, and for all what they have faid as yet in 
 the Difpute, or written fince in their Account of it, 
 continue in the fame mind, and the fame Practice, 
 when thofe that believe do tender themfelves to be 
 baptized, according to the Practice of the Apoftles. 
 If you, Gentlemen, that are our Oppofites, or any of 
 You can (till convincingly prove, that your Practice 
 has any Precept or Precedent in the Word of God, I 
 will own it to be of Divine InititutioU : In the mean 
 while this plain Argument for our contrary Faith fhall 
 fatisfy me. 
 
 If Infant -B apt ij m hath neither Precept nor Prece- 
 dent in the Word of God, then 'tis not of Divine Infki- 
 tat ion : 
 
 But Infant- B apt ifm hath neitfor Precept nor Prece- 
 dent in the Word of God , 
 
 Therefore it is not of Divine hiftitution. 
 
 When you have prov'd your Practice as we have 
 done ours, then you will have a great many more of 
 your fide^ and till then, you ou^ht to deal more 
 kindly and fairly by us than you have hitherto done, 
 elpecially in the Difpute, as I have partly fhew'd : and 
 I muft needs fay, I ;am afraid you will not hereafter 
 deal fo kindly and fairly by us as you Ihould, fmce 
 you charge the dead with that which is falfe, and yet 
 pretend to tread foftly over his Grave, pag. 62. for 
 immediately in the next words you give us Mr. Far- 
 reTs Mifreprefentation againit, Mr. Williams ( now 
 dead) there are two WitnefTes that were with him, 
 and they wrote it down as Mr. F arret tpake it : and I 
 my felt had it from the old Gentleman's own mouth in 
 the prefence of feVeral WitnefTes, together with his 
 
 Argu- 
 
( ^5 ) 
 Arguments, and carried them to Dr. Ruffe! ; and I have 
 diffident reafon to believe it is true, and that he has 
 abufed neither Mr. Francis Williams nor Mr. Farrel 
 in what he has faid of them •, and all that knew him, 
 did know he was as able as moil Men to retain what 
 he had heard, and to give an account of it, but more 
 efpecially, when others with him took fuch particular 
 care to put it down in Writing, that they might 
 not be miltaken in any thing afterwards. I believe 
 that poor Story had never come into print, had old 
 Mr. John Williams been living. 
 
 Furthermore, I would have the World judg be- 
 tween us (or at leaft thofe that are both judicious and 
 unprejudiced, and fo able to judg between us and our 
 Oppofites) how that pag. 66. they condemn our Ar- 
 guments by wholefale, fpeaking in - thefe words, All 
 the Arguments they offer d were trifling Cavils, Now 
 I would have you, Readers, to confider, Is not this a 
 very eafy way of refuting to condemn all, when they 
 are not able to anfwer one of them ? Ye may fee from 
 hence whether it be they or we that did trifle : For 
 in the next foregoing Page you may fee how they do 
 particularize the matter, and fay it is falfe (tho what 
 of it is fo, thofe that are concerned in it may look to 
 it, as in the cafe of Brother Duke. ) Now in that 
 PafTage (pag. 65.) this is to be minded (toobferve 
 how well it does agree with what they lav elfewhere) j 
 they fay in thefe words, But that none of its would rc- 
 fufe to dip a F erf en in fufh a cafe^ is true : We never 
 'pleaded againfi dipping a,s one wayj but as the only way\ 
 not againfi its Lawfitlnefs, but Neceffity. And yet 
 prefently after they tell you, that the Anabaptifis Caufe 
 does reft on weak unjcriptural Principles^ how loudly 
 foever they pretend to Scripture. Now I muft fay, if 
 our Caufe, wx. of dipping Believers^ be weak and ur- 
 icrjptural, they ought then to plead againfi: it, ard 
 
C 25 ) 
 refufe the doing of it, which it feems they do not do 
 by their own Confellion aforementioned, but on the 
 other hand they in plain words grant its Lawfulness. 
 Now if it be lawful, that is, confident with, and 
 agreeable to the Command of God and Chrift, and 
 the Practice of the Apoftles, then it cannot be un- 
 fcriptural, nor our Principles fo weak as they would 
 make them in the Eyes of thofe who are for our 
 Caule, and own our Principles, tho thefe Men make 
 lb loud a noife againft them as weak and unfcriptural. 
 We oppole the Principle and Pra&ice of our Anta- 
 gonifts as unfcriptural, weak, and unlawful, in fo far 
 as it is neither commanded by God or Chrift, nor 
 implied as fo commanded by any fcriptural Precedent. 
 But if they will evade our arguing, and fay, as 'they 
 ,feem to do in their forecited words, That our Prin- 
 riples and Practice of baptising or dipping Believers is 
 fcriptural indeed, but it is not the only fcriptural -way, 
 but there is a fecond (criptural way, viz.. of dipping 
 thofe that do not believe, as Infants do not, by the 
 preaching of the Word :, and alfo a. third, of [prink- ' 
 ling thofe that do believe, together with Infants that do 
 not believe : and that thefe other ways are intended in 
 the Command of Chrift, and implied by this or that 
 Precedent as commanded, and confequently are as 
 well fcriptural ways, as that of dipping Believers is 
 ( for this is the Queftion now between us ) I fay, if 
 they can prove thefe other ways as diftincl or diffe- 
 rent from ours, to be alfo fcriptural, /'. e. intended 
 ..in the Command of Chrift, and implied by fome 
 Precedent in Scripture, let them produce it if they 
 can do it, for they have never done it yet : If they 
 cannot, then theirs (hall be their own darling Notion, 
 and they have no reafon to charge ours as our dar- 
 ling Notion, unlefs they can prove that their bare 
 ipfe dixit , or fay-fa is fufficient proof againft us that 
 
 deny 
 
deny it. And indeed we need do no more than to 
 deny this their darling and unfcriptural Practice and 
 Notion^ till they are able to prove it : Becaufe he that 
 will not only affirm, but alio convince another of 
 his Principle and Practice as commanded in Scripture, 
 ought in all reafon to prove it to be fo, 'ere he can 
 blame another that denies it, that he hugs a darling 
 Notion in his Bofom. Set the cafe fome Papifts fhould 
 blame thefe Gentlemen that are our Antagonifis for 
 difowning the Baptifm of Bells as being unfcriptural, 
 would it not be fufficient for them to (ay, that it is 
 nowhere commanded in Scripture by any exprefs 
 Command, or any Practice that implies fuch a Com- 
 mand ? And if the other mould demand a Prohibi- 
 tion or Command to the contrary, or elfe they would 
 continue to blame them as hugging a darling Notion, 
 a weak and unfcriptural Principle, would our Oppofites 
 not think this very unrealbnable and weak ? Well 
 then, I do not quefHon their Ability in making the 
 Application in our cafe : For, if it be good in them, 
 it's fo in us. 
 
 Further, how do thefe their Reflections afore- 
 mentioned, and the Introduction to their Narrative 
 agree together ? For in the beginning of that Intro- 
 duction (which I fuppofe was penn'd by Mr. Chandler) 
 are thefe words, Muft I again be call'd out to engage 
 in this irkfome and unpleafing Controverfy ? who had 
 i ?mich rather fpend my time in healing Differences^ and 
 provoking all Chrifiians to love one another \ and then, 
 follow fome Expreflions of Arch-biftiop Tillotfont 
 But O ! had he or they taken Dr. Tillotjon for their 
 Pattern, to write after his Copy indeed, 1 am per- 
 fwaded we fhould have been more fairly and chari- 
 tably treated by them, or by this Prefacer in parti- 
 cular than we are. For, we have a Paflage cited by 
 the Doclor, p. 59. where that great Man Dr. Til- 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 lotfon does fay, Antkntiy thofe who were baptized put 
 off their Garments. Now this faying is fo far from 
 ridiculing us or our Practice uncharitably, that it 
 makes for us ; for he does not fay they expofed their 
 Modeity by putting off their Garments -, nor does he 
 there trifle as they do about the Eunuch, p. 81. And 
 whereas in the faid Introdudion there follows tbefc 
 words, / had much rather be dr effing my own Soul for 
 "Eternity, and preparing others for thofe calm and peace- 
 able Regions, where perfeEi Charity and Good-will reign 
 for ever, than in fomenting and mcreafing thofe Divi- 
 Jions among Chriflians which are too unmeafurably wide 
 already ; I do wifh with all my heart all of them had 
 put this defire in execution : I for my part would not 
 have hinder'd them, nor do I know any that would 
 that are concerned on our fide in this Controverfy, 
 wherein our Antagonists have not only not preiTed after 
 that Charity and Good-will the Introduction fpeaks of, 
 butaKb (I think) have laid a foundation for a greater 
 Divifion, unlefs God by his Power and Providence 
 over-rule our Spirits on both fides : For they have ex- 
 pofed us and the Truth wherein we differ from them, 
 as very ridiculous and trifling : However, the Truth 
 which we believe we cannot part with, we are to 
 buy the Truth and fell it not ; and inftead of making 
 us to part with it, they have rather given us more 
 ground to believe it to be Truth. 
 
 Mr. Chandler, p. 2. begins the Abridgment of his 
 Sermons thus, Here I muft unavoidably dip my Pen in 
 the warn Controverfy ; I love not to meddle with Aiat- - 
 ters of Jbifpute. It is a fign he does not ( if I may 
 fay fo ) or elfe he had not iov d to meddle with the 
 matter of the Controverfy which Dr. Buffet had with 
 Mr. Allen about fingmg ', I fuppofe neither was at his 
 Sermons, and what fliould make him bring their Con- 
 trovert m thither, I do not well fee, unlefs he loved 
 
 to 
 
( 2 9 ) 
 :o defame Dr. Ruffel. He fays indeed there, p. 12. 
 :hat he mentions it to convince Mr. Webber and his 
 Adherent s^ what a doughty Champion they have chofe?i 
 ? or themfelves. But you may fee thereby the Charity 
 md Good-will he has towards us and Dr. Ruffel in 
 special, notwithstanding his pretence that he aim'd at 
 r ome Conviction, tho he might very w r e!l know that 
 :his expofmg Dr. Rkffet behind his back fo publickly 
 ibout the point of fingwg\ and drolling upon him as a 
 Hackny Difputant, at a time when it did become 
 Mr. Chandler to be more folid and fenous, would 
 fignify nothing at all for any Convi&ion in the Point 
 of Baptifm. If Dr. Ruffel had been out in that Point, 
 it will not follow he is in this. However, if Mr. 
 Chandler had not only mentioned Dr. Ruffei's Argu- 
 ments in that Point, but alio had taken off the ftrength 
 bf his Arguments, Mr. Alien perhaps would have had 
 reafon to have given him Thanks for it. To (light 
 them as Mr. Cmndler does there, p. 13. by faying, 
 Thefe were the Arguments for want of better he trifled 
 vith at Portfmouth, was not to anfwer them : For, 
 fho Mr. Chandler fays in the Page before, that 
 Dr. R. advances the very fame Arguments again ft the 
 Pr office ofjinging Pjalms, which he does ag tinfi theirs for 
 Infant- B apt 'fm \ yet he may know in his Conscience 
 there were more, and they were all in my opinion 
 fo good againft his Practice of Infant-iprinkling, that 
 [id was not able to anfwer them as he ihouid, nor any 
 :■.'• the other that were prefent to help him. But by 
 reafon I have told him fo before, I needed not to 
 lave told it him now again, but that there was ibme 
 xcafion for it \ and I might have added, that I think 
 le and his Helpers had rather need to cry to others, 
 ''Some and help us (as in that 12th Page he has the 
 ike words) for the help he has had already, does 
 "rim little Service to overthrow our Cauie, and to 
 
 con- 
 
* But I hope Afr. Web- 
 ber is not to be taken off 
 from the Truth he hath 
 owned by their ridiculing 
 the Doftor and his Argu- 
 ments, nor to continue in 
 that wherein he hath not 
 (kfiicieut warrant to bear 
 him oat in the Word of 
 God. I hope Mr. Web- 
 ber is not fo eafy a Man 
 as to be thus prevailed 
 upon by him. 
 
 ( 30) 
 
 convince Mr. Webber, and his 
 Adherents (as he calls them) 
 out of it *. Rut if others are 
 called to alTift him, it may do 
 him perhaps more Service, to 
 wit, to moderate him, and 
 make him write more fairly, 
 and handfomlv of hLmiftaken 
 brethren, as he counts us. I 
 wiih he had kept to that Lan- 
 guage, and then we had not % 
 had all that kailery, ReflecV 
 ing, and Trifiwg that was and 
 is ufeci by him. Mr. Chandler A 
 who was it that trifled with incompkat Difciples, you 
 or we? Who gave Mr. edge's matter a full account, 1 1 
 you or we ? I know, and am fatisfied, that the Dotlor } 
 has given a true account of it, and in his own words, 
 as near as words can be lpoken. 
 
 I heard a Gentleman fav that Mr. Cmndler was a 
 Fool, and deferved to be knocked about the Ears*, 
 he ought to have accepted the Argument, and given 
 his Inftance, which himfelf would have done if he had 
 been there. 
 
 Whatever Mr. Chandler may fuppofe, I am lure 
 his refofing to give an Initance upon an univerfal Ne- 
 gative ( when fo often preft to do it) neither made 
 for his own Credit, nor yet for the Credit of his 
 Caufe: For, it made others conclude he could not Ao 
 it, and that if he could, he would have condefcended 
 to have done it in fo publick an Aliembly, it he had 
 been furnifhed with anv to have given. But the plain 
 truth is, as he could not then give us iomuchasw 
 fingle Initance for his Practice, fo he hath not been 
 able to do it fince: for if he could, we Ihould have 
 
 had lt For, 
 
(31 ) 
 
 For, in a Point of that moment it is a lhame for 
 him now to excufe it with this or that Nicety in 
 Difputation, which ( whatever he may think ) rather 
 ihews, that he aims at and ftrives more for maftery 
 in controverting, than that he himfelf doth heartily 
 believe his own Pra&ice to be fcriptural } for, if he 
 had fo done, he would have condefcended to any 
 method to clear up that which he preaches for Truth, 
 and pretends to have fuch a hearty defire to convince 
 us of. 
 
 There was another find, he did not underftard 
 what was an incompleat Difciple of Chrift ^ and yet 
 he is one that under/lands an Argument (in my opi- 
 nion ) as well as Mr. Chandler, tho he did not then 
 walk with us, nor the other neither. His incompleat 
 Difciples are fuch as the Scripture never taught him 
 to call fo \ and ( I think ) Mr. Chandler is grofly 
 miftaken to (uppofe he has by this trifling Diftin&ion 
 falv'd the Credit of his abfurd way of vindicating his 
 Pradice, and thereby evaded the ftrength of our 
 .Arguments: For, they that are furious and judicious 
 Chriflians can eafily difcern it to be a fallacious and 
 evafive fhift, to caffc a Veil over the Minds of thole 
 that are ignorant of this Controverfy, and do not 
 allow themfelves the liberty to examine it : For it is 
 wholly unfcriptural, and groundlefs, and imperti- 
 nent, as it is applied by him in the Cafe under Confi- 
 deration. 
 
 , But further : What a flir do thefe Men make about 
 the word eqmvocable : If there were two Letters ad- 
 ded at the Prefs, or (to fuppofe the worft) that it 
 were wrong fpelt, it had been the Corrector s place 
 to have mended it. It was very much there had not 
 I been more than one Error in tpifpelling in the Doctor's 
 Narrative j for it's too common a fault in printing. 
 And it is to be obferv'd, that there is no Errata made 
 
 to 
 
( 32 ) 
 to the DoBors^ there being few or no faults in it. 
 But they were forced (8 make an Errata at the end 
 of their own Book, which ( bv their own Confeflion) 
 hath more Errors in it than they have noted, which 
 they excufe by faying, they can create no difficulty 
 to an intelligent Reader : And they alfo tell us of 
 feveral Letters dropt out in working, &a which if 
 any complain of, they may charge it partly on the 
 different Inclination of the Corrector, and partly on 
 the difrculty of bringing our common Printers to any 
 Exadnefs. 
 
 If by a Corrector of a different Inclination they 
 mean a Baptift, the Do&or faith he doth not believe 
 it -y for ( if he be not mifinformed ) he is a Man of 
 their Perfwafion in the Point in Controverfy : But 
 this he is certain of, that the Gentleman who cor- 
 rected his Copy when at the Prels, is a zealous Mem- 
 ber of the Church of England) and ( to his know- 
 ledg) a Contender for Infant? Baptifin \ and yet he 
 muft give him this Character, that he was very faith- 
 ful to the Truit repofed in him. But an overfight • 
 may be by the bed of Men : But he is under a diiad- 
 vantage about it where to charge it, becaufe the 
 written Copy was never returned. But it is fo infig- 
 niheanta Trifle to what (they confefs) is in their own, 
 that it's not worth contending about : And certainly 
 it deferved no fuch ridiculous and bafe defcanting on 
 it, as to call it a word of the famous DoEbor's own 
 coining, with other Expreflions which they in their., 
 Spleen have vented againft him. Is this their Chari- 
 ty and Good-will towards us? Surely, a little Cha- 
 rity would have ferv'd to have excufed lb inconfide- 
 rable a fault •, efpecially, when they only gueis that he 
 was chargeable with it} not knowing but it might be 
 an Error of the Prefs, feeing there were fo many in 
 their own which they boldly charge upon the Cor- 
 rector and Printer. x But 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 But they have not yet done with it *, for they fay, 
 if he intend equivocal Expreilions, they are his own 
 peculiar Talent : Perhaps tew Jefuits herein equal or 
 exceed him at that fort of Weapon. I cannot but 
 woridei 4 (Gentlemen) that you ihoukl thus proceed 
 in this manner, what can it be that thus moves you 
 to fpeak againil the Doll or ? Doth this agree with 
 that Charity youfp: j ak of (to thofe you caii miitaken 
 Brethren) in the beginning of your Book? Can you 
 think that he de{erved that Character from you 
 ( when you call to mind with what coolnefs of Spirit, 
 and evennefs of Temper he behaved him (elf, during 
 the whole time of the Deputation ) I appeal to your 
 own Confidences whether you think he cieferved fuch 
 an uncharitable Infmuation and fevere Reflection ? 
 Doth this alto agree with Mr. davdlers ihort Re- 
 quest, p. 2. that God would grant that Truth may- 
 prevail ? Surely, this doth not ihew you had an y de- 
 fign it fhould prevail upon the Doctor^ and upon us, 
 either then or fince •, for your' Pradice contradi&s 
 • your Expreilions hitherto. I know not what you may 
 do for time to come : But if you go on as you have 
 begun, I fear you may give the Government occafion 
 to repent of allowing the liberty you fpeak of: At 
 leaff you may have cauie to repent of allowing your 
 felves fuch a liberty as ye do againft us. 
 
 Who was it that trifled about the Mother of our 
 Lord being a Believer, you or we? And w r ho fairly 
 improved it to the World, you or we? What reafon 
 liad Mr. Leigh to allow the Eunuch .to be a Chriitianj 
 and confider him as fuch, altho,(as he faith) he was 
 but a Profelyte of the Gate? And yet in p. 31. to 
 deny ( in his fenfe ) the V irgin Mary to be a Christi- 
 an, and reprefent her a Jew, diitinft from that of a 
 Chriftian, and that Chriflianity in that fenfe had then 
 mo being. There were many Believers irj Chrifl 
 C through- 
 
( 34) 
 
 throughout the feveral Ages of the World, both be- 
 fore the Jewifh Oeconomy, as well under it, witnefs 
 Enoch the Jth from Adam, who prophefied of him, 
 Jnde 14, 1 v And were not Abraham, I facte and Jacob, 
 with all the reft mentioned in Heb. n. with many 
 others, true Believers in Chrift ? This you know is 
 not to be denied. And are not all true Believers in 
 Chrift real Chriftians ? And fhall the Mother of our 
 Lord be denied this Appellation? when the holy 
 Scripture calls her a Believer in Chrift, L'th 2. from 
 <z/. 30, to v. 35. where it is thus written, And bleffed 
 is /be that hath believed : And Mr. Leigh then con- 
 ferred it. 
 
 The Anfwer therefore Mr. Williams gave to your 
 Demand was good and proper, altho you thus trifle 
 with it fince, and change the word from what was 
 then fpoken : For, by what hath been (aid you may 
 fee that if it had been the word Chriftian, as it was 
 not, yet if (he was a Believer, then a Chriftian ; for 
 all true Believers in Chrift, whether Jews or Gentiles^ 
 are Difciples:, and you know the Difciples were called 
 Chriftians. And altho that Name was flrft given at 
 Antioch, yet they had the thing before the Name 
 w 7 as brought into ufe, and impofed upon them. 
 
 And altho they then offered, upon giving you fuch 
 an inftance, to give us the Caufe : Yet I do not think 
 they were willing either then or now to give it us, 
 for' they havfe no mind to part with their Pra&ice ; 
 for, if they had, they would not have ufed fuch 
 poor fliifcs as they have done to llipport it. And 
 among;: other Artifices they have made ufe of, this 
 was qnfc, to fend a Certificate (before their Book 
 was printed) down to Frcome by the hands of T/70- 
 mas'Smthvoick and Hngh Wats, and I doubt not but 
 the JVlen are fo honeft, that they would not bring 
 fuch a thing, if it had not been given them fo to do : 
 
 And 
 
t # )' 
 
 And the World fhall have it in the fame words as I 
 had it delivered to me in my own Houle. 
 
 Mr. Chandler s and Mr. Leigh's Certificate. 
 
 " HpHefe are to certify all whom it may concern, 
 " A That Dr. RnJfePs Narrative of the V or if month 
 u Difputation is full of palpable notorious Falihoods, 
 a and that there are many Alterations, Additions and 
 u Omiflions, even from Mr. Samuel Ring's own Co- 
 u py which he hath honeilly given to us. We can 
 cc procure the hands of vaft numbers both of the 
 " Church of England and DifTenters, and (bme Ana- 
 " baptifls themfelves, that will acknowledg we ob- 
 " tain d an intire V.i&ory. The Governor and Mayor 
 " have promifed their Testimonials, but being both 
 u now at London j we cannot fend them at prefent, 
 " but fhall publiln with all convenient fpeed a full 
 u Anfwer to Dr. Ruffel's Book, with the Atteftarions 
 " of the principal Gentlemen prefent : Therefore we 
 " humbly defire all Perfons would fufpend their Judfc- 
 " ment of this matter till thev have a view of our 
 " Anfwer* 
 
 Signed by 
 Fa tfmcutb, June I; i5pp. Sam. Chandler^ 
 
 JVilL Leigh. 
 
 And now I hope, Reader, that Mr. Chandler and 
 Mr. Leigh will not be angry for pending our Judg- 
 ment upon their Narrative, themfelves giving us that 
 liberty, as ( I fuppofe ) is implied by this Certificate : 
 For, altho it was fent to their own Friends, yet it 
 being directed to all whom it may concern, I have 
 reafon to think it concerns me. But I am fure it did 
 concern them to make it appear that the Do ft or $ Nar- 
 rative was fuch as they have reprefented it to be, 
 G % which 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 which I am certain they have not yet done. Had they 
 procured thofe vait numbers both of the Church of 
 England and DifTenters, and alfo fome Anabaptifts 
 ( as they are pleafed to call us, tho they know we 
 difown both the Name and the Thing thereby figni- 
 fed ) that would have acknowledged under their 
 hands, that our Antagonifts had obtained an intire 
 Vidory *, and if upon examination they had been 
 found to be Perfons of Credit and Reputation, fuch 
 as they promife by their Certificate, then they would 
 have gained more by that, than they have done bv all 
 thofe undue Refle&ions they have call upon us : For, 
 fuch a courie of Procedure ferves rather to convince 
 the fober and judicious, that they have taken this 
 method to blaft our Reputation, becaufe they knew 
 not how other wife to evade the force of our Argu- 
 ments againftthem, nortojuftify their own Practice 
 of Infant- fprinkling : for that had been their proper 
 bufinefs, if they could have done it. 
 
 They fay in their Certificate, the Governor and 
 Mayor have promifed their Tefiimonials. J he Mayor's 
 we have not, nor yet the Governor's, to any thing 
 more than what relates to that firft Advertifment that 
 was put into the ?oft-man •, and I expected they would 
 have done as they promifed. Gentlemen, will -you 
 thus adventure to charge the Governor and Mayor 
 with Promife- breaking? I think that to be worfe than 
 to give his Honour a diminutive Title (as you phrafe 
 it)- And to give the Mayor a Title that is thought" 
 ( by Ibme) to be above him. That will not repair the 
 damage he may fuitain in being reprefented by you 
 zs a Promife-breaker. But I think he is more a 
 Man than to do fuch a thing as that, nowithftanding 
 what you lay in your Certificate. 
 
 As touching Colonel Gib [on I do, and (nail thank 
 his Honour for ftaying till the Difpute was ended-, 
 
 and 
 
V 37 ; 
 and alfo thofe Gentlemen that perfwaded him to it, 
 if that which is (aid be true, that they told him, if 
 he went off there was danger left the provoked Mul- 
 titude fhould do Dr. Ruffel fome mifchief: But this 
 ( like other things ) depends upon their bare Affirma- 
 tion, and how much Credit may from thence be given 
 to it, we muft leave to the Reader to confider: For 
 my own part, I have fo much Charity for the Church- 
 ot-Enghwd People there prefent, that I cannot think, 
 by any thing I could obferve, that they had the leaft 
 inclination to do the Doll or any Mifchief. And as for 
 our own People, I am fure they had no caufe for it, 
 if we take the DoBofs Argument as it is in it ML Se- 
 parate from Mr. Robinfons perverfe Mifconftruction 
 and Mifreprefentation of it. But as the Dottor did, 
 fb ( we hope ) we alio know better things than what 
 Mr. Rob in j on hath abufively put upon the Doftor's 
 words : For we can and do make a difference between 
 the nature of our Children, and that of Pigs and Dogs. 
 But it is their bufinefs, and Mr. Robwfon's in particu- 
 lar, to make a difference between what God can do 
 in an extraordinary manner by his immediat opera- 
 tion upon Infants ^ and what can be done for, and 
 upon them mediately, by the Miniftry of Men, 
 and that before they have the ufe and exercile of 
 Reafon : For they know his Argument was this, 
 
 If Infants are capable to be made Difciples of 
 Chrift by the Miniftry of Men, without the ufe of 
 Reaibn ^ then the Beafts of the Field are alfo capable. 
 
 But the Beafts of the Field are not capable : 
 
 Therefore Infants are not capable. 
 
 Now, as I may appeal to the judgment of all (o- 
 ber, judicious and unprejudiced Christians about this 
 Argument, without fuppofing that any of them will 
 put luch a Conftrudion upon it as Mr. Robinfon hath 
 done, that it carries with it a full Comparifon with- 
 C 3 out 
 
(38 ) 
 
 out exception, betwixt the Human Nature of Infants* 
 and the Deadly Nature of Brutes } when they do but 
 confider that it was ufed by way of Retortion only : 
 So I may alfo appeal to the Gonfciences of Mr. Ro^ 
 binfon and his Afliftants, whether they could poffibly 
 imagine from hence, that the honeft intent and mean- 
 ing of Dr. Ruffel's Argument was {uch as they repre- 
 sented it to be, in pag. 75. of their Book : As" having 
 thereby fet our Infants upon a level with Brutes, and 
 that there is no difference between our Children and 
 our Dogs *, and this to be his fixed Opinion, as they 
 exprefs it : And this after he had declared himfelf fo 
 fully to the contrary in his printed Narrative. For, 
 altho they might pretend to nave forgot what he faia 
 about it in the Difpute^ or, their Paflion might have 
 hinder'd their Understandings from being imployed as 
 they ought in their attendance upon it *, yet when 
 they had it before them in print, wherein he hath 
 vindicated himfelf from fuch a Milconftru&ion, I 
 cannot fee but they mud needs know his true intent 
 and meaning therein. 
 
 And, for my part, I believe all that read this Argu- 
 ment, and confider what the Doctor hath faid about 
 Infants, will be of my mind : Efpecialiy if they con- 
 fider what Mr. Williams faid concerning Infants, That 
 they had a Right and Title to Glory by the free 
 Grace of God, and the Righteoufnefs of Chrift. And 
 let me add but one thing, that they are made meet 
 for it by the work of the Spirit, which ( to us ) is 
 altogether fecret. But it never came into our Hearts 
 to imagine any fuch Privileges to be intended as a 
 Donation for the Beafts of the Field. 
 
 And if after all this, thefe Men (hall ftill perfift in 
 it, and charge either the DoBor (or any of us) as 
 they do him in their Narrative, that it is our fixed 
 opinion, that there is no difparity, no difference, no 
 
 unlike- 
 
V 5V ) 
 
 unlikenefs at all between our Infants and the Beafts 
 of the Fields, notwithstanding all that hath been 
 laid by us to the contrary, how can we help it ? But 
 this I defire the Reader to obferve, that in pag. 76. 
 where thefe words are, there are alfo words which 
 they cite out of his Apology, that will teftify in their 
 Conferences that he allowed a difparity : And that the 
 Parity implied in his Argument was only in a certain 
 refped, as hath been already mentioned. But what 
 may not Uncharitablenefs and Ill-will do, when fuch 
 Men are refolved to pervert the words of him they 
 contend with ? And altho you talk never fo highly of 
 your Charity in the beginning of your Book, yet 
 your Words and Actions to the contrary make it ap- 
 pear to be no other than an empty found. For, a 
 fmall meafure of true Chriftian Charity would have 
 enabled you to difcern that grofs Uncharitablenefs 
 and Ill-will againft the DoElor^ which you have fo 
 often difcovered in your Reflections on his Narra- 
 tive. 
 
 What mifchief therefore it mould be fuppofed the 
 Multitude fhould do the DoEtor ( as you intimate, 
 pag. 75, 76.) I know not nor yet from whom it 
 fhould come> unlefs from your own Party : For the 
 reft of the People were very civil to us, they made 
 no diiturbance at our going off, nor any attempts 
 when we were in the Street j altho all the thanks they 
 have from you is, to call them the provok'd Multi- 
 tude. Whereas, if it had been true, the blame muft 
 have lain upon Mr. Robinfon^ who did ufe his Endea- 
 vour to provoke them ^ but as it was altogether with- 
 out caufe on our part, fo it proved to be without 
 fuccefs with refpecr to the People, who departed in a 
 quiet and peaceable manner. 
 
 The Church of England hath lefs reafon to be of- 
 fended with us than with you : for, we denv nothing 
 C 4 t0 
 
( 4o ) 
 
 to their Children, that we allow our felves to do for 
 our own. If their Children are fick, we pray for 
 them, if defired, &c. But it is you that put an affront 
 upon thofe of that Communion by your Practice: 
 For, whereas you fay you baptize the Children of 
 Believers, confider'd as fuch •, and yet fome of your 
 Party have made fome fcruple of baptizing thofe 
 whofe Parents are not Members with you ( as I have 
 been inform'd ) Do you think that all Parents in the 
 Church of England are Unbelievers ? And altho you 
 profefs to have a large latitude, it may be more than 
 others of your Brethren*, yet you do not often bap- 
 tize their Children, which gives fome feeming inti- 
 mation, as if you made fuch a diftindion betwixt 
 your Children and theirs. 
 
 For our parts, we look upon our Children to have 
 no more from us by Generation, than the Children 
 of others have from them. And I dare not fay ( as 
 you intimate in your Book ) that the Line of Election 
 runs to the Believers Seed. For, I know many that 
 have been converted, and yet their Parents ( to all 
 vifible appearance) were unconverted. Nay, the 
 Children nave been inftrumental in the hand of God, 
 for the good of their Parents: And (on the contrary) 
 fome Godly Parents have had very Ungodly Chil- 
 dren, to the great grief and forrow of their Souls. 
 
 Now therefore, if there was any caufe for the 
 Multitude (as you call them) to be offended, it is 
 moil likely to be at what you (aid ( and not what the 
 Doctor then laid ) that you mould look upon them 
 as Unbelievers *, for fo you do by your Pradice and 
 Writing, tho other things are pretended by you. 
 
 I would not have any think I am againft the Do- 
 ctrine of Election, I hope 1 own it as a Truth : And 
 when your Children and mine come to be regenerated, 
 it is a fure Characier they were ele&ed. And where- 
 as 
 
C 4i ) 
 
 as you talk of the Parents Faith being imputed to 
 their Children •, I mult tell you plainly, I have heard 
 of the Rigbteoufnete of Chrift being imputed, but 
 never that the Faith of the Parent was imputed to the 
 Children before. It may be you will fay, you do 
 but fuppofe it *, or, why may it not be fo. ? Its the 
 fame method indeed that Mr. Chandler takes in his 
 Sermons : But in my judgment, it is a way to make 
 Men turn Atheifts and Deifts, and to ridicule all Re- 
 vealed Religion, to make the holy Scriptures a noie 
 of Wax, to ferve your turns. I beg of you for time 
 to come, to leave off fuch ways and methods, and 
 to argue upon a firm and more certain Foundation. 
 
 But you proceed further in your Certificate, and 
 fay you will give a full Anlwer to Dr. Ruffel's Book. 
 
 If you had perform'd your Promife herein (as yon 
 ■have not) I do believe I ihould have been of your 
 mind. 
 
 Neither have you been fo good as your word m 
 giving us the Atteftations of the principal Gentlemen 
 then prelent at your intire Victory, unlefs by them 
 you mean Mr. Smith, Mr. Maritbey, and Mr. WilL 
 W alien, whom you produce as WitneiTes in your 
 Book : And if fo, how can thefe be the princi- 
 pal Gentlemen prefent ? And if the v are, where be 
 the Atteftations under their hands, that you obtained 
 an intire Vi&ory at the Difpute? Or, is there any 
 elfe hath done it ? We find no fuch in your Book. 
 I would have you that are fo rigid in charging 
 JDr. Ruffcl's Narrative as falfe, by reafon of fbme Omif- 
 fions (as you fay) in it ; (whereas he was not willing 
 if he could have done it, to trouble the World with 
 all thole paftionate Exprellions that pan: from Mr. Ro- 
 binfori) or others, that were of little concern to the 
 World, left he mould have made it {well into too great 
 a Volume:, even as I my felf think it not convenient 
 
 to 
 
to make this my Writing fwell with the feveral Re- 
 marks that might be made on many other PafTages 
 of your Book, left it be made too chargeable for the 
 Purfes of our poor People. ) I would, I fav ? have 
 you and others confider whether the fame Obje&ion 
 cloth not fall as heavy upon your telves, feeing you 
 have not performed your Promife under your hands, 
 but have omitted to give us thofe Teftimonials : But 
 I fuppofe you were not able to obtain fuch a Tefti- 
 mony from thofe Gentlemen, or elfe we mould have 
 had it in your Book. 
 
 But there is one thing I would remark, which 
 is this, That in p. 70. of your Narrative, you ufe 
 this Expreflion, That falfe Lie. Now altho I do 
 not allow your Gharge to be true, yet fuppofe it had, 
 could not you, by all your Learning and Skill, have 
 found out an Expreflion lefs liable to exception ? Pray, 
 Sirs, when did you ever read or hear of a true Lie, 
 that you tell the World this is a falfe Lie ? Kxt there 
 any Lies that are not falfe? Now I think this de- 
 serves as much notice as that of the addition of a 
 Letter, and much more. And yet how ftrangely did 
 you improve that againft the Dottor : But I (hall not 
 deal fo by you. 
 
 Thus, Reader, I hope I have made it appear how 
 our Antagonists have no reaibn to boaft fo boldly as 
 they have done of a Vidory at the Difpute. But 
 whereas on the other hand, they charge it as an egre- 
 gious Faljhood on Dr. Ruffel^ p. 64. as if he had boldly 
 'pMifoed amongft and by his Friends in London ( tho 
 not in his Narrative) that he^ to put it out of dmibty 
 and his Friends had carried the day at Portfmouth, 
 added^ the Biflwp of Salisbury had received a Letter 
 from Colonel GIBSON, wherein he applauded cur 
 Performance. Now for the undeceiving of the World 
 I think good further to add, that I charged the 
 
 Dotlor 
 
t 43 ; 
 
 DoElor with this Report (for which his (aid Enemies 
 call him in the place aforecited, a Falfifier of Reports) 
 but he told me he never faid fo, nor thought fo, and 
 therefore it muft reft upon the Afferter, till he can 
 bring forth his Evidence that the DoEtor faid fo, and 
 that it was from thence that fuch a Report has fpread 
 abroad. However, this may (erve as another In- 
 ftance of their Spleen and Virulency againit him, 
 and how eager they are to {natch* at any thing 
 to afperfe him, and to render him little, yea to de- 
 grade him in the higheft manner. And hence it is that 
 they cannot forbear to trifle with his being a Gra- 
 duate, as in the laft quoted Page : Wherefore for the 
 fotisfadion of (bme Perfons that may have read their 
 Reflections on him and his Degree," I fhall here add 
 the Certificate following, together with fome other 
 Certificates that I have lately procured, or have been 
 tent to me out of the Country. 
 
 " "X/y Hereas it is render 'd doubtful by the Presby- 
 
 " terian Minifters in their account of the Portf- 
 
 " mouth Difputation, whether William Ruffcl beaGra- 
 cc duate Do&or in Phyfick of the famous Univerfity 
 * c of Cambridg : T.hefe are to certify whom it may 
 " concern, that we whole Names are under-written 
 cc have feen his Diploma, with the Seal of that Uni- 
 * verfky. thereunto affixed} and concluding with 
 " thefe words, Dat.Cantabr.in Senata noftro. Given 
 " in our Senate at Cambridg, June u. 1688. Wit- 
 iff nefs our Hands, 
 
 William Salmon, "James Halfey, 
 Francis Salmon, Edward Jarvis* 
 John Wells, John Sharpe. ' 
 
 I have alfo feen a Book, entituled, A Re gift er of the 
 Editors of Vhyfick in oar two Vniverfities of Cambridg 
 
 and 
 
^ 44 ) 
 and Oxford, Printed Anno 1695. diligently and 
 carefully colle&ed out of the Regiiters of both thofe 
 Univerfities •, beginning at 1659. and ending with 1694. 
 inclufive : With the Names of thofe that were created 
 Doctors in Phyfick during that time (which is 35 
 years) placed both in an Annual and Alphabetical 
 Order. In both which I find Dr. William Rnffeh 
 Name inferted in its due place and order. 
 
 From whence it is evident that Dr. Ruffel is in the 
 right, and themfelves in the wrong : And alio it 
 ferves to difcover another miflake of theirs, which 
 they (through their ignorance) charge upon him, viz.. 
 for faying the Senate at Cambridge which they call a 
 word of his own coining, and do greatly ridicule him 
 for it *, whereas it appears by his own Diploma, that 
 the V ice-Chancellor, Do&ors and Heads of Colle- 
 ges, &c. (when alTembled) do call themfelves a Se- 
 nate. 
 
 Befides, the JDoUor doth allure me that the King's 
 Letter was thus dire&ed : To our Trufty and Well- 
 beloved, the V ice-Chancellor of our Univerfity of 
 Cambridge to be communicated to the Senate there. 
 
 So that it appears to me it is the common Appella- 
 tion given to tnem (as that of Convocation elfe- where) 
 altho thefe Men are io ignorant as not to know it, or 
 fo malicious againft the Dottor, as not to allow it him. 
 It therefore gives caufe of doubting, whether either of 
 them ever law ( in a true and proper fenle ) the infide 
 of any Univerfity in their Lives. 
 
 Here 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 Here follows Mr. Bowesh Letter, wherein he 
 hath vindicated himfelf from Mr. Chandler's 
 ■unjuft and fcandalous Reflexions. 
 
 From Stubhiton, Sep!:, 29th, 1699. 
 
