Controversy being about the Brethren not the Infants and the Yoke not being Circumcision barely considered but the false Doctrine together with Circumcision which Doctrine could not be imposed on Infants tho Circumcision might You asserted that Infants are a part of a Nation and yet I am sure you will not baptize upon this ground your selves why then did you offer it to us The vilest Wretches that are and the blackest Heathens in the World are part of a Nation will you baptize such Really I should blush to look back on such an Argument I have written these Lines in Love hoping that on second thoughts things may be better considered and that you will not stand by that you have not the Word to stand by you in The Commission saith that He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Do you believe that all the Infants that you baptize shall be saved if not then you do not believe that they are all Believers and yet you baptize them as such That Faith that fits the Subject for Baptism it is a believing with all the Heart see Pool's Annot. on Acts 8. 37 38. it is such a Faith as doth evidence the Subject's right to Salvation Mark 16. 16. I shall offer you one Argument and so conclude If the Apostles that were injoined to teach the Observation of all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them never taught the Observation of Infant-Baptism then Infant-Baptism was never commanded them by Christ but they did not c. I shall now take leave and remain your truly loving Friend John Williams Mr. William's Sermon Matth. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost BEfore I come to the words themselves I shall give you a brief account of this Chapter and of some remarkable Passages contained therein Vers 1. we have the Women coming to the Sepulcher and the time oâ— their coming which was at the end of the Sabbath as iâ— began to dawn towards the first day of the Week Vers 2. we have an account of a great Earthquake together with the cause thereof The Angel of the Lord descended from Heaven and rolled away the stone from the door and sate upon it Vers 3. we have a description of this Angel or this extraordinary Messenger which was sent from Heaven 1st He is described by his Countenance His Countenance was like Lightning 2ly By his Raiment that was white as Snow Vers 4. we have the effect of this Apparition with respect to the keepers They are astonished at the sight for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead men Vers 5 6 7. we have the Angel talking with the Women in which there are three things observable First he gives them a Caution fear not tho the Keepers did fear this bright shining Angel yet the Women should not fear their end was good in being there they came in love to Jesus Christ I know that ye seek Jesus that was crucified Secondly He preacheth unto them the Resurrection oâ— Christ the first tidings of this welcome News sounded it their ears He is not here he is risen as he said come see the place where the Lord lay Thirdly he sends them on a hastâ— errant Go quickly and tell his Disciples that he is risen from the dead and behold he goeth before you into Galilee there shall you see him lo I have told you Vers 8 9. the Women return from the Sepulcher and first we have the manner â—how and that was with fear and great joy Secondly the speed they made they did run to bring his Disciples word No doubt they thought it would be welcome News to the Disciples as it was to themselves Thirdly They have a short stop by the way being met by the Lord Jesus who saluted them with all hail Peace be unto you or rejoice Upon this they came and held him by the feet and worshipped him Vers 10. and here observe First Jesus Christ gives them another caution Fear not Secondly he sends them forward in their Errant Go and tell my Disciples that I go before them into Galilee there shall they see me Vers 11 12 13 14 15. we have a Narration of the Watchmens coming into the City to acquaint the Chief Priest with what was done and of the way they took to stifle the blessed Tidings of the Resurrection of Christ They gave them large mony to report that his Disciples came by night and stole him away while they slept Vers 16. tho the Disciples were not forward to believe that Christ was risen yet they go into Galilee and into a mountain where Christ had appointed them Vers 17. Christ comes and shews himself to his Disciples according to his promise and here we may see the effect of his coming When they saw him they worshipped him but some doubted that is they doubted for a time but at last they believed Vers 18. he declares to his Disciples the full and ample Power that he was invested withal All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth By this Declaration he prepares his Disciples to receive their Commission which Commission you have in ver 19 20. together with an incouraging Promise of his own Presence Lo I am with you always unto the end of the world My Text contains in it two Branches of the Commission to teach and baptize In which words we may observe these general parts First we have their mission or sending Go ye therefore Secondly we have the Subject All Nations Thirdly their work and that is two-fold 1st To teach and 2ly To baptize In which there is the order to be observed they must first teach and then baptize 3ly we have the Subjects of Baptism in this word Them which word is a Relative the Antecedent is All Nations taught or discipled 4ly We have the Authority of the Ordinance in these