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
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
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
under Water Or must it be by pouring Water on them c. Upon the whole the Application of a little Water in Baptism especially in these Cold Climates is grounded upon what Christ quotes I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now it being not Necessarily implyed in Scripture that Dipping was the ancient Practice we say that having a fair and probable way deducible from Scripture we must rest therein having recourse to that general rule Davids hunger was a fair excuse for eating the shew-bread which is call'd Most Holy and Lawful only for the Priests to Eat Therefore if Dipping in Cold Weather and Cold Climates do tend to the Prejudice of a Person 's Health yea to Endanger Life and it be not certainly fixt in Scripture as the only way of Administring the Ordinance we may use our own may as in General most agreeable to the word of God Rus. They think tho' they Transgress a Rule God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice L. No. This is not so We observe the rule a Moral Precept which take's place of a Ritual when opposite Much more is it Obligatory when it 's not evident that any Ritual one doth oppose it Chand If in those hot Countrys they had dip't or been obliged to dip this would not hold in such Climates and at such Seasons of the Year wherein the Life of a Person would this way be Manifestly exposed to Danger Mr. Russel here attempted to read several Quotations that he had Collected out of the Assemblies Annot. Pool Dr. Ham. c which had been before disowned And therefore the People refused to hear him as being nothing to the purpose however he spake to this effect Rus. I hope the People will observe that you are forc'd to differ from the Revd. Assembly of Divines c. Chand The Bible the Bible is our Religion Rob. Mr. Russel we are not ashamed to own our selves Protestants with whom it is a Fundamental Principle that the greatest and best of Men are fallible And therefore our Assent is not concluded by the meer words of one or other name how great soever We pay a just deference to the very worthy names you mention'd but we cannot think our selves obliged to believe every thing they say If you have any Solid Reasons to offer or the clear evidence of any Text of Scripture to determine this point pray let us hear it before we close up the day Nothing being said he applying himself to the People added Rob. A great deal of loose discourse you have heard upon this last Question Mr. Russel was obliged by all the Laws of Disputation to prove that according to the Commission of our Lord Baptism was to be administred by Dipping Plunging Overwhelming and no otherwise Some attempts he made towards it of the weakness of which I doubt not but you are all sensible And therefore which yet they were not obliged to Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh undertook to prove that it was not Necessarily to be so Administred For the clearing of which they have manifested that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew doth not necessarily signify any thing more than only to Wash or to apply water to a Person without determining whether it shall be by dipping a Person into water or pouring water upon him or any other way so that water be applyed it is all that can necessarily be concluded from the words Of this they have given clear evidence both from the Old Testament and the New And now upon the whole we are willing to refer it to your own Judgments whether you will be perswaded to account your own Baptism a Nullity because it hath not been administred in the way of these Persons If you can without any Solid Reason or without so much as the evidence of one single Text of Scripture be Satisfyed you may then take what our adversaries have said for Satisfaction But since it hath been fully proved that Christ hath only required that Persons be Solemnly entred into his Church by Baptizing or Washing them in the Name of Father Son and Spirit and hath not determined so far as doth appear whether this washing shall be performed this way or that we are willing I say to refer it to the Judgment of you all whether our way of Admistration be not the most commodious FINIS I have compar'd this Copy with the Original viz. Mr. Maltby's and my own and find it exactly agreeable thereto Witness my Hand this 10th day of Iuly 1699. W. SMITH Some Iust Reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended Narrative 'T IS with great Regret that we are again diverted from more pâ—easing and useful Studies to dip our Pens in this Watry Controversy and undertake this Invidious Service As we were Necessitated by the Anabaptists Challenge to the Disputation it self so had they not by Publishing a false account laid us under a like Necessity to Vindicate the Truth and our selves the World had never more heard of this matter In these our Reflections we shall Manifest the Author's Egregious Falshood in some parts of his Narrative his Trisling Impertinencys in others and the Uncharitable Principles that have drop'd from him The Narrative is pretended to be Transcrib'd from Mr. Bissel's and Mr. Ring 's Copy's Now we can assure the World that