 Much honoured and beloved Brother RulTel, to whom 
 Grace r Mercy arid Peace be imdtipUcd, through, oar 
 
 .LordJefrsChrijl. 
 
 THele Lines come from y° ur Brother in the 
 Faith of our Lord jefus, Thorns Bowes, and 
 are to inform you -of the horrid Falfities 
 that are infer ted in Mr. Caaadler's pretended' 'Narra- 
 tive, which lie would fain have the World believe is 
 impartial, tho indeed it is no iuch thing : which I hope 
 will evidently appear to all Men who are not pre- 
 judiced, efpeciaily when the falfenefs of what he hath 
 writ concerning me and others is made manifefl. 
 
 For if he will adventure ib groiiy to belie his Neigh- 
 bours, who can. disprove him, and have oppofed him 
 *o his face*, no wonder if he belie the Diipute it felf, 
 and the Difputants, rather than hazard his own In- 
 tereft, which feemeth to lie at ilake. ■ j 
 
 I Ihall now give you an'account of thofe things 
 -in particular concerning me, which may be fund in 
 his Book, that are molt notorjoufly falfe. And take 
 them asfolloweth, i*£» 
 
 In his Introduction near the latter end, he. is bold 
 to aifert, That I and my Party did fufpend from, our 
 ' Communion" one Ifaac Harman a Joyuer, for hear- 
 ing Mr. Webber, which is horridly falfe : For there 
 was never any fuch thing acted by me and my Party 
 in this World towards that young Man. nor any 
 •other Perfon, for going to hear Mr. \ VMfor* 
 
 This 
 
(40 
 
 This Man hath but little regard to Truth it felf ? 
 that he can boldly charge this notorious Fa] (hood 
 upon me and my Party, without being able to pro- 
 duce his Author for it, when it was required of him. 
 He hath indeed confidently aflerted, that the young 
 Man told him Co himfelf. But the truth of this is like 
 fome of the reft of his impartial Narrative. 
 
 For the voting- Man went himfelf, with one of our 
 Friends with him, to the Meeting where Mr. Chand- 
 ler had been preaching, and there charged him with 
 the falfnefs of what he had written, to his face be- 
 fore many of his Hearers \ and did then offer to 
 attefl upon Oath, that he never had one word of 
 Difcourfe with him in all his life time, neither about 
 that riorany thing elfe. 
 
 And Mr. Chandler did confefs before thofe then 
 prefent, that he could not fay he had. 
 
 Yet fo unchriftian-like was their Carriage to him, 
 that at his rlril appearance Mr. Williams , the Presby- 
 terian Minifter, bawl'd out, and (aid, Where is this 
 Man that fears neither God nor Devil ? 
 
 To whom the young Man replied, that he had a 
 Soul to be faved as well as Mr* Williams^ and did fear 
 God as well as himfelf. 
 
 But that well qualified Man Mr. Chandler, did in 
 his fury \&f hands on him in fuch fort, that his awn 
 Hearers cr.y'd out, Pray Mr. Chandler do not ftrike 
 him. 
 
 But alas ! this great flood of Heat was foon turn'd 
 into the cold ebb of Diftimulation, when they faw 
 that way of itirring made them flink. 
 
 For the next Evening Mr. Williams fent one of his 
 Hearers to Ifaac Barman, and defired him that he 
 would come to his Houfe, and have fome talk with 
 him in a moderate way -, and did acknowledg he 
 was forry that he Ihould carry himfelf in iuch a 
 
 paflionats 
 
(47 ) 
 paflionate way to him the night before. 
 
 To this the young Man complied, and went to his 
 Houfe, where Mr. Williams treated him with many- 
 no] low Compliments. Now it was, Mr. Harmm : 
 But the night before he cried our, that he neither 
 feared God nor Devil. 
 
 But when he faw he could not obtain his end by 
 Flattery, he told the young Man he would have him 
 put into the Pofi-Boy. 
 
 But I wonder Mr. Chandler fhould be fa forward 
 to ride Poft, fmce the bafenefs of his Horfe, and his 
 own Infirmities have fo often brought him to the 
 ground. 
 
 But again, in his Introduction he is pleafed to 
 eharge me with no lefs than four more as great Lies 
 as is poftible for any Man to pen. For, 
 
 i. He afferteth, that I applied my felf to Mr. Ring 
 for a fight of thofe Sermons which he had writ} 
 which is utterly falfe. 
 
 2. He is bold to (ay that I read them, which is a 
 horrid Falihood *, for I . never read them in all my 
 life time. 
 
 3. He faith, I having read them, fpake words to 
 this effed, viz.. That if we fuffer Mr. Chandler thus 
 to go on, it will prejudice our Caufe. 
 
 But this is as falfe as any of the reft : For I never 
 fpake thofe words to Mr. Ring-, no, nor to that effed v 
 which Mr. Ring mult witnels, if he be not biafs'd, 
 and will but (peak the Truth : But if he will not, they 
 that were with me at that time will juftify that 
 I fpake no fuch words, nor to that effeft. And it is 
 as falfe that Mr. Ring replied, Mr. Chandler takes but 
 the fame liberty in his own Congregation that we do 
 in ours^ for he never replied fo to me. But (perhaps) 
 Mr. Ring will give him leave to bely him and the 
 Truth it felf, rather than by oppofing him hazard 
 
 his 
 
(48 ) 
 his own Intereft, and the lofs of a Place at his 
 Lecture. Bat I lhall not give him leave fo to bely 
 me, tho indeed he bath the Confidence to take it. " 
 4. And laitly :, ( tho indeed thefe are not all the 
 Lies he is guilty of concerning me \ yet, I hope, 
 it will be the laft time he will venture ib grofly to 
 abufe me, and Co greatly to fin agairift God ) 
 Mr. Chandler doth alio tell the World, that I was 
 a Man diffatisfied, and went over to Gofpm to 
 Mr. Webber, which is a notorious Lie :, for I never 
 went to Mr. Webber ^ nor ever fen t to him about the 
 Difputation firit nor laft : Yet this Man would 
 have the World believe that what he hath written is 
 Truth, arid' fo deceive himfelf and them too (in the 
 end ) that hearken to him : For nothing can be more 
 falfe concerning me, than what he hath writ for 
 Truth*, and therefore I.'ihali charge thofe Lies upon 
 Mr. Chandler as fome of his own inventing, till he 
 doth produce his Authors, which (I believe) is as 
 hard to bring forth, as the young Man that told him . 
 j be was fufoended, and asked his Advice about it:, for 
 " as yet he is invifible. 
 
 And I cannot imagine where he will, find Authors 
 for fuch Forgeries, unlefs he befpeak them. For I carl 
 atteft upon Oath that all thofe things are utterly falfe 
 and groundlefs, and therefore ought not to be called 
 Miltakes unlefs there had been fbmething in them. 
 
 Again, he is alfo pleafed to fay, that if I could 
 believe the Doctrine of Original Sin, as they believe 
 it, I mould think Infants had need of Baptifm : And, 
 that I wonder'd that the People at Gofport ihould be 
 againit it. 
 
 Now whatever I did fey, I can (afely declare that I 
 never fpake what Mr. Chandler hath written : And fo 
 I told him to his face, and did offer to make my Oath 
 of it. 
 
 For, 
 
(4P) 
 
 For if I had faid what they have written, I mould 
 have wronged my own Confcience, in faying that 
 which I did not then believe, nor do yet believe - 7 
 but I am fure that he hath wronged bimfelf and mc 
 alfo ? in faying and writing that which I did not, nor 
 could not fpeak. 
 
 But alas! anything that does but drop from the 
 Gooie-quill of this Man (tho it be never (b falfe) is 
 §ood enough to pleafe thofe that follow him \ with 
 whom I leave him till the Judgment Day of trie 
 great God, where bfc and I muft give account of all 
 things. 
 
 But if he in the mean time hath anything to object, 
 I am his Neighbour, and (hall be ready to make good 
 what I have charged upon him, by more than a hnglc 
 Teftiraony; Witnefs my hand, 
 
 Thomas Sotves. 
 
 Here follows a further Teftirriony, Fighed by the 
 principal Brethren of the Church at PortfmoHtL to 
 prove Mr. Chandler a falfe Accufer in what he nath 
 printed about Ifaac Harman. 
 
 VA7E whote Names are under- written do teftify, 
 v v That lfaac Harman was not fuipended frotfi 
 bur Communion for hearing Mr. Webber preach, nor 
 tor any thing elfe. Witnefs our hands, 
 
 Thomas Bowes^ William Qakely y 
 
 Ifaac Harman^ Walter Addis^ 
 
 Edward Fi]hbonrn 7 George Kelleyt, 
 James Goodeve^ 
 
 Mr. 
 
( So) 
 
 Mr. William Leddel of Goffort\ Vindication. 
 
 ff ere follows an account of thofe Miftahs and Falflwds 
 they have prefumed to charge Mr. Leddel with^ and 
 his Vindication of himfelf therefrom. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 HAving received your Letter, I can do no other 
 than reply for my lelf. I was willing to con- 
 tradict that prophetick Remonftrance of being 
 charged to be a Man of Heat without Light. And 
 fhould I at firft fight have declared my thoughts of 
 their Proceedings, I might ( perhaps ) have written 
 pafiionately, confidering how they have endeavoured 
 to cloud that which (through Providence) hath lb 
 many Evidences to the contrary. I believe Truth will 
 have its time to be made apparent. 
 
 I dial! not fay much as to what paft in the Difputa- 
 tion, but rather endeavour to acquit my felf from 
 Forgery, which I am charged with, efpecially with 
 relation to what Mr. Smith hath faid in his Certifi- 
 cate, or Teftimonial, which he hath inferted in the 
 Goth Page of Mx.ChandJ.ers, Mr. Leigh's, and Mr. Ro- 
 Unfons impartial Account (as they call it) of the 
 Port/month Difputatipn. Blame me not for putting 
 him lafi who mould have been firft, becaufe not no- 
 minated in the Preliminaries, and Mr. Leigh comes 
 in by chance. But as to what Mr. Smith hath there 
 declared to the World, fome of it was then faid, but 
 not in that form, nor at all to that purpofe, except 
 that Claufe wherein ne now lets the World know he 
 had an imperfed Account. 
 
 For having accidentally met with Mr. Smith at his 
 own Habitation, he waspleafed to. thank me for put- 
 ting 
 
( 5i ) 
 
 ting his Name in print, which I then took as an Iro- 
 nical Speech. I then difcovered to him the place 
 where the words were fpoken, but could not perfect- 
 ly remember the day of the Month \ whereupon he 
 concluded, that if I did, he had forgotten it - ? but i 
 hope his forgetfulnefs is not Argument fufficient to 
 prove I did not. And this I can fay, that altho there 
 was but one time that I fo dire&ly defired the fight 
 of his Copy to compare it with that I had, yet both 
 before and after I defired the fight of his j and at 
 that time I told him the reafon thereof, which he 
 alfb in his Certificate or Teftimonial denies : Yet al- 
 tho he hath forgotten the other times wherein I de- 
 fired him to let me fee his Copy, or fee it when it was 
 done, this does not prove it a Lie, or that he was never 
 fpoken to about it : For if it had been fo, what caufe 
 was there for that needlefs Excufe of Mr. Leigh, 
 •that it not being tranfcribed was not fit to be com- 
 par'd, becaufe I might take advantage therefrom *, and 
 that fuch things ought not to be communicated to an 
 Enemy ? As it it could not be compared with the 
 Copy that I had, nor to fuch a Perfon whom they 
 knew wasadverfe, and would improve what was there 
 related to their advantage. 
 
 I muft ingenuouily confefs I did not tell him it 
 would be printed ; but I then told him, I knew not but 
 it would be printed, tho I was not then pofitive my 
 felf. Now if Mr. Smith would but recoiled: his Me- 
 mory, he might call to mind that I fpoke oftner to 
 .him than that time in his Shop. It's true, that about 
 two or three days after the Deputation I was willing 
 (for Peace fake) the whole fhould have been buried. 
 
 But to return to Mr. Smith, I cannot but wonder 
 
 what fhould protect him in giving the World that 
 
 account of the Aiabaptifts loofe and (huffling way 
 
 of arguing, which gave fuch Interruption to the bet- 
 
 D 2 ter 
 
CS* ) 
 
 tcr taking of what pa.ft in the Difpute. 
 
 I cannot but retort this upon him *, the Anabaptifts 
 (fb called) might have had as civil Treament among 
 ^Heathens. 
 
 But that Mi\ Smith (liould infmuate that he retorted 
 this to me, and received no Anfwer, it muft be fap- 
 poied I was not 10 hot a Man as their learned Rab- 
 oitis have reported me to be. But I cannot find fault 
 if I have no Light : And fince they have all the Light, 
 there can be none left for me. Their Opponents are 
 alfo accounted by them Blockheads and Dunces, as they 
 then gave out, and have upon occafion (till afTerted. 
 I am not willing to bring Names into queftion, only 
 I can't but refle& upon thofe great Trophies of Art, 
 and profound Academics, which were the great Main- 
 tainers of that unfcriptural, not to lay antifcripturai 
 Notion of Infant-Baptifm : altho I might, feeing their 
 elevated Profundity hath not fo much as taught them 
 good Manners j caUing (at leaft) their fellow- 
 Creatures, if not their Equals in all good Science, 
 Fools, Blockheads, Liars, and Sophifters. How in- 
 congruous thefe Titles are, tho they had been never 
 fuch learned Academicks, may appear to thofe who 
 have but only common fenfe. 
 
 They feem agreed to carry on their contracted 
 Conspiracy, tho it be againft the Declaration oi 
 Heaven. But further, Pray, worthy Sir, muft your 
 . Forgetfulnefs be charged as my Lie? Why may no' 
 you be under a miftake in this, as well as you are ir 
 that Claufe of your Certificate, where you pretenc 
 the Imperfection of the Account was occafioned b\ 
 the Jnabaptifis looie and (huffiing way of arguing 
 For don't you know, when brought to the Teit 
 your Party could not be kept within bounds ? Nay; 
 hath it not been defended by the Paftor you fit ik 
 der, (Mr. Jekfi Earl by name) that we deferv'd n 
 
 bettd 
 
better Treatment at your nands j and yet lay we oc- 
 casioned the obftru&ion of an intelligible Account to 
 the World ? Pray, Sir, the next time you get one 
 to abet your Caufe, be fo kind as to inftrucft him bet- 
 ter in what you would have him fay. For W. Wal- 
 len to atteft fie was prefent when I came to you, and 
 yet not know any more what pafTed then, is ftrange 
 or, if he did, why was he no fuller in his Relation ? 
 
 As to what he fays that relates to the time of tran- 
 fcribing your Copy, as it's little to the purpofe, fo 
 it looks as if he had been your minute Companion, 
 and had known I had never fpoken to you but once. 
 And notwithstanding his Atteftation, I remember that 
 you told me, that tho it were not done, yet you had 
 begun it, and fliould make an end of tranfcribing it 
 in a little time * 7 yet never was fb kind to let me fee 
 it, till it was calculated to your own Meridian. 
 
 But among other things, I wonder you fliould be 
 (b unhappy, as to difcover your own weaknefs to the 
 World, in upbraiding others of Fallacioufhefs, and 
 yet could not keep your felf clear. For to pretend 
 you had compared this with Mr. Maltbys and your 
 own, which you call Originals, and that you found it 
 exactly agreable thereto:, and that the one fliould not 
 ftoop lower, nor the other be raifed higher \ I can't 
 but fear you have confpired together in a Lie : And 
 have not only endeavour'd to infmuate it to be a Truth 
 amongyour own Friends, but alfo to the Univerfc ; 
 for it feems to me no lefs than a Miracle. But what 
 ihall I fay, when Men care not what they lay, nor 
 whereof they affirm ^ fmce 'tis well known that 
 Mr. Smith knows little of the Greek, if any, and lefs 
 of the Hebrew, whatever Mr. Maltby does : and that 
 your Copy fliould fo exadly agree to a tittle both 
 with Mv.Maliby's, and what is printed, I in'uit leave 
 the World to judg. 
 
 D 3 But 
 
But fince nothing can be taken for granted but what 
 we have Time, and Place, and Witnefs to : It will 
 teach me for the future to take a Witnefs when I (hall 
 have occafion to treat with Mr. Smith, or any other 
 of them upon fuch occafions. For as to the proof of 
 this, it depends upon my Yea, and his Nay :, I not 
 thinking in the lead this would have been fo material, 
 as to have given them fuch an occafion to ground their 
 Caufe upon, which was fo lamely defended. This 
 feems to be but like a Man that is in danger of being 
 drowned, who will catch at a Feather, which when 
 caught can give him no liipport. Upon what I have 
 remark'd, there is reafbn enough undoubtedly to 
 (hew, that My. Smith's Certificate (by which he 
 would convince the World ) is fallacious. 
 
 And as to what Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh- and 
 Mr. Robinfon fpeak about this matter, neither the an- 
 nexed Teftimonial, nor yet what is in the fecond fide 
 of Dr. Rtiffel's Dedication, faith any (uch thing •, but 
 faith, tho it was defired, could not be obtained. And 
 I William Leddell do here atteft that it was compared 
 with another Copy, whofe it was is yet unknown to 
 me to this day, but was acknowledged by Mr. Leigh as 
 before : And that acknowledgment does not want Wit- 
 nefs, Mr. James Goodeve being prefent at the delive- 
 ry of a Letter fent to Mr. Leigh by Mr. Walter Addis. 
 Now what occafion there fhould be for a Concealment, 
 tho in the Character it was written, befides the reafon 
 alledg'd bv Mr. Leigh, I know not. 
 
 Sir,, I think it not meet to animadvert upon all 
 their Refledions and opprobrious Speeches with refe- 
 rence to my fe]f, I not being academically learned ; 
 but I defire to learn more of Chrift, and to concern 
 my (elf lefs with thofe Perfons who are in a Sphere 
 too high for me, thaft count themfelves great, and all 
 others Shrubs, becaufe they have not attained to a 
 
 * like 
 
(ss ) 
 
 like.Stature in human Literature. And let this pafs 
 as my Reply to what they have laid in reference to 
 me, not being in fo great a Heat but a little Water 
 may cool it, provided it be not foul. 
 
 William LeddeU. 
 
 But, Sir, fince I thought I had done, caftingmy 
 Eye upon the third Page of Mr. Chandler's Intro- 
 duction, I law as abfurd a PafTage under my Name 
 as any pafTed in the whole Book, contrary to an Ac- 
 count that I gave him my felf touching Matthew 
 Coffin: Altho then Mr. Chandler % bufinefs was (as 
 he pretended ) to know the Truth, that Jbe.mightnot 
 err in what he was going about, with reference to 
 Matthew Caffin % lying under fuch a Report of deny- 
 ing the Humanity and Divinity of Chrift. But I 
 having no Light, and Mr. Chandler having fuch Eyes 
 as to fee where none is •, he is, for ought I perceive, 
 creating Light out of Darknefs. For he faith, that I 
 and fome others^ Men of Heat without Lights were 
 very urgent to accept of Matthew Caffin for their 
 Champion. For I give this as my Teftimony, That 
 I my fejf ever refined Matthew Caffin to have any 
 hand in it. 
 
 But what Spirit actuates Mr. Chandler I know not, 
 that he (hould not care what he faith. 
 
 And when I fee (b many Untruths couch'd in one 
 Paragraph of his Introduction, it's a plain Indication 
 of thole many that follow, for there they are crowded 
 in heaps. But if Mr. Chandler had told me who were 
 my Companions, we might then have gon to Jfaac 
 Harman^ whom he recites ( tho falfly ) to have led us 
 to him, to have borrowed fome Light from him, as 
 he (falfly) fays Jfaac Harman did. Now, Sir, pray 
 
 D 4 *>e 
 
( jO 
 be fo kind to your felf, as to conceal your Paths 
 ( for they are dark ones) and let not blind Men tread 
 on your Heels. I hope you will be more careful for 
 t{ie future, and not let Men with no Light ( tho as 
 yet you have found but one of them) fee into the 
 very Crannies of your wilful and woful Mifhkes. 
 
 As to the truth" of my refufmg Matthew Cafjw, I 
 could bring many Witnefles : And I never knew but 
 one Perfon who was for him, which Mr. Chandler 
 bath happily mift, and is never like to know forme. 
 This is all at prefent from your Brother in Chrift, r . 
 ,-■••■■■■ 
 
 William LcddeU. 
 
 ' ■ >>* < . . ■-■ — - 
 
 Here follows an account of fome of thofe Falfhoods 
 they charge upon 2>.RmTel, in their pretended 
 Impartial Account of the Portfmouth Difputa- 
 tion, and h'vs Anfwcn thereunto. 
 
 Brother Sharp, 
 
 FOrafmuch as you have taken in hand fo good a 
 Work, as to vindicate the Truth of that Nar- 
 rative I fupervifed and publilhed concerning 
 that Difputation at Tortfmouth^ wherein our well-be- 
 loved Brother Williams and your felf were alfo en- 
 gag'd *, I thought meet to (ena you this following Ac- 
 count, to free my felf from thoie Calumnies, the Pub- 
 lifhers of that falfe and abufive Account of tnat Difpu- 
 tation have undefervedly caft upon me. 
 
 i. In Pdg.57. they fay that I mention'd Confian- 
 rine the Great as a Scripture Inftance. 
 
 I anfwer , This they know to be falfe : For at the 
 fame time 1 refer'd them to the Hiftor? of the firft 
 
 five 
 
K 57 ) 
 
 five hundred years, and alledged it only to prove 
 matter of Fa<$ from the Teftimony of the Fathers -, 
 which Mr- Leigh accordingly underftopd, or elfe what 
 made him give this Anfwer, What do you tell us 
 of the Fathers? we are not bound to abide by their 
 Teilknony. See p. 35. of rnv True Narrative. 
 
 2. In Pag.61. they fay, it's falfe that Mr. Chan- 
 dler's Sermons were the occafion of the Difpute, and 
 much more that this is agreed to by them. 
 
 To this I anfwer : I have no more to do than to 
 confute them by their own Pens. 
 
 My words are thefe. It is agreed on both fides 
 that Mr. Chandlers Sermons were the occafion of that 
 Offence taken, by you (Ipeaking to Mr. Bowes, Mr. 
 Webber 1 and the Churches to whom they belong) 
 and of the Pifpute it Telf, as appears by the Prelimi- 
 naries, &c. 
 
 Now that this is true, appears from their own Pens, 
 For in the Title Page of their own Account they have 
 thefe words : An Abridgment of thofe Difcourfss that 
 were the innocent occafion of that Difputation. 
 
 And in Pag. 2. An Abridgment of thofe Sermons 
 that wtre the innocent occafion of the Difputation, 
 Now in both thefe places they confefs what I fay to 
 be true. For I only fay they were the occafion there- 
 of, without fo much as telling them whether it were 
 an innocent or nocent occafion. 
 
 Bi|t, 2. I can prove it under the hands of Mr. Chan- 
 dler and Mr. Williams of P or tf mouth } And for that I 
 refer you to the Preliminaries thcmfelves, which were 
 read publickly before all the People, and a dented to 
 by both fides, as you have them truly printed in 
 my Narrative, pag. 3, 4. but omitted in theirs, which 
 begins thus. 
 
 Whereas by Mr. Chandlers late preaching on the 
 Ordinance of Baptifrn, feveral Perfons have taken of- 
 fence; 
 
( 5* ) 
 fence} and upon defire of Satisfaction, it*s mutually 
 agreed between us whofc Names are underwritten, 
 that thefe two Points be amicably difputed in the 
 following order, &c. 
 
 • Samuel Chandler, 
 vm Francis Williams. 
 
 h < i 
 
 I had that very Paper delivered to me in Mr. mi-' 
 liams's Meeting-houfe at the time of the Difpute, 
 which they "figned with their own hands, and have it 
 itill by me to witnefs againft them. 
 
 And ftrange it is, that thefe Men mould have the 
 confidence to deny what is fb folemnly delivered un- 
 .der their own hands. But perhaps they thought I hard' 
 loft that Paper, and mould not have been able to do- 
 ted: their falfe Accufation any other way. And this 
 feems to be the true caufe why they were fo unjuft 
 as to omit putting down the Preliminaries in their 
 printed Account, that they might not confute them- 
 selves under their own hands. 
 
 3. In the fame page 61. they fay it's falfe that 
 Mr. Robinfon mould in the mid ft of the Difpute give 
 me the Lie. 
 
 1. Pray obferve : This is, a falfifying of my words, 
 which are thefe. He laid in the mid ft of "the DiC 
 pure with a loud Voice, That ts aL'<e. But I did not 
 tell them he faid fo to me: And under this fubterfuge 
 they might fuppofe to fhelter themfelves in their De- 
 nial. But, 
 
 2. I do know that he did fay as I have printed it : 
 And if my word may not pa(s for it, I have divers to 
 teftify for me. 
 
 Mr. Webber -, Paftor of the Church at Gofport, be- 
 ing with me in London, Sept. 6. laft paft, I asked him 
 about it, and he affirms it to be true, that Mr. Ro- 
 binfon did give me the Lie, and that there were Wit- 
 
 neffes 
 
K 59 J 
 
 nefles enough could teftify that*, for he being mpunted 
 in the Pulpit at a diftance from the reft of his Bre- 
 thren, there could be no miftake about it. See the 
 Truth of this well attefted in Mr. Sharp's Account. 
 
 3. They confefs that Mr. Leigh did give the Lie. 
 Now I did not accufe him, but Mr. Robin fon only* *, 
 
 and ( I hope ) Mr. Leigh's confeffing that he gave the 
 Lie, doth not prove that Mr. Robinfon did not : But 
 it doth prove that they were a couple of ill-bred, un- 
 mannerly Presbyters, to fay no worfe of them. 
 
 4. I muft now charge them with a notorious Falf- 
 hood which they have printed againft me, in thefe 
 words. 
 
 This bold Gentleman hath publifhed amongft and 
 by his Friends in London j Dr. Ruffcl to put it out of 
 doubt, that he and his Friends had carried the day at 
 Port [mouthy added, the Biihop of Salisbury had 
 received a Letter from Colonel Gibfon, wherein be 
 applauded their, i. e. the Anabaptifls Performance. 
 To this I anfwer. 
 
 1. That I never heard of any Letter at alt fent to 
 that Biftiop by Colonel Gibfon, till I read, it in their 
 printed Account. 
 
 2. I never faid fo to any Perfbn whatfbever : and 
 I challenge them to produce their Evidence, for till 
 then it muft be charged upon themfelves. 
 
 3. I neither knew nor thought that Colonel Gibfon. 
 had been fuch a Zealot for their Caufe, to trouble 
 himfelfto fend Letters to two Bifhops (as they fay 
 he did) in favour of them, till I read it in their 
 •printed Account*, whereas, had he not been ex- 
 tremely bials'd, he might have known better than to 
 have fent up fuch an Advertifment as they (ay he did 
 to put into the Poft-man. 
 
 But Mr. Robinfon confefTes that he was the Infor- 
 mer, who waited on the Biihop to tell him this falle 
 and malicious Story. And 
 
And whereas he faith, that his Lord/hip generoufly 
 allowed them to make ufe of his Name tor the unde- 
 ceiving the World in this matter : And whereas it 
 plainly appears it was to deceive the World, I hope 
 his Lordfhip will for the future have a care how he 
 gives Credit to one that hath thus impofed upon him 
 in fuch a confident manner, with fuch a notorious 
 invented Story of his own making*, and by that 
 means give occafion to have his Name printed, in 
 their falfe and fcandalous Account. 
 
 4. This may well give his Lordfhip (and all others) 
 a juft occafion to fufpeft the Narrative they have 
 publifhed *, for if they can allow themfelves fuch a 
 liberty to print fuch notorious Falfhoods as thefe are 
 about matter of Fad, what reafon is there to believe 
 them iq any thing they fay ? And if Mr. Robinfon 
 will but be fo juft, as to prefent his Lordfhip with 
 my True Narrative*, upon comparing both together 
 with our Vindication, I doubt not but he will have 
 other fentiments of that Difputation, and be fufft- 
 ciently convine'd of their Partiality and Prevarica- 
 tions. 
 
 5. They charge me for abufmg Mr. Gofnold in 
 thde words: Tis as ridiculous as to abufe his dear 
 Friend, and prefix falfe Greek as a Title to his Book j 
 when at leait in that Edition we have feen, there is 
 only a plain Englifh Title, Of the Docirine of Bap- 
 tifms. 
 
 1. Tis they that abufe me: For the very firft words 
 in his Title are, Bcl-tIkfu^v ///*;£*, in that Edition pub- 
 lifhed by himfelf. If others that reprinted it fince 
 his death have left it out, 'tis their fault, not mine. 
 
 2. It's true and proper Greek, as they themfelves 
 confefs, unlefs the Apoftle Paul wrote falfe Greek*, 
 for they fay the Letters are the fame Heb. 6. 2. fo 
 that thev muft not charge Mr. Gofnpld with it, but 
 
 the 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 the Apoftle Pout. Are not tbefe bold Men, to charge 
 Pad with writing falfe Greek? 
 
 3. Their Pretence is falfe : For that learned Man 
 Mr. John Cofnold did know how to diftinguifh be- 
 tween the Nominative and Genitive Cafe, and Co do I. 
 But they muft throw this Reflection upon our Tranfla- 
 tors of the Bible, and upon Paul himfelf, or rather 
 take it to themfelves as a falfe Accufation, to whom it 
 properly belongs. 
 
 4. Mr. Gofnold doth not treat of the Baptilm of 
 Water alone, but of all the three Baptifms fpoken of 
 in Scripture, int. that of Water, (which is a real 
 Baptifm) and that of the Spirits ^d alfo that of 
 Affli&ion, as metaphorical Baptifms. And as the 
 Greek is true, fo the Title of his Book is the molt, 
 proper that could be thought of, The Doftrine of 
 Baptifms. 
 
 5. As to that for which this Charge is brought, they 
 pretend they gave the Anfwer there recited in the time 
 of the Difpute-, whereas they know 'tis an invented 
 Anfwer of their own, made on purpofe to (ham oft the 
 matter to which it relates. But that is a fmall thing 
 with them, for thev have done fo throughout their 
 pretended Account of the Difputation *, wherein they 
 have moft egregioufly abufed the World. 
 
 <5. In pag. 75. thev let us know their Memories are 
 fliort with refpeft to what I fet down in pag. 3 5. of my 
 Narrative, where I fay, I do not remember that there 
 is any account in Hiftorv, during the firft five hundred 
 years, that any one of the Fathers, or eminent Biihops 
 of the Church, that were born of Chriftian Parents, 
 were baptized until they were about twenty or thirty 
 years of Age : And if any of you know the contrary, 
 I defire vou would fhew it. 
 
 Upon "which Mr. Leigh anfwered, mat do you 
 tell vn of the Fathers? We are mt bound to abide by 
 
 their 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 their Tefi'mony. And notwithstanding I then made a 
 full Reply thereto, yet thefe Men tell the World 
 they do not remember that it was mentioned in the 
 Difpu ration. 
 
 But the thing they could not remember was, to 
 find out an Inltance to the contrary : for that thev 
 have riot given us, neither then nor fince, which they 
 would certainly have done if they had known how. 
 
 But thev pretend to remember that which was ne- 
 ver fa id nor thought by me, viz. That for the firfl 
 fix hundred years Infants were admitted to Commu- 
 nion in the LordVSupper. And this I muft charge 
 upon them as utterly falfe, and an Invention of their 
 own. 
 
 But it is true, that from Mfl'ms time for the fpace 
 of five or fix hundred years the Supper was given to 
 Infants:, and both that and Baptifm contended for as 
 neceiTary to Salvation : For which Aqftin had that 
 Name given him of Pater dwrm Infantum. And this 
 is fo well known to the Learned, that thefe Men will 
 but difcover their Ignorance in denying it. 
 
 7. They have wholly altered the' Irate of the Cafe, 
 as to what Mr. Chandler faid upon Dan. 4. 33. Tor 
 whereas he afferted that the word in the Septuagint 
 Tranflation was baptiao j I denied it, and told him 
 it was ebaphe: But that if it had been as he faid, 
 it was nothing to his purpofe, becaufe it was not ori- 
 ginally written in Greek. 
 
 Upon which he faid, Baptize comes from Tabal. I 
 asked him then, how it was in the Hebrew in that 
 place ? He anfwered it was Tabal : which I denied. 
 And after I had feen the place, I told him it was 
 not there. Seep. 54. of my Narrative. And at laft 
 Mr. dandier confeft it was not. And they ail allow 
 it in Print. 
 Neverthdefs h; their own account, p. 82, they fay, 
 
 that 
 
( *3 ) 
 
 that to try my Skill in the Hebrew, who had fo 
 fliamefully faulter'd in the Greek, I was asked what 
 the Hebrew wosd was, and that I faid, if I had an 
 Hebrew Bible I could tell. 
 
 , Now this I muft charge upon them as an Invention 
 of their own : And his Friend Mr. Ring can teftify 
 that I had made my Obfervations upon that place in 
 Van.+ 33. and lent them to Vort [mouth in a Letter, 
 and received an Anlwer from him before I came down 
 to the Difpute •, and had examined the place upon the 
 occafion of a Pailage upon it in Mr. Chandler's Ser- 
 mon, upon the word Tabal, and therefore knew what 
 jfvdr. Chandler {aid was falie before I came from Lon- 
 don : So that I did not ft and in need of a Hebrew 
 JSible to examine that in the time of the Difpute. 
 But I have caule to fufped that Mr. Chandler had 
 not examined it himfelf, but made ufe of fome other, 
 who did not rightly inform him : for altho if be in 
 I w. 33. in the Engliih Bible, it is not fo in the Hebrew,. 
 but in v. 30.. And altho I knew it, I was no more 
 obliged to teach him that, than I was to inftrud him 
 in the difference between the Hebrew and Chaldee 
 w r ords in the Book of Daniel, But it was my bufinefe 
 to force him to acknowledg before all the People,, 
 that what he (aid was falie *, which accordingly he 
 did, and hath fmce done in Print. 
 
 And as for that (illy Sarcafm of theirs, that He- 
 brew Bibles are ail mifplaced with him ^ for we hear 
 from good hands ( they ihould have faid from lying 
 hands) that at Havering in Ejjex, he was confounded 
 with the fame place, and could not find the Prophecy 
 of Daniel. 
 
 I anfwer , Firit, I had but one Difpute at EJfex, and 
 that was in the Parilh-Church at Avely, with Mr, Pom- 
 fret and Mr .Taylor j and there was no mention made 
 of this place in Daniel, either by them or me. 
 
 2. There 
 
(*4) 
 
 2. There was no Hebrew Bible produced, nor wai 
 there any occafion for it : So that I muft return this 
 Story to* the Father of Lies, from whence it came. 
 
 And that the World may fee that what I fay i« 
 true, I (hall infert the following Certificate, written 
 by Perfons of known Integrity and Ability, whc 
 Were prefent at that Difpute *, which was obtained by 
 your felf, and fign'd in your prefence. 
 
 \AfE whole Names are under-written do teftify, 
 v v That at the Difpute at Avely in EJfe *, be- 
 tween Dr. William Rnffel and Mr. Samuel Pomfret^ 
 Concerning the baptizing of Infants, there was "n&t 
 any mention made of Hebrew Words, nor any He- 
 brew Bible fjx>ke of, nor produced, for there was 
 not any occalion for it, their Difpute being more 
 about the Subjects than the Manner. Witnefs our 
 Hands, 
 
 Oflob.i^ \6^, John Lonoke x 
 
 Jofeph Jdchjon, 
 Cornelins Derma 
 
 There are feveral other things that deferve to be 
 remarked, but becaufe they will occur in my Obfer* 
 vations upon the Difpute it felf, and their Reflections 
 upon it, I ihail take notice of them as they occafio- 
 nally prefent themfelves in my following Obfera- 
 tions. 
 
 Some 
 
(«5) 
 Some OBSERVATIONS upon their 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 By Dr. WILLIAM RVSSEL. 
 
 THey dedicate their fcandalous Pamphlet to the 
 Honourable Major General Earl, Governor ; 
 Colonel John Gibfon, Lieutenant-Governor of 
 his Majefty's Garifon of P or tf month \ and the wor- 
 fhipful Henry Seager^Efq^ Mayor of Portsmouth. 
 
 ift. Thefe Men quarrel with me for calling Colonel 
 Gibfon Deputy-Governor, when themfelves acknow- 
 ledg that Major-General Earl is Governor. Is not 
 Deputy-Governor as honourable a Title as Lieute- 
 nant? 
 
 If they think I fpeak too diminutively of him, can 
 they fuppofe they have mended the matter in pre- 
 fuming to yoke their Worfhipful Efq, Henry Seager y 
 who drives that common Trade of a Baker in the 
 Town of Porffmomh, with fuch honourable Perfons 
 as the other two ? Is this all the Refped and Honour 
 they can afford to give them ? 
 
 zdly. They (ay, We humbly lay thefe Papers at 
 your feet. Surely they have reafon to trample upon 
 them in difdain, when they find themfelves intituled 
 to fiich a falfe and fcandalous Pamphlet. ^/ 
 
 ^dly. They fay, who procured for us a Grant from 
 his Majefty, publickly to vindicate the common Caufe 
 of the Reformed Churches. 
 
 i. Infant-fprinkling is the thing you muft intend. 
 How then came you to decline the Vindication there- 
 of, and refufe to give fb much as one fingk initance 
 
 E for 
 
for your Pra&ice, altho you were often call'd upon 
 to do it (in the time of the Difputation) both by 
 Mr. John William* and my felf ? 
 
 2. How eomes Infant-fprinkling to be appropriated 
 (by you) to the Reformed Churches? Surely there are 
 others in the World pra&ife that, befides thofe of 
 the Reformed Churches,. 
 
 Are you fo ignorant, as not to know that all the 
 Papifls in France, Spciirt, Portugal, Germany, Poland, 
 Italy, and Rome it felf (the Seat of the Whore of 
 Hahylon) do practife Infant-fprinkling as well as you ? 
 How then have you the confidence to tell thefe Hono- 
 rable Perfbns, and the whole World, it is the common 
 Caufe of the Reformed Churches ? whereas it is no- 
 torioufly known, that it is the common Caufe both of 
 Papifts and thofe you call Reformed. 
 
 3. If it be appropriated peculiarly to either, it 
 mull: be to the Church of Rome •, for you know that 
 the Reformed Churches did receive it from her, and 
 have retain'd it as one of her Relicks to this day. 
 For they have no Scripture Authority for it. 
 
 qthly. They fay it tends veiy much to the advance- 
 ment of early Piety and Religion. 
 
 1. If they believe themfelves, why were they guil- 
 ty of fo great a Sin of Omiflion, as not to vindicate 
 their Practice when they were fo ofterr pre ft to it, 
 and yet could not be prevailed upon to give any 
 Scripture Inftance for it : And would not fo much as 
 try their Skiii (when fo fair an opportunity was put 
 into their hands) to prove their own Practice, and 
 thereby fettle thofe that are wavering among them ; 
 notwithitanding they pretend it was the thing for 
 which thofe Honourable Perfons procured for them a 
 Grant from his Majefty ? 
 
 But, 2. How the iprinkling a little Water upon the 
 Infants Faces, and calling that Baptifm, (liquid be to 
 
 them 
 
( 6 7 ) 
 
 them an occafion of early Piety and Religion, is 
 fooner faid than proved. 
 