words In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Before I give you the Observation I shall a little open the Terms First As to their mission or sending Go ye therefore there are three things to be inquired into 1. Who it is that sends and that is the Lord Jesus Christ as appears in the preceding Verse Jesus came and spake unto them and said go ye 2. Who they are that are sent First more immediately they are the eleven Disciples as appears by ver 16 17 18. Then the eleven went away into Galilee and Jesus came and spake unto them saying Go ye But more remotely all such as God should be pleased to gift and qualify by his Spirit to preach the Gospel and by his providence to call out and to open a door so to do The Eleven were here commissioned but the Commission was not restrained to them for First we find that there were others that did instantly preach the Gospel as well as they who had no other
from Scripture for Infant-Baptism we cannot expect that any body else should And yet all the Answer they gave was to tell us this is only a Trick to turn off the Opponency notwithstanding I told them the direct contrary Surely this is no better than tricking in them thus to fence against those solid Reasons and Arguments that none of them are able to answer and yet have the confidence to tell the World in print p. 66. That all the Arguments we offer'd were trifling Cavils Is this your Impartial Account 38. Here they have left out several things that past betwixt me and Mr. Chandler which they have past over with a total silence because they did not make for their Cause but against it Is not this great partiality 39. They bring in Mr. Robinson saying If you can proceed no farther upon this then it 's time you go on Now this is also untrue neither is there one word of it in Mr. Ring 's Copy But the words he saith I told them are these If you will say 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 confess he had no Instance to give I would then proceed to a new Argument And further that upon his refusal so to do I did challenge the rest of them to give an Instance and provok'd them to it telling them That if they refused to do it the People would think they had none to give And yet none of them could be prevail'd upon to do it Whereupon I spake to this effect Gentlemen it may be you think I have but one Argument If you will say 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 first Argument stands good till you give your Instance to the contrary And all this they wholly omitted in their printed Account because perhaps they thought it would have been sufficiently evidenced how shamefully they had been baffled and put to silence before the People for want of one single Instance for their practice Here I desire the Reader to take notice that I am not yet fully advanced so far as three Leaves and a half in their printed Account of the Disputation and having discover'd so many Errors in so little a compass it amazes me to think what was become of these Mens-Consciences who could contrive an Account to publish to the World with so small regard to Truth and Fidelity when at the same time they send it forth with that plausible pretence of An Impartial Account What may the Reader expect to find in the whole body of it if there be so many Faults in the very Entrance But I have other Business than to attend to the remarking of all they say of this kind for if I should do that I must write a much bigger Volume than is proper upon this occasion there being so many Errors committed by them throughout the whole of their Book In p. 65. they confess that Mr. Fox was baptized by dipping He was dipp'd say they not at Gosport but Havant It is not said by Mr. Duke that he was dipp'd at Gosport that observation therefore was needless but that he was dipp'd they confess which is the thing asserted by him But they say 't is false that it was done by Mr. Chandler's advice for he was then at London Now it doth not follow that Mr. Chandler did not give such advice because he was as he saith then at London for I have receiv'd a Testimony to prove it under the hands of two Witnesses Mr. Leddell writes thus I shall further annex one Testimony touching Mr. Fox which was spoken the same day the Preliminaries were made out of Mr. Chandler's own Mouth which take as followeth WE being enquiring Why they should deny our Practice and yet practise it themselves We then had and several times since have had this Concession from them That to satisfy a scrupulous Conscience they could dip any Adult Believer upon profession of Faith And Mr. Chandler did there confess that Mr. Earle had advice for the so baptizing of Mr. Fox in a Letter from him from London And this tho it may not be in the very words is the substance of the Matter then spoken in our hearing who were present at Mr. Williams's House in Portsmouth the 23d of December 1698. William Leddell Edward Fishbourn I would further note That they might have spared their Reflection upon our Brother Duke if they had but minded these words in my Dedication And by another hand I have this Account And after all they thus express themselves in their own printed Account pag. 65. But that none of us would refuse to dip a Person in such a case is true We never pleading against Dipping as one way but as the only way not against its Lawfulness but Necessity How doth this agree with what Mr. Leigh saith in pag. 51. I deny that the word Baptize signifies to dip in any place of Scripture But seeing Mr. Sharp hath already spoken to it I shall pass it by I shall remark one thing more and that is That these Gentlemen are pleased to reflect upon me about speaking false Greek As they have also done upon Mr. John Gosnold by saying I abuse him in it when they are his very words I recite and the same words used Heb. 6. 