Christ as to come to Christ Corporally when brought in their Arms. You know Christ says suffer little Children to come to me It 's most probable these were brought in Arms to Christ. Why may they not be said Imputatively to believe as well as Imputatively to come Wil. I deny that the parent's faith was ever imputed to the Child L. You know the distinction of Believers In foro Dei In foro Ecclesiae which I suppose you 'll allow And under the notion of believers In foro Ecclesiae The Parents faith may be imputed to their Children VVil. We do say that a Person is not a Disciple of Christ before he have learned Christ L. Then do we send Children to School because they have learned or that they may learn Rus. I think we should now see whether we can possibly by force of Argument bring you to give an Instance Therefore I argue thus Arg. 5. If the Apostles of our Lord never did Baptize any Infants then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostles of our Lord never did c Therefore Chand I deny the Minor Rus. If the Apostles did Baptize any Infants it is some where to be found in the writings of the new Testament But it 's no where to be found c. L. I deny your Major Rus. If there be no other rule to direct us concerning Holy Baptism than what is in the new Testament then because it 's no where to be found in the writings of the new Testament the Apostles did never Baptize any Infants But there is no other rule c Therefore c. L. You are come from an Example to a Rule I say it may not be recorded in the writings of the New Testament and yet the Apostles might Baptize Infants But this is not granted only supposed that it 's not recorded It is not recorded in the New Testament what you practise that Grown Children of Believers were when adult Baptized I challenge you to produce one Instance of any born of Believing Parents baptized at Age. Rus. That 's no business of ours Don't think to sham off the business so We have called for your Instance several times of an Infant Baptized and you have not been able to give it L. It 's the custom of these Persons to Baptize Grown Persons tho' Baptized before and yet there is no Scripture for it They talk much of our having no Scripture for Infant Baptism and of their having Abundance for their Practice Now let them give one Instance of what is their Practice viz Of one Person born of a believer Baptized at years and I 'll give them the cause Wil. Give your instance for Infant Baptism or else I hope the People will go away and conclude you have none L. Give your instance to prove your Practice or else I hope the People will go away satisfy'd you have none to give It was by the Computation of the learned from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. Iohn the Apostle near Sixty Years in which time many Thousands of the Children of Believing Parents became adult yet we challenge you to produce one Instance in all that time of any of their Children Baptiz'd when adult Rus. The Emperour Constantine was born of a Christian Parent and yet not baptized till adult L. But not because they then thought the Children of Believing Parents had no right to Baptism but because they thought that sins committed after Baptism were unpardonable therefore they oftentimes defer'd it till Death Besides this is not to the purpose because a Scripture instance was call'd for VVill. We are able to produce several instances where grown believers were Baptized but you not one of Infant Baptism L. That was at the first planting of the Gospel Give an instance of a grown person descending from believing Parents that was baptized when adult Rus. If this were any thing to the purpose I would then say something to it But I wonder you should talk thus when it was practised a great many years in the Church to give the Lord's Supper to Infants L. Was it Then ad hominem they were Baptized because they were not to receive that Ordinance before they were baptized We demand an instance of any child of a believing Parent that was baptized when adult Give this and we will give you the Cause Wil. Was the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ a believer L. Yes Wil. Well then there 's the Son of a believer baptized at age Here the Anabaptists fell a laughing and some cry'd out it 's done it 's done And for a while Mr. Leigh attempting several times to speak could not be heard L. I thought our discourse had been grounded on the Commission Was this before or after the Commission Here the people laugh'd again Rus. What do they laught at Not at what the Old Gentleman said but at what Mr. Leigh says The Old Gentleman gave a right instance Rob. It 's not at all to the purpose Rus. Mr. Williams's instance was sufficiently to the purpose for that Mr. Leigh called for an instance of the child of a believing Parent baptized at grown years The Virgin Mary was a Believer Rob. Tho Mr. Leigh did express himself in such general Terms yet the whole strain of the discourse sufficiently manifests he meant the child of such a believer as was properly Christian. The Virgin Mary was undoubtedly a believing Member of the Jewish Church but this is not to our purpose for we want an instance of the child of a Christian Parent after Baptism was instituted by our Lord that yet was baptized at grown years The instance of our Saviour doth not agree to such a case as this is For that Christianity as distinguished from Iudaism had not then a being and the Virgin Mary was not in this sense Christian nor was baptism it self then instituted by our Lord and therefore this instance can signify nothing to the case in hand Will. I have given an instance of the Child of a believing Parent baptized at Age. Give us an instance of any Infant that was baptized L. As for that Our Lord Jesus Christ is not to be imitated in that particular Rus. No VVill. Do you prove he was not L. If he were then there is no Person to be baptized till 30 years of Age nor baptized at all unless Circumcised at eight days old And thus their Scripture instance with their triumph upon it vanished VVill. I demand an instance of an Infant that was baptiz'd L. I demand an express prohibition VVill. I demand an express prohibition of Salt Cream Oyl and Spittle L. I Answer 1. The case is not parallel You speak of the substance we of the subjects of baptism 2. Infants are included in the words All Nations But Salt Cream Oyl c. are not in the word Disciple or Baptize Rob. What need of an instance when
notwithstanding little differences to reconcile and bring nearer to each other the Pious and Sober on both sides To which end we shall first mention to you how far and wherein we apprehend we are agreed And thence manifest in the second place how inconsiderable the things are about which we differ I. We are agreed without doubt in every thing that is of absolute necessity to salvation This is as certain as that there are Christians that are truly such on both sides that there are those that shall be sav'd on both sides Nothing that does Essentially constitute Christianity is controverted betwixt us And even with reference to this very point of Baptism we are verily perswaded there is a nearer agreement betwixt the truly Pious and Serious on both sides than is commonly consider'd Particularly 1. It is it must needs be agreed by all such that there is no possibility of salvation for any Soul in our Apostate World but only in and thro' Christ Act. 4.12 2. 'T is also agreed 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 be a Saviour to 3. 