 It teems to me rather to have a contrary tendency, 
 especially your telling them when they come to years 
 of underftanding, that by their Baptifm they are put 
 into a new Covenant-relation, that you have dedicated 
 them to God, that they are in a ftate of Salvation m 7 
 that thofe who neglect it, have no more reafbn to 
 hope for the Salvation of their Infants than the Hea- 
 thens } but they mult only leave them to the unfathoma- 
 ble depths of God's Goodnefs, having no Promife to 
 rely upon, p. 1 1. That they are foiemnly admitted by 
 Baptifm into the Vifible Church j (how this agrees 
 with Mr. Leigh's Argument from Mat, 19. he would 
 do well to coniider ) that they are the more fpecial 
 Objeds of the Promifes of Grace •, that the Vein of 
 Eledion frequently runs in the Channel of believing 
 Parents, and their Seed :, and that if they die during 
 their Infant-ftate. they fhall be fayed-, pag. 8. 
 
 Add to this wnat is faid in their Preface, that the 
 Covenant of Grace does fix the Terms upon which 
 Chriit. will be a Saviour to any ', that thence only it 
 is to be known whom he will fave, and whom he will 
 not. 
 
 Now unlefs thefe Men will deny the Do&rine of 
 final Perfeverance (as held by theCalvinifts) they do 
 rather give thofe Children an occafion from hence te 
 neglect the mofl important Duties of the Gofpel. 
 
 For, why fhould they repent and be baptized m 
 the Name of Jefus Chrift for the remiflion of their 
 Sins, if they are baptized already, and their Sins all 
 pardoned, and this Pardon fealed to them by fprink- 
 ling a little Water on their faces ? 
 
 Why fhould they believe in Chrift, that through 
 him they might have an Intereft in eternal Life and 
 .Glory, if it be fecured to them already another way ? 
 E 2 Why 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 Why fhould they work out their own Salvation 
 with fear and trembling, if it be fecured and fealed to 
 them already, by what you call Baptifm, without any 
 poflibility of mifcarrying? For they fay, that if fuch 
 die in their Infancy, they (hall be faved. 
 
 Now, Do they not hereby do all that in them lies 
 to perfwade fuch Perfons, that if they had died in 
 their Infant-ftate, they fhould have been faved by be- 
 ing in the Covenant of Grace, and in the Line of 
 Election? And can they (after all this) fin them- 
 felves out again, and become Reprobates? I thought 
 yon Presbyters had been of another mind. Can you 
 put them (whilft Infants) into the Covenant of 
 Grace, and turn them out again ( when they come to 
 be Adult) as you think fit ? I cannot imagine you do 
 believe your felves when you thus write *, nor can you 
 ever think to gain us to your Party by fuch Incon- 
 fiftences as thele : For we know that the Decrees of 
 God are immutable, and it is not in the power of any 
 Creature to alter them. And we alfo know, that you 
 cannot (from your own Principles) be at any certain- 
 ty who are elected, and who are not (whilft in an 
 Infant- Hate) till fuch time as they come to be effectu- 
 ally called. And feeing you do not believe that all 
 Inrants dying in their Infant-ltate ihall be faved •, be- 
 caufe you tell us, that you leave fuch as die unbap- 
 tized to the unfathomable depths of God's Goodnefs, 
 there being no Promife to rely upon : I muft now 
 needs difcern the cloven Foot, notwithftanding your 
 fham pretences to cover it : For unlefs you did think 
 that the fprinkling of Infants is necefTary to Salvation 
 (notwithftanding thofe deceitful ExpreJIions in your 
 Preface) or (atleaft) did doubt within your felves, 
 whether any unbaptized Infant could be laved, all 
 this you talk of is but infignificant trifling. And you 
 had better deal plainly with the World (asonedf 
 
 your 
 
Op ) 
 
 your Brethren did ) to let them know, that if he mufl 
 Baptize no Infants but what he knew to be of the 
 number of the Elect, he mufl not baptize any } for 
 he did not know what Infants were in the Covenant 
 of Grace, and in the Line of Election, and what were 
 not : For, I believe you know as little of the matter 
 as he, altho you feem fo unwilling to confefs it. But 
 if you neither baptize them, as knowing them to be 
 the Eled of God, nor yet in the Covenant of Grace, 
 how can you fay they are in a flate of Salvation, and 
 that if they die in their Infancy they (hall be faved } 
 except you did conclude (as Auftin did) that the 
 Baptifm of Infants is necefTary to Salvation, and that 
 they are a&ually brought into the Line of Election 
 thereby, and made the Children of God, and Heirs 
 of Glory ? And if fo, then free your felves from the 
 Papifts Opm operatum, if you know how. Is this the 
 way to early Piety ? Surely no. 
 
 For if they were not fprinkled in their Infancy, and 
 afterwards told by you (or others) that it was a fuffi- 
 cient Baptifm ( altho in truth it is no Baptifm at all ) 
 they might then be eafily prevailed upon to fubmit to 
 the Baptifm of Chrift. And when they are taught 
 that Repentance from dead Works, and Faith towards 
 God were to precede Baptifm, and to fit them for it : 
 And that Baptifm is an initiating Ordinance, without 
 which they cannot be true Members of the vifible 
 Church of Chrift : And that they mufl be dead to 
 Sin, before they were buried with Chrifl by Bap- 
 tifm : And that after they were baptized, they mull 
 walk in newnefs of Life. This were a more probable 
 way to incline them to that great Duty of remem- 
 bring their Creator in the days of their youth *, and 
 to promote and advance early Piety and true Reli- 
 gion in their Hearts and Lives. 
 
 But fo Jong as you fhall tell them that they are 
 E 3 raade 
 
(70) 
 made Difcipks of Chrift as loon as they are born ; 
 that they were mrde Chriftians, Members of the 
 Church, and enter 'd into the new Covenant by what 
 you did for them when you fprinkled them with Wa- 
 ter : This hath a direct tendency to lull them afleep 
 in fecurity, and make them draw this falfe Conclu- 
 sion, that they were thereby made Chriftians indeed, 
 and fo deceive their own Souls. 
 
 For, it is found by woful Experience, that many 
 of them who are poor, ignorant, impenitent, and 
 v/retched Sinners:, yet they will be exceeding an- 
 gry if you do but quefiion their being ( really and 
 indeed ) ChrifHans. What ( fey they ) were not we 
 baptized in our Infancy, and thereby made Chrifti- 
 ans, Members of Chrift, Children of God, and Heirs 
 of the Kingdom j and do you queftion our Chriftia- 
 nity ? Now if you will but ferioully confider how far 
 you have been the unhappy Instruments of the ruin 
 of thefe poor Creatures, by hardning them againft 
 the Truth, as it is in Jefas-, and making them (like 
 the Pharifees and Lawyers of old) reject the Counfel 
 of God againft themfelves by that deception you have 
 put upon their Underftandings, you would certainly 
 difcern that you have made work for Repentance, 
 and cannot acquit your felves therefrom, until you do 
 renounce that fcripturelefs Practice of Infant-fprink- 
 ling, and fubmit to that holy Ordinance of Believers 
 Baptifm, as appointed by Jefus Chrift, and provoke 
 others thereunto. 
 
 yhly. But further, in their Dedication they appeal 
 to the honourable Governor, and to the worftiiprul 
 Baker, as to difinterefted Perfons, and proper Judges. 
 
 As for Henry Seager the Baker, he is no difmtereft- 
 ed Perfon, unlefs this proves him to be fuch, becaufe 
 when he was Mayor, he carried the Mace to the PreP 
 byterian Meeting, and hath gone to it both before 
 
 and 
 
(7t ) 
 
 and fince the Difpute, and been a Benefactor to them 
 for feveral years, as is certified from thence. 
 , Now I can as little fuppofe him to be a proper 
 Judg, as a difmterefted Per ion , becaufe I an well 
 fatished he is unskill'd in the Controverfy, and incom- 
 petent as to Parts and learning to fit him for it: 
 But being worfhipful, he would ferve their turn to 
 make a noife witn in other Parts where he was not 
 known, to give a faint Colour to a fading Caufe. 
 
 6 My. But the moil amazing PaiTage in it is this, 
 That they ihould have Confidence to tell the World, 
 that their Account ( they give of the Difpute) is true 
 and impartial : That it is what was taken by the Pens 
 of the Scribes, without any maunal alteration: 
 Whereas they know in their Confciences it is not fb, 
 a* may be made appear in due place. 
 
 ytbly. And whereas they talk ot Diforders in the time 
 of the Difpute •, they alio know there was nothing of 
 that kind committed by us (notwithstanding their re- 
 peated Provocations ) but all of it by themfelves, and 
 their own Party. Tbemlelves were certainly guilty 
 of great Incivilities in giving the Lie, in their hilling, 
 and making fuch a noife that we could not be heard : 
 W 7 hich was fo far from being a fign they were 
 willing that Truth Ihould take place, that it was an 
 evident Demonstration of the direct contrary. 
 
 I now come to make fome Obftrvations upon the 
 Account they give of the Difpute it felf : By which 
 it will appear that it is a falfe and partial Account. 
 
 It They have left out the Speech I made in the 
 beginning. 
 
 2. Given no account of Mr, Chandler's beginning 
 with Prayer. 
 
 3. The Preliminaries agreed upon, and read pub- 
 licity, they have wholly omitted. 
 
 E 4 4. Mr. 
 
(72 ) 
 
 r,it *w' C Jt™ dler ' s A P ol °gy to the People, which he 
 calls his Prologue, they have alter'd: For I have 
 carefully examin'd Mr. Ring's Copv, and I find it 
 there verbatim as I have put it down in my Narra- 
 tive For, I. He puts Pride before Vanity. 2. Adds 
 Doctrine 3 Leaves out the New Teftament. 4. There 
 is a 1 ranlpofition and Omifiion of other word?, which 
 1 pais Dy. 
 
 _ 5. Mr. Chandler hath alter'd the words of the firft 
 Qudhon to be difputed. As firft, he hath left out 
 and Saviour, hath put only before are. And inftead 
 ot And not Infants ht hath put in thefe words, or 
 their Infants alfo h . which alters the ftate of theQuefti- 
 pn And in the fecond Queftion he hath put in this 
 initead of the and wife initead of ways : and it is the 
 more remarkable, becaufe it differs not onlv from 
 mine, but from that written Copy figned by Mr. Wil- 
 hams and himfelf : So that it mult either be a heedlefs 
 or a wilful Act. 
 
 &i 6 ~ Th n e - Speech l made u P on Mr - Chandler's repeating 
 tne Queftions, is part of it left out, and the reft alter'd. 
 
 7. In what follows they have left out a whole Sen- 
 tence and put down words of their own framing ; 
 and have wholly omitted what I fay about the man- 
 ner of Difputation. 
 
 8. They put down my firft Argument by halves 
 leaving out thefe words and Saviour in the major \ 
 and have not exprefTed either the Subjects or Baptifm 
 in Xhz minor; and alfo left out the Conchifwn. Is 
 tins your .Impartial Narrative ? 
 
 9. In his nrft Anfwer to this Argument he leaves 
 out commanded, and in the room thereof he puts in 
 exprefly, and by name, which is not in Mr.Rings Copy. 
 
 10. He leaves out my whole Reply to him, which 
 contains nine Lines *, and is as pertinent a Reply as 
 any in the Difpute: But I fuppofe the reafon was, be- 
 
 * caufe 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 cau(e the whole Synod of Presbyters that met to con- 
 trive this Account, were not able to anfwer it. 
 
 But to hide that from the Reader, he makes a Re- 
 ply of his own framing, as if then fpoken by me \ 
 which is directly contrary to what Mr. Ring hath in 
 his Copy, as fpoken by me, when Mr. Chandler de- 
 nied my minor. So that it mnft be wilful, becauie they 
 ^had My. Rings Copy by them: For I {poke affirma- 
 tively, as Mr. Ring truly faith, and not negatively, 
 as they fay. 
 
 The words I fpake, as you may fee in my Narra- 
 tive, pag. 8. beginning, are tbefe. By denying the 
 minor^ you fay that Chriit bath fome where required 
 fome of his Minifters to baptize Infants, which agrees 
 with Mr. Ring's Account. 
 
 But the words in their printed Account are thefe. 
 Ru(fel 9 Then you luppole that Chrift hath no where 
 required it. What can be more contrary ? 
 
 1 1. Mr. Chandler is brought in giving a Negative 
 f Anfwer, when it was not he, but Mr. Leigh that gave 
 
 the Anfwer -, and I have put it down verbatim in my 
 True Narrative, as it is in Mr. Ring's Copy, tffc, 
 Mr. Leigh , we difTinguiih between confequential 
 Truths, and exprefs Words \ whereas they have 
 brought in Mr. Chandler faying, No, &c. Is this 
 fair dealing? to change both the Perfon and the 
 'Words alfo : yet this they have done. 
 
 12. They have alio tranfpofed and altered much 
 that follows in that Page, and have left out about 
 twenty Lines *, particularly that Parallel I made be- 
 tween an AmbafTador and a Miniiter of Chrift, with 
 
 •relation to our Lord's great Commifiion, which they 
 have wholly omitted. 
 
 13. They have left out My. Chandlers words in 
 anfwer to mine. What, from the Commifiion ? and 
 yet thefe words are in Mr. ^^'sCopy, altho omitted 
 by them. 14. They 
 
(74) 
 
 J4- They alfo omit Mr. Robin fans words to Mr. 
 Chandler, who cries out, Hold ! Dr. Rn[fel mutt prove 
 it by a univerfal Negative. And this they know is in 
 Mr. Ring's Copy. 
 
 15. They alfo omit my Anfwer to Mr. Robinfon y viz. 
 Then Mr. Chandler mult deny fome part of my Ar- 
 gument, which I have not yet been able to prevail 
 with him to do. This alfo is noted in Mr. Rings 
 Copy, but they take no notice of it. 
 
 16. Here again they repeat my Argument partially, 
 leaving out that part of it which mould give the com- 
 mon Reader the greateft Light, and beft Information 
 about it. 
 
 17. Here (I am well fatisfied) they abufe the 
 dead : For they bring in old Mr. Williams, faying 
 that which is neither in Mr. Biffel the Town Clerk's 
 Copy, nor in Mr. Rings, nor in the old Gentleman's •, 
 whereas it's evident, it was long after that before 
 Mr. John Williams did engage in the Difpute. The 
 words they note as faid by him are thele, any way. \ 
 
 But why mud this be done, and marked with an 
 Afterisk? why this feems to be the Motive, that 
 they might make their Obfervation upon it (in a 
 Break made on purpofe ) before the words were, any 
 where. A wonderful Obfervation ! But more of this 
 hereafter. 
 
 18. They bring me in fpeaking thus, It's all one to 
 me, fo you prove the thing, prove it any way. Upon 
 this they obferve in a Break made on purpofe ( that 
 which is utterly falfe) viz* He is attempting to p/ift 
 the Opponency. 
 
 Where were thele Mens Wits when they made this 
 Obfervation ? Pray obferve ; this was before ever 
 Mr. Chandler had fo much as fixt upon any direct 
 Anfwer to my hrft Argument, as appears by their 
 own printed Account. And in the following words 
 
 they 
 
(75 ) 
 
 tbey bring him in faying, I deny your minor. From 
 whence the Reader may perceive that I was fo far 
 from (Lifting off the Opponency, that I was prefiing 
 him with all my might to give his Anlwer j and that 
 I gave him all the fcope he could defire : For I allowed 
 him to do it by Confequence, or any other way, 
 which way he pleated. But you fee the Impertinen- 
 rcy of thefe Men, that when I was Opponent, and he 
 Refpondent, they muft trifle away fo much time to 
 know of me how I would allow them to prove Infant- 
 Baptifm ( according to the ftated Queftion agreed 
 upon on both fides long before) when they Ihould 
 take upon them the Opponency : For till then it was 
 no part of their bufmels, but a mere fhuffle to fpend 
 time, left they fhould ( by a univerfal Negative ) be 
 forced to aflign an Inftance for their Pra&ice from 
 Scripture, which they knew was impollible for them 
 to do. 
 
 19. They bring me in faying, I prove it thus, only 
 I would let the People know what you fay, viz. 
 That Chrift hath fome where required his Minifters 
 to baptize Infants. Their Note upon it marked with 
 an Afterisk, is this : Somewhere. The word is again 
 alter'd from any way to fomewhere. A worthy Ob- 
 fervation for a Claflis of Presbyters ! 
 
 But this was not my Anfwer, but an invented one 
 of their own : For my Anfwer was this, By defying 
 the minor, you (ay, that Chrift hath fomewhere re- 
 quired fome of his Minifters to baptize Infants. And 
 this I did, that I might give thofe People to under- 
 stand what we were then upon, who did not know 
 what was the difference betwixt the major and minor , 
 and without which they might have been ignorant of 
 what we had intended in our way of arguing. 
 
 20. When I called for a plain denial of ( any) one 
 part of my Argument even what part he pleaied 
 
 (as 
 
( as themfelves word it) their Obfervatiori in a Break 
 is this, The Doctor now feems unwilling again to al- 
 low Scripture-Confequence. 
 
 This is to abufe their Reader : For it Was not 
 Mr. Chandler , but my felf, that was Opponent \ and 
 therefore there was no room for him to urge Confe- 
 quences till it came to his turn. 
 
 21. Yet in the next words they bring in Mr. Lc 'gh 
 undertaking the Opponency, which they confeis he 
 ought not to have done. But he only talked of it, 
 but did not do it, for he knew it was a Task too 
 heavy for him, and Co waved it.^ 
 
 Now there is not one word of all this in Mr. Ring's 
 Copy, nor in Mr. Eiffels^ nor in mine : And I am 
 well iatisfied there was not one word fpoken by- 
 Mr. Leigh at that time. 
 
 22. Upon Mr. Chandlers denying the minor of my 
 univerfal Negative, they have falnried my Anfwer, 
 and made it quite another thing. 
 
 For, whereas I fay to him, hold, Sir, it is an uni- ' 
 verfal Negative, you muft give yourlnftance, &c. 
 which are the words in Mr. Rings Copy. They 
 bring me in, faying, It's an univerfal Negative, you 
 muft prove it. 
 
 Now I did not call upon Mr. Chandler to prove 
 my Argument, as they do (lily and difmgenuoufly in- 
 finuate } but I cali'd upon him to give his Inftance 
 where it was (b written in holy Scripture, that Chrift 
 had required any of his Minifters to baptize Infants } 
 which I then told him (and do ftill affirm) he ought 
 to have done, otherwife we might argue ad infantum. 
 And this Mr. Leigh knew right well •, and therefore 
 he bids Mr. Chandler offer me the Commiftion for an 
 Inftance, as themfelves have confefled in their printed 
 Account. 
 But Mr, Robinfon (they tell you) oppofed it : for 
 
 he 
 
( 77 ) 
 he knew there was no fuch thing expreft in the Com- 
 miflion, and did in effed: give away the Caufe of 
 Infant-Baptifm at once : For his words are thefe, (as 
 recited both in Mr. Ring's Copy, and my True Nar- 
 rative.) 
 
 Mr. Robinfon, you mud prove it ftill. Suppofe 
 .Mr. Chandler cannot give an Inftance, nor no body 
 in the Company, you cannot thence infer that none 
 in the World can. 
 
 23. This alio they have falfified, and (et down in 
 their printed Account a Fancy of their own invention. 
 They have put in Mr. Leigh, who was not then men- 
 tioned by Mr. Robinfon, and have left out thefe words, 
 nor no body in the Company. 
 
 Now they know it was urged upon them all, and 
 defired that if any one of them could give an Inftance, 
 they would pleafe to do it : And yet none of them 
 couid be prevailed upon (b much as to attempt it. 
 Surely the New Teftament is not fb large a Volume, 
 but either Mr. Chandler, or fbme other of thofe Mi- 
 nifters that were prefent ( whofe number was (aid to 
 be about five and twenty or thirty ) might have been 
 fuppofed to have read it all over, and to have known 
 where fuch an Inftance had been written, in cafe any 
 fuch thing had been contain'd therein. 
 
 What, are they all fo ignorant of the holy Scrip- 
 tures, that not one of them can tell what is written 
 in the New Teitament about holy Baptifm ? How 
 then can they be fit to teach others their Duty con- 
 cerning it ? I muft therefore once more take the li- 
 berty to tell them, that when there were fo many 
 Men of Parts and Learning together ( as there then 
 Were) if none of them are able to give us one Inftance 
 from Scripture for their Pra&ice of Infant-Baptifm, 
 we cannot exped that any body elfe fhould. 
 
 It's much to me, that inftead of Mr. Chandlers 
 
 old 
 
( ?s ) 
 
 old Sermons, pick'd out of other Mens Works, they had 
 not tried their Skill to have attempted fome Inftance 
 from Scripture for their Practice, feeing they fat 
 brooding upon their Narrative fo long, as not to fuffer 
 it to come abroad till more than fix Months were paft 
 after the Difpute. Surelv they might have found it 
 out in all that time, if it had been fo written in the 
 New Teftament. < 
 
 If therefore Mr. Chandler's Sermons are efteemed 
 by them as their ne pltu dtra> we muft conclude they 
 have nothing of that kind to produce, and therefore 
 muft ceafe for time to come ever to expeft it from 
 
 24. Here they have thruft in Matter never fpoken, 
 and tranfpofed and mangled what was fpoken, and 
 have formed it according to their pleafure, without 
 anv regard had to Truth or Juftice. For, 
 
 (i ) They have made a Speech for Mr. Robmfen 
 that he never fpake, and another for Mr. John WtU 
 Hams, p. 5. And I appeal to Mr. Ring's Copy, for 
 there is not one word of either of them there, nor 
 in anv one of the other Copies I ever faw. 
 
 (2.) They leave out (almoft) a whole Sentence or 
 mine, and ufe their Art and Skill to deceive the Rea- 
 der by making ijiwfcr, as if it were left out by the 
 Scribes: Whereas in that part they rente, they 
 had Mr. Rings Copy to inform them, and therefore 
 muft know that thev did not put it do ™n right :, 
 and fo have wilfully mifreprefented me to the \\ orld. 
 
 Their words are as follows. Rnf. I would have, 
 thefe honourable Perfons here prefent to confider that 
 
 I am under great Difcdv&ntage -— you are 
 
 to give an Inftance. What my words are you 
 mav fee in pag. 8. of my Narrative at the lower 
 end; they are too long to recite: For my whole 
 Anfwer to Mr. Robinfon contains twelve Lines, and 
 
 theirs 
 
( 79 ) 
 theirs is contained in two Lines and a half. Is this 
 agreable to their Title, An Impartial Account * 
 
 (3.) Their tranfpofing and altering. For my next 
 words (which agree with Mr. Ring's Account) are 
 thefe : Mr. Chandler, this is only a Trick to turn oft 
 the Opponency. Dr. Rnffel, What do you talk of a 
 Trick t I hope you are able to give an Inftance of 
 what is your daily Pra&ice. 
 
 But inftead thereof they put down this falfe Account. 
 Rob. Tfiis is your popular Argument to ftrift the Op- 
 ponency, and turn it upon the Refpondent. j. Here 
 is a change of Perfons, Rob. for Chandler. 2. They 
 proceed as they began, and make a Speech for me at 
 their own pleafure : And thus they go on till they 
 come to the next Page. This is a Pra&ice they have 
 great caufe to be aftiamed of, when (at the lame time) 
 they pretend to give an Impartial Account. 
 
 25. In pag. 6. they bring me in, faying, I am fare, 
 according to the Rules of Difpute, Mr. Chandler muft 
 prove the Negative. 
 
 This I muft charge as another Falfhood upon them : 
 For my words are thefe*, If you fay you have no 
 Scripture- Proof for Infants Baptifm,I have done. But 
 why muft you prevent Mr. Chandler ? I hope here are 
 fome honourable Perfons, and others that underfTand 
 the nature of this Controverfy j and thev may reafcna- 
 bly expecl that thofe who have made iuch a noife a- 
 bout it, can give fome tolerable Inftanee for it : And 
 if they wiii do that, we will proceed to examine it. 
 « It is therefore evident, that here is not any thin* 
 like what they report*, io that if I charge them with 
 down-right Forgery, they muft bear with it, for 
 they knew that my words were according tc 
 Mr. Rings Copy, and that they had abufed both him 
 and me, 
 
 26. They have again ajter'd Mr. Robinfons next 
 
lot 
 
 V.T 
 
 (80 ) 
 
 Anfwer, and framed words for him that were not 
 then fpoken, as appears by Mr. Rings Copy, which I 
 have truly recited in my Narrative, to which I refer 
 you. 
 
 27. Here they give an invented Anfwer again j 
 Ruf. So I defign if there be no Anfwer given : where- 
 as my words are ( as Mr. Ring hath noted ) I have 
 proved it, till you give your Inftance^ which they 
 know to be the true fenfe of what I have put down 
 in my Narrative. 
 
 28. Chand. Here is an Anfwer, I deny the minor. 
 Now hear what Mr. Ring faith. Robinfon. If you 
 will change fides, Mr. Chandler, you may admit this 
 Trick. In this they have both changed the words, 
 and the Perfons fpeaking. 
 
 29. They have alfo invented an Anfwer for me, 
 dire&lv contrary to Mr. Rings Copy. 
 
 30. They have invented a Speech for Mr. Leigh, 
 of which there is not one word in Mr. Ring's Copy. 
 
 3 1. Here they have tranfpofed Mr.Robinfon's words, 
 and left out the one half of them, as they are in 
 Mr. Ring's Copy. 
 
 32. Here they have brought me in anfwering 
 Mr. Robinfon thus : This is no changing fides ', for I 
 do not defign to quit the Opponency, only let him 
 bring an Inftance. 
 
 Whereas I have truly reprefented the Anfwer I 
 gave in p. 9. of my Narrative, according to Mr. Rings 
 Copy, where you will find that the Anfwer was given 
 in other words \ and not to Mr. Robinfon, but to v 
 Mr. Chandler. 
 
 33. But why muft this be put in here? They tell 
 you, the Dotlors defign even now was to turn the 
 Opponency onus, as 1 can prove (faith he) from a 
 Letter of Mr. John Williams : But now he will not quit 
 the Opponency, and yet expects a Scripture-proof for 
 Jnfant-Eaptifm. To 
 
( 81 ) 
 
 To this I anfwer. 
 
 (i.) That no Man in the World could have known 
 this, if I had fo defigned, for 1 never faid fo : And 
 it's God only that knows the Heart. 
 ' (2.) I do now tell all the World (as I then told 
 you) that I had no fuch defign. 
 
 (3.) What you fay of (the deceafed ) Mr. John 
 Williams is utterly falfe : For he hath not ib written 
 in his Letter to Mr. Leigh^ altho he hath the confi- 
 dence to tell the World that he can prove it from 
 Mr. John Williams Letter. For I have a Copy of 
 his Letter writ by himfelf, and figned with his own 
 hand, and there are not thofe words, that I deligned 
 to turn the Opponency upon you, as you fay. The. 
 genuine fenle or his words is, to let you know what 
 you might have done to have (hewed your Parts in 
 the Vindication of your beloved Practice, if you 
 had given an Inftance when I run you upon it by an 
 univerfal Negative, and faid you ought to have done 
 it according to tne Rules of Difpute : And that the 
 World may be (atisfied herein, both Mr. John Sharp 
 and Mr. Williams his Sons have caufed it to be printed, 
 as containing fuch things in it as are of ufe to the 
 Publick with relation to the Deputation. 
 
 34. They have introduced Mr. Leigh making a for- 
 mal Speech, of which there is not one word in any 
 of the Copies I have feen. But in Mr. Rings Copy, 
 Mr. Robinfon is the Speaker, which agrees with my 
 Narrative. But why is this done ? The .reafon feems 
 'to be this, 1. To darken the Peoples Understand- 
 ings, that they might not difcern their Fallacy. 
 2. To throw the Reflection off from themfelves, and 
 call it (as much as they can) upon Dr. Smithy for 
 which he hath no reafon to thank them. The QaefH- 
 011 ( they fay Mr, Leigh put) was this : I defire, Sir, 
 you would declare, whether Dr. Rnfftl be not dbiigta 
 
 F to 
 
(82) 
 
 to prove the Negative he hath afTerted ? Now, as I 
 do not know anv thing of it, fo there is not one word 
 in Mr. Ring's Copy, neither of that nor any thing 
 elfe that Mr. Leigh (pake at that time. 
 
 But if Mr. Leigh had fo fpoken, there had been as little 
 fenfe in it as was in Mr. Robin fon's words, when he 
 called a Negative an Affirmative. But any thing ferves ( 
 to veil over a bad Caufe. For, to fet this in a clearer 
 Light, I will give the Reader a view of the firft Ar- 
 gument, and ffiew him how I brought them to that 
 ifTue upon it : And I might have forbore to have ar- 
 gued with them any longer, unlefs they had given 
 their Inftance* 
 
 Arg. i. If Chrift hath no where required any of 
 his Minifters to baptize Infants, then the Baptifm of 
 Infants is not according to the Commiffion of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jelus Chrift. 
 
 But Chrift hath no where required any of his Mi- 
 nifters to baptize Infants : 
 
 Ergo, The Baptifrn of Infants is not according to 
 the Commiflion of our Lord and Saviour Jelus Chrift. 
 
 Mr. Chandler ; after divers (Lifts and evafions about 
 the major, fays thus, I deny your minor. My Anfwer 
 to him was, By denying the minor, you fay that Chrift 
 hath fomewhere required fome of his Minifters to 
 baptize Infants. This being by them allowed, I did 
 proceed to make good my minor thus. 
 
 If Chrift hath any where required any of his Mi- 
 nifters to baptize Infants, it's fomewhere fo recorded 
 in the holy Scriptures. 
 
 But it's no where fo recorded in the holy Scrip- 
 tures : 
 
 Ergo, Chrift hath not any where required any of 
 his Minifters to baptize Infants. 
 
 Upon this (after a Queftion put, and a Diftin&i- 
 on upon it) MxXhandUr &id ? I deny th$ minor : 
 
 My 
 
 
(8 3 ) 
 
 My Anfwer was, Then you fay it's fomewhere fo 
 recorded in holy Scripture. I therefore argued thus. 
 
 If it be any where fo recorded in holy Scripture, 
 Mr. Chandler or fbme other Perfbn is able to {hew it. 
 
 But neither Mr. Chandler^ nor any other Peribn 
 whatfoever, is able to mew it : 
 
 Ergo, It is not any where fo recorded in holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 Whereupon Mr. Chandler faid, I deny your miner. 
 Now by denying my minor ^ I appeal to all that un- 
 derhand an Argument, whether in Co doing he doth 
 not afTert, that he or fome other were able to (hew 
 where it is recorded in holy Scripture, that Chrift 
 hath required any of his Minifters to baptize Infants. 
 And this is to go their own way. But I told him it 
 was an univerfal Negative, and therefore he mutt give 
 his Inftance where it is Co written, but could by no 
 means bring him to it *, and the reaibn was becaufe he 
 had none to give", and till he doth, my Argument will 
 ftand good, as I then told him : For other wife we 
 may argue ad infinitum^ and never bring any thing to 
 an iflue. And I do once more challenge them to 
 produce one fingle Inftance for their Affertion. 
 
 After a tedious Diicourfe upon it, Mr. Rcbirfon 
 faid, I appeal to any that underftand Logick, whether 
 this be futferable for him thus to turn the Opponency 
 upon Mr. Chandler ? 
 
 Then Dr. Smith flood up and faid, If I mult fpeak, 
 then by your leave, according to what I always under- 
 flood/He that alferts muft prove. 
 
 Whereupon I anfwer'd, Then they having afTerted 
 that Infants are the Subje&s of Baptifm, they are to 
 prove their Pra&ice, efpecially when they are forced 
 upon it by an univerfal Negative: We deftire but 
 one fingle Inftance, and they win not affign it. 
 
 35. cut when they pretend to recite Dr. S?nitti$ 
 F 2 words, 
 
( 8 4 ) 
 
 words, they deal as unworthily by him as they had done 
 by me : For they bring him in faying, according to 
 the Rules of Difputation, Negantis non efl probare \ or, 
 jifferenti incumbit probatio. He laid the one, or the 
 other, they tell you : But they do not fo much as pre- 
 tend he fold both. What muft the Reader conclude 
 from hence ? but that they did not, or would not 
 know what he did fay. For by the fame Rule they 
 fay it was this, or that, and are not certain which it 
 was, it might as well be neither } but only what I 
 have faid according to Mr. Rings Copy. And thus 
 after they have wracked their Brains to evade the 
 force of this Argument, on purpole to ihift off the 
 giving an Inftance out of holy Scripture for their un- 
 icriptural Practice, they have only fulfilled the old 
 Proverb, Varturiunt montes, nafcitur ridlculm mm. 
 
 For, if he had faid, negantis non eft probare, he that 
 denies is not bound to prove, as they would perfwade 
 us he did, what advantage would it have been to 
 them ? I was upon the Negative, and had iffued my 
 firft Argument by a univerfal Negative, which can 
 never be invalidated without an Initance : Certainly- 
 then (according to that) I was not obliged to prove 
 my Denial (but they to give their Initance) for I 
 had proved that before by fuch Arguments as they 
 were not then, nor yet fince have been able by all 
 their Learning to confute. 
 
 But themfelves are doubtful whether Dr. Smith faid 
 fo, and therefore tell us, if he did not fay that, he 
 faid, Afierenti incumbit probatio, which is the lame 
 with what Mr. Ring's Copy faith : He that afferts 
 mult prove. But I do not believe he laid either of 
 them in Latin ( not that I doubt of his ability fo to 
 do, for I have heard a good Character of him from a 
 Phyncian, who laid he knew him in the Univerfity ) 
 for, as I my felf know not any fuch thing, Co Mr. Ring, 
 
 who 
 
(8s ) 
 who hath feveral times took notice of the Greek 
 words fpoken both by me and them, only fets down 
 Dr. Smith's words in Englifh: And whoever obferves 
 my Anfwer, muft needs know that I underftood it fo, 
 by telling them, that they having alTerted Infant- 
 tfaptifm, ought to prove their Practice, by fhewing 
 us where it was fo written in the holy Scriptures ; we 
 
 i?! 1 \ Ug ° f them but onlv a fln S le Inftance, by 
 which the Controversy would have been at an end. 
 bo that they have labour'd in vain, and fpent their 
 strength for nought \ leaving the Multitude (as they 
 .call them) as wife as they found them, and fo they 
 are like to remain (fo far as I can perceive) if thev 
 exped: fatisfaction from them. For they that want 
 Light themfelves, cannot impart it to others. 
 
 36. Here they lham a Forgery upon me, bringing 
 me in faying, Well, what muft I do? As if I had 
 been at a lofs what to fav, and muft ask them to dir 
 rectme^ whereas they know in their Confciences, I 
 did not ufe to be at a lofs to anfwer them, when 
 three or four of them have very uncivilly fallen upon 
 me at once- but it pleafed God to keep me in a 
 compoled frame of Spirit, and to aflift me under it 
 beyond what I could have expeded. But fuppofe I 
 had been at a lofs, can the Reader think I would 
 have told them fo, and askcl their Advice what to 
 dot This is as improbable a Story, as Mr. Chandler's 
 lying Invention about Ifaac Harman. wherein he 
 was difproved to his face before divers of his Hearers 
 But however, he is unwilling to be brought to con- 
 
 §£ • w Utb ' but inftead thereof On their fecond 
 Edition) (eems only to make a weak excufe, bv 
 faymg a filly Woman told him fo ; when he had re- 
 ported the Story in Print as a thing of his own 
 ^nowledg : And to clofe his Story, he tells us he (hall 
 no more trouble the World with perfonal matters, 
 F 3 but 
 
(W ) 
 
 but give Pilate's furly Anfwer to all fuch, What J 
 have written, I have written. 
 
 But to come to the matter in hand, I know what 
 they have faid here to be utterly falfe, and contrary 
 to Mr. Rings Copy, as they alfo know : But I per- 
 ceive they are refolved to {ay any thing, tho never 
 fo untrue, and againft their knowledg, to avoid the 
 ihame ( if they could ) of being baffled in their Caufe 
 at the Difputation. 
 
 37. Again, they bring in another invented Story, 
 and make Mr. Robinfon to (peak what he did not 
 fpeak, and Dr. Smith to be of his mind. I muft here 
 vindicate Dr. Smith again : For, if their own Story 
 ( as I have before oblerved ) be true, that Mr. Leigh 
 fhould ask him this Queftion, Whether Dr. Rnffel be 
 not obliged to prove the Negative he hath afTerted ? 
 and he fhould anfwer as they fay, Negantis non efi 
 brobarej he that denies is not to prove j with what 
 fairnefs could he tell the World that Gentleman was 
 of his mind ? And this they doubted would be difco- 
 vered, and therefore they did not only put the words 
 in Latin, but leave an excufe if they fhould be de- 
 tected, by declaring, if he did not fay fo, he faid 
 otherwife, as is before noted. 
 
 38. He doth alfo mifreprefent my words in telling 
 the World I faid, How do you mean prove, &c.i 
 I have no fuch words, nor any thing like them. But 
 feeing they have invented a Reply for me, I defire 
 they would anfwer it alfo. They fay, the total fi- 
 lence of Scripture in this matter is Proof. If I had 
 faid fo, there had been no reafon to have denied it : 
 For I acknowledg the AfTertion to be true, tho not 
 then fpoken by me. But it may now be expected 
 they fhould make fbme Anfwer to it that might inva- 
 lidate it \ but they only fet it down, and then run 
 away from it. 
 
 J Sirs, 
 
(87) 
 
 Sirs, 1 defirc you fcrioufly to confider, what you ' 
 have faid herein again ft your own Pradice : Is it not 
 a part of Divine Worfliip ? is it not that Holy Ordi- 
 nance of Baptifm as inftituted by Chrift, that is the 
 matter ( in general ) of our Difputation ? And is it 
 not about the Subjects in particular that we were then 
 fpeakingof ? And were not you called upon with great 
 earneftnefs, and preiling importunity, to give us but 
 one Inftance where it was found written in the Holy 
 Scriptures, That Chrift had required any of his Mi- 
 nifters to baptize Infants ? And do you ( after all ) 
 tacitly acknowledg that there is a " total filence of 
 Scripture in this matter ? Surely it is time then for 
 you to quit your practice, if the Scripture fays not 
 one word about it. And if Mr. Robinfons Suppofition 
 be allow'd, it muft needs be &. Suppofe ( faith he ) 
 Mr. Chandler cannot give an Inftance, nor no body in 
 the company , you cannot thence infer that none in 
 the World can. To which I anfwer'd, This is in 
 effed to give away your Caufe, when there are Co 
 many Men of Parts and Learning prefent^ for if none 
 of them are able to give us one Inftance from Scripture 
 for Infant-Baptifm, we cannot exped that any body 
 elle fhould. And yet all the Anfwer they gave, was, 
 to tell us this is only a Trick to turn off the Oppo- 
 nency, notwithstanding I told them the dired: con- 
 trary. Surely this is no better than tricking in them, 
 thus to fence againit thofe folid Reafons and Argu- 
 ments that none of them are able to anfwer ; and yet 
 have the confidence to tell the World in print, p. 66. 
 That all the Arguments we offered were trifling Ca- 
 vils. Is this your Impartial Account ? 
 
 38. Here they have left out feveral things that paft 
 betwixt me and Mr. Chandler; which they have paft 
 ever with a total filence, becaufethev did net make 
 
 F 4 for 
 
( 88) 
 for their Caufe, but againft it. Is not this great par- 
 tiality ? 
 
 39. They bring in Mr. Robin fon faying, If you can 
 proceed no farther upon this , then it's time you go on. 
 Now this is alfo untrue •, neither is there one word of 
 it in Mr. Ring's Copy. But the words he faith I told 
 them, are thefe j If you will fay no more to this, I 
 will proceed to another Argument, And they know, 
 right-well, that I urg'd this, That if Mr. Chandler 
 would confefs he had no Inftance to give, I would 
 then proceed to a new Argument. And further, that 
 upon his refufal fb to do, I did challenge the reft of 
 them to give an Inftance , and provok'd them to it, 
 telling them, That if they refufed to do it, the People 
 would think they had none to give. And yet none of 
 them could be prevaiPd upon to do it. Whereupon I 
 fpake to this effect, Gentlemen, it may be you think I 
 have but one Argument j If you will fay no more to 
 this, I am not willing to tire the Auditory, I will 
 therefore proceed to a new Argument. 
 