Mr. Bissel's Copy was like a Lawyer 's Breviate containing only hints for Memory and may be all contain'd in 3 or 4 pages and hardly one word of it in this Narrative As to Mr. Ring 's we have taken the pains to compare it with this account and find several hundred Falshoods Additions Alterations and Omissions It is an ill omen thus to stumble at the Threshold and what begins with a Falshood we have Reason enough to Mistrust But to the Narrative it self we shall as to some parts shew it's Egregious Falshood as to matters of fact and that by its Omissions of some and misciting other particulars as well as positive false assertions 1. It is Egregiously false by Reason of its Omissions Not that every Omission of a word or Sentence perhaps would have render'd it so but such Omissions as alter the very State of the Disputation and make it look like anâ—ther thing than it truly was are undoubtedly to be call'd Falshoods Should any one pretending to report the Psalmists Sense Ps. 14.1 leave out the first words and assure the world he said there is no God would not this be call'd a Notorious Falshood tho the Falseness of it lies in not relating the whole Sentence From whence it may be collected That it is not only asserting what was never said but also the Omission of something that was said may bring an Historian under the Guilt of Falsifying And whether it be not so in the present case we shall leave the World to judge in these few Instances Mr. Leigh upon their frequent pressing for an Instance from Scripture of our
that as he says he was Created a Dr in the most proper sense Ex Inhabili Materia Doctor ex non docto Yet if he intend Equivocal Expressions tho he charge them upon us they are his own peculiar Talent Perhaps few Iesuits herein equal or exceed him at that sort of Weapon If any thing said by us was grievous to him it was not that we us'd Equivocal Expressions of our own but that we repeated and distinguish'd upon his 3. How impertinently doth he Trifle when he over-loaded his 3d Argument with a multitude of Propositions Tho Mr. Leigh deny'd first That the Apostle Paul did never declare that Infant-Baptism is a Gospel Institution yet could he never have it prov'd Suppose he did which yet he neither did nor can prove that Paul never declar'd it in his Writings yet how will he ever prove that he never declar'd it at any time by word of mouth which yet if he assert he must prove And how frivolously doth he afterwards talk of our having in our Custody any such unwritten Tradition We never did assert the Apostle Paul did declare any such thing by word of mouth that is not written only said he might do it and put this wonderful man to prove he did not And how insufferably weak and trifling are all 〈◊〉 Reflections he hath under this Head cast upon us While this was the Sum of what was said to his Minor or Antecedent But afterwards we deny'd also his Major or consequent that unless Paul declar'd the Baptism of Infants â—t was no part of the Counsel of God which by his own account he never prov'd nor is it indeed capable of proof unless what Paul declar'd must stand instead of the whole Scripture to us And tho the Apostle tells us he had not shunn'd to declare yet he never tells us that he had actually declar'd the whole Counsel of God Acts 20.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word intimates he did not prevaricate with them or fraudulently keep back any truth that in the course of his Ministry among them he had a call from God to deliver to them He he did not do as Peter faultily did Gal. 2.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who with-drew sought Subterfuges thro' a mean and Timorous Spirit conceal'd the truth when it was most especially to be own'd by him and for which the Apostle rebuk'd him v. 11. now says he I did not from any such mean or base Principle suppress or hide from you or misrepresent to you any part of the Mind of God but have freely and boldly declar'd to you so far as I had opportunity and there was any occasion for it the whole Counsel of God Not that we can imagite the Apostle had any opportunity to declare the whole of what God had at any time by any Messenger reveal'd of his Counsel Nor was there occasion he should spend his Time among them upon such Points with which they were well acquainted before especially while he had himself immediate Revelations from Heaven to communicate to them If therefore it could as it never can be prov'd that Paul never said a word of Infant Baptism to them it would by no means follow that it is no part of the Counsel of God but only that it was no part of what was immediately reveal'd from Heaven to himself nor any thing that he needed to insist upon among them who might otherways and sufficiently be instructed about it We might therefore when we had deny'd the consequence with just Reason say as p. 21. Suppose but not grant that Paul had not spoken a word of Infant Baptism yet they cannot in the least advantage their cause by it And so our Opposition stands good against that Argument even as he himself doth represent the closing of it 4. His Reflection upon us especially upon Mr. Robinson for refusing to admit him to harrangue the People upon the words of the Commission is if possible yet more trifling Was he not not allow'd to