'T is also undeniably plain and what cannot but be agreed amongst us that according to the Constitution of that Covenant Christ will be the Saviour of none but such as are sincerely devoted to God He never was nor will he ever be the Saviour of any others but such he has alwâ—ys bâ—en a Saviour to Ier. 31.33 Psal. 119.38 Heb. 7.25 Upon these Principles it is that every serious Soul does devote it self to God in hope And we doubt not but you are also agreed with us 4. That such who are Sollicitous about their own salvation cannot be unconcern'd about the State of their Infants Every Pious Parent will under the apprehension of that Guilt and Corruption which they inherit with their Nature with enlarged Affections yearn over their tender little ones and earnestly cry to God for 'em and gladly lay hold upon â—â—y word of hope concerning ' em Those amongst you who are Parents feel and know what is the heart of a Parent towards its Child And however you are as all that are truly Christians are unfâ—ignedly concern'd for and desirous to promote the common salvation yet for your Infants that are so near you that are as it were parts of your selves you feel yet another kind of conâ—ern You cannot with any satisfaction die from 'em you can't when they are dying part with 'em unless â—ou havâ— some ground of hope concerning 'em Nor can any thing afford you Encouragement to hope without somâ— word of Promise Nor is there any word of Promise only to such as are devoted to God and iâ— Covenâ—nt wiâ—h him in and thro' Christ To be withâ—ut Christ without hope and without God in the Wâ—rld is represented as the Case of such as are out of Covenant with him strangers to his Covenant Eph. 2.12 Wâ—erefore 5. â—e dâ—ubt not but you are also agreed with us that we shou'd do all that in us lies that our Infants may be in Câ—venant â—ith Gâ—d You do desire as well as we tâ—â—t they may be so and we are perswâ—ded you will do whateâ—â—r you are satisfyâ—d is your Dâ—tâ— in order to it You wâ—ll nay we doubt not but you do pray earnestly for ' eâ— and 〈◊〉 â—is Promise with him that he will bâ— your â—od and the God of your Seed and depenâ—ing upon this promise you do actually surrender and devote 'em to him and look upon your selves as oblig'd to educaâ—â— and train 'em up for him c. This is what those that are seriously Religious amongst you do and dare not but do Nor is any part of this a Controversie betwixt you and us Now here is the internal and most excellent part of Baptism in which we are agreed After which 't is somewhat to be wonder'd at that there shou'd be any remaining difference as to this matter However that which can after such Agreements remain a Controversie must needs be concluded to be of an inferior and less concerning Nature Which we now therefore come to speak to II. The things in which we differ from what has been already said appear to be no fundamental ones Which will also yet farther be manifested if the things themselves be particularly consider'd That which is the Subject of the ensuing Papers and which is commonly agitated betwixt you and us may be reduc'd to these two heads viz. 1. Whether we may and ought to devote our Infants to God in the Ordinance of Baptism And 2. Whether in the Administration of it we be oblig'd to dip the Person wholly under Water As to both which it must be own'd we are yet disagreed You judging the Ordinance of Baptism which we apply to Infants not to belong to 'em And while we apprehend sprinkling it self especially pouring a little water upon the Face of a Person or dipping his Face alone in water to be Lawful in the Administration of this Ordinance you suppose we are obâ—ig'd to dip or plunge the Person wholly into water And while there is a difference in our apprehensions it must also be concluded that on one side or the other there is certâ—inly a mistake But tho' there be a mistake suppose it to be on your side or on our's 't is far from being a damning one 1. We will first as we think we have just reason suppose the â—istake to be with you yet we dare not nor do Aâ—count it a fatal or undoing one Those of your way that agree with us as above and all the Pious and Sober pâ—rt â—f you we take it for granted do do only differ from us in a Circumstance You agree with us that your Infants are to be enter'd into Covenant with God in Christ and seriously devoted to him c. You only doubt whether it may be done in this Ordinance Now tho we are perswaded that they shou'd not only be enter'd into Covenant but also that this solemnity of Baptism shou'd Accompany and add force to the surrender we make of 'em to God Yet we do not Account it so absolutely necessary as if the salvation either of the Parent or Child were suspended on it We read indeed that Baptism saves us 1 Pet. 3.21 But the Apostle to prevent mistake immediately explains himself and tells us he does not intend it of the External Ceremony but of the Answer of a good Conscience Our unfeigned consent to the Baptismal Covenant for our selves and for those that we have Power to consent and accept it for and our sincere devoting our selves and them in that Covenant to God in Christ is indeed necessary to theirs and to our own salvation and this is that Answer of a good Conscience which the Apostle calls for But where this is found tho' the External Ceremony shou'd be omitted whether thro' the
you as a Minister of Christ Iesus have pray'd for the Success of your Ministry and have heard you with a great deal of Satisfaction and I hope have profited by it and shall continue to do so and so attend your Ministry without the leâ—st Pâ—ejudice and I hope with better Success than formerly I am Sir yours in all Christian Service Samuel Ring Portsmouth May 29.99 This is the true Copy of Mr. Ring 's Letter to me who according to his promise usually attends our Lecture at Portsmouth Now let the World Iudg whether my Prejudice against the growth of the Church at Gosport could put me upon this work or whether I ever inveigh'd against them many of them can testify to the contrary to whom I have and shall bear an hearty love and good will own them as excellent Servants of Christ and be very willing to contribute my Assistance to help them forward in their way to Heaven But alas 'T is Mr. Bows and his party that are afraid of the growth of Mr. Webbers Congregation And therefore did suspend from their Communion one Isaac Harman by Name a Ioyner in Portsmouth for bearing Mr. Webber this the Young Man told me himself and ask'd my advice about it and Mr. Bows told me himself before Mr. Francis Williams that if he could Believe that our Doctrine of Original Sin he should think Infants had need of Baptism And wonder'd the People of Gosport should Scruple the Practice of Infant Baptism and yet maintain the Doctrine of Original Sin This Man it seems wants not express Command or Example but only to be feelingly acquainted with the universal Corruption of Humane Nature and then would readily Embrace our Practice I Pray God open his Eyes and convince him of this great truth which is of far greater weight than this of Baptism AN ABRIDGMENT OF THOSE SERMONS THAT WERE The Innocent Occasion of the Disputation HEre I must unavoidably dip my Pen in the Watry Controversy I love not to meddle with matters of Dispute especially where Sober and Good Men are at Odds But I cannot do right to my Subject without mentioning the Grounds of our Practice both as to the Subjects of Baptism and the manner of its Administration I shall according to the order oâ— the Disputation First mention what I offer'd as to the Subjects of Baptism 1. I shall prove from Scripture 〈◊〉 â—arrantableness of Infant Baptism or of the Baptizing the Infants of Believing Parents Here I shall not burden you with many Scriptures that might be produced but only mention some few that I think most clear First From Mat. 28.19 Go Disciple