 But take notice ( by the way ) that my firft Argu- 
 ment Hands good till you give your Inftance to the 
 contrary. And all this they wholly omitted in their 
 printed Account, becaufe (perhaps they thought) it 
 would have been fufficiently evidenced how fhame- 
 fuljy they had been baffled and put to filence before 
 the People, for want of one fingle Inftance for their 
 pradice. 
 
 Here I defire the Reader to take notice, that I am 
 not yet fully advanced fb far as three Leaves and & 
 half in their printed Account of the Deputation *, and 
 having difcover'd fb many Errors in fo little a compafs, 
 it amazes me to think what was become of thefe 
 Mens Consciences, who could contrive an Account 
 to publifh to the World, with fo fmall regard to 
 : Truth 
 
( 8 9 ) 
 
 Truth and Fidelity *, when at the fame time they fend 
 it forth with that plaufible pretence of An Impartial 
 Account. What may the Reader exped to find in 
 the whole body of it, if there be fo many Faults in 
 the very Entrance ? But I have other Bufmefi, than 
 to attend to the remarking of all they fay of this 
 kind : for, if I fhould do that, I muft write a much 
 bigger Volume than is proper upon this occafion, there 
 being fo many Errors committed by them throughout 
 the whole of their Book. 
 
 In p. 65. they confefs, that Mr. Fox was baptized 
 by dipping. He was dipp'd (fay they) not at Gof- 
 port, but Havant. It is not faid by Mr. Duke that he 
 was dipp'd at Gofport, that obfervation therefore was 
 needlefe : but that he was dipp'd, they confefs, which 
 is the thing anerted by him. But they fay 'tis falfe 
 that it was done by Mr. Chandlers advice, for he was 
 then at London : Now it doth not follow that Mr. 
 Chandler did not give fuch advice, becaufe he was (as 
 he faith) then at London :, for I have receiv'd a Tefti- 
 mony to prove it, under the hands of two WitneiTes. 
 
 Mr. Leddell writes thus, I fhall further annex one 
 Teftimony touching Mr. Fox, which was fpoken 
 (the fame clay the Preliminaries were made) out 
 of Mr. Chandler's own Mouth, which take as fol- 
 lowed. 
 
 A/t/'E being enquiring, Why they mould deny our 
 Practice, and yet pra&ife it themfelves? We 
 .then had, and feveral times fince have had this Con- 
 ceflion from them *, That to latisfy a {crapulous Con- 
 fcience, they could dip any Adult Believer upon pro- 
 feJlion of Faith. And Mr. Chandler did there con- 
 fefs, that Mr. Earle had advice for the fo baptizing 
 of Mr. Fox, in a Letter from him from London. And 
 this ( thoit may not be in the very words) is thefub- 
 
 * ftance 
 
( 90 ) 
 fiance of the Matter then fpoken in our hearing, who 
 were prefent at Mr. Williams's Houfe in Port] months 
 the 2$d of December 1698. 
 
 William Leddell, 
 Edward Fifiboirrn. 
 
 I would further note, That they might havefpared 
 their Reflection upon our Brother Dnke^ if they had 
 but minded thefe words in my Dedication, And by 
 another hand I have this Account. And after all, they 
 thus e£prefs themfelves in their own printed Account, 
 pag. 65. "But that none of us would rerafe to dip a 
 " Perfon in fitch a cafe, is true \ We never pleading 
 cc againft Dipping as one way, but as the only way '-, 
 " not againft its' Lawfulness, but Neceffity. How 
 doth this agree w T ith what Mr. Leigh faith in pag. $1. 
 I deny that the Word Baptize (ignifies to dip, in any 
 place of Scripture ? But feeing Mr. Sharp hath al- 
 ready fpoken to it, I (hall pafs it by. 
 
 I fhall remark one thing more, and that is, That 
 thefe Gentlemen are pleafed to rened upon me about 
 fpeaking falie Greek : As they have aifo done upon 
 Mr. John Gcfnold, by laying, I abule him in it, when 
 they are his very words I recite, and the fame words 
 iifed Heb. 6. 2. So that rather than I fhall efcape their 
 Lam, the Apoftle?^/ ( whoie words they are) muft 
 al(b be whipt till he learn better, if he come under the 
 futerage of their unmannerly Pedagogue. What, do 
 thefe Men think no body underftand Greek but them- 
 felves ? 
 
 But after all, tho they do not charge me with 
 printing any Me Greek in my Narrative ( as I per- 
 ceive) yet they would perfwade the World, that I 
 have got an Art to form Greek Letters in the Air, fo 
 
 that 
 
(91 ) 
 
 that they can difcern them, when I exprefs them 
 with my Voice. And in order to convince their 
 Reader, they have put down thofe Greek words 
 wrong in their Narrative, which are printed truly in 
 mine, but falfly in theirs. But any thing to render me 
 ignorant and ridiculous, ferves thefe mens turn, tho ne- 
 ver fo falfe in it felf. But if I were really as igno- 
 rant as they represent me to be^ as Mr. Sharp hath al- 
 ready told them, I had been the more eafily confuted. 
 I mall therefore commit what I have written to the 
 Judgment of the Learned and Impartial Reader, de- 
 claring to the World, That my Narrative is much 
 more impartial than theirs, and the beft I knew how 
 to publifh *, which they have only marr'd, and not 
 mended. 
 
 To conclude : Seeing this is fo, why doth Mr. Chan- 
 dler^ p. 19. fay, that if we will keep ftricHy to the 
 fignincancy of a Burial, the Perfbn baptized mult not 
 walk into the Water, but be taken up by theBaptizer 
 'and thrown into it? for indeed we baptize the 
 Face (faith he) and they baptize the Head and 
 Shoulders too. And (a little after he faith) they had 
 need have brawny Arms and an Herculean Strength 
 to do this, fpeakin.g of the Apoftles baptizing three 
 thoufand in one day with the help of the leventy 
 Difciples ^ and endeavours to render the thing impoiii- 
 ble. As for the poftibility of it I refer you to the 
 learned Dr. Di^Veil's Anftver to this Objection, in 
 his Explication upon the place. 
 - But as touching the manner of baptizing by dip- 
 ping, why do you thus quibble about it. and make as if 
 it could not be perform'd aright, if tne Subject were 
 not taken up by the Adminiftrator, and thrown into 
 the Water ? If s confefs'd by your felves in Print that 
 Mr. Fox was dipp'd *, and in the account which I 
 have received it appears, that when Mr. Fox was ask'd 
 * - ~ this 
 
(92) 
 
 this Quefhon, Whether, when he was baptized b\ 
 Mr. Earl, it was done by dipping the whole Body un 
 der Water? he faid, it was , and that in the prefence 
 of four Presbyterian Minifters, which they do not 
 deny in their printed Anfwer, but fay that he wa< 
 dipp'd. 
 
 And did Mr. Earl indeed baptize Mr. Fox by dip 
 ping, as you confefs, by faying, he was dipp'd at 
 Havant ? I hope he did not take him up and carry 
 (or throw) him into the Water to dip him j if fo, 
 we may know where to have a Man that hath brawny- 
 Arms and Herculean Strength. But we do fuppofe he 
 went with him into the Water (as we do) and when 
 fhey were both in the Water, Mr. Earl did then bap- 
 tize him by dipping, as cur conftant Practice is^ and 
 this they call dipping. And we do not find that any 
 of thofe four Minifters prefent did objed: againft it, 
 as not being the right manner of performing it. Nay, 
 thefe Gentlemen in their printed Account do not deny 
 the lawfulnefs of it, &c. as hath been obferved. 
 
 And why (after all this) they fhould quarrel with 
 us, we cannot underftand, when they pradife it after 
 tht fame manner as we do, and call it dipping. 
 
 I will add the Teftimony of a learned Man to vin- 
 dicate our Practice. 
 
 JUicod Bmgenfis upon Mat. 3. faith, the Party bap- 
 tized went into the Water as deep as his Thighs, or 
 Navel - 7 the reft of his Body was dipp'd, not fprinkled. 
 And Mr. John Calvin faith upon John 3. 22, 23. 
 That John and Chrift adminiftred Baptifm by plung- 
 ing the whole Body into the Water : and he confefles 
 the Church hath affumed to her felf this liberty of 
 fprinkling. But having given them fuch a Cloud of 
 WitnefTes in the Difpuje, I (hall not here recite them. 
 
 Truth 
 
Truth Vindicated: 
 
 BEING AN 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O A 
 
 DIALOGUE 
 
 Between a Pedo-Baptift and an 
 Anti-Pedo-Baptift, 
 
 Publifhed by Samuel Chandler, and 
 William Leigh, by the Advice of their 
 Brethren from divers Parts. 
 
 Written by one, who was refer'd to the 
 Account of the Difpute at Portfmouth, &c. 
 for his Conviction, but hath fince fepara- 
 ted from the Presbyterians, and now is a 
 Member of a Baptift Congregation. 
 
 With Dr. Rt/jfePs Animadversions 
 on their Epiftle, prefixed. 
 
 Printed in the Year 1700. 
 
(94) 
 
 Some brief ANIMADVERSIONS, 
 by Dr. Rujfel, upon their Epiftle to the 
 Reader. 
 
 THE firfl thing they begin with is wholly falfe * 
 For they fay <, Becaufe Dr.R\i(M,or fome Friend 
 of his , did a while fince dij grace the Prefs with 
 fome [craps of their Narrative, fluff' 'd with Nonfenfe 
 and Partiality ', nay, and by its Title did delude the 
 Vulgar with an Imagination, that it contained the true 
 State of the Portfmouth Difputation', and the fame* 
 how unjufl foever, being cheapo hath been fcatter'd 
 throughout mofl parts of this Kingdom, Sec. 
 
 To this I anfwer, That neither Dr. RuflTel, nor any 
 of his Friends did ever pub lift) any fuch Paper, nor any 
 other Paper about the Difpute at Portfmouth, befidej 
 their True Narrative, but only an Anfwer to Mo?ifieur 
 Berault, wherein they are fcarcely Jo much as named. 
 But this Paper they fpeak of (to ufe their own WQ{ds) 
 was pirated into the World with my Name affixed to 
 it y without my Knowledg or Confent, therefore I am 
 not chargeable with any Defetts or Imperfect ions thert-> 
 in, tho they are pieafed unjufily to caji it upon me. But 
 any thing will ferve your turns to reproach me with, 
 tho never fo falfe and uncharitable : Tour Rage againjl 
 we, is a plain f)emonflration of your being baffled at 
 the Difputation, tho you have not humility enough to 
 acknowledg it to the World. 
 
 May not I with as much Juflicc charge the Abflracl 
 if your -Account upon you? But I have more Cfarfy 
 than to think fo. And whereas yon have put an Ad- 
 vertifment into the Polt-mar^ Nov. 7. 1699. to difowr. 
 it ■,' and" fay, Whereas a Twopenny Paper hath beet 
 
 piratd 
 
C 95 ) 
 
 pirated into the World bearing our Names, and called. 
 An Impartial Account of the Vortfmouth Difputation, 
 we declare it was printed -without our l{nowledg or Con- 
 fent. And this being the firft opportunity we have to 
 print upon this occafwn, we have told the World the fame 
 that you do ' and therefore thoje filly Reflections of yours 
 might have beenfpared. There are fome fuch ill Men 
 belonging to the Printing Trade as will tiwfe any bodys 
 Works, by contracting and mangling them to get a 
 fenny by \ fo that the befi of Authors cannot efcape 
 being abufed ; And if you had but minded your own 
 Advertisement, you mi$t have known that without 
 giving me the trouble of this publick way of informing 
 you. 
 
 As for thofe needlcjs and vaunting Expreffions 
 about the ftrength of the Arguments in your Dialogue y 
 the Reader muftbe Judg of that and therefore I Jball 
 not anticipate by making any Refletlions thereupon 7 
 but defire him to confider the Anfwer this Gentleman 
 ' hath given , and then I doubt not but be will fee yap 
 had no reafon to haft of your ftrength, before you bad 
 obtained fo much as a fuming f^iclory. I fljall there* 
 fore conclude in your own words : We reqneft of then? 
 that they would weigh it in the Balance of Scripture 
 and fantlified Reafon ', and the Lwd give them Vn*- 
 derftanding in all things, which is the defire of him 7 
 who is a Lover of the Souls of all Men, and' of his 
 Antagonifts in particular, being in Charity with the^ 
 tho they are not fo with him. 
 
 William Ru$i 
 
 Tfuth 
 
Truth Vindicated. 
 
 BE.ING 
 
 An ANSWER to Mr. Chandler y s and,, 
 JWr.LeighV Dialogue. 
 
 THE firft Argument (fay they) the Anti- 
 Pedo-Baptift offers is this. 
 Arg. i. No Infants can be made Difciples 
 by the Miniftry of Men *, therefore no Infants can be 
 the Subje&s of Baptifm, according to Chrift's Com- 
 miftion, Mat.zS. 19. Go teach, &c. (or dlfclpte} all 
 Nations, &c. 
 
 In p. 5. the Anfwer they give to it is as follows, , 
 1 deny your whole Argument. 
 
 In the Portfmomh Dilpute they diftinguifhed on the 
 word JDifciple, fome were compleat, others incom- 
 pleat , I perceive the Gentlemen are afliamed of their 
 Former Defence, and it feems to me they are con- 
 fcibus of its weaknefs *, and now they will be mad in 
 earneft} and deny the whole Argument. 
 
 They afTert, 1. If they could not be made Difciples 
 by the Miniftry of Men, yet this Text would, not 
 exclude them from Baptifin •, but with what reafbn 
 do they do this? none at all truly ^ and therefore 
 obferve how this bold Aflertion will ftand. 
 
 Chrift fent his Apoftles to difciple all Nations, and 
 then to baptize them-, They affirm, if the Apoftles 
 could not difciple fome, yet they might baptize 
 them j this Text excludes all but Difciples from Bap- 
 tifm : they I fay affirm the contrary without Proof. 
 
 That 
 
(97) 
 
 That which they anfwer, p. 6. This is a weak way 
 of arguing. I anfwer, If the order of words fignify 
 nothing in the Commiffion as they feign, Why do 
 they not baptize the Adult firft, and teach them after* 
 wards ? I would I could hear their Anfwer to this. 
 Not only the Pradice of the Primitive Churches, but 
 even all down to this day, yea even themfelves keep 
 to the order of the words in this place, and teach the 
 Adult before they baptize them : So that it is mani- 
 fest fome ought to be taught before they are baptized, 
 even by virtue of the Commiffion ^ let them prove by 
 the lame Commiffion that fome may be baptized 
 before they are taught if they can. 
 
 But fome were baptized confeffing their Sins: 
 Weakly urged! for that Particle (confeffing) doth 
 not in propriety of Speech import that their Confeffr* 
 on was after their Baptifm, but rather the contrary, 
 confeffing their Sins they were baptized. But if the 
 order of words in fome places were not firictly to be 
 obfcrved, that they are not to be obferved here is a 
 weak way of arguing indeed ^ and feeing themfelves 
 keep to the order of the words in relpect of the 
 Adult, but not in Infants, let them (hew reafon for 
 this in the Commiffion. 
 
 But Infants may be Difciples by teaching, viz. by 
 their Parents being taught, becaufe the Kohathites in 
 their Parents are faid to keep the charge of the 
 San duary from a Month <% &c. 
 
 It is falfe : the Children of a Month old are not 
 faid to keep the Charge of the Sanduary in their 
 Parents, as you affirm ^ but all their Males, the 
 young as well as the old, are faid to keep the Charge 
 of the Sanduary. And that the Charge was fuch 
 that Children of a Month old could- not be {kid to 
 keep it, let them fhew if they can, 
 
 O But 
 
(98) 
 
 But Levi paid Tithes in Abraham, Anfw. There- 
 fore the great Grandfather's Learning makes the 
 Grandchild a Scholar. O excellent Logick ! By the 
 fame reafon I will prove the Children of Heathens 
 to be the Scholars and Difciples of Chrift, and fo may- 
 be baptized, becaufe (bme of their Anceftors, Adanr 2 
 Noah See. were taught and made Difciples. 
 
 There did we rejoice ■ — 
 
 If the Israelites did rejoice in their Anceftors on 
 the Banks of the Red Sea, then Jpdus believed in his 
 Anceftors at the Red Sea, and was a true Difciple*, 
 and fo the Infants of unbelieving Jews believed in 
 fome of their Anceftors, and therefore are Difciples, 
 and may be baptized. 
 
 Let the force then of their Scripture-Inftances be 
 weighed, and you will fee what broken Reeds they 
 bring to fupport their Caufe. 
 
 Pag. 6. line 23. By the preaching of Men, Parents 
 may be conftrained to refign their All to God, and 
 fo their Infants. 
 
 How is baptizing Infants a refigning them to God ? 
 What Scripture or Reafon for this ? 
 
 Line 25. They (viz.. Infants) are immediately 
 difcipled by Mens Miniftry, when Parents and Mi* 
 nifters concur in their folemn Dedication to God by 
 Baptifm. 
 
 I anfwer. 
 
 Then Baptifm is not the Dedication of the Infant 
 to God j for, fay they, the Parents and Miniiter 
 concur in their Dedication : but the Parents and Mi- 
 nifters do not concur in their Baptifm, for that is 
 the fole Aft* of the Minifter :, therefore Infants are 
 not dedicated by Baptifm, thele Difputants them- 
 felves being, judges againft themfelves. 
 Line 2o> The Mailer doth, &c. 
 
 This is altogether foreign to the Controverfy, and 
 
( 99 ) 
 Imufiagain obfervethat they have utterly re r ecTed 
 their Diftindion of compleat and incorhpleat Difciples: 
 And now the refignation of the Parents and the ac- 
 ceptance of the Mailer is the only means to confti- 
 tute the relation between Mailer and Scholar. \ 
 
 ; Here I demand, i. where Chrift hath manifeiled' 
 his acceptance of all fuch as are fprinkled in his Name 
 and hath undertaken to be their Mafter. 
 
 2. If Chrift hath undertaken the Tutorage of all 
 fuch, whence is it all iuch.do not learn of him ? Can 
 Chrift fail in his Undertaking ? 
 • If there be any that won't be convinc d that Infants 
 are to be baptized by fuch wife Reafonings, let them 
 let it alone, and be in their Wits ftill. 
 
 Pag. 6. /. 332 If Teaching were the ground of this 
 Relation, then Perfons long fince dead might be our 
 Governors. 
 
 Oftrange! What an Abfurdity is here! What 
 Fools were the Jews to fay, We are Mofes V Dlfciples ? 
 Their Argument is this. 
 
 It is abfurd to lay Teaching is the ground of the! 
 relation of Mafter and Scholar. 
 
 Job faid, the former Age and their Fathers flail 
 teach thee* therefore Job fpake abfardly. O rare 
 Difputants, that would charge Follv upon the holy 
 Spirit himfelf ! .. . " f y 
 
 Were thefe Mens Eyes in their heads, that bring 
 Scripture to confute themfelves ? 
 
 May the Beafts of the Field may be our Mailers too, 
 Job 35. 11. Who teacheth us more than the Beafts of 
 the fie Id, and maketh tu wifer than the .Fowls of Hea- 
 ven : for lb it follows in the lame Verfe. The fenfe 
 then is either, that none can teach us more than the 
 Beads of the Field can teach us, and fo thefe Difpu- 
 tants would perfwade us that the Beafts are our Ma- 
 ilers. And truly had thefe Gentlemen but attended 
 G £ well 
 
( 100 ) 
 
 well to what might have been learned of theBeafts 
 and the Fowls, they would not have fo much deipiied 
 thefe Matters. i . ,, r 
 
 But alas', thefe Gentlemen who would now iigna- 
 Uzethemfelvestothe World by fomenew ftrainsot 
 Wit, have altogether miftook the meaning ot the 
 
 Verfe 10. None faith, Where is God my Maker, 
 who giveth Songs in the night; who teacheth w more 
 than the Beafls of the Earth, and mahth tu wijer than 
 the Fowls of Heaven! In which words Ehhu affirms, 
 
 i. That God giveth Songs in the Night, u e. Mat- 
 ter of Praife. , . > 
 
 2. That God teacheth Men more K) more ex- 
 cellent things than he teacheth to the Beafts ot the 
 Earth, or to the Fowls of Heaven. , 
 
 Pray, wherein doth the holy Spirit in this place 
 teach us that the Beafls of the Field may be our 
 
 W A ft nd S thothisisnot in the Text, yet I fear not to 
 grant, that what thing foever is faid to teach us, may 
 Be called our Teacher, without any Difgrace to that 
 Aflertion thev would hereoppofe, mx. «>at leach- 
 ing and Learning make the relation between Mafter 
 
 a 1 wondS'they omitted their celebrated D#in&oo 
 of compleat and incompleat Difciples: What can 
 that do nothing now, that did fo much before? The 
 Achillean Shield is not worth a Contention for. 
 
 And becaufe thev fay they expeded the Doctor 
 fliouldhave (hewn that that Diftincf ion was ground- 
 left, and did not fpeak diretf ly to it : If leave might 
 be given me, I would prefs them thus. 
 
 No unfcnptural Diftinaion is to be admitted m 
 any controverted Point of Divioity (the reaion is. 
 becaufe the Scripture is to be the. only Judg,; 
 
( ioi ) 
 
 This Diftin&ion of compleat and incomplcat Difci- 
 pies is an unfcriptural Diftin&ion ( becaule neither the 
 words or fenfe thereof is to be found in the Scrip- 
 ture. ) 
 
 ErgO) This DifHn&ion is not to be admitted in any 
 Controverted Point of Divinity : And therefore not 
 in this now under confideration. 
 
 2. If Chrift fent not his Apoftles to make incom- 
 pleat Difeiples, then they made none fuch, nor could 
 baptize fuch. 
 
 Again, he that is a Difciple only in an imperfect 
 fenfe, in perfed fenfe is no Difciple at all. 
 
 A Child ( faith Mr. Leigh in his Narrative, p. 1 1. ) 
 in an imperfect fenfe is deemed a Scholar. 
 ErgOy In perfed: fenfe he is no Difciple at all. 
 So that, our Adverfaries being Judges, it is not per- 
 fed Senfe, and confequently Nonfenfe to call a Child 
 uncapable of Learning, a Scholar. 
 And I hope they will allow good Confequence. 
 I return now to our Dialogue. 
 Arg. 2. pag. 7. line 9. Neither ever did Pad de- 
 clare, &c. 
 
 I anfwer, Pad did declare Believers were to be 
 baptized, and therefore not Infants j we being able 
 to prove Believers Baptifm, and you being able to 
 (hew no other : Therefore Believers Children ought 
 to be delayed till they can perfonally profeft their 
 Faith. 
 
 But you hope to prove Infant-Baptifm from Pad's 
 words, 1 Cor »j. 14. Rom. 11. 
 
 You hope, tut are not fure \ Hope that is fern 
 is not Hope *, for what a Man feeth, why doth he yet 
 hope for t Becaufe you do not fee Infant-Baptiftn in 
 thofe Texts with clear Evidence, therefore you hope 
 but in vain : Only I commend your Modefty here, 
 'twere Wildom to give up a vain Hope. 
 
 G 3 Here 
 
C 102 ) 
 
 Here is much fluff, and impertinent enough in this 
 Page, about the Hiftory of the World, Ceremonial 
 Law, Prophecies, &e. Indeed we cannot {ay this or 
 that Epiftle contains all Articles of Faith : And tho 
 Tad did declare all the Counfel of God, yet he 
 might not write all \ this is rational enough. But thus 
 I would argue : If the Scripture is a perfed and corn- 
 pleat Rule of Faith and Pra&ice, and in all the Scrip- 
 ture no mention is made of Infant-Baptifin :, then 
 Infant-Baptifm is not to be believed to be of Divine 
 Inftitution, nor to be pra&ifed by the Saints : The 
 former is true, therefore the latter. 
 
 Pag. 8. Pray take your Argument back again, &c. 
 
 Chrift's Commifiipn doth exprefly (hew who are to 
 be baptized j but it doth not exprefly (hew that Adult 
 Perfons, if baptized in Infancy, are to be baptized 
 again : Ergo. 
 
 I anfwer \ The mimr is falfe for thefe Reafbns. 
 
 (i.) Becaufe in everv pofitive Command the con- 
 trary is forbidden. Difciples in the Commifiion are 
 commanded to be baptized •, therefore the Commiili- 
 on forbids to baptize thofe that are not Difciples, as 
 are Infants. 
 
 (2.) Infant-fprinkling is not Baptifm *, furely that 
 cannot be Chrift's Baptifm, in which there is not a 
 Subjed: according to Chrift's Command, nay tho the 
 Infant were dipped into the Water, no more than if 
 a Heathen Perfon were fo dipped againft his Will, it 
 could be called Chrift's Baptifm. 
 
 And methinks you will hardly deliver your felves 
 from our Argument (b well as we are delivered from 
 yours. But let's hear. 
 
 2. I deny that Infants or Adult Perfons are diftinft- 
 Jy exprefTed in Mat. 28. 19. for both are included in 
 the word Nations. 
 
 If Difciples are exprefTed, and Infants in no good 
 ■/;.'■ ■ , ' Tenfe 
 
( io 3 ) 
 
 fen fe' are Difciples, then the Subje&s are diflin&ly 
 expreffed : but the former is true :> Ergo, 
 
 If all Nations be the Subject of Baptifm, according 
 to Chrift's Commifiion, without refped: to being 
 taught, then all may be baptized without being taught : 
 bdt the Antecedent is abfurd ^ Erpo, ib is the Confe- 
 quent. And what can you fhew in the Commifiion 
 that will authorize you to baptize the Infant of a 
 Chriftian more than the Infant of a Heathen ? 
 
 Pag. 8. If they are underftood, then they are not 
 expreffed : you have confuted your (elf. 
 
 As if what is underftood, was not expreffed to the 
 Understanding : the word for them is Mafculine, but 
 that for Nations of the Neuter ', the agreement is 
 not between thefe words : For if the Apoitles were 
 commanded to baptize all Nations without the modi- 
 fication there expreffed, viz.. taught, then the Infants 
 of Heathens, by virtue of this Commifiion, have as 
 much right to Baptifm as the Infants of Chriftians ^ 
 yea Unbelievers had as good claim to that Ordinance 
 as Believers : all which is. abfurd, and therefore the 
 word them muit have relation to Believers, to Men 
 difcipled. 
 
 Pag. 9. /. 8. Infants may as well be Believers impu- 
 tatively in their Parents, &c. 
 
 This is anfwered before, the Text faith not as they 
 feign, that the Infants of the Kbhathites did in their 
 Parents keep the Charge of the San&uary. 
 
 Parents Faith may be imputed to Infants, &c* 
 There was nothing of the Parents coming to Chriit. 
 imputed to the Infants, 'tis altogether vain fluff. 
 Our Bleflings come not on us for our Works fake, 
 much lefs on our Children for our Works fake. ( 
 
 That in Heb. 11. 29. By Faith they pajfed through 
 the Red Sea, as by dry Land, 
 
 Is there any mention of the Imputation of the Pa- 
 G 4 rents 
 
( 104 ^ 
 
 rents Faith to their Children ? Or, is there any ne- 
 ceility of iuch an Inference ? 
 
 Is it faid, all the Children oflfrael patted by Faith ? 
 Is this indefinite Propofition equal to an univerfal ? 
 Would not the Propofition be true if only a thou- 
 fand of them were Believers ? Among all that Multi- 
 tude are thev fure there were no Orphans that were 
 uncapable of actual Faith ? Whofe Faith then was 
 imputed to them ? There went up alfo a mixt Mul- 
 titude, had they all the Faith of Miracles, and was 
 $heir Fai£h imputed to their Infants ? 
 
 I appeal to all indifferent Men, whether this im- 
 putative Faith by them feigned, be not an unheard-of 
 Novelty. 
 
 But what can they mean, but that God did ac- 
 count the Infants Believers for their Parents Faith ? 
 Well, many of thefe Parents foon forgot his Works, 
 became Unbelievers, and confequently the Parents In- 
 fidelity mull: be imputed to the Children, and then 
 they muft be rejected of God. What Stuff is this? 
 at one time accepted, and at another time falling 
 from this Grace and rejeded. 
 
 Whereas the truth is, that none are accounted 
 Believers by God but thofe who are truly fuch *, and 
 thofe that went through the Red Sea by Faith, were 
 truly Saints, the Text faith they were the Children 
 oflfrael ^ it faith not that all of them patted by Faith, 
 even the fix hundred thoufand Men which thefe Gen- 
 tlemen mention. And they know that an indefinite 
 Propofition is not always equal to an univerfal, nor 
 is not true in this place. 
 
 All to whom Faith was attributed in the nth of 
 Hebrews were true Saints : All the natural Seed of 
 Jfrael were not true Saints j Brgo^ Faith is not there 
 attributed to the natural Seed. 
 
 But, fay they, the Israelites Infants were baptized 
 
 * in 
 
C 105 ) 
 
 in the Cloud, 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. and this was a Type 
 of Gofpel-Baptifm. 
 
 Anfw. The Ifraelitijh Church was alfo typical of 
 the Gofpel-Church. And if the whole Church were 
 baptized, what doth it teach but that all Gofpel- 
 Churches ought to be baptized ? But Gofpel- Churches 
 are made up of Believers, vifible Saints, and not of 
 l Infants *, therefore this infers not Infant-Baptifm, not 
 fb much as by a legitimate Confequence. 
 
 But ( fay they) Infants are capable of Baptifm, the 
 Subject therein is pafiive. 
 
 The unbelieving Adult are capable of Baptifm for 
 the fame reafon,the Subject therein being pallive. Will 
 thefe Gentlemen then baptize promifcuoufly all Adult 
 Perfons not before baptized ( as they phrafe it ) be- 
 caufe they are capable? How frivolous is this? Their 
 Reafon lies thus. Every Subject capable of Baptiihi 
 ought to be baptized : Every Infant is capable of Bap- 
 tifm : Ergo. 
 
 Let them now go and baptize the Infants of Jens, 
 Tnrks 7 Heathens j and then boaft they have made fo 
 many Chriftians. 
 
 Pag. 10. line 13. But neither this nor any one Word 
 of God doth fhew that Infants muft be denied Bap- 
 tifm, becaule they cannot do what is required of 
 Adult Perions. 
 
 Anfvo. This is a miftake : For not only this but eve- 
 ry other Scripture that Ihews what is required of a 
 Perfon in order to his Baptifm, doth fhew that all 
 thofe are to be denied Baptifm in whom tbofe Re- 
 quifites are not found. And I reafon thus : 
 
 If the Scripture hath no where authorized the Mi- 
 nifters to baptize any, but thofe who profefling their 
 Faith in Chrift do claim Baptifm, then they ought 
 not to baptize Infants : but the former is true *, Ergo. 
 Or thus, 
 
 If 
 
If the Scripture excludes all from Baptifm who do 
 not profefs Faith in Chrift, then it excludes Infants: 
 tut the former is true j Ergo. 
 
 The Affumption is prov'd by this Text under con- 
 fideration, ABs%. 37. // thou believeft with all thy 
 Jfeart, thou m.iyft ? &c. not o\k. No inftance can be 
 given of one baptized who did not profefs Faith. 
 
 And to affirm the Scripture allows the Baptifm of 
 foch, for whofe Baptifm there is to be found in the \ 
 Scripture neither Precept nor Precedent, is only to 
 affirm, and not to prove. 
 
 Let thefe Gentlemen prove when they write next, 
 that there is an Indulgence given to Infants in refoed 
 of their receiving Baptifm if thev^ can ? Otherwife to 
 talk of one thing required of Infants, and another of 
 the Adult, is altogether vain. 
 
 If the Scripture does not, with refpect of Baptifm, 
 make a diftindion between Infants and Adult, then 
 the Minifter ought not. And fuch diftin&ions as 
 the Scripture is not acquainted with, are devifed by 
 Drifting heads to deceive themfelves and others. 
 
 Line 28. I (hall quickly (hew that the Scripture 
 doth authorize the practice of Infant Baptifin, &c. 
 Bravely and confidently afTerted ! 
 
 But here is a grant, that the Scripture doth not ex- 
 prefly tell us that the Apoftles did baptize Infants. 
 
 But this Argument will fall on your felves. The 
 Scripture doth not tell us, that the Apoftles did de- 
 ny Baptifm to any Chriftian's Infant \ or adminifter 
 it to any Adult Perfon defcending from a Chri£ 
 tian. 
 
 Anfvtf. The Scripture doth not tell us that any 
 Chriltian Parent did ever offer his Infant Seed to 
 Baptifm *, how (houid it then tell us fuch were deni- 
 ed it ? 
 
 It is not lawful for us to do in inftituted Worfhip, 
 
 any 
 
any thing but what is commanded \ otherwife you 
 may introduce with the Papifts, the Crofs, Oil, Spit- 
 tle and Cream,into the Ordinance of Baptifm, yea, and 
 a thou land other Fopperies, and fay, the Scripture 
 doth not tell us the Apoftles did not ufe thefe. And 
 a Papift would uterly rout you, if you durft abide by 
 this Argument. 
 
 Page ii. line i. But we have fbme probable Inftan- 
 , ces of baptizing Infants. 
 
 Even now they would quickly (hew, that the Scrip- 
 ture doth authorize the Pradice of Infant Baptilm \ 
 but now their Confidence is turned into probable In- 
 ftances. 
 
 (i.) Ac% 1 6. 33. He and all his were baptized 
 ftraightway. Here I warrant it is probable there were 
 Children : But is it not as probable that there were 
 none ? I mean, Infants •, and the realbn is, he might 
 be old, and his Children grown up, and might be ca- 
 pable of hearing and believing :, and that it wasfo^ 
 con fait the Text, And they [pake unto him the Word of 
 the Lord^ and to all that were in his Hoitfe. Did they 
 fpeak to Infants ? 
 
 But this no more fuppofeth (fey they) that the 
 Word was preached to all, even Infants, than thofe 
 words, Mark 16. 15. Go preach the G'vfpel to every 
 Creature^ {uppofes Stones able to hear, 0,\ All m 
 one place, and every in the other is to be underftood 
 with limitation according to the capacity of the Sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Firft here, as I hinted, it may be fuppofed that the 
 Jay lor was old, and his Children were capable of 
 hearing and believing :, and is it not as probable ( and 
 much more, becaufe the Word was preach'd to them ) 
 than that they were Infants ? 
 
 But it may be doubtful whether he had any Children 
 at all. 
 
 (2.) This 
 
( 108 ) 
 (2.^ This All, faith he, to whom the Apoftle preach'd 
 is to be reftrain'd, according to the capacity of the 
 Subject. 
 
 And mult not that all be fo reftrained, where it is 
 faid, he was baptized and all his firalghtway * May we 
 not fay by all Infants, they are no more included than 
 where 'tis faid, Go preach the Gofpel to every Creature^ 
 Stones and Trees are included ? 
 
 Infants are no more capable of Baptifm, according 
 as it was inftituted by Chrift, and pra&ifed by the 
 Apoftles, where learning Chrift and believing do ever 
 precede it, than Stones and Trees of hearing the 
 Oofpel. 
 
 And to fay as they, fome were preached to as in- 
 cluded in their Parents, is meer unintelligible ftufF. 
 
 If fome believed in their Parents, others did reject 
 and perfecute the Gofpel in their Parents with as good 
 reafon \ and fo dying in Infancy every Infant mull: be 
 accountable for, and damned for the Sins of his re- 
 probate and unbelieving Parents •, and fo not only 
 Adams firft, but all his Sins, yea all the Sins of un- 
 believing Progenitors will be charged on their dying 
 Infants. This follows with as good Gonfequence as 
 that the Word is preached to fome in their Parents, 
 and their Parents Faith imputed to them*, and is 
 luch unrealbnable, abfurd and unmerciful Doctrine in 
 refpect of poor Children, that the like I am perfwaded 
 was hardly ever heard of before. 
 
 When you can (hew that thefe are as plainly in- 
 cluded in the word Baptize, as Infants are in the 
 word Nations, we (hall further confider what you fay. 
 
 Anfw. That Infants are not at all included in the 
 Word Nations in the Commillion is manifeft, becaufe 
 there is meant no more of all Nations than are taught 
 or difcipkd \ and, as before is noted, to take Nations 
 in the Urgeft extent, then even the Unconverted and 
 
 their 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 their Children alfo ought to be baptized according to 
 the Commiflion *, which being abfurd, it muft follow, 
 that only fuch of all Nations as are difcipled by the 
 Miniftry are to be baptized. Now pray let us hear, 
 according to your promife, why vou do not ufe Salt, 
 Cream, Oil and Spittle, feeing they are not prohibi- 
 ted in exprefs words in the Scripture. 
 
 Pag. 12. line 4. I afTert, Chrift hath required his 
 Minifters to baptize the Infants of profefTed Chrifti- 
 ans. 
 
 Anfiv. Required it by good Confequence I warrant, 
 which now I (hall attend. 
 
 Pag. 12. line 8. Arg. 1. Thole of Nations ought to 
 be baptized, that are not exprcfly or confequentially 
 excluded by the Word of God j therefore the Infants 
 of profefling Chriftians ought to be baptized. 
 
 The minor here is to be fupplied. But the Infants 
 of profefling Chriftians are not expreOy or confe- 
 quentially excluded by the Word of God. This I 
 deny. 
 
 And this they might well have fuppofid would 
 have been denied, which yet they have not proved, 
 but have turned off the Opponency upon their Ad- 
 verfaries as foon as ever they pretend to take it on. 
 them j and fay we have not been ever able to prove 
 Infants excluded from Baptifm by the Word, which 
 was done by the very Argument they pretend to 
 anfwer. For, 
 
 If Chrift hath nowhere required his Minifters to 
 baptize Infants, then confequentially he hath excluded 
 them from Baptifm ^ but the former is true, and thefe 
 Gentlemen will never be able to fhew a Command of 
 Chrift for baptizing of them. For, 
 
 None ought to baptize any, for baptizing whom 
 he hath no pofitive Command : for in inflituted Wor- 
 ship what is not cxprefly commanded, is forbidden. 
 For example, In 
 
(iio) 
 
 In making the Tabernacle, Ark, and Cloths of 
 Service, Exod. 39. 43. Mofes looked upon all the 
 Work, and behold they had done it as the Lord had 
 commanded; not a Tack, Loop, or Curtain, more 
 than commanded. Mofes would not fay, the Lord 
 commanded 50 Loops to a Curtain, but he did not 
 command I lhould fet no more, I will therefore put "' 
 $5 ; he well knew that being commanded to put 50, 
 more or lefs than that was confequentially forbidden : 
 So when our Lord commands to baptize fuch of the 
 Nations as mould be difcipled by the Word, thefe 
 Gentlemen might fee that thole words reftrain their 
 Commiftion, and that they ought to account all others 
 excluded from their Commiftion, but fuch as were 
 difcipled by the Word. 
 
 Fag. 12. line 19. I deny that all things pertaining 
 to an Ordinance mud be expreffed in the Inftitution 
 for that Ordinance. 
 
 This they endeavour to prove by this Inftance. 
 
 The Inftitution for the Paflbver doth not exprefs 
 the Cup, which yet was piouily ufed by Chrift himfelf., 
 
 Anjxv. Seeing the Cup was not mentioned in the 
 Inftitution tor the Paflbver, how did thefe Gentle- 
 men know that it was uled as part of that Ordinauce? 
 I fpeak of the Cup our Lord took for his Supper. I 
 do read in L-tke the Cup was took after Supper, that 
 is, after the Paflbver was ended *, and that it was a 
 part of the Paflbver, if they have it not from the In- 
 ftitution, how do they know it ? 
 