argue from the Commission And was not that all that was fit to be allow'd him Was he interrupted in reading the Text What would the Man have Why verily he wanted to illuminate us and our hearers with his Preachâ—â—nt upon the Text. Poor Ignorant Souls He perhaps apprehended we could not understand the Commission without his help In the presence of so many Ministers and particularly of him that had the right of the place he might have had the Civility to have ask'd leave or to have forborn till invited to it Besides he knew our company came together not to hear a Sermon especially from him but to attend a Disputation The man must by all means Preach and having nam'd a Text he begins This Commission is very solemnly deliver'd wherein our Lord tells us that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to him and by vertue of that Power And here he takes it ill to be interrupted And we must be reflected on as Lucifugae Scripturarum Bats and Owls that are afraid of the Commission and fly the light of the Scripture because we would not suffer him to go on with his Impertinent Harangue As if it was all one to refuse to hear a Text of Scripture read to as hear his Comment upon it How excessively doth this man dote on his own Labours 5. How Egregiously doth he trifle p. 24. when because our Moderator would not suffer Mr. Calvins Authority to stand for an Argument he Reflects as if he had no esteem for him Whereas there are few Names since the Apostles days for which he hath so great a Veneration What is it impossible in this Dr's opinion to have a Veneration for a Person unless we take his ipse dixit and swallow down all he says without chewing But doth Mr. Calvin any where say That the whole of the Commission is expressed in Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 And tho he say Infants are not expresly mention'd in this Command yet we are sure his Comment on the Place which will best discover his Judgment says That God includes Infants in speaking to their Parents and so that Baptism when apply'd to Infants is not separatedâ— from Faith and teaching And this he speaks in opposition to the Anabaptists who made a great noise against Infant-Bapti sm upon this Pretence See his own words Harm Evang. in Mat. 28.19 Verum quia docere prius jubet Christus quam Baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non rite administrari Baptismus nisi fides praecesserit arque hoc praetextu multum tumultuati sum Anabaptistae contra Paedo-Baptismum Solutio tamen non difficilis est And so goes on to answer this Argument Wherein he hath these Words Quae olim Iudaeis data fuit promissâ— Inter gentes quoque 〈◊〉 hodie necesse est Ero Deus tuus Semiâ—is tui Gen. 17.7 Bâ—eos qui side in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in
this day argue more strongly for us than these Mens Opinions only without their Practice do against us 15. We have another Trifle pag. 45. They had pleaded Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the Water It had been reply'd that the word only signify'd they went down to the Water But Mr. Iohn Williams ventures upon a Greek Criticism and tells us he was inform'd there were 2 differing words in the Greek Text where 't is said v. 36. they came unto a certain Water and v 38. they went into This Dr. Russel confirm'd and thereupon as they represent the Matter Mr. Leigh concess'd There is a word for you 'T is well we understand a Little Latine Otherwise this Man would quite Silence us But to the Point who ever told them there were 2 differing words in the Greek told them true And we are very ready to concess or as we would chuse to speak consent and yeild to Truth The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the true reading of v. 36th is As they went on their way they came by near to or over against a certain Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Accusative well admits such a reading And v. 38. they went both down out of the Chariot unto this Water How well do these 2 verses Answer each other and where 's the difficulty this wonderful Critic hath left upon us But What need of going down to the Water unless he were to be dip'd A little might have been brought up into the Chariot if Sprinkling would have serv'd the turn In answer to which we say 1. His going down to or into the Water doth no more prove that the Eunuch was dip'd than that Philip was for both went down 2. 'T is Improbable he was dip'd being then on a Journey and having no cloths to change And if you still ask why they went down 3. 