all Nations Baptizing them From hence I thus argue 1. The Infants of Believing Parents are Disciples and therefore ought to be Baptiz'd Now we have a plain Text that these Infants are Disciples in Actâ— 15.19 Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear This Yoke was that of Circumcision a very painful ordinance Administred to Infants of 8 days old this Yoke these false Teachers would impose not only on the Gentile Christians but their Infants too and therefore St. Paul was acus'd by them that he taught they should not Circumcise their Children nor Keep the Customs of Moses Acts 21.21 Now when our Saviour says Go Disciple all Nations The Apostles must need understand that such as were Disciples in the Jewish State should be admitted to this ordinance in the Christian Church 2. Infants are a considerable part of a Nation and therefore we cannot suppose they should be excluded except they were excluded by Name or good Consequence 3. All Nations is here put in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews As if our Saviour had said whereas the Jews have hitherto been the peculiar People of God and admitted to peculiar Priviledges now I admit all Nations to the same Priviledges the Jews only enjoy'd before Eph. 2.12 13. Now it was a great Priviledg among the Jews that their Infants were dedicated and devoted to God and admitted into his Church and Covenant in their early years therefore the Apostles must needs understand when our Saviour said all Nations should be Discipled that the Gentiles and their Children should be admitted to the same Priviledges the Jews enjoy'd before 4. Our Saviour must needs intend Infants unless he had excluded them If he would not be any longer a God in Covenant with them he would have raz'd out their Names Suppose the words had run thus Go Disciple all Nations Circumcising them the Apostles must have understood that their Infants were intended and why not the same when only the rite is alter'd Or suppose it had run Go Disciple the Iews Baptizing them They must needs admit Infants that were admitted before So that whereas our mistaken Brethren call for an express Scripture for Infant Baptism we have reason to answer there needs express Scripture to revoke that Priviledg and Covenant Interest which Infants injoy'd before If it had been Christs intention to have excluded Infants from the Church there must have been a positive Law where such an intention of Christ should have been express'd for nothing can make that unlawful which was a Duty before but a direct and ' express prohibition from the Legislator himself who alone hath Power to Rescind as well as make Laws You know there was a great Controversy whether Circumcision should continue or not Acts 21.21 and certainly there would have been a far greater if upon their coming to Christ their Infants had been excluded the Church and ranked with Heathens but seeing we find no Objections made about this matter nor that our Saviour ever revok'd this Priviledg we may be assur'd they still enjoy it 5. The Practice of Baptizing Infants was customary among the Iews those that have but dip'd their fingers in the Iewish Writings know that not only Proselytes as Mr. Tombs acknowledgeth but Native Iews themselves were admitted into the Church by Circumcision as an initiating ordinance by Baptism as a purifying Ceremony to wash them from Legal Uncleanness which they might ignorantly contract and by Sacrifice to expiate their Sin and that this was not a Corrupt Tradition but grounded on those many Texts that require washing from uncleanness And therefore this Practice is grounded on Gen. 35.2 Exod. 19.10 by the Gemera Talmud and Maimonides Now therefore seeing Infants were thus admitted by Baptism and our Saviour was pleas'd to adopt this custom into a Christian Sacrament we have reason to believe that Infants are admitted now as before 2. Another Scripture is in Acts 2.38 39. Repent and be Baptized for the promise is to you and to your Children and to those afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call The Apostle Peter doth in this place perswade those he had convinc'd of the greatness of their Sin in murdering the Lord of Glory penitently to return to God and
have more Reason to hope the promises will be made good to them than others The vein of Election frequently runs in the Channel of Believing Parents and their seed 5. They are put into a new Covenant Relation As Abraham receiv'd the sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to himself and seed Rom. 4.11 So this ordinance of Baptism shall be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Believers and their seed 6. If they dye during their Infant State they shall be saved Our Saviour useth this Argument for the proof of the Resurrection I am the God of Abraham Mat. 22.32 Now for God to be the God of any is to distinguish them from others by his rewards he did not do thus for Abraham and his Family in this World therefore there is another Heb. 11.16 Now when God is said to be a God to Believers and their seed the meaning is he will be a rewarder of them therefore if they dy in their Infant State they have a promise to rely on that God will receive them to Salvation Whereas others must leave their Children to the unfathomable depths of Divine Mercy as they do the Heathen World 3. The Practical uses of Infant Baptism beyond that of Years This I do the rather to take off the Common Objection that Infant Baptism is an useless Ordinance 1. By Baptizing our Infants we practically own our Original Pollution Those Baptiz'd at Râ—per Years own themselves Sinners by Practice but do not necessarily own that there is a Fountain of Sin within But when we offer our Children to be Baptiz'd we acknowledg that we have been Instruments of conveying polluted Natures to our Infants and that they need washing by the Blood and Spirit of Christ. Thus the Prophet sets forth our sinful State by the Pollutions of a new born Infant Ezek. 16.4 2. Hereby we practically acknowledg the Necessity of Gods free Grace in order to our recovery As an Infant cannot contribute to his Baptism but is purely passive So we can contribute nothing by any Work or Merit of our own towards obtaining the Grace of God and Regenerating Influences of his Spirit It is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth Mercy Rom. 9.16 3. Hereby we practically own Christs universal Headship that he is Lord of all of all Ages Sexes and Conditions Those that deny their Children to be in Covenant with God hereby deny them to be Visible Members of Christ And thus rob him of a great part of his Subjects and indeed rob themselves of that comfort they might enjoy they look upon their Infants as in the same case and State with the Heathen World If Christ save them it is by a Prerogative of Mercy and not as his Members or Covenant Children but for this cause Christ both Died â—â—d Rose and reviv'd that he might be the Lord of the Dead and Living Rom. 14.9 and as Christ whilst an Infant himself was head of the Church so he is pleas'd to admit of Infant Members in Covenant with him 4. Infant Baptism lays stronger Obligations on Parents to train up their Children for God Certainly t is a mighty Obligation on a Parent to consider 1. I have Solemnly devoted my Child to God Solemnly promis'd before the Minister and in the Face of a great Congregation that I will Endeavour by hearty Prayers Serious Instructions and a Religious Example to train up my Child for God the vows of the Lord are upon me and I shall add perjury to the rest of my Sins if I Neglect them The Prophet makes it a great Agravation of the Israelites Sin that they had taken their Sons and Daughters