 But what if this that they fay mould obtain, that 
 all things pertaining to an Ordinance need not be ex- 
 preffed in the Inftitution ? I hope if fome Circum- 
 ftances be not exprefTed, yet they will grant that the 
 principal things muft : Ancl the Subject in Baptifm is a 
 principal thing, otherwife let them go by that Rule, 
 and baptize Infidels and their Children. 
 
 But 
 
( III ) 
 
 . But thev cannot yet prove even by Confequence 
 that any Infants ought to be baptized : for by what- 
 foever words they (hall prove in this Cornmifliori 
 that Believers Infants are to be baptized, only chang- 
 ing the terms rteceflary, I will prove all Infants ougfir. 
 They only talk of good Confluences, but bring none, 
 
 Pag. 12. Some Infants are Members of the Gofpel- 
 'Church vifible, therefore they ought to be baptized. 
 
 That Church-membermip was a ground of Bap- 
 tifm was denied in the Difpute. 
 
 And alio that fome Infants were vifible Church- 
 Members. 
 
 That Infants; flz.. Eled Infants, are Members of 
 the Univerfal Church I grant, becaufe redeemed by 
 Chrift, are fandified, and fhall be laved ^ but who 
 thefe are we know hot, it comes pot into the Mini 
 iter's Obfervation : And God doth not require Im- 
 poilibilities of his Servant-?. God hath not made 
 Election, or Redemption, or habitual Grace the 
 figns to a Minifter of doing his Office 7 becaife thefe 
 are fecret things, and cannot come into his Obfervation 
 , without a Miracle. 
 
 They fay here, the Infants of Believers are Church- 
 Members before Baptilm ^ this we deny if they (peak 
 of an infrituted Church, and they are not able to 
 make it good: That Text Actsj.tf. here quoted, 
 fpeaks of a National Church, not a Gofpel-Church, 
 which is Congregational, and confiitsof profiled Be- 
 lievers. 
 
 Pag. 13. Thefe were Members of the Jewifh,e^c. 
 
 Here they grant that Members of the Jewifli 
 Church, without credible Profeilion of Faith and Re- 
 pentance, were not to be baptized. 
 
 But die Jewilh Church at that time was the only 
 vifible Church, therefore the Point is gain'd, that 
 vifible Ghurch-Mcmbefftiip gives no right to Bap- 
 
 tifm j 
 
(H2 ) 
 
 tifm *, if it did not then, much lels doth it now. 
 
 I prove they are, Suffer little Children, dec. for 
 of fitch is the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 The Difpute here is, Whether by Kingdom of Hea- 
 ven, be meant the Church, or Kingdom of Glory ? 
 If I (uppofe the former, what advantage will they 
 get ? Suffer little Children to come unto me, for of fitch, 
 i. e. like thefe in Humility and Meekneis is the Goi~ 
 pel-Church. / fay unto you, whofoever humbles not 
 himfelf as a little Child, fljall not enter therein. What 
 is this to the Baptiimof Infants? Nay, ftiould you un- 
 derhand thus, that the Church redeemed by* Chrift 
 hath feme fuch as thefe, what is this to Baptifm ? 
 Who denies thefe things? But where is the good 
 Confequence to prove from hence Infant-Baptifm ? 
 
 Notwithstanding, I am apt to think that Chrift 
 tells them that fuch as thefe are received to Glory -, 
 thefe Gentlemen fay this cannot be, becaufe every In- 
 fant that goes to Heaven drops his Infancy, and en- 
 ters perfed into Glory. 
 
 I demand here, whether it is impoffible for God 
 to bring an Infant to Glory ? 
 
 Wherein lies the Contradiction ? 
 
 How will thefe Gentlemen define an Infant ? will 
 they tell us it is a Creature rational, but not capable 
 of ufing Reafon ? fuch may be an Ideot, and there- 
 fore agrees not to an Infant only : For my part I can- 
 not tell how to define an Infant fo as to make it in- 
 clude a Contradiction that it ftiould be fuch in Hea- 
 ven. Let's hear how they define an Infant, even a 
 poor little weak thing, pag. 34. line 4. of their Ac- 
 count. 
 
 Well then, how d,o thefe Gentlemen know whe- 
 ther in Heaven there be fuch little Creatures as Infants ? 
 Cannot God make the Soul in thofe little weak Or- 
 gans ad as- gloricuily as in the Organ* of a Giant ? 
 
 Will I 
 
( IIJ ) 
 
 Will thefe Gentlemen affirm that bodily Strength « 
 one of the Blellings of Heaven ? Are they (lire there 
 will be need of it ? For my part I have been ready to 
 think much, if not the whole of the Glory oft'.* 
 Saints above confilted in the re&itude of their Under- 
 ftandings and Wills. 
 
 But as I laid, if we fliould grant thefe Gentlemen, 
 their longing, and fuppofe that by the Kingdom of 
 Heaven was meant the Church,where is the good Con- 
 fequence to prove that they muft be baptized ? I have 
 long waited for one, but ftill they delay me. 
 
 They fay, p. 14. that the Members of a ChrifTian 
 Church have a right to Baptilm : But I defpair to find 
 where they fo proved it, and I do not think any im- 
 partial Judg will give it to them, that Chinch- 
 Memberlhip gives a right to Baptifm, for the reafuns 
 before offered againft this Opinion. 
 
 It was not fo in the Jewilh Church, much lefs in 
 the Chriirian. 
 
 Pag. 14. line 20. I have fliewn before how Infants 
 may be Difciples by the Miniftry of Men. 
 
 How weakly this was done, let the Reader judg 1 
 And we have not faid that Infants are uncapable of 
 being made holy, or fo uncapable as the Beaits of the 
 Field are} for they have the Seeds of Reafon, may- 
 be justified, fan&ified and glorified. God can do all 
 this to them we fay, tho you will not allow Glorifi- 
 ' cation to Infants. But we fay Men can no more teach 
 them, and by teaching them make them Difciples, 
 than they can teach the Beafts of the Field. 
 
 Arg. 3. The Infants of Believers are cal'ed Difci* 
 pies, AiU 15. 10. Why tempt ye God^ &c. 
 
 Firft, I grant fome Perfons here are called Difci- 
 ples, but deny that Infants are fo called, as is manifeft 
 from the Aniwer, pag. 15. line 1. 
 
 They are here up again with being taught in their 
 H Parents, 
 
( H4 ) 
 Parents, fo may as well be faid to be baptized in their 
 Parents for any thing they have urged to the con- 
 trary *, but fomething muft be (aid left their mouths 
 flrould feem ftopt. 
 
 2. They deny that all who are here called Difci- 
 pies are called Brethren, ver. i. or are (aid to be 
 taught. This is but a bold denial, the Text is plain, 
 none are intended in this place but the Brethren 
 whom the falfe Apoftles taught •, the falfe Apoftles 
 did not preach to their Infants, if they had any 
 fuch. And Peter teftifieth of the Brethren, that Gocl 
 had purified their Hearts by Faith, and thefe he calls 
 Difciples, and not Children, who could not have 
 their Hearts purified by Faith : And tho it was the Di£ 
 ciples of Cefarea that Peter's words relate to, yet the 
 cafe of both, viz. thofe at Antloch and thefe, muft be 
 parallel, or Peters words had not been pertinent. 
 
 But fay thefe Gentlemen, cannot God give In- 
 fants the Seed of Faith, and purify their Hearts by 
 fo doing ? &c. 
 
 Ridiculous enough ! do thefe Gentlemen believe real- 
 lv that to be the fenfe of the place ? Do they think 
 that Peter faid this from Revelation ? Dare they tell 
 the World fuch ftuff to bolfter up a tottering Opi- 
 nion ? Is there fo much as a probability for fuch a 
 thing, or any good Confequences ? It is manifeft Pe- 
 ter was fpeaking of the Brethren, to whom the falfe 
 Teachers came j for he parallels the cafe of the 
 Brethren at Antioch with thofe of Cafarea, who re- 
 ceived the Holy Ghoft, and Faith, and a purified 
 Heart by his Miniftry, and if thefe were not Chil- 
 dren, then neither thofe at Antioch : and here is a 
 good Confequence *, for otherwiie his Inftance in them 
 had not been pertinent, which is very abford to ima- 
 gine- 
 
 The Heart indeed by infufion of holy Habits may 
 
 be 
 
( us ) 
 
 be £ud to be purified, but that could not come into 
 the oblervation even of Peter without a Miracle, 
 and here is no need to feign one ', I fay feign one, 
 hecaufe here is no rational ground of fuch a Con- 
 jecture : ver. 7. faith Peter^ God made choice among 
 m^ that the Gentiles by my month jbonld hear 
 the word of the Gofpel^ and believe. I ask now 
 thofe reverend Gentlemen, the Authors of this Di- 
 alogue, whether thole that heard the word from 
 his mouth were Infants? did Infants hear the word 
 of theGofpel and believe? Thefe are the very Perfons 
 of whom he teitifieth in the Sth verf. That God gave 
 them the Holy Ghoft ? it is to beunderftood the extra- 
 ordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft : and ver. 9. tis laid, 
 He purified their hearts by Faith j 'tis the fame perfons 
 frill j and yet thefe Gentlemen feign, that they might 
 be Infants, faying, And cannot God give Infants the 
 feed of Faithj and purify their hearts by Jo doi?7g ?. 
 Yes indeed he can, but 'twas not done here :, and this 
 they knew well enough, if they examined the place, 
 which I perceive they did by their next words : for 
 they lay they were the Gentiles at Cafarea \ and then 
 how difingenuous is it for them to put fuch a blind 
 upon their Readers, to cheat them out of their Un- 
 derftandings ? 
 
 And I wonder what thefe Gentlemen hope to gain 
 to their Caufe, by telling us that Peter (pake here of 
 the Gentiles at Cdcfarea^ not thofe at Antioch. This 
 we grant \ but how weak was their Anfwer, juft be- 
 fore to luppofe them Children. 
 
 But I lay, if it were not a parallel Cafe between 
 the Gentiles at Cefarea 9 and the Brethren at Antioch, 
 to what purpole did Peter declare the Hiftory of 
 their Converfion ? 
 
 And that it was fo, I prove from the $ih verfe of 
 this lame chap, compared with the firft, 
 
 H 2 In 
 
( tiff ) 
 
 ' In the firft vcrfe 'tis faid, Certain men came down 
 from Judea, and taiight the Brethren, Except ye be 
 cirenmcifed, &c t not ye and your Children, but 
 your felves. Thence I conclude that thefe Bre- 
 thren were men capable of hearing the word, and 
 not Infants. And in tier* 5. certain of the Sed 
 of the Pharifees which believed, faid, It was need- 
 ful to circumcije them, and to command them to 
 keep the Law : but Infants were not capable of fuch a 
 Command \ therefore the Brethren intended in both 
 places are Believers, and not Infants. As to the Equi- 
 vocations about the manner which they make, this I 
 fay, it only mews that thefe falfe Teachers would have 
 the Brethren that they taught to have the Foreskin 
 cut off, and it cannot poilibly have relation to Chil- 
 dren, they being not intended by the falfe Teachers, 
 or Paul or Peter y or any other in this place, as I think 
 I have fufficiently demonftrated. 
 
 We fay Circumcifion cannot be the yoke, be- 
 caufe Infants did bear it, and becaufe it bound to 
 keep the whole Law. To the firft they anfwer, that 
 it only fignifieth a burdenfome Yoke. Suppofe fo, 
 this Yoke was to be laid on profelyted Gentiles when 
 adult •, and of thefe the difpute is, and not of Infants 
 at all. And the Apoitle faith, Jj you be circumcijed, 
 Chrijifljall profit yon nothing \ verily I fay unto every 
 one of yon that is cirenmcijed, that he is a Debtor to the 
 whole Law : this was not fpoke to Children but to Be- 
 lievers } and Mr. Williams laid well, after the manner 
 of Mofes relates to the Form, not to the Subject. 
 
 What if the Yoke would have been laid on Infants, 
 had the falfe Teachers obtained the point againil the 
 Brethren. Yet it proves not in the leaft the prefent 
 Difpute was about any other than thofe that believed, 
 as is manifeft fully from what hath been before faid, 
 and therefore Infants are not called Difciples in this j 
 place. Page 
 
( i»7 ; 
 
 Page 1 6. the laft 3 lines 5 I have fevcn places at 
 hand, &c. 
 
 (1.) Mark 1. 7. Except they warn (*'. e. baptize) 
 they eat not : Were they dipped over head and ears 
 when they did eat ? Ridiculous enough *, the Text 
 (peaks of the Warning, i. c Baptizing their Hands. I 
 ask, when they wafhed, whether they did only fprinkle 
 a little water, or pour a large quantity that did over- 
 whelm them? and lb for other places,as of Tables,Beds, • 
 is it likely it was done by fprinkling a few drops of 
 water on Ibme part of them ? Certainly thefe things 
 were covered with Water, when faid to be baptized : 
 fo xhzlfraelites were covered with Water, and with the 
 Cloud,when in the Sea,which very well figures the Dip- 
 ping ufed by us. And it is frivolous to anfwer all the 
 impertinencies there uttered. - They never heard that 
 /2atT7», much lefs Qafrn^w did fignify plunging under 
 Water. But Stephens faith BAirrn doth fignify mergo y 
 immergo'i and what is this bat to dip, xirown, or over- 
 whelm, to plunge or dip in? Item, Tingo quod fit 
 immcrgcndo) to dye, becaufe it is done by plunging 
 into the liquor. 
 
 Baptizjo^ he faith alfo, fignifkth mergo or i mm ergo \ 
 Item, Submcrgo : and yet thefe Gentlemen never heard 
 that thefe did fignify plunging under Water, &c. 
 whereas in thefe fenfes the thing is rather dipt in the 
 Water, than the Water applied to it. So in Sehre- 
 vellm 3 s Lexicon^ as fet forth by Robertfof?^ BATlTa 
 fignifieth intlngo & mergo, to dip in, to fteep in, as 
 well as lavo to wads \ all which fignify a plunging 
 under Water. And here they own the Author of the 
 Englifli Annotations to be again!! them. Let the 
 Reader confider whom he hath mod realon to follow, 
 the former being difintereited, and fpeaking according 
 to his Confcience, or thefe to fave their Credit ard 
 Reputation, 1 needed not have laid any thing to this 
 H 3 Queftion 
 
( n8 ) 
 
 Queftion, becaufc it is fitter for the Learned than me. 
 Only what I could obferve I have, the reft of the 
 Difpute being not worth taking notice of, as I think, 
 their Objections being frivolous, and not prefting us 
 at all, and by the ingenious Learned may be turned 
 againft them. 
 
 There have been enough of their own fide to jufti- 
 fy our practice, and themfelves pretend to no more 
 than a probability for their practice. 
 
 They fay, we muft fo adminifter it as ihall confift 
 with the fafety of the Subject. 
 
 God's prefervation of thofeby us baptized, diffid- 
 ently acquits us from this Cavil. 
 
 So much isfaid of this point by Mr. Keach againft 
 Mr. Owen, that an Anfwer may eafily be tranfcribed 
 thence to all thefe Gentlemens Evafions. 
 
 Page 22. I Cor. 7. 14. Elfe were your Children 
 unclean, but now they are holy. 
 
 Anfw. Holinefs without Chrift's Command gives no 
 right to Baptifm. If it was not Holinefs, but God's 
 Command gave right to Circumcifion, then not Holi- 
 nefs but Chrift's Command gives right to Baptifm. 
 Vid. Keach againft Owen, p. ico. 
 
 Their firft Argument •, Legitimacy cannot defcend 
 from Believers as Believers. Jnfw. I grant the Argu- 
 ment, but deny that this Holinefs in the Text de- 
 fends from Believers as fuch, but from their lawful 
 Marriage j for the fcruple was, whether the Believer 
 being married to an Unbeliever might live together, be- 
 caufe Eura commanded idolatrous Wives and Children 
 to be put away. The Apoftle faith, they may dwell 
 together, and that if the Unbeliever pieafeth to dwell 
 with the Believer, that then the Believer ihould not 
 put her or him awav, for thefe reafons, becaufe- the 
 Unbelieving is fandified by the Believing, elfe were 
 their Children unclean, but now are holy, vify a 
 fcoiy Seed by a legitimate Holiness. And 
 
And we may obferve the holinefs of the Seed is^of 
 the fame nature with the holinefs of the Unbeliever, 
 who is faid here to be (an&ified. 
 
 There is no external relative foederal Holinefs of 
 Perfons or Things in Gofpel- times. Thefe befng but' 
 ceremonial and typical, are now done away. 
 
 The unbelieving Husband is now fan&ified to or 
 by the Wife, that is, fanctified for ufe. Tis not 
 Whoredom, 'tis not fin *, elfe if it were, your Chil- 
 dren were unclean, they would be Baftards. So faith 
 the Scripture, Ma!. 2. 1 5. And did he make one, 
 (i. e. one Wife) yet he had the refidue of the Spirit } 
 and wherefore one ? that he mightfeeka godly Seed, 
 a Seed according to God's Ordinance of Matrimony. 
 
 Not only the Seed of the Faithful, but of Unbelie- 
 vers alfo, is holy in this refped. Marriage is honou- 
 rable in all, and the Bed undefined. And had the A po- 
 tties made their Marriage void, their Children would 
 have been Baftards, and the Marriage-bed a defiled 
 one. For fuch as is the Sandification or Holinefs of 
 the unbelieving Wife or Husband, fuch is the fandi- 
 fication of the Child: but by the former only can 
 beunderfiood a matrimonial Sandification,- therefore 
 fuch is the latter. 
 
 And indeed if the Children had from hence an 
 external relative federal Holinefs, the unbelieving 
 Husband or Wife have the lame, and might as well 
 be baptized. 
 
 This Text is well opened by Mr. if <?^a? againft 
 Mr. Owen, and our Interpretation defended again!]: 
 whatever hath been offered againft it. 
 
 2. But thefe Gentlemen deny the word holy to 
 be ufed in this fenfe in all the New Teitarnent. 
 
 That the Old TeitamentjMends our ufe of the 
 word is fufRcient, as the Text above-quoted doth 
 manifeit, 
 
 H 4 But 
 
( '20) 
 
 But what think thefe Gentlemen of i Tbejf. 4. 3, 
 4, 5. For this is the Will of God y even youy fantlifica- 
 tior/y that ye Jhould abftain from Fornication \ that eve- 
 ry one of you fl:ould know how topoffefshis fejfel infanc-- 
 tijieation and honour, &c. 
 
 (3.) If Legitimacy were meant, the Apoftle would 
 fpeak falfe : that is, if thefe Gentlemen {peak true, 
 the words would run thus, fav they, If the unbe- 
 lieving Wife he not fandirled by the believing Huf- 
 band, your Children would be Baftards. True, if 
 God's Ordinance of Matrimony did not fandify them 
 to a holy ule of each other ^ but it doth, and there- 
 fore this is a filly Suppolition, and they had this, while 
 both were Unbelievers, and the Converfion of either 
 doth not diflblve the Marriage-bond. 
 
 Befides, it's moil: probable that the Apoftle fpeaks 
 pf the Children they had, while both were unbelie- 
 vers, becaufe we may juftly infer, that the Queilion 
 yvas put as foon as one was converted. 
 
 Fage 23. line 6. When you can (hew that Bells 
 were once Church-members, &c. The Queftion is, 
 whether Holinefs be a ground of Baptifm, not whe- 
 ther Church-memberfhip be. The Anfwer is, No, 
 for this reafon. If Holinefs, i, e. relative Holinefs, be 
 a ground of Baptifm, then Horfes Bells mult be 
 baptized ', for they are faid to be holy, Z.ich. 12. 20. 
 
 But Horfes Bells muft not be baptized \ therefore 
 a relative Holinefs is not the ground of Baptifm. 
 
 Arg.z. The Promife is to you and to your Children. 
 This Promife the Infants of penitent Perfons have a 
 right to, therefore they have a right to Baptifm. 
 
 By the Promife is meant either Chriit and Salvar 
 tion by him, or the offer of Chriit and Salvation by 
 him. 
 
 {f the former, then all the Infants of penitent Per- 
 funs have a right to Chrirl and Salvation^ and not 
 
 one 
 
( ni ) 
 
 one born of Chriftian Parents can ever perifh,except wc 
 hold falling from Grace, which I fuppofe thefe Gen- 
 tlemen do not. If by the Promife be underftood 
 the latter, the fenfe is this ; The offer of Cbrift and 
 Salvation is to you, and to your Children, and to 
 all afar off, among the Gentiles^ whom the Lord 
 (hall outwardly call : Vtrum horvjn mivis accipe. 
 
 I fay farther, thefe words were fpoken to Unbe- 
 lievers, and Impenitent :, and no Argument for Infant- 
 Baptifm can be drawn from a Promife made to Un^ 
 believers. 
 
 Methinks the fenfe of the words then fhould be 
 this : That the Apoltle fpake to the Children of God, 
 to the Ele& among thefe, tho it's like he knew not 
 who they were. Yet fuch he knew God would call, 
 and therefore caffs forth his Net, and leaves God to 
 gather the Fiihes together. 
 
 And to thefe Ele& he cries, the Promife was to 
 them, and to their Seed, and to all other Eied afar 
 off, whom it mould pleafe God effecf ually to caM. 
 
 And that thus this place ihould be underflood, ap- 
 pears becaufe God's Promifes are certain and fare, 
 and cannot fail of their end. Had God promifed Salva- 
 tion by Chrift to all thefe, they fhould have certainly 
 had it - had God promifed it to their natural Ofr : 
 fpring, they alio Should have had it. But to fome 
 God had promifed it, even the £le& among thefe, 
 and their Seed, alio the Gcntdes who are laid to be afar 
 off, whom God would call : to none of thefe did or 
 could the Promife ever fail, becaufe of the faithfulnefs 
 and power of God, by wnich he is able and willing 
 to perform all his word. 
 
 And tho the Apoftle calls on thole that believed and 
 repented, by which their Election did appear, to be 
 baptized 7 yet here is not a reward of their Infants 
 that thev mould be baptized alfc. 
 
 And 
 
And tho thefe Gentlemen fay that the Apoftle here 
 fcake impertinently, if he did not intlnd their Infant- 
 ieed *, yet it appears otherwife, and that the Apoftle 
 would inform them that God had a People as a- 
 mong them, fo among their Children, and among 
 the Gentiles afar off, whom he would call. 
 
 Let us hear the Paraphrafe of thef^ Gentlemen } 
 You grown Jews and ye Gentiles^ when called, have , 
 a right to Church- Privileges, but your poor Infants, ' 
 who for many hundred years paft have enjoyed the 
 fame (whofe Infants do they mean here ? thofe of the 
 G entiles alfo ? had they for many hundred years en- 
 joy 'd Church-Privileges ? lure Gentlemen you are here 
 miftaken) are now through the gracious efficacv of 
 Chrift's Death ftript of it. Well Gentlemen, what 
 are the Infants of the called Jews or Gentiles ftript 
 of? fare only Shadows, the heavy Yoak of Cere- 
 monies, which a painful Ordinance obliged them 
 to j they injoy all the profitable and good things that 
 the Children of the Jews enjoy'd , they have Godly 
 Prayers for them, holy Examples fet before them , 
 the Oracles of God in a clearer light than ever the 
 Jewifh Infants did enjoy : when they are called, they 
 have clearer views of God, Chrift, Heaven, ana Glo- 
 ry, than the other could have *, and in all things 
 wherein the Gofpel excels the Law, the Eled Infants 
 among the Gentiles^ as they grow up and are called, 
 have a more preferable Difpenfation. And why, An 
 poor hearts ! they never did the leaft to forfeit it ! 
 What Sirs ! do we fay any real good is taken from 
 them ? prove it if you can. W 7 hat advantage have 
 your Children by their Baptifm, as you call it, and 
 feigned Church-memberfhip, above ours ? fuppofing 
 the Parents of both equally holy. Surely this Dil- 
 advantage yours have, that they often think them- 
 selves fate when they are not, and at beft they lofe 
 
 the 
 
V »*3 / 
 
 the benefit of ChrifVs Ordinance, and many times go 
 with a doubting Confcience about it all their days. 
 
 Indeed, Sir, you may enjoy your Rhetorick, but 
 for any thing argumentative therein, you had as good 
 let it alone. 
 
 Pag. 25. line 3. We have another of b^x. Baxter's 
 Arguments, God did not c'aft out thofe Infants in 
 Judgment or Mercy to them. 
 
 Yes, Sir, in Mercy he hath taken away the bitter 
 and left the fweet, yea he hath given better Sweets 
 than the other enjoy U I fpeak of the EJeft among 
 both •, as for the other nothing is really good to them, 
 therefore they can lofe no good. 
 
 I have above fiiggefted, what greater Good eledt 
 Children enjoy now, than the Eleci then •, and fo 
 there is a fair end of this Argument. 
 
 (2.) Not one Privilege or the Covenant of Grace 
 was ever taken away by the Death of Chriit. 
 
 Tis granted \ but that external Privilege of Infants 
 Church-Memberfhip is no Privilege of the Covenant 
 of Grace. The Jewifh Nation, as fuc{i,' were not 
 under the Covenant of Grace : If you think other* 
 wife, pray reply to Mr. Keack 
 
 As for what you (ay, that the Jewifh Infants had 
 a vifible right to the Covenant of Grace : 
 
 If fome, then all of them, how wicked foever their' 
 immediate Parents were, and how vifible foever their 
 Wickednefs, Unbelief, and Impenitency was *, pray 
 will you confider this, and tell me what right the In- 
 fant of a flagitious ungodly ProfefTor hath to Bap- 
 jtiim by your Principles, and yet how by this Argu- 
 ment you can deny to baptize fuch, feeing they could 
 not refufe to circumcife fuch, and Baptifm is a Privilege 
 of the Covenant of Grace, but of Children you cannot 
 determin who are in Covenant. You fay they had a 
 vifible right. I ask, had they vifibly a right to the 
 
 ' Bkflings 
 
( T 2+ ) 
 
 Blcffingsof the Covenant? What ! and enjoy none of 
 them, neither Ele&ion, Adoption, Juftification,Sanctifr 
 cation, or Glorification. Surely their right in the Co- 
 venant coaklnot be very vifible, when there was none 
 at all, which was the cafe of an infinite number of thefe 
 vifibic Members. Do you not read, all are not Ifrael, 
 that are of Ifraei ^ nor becaufe they are the Seed of 
 j&raham, are they all Children ^ thofe that are the 
 Children of theFlefh, are not therefore the Children 
 ©f God, but the Children of the Promife are accounted 
 the Seed, Tis, Gentlemen, the Ele<ft that are con- 
 cluded in the Covenant of Grace, and th^ Intereft of 
 thefe in that Covenant is not, nor ever was vifible till 
 their G>nverfbn, except a fpecial Revelation con- 
 cerning them intervene. 
 
 To talk that any are vifible Members of the Cove- 
 nant of Grace before their Converfion to God is vifi- 
 ble, is not a true but monftrous kind of Charity, that 
 the Scripture no where hath taught. 
 
 Pag. 26. The Infants of Gentile Converts are not 
 kept out, becaufe Jews and Gentiles have the fame 
 Privileges in Chriit ^ that is, thofe who are really in 
 Chrift : but this makes not for their purpofe > for not 
 the Children of j4hraham, or the Jews, as fuch, were 
 really in Chrift} not becaufe they are the Seed of 
 jfbraham are they all Children, faith the Scripture : 
 And may not I (ay, not becaufe they are the Seed of 
 the Saints, are they all the Children of God. How 
 are thefe vifibly then the Children of God ? 
 
 I often find thefe Gentlemen calling their Narra- 
 tive of the Port/mouth Difputation, their impartial 
 Account, wherein they are the Trumpeters of their 
 own Praife. 
 
 But to any indifferent Reader their Impartiality 
 will feem queftionable } and I would have them think 
 that to honour themfelves is nothing worth. 
 
 As 
 
( H5 ) 
 
 As to their boafting that they have proved the In* 
 fants of Believers holy Perfons, Church-Members, 
 Difciples, and this in a Scripture- fenfe, is but a vain 
 Boait. Thefe being the things in Controverfy, fhould 
 have been left to the judgment of the Reader, and 
 their Modefty then would have been praifed j where- 
 as fo great Preemption on fuch fmall grounds ar- 
 gues great Conceitednefs and Value of themlelves. 
 
 And methinks I cannot but take notice of the con- 
 cern of thefe Gentlemen •, they never think they have 
 fully defended themlelves, elfe why comes out this 
 Dialogue ? and yet their Caufe is not one whit bettered, 
 but their Weaknefs more manifeft : For now we fee 
 the ftrength of all their Wit, fure nothing more can 
 be expeded from them, I mean nothing ftronger } for 
 this is midwiv d into the World with the beft Ad- 
 vice, and moll: mature Deliberation, and as a Cor- 
 rection of their former Faults. 
 
 The People could not but exped: fome ftrange Pro- 
 duction after fo many EfTays from thefe Mountains j 
 but their Expectation is at laft deluded, and behold 
 a ridiculous Moufe, the Matter of their Scorn and 
 Laughter. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
SERMON 
 
 Preach'd 
 
 From the Commiffion, 
 Mattb. 28. 19. 
 
 IN T FJ E 
 
 Baptift Meeting- houfe at Wallnp, 
 at the defire of fome Friends, 
 
 To which is prefixed a Letter to 
 Mr. Leigh, written after the Tortf- 
 mouth Difpute. 
 
 By JOHN WILLI ^ilfS, Paftor of 
 a Baptized Congregation. 
 
 London, Printed in the year 1700. 
 
(128 ) 
 
 Mr. William** LETTER 'to Mr. Leigh, 
 written after the Diffutation. 
 
 BRother Leigh, for fo I can heartily call you, and 
 own you if you pleafe to accept of it : the ccca- j 
 (ion of writing thefe few Lines to you is this, i 
 have in my reflex Thoughts weighed what was offered upon 
 both fides in the Difpute j not being willing to abide by 
 any thing that has not a foundation in the Word nor. to 
 rejeft any thing that is offered againfi my prefent Opinion,, 
 could I fee it were bottomed on the \\ ord> becaufe I know 
 I muft one day be judged by the Word. You told me you 
 could have faid four times more tor our Caufe than was 
 fpoken by us, and ten times more than you did tor your 
 own. Poflibly you might have fpoken lour times as many 
 wo*ds as we did; but I think it would have been a hard 
 task to have offered Arguments feat had four times more 
 weight and fubftance than thofe mid that were offered 
 by us; I mean for clearing the Point of the Subjeft ac- 
 cording to the Commiffion which the firft Preliminaries 
 bound°us to : yet I would not undervalue your Abilities 
 nor fet our own in competition with yours: had we not had 
 Truth on our fide,your Abilities would foon have overturn 4 
 mine The Vcclv, I think, might be able to cope with 
 any of you in that refpeft: but if you can offer four times 
 more for- our Cauie than we did, I wonder your own Argu- 
 ments mould not be convincing to you, tho ours were not 5 
 and could we have that fourfold Strength added to our Ar- 
 guments, I believe ycu would no. be able to anfwer one of 
 them. For fo weak as our Arguments were, ycudid no 
 otherwife anfwer them but by denying a part, which 1 is an 
 eafv way of anfwering the itrongefi Argument that can be 
 oSred: and if you could have offered tai «ines^efor 
 your own Caufe, why had you not done it ? you vgu™* 
 had the Opponency foon turn'd upon you, when the DoZ!or 
 gave you an ArguW containing an umverfal Negative-, 
 
C rxp) 
 
 and, as I do fince understand, you ought to have accepted icj 
 according to the Rules of Difputation in the University, from 
 whence you uke thefe Rules : I am informed that a univerfal 
 Negative is taken for a Maxim. 1 thought that artificial Lo- 
 gick had been the improvement of natural Reafon j but if 
 this be a Rule to be obferv'd in it, that the Opponent mufti 
 prove an univerlal Negative, I know nothing that is more 
 contrary to natural Healori : had there been either Precepc 
 or Precedent for Infarit-Baptifm on Record, then -it had been 
 poftible for you or fofiie body elfe to have produced it; and. 
 had you done ity his Argument had beenjpne, and you had 
 gained the Caule : but it is irhpofiibJe for a Mai: to prove, 
 that neither you nor any one dfc cm produce Uich a Re- 
 cord, otherwife than to 'deny that there is any fnch Record 
 to be produced.' If this be according to the Rule of Difpu- 
 tation, I look on it as an effectual, way to keep People in 
 ignorance. I fuppofe, that if you could have produe'd a 
 Record either of Preceptor Precedent far Infmt-Baptifm, 
 you would not be tied fo clcfe to the Rule of Difputation, 
 as not to have brought it to light, 
 
 "Whatever you could have faid.,1 know not •, yen know you' 
 did not give us ari in (lance for Infanc-Eaptifm, cho it was' 
 often defired, ami that with great Importunity: arid muft 
 we ftill look on Infant-Baptifm to be an Ordinance of God, 
 a part of Divine Worfhip, that hath neither Precept nor 
 Precedent for its Practice ? But, Sir, if you can fay ten times 
 more for your Practice than yen did, it is riot tco late to 
 offer it yet 3 and if you pleaie to fend ic me, and it be 
 fuch as is convincing, I will fp.read it for you j if not, I 
 will fairly anfvver it, and not pubiickly ipread it. Sir, 
 when I confider what was offered by us, and denied by you, 
 and with what Props your own Arguments were fu^ported^ 
 being Men. of fiich Parts and Piety as you are, on whole 
 Credit the' Ordinance of thrift is like to be adminiftred to. 
 a wrong Subject for the future, as it hath been for Ages 
 paft upon a like traditional Bottom - y I am really grieved, 
 and that is the reafon of my letting Pen to Paper. 
 
 Firft, when I confider what was offered by us, and de- 
 nied by you. I can repeat my own Arguments better than 
 
( 130) 
 
 I can die Do$or\ and therefore I fhall confine my felf to 
 them : You know you preft us to allow of Confequences 
 rightly drawn from the Word •, the Voftor told you you fhould 
 give it which way you could : but did you not deny almoft, 
 if not all the Confequences that were offered by me to prove 
 that Infants were not the Subjefts of Baptifm, according to 
 the Commiflion ? A Negative Task that we were put upon, 
 which could no othervviie be proved but by Coniequences. 
 To repeat fome of my Arguments, and I need repeat but 
 the major for the molt part. My firft Argument was this, 
 That if Eelievers are the only Subjefts ot Baptifm accord- 
 ing to the Commiflion, then Infants are not. Here you de- 
 nied the Sequel ; but if the Antecedent be true, the Confe- 
 quent is true, and rightly drawn from the Text. 
 
 There being none put into the Commiflion as the Subjefts 
 of Baptifm but Believers, Mark, the 1 6th, and 1 7th, you 
 did not deny the Antecedent, how then could you deny the 
 Confequent i My fecond Argument was this, That if In- 
 fants are incapable of believing, then they are not the Sub- 
 jefts of Baptifm, according to the Commiflion ^ but they 
 are fo. Here you denied the minor, which I wonder at, 
 that you fhould be of the Judgment that Infants are capa- 
 ble of believing ^ yea, your denying the minor fpeaks as 
 much. My third Argument was, If the EfTence of Faith 
 confifts in the Aft of the Underftanding and of the Will, 
 then Infants are incapable of believing. Here you denied 
 the Sequel j you did not deny but that the EfTence of Faith 
 confifts in the Aft of the Underftanding and of the Will, 
 and if you had, it would have been proved j but how could 
 you deny the Sequel ? 
 
 Are Infants capable of apprehending Chrift in his Na- 
 tures, and in his Offices, for fo he muft be apprehended as 
 the Objeft of Faith ? Are Infants capable of confenting 
 Chrift to be theirs, and they Chrift's in all his Offices, which 
 is the Aft of the Will that follows the Aft of the Under- 
 funding? Can Infants make a Resignation of themfelves to 
 Chrift to be taught by him, and faved by him, and ruled 
 and governed by him ? Can you prove by the Word, that 
 there is fuch a Capacity in Infants, or that there is fuch a 
 
 Capacity 
 
( i3i ; 
 
 Capacity in the Children of Believers, considered 'as fuch, 
 and not in the Children of Unbelievers ? My. fourth Argu- 
 ment was, That if none could believe on Jeiiis ChriSt, that 
 never heard of Jel'us Chrift, then ' Infants' are incapable ot 
 believing. Hejre again you denied the Sequel. You know 
 there are Scriptures enough to prove the Antecedent in 
 every 'Proposition, and the Consequent was rightly drawn - 
 fo that you had no more ground to deny the Confequent 
 than you had to deny the Antecedent, yet you denied them 
 all : and thus you might have run me up' ad infinitum, by 
 a continual denying, without rendring any reafon for 
 what you did, or difcovering any Fallacy in any one of my 
 Arguments. The Arguments you offered your felf are 
 judged by fome to' have little weight in them, and that by 
 Pedo-baptifts as well as others : Your firft was, That if Chll* 
 dren are Church-Members, then they have a right to Bap- 
 nfm, the initiating Ordinance •/bur they are fo, <fy c . The 
 mmor being denied, you brought Mat. \ 9 . Of fuch U the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. You indeavour'd to prove, that by the 
 Kingdom of Heaven was meant the Vifible Church : I denied 
 it, and offered an Argument to the contrary • That if In- 
 fants were not Members of a particular inftiruted Church 
 nor of the univerfal vifible Church, but cf which a parti- 
 cular instituted Church was gathered ; then they were not 
 vifible Church-Members : but they are nor, fcc. 
 
 You told me k did not belong 'to the Refpondent to form 
 an Argument, that was all you replied tp it -, then I denied 
 your ma#r, that Church-Memberfhip was the around of 
 Eaptifm: I brought Mat. 3. and 1*^3, and fliow'd you, y 
 that thofe that came to John to be baptized and were de- 
 nied, were Church- Members-, you replied that they were 
 Church-Members defatto, but not de jure. I ask'd you whe- 
 ther you did own them Church- Members defciHo f you faid 
 you did : Then faid I, Church-Memberfhip is not the ground 
 of Eaptifm • you faid again, they were not Church-Member; 
 de jure, for by the Law they ought to have been caft out : I de- 
 fired you to produce that Law, but you could not do it. And 
 now, Sir, I would offer you two things which were not their 
 mentioned. Firft, Suppofe a Grant, that bv the FJnpdem 
 
 I 2 " rf 
 
( x«h ) 
 
 of Heaveiv is meant the Church of the jfo*^, that wa^ thcjfc 
 a National Church, yet your .Argument is impertinent. 
 