2. So that rather than I shall escape their Lash the Apostle Paul whose words they are must also be whipt till he learn better if he come under the tuterage of their unmannerly Pedagogue What do these Men think no body understand Greek but themselves But after all tho they do not charge me with printing any false Greek in my Narrative as I perceive yet they would perswade the World that I have got an Art to form Greek Letters in the Air so that they can discern them when I express them with my Voice And in order to convince their Reader they have put down those Greek words wrong in their Narrative which are printed truly in mine but falsly in theirs But any thing to render me ignorant and ridiculous serves these mens turn tho never so false in it self But if I were really as ignorant as they represent me to be as Mr. Sharp hath already told them I had been the more easily confuted I shall therefore commit what I have written to the Judgment of the Learned and Impartial Reader declaring to the World That my Narrative is much more impartial than theirs and the best I knew how to publish which they have only marr'd and not mended To conclude Seeing this is so why doth Mr. Chandler p. 19. say that if we will keep strictly to the significancy of a Burial the Person baptized must not walk into the Water but be taken up by the Baptizer and thrown into it for indeed we baptize the Face saith he and they
Narrative of the Portsmouth Disputation their impartial Account wherein they are the Trumpeters of their own Praise But to any indifferent Reader their Impartiality will seem questionable and I would have them think â—hat to honour themselves is nothing worth As to their boasting that they have proved the Infants of Believers holy Persons Church-Members Disciples and this in a Scripture-sense is but a vain Boast These being the things in Controversy should have been left to the judgment of the Reader and their Modesty then would have been praised whereas so great Presumption on such small grounds argues great Conceitedness and Value of themselves And methinks I cannot but take notice of the concern of these Gentlemen they never think they have fully defended themselves else why comes out this Dialogue and yet their Cause is not one whit bettered but their Weakness more manifest For now we see the strength of all their Wit sure nothing more can be expected from them I mean nothing stronger for this is midwiv'd into the World with the best Advice and most mature Deliberation and as a Correction of their former Faults The People could not but expect some strange Production after so many Essays from these Mountains but their Expectation is at last deluded and behold a ridiculous Mouse the Matter of their Scorn and Laughter FINIS A SERMON Preach'd From the Commission Matth. 28. 19. IN THE Baptist Meeting-house at Wallup at the desire of some Friends To which is prefix'd a LETTER to Mr. Leigh written after the Portsmouth Dispute By JOHN WILLIAMS Pastor of a Baptized Congregation London Printed in the year 1700. Mr. William's LETTER to Mr. Leigh written after the Disputation BRother Leigh for so I can heartily call you and own you if you please to accept of it the occasion of writing these few Lines to you is this I have in my reflex Thoughts weighed what was offered upon both sides in the Dispute not being willing to abide by any thing that has not a foundation in the Word nor to reject any thing that is offered against my present Opinion could I see it were bottomed on the Word because I know I must one day be judged by the Word You told me you could have said four times more for our Cause than was spoken by us and ten times more than you did for your own Possibly you might have spoken four times as many words as we did but I think it would have been a hard task to have offered Arguments that had four times more weight and substance than those had that were offered by us I mean for clearing the Point of the Subject according to the Commission which the first Preliminaries bound us to yet I would not undervalue your Abilities nor set our own in competition with yours had we not had Truth on our side your Abilities would soon have overturn'd mine The Doctor I think might be able to cope with any of you in that respect but if you can offer four times more for our Cause than we did I wonder your own Arguments should not be convincing to you tho ours were not and could we have that fourfold Strength added to our Arguments I believe you would not be able to answer one of them For so weak as our Arguments were you did no otherwise answer them but by denying a part which is an easy way of answering the strongest Argument that can be offered and if you could have offered ten times more for your own Cause why had you not done it you might have had the Opponency soon turn'd upon you when the Doctor gave you an Argument containing an universal Negative and as I do since understand you ought to have accepted it according to the Rules of Disputation in the University from whence you take these Rules I am informed that a universal Negative is taken for a Maxim I thought that artificial Logick had been the Improvement of natural Reason but if this be a Rule to be