that they had Born unto God and Sacrafic'd them to Idols Ezek. 16.21 and it follows Thou hast slain my Children God calls them his Children as born in his Family and Solemnly devoted to him So the sin of Christians will be highly aggravated if they bring up their Children for the destroyer and Neglect those Parental Instructions they have oblig'd themselves to 5. Infant Baptism Engages Children to acquaint themselves with the Terms and Tenour of the Covenant When Children are told by their Parents how Solemnly they were enter'd into Covenant with God this engages them to enquire betimes what they are by Nature what they may be by Grace and to understand all the Principles of Religion in order to that end 6. Infant Baptism Engages us against Sin Betimes We are prepossess'd with a happy Prejudice against Sin in our Early Years and this is a great advantage When Hannibal was but 9 years Old his Father made him laâ— his hand upon the Altar and Swear that he would be an Irreconcilable Enemy to the Romans And this was the Reason he would never admit of any Peace with them My Friends we were Engaged for God against Sin and the Devil as our Irreconcilable Enemies not at 9 Years Old but in our Infant State and this obliges us to maintain a constant Enmity against them for ever 7. Infant Baptism is a great Encouragement for Faith in Prayer with Respect to our Children Those that have dedicated their Children to God in Baptism may pray to God with larger Measures of Faith and Hope than such as have Neglected this Duty They may say Lord I have resign'd them up unto thee Brought them to thine Authoriz'd Representative to be listed into thy Family consented for them to the claims of thy Covenant and the token of thy Covenant hath been apply'd to them let the Promises of thy Covenant be made good to them They are call'd by thy Name do thou receive them They are Visible Members of thy Church Oh give them the Favours that belong to thy Children A Visible Relation to God is a good Encouragement for Faith in Prayer We are call'd by thy Name Thou bearest not Rule over them Ier. 14.9 Those that have not thus dedicated their Children to God can only say Lord be Merciful to them tho' they are not call'd by thy Name and make them thine But we have a better Plea and can say Lord they are call'd by thy Name 8. Infant Baptism adds to the Parents comfort They may comfortably hope as to their living seed that if they are Faithful in training them up for God he will according to his promise Is. 44.3 pour out his Spirit and Blessing upon them and as to those that die in an Infant State they have Reason to Believe and hope that they are happy because God hath promis'd to be a God to them and to their seed Whereas those that Neglect this ordinance have no more Reason to hope for the Salvation of their Infants than the Heathens must only leave them to the unfathomable depths of Gods Goodness having no promise to rely upon 4. I shall answer some Principal Objections against this Truth 1. There is no Precept nor Example for Infant Baptism in all the New Testament This is
Parents faith As the Infants of Believing Iews so are the Infants of Christians nor is this at all unreasonable For as Infants contract Guilt from their Parents why may they not also partake of Mercy on account of their Parents except God be more inclin'd to Acts of Justice than Mercy As many were heal'd of their Bodily diseases by the faith of their Parents Math. 15.28 So why may they not be admitted into Gods Church on the same account As the Iewish Infants Covenanted with God in and by their Parents Deut. 29.11.12 So why may not Christian Infants Covenant in and by them As Children are said to come to Christ being brought in the Arms of their Nurses or Parents Luk. 18.15.16 So why may they not be said Spiritually to come to Christ in the Arms of their Parents Faith As Parents enter their Childrens Names in Leases and Covenants and the Children are oblig'd to stand to these Covenants and do Injoy these Priviledges when they come to Years So why may they not enter their Childrens Names into the Covenant and Church of God tho' at present they are uncapable of Personally Engaging themselves 2. Infants are oblig'd to these duties as soon as they are capable and their Early Engagements in Baptism lay the more strong and forcible Obligation upon them to do so If afterwards they revolt from God their Sin will be more highly aggravated as adding Perjury and Apostacy to the rest of their Sins and this may be one Reason why sometimes the Children of Believers are worse than others because they Sin against greater Light and Love and stronger Engagements than other men and therefore justly provoke the Holy Spirit to forsake them The Levites of a Month Old are said to keep the charge of the Sanctuary because they were devoted to this Office and bound to it when capable Num. 3.28 So the Infants of Believers are devoted to the Service of God And bound to Believe repent confess their Sins and gladly receive the word as soon as capable 3. These Texts therefore only shew what was requir'd of grown Persons when Baptism was first appointed in the Christian Church Those Persons were either Iews or Heathens before and therefore must Renounce their former Errors and profess the Christian Faith but this is no Prejudice against Infants who are to be admitted with them As when Abraham was Circumciz'd he first Believ'd in God and Submitted to this Ordinance but afterwards the Infants of the Iews were Circumciz'd in their Infant Stateâ— So if we were to Preach to the Indians we must first perswade them to Believe and Repent before Baptism but when once they had Believ'd their Infants would have the same right with themselves 4. As to Mar. 16.16 because many are apt to insist on the order of the words and argue that Faith is put before Baptism and therefore ought to preceed it I Answer The order of the words is not always to be exactly regarded For confessing â—f Sin is put after Baptismâ— Matth. 3.6 Besides this would condemn all Infants for if because they cannot Believe they ought not to be Baptiz'd then for the same Reason they must all be damn'd 'T is not positively said he that is not Baptiz'd shall be damn'd Baptism is not of Absolute Necessity to Salvation But it is positively said he that Believeth not shâ—ll be damn'd If the latter part of this verse be Interpreted of Grown Persons so also must theâ— former As for Grown Persons Faith must go before Baptism But it doth not follow that Infants are hence excluded from Baptism no more than from Salvation Our Saviour doth therefore here only give a general direction to his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and admit the Gentiles to the same Priviledges with the Iews and shews them the Issue of the Execution of their Commission that those Iews or Heathens that would renounce their former Idolatry and beâ—â—eving y submit to the Ordinance as a Solemn Entrance into the Church should be saved buâ— those that wilfully persisted in unbelief shou'd be damn'd So that this is no Prejuâ—ice to Infants who are still in Covenant with God thro their Parents Faith and were never cast out I proceed to the 2d General Question After what manner the outward Element in Baptism ought to be apply'd whether by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water or whether pouring Water on the Face be not sufficient To which I Answer 1. It is not Absolutely Necessary that this Ordinance should be administred by dipping or plunging the whole Body under the Water There are many mistaken Brethren lay too great a stress on this but it proceeds from their ignorance of the Scriptures 1. The Holy Ghost never uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most frequently fignifys to dip but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now why should the Holy Ghost consecrate a new World for this Ordinance if dipping had been the only way of administring it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always us'd where dipping is signify'd Mat. 26.23 Ioh. 13.26 He that dippeth with me in the dish Luk 16.24 dip his finger Rev. 19.13 with Garments dip'd in Blood 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a differing sense in Scripture Thus you read Mar. 7.4 The Pharisees eat not except they wash oft Now the way of washing among the Iews was this a Servant was ready to pâ—ur water on his Masters hands hence Elisha is thus describ'd 2 Kings 3.11 Here is Elisha that pour'd Water on the hands of his Master Eliâ—ah So we read of washing of cups and pots Brasen Vessels and Tables or Beds Mar. 7.4 the Greek word is Baptizo Surely they did not carry them out to a River and dip them there but pour'd water on them and so made them clean Again Heb. 9.10 we read of divers washings Baptisms in the Greek Now what were these Baptisms but v. 13.21 Moses's Sprinkling the Book and all the People with the Blood of Calves and Goats and Water So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the same thing Let not Injudicious People therefore pretend that ours is only Rantism when we find in Scripture that Rantism and Baptism are us'd promiscâ—ously for the same 3. There is no certainty that dipping was ever usd in Scripture times All those Scriptures that are commonly urg'd to this purpose may be easily apply'd another way If we begin with Iohn the Baptist he is said to Baptize not in but with Water as Christ with the Holy Ghost and Fire Luk. 3.16 Now how did Christ Baptize with the Holy Ghost and Fire but at the day of pentecost when the Holy Ghost was pour'd on them Acts. 10.45 I know the learned Casaubon's witty Criticism that in Acts 2. when the Holy Ghost came upon them it is said There came a â—ound from Heaven as of a rushing mightâ— wind and it fill'd the House So that they were as
I say they were not Church Members De jure VVill. Were they denied any priviledges Rob. According to what you said just now they were deny'd baptism was that no Church priviledge VVill. Such as are visible Members of the Universal Church are qualify'd with a work of Grace c. L. I deny it viz. That they are always so VVill. It is in the Judgment of Charity so L. Such as were a Generation of Vipers were not qualify'd with a Work of Grace and so were not Church Members according to your own assertion Rob. Especially such as were known to be a Generation of Vipers VVill. If our Lord Jesus did Disciple such as were Church Members before they were baptiz'd then Church Membership is not the ground of baptism But c. L. We distinguish between the Jewish Church and the Christian Church And then I distinguish between Infant Church Membership and Adult Church Members Now Christian Church Membership is a ground of baptism Sharp The Anabaptist Moderator You say Infants are Church Members Church Members upon their apostacy ought to be Excommunicated when were any admitted into Church Membership in their Infancy Excommunicated upon their apostacy Rob. There is with us as with the Jews Anciently a two fold Excommunication Excommunicatio Major and Excommunicatio Minor as to the first which is a solemn cutting off from the Vniversal Church I question whether our Laws gives us the liberty of practising it and as to the second which is a suspension from the Lords Supper I do not see that to be needful in the case before us Leigh to Mr. Sharp we are not now talking about the management of Church Members but who are the Persons which ought to be esteemed so Farther it is needless â—â— exclude those from Adult Church-Membership who never offered themselves to it It 's as if we should shut our doors against a Person who never attempts an entrance To this Mr. Sharp made no reply VVil. Ministers are to Baptize none but those that are discipled by the words of the Commission Chand Here 's the Consequence of it VVil. No here is no Genuine Consequence The Commission mentions no more but Disciples and Believers And if you can find one Person more besides Disciples and Believers do it Rus. It doth appear by all that hath been said that our practice is allow'd Rob. Not your practice L. We do not allow your practice unless to such as have not been baptized VVill. We agree that those that are not baptized ought to be baptized You are bound to baptize none but such as you are bound to Preach to L. I deny it Rus. Have Infants the use of reason Chand No. Rus. If Infants without understanding are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men Then may the Beasts of the Field But the Beasts of the Field may not c. Therefore L. I appeal to all present Is it as proper to take Pigs and Dogs to School as little Children of a year and half old Are those so capable of the Parent 's resignation and master's acceptation as these If Infants might keep the charge of the Sanctuary from a month old and upward they may be esteemed Believers and Disciples But c. Rus. I wonder you will maintain â—heâ—hing upon such silly foundations L. Pray Answer the last Argument Rus. There is nothing of Christs Commission in it L. Unless we can prove Infant baptism in the close of one of the Evangelists No proof is to be allowed Will. I thought it was to be argued according to the Commission but I see c. Rob. If you be of Mr. Russel's mind then you may turn your Children out to the Dogs and Pigs and Beasts of the Field It is most insufferable I never heard such an Expression in my Life But you may see what the Principles of Anabaptists naturally lead Men to Here the Anabaptists being shamefully nonpluss't Mr. Leigh apply'd himself to the Mayor and Governour in this manner You see they are not able to answer our first Argument but are entirely gravell'd The Rules of Disputation oblige us to go no farther in the Opponency Yet we will be at your command We have six Arguments more at hand if you please we will proceed to offer them Or if you please we will proceed to the Second Question Sharp Anabaptist Moderator Let us have a precept or an example Rob. A precedent we need not give here is a precept brought and yet no Answer given to it Rus What Precept Rob. That which by Undenyable Consequence obliges us to it tho' there be not in express words a requirement that we Baptize Infants One would have thought Mr. Russel should have allowed tho' they are not capable of Dutys yet they are capable of the Priviledges Here an Answer to our last Argument was again and again call'd for but none given Rob. Pray Mr. Chandler let no more time be lost but proceed to another Argument Arg. 2. Chand If some Infants be the Disciples of Christ then according to the Commission of our Lord some Infants are to be Baptized But some Infants are Disciples Therefore c. Rus. I deny your Minor Chand Those that the Holy Ghost in Scripture calls Disciples are Disciples But the Holy Ghost in Scripture calls some Infants Disciples Ergo they are Disciples Rus. I deny your Minor Chand I prove it from that Text Acts 15.10 Now therefore why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples Upon Infants the Yoke of Circumcision was laid They are call'd Disciples Rus. I deny that Text proves it Chan. If this Yoke were laid upon the neck of the Disciples then Infants are Disciples But c. Therefore c. Rus. â— deny that there is any such thing in the Text either 〈◊〉 or intended Chand The dispute was occasion'd by some false Teachers that had said except Christians were Circumcised aâ—â—â—â—pâ— the Law of Moses they could not be saved Now says the Apostle Why do you lay a Yoke upon the neck oâ— the Disciples c This Yoke was the Yoke of Circumcision which was laid on the neck of some Infants Rus. No Infants can be here intended for those who are called Disciples in this verse are called Brethren and Believers in the 9 th verse And therefore it could not intend infants L. We will read verse the First Except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Now I ask you what was the manner of Moses Rus. To cut the foreskin of their Flesh. L. Suppose we were to teach this People as the Judaizing Christians did them Except you are Circumcised after the manner of Moses you can't be saved no doubt but they would understand the manner of Moses to intend not only all the Circumstances of it but that their Children must also be Circumcised this being after the manner of Moses Here I will form this Argument If those are called Disciples