 This was before the CommifTion was given out, at which 
 time it is granted, that Children were Church-Members } 
 but if you would argue from Church-Memberihip to a 
 right to Baptifm, you muft prove that they are now 
 Church-Members under the new Difpenfation. The Cqn- 
 ftitution of the Church . being changed from National to 
 Congregational, the Matter of which is vihble Saints, and 
 that is, fuch as in the judgment of Charity are inhe- 
 rently holy; and' the Form, mutual Confenc and Agreement } 
 and that Church-Memoerfnip is put into the •CommifTion 
 to be the ground of Baptifm : for if you prove not their 
 right to Bapiifm by the CommifTion, you do nothing, and 
 this I think will be too hard a Task. Secondly, When 
 Children were Church- Members, ChurchMemberfhip was 
 not the ground of Baptifm } Chrift and John never bap- 
 tized Church-Members, cbnfidered as fuch, but firft made 
 them Difciples, and then baptized them, J oh. 4. i. they were 
 Church-Members before they were Difciples of Chrift, and 
 they were made Difciples before they were baptized. Your 
 fecond Argument was, That if Infants are Difciples, then 
 they are the Subjects of Baptifm according to the Commif- 
 iion } but they are fo, foe. The minor was denied. Now 
 pray confider what weak Props they were you fortified 
 ycur minor with} at firfl you Paid, a Child was a Difciple 
 as ibon as his Parents had dedicated him to be taught : 
 But do you think he is a Difciple by InftrucTions accor- , 
 ding to the CommifTton,- arid fo a fit Subject to be bap-, 
 tized, not having Iearn'd Jefus Chrift ? Secondly, Do the 
 Parents dedicate their Children to be taught while Infants, 
 when they defire you to baptize them ? or do you undertake 
 to teach them while Infants, or do you ever look after 
 them, indeavouring to teach them? You fay a Child is a - 
 Scholar the firft day he goes to School, tho he hath learnt 
 nothing } but is he a Scholar before he goes to School, or 
 a Scholar by Tnftru&ion, when he hath learn'd nothing ? 
 You baptize them before they go to School, before you. go 
 about to teach them } will Chrift look on thefe as Difciples to . 
 
 tan 
 
Q 133 ; 
 
 him by the Miniftry of the Word, or on yoii Minifters as 
 keeping clofe to the Commiflion ? Thefe things will not hold 
 at the great Day, when the Commiflion fhall be laid open 
 again. Bear with me that I fpeak fo plain, for it is the 
 Caufe of Chrift that I am now pleadings his great Com- 
 milTion, wherein his Kingly Authority is fo highly con- 
 cerned, may be duly obferved, and the Ordinance duly ad- 
 miniftred. However Children may be accounted Scholars 
 by us in an improper fenfe the nift day they go to School, 
 tho they have learned nothing •, yet I fhewed you, that 
 Philip did not account the Eunuch a Scholar, tho he had 
 actually fubmitted himfelf to be taught by him, and he 
 had taught him till he underftood by his verbal Profeflion, 
 that he had learned Jefus Chrift •, that is, indeed a Difcir 
 pie of Chrift, that hath learned Jefus Chrift, and fo learned 
 him as to deny himfelf for Jefus Chrift, Luke 14.27,28. 
 Nor do I believe that you do look upon all that you have 
 preached the Gofpel unto to be difcipled unto Chrift, and 
 fo fit Subjects for Baptifm according to the Commiflion. 
 What you offered from Atts 15. has no foundation in 
 the Chapter, the Controverfy being about the Brethren, 
 not the Infants ^ and the Yoke not being Circumcifion 
 barely confidered, but the falfe Doclrine together wich 
 Circumcifion, which Doctrine could not be impofed on 
 Infants, tho Circumcifion might. You afierted that Infants 
 are a part of a Nation, and yet I am fure you will not 
 baptize upon this ground your felves, why then did you 
 offer it to us ? The vileft Wretches that are, and the 
 blackeft Heathens in the World are part of a Nation 5 will 
 you baptize fuch ? Really I ftiould bluifi to look back on 
 fuch an Argument. I have written thefe Lines in Love, 
 hoping that on fecond thoughts things may be better confi- 
 dered j and that you will not ftand by that you have not the 
 Word to ftand by you in. The Commiifion faith that, He 
 that believe th and is baptized, flail befaved. Do you believe 
 that all the Infants that you baptize fhall be laved ? if not, 
 then you do not believe that they are all Believers, and yet 
 you baptize them as fuch. That Faith that fits the 
 Subject for Baptifm, it is a believing with all the Heart -, 
 
 I 3 fee 
 
fee Peers Annot. on A8s 2. 3 7, 38. it is fuch a Faith as doth 
 evidence the Subject's right to Salvation, Mcly\ 16, id. 
 I fhall offer you one Argument, and fo conclude : If the 
 Apoftles that were injoined to teach the Obfervation of 
 all things whatfoever Chrift had commanded them, never 
 taught the Obfervation of Infant-Baptifm, then Infant- 
 Baptifm was never commanded them by Chrift ; but they 
 did not, &c. I fhall now take leave, and remain your 
 truly loving Friend, 
 
 Jobri WiUiams. 
 
 Mr. 
 
( i35 ) 
 
 Mr. Williams' s Sermon. 
 
 Matth. 28. 19. Co ye therefore and teach all 
 Nations^ baptising them in the Name of the 
 Father , and of the Son y and of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 BEfore I come to the words themfelves, I fliall give 
 you a brief account of this Chapter, and of fome 
 remarkable Paffages contained therein. Verf. 1. we 
 have the Women coming to the Sepulcher, and the time of 
 their coming, which was at the end of the Sabbath, as ic 
 began to dawn towards the firft day of the ' Week. Verf, 2. 
 we have an account of a great Earthquake, together with 
 the caufe thereof : The Angel of the Lord defended from 
 Heaven, and rolled away the Jione from the door, and fate upon 
 it. Verf. 3. we have a description of this Angel, or this 
 extraordinary MeiTenger which was fent from Heaven. 
 ift. He is defcribed by his Countenance, Hvs Countenance was 
 lil^e Lightning, ily. By his Raiment, that was white as 
 Snow. Verf. 4. we have the effeft of this Apparition, with 
 refpecl: to the keepers : They are aftonifljed at the fight ; for 
 fear of him the peepers did fl)a\e, and became as dead men, 
 Verf. 5, 6, 7. we have the Angel talking with the Women, 
 in which there are three things obfervable : Firft he gives 
 them a Caution, fear not : tho the Keepers did fear this 
 bright fhining Angel, yet the Women fhould not fear 5 
 their end was good in being there, they came in love to 
 Jefus Chrift : I kpow that ye feele^ Jefm that was crucified. 
 Secondly, He preacheth unto them the Refurreftion of 
 Chrift •, the firft tidings of this welcome News founded in 
 their ears : He ti not here, he is rifen, as he fad : come fee the 
 place where the Lord lay. Thirdly, he fends them on a hafly 
 errant 3 Go quickly and tell his Difciples, that he is rifen from 
 
 I 4 the 
 
( 130 
 
 n?i eCti K A l d b6 ¥ d ! Je & etb 'kfire you into Galilee .• there 
 flaU you fee him lo I have told you, Verf. 8, 9 . the Women 
 
 w n f T, the SepuIcher v and M we h ™ the r~ 
 
 hmv and that ws wrt / w ^ ^ >y . [ SecondI 
 the fpeed they made 5 they rftf r «/i to bring his Difciples 
 rmd No doubt they thought it would be welcome News 
 to the Difciples, as it was to themfelves. Thirdly Thev 
 have a fhcrt flop by the way, being met by the Lord Jefus, 
 who fahted them with all hail : Peace be unto you, or rejoice 
 Upon this they came and held him by trie feet, and wor- 
 shipped him. Verf ic. and here obferve : Firft Jefus Chrift 
 gives them another caution •, Fear not. Secondly, he fends 
 them forward in their Errant : Go and tell my Difciples that I 
 go before them into Galilee, there jhall they fee me. Verf. 1 1 
 12, 13, 14, 15. we have a Narration of the Watchmen? 
 coming into the City, to acquaint xha Chief Prieft with what 
 was done 5 and of the way they took to rtifle the Wetted 
 Tidings of the Refurredion of Chriit : They gave them larZ 
 mony to report, that his Difciples came by night and ft ole him 
 away while they Jkpt. Verf. 16. tho the Difciples were not 
 forward to believe that Chrift was rifen, yet they go into 
 Oaiiiee, ana (into a mountain, where thrift had appointed them, 
 verf 17. Chrift comes, and fhews himfelf to his Difciples 
 accormng to his promife : and here we may fee the effect of 
 iiis coining 5 When they faw him they wor/hipped him, but fome 
 doubted: that is, they doubted for a time: but at laft 
 they believed. Verf. ,8. he declares to his Difciples the 
 full and ample Power that he was inverted withal : All 
 Power is given unto me, in Heaven and in Earth. By this De- 
 claration he prepares his Difciples to receive their Commif- 
 iion 15 whicn Commiflioh you have in ver. 1 9, 20. together 
 with an incouraging Promife of his own Prefence 5 Lo I am 
 mto you always, unto the end of the world. ' My Text contains 
 m it two Eranches of the CommifTiori 5 to teach, and bap- 
 tize; In which words we may obferve thefe general parts • 
 Hrtt , we have their miffion, or fending; Go ye therefore. 
 secosdiy, we have the Subjecl, All Nations. Thirdly, t 
 work, and that is two-fold : iff, To teach ; and ily 
 oapuze : in much there is the order to be,abferved ; thev 
 
 1 c"nW 
 
V «37 ; 
 
 muff: firft teach, and then baptize. 3/y, We have the Sub- 
 jects of Baptifm, in this word Them : which word is a 
 (Relative, the Antecedent is All Nations, taught or difoi-i 
 pled. 4(y, We have the Authority of the Ordinance in thefe 
 words : In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 \Holy Ghoft, Before I give you the Obfervation, I mall a lit- 
 tle open the Terms. 
 
 Firfl, As to their miffion or fending, Go ye there fare ; there 
 are three thjngs to be inquired into : 
 
 1 . Who it is that fends, and that is the Lord JefusChrift, 
 as appears in the preceding Verfe, Jefus came and [pake unto 
 them, and /aid, go ye. 
 
 2. Who they are that are fent 5 Firfl more immediately 
 they are the eleven Difciples, as appears by ver. \6, 17, ig„ 
 Then the eleven went pv ay into Galilee : and Jefm came and 
 (pake unto them, faying, Go ye. But more remotely, all fuch 
 as God fhould be pleafed to gift, and qualify by his Spirit 
 to preach the Gofpel, and by his providence to call out, 
 and to open a door 10 to do. The Eleven were here com- 
 miffioned, hut the Commiffion was not retained to them: 
 for Firft, we find that there were others that did inftantly 
 preach the Gofpel, . as well as they, who had no other 
 Commiffion but this, Alls 1 r. 19, 20. They that were feat- 
 tered abroad upon the Perfecution, preached the word not only 
 to the Jews, but to the Gentiles alfo. Now there was no 
 Commiffion to preach ^o ,jhe Gentile^ but this •, therefore 
 it mull: be by this' commiffion, or none at all. I can't fup- 
 pofe that they did run before they were fent : for the 
 hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number be- 
 lieved and turned to the Lord ; and if fent, it was by virtue 
 of this CommifTion. Thefe were not the Apoftles thac 
 preached unto the Gentiles, but fach as were fcattered 
 abroad, when the Apoftles ftayed at Jerufalem, ABs $.i, 
 compared with the 4th. 
 
 (2.) It's by virtue of this Commiffion that the Gofpel 
 is preached at this day, and the promife of his Prefence 
 which is annex'd to it,, remains to this day : Lo I am with 
 you always unto the end of the World. 
 
 (3.) Why did Chrift. fend tbem ? this word therefore 
 
 carries 
 
( i*8 ) 
 
 carries us back to the iM Verfe, AU power is given to me 
 tn Heaven and m Earth \ Go ye therefore : He had power 
 to lend them, and now he exerts his Power. 
 
 Secondly, What are we to underftand by AU Nations ; 
 there is no great dubioufnefs here, the Commiffion is now 
 inlarged unto the Gentiles, that was before reftricled unto 
 the Jews. It's to all Nations, as Providence mould direft 
 them, and cpen a door to them: for there was a hand 
 ot Providence in Peering their courfe, A8s \6. 7. They\ 
 ejjayed to go into Bithynia, but the fphit fuffered them not. 
 Mart renders it thus: Go preach the Gofpel to every Creature - 
 that is. To every rational Creature among the Sons and' 
 Daughters of Men : Angels are rational Creatures, but Mi- 
 rafters are not fent to preach the Gofpel to them. 2/y, It 
 muft be fuch as have the ufe of their Reafon among the 
 Sons and Daughters of Men : Children in an Infant-ftate 
 are rational Creatures, but they have not the ufe of their 
 Reafon and Undemanding, they are not capable of hearing 
 and receiving the word ; it would be but loft labour to 
 preach the Gofpel to them : Minifters are not bound by 
 their Commiffion to preach to Children in an Infant-ftate. 
 And here by the way obferve, that if Minifters are not 
 bound to preach the Gofpel to Children in an Infant-ftate, 
 then they are not bound to baptize them in an Infant-ftate : 
 for they muft firft teach before they baptize ; that is, the 
 lame Perfon: Not teach one, and baptize another that 
 was never taught. 
 
 Thirdly, What are we to underftand by this word teaching ? 
 1. To teach and to preach is the fame thing, as appears 
 by comparing it with Mark i<5. 15. it's the fame Commiffi- 
 on ; and there it's faid, Go preach the Gofpel to every Crea- 
 ture. To teach or to preach then is to open and interpret 
 the word by the word, and to apply it : To preach the 
 Gofpel is to preach Chrift crucified, buried, and rifen 
 agai.n> * Cor : * $• i, 2, 3, 4. it is to declare the Doftrine -of 
 Cnnft contained in his word, to prefs men by the word, 
 and e>:hort them to believe in Jefus Chrift • with afllirance 
 from the promife of Chrift, that whofoever believeth fl*all 
 frfaved*,. Margie. 15, 16. Luke 24. 47. 
 
 2. To 
 
2. To teach here, is to difciple to Chrift : it's granted by 
 them that underftand the Greek, that the word is to make 
 Difciples, or to bring Difciples to Chrift, or to difciple to 
 Chrift. Firft then a Difciple is a Scholar, one that learns : 
 So the Englifh Schoolmafter defines the word. Wilfon in his 
 Dictionary, tells you that a Difciple is a Learner, a Scholar 
 one that fubmitteth to another to be taught •, one who 
 learneth the doftrine of Chrift, that he may believe and 
 paftife it : The word does import as much in Scripture 
 John 9. 27, 28. and he faid unto them, Will you be his 
 Difciples/ they anfwered him, Thou art his Difciple, but we 
 ^MofesV Difciples* What does this import but that they 
 had learned the Doctrine of Mofes, and that they would not 
 learn of Chrift? it's obferved, the word is fometimes 
 tranflated learned, John 6.^. Every one that hath heard 
 and learned of the Father, cometh unto me. And fo the 
 word Undifcipled is tranflated Unlearned, 1 Pet. 2. 16 
 A Difciple of Chrift then is one that hath learned Jefus Chrift" 
 and fo learned him, as to deny himfelf for Chrift. 
 
 1. He is one that hath learned Jefus Chrift, John 6.±< 
 Every one that hath heard or learned of the Father, Cor is 
 difcipled of the Father) cometh unto me. A Perfon 1 can't 
 come to Jefus Chrift, till he have learned Jefus Chrift • the 
 aft of the Underftanding muft precede the aft of the Will. 
 
 2 .He is one that hath fo learned Chrift, as to deny him- 
 felf for Chrift, Luke 14. 26. If any man come to me, and bate 
 not his Father, and his Mother, and his Brethren, and Sifters 
 yea, and his own Life alfo, he cannot be my Difciple. This 
 hatred here may not be underftood of a pofitive hatred 
 but oi a lefs loving ; the Soul muft love Chrift more 
 than thefe, or he muft love thefe lefs than Chrift, ver. 27. 
 And be that taketh not up his Crafs, and follows me, can't be 
 my Difciple. Verf. 22, And whofoever it be of you that 
 prfaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my Difciple. 
 
 5. A Difciple here in my Text, and a Believer, Mark. 
 
 u l6 '- 1S ? e fame thin S ' for ic ' s the fan *e CDmmiflion, 
 tho varioufly expreft, and the various terms or expreffions 
 do help to explain each other. Calvin in his Inftitutions 
 oblerves, that the words Difciple and Believer, arc two 
 
 * words 
 
v 14° ; 
 
 words to exprefs the fame thing •, and that Lu\e in the Al 
 does often make ufe of the word Difciple for Believer, Al , 
 6.1. When the { muHiiim of Difciplssivere increafed ■, that i' 
 the multitude of .Believers, Alls u. 26. the Diiciples (th, 
 is, Believers) -were firTt called Chriftians at Antioch, Al 
 -15. 10. Wfy'tfrfipt ye Gvd to lay a 7% on the necl^ of tl 
 Difciptes ? Thefe Difciples were fuch as had purified the 
 hearts by faith, ver. 9. And what were the Diiciples thi 
 came together to break bread ? Afts 20. 7. Were not thel 
 Believers ? To teach then, is to difciple them unto Chrifl 
 or to bring them to believe in the Lord Jefus. 
 
 Firft, Sometimes by Baptifm, we are to under ftandth 
 extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, Afts 1.5. And you flmU h 
 baptixed with the Holy Ghoj} not many days hence. This wa 
 done when the Spirit appeared in the form of Clover 
 Tongues, and fat upon them, Alls 2. 3,4. 
 
 Secondly, By this word Eaptifm, is femetimes underftooc 
 Afflictions, Sufferings, Matth. 20. 22. You jhall indeed drin] 
 of the Cup that I am to drin^ of and be baptised with the 
 Baptifm that I am to be baptised with. 
 
 Thirdly, By this word we are lbmetifnes to underftand 
 Water-baptifm, that which is an Ordinance of Chrift 
 John did baptize in Enon, for there was much Water : and 
 in this fenfe I take the word here for Water-baptifm, and 
 chat for thisReafon : It's a Baptifm that is to be adminiftred 
 by the Melfengers or Minifters of Chrift. Now they can 
 adminifter no other but Water-baptifm -, they can't baptize 
 with the Holy Ghoft, that muft be done by Chrift : nc 
 they may not baptize with the Baptifm of Afflictions, that's 
 work for the Enemies of Chrift ^ they can no oiiierw ife bap- 
 tize but with Water. 
 
 Fourthly, What are we to underftand by this word 
 Them $ This word refpefts the Subjefts of Baptifm ; it's a 
 "Relative, the Antecedent is All Nations, taught or difcipled 
 to Chrift : Go difciple to me all Rations, baptising them - y that 
 is, them that are difcipled. 
 
 Fifthly, What by thefe words, In the mime of the Father, 
 and of we Sen, and of the Holy Ghofl ? This is the form of 
 words th:;: is t? be nftSl in Baptifm, and it's a part of the 
 
 form 
 
( Hi ) 
 
 arm; of Baptifm, and • doth denote one of both of thcfe, 
 
 1. Their being baptized into the Doctrine of the Trinity, 
 Wtfh is owned and proftft by thole that are to be. bap- 
 ized. 
 
 2. To baptize by the Authority of the Trinity : To bap- 
 ize in the Narr^e ^f-ihe; father^ and : ;o£ the Son, and of the 
 Joly Ghofr, is to. baptize by, the Authority of the Father, 
 nd of the Son, and of the HoIyGho#* From i the words £ 
 rtall give you this Obfervation, or Point of Do&rine: 
 
 )pft. That Believers, or fuch as are dlfcipled to Cbrifi by the 
 
 Word, are the only ^Subjetfs of Bdptjjm, ace or dingji thrift's 
 
 Commiffion ; thefe are to be found in the-. Cointmffi^ and: 
 
 there are no other to be found, there-, nor is tlme.avy other 
 
 ■ Commiffion left on Record for Mimjlers to baptise by. 
 
 13 
 
 In the Profecudon of this Point, I iTiall, Fhf, Givc- 
 /cu a Defcription of Bapcifm. Secondly, Prove the, Point. 
 Thirdly, Anivver lome Objections. Fourthly, Give.oneRea* 
 fen. Fifthly, Make fome Application thereof. 
 . Firft, i fnall give you a Deicription of Baptiim, Bapti/in 
 is a dipping a Believer in Water by a IVliniftcr of je>% 
 Chrift, in the Name'of the Father, and of the Son, an&coS 
 the f ioly Ghcft. | Here is ia this Defcription the Admini- 
 If rater, the Subjeft, Matter, and Form. 
 
 i. The Adminiftrator, that mud be a Minifter of:. Chriftj 
 and one that hath.ComniiiTion from-Chrift to preach the Goi- 
 pel : Go preach and baptke. Nowhere I do not tie it toa Mini- 
 fter in Office, that is, to an £lder, one that hath a Paftan.1 
 Relation to a particular People, but to a preaching Difci- 
 pie : Baptifm being no more tied to Gifice or Power, than 
 Preaching is-, Preaching is not retrained to Office or Power, 
 by the Commiffion, as I have fhewed already: everyone 
 that is gifted and qualified by the Spirit, and. providen- 
 tially caJPd, ought. to have Commiffion to preach, Ails u. 
 20. tlierefore fucf} have CommiBion to baptize, Go teach 
 and baptize* 
 
 2. The Subjeft mud be a Believer, Alts 8. 57. If thm. 
 helkvzft r/ith at! thy Heart thon m^yjl : the contrary that fairly 
 
 offers 
 
( 1 4* ) 
 
 offers it fel£ is this, If thou doft not believe with all thv 
 Heart, thou mayft not. y 
 
 0bje8. But fome may -fay, the Adminiftfator can't pofliblv 
 know whether the Subjeft do believe with all his Heart or 
 no. 
 
 Anflp. I grant it's true, yet it follows not but that the 
 Subjeft ought fo to believe 5 a true Faith is required of the 
 iubjeft to give him a right to the Ordinance, as appears bV 
 the forementioned place- If thou believe!} with all thy Heart 
 thou mayft A Profeffion of Faith gives the Administrator 
 aCall toadmimfter the Ordinance, Atts 5. i 2 . Then Simon 
 himfelf betteved ( that is, he made a Profeffion of Faith ) 
 *?<twdt baptised: and fo-the Eunuch upon a Profeffion of 
 Faith was baptized by Philip, and the Commiflion gives 
 turn authority to adminifter the Ordinance. 
 
 2. The Matter is Water, that is the Element that the 
 Subject is baptized in. John wm baptising in Enon, for there 
 was much Water-, John 3. 23. ■ Who can forbid Water, 'that 
 thefe flmld.not be baptised, that have received the Holy G ho fl- 
 its well as we t Acls 10. 47. 
 
 4. The Manner or Form, and that is by dipping, in the 
 Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Gholt. a? J 
 
 (1.) It hby dipping- it's granted almoft by all, that the 
 word in the Commiflion -fignifies to dip, or to plunge into 
 the Water, and fignifies fuch a Warning, as when Liherr is 
 plunged or dipp'd in Bucks: this is confeft-by Dr. Feat ly, 
 who was a great Antagonift againft the Baptift Irttereft! 
 What he after fpeaks concerning the baptizing of Beds/ 
 and Cups, and brazen VefTels, that it was done without 
 dipping, is more than can be proved j that being a fuperfti- 
 tious Praclice of Pharifees, I fuppofe they would not ftick 
 at the trouble of dipping : but it's enough that he graots 
 that the primary fignification of the word is to dip. The 
 Church of England grants it to be by dipping, and admits 
 of no other way by their Rubrick for the baptizing of 
 Children, but by dipping, except the Child be weak: They 
 fay, if the Minifter be certified that the Child be ftrong 
 and able to bear it, he fliall dip it difcreetly and warily! 
 
 Erafnmft 
 
( '43 ) 
 
 E,a[mw\ Paraphrafe on the New Teftament reads it thus 
 Go and teach all Nations, and when they have learned dip 
 them. The Addition to Pool\ Annotation tells us that it's 
 apparent, that both chriftand John did baptize by dipping 
 John 2. 22. It is obferved by thofe that underftand the 
 Greek, that the word that is often cranflated dipped or 
 dippeth, comes from bapto, which is the primitive word that 
 fignincs to dip. And here give me leave to transcribe a few 
 Lines made ready to my hand, by one due under/lands the 
 Greek : Mat 26. 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the 
 ^; ; here the word is embapfas, the Participle of embapto 
 which is bapto in Competition, and fignifics the fame. Mark 
 14. 20. ■ ffefiud, it is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me 
 m the dtfl> : here the Participle of the Paffive Voice of the 
 lame Verb is ufed (to wit) embaptomenos, which is ufed in 
 the iamefenfe. Luke 16.24. Send Lazarus that he may dip 
 the tip of his finger in Water, &c. where the wcrd is babfL 
 the Subjunctive Mood of bapto. John 13. 26. He it is t* 
 whom I give a Sop, when I have dipped it : and when he had 
 dipped it he gave it to Judas Ifcariot, the Son 'of Simon. 
 In the firft Claufe is ufed the Participle bapfas, from the 
 Primitive bapto : in the fecond Claufe is ufed the fame, as in 
 Mat 26. 23. (to wit) the Participle embapfas. Rev. 10. 12. 
 Vejhire dipt in Bloody where the Participle of the Preter- 
 perfeft Tenfe of the Paffive Voice is ufed (to wit) bebam- 
 menon. K « 
 
 (2.) It appears it is by dipping, in that there was 
 choice made of a place where there was much Water John 
 I 2 ?\/i J°£ n <*.?* b*m«g ^ Enon, for there was 
 much Water. If baptizing had been by any other way than 
 by dipping, there had been no need to make choice of a 
 place where there was much Water, a little Water would 
 have ferved the turn, efpecially if it had been by fprinkling 
 as the manner of feme is: I fuppofe the fame reafon may 
 - be render d why John did baptize in Jordan-, and the Peo- 
 ple came from all parts thither to be baptized, for there was 
 mucn Water. Alfo Mark 1.5. John baptized them in the Ri- 
 ver or Jordan. It's very ftrange that he fhould baptize them 
 in the River, i£ he did it by fprinkling a little Water on 
 
( H4 ) 
 
 ($.) It appears ic was by dipping, in that the Subject and 
 tic Adminiftrator went both down into the Water, and then 
 baptized, and after the Subjeft was baptized, they came 
 both up out of the Water. Atts 3. 38, 39, And he com- 
 manded the Chariot to ft and (tilt ; and they went down both into 
 the Water , both Philip and tfe Eunuch r and he baptised him. 
 And when they were come up oufofthe Water, &c. Mat. 3. 16. 
 And Jefits when he was baptised, went ftraightway up out of 
 the Water, &o But here it is objected, that the word that 
 is translated Afts%,$%. [jnto~\ is fometimes ufed for to y 
 and not for into -, it may iignify either, and is ufed promif- 
 cuoufly for to or into • fo that nothing may be concluded 
 Barely from the- word. To this I anfwer ; fuppofe this be 
 granted, yet it follows not but that it may and ought to 
 be taken here for into as it is tranflated. For, 
 
 1. We fee it was the Judgment of the Tranflators, that 
 it oughf to be fo taken here, or elfe they would have tranila- 
 ted it otherwife ; I can't think they did it contrary to their 
 Judgment. 
 
 2. The text' tells you, they came to the Water, ante- 
 cedent to their going down into it: Firft, Jtxey came unto- a ! 
 certain Water, vet. 30. Did they draw back the Chariot, that 
 they might come unto it a fecond time, and not go down 
 into it at all ? 
 
 3. It is obferved, that the Greek word that is tranflated , 
 unto, is a different word from that which is tranflated into. 
 
 4. This word into is confonant with other Scriptures,' 
 where Baptifm is the Point in hand ; Chrift came up out of 
 the Water, and if fo, he' went firft down into it* John 
 baptized them in the River of "Jordan* how could that be, 
 unlefs they went down into the River ? Again, it's obferv'd, 
 that the Greek Prepofirions are ufed elfe where in then- 
 proper fenfe for into and out of; Mat. 27. 53. And came out 
 cf their Graves, and went into the holy City : there it's ob- 
 lerv'd, that the Prepofkicn o% cut of, and eh into, are ufed 
 
 in their proper fenfe. John 20. 27. -and thruft it into my 
 
 fide-, there the Prepofition «$ is ufed into. Mat. 16. p. 
 Lukie 8. 2. — out of wh:m he cajl [even-, here in both thefe 
 Texts .'cltpJ out of is -ufed.' Arts 16 < 40. And they went o'tt 
 
 of 
 
( U5 ) 
 
 of the Prifon, and entered into the Houjeof Lydia : where ly. and 
 m are both ufed in one Verfe, as well as in Afts 8. 38, 39. 
 and certainly they were both in Prifon and Water before they 
 came out ; here again thefe are borrowed Lines concerning 
 the Greek words, as the former were, yet I fuppofe my 
 Author hath not abufed me in it. 
 
 (4.) It appears it is by Dipping, from the allufion it hath 
 to a Burial j We are buried with him by Baptifm, Col. 2. 12. 
 A Perfon is not buried that hath only a little Duft or Earth 
 fprinkled on his Face, but he is then buried when he is laid 
 into the Earth, and covered all over. Rom. 6. 4. We are bu- 
 ried with him by Baptifm into death j that even as Chrifl was 
 raifed by the Glory of the Father, we aljo fljould wall^ in new- 
 nefs of Life, 
 
 ($.) It appears it is by Dipping, in ;hat the whole of the 
 Subject is to be baptized,and not a part only j the Commiflton 
 is to baptize the Perfon, the Face is no more mentioned 
 than the Feet, nor is there any part mentioned but the 
 whole ; the word is, baptizing them. If it be objected, thac 
 the Face doth fignify the Perfon •, I anfwer, if that be grant- 
 ed, yet the Perfon doth not fignify the Face: It's the Peribn 
 that is to be baptized ; but the fprinkling a little Water on 
 the Face doth never waih the whole of the Subject \ and 
 this being done on the Face of a little Infant, is neither the 
 wafl;ing away the filth of the Fief), nor yet the anfwer of a 
 good Confcience, by the Refurreftion of Chrifi : there is neither 
 the Figure, nor the thing figured. 
 
 zdly, It muft be by Dipping in the Name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft : In thefe two the 
 Form of the Ordinance doth confift. 
 
 Secondly, I fhall prove the truth of the Point by Scrip- 
 ture. And here, firfr, I fhall prove that Difciples are the 
 Subjects of Baptifm, according to Chrift's CommifTion: And, 
 fecondly, That they are the only Subjects thereof. 
 
 Firft, That Difciples or Believers are the Subjects of Bap- 
 tifm, according to Chrift's CommifTion. And here I need 
 not multiply many Scriptures, tho it be a Point, the truth 
 of which has been much oppofed ; the Truth of the Point 
 lying fo full and clear in the Text, which Text is the only 
 
 K Com- 
 
( i4<* ) 
 
 Commiflion that Minifters have to aft by ; and whatever 
 Arguments are brought to prove, that fuch as are not difcipled 
 to Chrift by the Word (that is, by actual Inftruftion) ought 
 to be baptized, are all infignificant, unlefs they can prove 
 it by this very Text : if their Cominiffton do net warrant 
 them to baptize fuch as are not difcipled to Chrift by the 
 Word, there is no Text in all the New Teftamcnt that will 
 warrant them fb to do. By die Commiflion it is to difciple 
 rmd baptize, yet I fhall fubjoin a few Scriptures for the 
 Confirmation thereof. Firft, That Difciples are the Sub- 
 jects of Baptifm, Mark 1 6. io. He that believeth and u bap- 
 tizt&y ftall be faved: this is the lame Comrniifion -, and here 
 believing is to precede baptizing. Acts 2. 38. Repent, and be 
 baptised every one of you in the Name of Jejut Chrift, If 
 Repentance here be not to be taken for Faith, yet I am fure 
 it can't be without Faith : For, firft, there cannot be a true 
 Godly Sorrow for crucifying the Son of God, without a 
 true fight of a crucified Chrift. Secondly, There can be no 
 acceptance of what is done without Faith ; for without Faith 
 it U impoffMe to plea ft God. Acts 8. 57. ff thou believeft 
 with all- thy Heart , thou mayfly that is, thou mayft be bap- 
 tized. 
 
 Secondly, I fhall prove it by Scripture Precedents : And 
 liere we have not one Precedent in all the Scripture of any 
 one Perfbn that ever was baptized, till liich time as they did 
 believe, or were difcipled unto Chrift by the Word. The 
 firft Precedent that I fhall offer is, thefe chat were baptized 
 by Chrift and John, they were Difciples 3 John 4. 1. When the 
 Lord \nevv that the Phariftes had heard, th.tt Chrift made and 
 baptised more Difciples than John, &c, Thofe that were 
 baptized by John, who was the fore-runner of Chrift, were 
 iir ft difcipled 3 and thofe that were baptized by Chrift when 
 he came, were firft difcipled.- The Apoftles, who well un- 
 derftood their Lord's Commi (lion, and who were injoyned by 
 the fame Commiflion to teach us to obferve all things what- 
 soever Chrift had commanded them, never baptized any but 
 fuch as were firft difcipled to Chrift by the Word • nor did 
 they ever teach others to baptize any but Difciples -, nor 
 is there any Apoftolical Doftrine 3 from whence fuch & 
 
 Confe^ 
 
( 147 .) 
 Confluence may be drawn, to warrant, the baptizing of 
 any but Difciples. Alls 2.4 1. then as many as gladly received 
 the Word) were baptised -, not one more : They are rlrfl 
 difcipled, and then baptized -, here are no more baptized 
 than are added to the Church : The fame day there were ad- 
 ded unto them about three thoufand Souls -, and no more added 
 unto them than were admitted to all the Ordinances : the) 
 continued in the Apofiles Volhinc, and breaking of Bread, and in 
 Prayer, Afts 8. 12. When they believed Philip, [peaking of the 
 things concerning the Kingdom of God, they were baptised, both 
 Men and Women. Afts iS. 8. Then Crifpus the chief Ruler of 
 the Synagogue, believed in God, with all hu Houfe ; and many of 
 the Corinthians believed, and were baptised, If whole Fami- 
 lies believe, then whole Families are baptized ; if but a part 
 believe, then a part is baptized- 
 
 2. I fhall prove, that Believers, or fuch as are difcipled 
 to Chrift by the Word, are the cnly SubjecTs of Baptifm 
 according to Chrift 's Commiflion : no other but Difciples, 
 there are no other to be found in the Commiflion, therefore 
 there are no other to be baptized by the CommitTion : Atts 
 % 37- If thou believe}} with all thy heart, thou may]}. The 
 contrary is this, If thou doft not believe with all thy heart, 
 thou may ft not : It had been altogether ulelefs for Philip to 
 have made him this Anfwer, if he might have been baptized 
 while an Unbeliever. Luke 3.7,8. then [aid he to thofe that 
 came out to be baptised of him, Generation of Vipers, who 
 hath warned jou to flee from the Wrath to come ? Bring forth 
 therefore fruit meet for Repentance, and begin not to fay within 
 your felves, We have Abraham to our Father. Thefe came 
 forth to John to be baptized, and were put back, and yet 
 he denies not but that they were the Children of Abraham^ 
 chat was enough to privilege them to Circumcifidn, but not 
 enough to Baptifm. John did never put by Believers that 
 :ame to be baptized by hirtjf j< but if Unbelievers com/e to be 
 baptized, they are put by \ which fhews plainly en aughj that 
 :hey are only Believers that are the Subjects of baptifm. 
 [f there be neither Precept nor Precedent in the Word for 
 he baptizing of any but Believers, then are Believers the 
 >nly Subjecls of Baptifm : but there is neither Precept nor 
 K 2 Prtte-* 
 
( U8 ) 
 
 Precedent in the Word for the baptizing of any but Believers, 
 therefore Believers are the only Subjefts of Baptifm. I think 
 this to be as fully proved, as we can expert a Negative to be 
 
 Pr °/.Vniallanfwerthe moll material Objections that have 
 or may be brought againft this Truth. 
 
 GbidL i. Such as have an Intereft in the Covenant of 
 Grace have a right to Baptifm : but Believers and their Chil- 
 dren,' have an Intereft in the Covenant of Grace-, therefore 
 they have a right to Baptifm. That they have a an Tmere ft 
 in the Covenant of Grace, the Children as well as the Pa- 
 rents, appears, Vent. 29.10,11. Ton ftand all of you this 
 day before the Lord your God, your Captains of your Tnbes % your 
 Officers, with all the Men qf Ifrael-, your little ones tfur 
 Wives 'with the fir anger that is in your Camp, from the hewer^ 
 of thy wood to the drawer of thy water; m tfou Jhouldeft 
 enter into Covenant xhh the Lord thy God, and into the Oath 
 that the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, &c. 
 
 To this I anfwer ; 1. t deny this Covenant to be tfee 
 Covenant of Grace. 2. I deny the Subjefts of this Co; 
 venant to be Believers confidered as.&ch. 3. I deny, that 
 barely an Intereft in this Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, 
 
 15 *fSc£KSi to be the Covenant of Grace • 
 
 and it's enough for me to deny it, * hes on them that 
 
 make the objection to make it. good •, > yet I fhall otter 
 
 fomething oi Reafon for what I fay : Firft, ttar Cotcndl 
 
 is diftinsuifhed from the Covenant of Grace Jej. 31. 31. 
 
 32 therefore it's not the fame: Behold ^edaysjome 
 
 faith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant win 
 
 & rfqf Ifiil, and Judah* not according to te Covenan 
 
 that I made with their Fathers, in the day that I to* thn 
 
 by the hand to lead them up out of the Land of Eg)pt , H 
 
 which my Covenant they brake, although '*« * * w ^™ 
 
 them. That the new Covenant that die Lord promife 
 
 to make is the Covenant of Grace, V think ^deniedb 
 
 "and that the Covenant (which is here difcignfa 
 
 from the New Covenant) that was made with their *athe, 
 
 when God brought them up out of Eeftt, *? that fame C 
 
venant that God made with them, Deut. 29. 10. can w«u- 
 t nally be denied by none 5 that it was the lame Covenant 
 that was made, Deut. 29. 10. appears by ver. 2$. where the 
 Reafon of the Judgments that the Lord threatens to onng 
 j upon them, is affigned to their forfaking the Covenant that 
 1 the Lord made with them, when he brought up out 01 the 
 Land of Egypt, which was the fame Covenant that was 
 made in -ver. 10, 1 1. Now the New Covenant, or the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, is not according to this Covenant, it differs 
 from it in many reipefts ; fome of which I (hall here lay 
 
 down. * ' **■*'■"'* 
 
 Firfl, The New Covenant is abfolute, Jer. $ t. -3$ 34* 
 the Tenour of this Covenant is •, I will, and they (hall : 
 / will mite my Law in their hearts ; I will be their God, 
 andtheyJ(aUbe my People; and they /hall all know me, from 
 the leafi to the greateft : for I will forgive their Iniquity, and 
 remember their Sins no more. This is the Covenant of Grace, 
 and here is no Condition put into.it, the performance ot 
 whi?h dothintitle the Subjects unto the Bleflings thereof. 
 ' But the Covenant that God made with them, Deut. 29. 
 was a conditional Covenants appears Deut.22.1,2. If you will 
 indeed obey, my voice, and do all that I command you, then all 
 
 ' thefe Bleffings flail come unto you : ver. 1 5. But ij you will not 
 hearken unto me, to do all that I command you, then all 
 thefe Curfes frail come upon you, and overtake you, &c. Now 
 according to all thefe words in the 2%th Chap, was Mofes 
 to, make the Covenant with them in the 29th, as appears by 
 the iftverf. of the 29th Chapter. 
 
 Secondly, The Covenant of Grace is a better Covenant, 
 Heb. 8. 6. He is a Mediator of a better Covenant, eltebhfhed 
 on better •Jromifes ; God hath put Judication, Sanftinca- 
 tion and Glorification into the Covenant of Grace •, that lie 
 will write his Law in eheir hearts, that he will be merciful 
 
 ■ to their Unrighteoufnefs, and remember their Sins no more, 
 
 ver. 10, 1 1. „.- 
 
 But there is not onepromife of Juftincaticn nor Sanctitica- 
 tionput into' this Covenant'-, if there had, this Covenant 
 would have been good, and thePromifes as good as the 
 Covenant of Grace, or the Promiies thereof. How could it 
 
 K 2, be 
 
^ *5° ) 
 be otherwife, if the fame Eleflings had been put into this 
 Covenant; &^are put into the new Covenant ? there is not 
 the bjeffing of a new Heart, nor of the pardon of Sin 
 to be found among all thofe Bleflings, Vent. 28. 2 to 15. 
 and thefe were the Bleflings of this Covenant. 
 