observ'd in it that the Opponent must prove an universal Negative I know nothing that is more contrary to natural Reason had there been either Precept or Precedent for Infant-Baptism on Record then it had been possible for you or some body else to have produced it and had you done it his Argument had been gone and you had gained the Cause but it is impossible for a Man to prove that neither you nor any one else can produce such a Record otherwise than to deny that there is any such Record to be produc'd If this be according to the Rule of Disputation I look on it as an effectual way to keep People in ignorance I suppose that if you could have produc'd a Record either of Precept or Precedent for Infant-Baptism you would not be tied so close to the Rule of Disputation as not to have brought it to light Whatever you could have said I know not you know you did not give us an instance for Infant-Baptism tho it was often desired and that with great Importunity and must we still look on Infant-Baptism to be an Ordinance of God a part of Divine Worship that hath neither Precept nor Precedent for its Practice But Sir if you can say ten times more for your Practice than you did it is not too late to offer it yet and if you please to send it me and it be such as is convincing I will spread it for you if not I will fairly answer it and not publickly spread it Sir when I consider what was offered by us and denied by you and with what Props your own Arguments were supported being Men of such Parts and Piety as you are on whose Credit the Ordinance of Christ is like to be administred to a wrong Subject for the future as it hath been for Ages past upon a like traditional Bottom I am really grieved and that is the reason of my setting Pen to Paper First when I consider what was offered by us and denied by you I can repeat my own Arguments better than I can the Doctor 's and therefore I shall confine my self to them You know you prest us to allow of Consequences rightly drawn from the Word the Doctor told you you should give it which way you could but did you not deny almost if not all the Consequences that were offered by me to prove that Infants were not the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission A Negative Task that we were put upon which could no otherwise be proved but by Consequences To repeat some of my Arguments and I need repeat but the major for the most part My first Argument was this That if Believers are the only Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission then Infants are not Here you denied the Sequel but if the Antecedent be true the Consequent is true and rightly drawn from the Text. There being none put into the Commission as the Subjects of Baptism but Believers Mark the 16th and 17th you did
not deny the Antecedent how then could you deny the Consequent My second Argument was this That if Infants are incapable of believing then they are not the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission but they are so Here you denied the minor which I wonder at that you should be of the Judgment that Infants are capable of believing yea your denying the minor speaks as much My third Argument was If the Essence of Faith consists in the Act of the Understanding and of the Will then Infants are incapable of believing Here you denied the Sequel you did not deny but that the Essence of Faith consists in the Act of the Understanding and of the Will and if you had it would have been proved but how could you deny the Sequel Are Infants capable of apprehending Christ in his Natures and in his Offices for so he must be apprehended as the Object of Faith Are Infants capable of consenting Christ to be theirs and they Christ's in all his Offices which is the Act of the Will that follows the Act of the Understanding Can Infants make a Resignation of themselves to Christ to be taught by him and saved by him and ruled and governed by him Can you prove by the Word that there is such a Capacity in Infants or that there is such a Capacity in the Children of Believers considered as such and not in the Children of Unbelievers My fourth Argument was That if none could believe on Jesus Christ that never heard of Jesus Christ then Infants are incapable of believing Here again you denied the Sequel You know there are Scriptures enough to prove the Antecedent in every Proposition and the Consequent was rightly drawn 〈◊〉 so that you had no more ground to deny the Consequent 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 reason for what you did or discovering any Fallacy in any one of my Arguments The Arguments you offered your self are judged by some to have little weight in them and that by Pedo-baptists as well as others Your first was That if Children are Church-Members then they have a right to Baptism the initiating Ordinance but they are so c. The minor being denied you brought Mat. 19. Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven You indeavour'd to prove that by the Kingdom of Heaven was meant the Visible Church I denied it and offered an Argument to the contrary That if Infants were not Members of a particular instituted Church nor of the universal visible Church out of which a particular instituted Church was gathered then they were not visible Church-Members but they are not c. You told me it did not belong to the Respondent to form an Argument that was all you replied to it then I denied your major that Church-Membership was the ground of Baptism I brought Mat. 3. and Luke 3. and show'd you that those that came to John to be baptized and were denied were Church-Members you replied that they were Church-Members de facto but not de jure I ask'd you whether you did own them Church-Members de facto you said you did Then said I Church-Membership is not the ground of Baptism you said again they were not Church-Members de jure for by the Law they ought to have been cast out I desired you to produce that Law but you could not do it And now Sir I would offer you two things which were not then mentioned First Suppose a Grant that by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Church of the Jews that was then a National Church yet your Argument is impertinent This was before the Commission was given out at which time it is granted that Children were Church-Members but if you would argue from Church-Membership to a right to Baptism you must prove that they are now Church-Members under the new Dispensation The Constitution of the Church being changed from National to Congregational the Matter of which is visible Saints and that is such as in the judgment of Charity are inherently holy and the Form mutual Consent and Agreement and that Church-Membership is put into the Commission to be the ground of Baptism for if you prove not their right to Baptism by the Commission you do nothing and this I think will be too hard a Task Secondly When Children were Church-Members Church Membership was not the ground of Baptism Christ and John never baptized Church-Members considered as such but first made them Disciples and then baptized them Joh. 4. 1. they were Church-Members before they were Disciples of Christ and they were made Disciples before they were baptized Your second Argument was That if Infants are Disciples then they are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission but they are so c. The minor was denied Now pray consider what weak Props they were you fortified your minor with at first you said a Child was a Disciple as soon as his Parents had dedicated him to be taught But do you think he is a Disciple by Instructions according to the Commission and so a fit Subject to be baptized not having learn'd Jesus Christ Secondly Do the Parents dedicate their Children to be taught while Infants when they desire 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 say a Child is a Scholar the first day he goes to School tho he hath learnt nothing but is he a Scholar before he goes to School or a Scholar by Instruction when he hath learn'd nothing You baptize them before they go to School before you go about to teach them will Christ look on these as Disciples to him by the Ministry of the Word or on you Ministers as keeping close to the Commission These things will not hold at the great Day when the Commission shall be laid open again Bear with me that I speak so plain for it is the Cause of Christ that I am now pleading his great Commission wherein his Kingly Authority is so highly concerned may be duly observed and the Ordinance duly administred However Children may be accounted Scholars by us in an improper sense the first day they go to School tho they have learned nothing yet I shewed you that Philip did not account the Eunuch a Scholar tho he had actually submitted himself to be taught by him and he had taught him till he understood by his verbal Profession that he had learned Jesus Christ that is indeed a Disciple of Christ that hath learned Jesus Christ and so learned him as to deny himself for Jesus Christ Luke 14. 27 28. Nor do I believe that you do look upon all that you have preached the Gospel unto to be discipled unto Christ and so fit Subjects for Baptism according to the Commission What you offered from Acts 15. has no foundation in the Chapter the
Avely with Mr. Pomfret and Mr. Yaylor and there was no mention made of this place in Daniel either by them or me 2. There was no Hebrew Bible produced nor was there any occasion for it So that I must return this Story to the Father of Lies from whence it came And that the World may see that what I say is true I shall insert the following Certificate written by Persons of known Integrity and Ability who were present at that Dispute which was obtained by your self and sign'd in your presence WE whose Names are under-written do testify That at the Dispute at Avely in Essex between Dr. William Russel and Mr. Samuel Pomfret concerning the baptizing of Infants there was not any mention made of Hebrew Words nor any Hebrew Bible spoke of nor produced for there was not any occasion for it their Dispute being more about the Subjects than the Manner Witness our Hands John Lowke Joseph Jackson Cornelius Denne Octob. 13. 1699. There are several other things that deserve to be remarked but because they will occur in my Observations upon the Dispute it self and their Reflections upon it I shall take notice of them as they occasionally present themselves in my following Observations Some OBSERVATIONS upon their DEDICATION By Dr. WILLIAM RVSSEL THey dedicate their scandalous Pamphlet to the Honourable Major General Earl Governor Colonel John Gibson Lieutenant-Governor of his Majesty's Garison of Portsmouth and the worshipful Henry Seager Esq Mayor of Portsmouth 1st These Men quarrel with me for calling Colonel Gibson Deputy-Governor when themselves acknowledg that Major-General Earl is Governor Is not Deputy-Governor as honourable a Title as Lieutenant If they think I speak too diminutively of him can they suppose they have mended the matter in presuming to yoke their