who were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Then Infants are Disciples But c And so ought to be Baptized Now they themselves allow that Disciples ought to be Baptized Rus. It 's the Gentile Believers that are there called Disciples Chand It is all upon whom the Yoke of Circumcision was laid which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Will. They could bear the Yoke of Circumcision Chand They were not able to bear it The Holy Ghost says so expresly which signifys the Painfullness and Troublesomeness of that Ordinance L. What you say of moment is this That Children are able to bear the Yoke of Circumcision therefore that Yoke is not there intended but the whole Ceremonial Law We allow the Ceremonial Law was included but Circumcision was here chiefly intended Will. If Circumcision was binding to keep the whole Law then this is not the Yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear But it was so Gal. 5.3 L. Thus far I think the old Gentleman is in the right that the Apostles are here and in the Epistle to the Gal. endeavouring the same thing driving them off from the observation of the Ceremonial Law But herein he is mistaken He would leave out Circumcision one of the prime and most painful parts of this Law and so would leave out those Infants whom thâ—se Iudaizing Christians advised to be Circumcised Rus. Prove that Infants are there intended L. If the context do oblige us to take in Infants then they are there intended But the context c. Ergo. It is a reproof of or reasoning with those that were inclined to impose Circumcision on the Necks of the Disciples and with it the whole Law of Moses v. 5. They were strictly observant of Moses's Law Nothing is more plain and obvious to one observant of Moses's Law than to Circumcise Infants at eight days old And consequently nothing would they urge more on these Disciples Rus. If they be such as had their hearts purified by faith brethren c. L. That 's not necessary Their being barely the Infants of these Disciples was enough If I were to act the part of a Judaizing Christian and were to perswade all these Gentlemen that they were to observe Circumcision according to the Law of Moses And did call those Disciples who were so Circumcised Would they not take it to be sufficiently plain that their Infants were intended as well as themselves And therefore that I called their Infants Disciples Rus. If you bring a Text and I shew you several weighty considerations why it should not be understood in your sense I expect not such â—tories as these Rob. Is it not enough if Mr. Leigh shews that this Text will admit of no other sense Will. If so be that children were brought in it would not follow that they were Disciples for those that were Circumcised were not Disciples L. You say the Qualification was they must be believers and have their hearts purified by faith I Answer These Judaizing Christians would perswade them to Circumcise after the manner of Moses And so to take the Yoke not only themselves but also on their Infants Now all these without distinction on whom this Yoke was about to be laid are called Disciples and therefore their Infants VVill. After the manner of Mosesâ— Thâ—e relates to the Form not the Subjects Here again is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes Rob. Here hath been a great deal of time spent about this Argument The Substance of what was said on both sides is this Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh have urged that such as are Disciples of Christ ought to be baptized and that some Infants are Disciples of Christ. This Mr. Russel deny's and they have proved it from this That some Infants are call'd Disciples by the Spirit of God This also Mr. Russel hath deny'd So that the whole Question result's to this head Whether any Infants be in Scripture call'd Disciples Now this hath been I think sufficiently clear'd from this Text Act. 15.10 where the Persons call'd Disciples are those upon whom the Judaizing Christians would have imposed the Yoke of Circumcision The Doctrine they taught the Christian Gentiles was That their Christianity would avail them nothing It was to no purpose tho' they did Believe in Christ unless they were also Circumcised according to the Law of Moses they could not be saved You all know what the Law of Moses doth prescribe and command in this case not only that they themselves but that every Male Child among them should be Circumcised Rus. It is not according to the Law of Moses but after the manner of Moses Rob. Mr. Russel it 's true it 's after the manner of Moses in the First verse but if you look forward into the Chapter you will find express mention of the Law of Moses You must be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses v. 5th I suppose you that have so oft read this Chapter could not but be sensible that such an Expression was there tho' not in the first verse And therefore the distinction you will pretend to make between the Law of Moses and the Manner of Moses was but a meer Evasion and in this case a Distinction without Difference The one explains the other That which is call'd their being Circumcised after the manner of Moses in one place is called their being Circumcised and Keeping the Law of Moses in the other place They must be Circumcised as Moses did order so that his Law might be observed and fulfilled in the doing of it which it could not be tho they themselves were Circumcised never so regularly unless their Infants were so too And yet the whole Body of those on whom the Pharisees would have imposed the Yoke of Circumcision are here expressly call'd Disciples This whole Body of Adult and Infants are therefore in common included under this Name which was all that we had to prove And we are now willing to refer it to the People whether what hath been said be not sufficient Proof If you please therefore we will now proceed to the Second question Pray Mr. Chandler let the Company understand what it is Reader Here observe We were ready as before mention'd to offer several other Arguments but no tollerable Answer being given to those two neither the Rules of Disputation did oblige us nor the Company 's patience and the approaching evening allow us to do it unless the Second Question were wholly excluded Q. 2. Whether according to the Commission of our Lord Baptism be to be Administred by Dipping Plunging or Overwhelming only and not otherways It lies upon you to prove that it is by Dipping Plunging Overwhelming only Rus. The Holy Scripture shews the way of baptizing But it doth not shew that sprinkling is the way Therefore c. L. This Argument doth not prove that it is by Dipping c. Only Rob. Conclude with the Words of the Question Rus.