'T is not certain they were provided with a vessel to fetch up Water in 4. There was not convenient Room in the Chariot for the performance of the Action and what was to attend it 'T is not to be doubted but it was attended with Prayer your selves we hope would not administer Baptism without Prayer before or after or both But what Room could there be in a Chariot for these two Persons to place themselves in a Praying posture It would neither admit them at least if of the Modern form to stand nor kneel without uneasiness Which alone might be a sufficient Reason for their coming down out of the Chariot if there were no other 16. How he trifled about the Hebrew Bible and how fasly he Represents that matter appears by our Narrative Mr. Ring had given over writing long before this and Mr. Bows and Mr. Webber were asham'd of their Goliah and therefore about this time basely deserted and left him alone The true account in short is this Mr. Chandler told Dr. Russel that Baptizo was so far from always signifying to dip that Bapto it self sometimes signifys to wet or wash And mention'd that Text. Dan. 4.33 Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the dew of Heaven in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Russel reply'd the Hebrew is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Mr. Chandler return'd the Greek word we were then inquiring into However to try his skill in Hebrew who had so shamefully falter'd in the Greek he was ask'd what the Hebrew word was He said if he had an Hebrew Bible he could tell Mr. Chandler handed his being Athias's 2 d Edit Amstel 1668. with the Books in Latine Letters plac'd after the same order with other Hebrew Bibles He could not find the place but read Gen. 1.1 which he also falsly Pronounced Mr. Chandler return'd Sir we come not hither to inquire whether you can read Hebrew but what the Hebrew word is in this place Then Mr. Robinson folded down the place for him On which he mutter'd something to himself which his nearest Neighbours could not hear and said the word was not there But he hath not told us to this day what the word is Hebrew Bibles are all misplac'd with him for we hear from good hands that at Havering in Essex he was confounded with the same place and could not find the Prophecy of Daniel Now we would befriend him against he â—â—ngages in the next Heckny Prize and inform him of a great Secret That Daniel is mostly Chaldee and the word there is not Tabal but Zavang 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the same Import And this Mr. Chandler understood not before he was Born but before the Creation of Dr. Russel CHAP. III. BY this time it appears how unregardable both this pretended Narrative is and it's pretended Anthoâ—â—â— A Pamphlet stuff'd with such Notorious Falshoods 〈…〉 happens to speak Truth trifling so Egregiously with what contempt doth it deserve to be Treated by the World But there is yet one thing further that may help to discover the man and that is the Narrow and uncharitable Principles that have drop'd from him and these we shall briefly animadvert upon 1. In the very first page of the Narrative Speaking of Mr. Chandler's Thursday Lectures at Portsmouth he tells you they were manag'd so as was to the Grief of such as truly Fear God in those parts Why What was the Offence He tells you it was given out that Mr. Chandler would not only prove Infant Baptism from Scripture but also furnish his hearers with Arguments to defend their Practice Why We cannot Imagine how this should grieve any that truly Fear God To have a truth prov'd a truth about which so many good Men differ to have it clear'd from Scripture Testimony to have the Oracles of God unfolded about it 'T is strange this should be grievous to any Yes says he It was to the Grief of them that truly Fear God in those parts We are at a loss to know the Reason why it should be grievous to any such and here he will not help us out However say we was it to the grief of such as were perswaded of this Truth Were they griev'd to have it clear'd up and be furnish'd with Arguments for the defence of it This can't be his meaning Every one is pleas'd to see what he believes to be the truth set in a clear Light those that were for the Baptism of Infants could not be griev'd at it No that he doth not say but those that Fear God that truly Fear him were grieved at it So that with him none that are for Infant Baptism in those parts will be allowed truly to Fear God Not one besides the poor Baptists as he calls them pag. 2. here 's Charity with a Witness All the Regular Members of the conforming and non-conforming Congregations are censur'd as destitute of the true Fear of God! Pray Dr. your Reason for this Will you condemn us and not tell us why What is there in the notion of
Infant Baptism that is inconsistent with the Fear of God Why may not a Person be of Opinion that he ought with the greatest seriousness to devote and consecrate his Children to God and enter them by Baptism into his Covenant and bring them under early bonds to him and yet for all this God! Nay the rather do it because he truly Fears God 2. That he may shew it is not an unwary Expression but his deliberate Judgment He doth in the very last Paragraph of his Pamphlet lay the same stress on the Point of Dipping His concluding Prayer is that as God had made the hearing of the dispute of such use to several Persons that they were fully convinc'd and did a few days after submit to be dipt So it may be of like use to many others in the Reading That so there may be added to the Church such as shall be say'd Such a Prayer scarce ever before appear'd in Print made up of falshood and uncharitableness It is amazing to us that a man dare venture into the presence of God with a 〈◊〉 in his Mouth and such uncharitableness in his Heart The â—â—lshooâ— we have animadverted upon Cap. 1. Paragraph 10. The uncharitableness we are now to take notice of He prays that as several 〈◊〉 hearing so many others by reading may be 〈◊〉 and Submit to be dipâ— haâ— so there may be added to the Church