Worshipful Esq Henry Seager who drives that common Trade of a Baker in the Town of Portsmouth with such honourable Persons as the other two Is this all the Respect and Honour they can afford to give them 2dly They say We humbly lay these Papers at your feet Surely they have reason to trample upon them in disdain when they find themselves intituled to such a false and scandalous Pamphlet 3dly They say who procured for us a Grant from his Majesty publickly to vindicate the common Cause of the Reformed Churches 1. Infant-sprinkling is the thing you must intend How then came you to decline the Vindication thereof and refuse to give so much as one single instance for your Practice altho you were often call'd upon to do it in the time of the Disputation both by Mr. John Williams and my self 2. How comes Infant-sprinkling to be appropriated by you to the Reformed Churches Surely there are others in the World practise that besides those of the Reformed Churches Are you so ignorant as not to know that all the Papists in France Spain Portugal Germany Poland Italy and Rome it self the Seat of the Whore of Babylon do practise Infant-sprinkling as well as you How then have you the confidence to tell these Honorable Persons and the whole World it is the common Cause of the Reformed Churches whereas it is notoriously known that it is the common Cause both of Papists and those you call Reformed 3. If it be appropriated peculiarly to either it must 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 4thly They say it tends very much to the advancement of early Piety and Religion 1. If they believe themselves why were they guilty of so great a Sin of Omission as not to vindicate their Practice when they were so often prest to it and yet could not be prevailed upon to give any Scripture Instance for it And would not so much as try their Skill when so fair an opportunity was put into their hands to prove their own Practice and thereby settle those that are wavering among them notwithstanding they pretend it was the thing for which those Honourable Persons procured for them a Grant from his Majesty But 2. How the sprinkling a little Water upon the infants Faces and calling that Baptism should be to them an occasion of early Piety and Religion is sooner said than proved It seems to me rather to have a contrary tendency especially your telling them when they come to years of understanding that by their Baptism they are put into a new Covenant-relation that you have dedicated them to God that they are in a state of Salvation that those who neglect it have no more reason to hope for the Salvation of their Infants than the Heathens but they must only leave them to the unfathomable depths of God's Goodness having no Promise to rely upon p. 11. That they are solemnly admitted by Baptism into the Visible Church how this agrees with Mr. Leigh's Argument from Mat. 19. he would do well to consider that they are the more special Objects of the Promises of Grace that the Vein of Election frequently runs in the Channel of believing Parents and their Seed and that if they die during their Infant-state they shall be saved pag. 8. Add to this what is said in their Preface that the Covenant of Grace does fix the Terms upon which Christ will be a Saviour to any that thence only it is to be known whom he will save and whom he will not Now unless these Men will deny the Doctrine of final Perseverance as held by the Calvinists they do rather give those Children an occasion from hence to neglect the most important Duties of the Gospel For why should they repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their Sins if they are baptized already and their Sins all pardoned and this Pardon sealed to them by sprinkling a little Water on their faces Why should they believe in Christ that through him they might have an Interest in eternal Life and Glory if it be secured to them already another way Why should they work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling if it be secured and sealed to them already by what you call Baptism without any possibility of miscarrying For they say that if such die in their Infancy they shall be saved Now Do they not hereby do all that in them lies to perswade such Persons that if they had died in their Infant-state they should have been saved by being in the Covenant of Grace and in the Line of Election And can they after all this sin themselves out again and become Reprobates I thought you Presbyters had been of another mind Can you put them whilst 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 selves when you thus write nor can you ever think to gain us to your Party by such Inconsistences as these For