 Thirdly, There is not one Subject of the Covenant of 
 Grace but is juftified, and fhall be fandifted. Jer. 31. 33, 
 34. I will write my Law in their hearts ; they flail all ktiow 
 me from the leaft- to the greatejl : for I will forgive their Ini- 
 quity, and remember their Sin no more. This remiflion of 
 Sin is applied to the time of Chrift's Oblation, Neb. 10, 
 1 5, \6. the witnefs of the Spirit is there called in toatteft. 
 that great Truth that is laid down in the 14th ver. that by 
 one Otyation he hath for ever perfected (or pardoned) them 
 that are ian&ified, whereof the Holy Ghoft alfb is a witnefs ; 
 the witnefs that the Spirit bears is this ; Their Sins and Ini- 
 quities will I remember no more : and from this teflimony of 
 the Spirit the Apoftle draws this inference, That where, 
 remiftion of thefe is, there is no more facrifice fcr fin : but 
 there were multitudes of thofe that entred into Covenant 
 with the Lord, Dent. 25. 10. that were never juftified nor 
 fanclified. Dent. 29. 4. God hath not given them a. Heart to 
 •perceive, nor Eyes to fee, nor Ears to hear unto this day. Rom. ' 
 11. 7. What then ? ffrael hath not obtained that which it 
 fought after -, but the Election hath obtained it, and the reft 
 were blinded. There were of the Non-elect in this Covenant 
 that went without New Covenant^Bleflings, ver. 8. As it is 
 written, God hath given them the fpirit of (lumber ; Eyes that 
 they fl.-ould not fee, and Ears that they -ftould not hear. This 
 does not look like that prorrrfe that God hath made ir\ the 
 New Covenant to all the Subject thereof, that they (hall all 
 know him, from the leaft to the greateft of them -, that 
 Covenant, the Subjects whereof, or part of the Subjects 
 therecf,mighr go without Juftihcation and Sanctincation,v. as 
 net the Covenant of Grace'. But for this Covenant, many of 
 the Subjects thereof might and did go without Juftification 
 and Sanftitication i therefore it was not the Covenant of 
 Grace. Some of them indeed were juftified and fancied, 
 but not by virtue of their Intereft in this Covenant, but in 
 
 tlie 
 
t is 1 ; 
 
 the Covenant of Grace : for all the Eleft among the Jews 
 had an Intereft in the Covenant of Grace at trfe lame time. 
 Thefe two Covenants were in being together. 
 
 Fourthly ', The Covenant of Grace contains only Bleffings, 
 there is no Curfe put into that Covenant, the fum and fub- 
 ftance thereof is BleiTednefs. Gen. 22. 18. In thy Seedflwll 
 all the Nations of the Earth be bleffed. All the Subjects of 
 this Covenant are bleffed, their Sins are all pardoned, and 
 fuch are bleffed ones : Bleffed is the man whofe Iniquities are 
 forgiven. The Promifes of this Covenant are full of Bleffings, 
 and there are none but Promifes put into it, Promifes of 
 good to be beftowed on them, £^.36.26,27. that God wrli 
 withhold nothing that is good, Pfal. 84.11. that all things 
 fhall work together for good, Rom. 8. 28. 
 . But this Covenant contains Curfes as well as BleiTmgs, 
 Deut. 29. 21. And the Lord fl) all feparate him for evil, out 
 of all the Tribes of Ifrael, according to all the Curfes of the 
 Covenant that are vmtttn in the Booh^ of the Law. The 
 Curfes that are contained in the 22th chap, from ver. 1 6 to 
 the end, were the Curfes of this Covenant; and thefe might 
 fall on the Subjects thereof without a fan&ified life of 
 them, as they did on thofe that were compared to the evil 
 Hgs, 7^.24. 8,9, icr. 
 
 Fifthly, The Covenant of Grace is flill in being, it's 
 confirmed by Chrift, and there is no difannulling it : He is 
 ftilj the Mediator of the new Covenant, Heb. 12. 24. there- 
 fore the new Covenant remains. 
 
 But this Covenant is done away, Zee. 11. 10. Then Itoo\ 
 my (iaff, even beauty, and cut it afunder, that I might break, my 
 Covenant t'h'aP I had made with all the People, and it was 
 broken in that day. If this Covenant, that is here faid to 
 be made with all the People, was not the Covenant that 
 was made with the whole Congregation of Ifrael, Deut. 29. 
 then (hew me what Covenant it was -, (hew me another Cove- 
 nant if you can chat was made with all the people of Ifrad 9 
 and that was broken by Chrift, when he was offered up, 
 when they weighed for his Price thirty pieces of Silver 
 this Covenant being broken, it's evident k was not thr 
 Covenant of Grace. 
 
 K 4 2.f 
 
( ISO 
 
 2. I deny that they were all Believers that at 
 this time were taken into Covenant with the Lord •, there- 
 fore no argument can be drawn from it, to prove that Belie- 
 vers and their Children have intereft in the Covenant of 
 Grace. This was certainly a mix'd people, there were 
 many among them that were vile and wicked. Jliofes declares 
 that God had not given them Hearts to perceive, nor Eyes to 
 fee, nor Ears to hear unto this day. Here were the blind and 
 the deaf, and I may fay the hard-hearted too ; and this 
 was the very day that they ftocd before the Lord, to enter 
 into Covenant with him. Here were the ftrangers that were 
 in the Camp, as well as the Israelites, which ftrangers I fup- 
 pole were the Egyptians: for it's faid, Exod. 12. 38. that a 
 mixed multitude went up alfo. Do thefe look like Believers, 
 that have neither Eyes to fee, nor Hearts to confider ? this 
 was a brave Camp indeed, it they were all Believers, from 
 the Hewer of their Wood to the Drawer of their Water. 
 I wonder how Minifters can look upon this to be the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, that had fuch a mix'd People to be the Sub- 
 jects thereof^ or upon thefe to be all Believers, or taken in- 
 to Covenant under that Confideration. 
 
 Objeft. But fome may fay, They dickall believe with a dog- 
 matical Faith, they did believe a Mejfiah to come. 
 
 To this I anfwer. 1. This is fooner fpoken than proved. 
 It's a great queftion, whether all the Camp had fuch a Faith : 
 But, 2. Would fuch a Faith ferve the turn ? Would it be 
 fufficient to intereft them and their Children in the Cove- 
 nant of Grace ? if it would, why wilr not the like dogma- 
 tical Faith ferve now? and if it will, then it's eafy to prove 
 that almoft all, if not every Englifh-Man and his Chil- 
 dren have an Intereft therein. Where will you find an 
 Englifh-Man, tho never fo profane and wicked, that does not 
 as much believe that Chrift is come, as the generality of 
 the Jews did believe that he was to come ? If this dogma- 
 tical Faith be the Faith that fome intend, when they fay 
 that Believers and their Children have an intereft in the 
 Covenant, and a right to be baptized, why then do they 
 exclude and put by the Children of any where this dogma- 
 tical faith is to be found? There are many that do agree 
 
 from 
 
C I53 > , r 
 
 from the fame ground, that the Children of Believers 
 
 have an Intereft in the Covenant, and a right to Baptifm, 
 that yet will baptize none whofe Parents are not true Be- 
 lievers in the Judgment of Charity. 
 
 2. I deny that barely an Intereft either in this Co- 
 venant, or in the Covenant of Grace, was or is the ground 
 of Baptifm. c 
 
 F'njl, An Intereft in this Covenant was not the ground ot 
 Baptifm ; thofe that came to John to be baptized, Mat. 5. 
 7. Luke 3. 7. and were denied, had an intereft in this Co- 
 venant, they were the Children of Abraham, with whom 
 this Covenant was originally made, Gen. 1$. 18. which Co- 
 venant took in all the natural Seed, confidered as fuch t and 
 this Covenant remained in being till Chrift was offered up, 
 yet were thefe fent away not baptized. Had an Intereft in 
 this Covenant been the ground of Baptifm, John would not 
 have fent them away without it. 
 
 Secondly, I deny that barely an Intereft in the Covenant of 
 Grace is the ground of Baptifm : where do the Scriptures fay 
 thatfuch as have an Intereft in the Covenant of Grace, have 
 have a Right to the Ordinance ? For men to atfertan intereft 
 1 in the Covenant of Grace to be that which gives a right to 
 Baptifm, and bring no Scripture to prove it, will go but a 
 little way with thofe that make the Word their Rule in 
 the matters of worfliip. 
 
 Thirdly, An Intereft in the Covenant of Grace precedes 
 Sanftification ; a new Heart is an effeft of this Intereft, not 
 thecaufe. Now this Intereft is invifible-, who can tell who 
 they are that have an intereft in the Covenant of Grace, 
 till God change their hearts and lives by a work of Sanfti- 
 fication ? but the ground of Baptifm muft be vifible. 
 
 OhjtB. 2. If Believers and their Children have an Intereft 
 in.the Promife, then they have a right to Baptifm : but Belie- 
 vers and their Children have an intereft in the Promife -, 
 therefore they have a right to Baptifm. Afts 2. 38, 99. 
 Repent and be baptised every one of you, for the Promife is to 
 you, and to your Children, 
 
 To this I anfwer. (1.) I deny the Subjetts here to be Belie- 
 vers at the time when the Apoftle faid, the Promife is to 
 
 you. 
 
you and to your Children 5 and no Argument can be drawn 
 to prove a Privilege to Believers and their Seed from 
 what is ipoken to Unbelievers. That they were not tWievers 
 may appear, 
 
 1. In that they were but under fome Conviftion thev 
 were pricked at the heart, that's all the account we have of 
 them : but Conviction and Convention are two things • a 
 perlon may be convirted that is not converted : nay he 
 muft be convicted before he can be converted : the whole 
 need net the Phyfician, but they that are lick. 
 
 i*u The £ i Vtre ^ ncr:nt °f the way of Salvation, 
 and that a Perfon can't bet,, at does believe : for Faith is as 
 well the aft of the Undemanding, as of the Will : their 
 ignorance ot the way of Salvation appears in that they 
 cried out, Men and Brethren, what jball we do t 
 
 2. It appears in that they were with many other words 
 exhorted to fav e themfelves from that untoward Generati- 
 on ; that is, as I apprehend, from the Judgments that hung 
 over the heads ol that untoward Generation for rejeclin^ 
 of Chnft : but if they had believed, they had been fave J 
 already, there had then been no need of that exhortation. 
 
 4. They did not all believe at laft, ver. 41. Then they that 
 gladly received the Word, were baptised, &c. There were but ' 
 a part ot them that did embrace this exhortation. 
 ^(2.) I deny that by the word unto, is intended Intereft in 
 the Promife; they had indeed the Promife, but the Offer 
 is one thing, and Intereft is another. 
 
 ift. God did never vouchfaf e' this Privilege of Intereft in 
 the Promife to the Children of the deareft of his Servants, 
 coni:dercd as fuch, not to the Children of Abraham, Ifaac, 
 and Jacob. Rom. 9. 6. All are not Ifrael that are of Ifrael - 
 then all that were of Ifrael, had not an intereft in thePrc- 
 mife ; for the Promifes were made to none but Ifrael (Jer. 
 21. 52.) ver. 7. neither becaule they are the Seed of Abra- 
 ham are they all Children, But in Ifaac /hall thy Seed be 
 called; ver. 8. fo then they that are the Children of the 
 Jkfh, thefe are not the Children of God h but the Chil- 
 dren of the Promife are accounted for the Seed : that is 
 the Seed with whom God did eftablifh his Covenant, Gen. 
 
 l 7- 
 
f J 
 
 i ?. 7. Here were feme of the Seed of Abraham, which 
 were the Children of the Flcfh, that were not the Children 
 pi God, nor the Children of the Promife, nor accounted 
 for the Seed. Ver. 11. Jacob have I loved, arJ Efauhave 1 
 hated ; and yet Efau was the Son of Ifaac, his firft born. 
 Now can it be fuppofed, that a Perfon hated of Gcd had an 
 intereft in the Promife ? 
 
 2//. Such as have an intereft in the Promife, fhall certain- 
 ly injoy the good and benefit thereof, justification, and 
 San&ihcation, and Glorification. Rom.9.6. It cannot be thac 
 the word of God has taken none effect : and it fo, then ifr 
 cannot be that fuch as have an Intereft in the Promife 
 fhould go without one or ail of thefe BlelTings, for they are 
 the effect of the Promife. There are none will fay that all 
 the Children of Eelievers fhall be faved, and yet they can- 
 not mifs of Salvation if they have an Intereft in the Pro- 
 mife. 
 
 3/y. Once an Intereft in the Promife, and for ever an 
 Intereft in the Promife. Jer. 32. 40. / will make an ever- 
 lafting Covenant with them, that I will never turn away from 
 them, to do them good- and I will put my fear in their Hearts^ 
 that they flail not depart from me. God covenants here for 
 himfelf and them too ^ for himfelf, that he will never turn 
 away from them, to do them good ; for them, that he will put Im 
 fear in their Hearts, that they flail not depart from him. And 
 here I mould think that none, that deny falling from Grace, 
 fhould oppofe me in this. 
 
 (3.) I deny that the offer of the Promife is the ground 
 of Baptifiii; thofe that did not receive the Word had the 
 offer of the Promife, as well as thofe that did : where-ever 
 the Gofpel comes, there comes the offer of the Promife ; 
 It's net the offer of the Promife, but the Command, Repent 
 and be baptized, that's the Ground -, the offer of the Promife 
 is a Motive to inforce the Exhortation. If the Queftion 
 then be, What muft thole do to whom the Promife is ? 
 the Anfwer will be this, Repent, and be baptised. Repen- 
 tance muft come between the offer of the Promife, find the 
 taking up of the Ordinance. But here it may be objected, 
 that Repentance is injoined the Parent, not the Child. I 
 
 anfwer, 
 
V *5° ) 
 
 a nfwer, that Eaptifm alfo js injoined the Parent, not the 
 Child t, there are no more required to be baptized, than are 
 required to repent antecedently thereunto. 
 
 Obje&. 3. If the Children of Believers are federally holy, 
 then they have a right to Baptifmj but they are fo. 
 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the unbelieving Husband k fanftified in the 
 Wife, and the unbelieving Wife k fanfiified in or to the Husband ; 
 elfe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. To 
 this I anfwer : 
 
 1. Thefe three Objections are but one in fubftance, 
 tho they vary in terms ; for, to have an Intereft in the Co- 
 venant, an Intereft in the Promife, and to be fede- 
 rally holy, is the fame thing. If neither of the two for- 
 mer Objections will ftand, then the third will not ftand, 
 for they are all built on the fame foundation \ and it appears 
 by the Anfwers given already, that it is but a fandy Fount 
 dation that they are built upon. 
 
 2. Tho one of the Parents to whom the Apoftle wrote 
 was a Believer when he wrote to them, yet they were 
 not fo to be coniidered in their being fanctified each to 
 the other, but as Husband and Wife. There was a Cafe of 
 Confcience fent to the Apoftle for Refolution, whether it 
 was lawful for the Believer to abide with his or her unbe- 
 lieving Yoke-fellow ? this he anfwers in the Affirmative - y 
 but withal tells them, ver. 12. To this fpea\ I, not the Lord. " 
 Therefore it was neceffary to demonftrate it -, and here, firft, 
 he profefies the lawfulnefs of their Continuance by the 
 lawfuln'efs of their State : The unbelieving Husband k fanBi- 
 fied in, or to the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife k fan&ifod in, 
 or to the Husband ; that is, by the Ordinance of God, when 
 both were Unbelievers, according to that Scripture, Heb.i 3.5. 
 Marriage k honourable among aU y and the Bedundefiled : Be they , 
 who they will, Believers or Unbelievers, they did not live 
 in Fornication •, but in Wedlock they were Husband and » 
 Wife, and fo were ieparated from all others to the lawful 
 wfe of each others Bodys. Their Cohabitation was lawful ac- 
 cording to the Word of God, and in this fenfe the word 
 fanaijicd is taken elfewhere (for that which is lawful) 
 
 -i Tim. 4. $. Every Creature of God k good, and nothing to 
 
 be 
 
( I 5 n ^ ■ • 
 
 be refufeJ • for if is fanflified by the Word ofGodjkc that 
 isjawful to be ufed ; they were married, and fo were faneti 
 fied e3eh to tne other -, this lie illultrates by an Argument 
 drawn from their Offspring } EJfc were your children wncU<m y 
 but now are they holy . If they had not been married , and 
 fo faneffified each to the other by the Ordinance of God, 
 their children bad been unclean, they had been illegitimate, 
 unlawfully begotten . The word unclean is elfewhere t3ken 
 for that which is unlawful , Aft . 10 ,14-, Notfo Lon^for , I 
 have never eaten Jny thing that is cowmen or uncle wngnMtf 
 that is forbidden by the Word-, for the unclean Meats were 
 no otherwifc unclean, than as they were forbidden ; i^Jm.14. 
 14. l\novn 1 dm ferfwaded by the Lord Jefus , that there, isno- 
 rljing unclean initfelf. There is no inherent Unclean- 
 nefs intbofe Creatures, but they are clean or unclean 5 as 
 they are lawful or lawful according to the Word of God, 
 ana* inthisfenfe I take the Uncleannefs and Holinefs of the 
 Children \ they are not illeeeti mate /out lawfully begot- 
 ten. 
 
 2. I deny the Holinefs of the Children here to be fe- 
 deral Holinefs. For, 
 
 (i^The Holinefs of the Child doth not a rile from the' 
 Faith of the believing Parent . but from the Sanctiheation 
 of the unbelieving y whole Sanorncaticndid not arife from 
 the Faith of his Yoke -fellow , but fyom v the Ordinance of God 
 when both were believers . Now there is nobody doth ac- 
 count the S a notification of the Unbeliever to befedral- 
 Holinefs ; and if that be not fedral Holinefs, then the Ho- 
 linefs of the Child cant be fedral \ for that°s the Root from 
 whence the Holinefs of the Child doth fpring-,Kowfuch as 
 the Root is ,fuch are the Branches -,fuch as the Fountain , 
 fuch are the Streams $ the EfFeA can't rife higher than the 
 Jaufe. The Holinefs of the Child fpringing from the Saner 
 tifkation of the unbelieving Parent ^muit neceffarijy be of 
 the fame kind. . • - 
 
 ( 2 The ApofHe fpeaks here of their Children idefin- 
 ite!y,fuch as were born when both were tin believe rs^as well 
 as thofe that were born after one of the Parents did believe 
 (Tome of which *fbr ought we Know ^remained prdfeft 
 
 Pagans, 
 
( '58) 
 
 Pagans , as well as one of the Parents , and yet holy) Elfs 
 werg your Children nndecm^ but novo are they htly. The Hc- 
 Iinefs of theChild didnotdepend onthe Faith of the Pa- 
 rent., nor is there a word (poken of the Faith of the Belie- 
 ver in the Text, as if that were the ground , either of 
 the SancTification of the Unbeliever, or of the Holinefsof 
 the Child. 
 
 • 3. T deny federal Holinefs to be the ground of Baptifm. 
 
 • ^1.) The Scripture doth no where make it the ground 
 of Baptifm 7 neither direcftlv, nor confequentially 5 if it 
 doth, produce it: we may hot run hand over head,and fay 
 this is the ground, and the other thins; is the £round;when 
 we have no ground in Scripture for what we' fay, 
 
 (2..) ilt^s verv apparent from the Word , chat fcdi-3! Ho- 
 linefs was not fhe ground of Baptifm ; all the Tew were 
 federally holv when Ghtift and 'J-clm baptized , yet they 
 were made £)ifcipLes bdrore thev were baptized, and fo 
 not baptised 3s confidered federally holy, but as dif- 
 cipics of Ch rift, John. 4. 1. They tHat came to fobnto 
 he baptized, Matt, 3.7. were federally holy, and cjid in 
 effed: plead their fedral Holinefs as the ground of their 
 Claim to Baptifm, they pleaded that they were the Chil- 
 dren of Abraham \ now the Children of Abraham were fe- 
 derally holy, confidered as fuch ,they were born intercftcd 
 in that Covenant, that peculiar Covenant, by virtueof which 
 the were federally holy, a feparate People . Had theirfederal 
 Holinefs been queftioncd,thev could have produced the 
 token of the Covenant in the foreskin of their Flelh and 
 yet thefe were denied, the Ordinance ncmithftandingthe 
 Plea. That they were denied ,may appear, 
 
 1 . In that he calls them a generation of Yipers ; who, 
 can think th8t he would haw branded them with fo black a 
 Mark, and afterwards baptise them ? Would all the Water 
 in forddn\u\e wafhed it off again ? WasBaptifm anOr- 
 dinance appointed for Ytperous Brood? 
 
 2. He overrules their Plea: Think not tcfiy witfjin 
 ysurfe lves t fl7<? have Abraham to our Tather. He dbthnotde- 
 ny their relation to Abrxktm, but rejecf s their Flea;Birch 
 Priviledge did never intitle to Baptifm^ no rnftance can be 
 •liven thereof. 3. He 
 
( 159) 
 
 7,. He counfels them to take another courle • Bring fortfy 
 Fruits meet for Repentance : this Counfel was rejected by 
 them j and lb they go without the Ordinance. Luke 7. 30, 
 But the Pharifees and the Lawyers replied, the Counfel of God. 
 again}} themfelves, not being baptised by htm ; that is, by John* 
 Had federal Holinefs been the ground of Baptifm, John 
 would have baptized them as well as others. 
 
 Objetf. 4. If the Children of Believers are Difciples, ther* 
 they have a right to Baptifm, according to Chrift's Com- 
 milTion, Mat. 28.19. Go difciple to me all Nations ; baptising 
 them, &c. But the Children of Believers are Difciples, there- 
 fore they have a right to Baptifm. Afts 15. 10. Why tempt 
 ye God to lay a yoJee upon the Neck of the Difciples, which nei- 
 ther we nor our Fathers were ever able to bear * This Yoke was 
 Circumcifion after the manner of Mofes, and that was for 
 Children of eight days old, therefore Children of eight days 
 old are Difciples, and fo ought to je baptized. 
 
 To this I anfwer : 1. I grant the major Proposition, Thar 
 fuch as are difcipled to Chrift by the Word, have a right to 
 Baptifm. 
 
 2. I deny the minor, That Children of eight days old are 
 v Difciples, or that they are intended or comprehended in the 
 word Difciples, A$s 15.10. it was the Brethren only on 
 whom they would have laid the Yoke, not a word of Chil- 
 dren in the whole Controverfy •, ver. 1 . They taught the Bre- 
 thren, Except ye be circumcifed after the manner of Moles, ye 
 cannot be faved. They did not teach the Children, nor did 
 they teach the Brethren to circumcife their Children, ic was 
 not come fo far as yet: the manner of Mofes here did 
 not refpett the Subjeft but the Form ■ it was the Brethren 
 that muft be circumcifed, but how ? after the manner of 
 Mofes : The word ye is relative to the Brethren ; had Chil- 
 dren of eight days old been the Antecedent, it had been 
 fomething to the purpofe ; but it's the Brethren, among 
 whom Children of eight days old could not be numbered : 
 For, 1. They were fuch as had received the Holy Ghoft, 
 ver. 8. 2. They had purified their Hearts by Faith, ver.g. 
 3. They were fuch, who from among the Gentiles were 
 turned unro God, ver. 19*- 
 
 idly. By 
 
( ItfO ) 
 
 idly. By the Yoke here we are not to underftand Circum-i 
 cifion barely confidered, but Circumcifi on binding them to! 
 keep the Law in point of JufHfication, ver. 5. this was the' 
 Yoke that neither they nor their Fathers were ever able to 
 bear ; Circumcifion barely confidered, Children of eight days 
 old were able to bear, and did. Now thoCircLimcifion might 
 have been impofed on the Children, yet the falfe Do&rine, 
 which was that wherein this intolerable Yoke did conllfr, 
 could not, for Children are as incapable of receiving a Lie, as t 
 they are of receiving the Truth. 
 
 $dly. A Difciple is a Scholar, one that learns ; but Chil- 
 dren that are incapable of learning, are incapable of being 
 difcipled. 
 
 Objeft. But fome may fay, that a Child is a Scholar the 
 firft day he goes to School. 
 
 To this I anfiver j 1. If this were granted, yet it would 
 not follow, that he is a Scholar before he goes to School. 
 Now the Children of Believers, while in an Infant-ftate, are 
 not gone fo far, they are not entred in Chrift's School : pray 
 /hew me where Chrift hath fet up a School for teaching In- 
 fants in an Infant-ftate ; Who is the School-mailer that 
 Chrift hath appointed to teach and inftrucl: them ? and where* 
 Is this teaching retained to the Children of Believers ? for 
 if there be fuch a School, and it be not retrained to the Chil- 
 . dren of Believers, then the Children of Unbelievers are 
 Difciples as well as the Children of Believers, and fo a 
 right to Baptifm may be claimed for them too. 
 
 2.I grant that in fome fenfe a Child may be faid to be 
 a Scholar the firft day he goes to School, according to the 
 common acceptation, provided he has learned fomething ; 
 but if he has learned nothing, I will not fay he is a poor 
 Scholar, for properly he is none at all. 
 
 3. It is not enough to denominate aPerfona Difciple of, 
 Chrift, that he is in Chrift's School, and under the teachings .' 
 of fuch as are appointed by Chrift to go and difciple to him ; 
 no, tho he hath freely and voluntarily fubmitted himfelf 
 to be taught by them : the Eunuch had freely fubmitted him- 
 felf to Philip, to be taught by him ^ Afts 8. 31. Philip 
 anfwered his defire, he went up into the Chariot and preached 
 
 Chrift 
 
( Itfl ) 
 
 Chrifi to htm : but when he defired to be baptized, Philip 
 takes an account of him, whether he had learned Chrifi, 
 before he could conclude him a Difciple of Chrifi, ver. 37, 
 38. from whence it does plainly appear, that a Difciple of 
 Chrifi is one that hath not only been under the teachings 
 of Chrifi, but hath alfo learned Chrifi by the Word that he 
 hath been taught. 
 
 4. A Difciple of Chrifi is one that hath fo learned Chrifi 
 as to deny himfelf for Chrifi. Luke 14. 16. Except a 
 man hate Father and Mother, yea and his own Life alfo, he can- 
 not be my Difciple. Children then that are incapable of learn- 
 ing Chrifi, fo as to deny themfelves for Chrifi, are incapa- 
 ble of being difcipled unto Chrifi, 
 
 Objett. $. Such as are Church- members have a right to 
 baptimij but the Children of Believers are Church-mem- 
 bers, therefore they have a right to Baptifm. That Chil- 
 dren are Church-members, appears, Rom.n, 17. whenfome 
 of the Eranches were broken off, through unbelief, the 
 Gentiles were grafted in in their room, and did partake with 
 thofe that remained of the root and fatnefs of the Olive- 
 tree. Now when the Gentiles were grafted in, their Chil- 
 dren were grafted in with them; ver, 16. If the root be hvly y 
 the branches alfo are holy. When the natural Branches were 
 broken off, they and their Children were broken off together : 
 fo when the Gentiles were grafted in, they and their Chil- 
 dren were grafted in together. 
 
 To this I anfwer ;• 1.. I deny that the Gentiles were graft- 
 ed in among the Jews, as they were counted a National 
 Church, tho I grant that they were grafted in among them 
 as they were confidered the univerfal vifible Church. The 
 Conflitution of the Church was altered from National to 
 Congregational. As foon as Chrifi was offered up, their Ta- 
 bernacle fell, their Priefthood fell, their national Ordinances 
 alter ; Tabernacles, and their national Church-officers were 
 all down. Jerufalem and Judea, and all the Regions round 
 abouG were but one Church before -, but now thofe of them 
 that did embrace Jefus Chrifi, were imbodied into particular 
 Congregation?. There Were a plurality of Churches in Judea : 
 
 L I. 
 
<, 102 ; 
 
 j was unknown by fate, faith the Apoftle, unto the Churches of 
 ;iidea* Gal. i. 22. 
 
 2. I deny that the Children of the Jews were broken off, 
 together with their Parents : if an unbelieving few had a 
 Child that did believe, that believing Child was not broken 
 off with the unbelieving Father -, the Child flood a Branch 
 upon the Root when the Father was gone. 
 
 3. I deny that there were more of the Gentiles grafted 
 in than did believe : it were flrange that the natural Bran- 
 ches mould be broken off becaufe of Unbelief, and that Un- 
 believing Gentiles fhould be grafted in. What difference is 
 there between an unbelieving Jew, and an unbelieving Gen- 
 tile, that the one mufl be accounted a Church-member, and 
 not the other ? That there were none but Believers grafted 
 in is evident, for they had their ftanding by faith ; ver. 20. 
 They were broken off through Vnbelicf, and thou ftandeft by 
 Faith. 
 
 4. I deny that the believing Gentile is the Root, he him- 
 felf is but a Branch ; the Root and the Branch are two things, 
 ver. 1 5. Thou bear eft not the Root, but the Root thee. 
 
 $. I deny that the Children of the Gentiles are the holy 
 Branches, ver, 16. they are the natural Branches that are, 
 the holy Branches, the Children of the Jews, and not the 
 Children of the Gentiles : ver. 1 $. for if the cafting away 
 cf them be the reconciling of the world, what foall their 
 receiving be but life from the dead f that is, the Jews, 
 Here is an intimation of their return, that God will have a 1 
 time to call them again, and renders this as the Reafon, 
 ver. 1 6. For if the Root be holy, fo are the Branches. This 
 refpecls the Children of the Jews, not confidered as fucli,, 
 but iuch of them as fhali in time believe, and fo be grafted 
 in again, ver* 23. and they alfo if they abide not ftill in unbelief, 
 flmU be grafted in again, for God is able to graft them in. There 
 is no foundation in this Chapter for Childrens Church-mem- 
 berfhip. That Children are not Church-members, will far- 
 ther appear, if we confider the matter of a Gofpel-Church. 
 , u They are not Members of a particular inftituted Church ; 
 the matter or' iuch a Church is vifible Saints, fuch as are in- 
 herently 
 
herently holy In the Judgment of Charity. This appear?, 
 firft, by the Titles that are given them in the Epiftles that 
 were fent to them, they are Ailed Saints, fuch as were 
 fanftified in Ghrift Jefus, called to be Saints, i Cor. 1.2. he 
 Church of the Thejfaionians are filled, Such as were in God 
 
 \ the Father, and in the Lord Jefm Chrifl, 1 Theff. 1. 1. Se- 
 condly, it appears by the improvement that is made by each 
 individual Member ^ Tour faith groweth exceedingly, and 
 the love of every one of you aboundeth one towards ano- 
 ther, 2 Theff. 1. 3. This is not applicable to Children in 
 an Iniant-ftate, and yet it's applicable to the whole Church, 
 not only as it's colie&ively conrldered, but as it's diftribu- 
 tively considered. Phil. 1. 6. I am perfwaded that he that 
 hath begun a good wo*\ in you, will not ceafe to perfeft the 
 fame unto the coming of Chrifl, as it is meet for me to thinly 
 fo of you all. 
 
 2. They are not Members of the univerfal vifible Church, 
 that alfo is made up of vifible Saints : 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one 
 Spirit are ye all baptised into one Body, and made to drin\ in- 
 to one Spirit, whether Jew or Gentile. A Jew that before was 
 born a Church-member, is not now to 'be owned as fuch, 
 
 "'unlefs in the Judgment of Charity he be new-born. Epb. £• 
 4. There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as ye are cal- 
 led in one hope of your Calling : one Faith, one Baptifm, 
 one God and Father of all. And to every one of us is gi- 
 ven Grace according to the meafure of the gift of Chrifl, 
 This one Body is the univerfal, vifible Church, and it's 
 made up of fuch as are called in one hope of their Calling, 
 and each individual Member hath in the Judgment of Cha- 
 rity a meafure of Graces here is then no room for Chil- 
 dren to ftand Members, that are not called in this one Hope, 
 that have not as yet a meafure of Grace bellowed, on them. . 
 ObjeZf. But fome may fay, The Children of Believers were 
 Church-members under the legal Difpenfation. 
 
 To this I anfwer : Firft, The Oueftion is not what they 
 were, but what they are ; the Children of Unbelievers were 
 then Church-members,as well as Believers: all the Children of 
 t.he Jews were Church- members, and we mufl bewray our 
 ignorance if we will fay that all the Jews were Believers : 
 
 L a Unbelievers 
 
( 1*4) 
 
 Unbelievers were then Church-members as well as Believers. 
 Ton believe not, faith Chrift, becaufe ye are not my Sheep, as I 
 [aid unto you ; and yet they were Church-members. Will 
 you argue, that the Children of fuch who do not believe 
 are Church-members now, or that fuch as do not believe, are 
 now Church-members becaufe they were fuch then ? 
 
 Secondly, The Conftitution of the Church is now altered 
 (as I faid before) from national to congregational, the mat- 
 ter whereof is vifible Saints, and the form mutual Confent \ \ 
 neither of which are Children in an Infant-ftate capable 
 of. 
 
 Thirdly, We may not now take our meafures from the 
 rules of that Difpenfation any more for Members than for 
 Ordinances, and for Officers, the Laws of the Difpenfation 
 being changed : there being a change of the Priefthood, 
 there is made alfo of neceffity a change of the Law, Heh 
 7. 12. 
 
 Fourthly. I deny Church-memberfhip to be the ground of 
 Baptifm •, that is, that Church-memberfhip which Children 
 once had ; or that any Perfon that flood a Member of that 
 Church-ftate, was ever baptized, confidered as fuch : the 
 Pharifees that came to John to be baptized, and were denied, 
 Mat. 3. 7. were Church-members. 
 
 The Partition-wall was not then broken down, the national 
 Conftitution was not then changed ; all the Jews were 
 Church-members when Chrift and John baptized, yet they 
 were not baptized confidered as fuch, but as difcipled unto 
 Chrift, John 4. 1. 
 
 Baptifm is adminiftred antecedent to our being formed 
 Members of a particular inftituted Church, Afts 2. 41. they 
 were firft difcipled ; fecondly baptized ; thirdly added unto 
 the Church •, therefore Memberfhip in a particular Church 
 can't be the ground thereof, becaufe it's fubfequent there- 
 unto : and tho it be granted that the Subjects of Baptifm 
 are Members of the univerfal vifible Church, as being dif- 
 cipled unto Chrift ; yet it is upon the profeffion of their 
 faith that they were and (till ought to be baptized, and 
 under no other Confi deration. Afls 8. 3?. If thou believefl 
 w'lth all thy hearty thou maift. 
 
 ObjeZl. 
 
( "*S ) 
 
 Ob)eU. 6. If Eaptifm came in the room of Circumcifion, 
 then Children may and ought to be baptized : but Baptifm 
 came in the room of Circumcifion -, therefore Children may 
 and ought to be baptized. That Baptifm came in the room 
 of Circumcifion, appears, Col. 2. 11, 12. they are there 
 put one for another. 
 
 To this I anfvver. 1. I deny that Baptifm came in the 
 room of Circumcifion. If Baptifm and Circumcifion flood 
 together feveral years by the Ordinance of God, then Bap- 
 tifm did not come in the room of Circumcifion : but Bap- 
 tifm and Circumcifion flood together feveral years by the 
 Ordinance of God ; therefore Baptifm did not come in the 
 room of Circumcifion. Circumcifion flood of divine ap- 
 pointment till Chrifl was offered up. If a Jew had been 
 difcipled to Chrifl, and baptized, and the next day 
 made Father of a Son of eight days old, that Son mufl have 
 been circumcifed, or he had broken the Covenant : but God 
 fent John to baptize ♦, and Chrifl himfelf did baptize by his 
 Difciples long before he was offered up. 
 
 2. Circumcifion belonged only to the Male, not to the 
 Female •, but Baptifm belongs to the Female as well as the 
 •Male. Did the Baptifm of the Female come in the room of 
 Circumcifion, when Circumcifion had never any place with 
 the Female ? or can the Baptifm of the Female be argued 
 from the Circumciiion of the Male ? Is there any room to 
 form an Argument here, if it were granted that they 
 came one in the room of another ? 
 
 3. Circumcifion was to be adminiflred the eighth day? 
 not fooner nor later \ how comes it about that there is now 
 no precife time for a Child to be baptized in, if Baptifm 
 came in the room of Circumcifion ? Where did God ever 
 declare that Baptifm fhould be adminiflred in the room of 
 Circumcifion ? But he would no longer tie you to an exaft 
 day or time •, as for that you fhould take your own time. 
 
 4. The Subjecls treated of, Col. 2. were Believers every 
 one of them, they had received Chrifl Jefus, ver. 6. they 
 were compleat in Chrifl, ver. 10. 
 
 5. It's fpiritual Circumcifion that is there mentioned, 
 ver. 11. that which is made without hands, in putting off 
 
 L 3 the 
 
( 166 ) 
 
 the body of the Sins of the Flefh by the Circumcifion of 
 Chrift. 
 
 6. It is not fpiritual, but outward Baptifm that is intend- 
 ed in the 12th verf. Buried with him in Baptifm, that is, 
 Water-Baptifm. Now how in considerately do Men argue, 
 when they fay that Baptifm and Circumcifion are put- 
 one for the ether, when the one is fpiritual, and the 
 other outward ? If you fay that Baptifm is here to be 
 taken of fpiritual Baptifm, and fo they are put one for' 
 another : I anfwer (if this be granted) this is tbren from 
 the Cafe in hand : the Queftion is, Whether Circumcifion 
 and Baptifm, as they are'confidered the Ordinances of God, 
 and outwardly to be adminiftred, are here put one for the 
 other ? and that they are not, is fo plain and clear, that 
 he that runs may read 5 there is then no ground from this 
 Text to fay that Baptifm came in the room of Circumcifion, 
 nor is there another Text to be found from whence fuch a 
 Condition may be drawn. 
 
 Objefi. 7. If Children be capable of the Kingdom of God, 
 and the BlefTing of Chrift, which are the greater, then they 
 are capable of Baptifm, which is the leffer : But Children 
 are capable of the Kingdom of God, and of the BlefTing 
 of Chrift, that is the greater -, therefore they are capable 
 of Baptifm, which is the leffer. 
 
 That they are capable 6f the greater, appears in that 
 Chrift faith, Suffer little Children to came unto me, and 
 forbid them not, for of fuch is the Kingdom of God ; and he too^ 
 ihem in his Arms and blejfed them. 
 
 To this I anfwer : It does not follow that they are capa- 
 ble of the leffer, tho it be granted that they are capable of 
 the greater. The Supper of the Lord may be called the 
 leffer, as weli as Baptifm : but Children that are capable oi 
 the Kingdom of God, and the BlefTing of Chrift, which if 
 the greater, are not capable of the Supper of the Lord, which 
 is the leffer ; and yet there is no more required as a Prequali- 
 fication to the Supper of the Lord than there is to Baptifm. 
 
 Objett. 8. Children are as capable now of Baptifm, as 
 they were formerly of Circumcifion ; and why then ftiouJd 
 rhey be denied ? 
 
 • Tc 
 
( «<*7 ) 
 
 To this I anfwer : I do not difpute their Capacity, but 
 the Authority thereof - y there was a Command for that, Gen f 
 17. to, it. ihew me the Hke Command for this, and I will 
 yield the point. Abraham did not circumcife his IJhmael ac 
 eight days old, becaufe there was no Command for it : nor 
 would he have circumcifed his Jfaac at eight days old if 
 he had not had a Command fo to do. Either Believers are 
 commanded to baptize their Children, or they are not ; if 
 they are, produce it ^ if they are not, then there is no 
 fuch thing as Infant-Eaptifm of Divine Inftitution. If the 
 Duty of baptizing Children in an Infant- ftate do not lie 
 on the believing Parent, then I would fain know on 
 whom it doth lie : I can't think that it lies on the Child 
 while in an Infant-fbte ♦, the Child in an Infant-ftate is nei- 
 ther capable of knowing what is matter of Duty, nor yet of 
 doing: Nor doth it lie on theMinifter ; for, firft, the Mi- 
 nifter hath no Power to baptize the Child if the Parent re- 
 fufe to have it done. Secondly, He hath no CommiiTion fo 
 to do in cafe the Parent do content to it. They are Difci- 
 ples only that are put into his Commifficn •, but the Children 
 pf Believers are not difcipled in an Infant-ftate, therefore 
 they are not put into his CommiiTion. Where fhall we find 
 on whom the Duty of Infant-Baptifin is incumbent, if there 
 be any fuch thing ? Precepts do not leave us at a Iofs who 
 it is they bind to that Duty. 
 