Practice in Baptizing Infants happily retorted the Argument upon themselves and challeng'd them to produce one Instance of their Practice as theirs differs from ours For all that know us know we also baptize such as are adult upon the Profession of the Christian Faith that were not baptiz'd in Infancy Nay that we should refuse to baptize the Child of an Heathen or other Notorious Infidel unless adopted by some Christian till he become adult and make a credible Profession of Christianity Mr. Leigh therefore press'd them for one Scripture Instance of a believing meaning a Christian Parents Child whose Baptism was delay'd till adult And withal told them That from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. Iohn according to the computation of the Learned was about 60 years in which compass of Time multitudes of Christians Children were become adult Dr. Russel mention'd Constantine the Great as a Scripture-Instance which was justly ridicul'd Mr. Williams as he acknowledg'd to us afterwards thought it not of any Force and by the intimation of his Son alledges the Instance of our Lord as born of a Believer of the Virgin Mary To which Mr. Leigh reply'd I thought we had been speaking of the Commission now this was before the Commission Intimating that the Instance was not pertinent relating to a Baptism that preceeded the Commission of our Lord and therefore our Disputation was no way concern'd in it Notwithstanding this Dr. Russel would have it a pertinent Answer Christ being the Child of a Believer And to this he reports no Answer but makes Mr. Leigh seek to be Opponent upon it as if confounded with this Instance pag. 35. Whereas immediately upon the Reply of Dr. Russel Mr. Robinson our Moderator adds Tho Mr. Leigh express'd himself in so general Terms yet the whole strain of the Discourse did sufficiently manifest that an Instance of the Child of a Believer properly Christian was call'd for Now the Virgin Mary was a Iew and not then a Christian Nor was Christian Baptism then instituted With more to the same purpose Mr. Leigh also further replyed That Christ was not to be imitaâ—ed in that because then no Person ought to be baptized till 30 not except circumcis'd at 8 days old as the Reader may set in the foregoing Narrative After which Dr. Russel offer'd nothing Now we appeal to all the World whether when so large and distinct a Reply was made both by Mr. Robinson and Mr. Leigh this man hath fairly represented our Cause when he takes no notice at all of it But if this Gentleman or any of his Friends can yet produce one Scripture-Instance of the Child of a Christian Parent baptiz'd at grown years it will be somewhat to the purpose and they may haâ—e the confidence to call for Instances from us and to pretend that theirs as distinguish'd from ours is the Scripture-way and most agreeable to the Commission of our Lord But till then how unreasonable is it for them to expect Instances of our way when they have none to produce for their own Again he hath omitted to tell the World what all that were present well Remember that he was put to Silence by what was urg'd from Mat. 19.14 to prove Infant Members of the Church-Militant upon Earth Insomuch that after a long Silence Mr. Râ—binson call'd to him and ask'd if he had no reply to make and beg'd of him that if he had any thing to say he would speak otherwise tell the People that we might proceed To which Dr. Russel made a very weak reply that in this Text there is not a word of Baptism or the Commission and Mr. W. instead of Answering took the Oppenancy as in the Narrative But not one word more from that Argument could be got from Dr. Russel Besides tho' he hath conceal'd yet he cannot himself haâ—â— forgotten that the 2d Argument on our paâ—t where he was again Silenceâ— was sum'd up by Mr. Robinson in the words oâ— our Narative Then we refer'd iâ— to the Gentlemen present whether we should offer any more Argument on the 1st Question and â—â— was thought wholly needless Mr. Robinsons closing Speech on the 2d Question is also wholâ—y omitted We forbear to mention here how he hath omitted such passages as did sufficiently expose his Ignorance to the Learned part of the company Such aâ— were his telling us once and again that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was â—f the Masculine Gender agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Greek Verbs admit not of Genders tho' Hebrew do and his saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it had been with an Omega and I Consonant So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faults for which a School Boy would deserve the lash And when he was not allow'd to conclude his first Argument on the 2d Question otherwise than with the word of the Question it will be Remember'd tho' his Narrative hath not told us with how great difficulty he form'd his Syliegism and how many attempts he made before he could bring the words of the Question into the conclusion Insomuch that our Moderator offer'd him his Assistance These and several other particulars which quite aâ—ter the Face of the Disputation were by no means to be omitted Neither can that be call'd a True Narrative that suppresseth â—he Truth in such Instances as these 2. This Narrative is false in regard of its strange misplacing some Particulars on which account the Reader can form no true Idea of the Disputation So for instance whâ—â— hâ—â—ays concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 34. 〈…〉 is true should have come in in the midst of Mr William's rambling Discourse betwixt Dr. Russel's 4th and 5th Arguments and that about the Beasts of the Field should have had its place betwixt the 1st and 2d Argument on our part for Infant Baptism when Mr. Williams and Russel were both Rambling again And had they been found in their proper places as in Mr. Ring 's Copy which Narrative Russel pretends to transcribe they would only have serv'd to expose the Weakness of him that brought them But as he hath plac'd them here they serve to hide the shameful Baffle they and their Cause had by the Arguments on our side For as was said before they never re-assum'd the Opponency on the fi rst Question after the closing up the Argument from Infants Discipleship Tho Dr. Russel brings in these Two Arguments as if they went off with Triumph to the 2d Question Which yet every Judicious Auditor Knows to be False Lesser slips we pass by 3. He hath forg'd several downright Falshoods one of which is just under our Eye with relation to what is immdiately before said and therefore tho a little out of its place 〈◊〉 mention it here He 〈◊〉 tells the World that 〈◊〉 said they might take up the â—â—ponency again if they pleas'd And again that be re-assum'd the Opponenâ—y again at Mr. Leigh ' s Requeâ—t of which hâ— was