undertaking the Opponency which they confess 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 so waved it Now there is not one word of all this in Mr. Ring 's Copy nor in Mr. Bissel's nor in mine And I am well satisfied there was not one word spoken by Mr. Leigh at that time 22. Upon Mr. Chandler's denying the minor of my universal Negative they have falsified my Answer and made it quite another thing For whereas I say to him Hold Sir it is an universal Negative you must give your Instance c. which are the words in Mr. Ring 's Copy They bring me in saying It 's an universal Negative you must prove it Now I did not call upon Mr. Chandler to prove my Argument as they do slily and disingenuously insinuate but I call'd upon him to give his Instance where it was so written in holy Scripture that Christ had required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants which I then told him and do still affirm he ought to have done otherwise we might argue ad infinitum And this Mr. Leigh knew right well and therefore he bids Mr. Chandler offer me the Commission for an Instance as themselves have confessed in their printed Account But Mr. Robinson they tell you opposed it for he knew there was no such thing exprest in the Commission and did in effect give away the Cause of Infant-Baptism at once For his words are these as recited both in Mr. Ring 's Copy and my True Narrative Mr. Robinson you must prove it still Suppose Mr. Chandler cannot give an Instance nor no body in the Company you cannot thence infer that none in the World can 23. This also they have falsified and set down in their printed Account a Fancy of their own invention They have put in Mr. Leigh who was not then mentioned by Mr. Robinson and have left out these words nor no body in the Company Now they know it was urged upon them all and desired that if any one of them could give an Instance they would please to do it And yet none of them could be prevailed upon so much as to attempt it Surely the New Testament is not so large a Volume but either Mr. Chandler or some other of those Ministers that were present whose number was said to be about five and twenty or thirty might have been supposed to have read it all over and to have known where such an Instance had been written in case any such thing had been contain'd therein What are they all so ignorant of the holy Scriptures that not one of them can tell what is written in the New Testament about holy Baptism How then can they be fit to teach others their Duty concerning it I must therefore once more take the liberty to tell them that when there were so many Men of Parts and Learning together as there then were if none of them are able to give us one Instance from Scripture for their Practice of Infant-Baptism we cannot expect that any body else should It 's much to me that instead of Mr. Chandler's old Sermons pick'd out of other Mens Works they had not tried their Skill to have attempted some Instance from Scripture for their Practice seeing they sat brooding upon their Narrative so long as not to suffer it to come abroad till more than six Months were past after the Dispute Surely they might have found it out in all that time if it had been so written in the New Testament If therefore Mr. Chandler's Sermons are esteemed by them as their ne plus ultra we must conclude they have nothing of that kind to produce and therefore must cease for time to come ever to expect it from them 24. Here they have thrust in Matter never spoken and transposed and mangled what was spoken and have formed it according to their pleasure without any regard had to Truth or Justice For 1. They have made a Speech for Mr. Robinson that he never spake and another for Mr. John Williams p. 5. And I appeal to Mr. Ring 's Copy for there is not one word of either of them there nor in any one of the other Copies I ever saw 2. They leave out almost a whole Sentence of mine and use their Art and Skill to deceive the Reader by making a stroke as if it were left out by the Scribes Whereas in that part they recite they had Mr. Ring 's Copy to inform them and therefore must know that they did not put it down right and so have wilfully misrepresented me to the World Their words are as follows Rus I would have these honourable Persons here present to consider that I am under great Disadvantage you are to give an Instance What my words are you may see in pag. 8. of my Narrative at the lower end they are too long to recite For my whole Answer to Mr. Robinson contains twelve Lines and theirs is contained in two Lines and a half Is this agreable to their Title An Impartial Account 3. Their transposing and altering For my next words which agree with Mr. Ring 's Account are these Mr. Chandler this is only a Trick to turn off the Opponency Dr. Russel What do you talk of a Trick I hope you are able to give an Instance of what is your daily Practice But instead thereof they put down this false Account Rob. This is your popular Argument to shift the Opponency and turn it upon the Respondent 1. Here is a change of Persons Rob. for Chandler 2. They proceed as they began and make a Speech for me at their own pleasure And thus they go on till they come to the next Page This is a Practice they have great cause to be ashamed of when at the same time they pretend to give an Impartial Account 25. In pag. 6. they bring me in saying I am sure according to the Rules of Dispute Mr. Chandler must prove the Negative This I must charge as another Falshood upon them For my words are these If you say you have no Scripture-Proof for Infants Baptism I have done But why must you prevent Mr. Chandler I hope here are some honourable Persons and others that understand the nature of this Controversy and they may reasonably expect that those who have made such a noise about it can give some tolerable Instance for it And if they will do that we will proceed to examine it It is therefore evident that here is not any thing like what they report so that if I charge them with down-right Forgery they must bear with it for they knew that my words were according to Mr. Ring 's Copy and that they had abused both him and me 26. They have again alter'd Mr. Robinson's next Answer and framed words for him that were not then spoken as appears by Mr. Ring 's Copy which I have truly recited in my Narrative to