 Ob'jeft. 9. We read of whole Houfes that were baptized, 
 and it's probable that there were Children in fome or. all of 
 them. 
 
 To this I anfwer : 1. If it be probable, yet it is not cer- 
 tain, and therefore no Argument can be drawn from it : 
 could it be proved that there had been Children there, then 
 there would have been tome room for an Argument j but 
 that can't be done. 
 
 2. It's more probable that there were no Children there, 
 in that there are but four Houfholds mentioned among th 
 many thoufands that were baptized, and were all known to 
 be Believers. This affords a ftrong Preemption, that the 
 Apoftle did not baptize the Houfhold upon the Faith of 
 the Parent j if he had, there would have been multitudes 
 L 4 of 
 
( i*8 ) 
 
 of Houfholds that would have been baptized, if it had been 
 common to baptize whole Houfholds : I fee no reafon why 
 thefe four fhould be mentioned more than others. 
 
 3. The Jailor believ'd in God with all his Houfe, AUs 16. 
 34. and Crifpw, the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, believ'd 
 in God with all his Houfe, Atfs 18. 8. Here are two of the 
 four Houfes that were all Believers, here are no Children 
 in thefe, for Children are not capable of Faith -, Faith 
 comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God ; but Chil- 
 dren in an Infant-ftate are not capable of hearing fo as to 
 underftand, and to believe. Stephanas and his Houfe are 
 faid to be the firft Fruits of Acaia^nd that they had addifted 
 themfelves to the Miniftry of the Saints, which is tanta- 
 mount to believing. Here are three of the four Houfholds 
 that had no Children •, and as for Lydia.no body knows whe- 
 ther fhe was a Maid, Wife, or Widow : We read of the 
 Erethren that were in her Houfe, but we read nothing of 
 Children there, AUs 16. alt. 
 
 Objeff. 10. But if Children be denied Church-memberfhip 
 and Baptifm under the Gofpel, that were admitted to 
 Church-memberfhip and Circumcifion under the Law j then 
 Children are lofers by the coming of Chrift in refpecl of 
 outward Privileges. 
 
 To this I anfwer. 1. If this be granted, where fhall the 
 blame be laid ? It was the Pleafure of God under the Legal 
 •Adminiftration that Children fhould enjoy thefe Privileges ; 
 and it's the Pleafure of God under the Evangelical Admini- 
 ftration, that they fhould not enjoy them. Men that were 
 known after the Flefh before Chrift came, were no longer 
 known after the Flefh when Chrift was offered up, Birth- Pri- 
 vileges were utterly ceas'd, 2 Cor. $. 16. The Apoftle flops 
 the mouth of all Objections in this matter, by letting us know 
 that all things are of God, who hath reconciled m to himfelf 
 by Jefu Chrijh 
 
 2. Jf there muft be no alteration under the Gofpel of 
 what there was under the Law, what then do you allow your 
 Children in the room of the Paffover, which then they had 
 a right to ? there was a Lamb appointed for a Houfe, Chil- 
 dren were a part of the Houfe, and we can prove that there 
 * were 
 
( i*9 ) 
 
 were Children in thofe Houfes where the PafTover was eaten. 
 Why do ye not plead for the Supper for your Children in the 
 room of the Paflbver, as well as for Baptifm in the room of 
 Circumcifion? you have as much ground to plead for the one 
 as for the other. And what have we in the room of the 
 Feaft of Firft-fruits, and of the Feaft of Ingatherings ? 
 fhall we fay that we are lofers by the coming of Chrift in 
 refpeft of outward Privileges, becaufe we have nothing in 
 the room of thefe Feafts ? 
 
 Objeft. n. But we are to teach all Nations, and to bap- 
 tize them ; Children are a part of a Nation, therefore they 
 muft be baptized. 
 
 To this I anfwer: i. Turk and Pope are parts of a Na- 
 tion, tho not both of the fame Nation, and fo are all the 
 Pagans and Heathens in the World •, mufl all thefe be bap- 
 tized becaufe they are part of a Nation? 
 
 2. Tho Children are part of a Nation, yet they are not 
 part of a difcipled Nation, they themfelves being not di£ 
 cipled to Chrift 5 the word them is relative to all Nations 
 fo and fo modified and qualified •, it is not all Nations confi- 
 dered as fuch, but all Nations difcipled to Chrift that ought 
 '<to be baptized. 
 
 III. I (hall give one Reafon of the Point, why Believers, 
 . or fuch as are difcipled to Chrift by the Word, are the only 
 
 Subjecis of Baptifm according to Chrift's Commiflion, and 
 that is, becaufe fuch only are put into the CommilTion ^ thefe 
 are to be found there, and there are none but thefe to be 
 found there. Minifters muft keep clofe to their Commifti- 
 on, and if they do, they will find that there are no more to 
 be baptized by them than are difcipled unto Chrift. 
 
 IV. I fhall make fome Application of the Point. 
 
 And firft, By way of Information: Is it fo that Believers, 
 or fuch as are difcipled to Chrift by the Word, are the only 
 Subjects of Baptifm according to Chrift's Commiflion ? 
 
 Then, ift. It may inform us, that Minifters have fuffi- 
 cient Authority to difciple to Chrift by the Word, and to 
 baptize fuch as are difcipled : That if the Queftion be, By 
 what Authority they do thefe things, and who gave thera 
 this Authority ? they have their Anfwer ready at hand, they 
 
 hav e 
 
( Ho ) 
 
 fiaveit from Chi id; they have it not of Man, nor from 
 Man 5 they have it not from the Magiftrate, nor from Mi- 
 nifies that were before them -, nor yet from any Church 
 or Churches, but from Chrift. That they have fufficient 
 Authority for what they do of this kind, will appear in a 
 few Particulars. 
 
 i. They have a Commiflion from Chrift for what they do, 
 and that under the broad Seal of Heaven : Chrift came and 
 fpake unto them, and faid, Go, teach all Nations, baptising 
 them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghoft. They are lent by Chrift, and have their Work 
 aflign'd them by Chrift- they have their Commiflion to 
 fhow for what they do. The Baptifm of Difciples is not 
 of Men, but of God, their Commiflion is from him who 
 is God as well as Man. 
 
 2. Jefus Chrift had Authority to give them this Commifll- 
 on, and he declared his Authority before he gave it, Mat, 
 28.18. All Power is given unto me both in Heaven and in 
 Earth. 
 
 3. Chrift had his Authority from the Father, who is the 
 Lord of the whole Earth, in whom all Power is originally 
 vcfted by right of Creation. John $.22,23. The Father 
 judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Power unto the Son : 
 That all Men might honour the Son, even as they honour the 
 Father. 
 
 idly. It may inform us what the ufe and benefit of Bap- 
 tifm is that a Eeliever may ex peel: in taking up of the Or- 
 dinance. 
 
 1. It is an obliging Ordinance-, it binds the Soul to die 
 to Sin, and live unto Holinefs: Rom. 6. 2, 5, 4, $. How 
 flail we that are dead to Sin, live any longer therein * Know 
 you not, that as many of us as were baptized into Chrift, were 
 baptized into his Death ? Therefore we are buried with him by 
 Baptifm into Death • that even as chrift was raifed by the Glory 
 of the Father, we alfo (l)ould walk. " l newnefs of Life. We are 
 buried with him by Baptifm into Death ; that as the Body that 
 is buried in the Grave lies rotting and confuming away, lb 
 the body of Sin fhould wafte and confume away. 
 
 2. It's a confirming Ordinance, it's of ufe to confirm our 
 
 Faith 
 
( W ) 
 
 Faith in the remiffion of Sin by the Blood of Jefus Chriff. 
 Afts 2. 38. Repent y and be baptised for the remijjion of Sin, &c. 
 Baptifm doch not remit Sin, but |it's a figure of that Blood 
 by which the guilt of Sin is wafh'd away : it's an Evidence 
 together with Faith of our Title to Salvation. Mar1^i6. 16. 
 He that belkveth and is baptized, jhall be faved. Jt's no Evi- 
 dence by it ielf, but together with Faith it is, as it's taken 
 up in Obedience to the Will of God -, without Faith it's of 
 no ufe at all, and therefore there is no reafon to contend for 
 it for fuch as do not believe ; but together with Faith it's of 
 great ufe. 
 
 Secondly, I would make ufe of it by way of Caution 5 
 firft to Miniftcrs, and fecondly to People. 
 
 Firft, To Miniilers, and that in two Branches: 
 1. To beware they do not miftake the Subjecl of Baptifm, 
 and fo adminifter the Ordinance to thofe that have no 
 right to it. I (hall here propofe a few things to be con- 
 fidered. 
 
 (1.) There are a great many Miniilers that are mifhken 
 ( I mean fuch as are for Infant-Baptifm ) I do not lay down 
 this upon a bare Conjecture, but upon certain knowledg : 
 Minifters are divided into four Parties about the Subjects -, 
 tho they are all for baptizing of Children, yet net for the 
 baptizing of all Children j and three of thefe Parties are 
 miftaken, which is ground enough to put the fourth upon a 
 further fearch and inquiry : for tho they feem t ) be all con- 
 fident that Children are the Subjects according to the Rule,yet 
 they are greatly divided whofe Children they are that are 
 the right Subjects according to the Rule •, fome will baptize 
 all Children whofe Parents make a verbal Profefllon of 
 Chrift, tho their Converfation do utterly deftroy their 
 Profeflion ; a lecond fort will baptize all except Baftards : 
 A third fort will baptize none but fuch whofe Parents are 
 true Believers in the Judgment of Charity : A fourth fort 
 will baptize none but fuch whofe Parents, one or both, are 
 in Communion with themfelves. Here are four Opinions, 
 and there is but one Truth, therefore three of thefe muft 
 needs err, either they are too large, or too fhort in their 
 judgment^ and I do not in the leaft queftion but the fourth 
 
 is 
 
( 172 ) 
 
 is in an Error alfo •, he that is moft ftrift in the Point of 
 Infant-Baptifm is too large, there being neither Precept nor 
 Precedent for his Pracuce. 
 
 (2.) Confider, if you baptize a wrong Subjeft, you do 
 it in your own Name, not in the Name of Chrift ; my 
 meaning is, you do it by your own Authority, not by the 
 Authority of Chrift, having no Commiffion from him for 
 what you do. 
 
 (3.) Confider, it's a bold attempt for Minifters to fay, 
 I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghofr, if the Subject be not a Difciple of 
 Chrift: This is like fetting the broad Seal of Heaven to a 
 Patent of their own drawing up. 
 
 (4.) Minifters muft give an account of their Stewardship 
 another day : The Books jhati be opened, and every Man flail 
 be judged out of the things that are written in the Books, 
 according as hti Works have been ^ Rev. 20. 11. Then the 
 Commiffion will be laid open once more, and Minifters muft 
 be tried whether they have obferved Chrift's order, firft 
 to difciple, and then to baptize. 
 
 2. I would caution Minifters to beware they do not miftake 
 the form of Adminiftration, and make ufe of fprinkling i 
 inftead of dipping. 
 
 17?. Confider there are a great many Minifters that do ei- 
 ther miftake, or alter and change the form ; fome there are 
 that do grant that the word in the Commiffion ilgnifies to 
 dip, and that it was the Primitive Practice that Chrift and 
 John did baptize by Dipping, that yet make ufe of Sprink- 
 ling inftead of Dipping, becaufe we are under a cold Cli- 
 mate, and alledg this for their Practice, That God will have 
 Mercy and not Sacrifice : and that where moral Precepts 
 and pofitive Precepts do interfere, there pofitive Precepts 
 muft give place •, as when David eat of the Shew-bread, and 
 the Difciples pluck'd the Ears of Corn upon the Sabbath- 
 .day. 
 
 To this I anfwer : 1. Such as do think it good to alter 
 die form of Baptifm from Dipping to Sprinkling under 
 this Consideration, had beft to confider whether it were 
 not neceflary to alter their form of words too, and fay, I 
 
 rantize 
 
( 173 ) 
 
 rantize thee, inftead of I baptize thee ; that fo they may 
 fpeak truth in what they fay, feeing they do it in the Name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl. 
 
 2. If the coldnefs of the Climate be fuch that it will not 
 admit of dipping, why do you do any thing in the room 
 thereof? Where is your Authority for that ? you are to 
 baptize if you do any thing, it's not left to your difcretion 
 which of thefe fhall be done by you : this is to rantize in 
 your own Name. 
 
 g. I grant that in fome cafes pofitive Precepts have given 
 place when they have interfer'd with moral ; but this is no 
 where made a general Rule - y for fometimes moral Precepts 
 have given place to pofitive, as when God, commanded Abra- 
 ham to offer up his Son Ifaac a Burnt-offering, the mora! 
 Precept, Thou flmlt not £/'//, gave place to the pofitive. 
 
 4. When pofitive Precepts have given place to moral, it 
 hath been in fome cafe of exigency that hath fuddenly fallen 
 out, where in a little time the Subject might return to his 
 Duty, unto the pofitive Precept again : but if the pofitive 
 Precept to Dip muft give place to the moral, becaufe of 
 the coldnefs of the Climate, we fliall never have opportu- 
 
 - nity to return to our Duty to the pofitive Precept more, be- 
 caufe our Climate will never alter ^ it will be always cold, and 
 fo the pofitive Precept to Dip, will be of no more ufe to us, 
 than the Altar that was built on the other fide of Jordan 
 was to them, which was not built to offer Sacrifice thereon, 
 but to be a Witnefs of what was formerly done, Jofi. 22.28. 
 fo the pofitive Precept for Dipping fhall only ftand as a 
 Monument of what was done in the Primitive Time. 
 
 5. It's but a begging the Queftioii in this cafe, to fay- 
 that the pofitive Precept doth interfere with the moral. No 
 inftance can be given of any one Perfon difcipled to Chrifr, 
 that ever fuftain'd the leaf! damage, or had his Health im- 
 paired by being Dipt, no not in the coldeff feafon under this 
 cold Climate. 
 
 idly, Confider, if you miftake the Form, you miftake the 
 Efience, for the Effence of a thing lies as well in the Form 
 as in the Matter. 
 
 $dly. If you miftake the Form you deceive the Subject, 
 
 he 
 
(174 ) 
 
 he thinks he is baptized when it's no fuch matter, he is but 
 rantized, not baptized. 
 
 tfhly, If you miftake the Form, the Subject lofes the be- 
 nefit of the Ordinance -, for it's not Rantifm, but Baptifm 
 chat obligeth the Subjeft to die to Sin, and to live to Holi- 
 nefs, Rom, 6. 4. It's Baptifm, not Rantifm that doth evi- 
 dence together with Faith our Title to Salvation, Mark. 
 16. 16. 
 
 Secondly, I would caution People, and that in two 
 Branches. 
 
 ift. To beware you do not take up this Ordinance of 
 Baptifm till fuch time as you are difcipled unto Chrift. 
 
 1. Gonlider, there are many that will defire to be bap- 
 tized, and are fo, that are not difcipled in deed but only in 
 fhew ; Simon Magus was baptized, and I fuppofe there is no 
 doubt but Judas, and Ananias, and Sapphira, and many more 
 were baptized, that were never really difcipled to Chrift. 
 
 2. Consider, you have no right to the Ordinance till you 
 believe •, AVis 8. 37. If thou believeft with all thy heart, thou 
 tnayfl : the contrary that offers it felf is this, If thou doft 
 not believe with all thy heart, thou mayft not. 
 
 3. The Ordinance will ftand you in no ftead if you do/ 
 not believe, it will be no ways acceptable unto God, nor 
 profitable to your felves ; Without Faith it's impojfible to pleafe 
 God-, and without Faith it will be no Evidence of your Title 
 to Salvation : it's not the putting away the filth of the Flefl), 
 but the anfwer of a good Confcience by the Refurreftion of Chrift, 
 that will ftand us in (lead. 
 
 4. You will make your felves Hypocrites thereby, rank 
 your felves among the number of tbolilh Virgins, and fo 
 render your Condition worfe than it was. 
 
 2dly,' I would caution fuch as are difcipled to Chrift, to 
 beware they do not reft fatisfied without taking up the Or- 
 dinance : And here confider a few things. 
 
 1. There are many that do give good tokens of their 
 Love to Chrift, to his Ways, and to his Saints, that yet re- 
 main unbaptized. 
 
 2. Confider you do not only lie fliort of your Duty here 
 while you do lie fhort of the Duty of Baptifm, but you lie 
 
 fnorc 
 
( '75 ) 
 
 fhort of many other Duties as well as of this $ fhort of the 
 Duty of Church-Communion, fhort of the Supper of the 
 Lord. 
 
 5. You do not only lie fhort of Duty, but you debar your 
 felves of your Privileges alfo ; you complain of the want of 
 Affurance, and neglecl: the means of Affurance 5 Baptifm and 
 the Supper of the Lord are (lengthening and confirming 
 Ordinances. 
 
 4. The neglecl: of Duty when it may be performed is 
 Sin, as well as the commimon of Evil - fo that you live in 
 Sin all the while you live in the neglecl: of Duty. • 
 
 %dly. I would make ufe of it by way of Examination ; 
 try then whether ycu be difcipled unto Chrift. 
 
 1. Have you that Gift by which you underftand the 
 Myfteries of the Kingdom of Heaven ? I call it a Gift be- 
 caufe the Scripture calls it fo, Mat. 13. 1 1. To you it's given 
 to kiiow the Myftery of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them 
 it if not given. No natural Abilities can reach this •, no ac- 
 quired Parts can furnifh us with the knowledg thereof, it's 
 the Gift of Chrift -, John 17. 2, 3. That I may give eternal 
 Life to as many as thou haft given me : And this is Life eternal^ 
 to know thee the only true God, and Jefus Chrift whom thou: 
 haft fent. The great Myftery of Godlinefs, is God in Chrift, 
 God manifefted in the Flefti, 1 Tim. 3. 16. Do you know 
 Jefus Chrift ? do you know him in his Natures, God-man, 
 two Natures united in one ; Man, that he might do and 
 fuffer the Will of God •, and God, that he might merit by 
 doing and fuffering ? Do you know him in his Offices, Pro- 
 phet, Prieft and King? He that hath truly learned Jefus 
 Chrift, is difcipled unto Chrift. I fhall now lay you down a 
 few Marks of a Perfon that hath truly learned, or is difcipled 
 unto Chrift. 
 
 (1.) It's afign that a Perfon is difcipled unto Chrift, or 
 that he hath truly learned Jefus Chrift, if the Will doth 
 follow the Understanding, clofing with Jefus Chrift ^ where 
 the Soul makes a Refignation of himfelf to Chrift, to be 
 taught by him, and faved by him, and ruled and governed 
 by him, and him alone j where he goes out of his own 
 Righteoufnefs, and applys the Righteouihefs of Chrift alone 
 
 in 
 
(17* ) 
 
 in point of Judication ; Phil, g. 9. when the' Soul is 
 willing to be found in him, not having his own Righteoufnefs, 
 which is of the Law, but the Righteoufnefs of God, which 
 is by Faith : I fay, this is a fign of a Difciple of Chrift. 
 Pfal. 9. 10. They that \nowthy Name, will put their Trujl in 
 thee, John 6.45. Every one that hath heard, and learned of 
 the Father, cometh unto me. It's a fign that the Underftand- 
 ing is truly inlightened where the Will follows the Under- 
 ftanding. 
 
 (2.) It's a fign that a Soul hath truly learned Jefus Chrift, 
 and is indeed difcipled unto Chrift, if he hath fo learned 
 Chrift as to deny himfelf for Chrift: Luke 14. 16. Except a 
 "Man hate Father and Mother, yea and his own Life, he cannot 
 be my Difciple. There is a threefold Self-denial. 
 
 1. A denial of finful felf, this muft be in all cafes, in all 
 places, at all times. He that nameth the Name of Chrift, 
 let him depart from all Iniquity ; 2 Tim. 2. 19. 
 
 2. A denial of religious felf ; but this is only in the point 
 of Justification ; Fhil. 3. 9. J would not be found in my own 
 Right eoufnefs, which is of the Law, but in the Righteoufnefs of~ 
 God, which is by Faith. We muft go out of every thing of 
 our own, Duty and Qualifications, lay all at the feet ofll 
 Chrift, and reft folely on his Righteoufnefs. 
 
 3. There is a denial of natural felf*, felf-Riches, Honour, 
 Pleafure, Liberty, Life and all ; but this muft be only when 
 any, or all of thefe come in competition with Chrift, then 
 we muft take up our Crofs and follow him, Lul^e 14. 27. 
 
 (3.) It's a fign of a Difciple of Chrift, where there is 
 true Love to thofe that are difcipled unto Chrift : John 1 3. 
 35. By this fl) all all men know that you are my Difciples, if 
 you have love one to another : Love to Saints, as Saints, purely 
 upon the account of the Image of God that appears in them, 
 is a Mark by which a Man may be known to himfelf, and 
 others too, to be a Difciple of Chrift. 
 
 Fourthly. I would make ufe of it by way of Exhortation 
 to fitch as are difcipled to Chrift, and not yet baptized, that 
 you would now take up the Ordinance : And here I fliall 
 lay down a few Motives to inforce the Exhortation. 
 
 1. Con- 
 
C i77 ) 
 
 1. Confider it's your Duty ; as foon as a Perfon is difci- 
 pled unto Chrift, he is bound to be baptized : my Texc 
 
 , injoins the Subject as well as the Adminiftrator, Go difcipk to 
 me, i.e. baptising them, &c. Afts 2. 58. Repent, and b& 
 baptised every one of you In the Name of JeJ'm Chrift. 
 
 2. Consider you are meet Subjects for Baptifm ; you be- 
 lieve, therefore you may : you are put into the CommiiTIoi* 
 as having a right to the Ordinance •, you are capable to wor- 
 ship God in Spirit and in Truth $ and they are fuch Wor- 
 
 ^'Ihippers that the Lord himfelf feeks for, John 4. 23. 
 
 3. Confider it was not the Practice of the Primitive 
 Chriftians to delay in this matter ^ however it's now become 
 too much a Practice : Three thoufand converted and bap- 
 tized the fame day, AUs 2. 41. The jay lor and his Hou£ 
 hold converted and baptized the lame hour of the night, 
 Alls 1 6. 33. 
 
 4. Confider, a little delay in this matter hath met with a 
 Reprehenfion ; Why tarriejl thou * arife, and be baptized i 
 
 AftS2 2. \6. 
 
 5. Confider, it's your Privilege as well as your Duty ; this 
 is one ftep towards Church-Communion ; this prepares you 
 to join Communion regularly: Acls 2. 41. Then they that 
 Jadly received the Word, were baptised', and the fame day 
 there were added unto them about three thoufand Souls. Firfr, 
 
 . difcipled •, fecondly* baptized •, and thirdly, added to the 
 Church. Here is the Apoftolical Order •, and being added, 
 they are admitted to all the Ordinances : They continued in the 
 Apoftles Voftrine, and Feliowfljip, and breaking of Bread, and 
 Prayer. 
 
 Ob)etl. But fome may fay, they have not that anurance 
 of their being difcipled unto Chrift as they defire to have. 
 
 To this I anfwer : Should we ftay from taking up the Or- 
 dinance till we have that adurance as we defire to have, we 
 may flay till it be too late-,1 know none that hath that 
 affurance as they defire to have ; their aifurance is imper- 
 fect 
 
 2. The way to attain aflurance is to take up the Ordi- 
 nance : He that belkveth and is baptized, flmll be favcd: 
 Mark \6. \6. 
 
 M 3, It's 
 
c 17a ; 
 
 3. It's not the Faith of AfTurance, but the Faith of Re- 
 combance, or Reliance, that gives a right to the Ordinance : 
 Ails 8. 57. If thou believeft with all thy heart, thou may ft : 
 and this a Perfon may do that yet is in the dark, whether 
 he do believe or no, If a, 50. 10. 
 
 4. If you can take up the Ordinance purely in obedience 
 to the Command of God, fubmitting your felves to the Me- 
 diatory Authority of the Lord Jefus, you may go on with 
 Comfort, it's a true fign that your Natures are changed : 
 For the carnal Mind is Enmity again]} God, and is not fubjeft 
 unto the Law of God, neither indeed can be -, Rom. 8. 7. And 
 if your Natures are changed, there is a Light infufed, by 
 which you are inftantly difcipled unto Chrift: 2 Cor. 4. 6. 
 God who commanded Light to flnne out of Dar^nefs, hath jlined 
 in our Hearts, to give the light of the knowledg of the Glory of 
 God, in the face of Jefus Chrift, 
 
 _____ — ___ ,____ , ,^ 
 
 For Dr. William Russel, dwelling in 
 Barbican, London. 
 
 5 I R, 
 
 IHave read your Narrative of the Portsmouth Difputation 
 with fome Minifters of the Presbyterians ; and have alfo 
 feen another Book publifhed by your Adverfaries, in- 
 tituled, An Impartial Account of the Portfmouth Difputation, 
 
 by Samuel Chandler, William Leigh, Benjamin Robinfon. 
 
 V/herein I find fuch unchriftian Reflections and Wrong done 
 you, as futes not with the ProfeiTion they make of true Re- 
 ligion, but greatly demonftrates the badnefs of their Cauie. 
 And I wonder at their Impudence in putting fo plain a Cheat 
 upon the World, as I find in pag. 79. in thefe words, v/£. 
 Whether he might not have fpared all his Dutch .<? feeing 
 Doop in that Language fignifics only to wafh, and is ufed 
 when they only pour on Water. That this account of the 
 word Doop is notorioufly falfe appears from the common ule 
 ot the word, and the account which is given of it in their 
 
 Diftiona- 
 
( 179 ) 
 
 Dictionaries. One I have by me, which I believe is the 
 largeft and beft in that Tongue,it being a double Dictionary of 
 Dutch and Englifl), and Englifl) and Dutch, with Grammars to 
 each of them: by Hendric\ Hexham and Daniel Manly, and 
 printed at Rotterdam 167$, and 1678. wherein the Engliflj 
 word Dipisrender'dDoo]) : as, to dip in a Sauce, Doopenin een 
 fanffe -, to dip to the bottom, Doopen tot den grondt toe ; Dipped 
 Gedoopt -, a dipping, een doop'mge ; and Doop, Doopj'el Baptiim ; 
 Doopen to baptize, Dooper Baptizer, Doop dagh the day of 
 Baptifmj Doopen onder her water, to duck or dive under 
 Water. I alfo find, that to wafh or rince is in Dutch 
 Waffchen ofte Spoelen •, to fprinkle, Stroyen fpreyden fprenckelen -, 
 and alfo Befprengen is to fprinkle, befprinkle or to ftrow : 
 to pour is in Dutch Gieten orftorten •, poured upon, Opgegoten 
 ofte op Geftort. Now feeing there is nothing of truth in what 
 they fay in contradiction to you of the word Doop, but than 
 it undeniably appears from the Dutch Dictionary to fignify to 
 dip, to duck or dive, and that it has nothing in its fignifi- 
 cation either to fprinkle or wafh by pouring Water, which 
 things are render'd by other Dutch words : I know not how 
 they can clear themfelves from the guilt of a wilful Lie to 
 heat the People of the true form of Gofpel-Baptifm, which, 
 in my opinion, is a greater Sin than to cheat them of their 
 Mony. And it's greatly to be lamented that any profefTmg 
 Godlinefs, fhould fo grofly flain their Religion for the fake of 
 Infant-fprinkling, a meer human Tradition, which has nei- 
 ther Command nor Example for it in the holy Scriptures. 
 
 Sir, I was willing to communicate this unto you, that if 
 you need the Evidence of this Dictionary, and have not al- 
 ready met with it, you may have recourfe unto it. And fo 
 heartily wilhing you the increafe of true Wifdom and 
 Chrifl:an Courage for the defence of the Truth of Chrift 
 ; which you are engaged in, I reft your loving Chriftian Friend 
 and Brother, 
 
 Leominfter, Nov. 1 7. 1699. IfUdC Mdrlow. 
 
 I have examined this Letter, and find it to agree exactly 
 nvith /{exam's Dutch Dictionary -, and thefe Presbyters have 
 
 M 2 molt 
 
( «8o) 
 
 moil bafely betray'd their Ignorance in that Language, and 
 have made their Reffeftions to confift of the moft (hameful 
 Forgeries- and Falfhoods they could well have invented, both 
 in this and the reft of their Accufations againft me and 
 others, as appears by thofe many authentick and undeniable 
 Teftimonies given under the Hands of fo many Eye and Ear- 
 Witneffes, who have alfo (fome of them) prov'd Mr. Chandler 
 to be a moft notorious Liar to his very face, before divers of 
 his Hearers, and others then prefent. And had not the Book 
 fwell'd too big, there had been printed a large Letter from 
 Mr. Williams's Son,direfted to thofe three Presbyters, wherein 
 he hath not only juftified his Father, but my felf alfo, from 
 thofe vile Reflections they have unjuftly caft both upon the 
 Living and the Dead : But if they offer to perfevere in their 
 lying Vanities, and grofs Abufes, they may be furnifhed with 
 that, and much more, not only from both his Sons, but from 
 an eminent Perfon living in Portfmouth, who hath written 
 largely upon that Subjeft, and alfo in Vindication of me and 
 my True Narrative •, who will neither be afraid nor afham'd 
 to own what they have written, having given it under their 
 Hands : And therefore both Mr. Sharp and my felf do beg 
 their Pardon, that we have omitted to make it publick for 
 the Reafon above-mentioned. 
 
 There are many things which they have afferted that are 
 utterly falfe, which I have not took notice of; but I cannot 
 omit what they have afferted in p. 64. of their Partial Ac- 
 count, where they bring me in faying, But £*xtw is a Di- 
 minutive from fcahrn^oi \ and they pretend a Voucher for it, 
 but we muft not know who. This is like the ftory about 
 Tfaac Harman, and is printed to no other purpofe than to 
 render me ridiculous 5 as if I did not know that fianrm is 
 the Theme, and famil^o a Derivative from it. But I muft 
 charge it upon them as a Forgery and Invention of their own, \ 
 for I neither laid fo, neither was it poftible for me to think 
 ib. Eut why fhould I think it ftrange for them to belie me, 
 when Mr. Leigh hath been fo bold to belie the Lord Jefus ? 
 For, after they have mentioned Mark. 7. 4. in their Printed 
 Account in the Page before recited, they bring in thefe words 
 as fpoken by me, That it's rendered dipping in our Englifb 
 x Tranfla-. 
 
 - 
 
( i8i ) 
 
 Tranflation, as, He that dippeth with me in the difi. And 
 Mr. Leigh (as they fay) replying, The word is there ^ttw, 
 not garniCe*. Now whether he means Marl^ 7. 4. or thac 
 Paflage about Judas in the Evangelifts, it's notorioufly falfe ; 
 for the word gonem is not to be found in any of thofe 
 places : And he difcovers his ignorance in the Greek Tongue, 
 to talk after that unthinking and loofe manner. 
 
 W.R. 
 
 POST-SCRIPT. 
 
 A Letter from Portfmouth concerning Mr. Chan- 
 dler, dated Nov. 9. 1699. occafioned by hk. 
 Pofl-fcrtyt -about Ifaac Harman, in their fecond 
 Edition. 
 
 Honoured Brother Rufifel -, 
 
 THefe are to deflre you to caufe thefe few Lines to be 
 printed, that the World may be rightly infornfd of 
 the horrid falfenefs of Mr. Chandler, and his mali- 
 cious Insinuation, by which he would fain perfwade the 
 World to believe that Mr. Bowes and his Party (intending 
 thereby the Church of Chrift at Portfmouth, whereof he is 
 Minifter ) were fo envious againil: their Brethrens Profpe- 
 rity, that they did fufpend me from their Communion for 
 going to hear Mr. Webber ; and is fo particular in it, that he 
 mentions my Name ( viz. Ifaac Harman 3 ) and that he might 
 gain the greater Credit to this great Lie, that fo it might pais 
 for Truth, he hath backed it with another notorious Lie, vi%. 
 That I told him fo my felf, and ask'd his Advice: And 
 in three days after I had oppofed them, and charged therri 
 with a horrid Lie, they did (with much ado) procure a 
 raoft wicked and worthlefs Woman to avouch it for a Truth 3 
 and that it was fpoken in her Houfe when Mr. Chandler was 
 there. But this Affertion of Mr. Chandler and his wicked 
 
 Avouches 
 
(»82 ) 
 
 Avouchcr I am bound in Confcience to bear my Teftimony 
 againft even to my dying day. 
 
 And I do now in the prefence of Almighty God, and be- 
 fore all the World moil folemnly proteft, 
 
 i. That I never was fufpended by Mr. Bowes nor his Party 
 ( as he calls them ) for going to hear Mr.Webber, nor for any 
 other Crime in all my life-time. 
 
 2. That I never had one word of Difcourfe with Mr. 
 Chandler in all my life-time, till I charged him with writing ( 
 this notorious Lie concerning me. And to the Truth of this 
 I do folemnly call God to record this day ♦, and by the Truth 
 of this I do deilre to ftand or fall at the judgment-day of 
 Chrift. 
 
 Witnefs my Hand, Ifaac Harman. 
 
 And upon the 16th o&Oftober 1699. I offered to atteft 
 Upon Oath before the Right Worfhipful Mayor of Portfmouth, 
 That what I have here afferted is the Truth, and nothing 
 but the Truth, concerning Mr. Chandler and his wicked 
 Avoucher Mrs. Jones : And it hath pleafed God fo to work 
 things about, that what I have faid will appear to be the . 
 Truth, againft all its black Enemies, and dark Oppofers : v 
 For God hath confounded their Language, in that they 
 have prefumed thus to belie the Truth, wrong their innocent 
 Neighbours, and deceive the World -, for they now appear 
 like the Builders of Babel, all Confufion •, and may be rank'd 
 with thofe two wicked Elders that fo falfly accufed innocent 
 Sufanna, which will evidently appear' to all Men thac this 
 Priefi: hath not rid out of their Wits by his Prieft-craft : for, 
 when Mr.C handler and Mrs. Jones were examined apart, 
 they could agree in their Teftimony no better than the two 
 wicked Elders did in their?. 
 
 For when Mrs. Jones was examin'd, fhe offer'd to attefl 
 Upon Oath, That on a certain idle day in the morning, I 
 came to her Houfe to inquire for a young Man, and that I 
 tarried there the fpace of an hour, in which time Mr. Chan- 
 dler and his W T ife going by her Houfe, fhe called them both 
 into her Houfe , and tliat I then told Mr. Chandler what he 
 hath printed ; But being ask'd what that was, (he could not 
 te!L And 
 
( i8 3 ) 
 
 And when Mr. Chandler was examin'd, he declares the 
 direc! contrary : For he afterteth, That a certain Evening as 
 he was walking all alone, he happen'd to go in at Mrs. Jones's 
 Houfe, where there was a young Man that told him that he 
 was fufpended, and ask'd his Advice. 
 
 And now I leave the World tojudg of Mr. Chandler and 
 his wicked Avoucher : for fhe fays it was in the Morning, 
 but he faith it was in the Evening -, he alfo faith he was all 
 alone, but (he faith his Wife was with him. But at length 
 ' Mrs. Jones hath confeft Mr. Chandler was not there when 
 the words were fpoken : This (he declared to one Thomas 
 Whitemid, which he will make Oath of if call'd thereunto. 
 
 Notwithftanding they were thusdetefted, he hath had the 
 Confidence to publifh a Poftfcript to their fecond falfe Ac- 
 count of the Difputation, which is fturFd full of hoi rid For- 
 geries ; wherein he aiferteth, that I have confeft to feveral, 
 and fome of our own Friends (Members of our Communion) 
 have acknowledge, how that I was check'd at our Monthly 
 Meeting for hearing of Mr. Webber : And that when I went to 
 fit down at the Sacrament, fome rofe up and faid, If I fat 
 down they would not -, on which I withdrew as virtually 
 fufpended. 
 
 I do now utterly deny all that he hath there written -, and 
 I do hereby challenge Mr. Chandler to produce any Members 
 of our Communion, that either have (aid, or will fay what 
 he hath written in his lying Pamphlet, and I* will give him 
 the Caufe. 
 
 But let not Mr. Chandler think that the prefumptious Con- 
 dufion of his blundering Poftfcript is a furhcient Teftimony to 
 prove his invented Lies, by faying as Pilate did, What I have 
 written, I have written. For, notwithflanding he would fain 
 put it off with hisfurly Anfwer, It (hall not ferve his turn, I 
 do here once more charge them upon him as invented Lies ^ 
 and therefore \ez him clear himfelf, or confefs his Sin, or for 
 ever bear that Shame, which is the juft defert of all fuch (as 
 he is) that love and make Lies. 
 
 He is pleafed to pray that God would give me Repentance : 
 To which I (hall anfwer in the Language of my Saviour to 
 thofe of old, Weep not for me, but weep for yew [elves : fo fay 
 
 ■I 
 
V l °* ) 
 
 I to Mr. Chandler, Let him pray for himfelf, and not for me ; 
 for the Prayers of the wicked are Abomination in the fight 
 of the Lord. 
 
 But alas ! what will not this Man fay, whpfe Piety confifteth 
 more in Eating and excelTive Drinking, than in Prayer and 
 Falling; and his Works more in envious Lying and Slander- 
 ing, than in Truth and Charity : For tho none preaches 
 Charity more than he, there are none ufes lefs than himielf • 
 nor none that haye more neer becaufe he Jives 
 
 by Charity, and cannot live withe ut it. He is alfo one of the 
 greateft pretenders to Learning that ever I knew, altho none 
 are more unlearned than he -, tor he hath not yet learned to 
 ipeak the Truth of his Neighbours ; yet he hath too much 
 Learning for his Brain, and too little Judgment for his Learn- 
 ing ^ and his too great opinion of both fpoils all. 
 
 He is fo frequent in the Ipeculation of his own Parts and 
 Abilities, that he is not at leifure to take a view of his own 
 Deformities : His Eyes, like a Drunkard, fee all things double ^ 
 and his Fancy, like an old Man's Spectacles, makes a great Let- 
 ter in a fmall Print. And as he never fixes his Eyes on him- 
 felf without Admiration, fo he never removes them to his 
 Neighbours without Reflection, calling them Blockheads, &c*j 
 His Difcourfe is all Portions-, thus it is, and thus it muft be •'' 
 and as I have written, I have written. But he will not fo 
 touch degrade his own Authority, as to fubmit what he faith , 
 to Proof and f.ial, but you muft take, his bare word for it ; j 
 and tho the matter be never fo falfe, he is prefently in a rage r 
 tvith all that will not believe his Lies to be true, without cal- 
 ling liim into q ueftton b u t them. I fear he is one that hath: 
 loft all good in himielf, and is unwilling to find it in his 
 Neighbours : Per he and his wicked Avoucher hath beiy'd 
 the Truth, and er.vioufly flander'd the Innocent : He is an 
 cverlafting Argument, but I am weary of him, whole Religion 
 is a queftion, and his Salvation a greater, which Death only 
 Will conclude, and Judgment refolve ; and then all his Lying 
 and Quibbles, and his unreafonable Cavils muft have an end. 
 And therefore I bid him fareweJ, till I catch him again (as, I 
 bave already. done) in his belying of me.. 
 
 ffaxc ffarman.