a Common Objection and therefore deserves a distinct answer 1. To this I Answer What Express Command or Example can they produce for previous Examination of Persons that offer themselves to be Baptiz'd for Stated Prayer before and after this Ordinance or for dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water All these things must be deduc'd by consequence for no express Scripture can be produc'd for them I may add what express Command have they for singing Psalms in Rhime and Metre which is the Practice of the most Orthodox Anabaptists at this day I mention this the rather to convince Mr. Webber and his adherents what a doughty Champion they have chosen for themselves For this Dr. Russel hath written some Animadversions on his Brother Allen's Essay on singing Psalms wherein he advances the very same Arguments against their Practice of singing Psalms that he doth against ours for Infant Baptism and therefore hath prov'd himself a Hackny disputant that hath one constant Road and train of Arguments upon all occasions Perhaps I may be so dull of Apprehension as not to be able to Answer them therefore must cry Men of Israel help The Arguments of Russel against Allen pag. 9. If it doth not appear from Scripture or any Authentic History that the Psalms of David were Translated into Rhime or Metre till the 16 th Century then it is Impossible any Church could so sing them as our Brethren now do the Major is undeniable the Minor I thus prove If it be so recorded you or some other are able to show it Further if Singing in Rhime or Metre was never practic'd in any Church till the 16 th Century then it was because our Lord Jesus had not commanded it so to be If our Lord had Commanded it his Apostles would have so taught the Churches If the Apostles were faithful in the discharge of their Ministry and kept back nothing that was profitable to the Churches but declar'd to them the whole Councel â—â— God then they did teach the Churches all that the Lord Jesus Commanded If the Apostles did teach the Churches to sing in Rhime and Metre then it is somewhere so recorded in the New Testament Thus argues this mighty Man of Logick but as he cannot distinguish between Rhime and Metre â—o I can see neither Rhime nor Reason in his discourse these were the Arguments for want of better he â—rifâ—ed wâ—th at Portsmouth but Mr. Webber to whose Civility I am indebted for a sight of this curious peice must either Renounce his beloved Rhimes or comply with the Practice of Infant Baptism notwithstanding the Wonderful Arguments of his Champion to the contrary But to return from this digression 2. Those Truths that were Establish'd in the Old Testament are rather suppos'd than positively express'd in the New but the Grounds and Foundations upon which Infant Baptism stands were Establish'd in the Old Testament Infants were then admitted into the Covenant and Church of God Except therefore Christ had blotted their Names out of the Covenant and Rolls of the Church They are to be continued there under the New Testament Thus a Magistracy was setled under the Old Testament but there is no precept for it under the New the Lawfulness of War was then setled but suppos'd not expresâ— under the New The forbidden degrees of Marriage were setled under the Old Testament No need of mentioning them again under the New 3. Ans. There are many Virtual and General Commands for the Baptizing of Infants in the New Testament which were mention'd before 4. Ans. There was no need of an express Command because it was the constant Practice of the Church when the Scripture was written in conformity to the Practice of the Iews for many Ages before I cannot here express my self better than in the words of the Learned Lightfoot If Baptism and Baptizing of Infants had been as strange and unheard of a thing till Iohn Baptist came as Circumcision was â—till God appointed it to Abraham There would then no doubt have been an express Command for Baptizing Infants as there was for Circumcising them But when the Baptizing of Infants was a thing commonly known and us'd as appears by Uncontestable Evidence from all their Writers there need not be express Assertions that such and such Persons were to be the Objects of Baptism when it was as well known before the Gospel began that Men Women and Children were Baptiz'd as it is to be known that the Sun is up when it shines at noon day 5. There would need a Positive Command to exclude Infants who were admitted into Covenant before The Iews were extremely tender of their Priviledges and you know there was a great dispute among them whether their Children should be Circumcis'd Acts. 21.21 Now if their Children were wholly cast out of Covenant this would have enrag'd them much more seeing therefore there is not one word in Scripture that once mentions the unchurching of Infants not one Apostle that once questions or discovers it the believing Iews did not once Scruple it nor the unbelieving once charge it on Christ nor the Councel in Acts 15. Reveal it tho they that taught Infants should be Circumciz'd did suppose they were Church-Members I say seeing all these things are True Infants are Church-Members still and consequently ought to be Baptiz'd 6. There are Examples of whole Housholds that were Baptiz'd in Scripture and we may well conclude as Abrahams Children In Luk. 19.9 Christ saith to Zaccheus Salvation is come to this House for that he also is the Son of Abraham Zaceheus was a Publican and a gatherer of the Roman Tribute and perhaps a Gentile but upon his Faith in Christ he becomes a Spiritual Son of Abraham and Salvation comes not only to himself but his House God becomes a God to him and his So when we read of so many Housholds Baptiz'd upon the Parents and Masters Believing we have Reason to conclude their Infants were Baptiz'd as Abraham and his were Circumciz'd 7. There is no Instance of any Christian Child whose Baptism was defer'd still he came to Years There was great Reason that they who had been Iews or Heathens before should upon their undertaking Christianity be Baptiz'd at Years as Abraham at the first Institution of Circumcision was Circumciz'd when he was old but we may well suppose their Children as Abrahams were Baptiz'd with them and afterwards in their Infant State Now it is utterly unaccountable that in that long tract of time between St. Mathews Gospel and the Revelations when many Christian Infants were grown adult we should read of none that were Baptiz'd but only of Iews and Heathens I say this is unaccountable and therefore supposeth they were Baptiz'd in Infancy Obj. 2. Infants are uncapable of performing the Duties prerequir'd to Baptism Of confessing their Sins Mat. 3.6 Of Repenting Acts 2.38 Of gladly receiving the word Acts 2.41 Of Believing Mar. 16.16 1. Infants are admitted on the account of their