such as 〈◊〉 be sav'd What Apprehensions must thiâ— man have of those that never were dipt Why they are not yet added to the Church No not to the Anabaptists Church but we douâ—â—â—ot but 〈…〉 are added to the Church of 〈…〉 Yet whatever we think his charitable maâ— will not allow they can otherwise 〈…〉 the Church and consequently no otheâ—wise sav'd 〈…〉 it consists in deâ—â—ying Infant Baptism and 〈◊〉 the Necessity of Dipping If you agree with him in these and according 〈…〉 be dipt you are 〈…〉 as we can find added to the Church 〈…〉 of Faith Reâ—entaâ—ce Obedience toward 〈…〉 being dipt â—on water upon profession is with 〈◊〉 instead of all these But tho' you be Regenerate and Sanctify'd through 〈…〉 Soul and Spirit Walk humbly with God and unblamably before Men Yet if you were Baptiz'd only in your Infancy or â—f when adult not by dipping There is no 〈◊〉 for you if this man were to be your Judgâ— But blessed be God we are to be try'd at an anâ—ther Bar. And therefore with us it is a very small matter to be judg'd by him or of Mans day 1 Cor. 4.4 knowing that he that will judg 〈…〉 the Lord. To whose righteous Judgment we appeal and for which we wait in hope But let this Mans notions of Religion be never so narrow and uncharitable we declare our Religion is of no less compass than Christianity it self All that hold the Essentials of Religion we account to be of the same Religion with us Tho' they differ from us in some inconsiderable matters We will not be perswaded to look upon the English Episcopal or the Foreign Presbyterian The Congregational or Anabaptists themselves to be of a differing Religion from us to be destitute of the True Fear God or shut out of Christs Church Religion consists in thaâ— which is Common to the Pious and Sober of all these Partys and not in any thing that distinguisheth them from each other We abominate such a narrow strait-laced Principle as would place Religion in being for or against Liturgies for or against this or that form of Church-Government for or against Infant Baptism or this or that mode of Administration These things are none of them great enough to be the Terms of Eternal Life The Final Sentence will not proceed upon them We believe with St. Peter that God is no Respecter of Persons but in every Nation and among every party of Men that hold to the head Christ Jesus He that Feareth God and worketh Righteousness shall be accepted of him Acts 10.34 35. and with St. Paul The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but Righteousness and Peace and joy in the Holy Ghost and he that in these things serves Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd among Men. Whether he be for or agaiâ—st these things we have nam'd or any of the like kind Rom. 14.17 18. FINIS THE most material Errata observ'd in a Review are World for Word p. 17. l. 20. Word for World p. 58. l. 15. Subâ—ects for Subjects p. 67. l. 31. which with any others of the like Nature can create no difficulty to an intelligent Reader There are indeed several Letters dropt out in working for which tho room is left yet they disappear but they may be easily supply'd For instance the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dropt in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 17. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 49. and the Letter â— twice a line or two after in the same Page in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if any who are fond either of the Greek Accents or Hebrew Points complain of their omission in those Original Words that here occur they may charge it parâ—â— on the different inclination of the Corrector and partly on the difficulty of bringing our common Printers to any exactness in what lies out of their usual Road. To the latter of which â—is also to be ascrib'd that â—o many of the Hebrew Letters are needlesly Dagesch'd Tillotson Pres. to six Ser. on family Religion pag. 3. * Stilling-Fleet Iren. pag. 7. * Lightfoots Harmony on Joh. 1 25. * Any way before the words were any where †He is attempting to shift the Opponency * Somewhere The word is again altered from any way to somewhere * The Dr. now seems unwilâ—ing again to allow Scripture Consequence ⸫ Here Mr. Leigh was willing tho the Respondent ought not to Prove to offer Prâ—of for the peoples satisfaction * Mr. Robinson will keep him to the Opponency * The Drs. design even now was to turn the Opponency on us as I can prove from a Letter of Mr. Jo. Williams But now he will not quit the Opponency and yet expects from us a Scripture Proof for Infant Baptism * Or Asserenti incumbit probatio * Here we expected that the Dr. should either have shewn that this distinction is groundless or that he should have brought it into his neâ—t Syllogism But he doth neither * We seeing that the Dr. wav'd distinctions and grounded his Discipleship by the Ministry of Men upon the word Teach Mat. 28.19 And that because it goes before the Word Baptizing Therefore we denied the Major * Mr. Chandler calls for a Proof of the Consequent aâ—â— the Dr. goes upon the Proof of the Anteâ—â—dent * Here the Dr. blunders again confounding Antecedent and Consequent †i. e. Because they are not capable of Instruction or compleat Discipleship by the Ministry of men therefore that they are not to be baptized * Here is not