that is recorded in the fifth Commandment but that the other was also intended and included in it which they endeavoured to perswade the People to believe by their false Glosses upon the Text For they confess it was not expresly written in the Law but that it might be intended tho not exprest And that it was delivered by word of mouth tho it be no where so written in all the Word of God For they call'd it a Tradition of the Elders Whether Covetousness as in the Pharisees lies at the root of this Practice of Infant-sprinkling themselves are the best Judges But this they confess That it is not expresly commanded in the Word of God But they endeavour to perswade the People that it is intended therein altho they can't produce one Instance of any Infant that was baptized and by their corrupt Exposition of some Passages in holy Scripture and their false Glosses like those of the Pharisees they prevail upon their ignorant and unthinking admirers to believe it upon their word altho there is not one syllable of it recorded in the holy Scriptures But when this will not do they tell them it was the Practice of the Church for many Ages and they have reason to believe that it was taught by the Apostles altho there be no mention of it in holy Scripture For in p. 13. of their own Account they say that Paul might declare it tho the New Testament should not discover that he did And in p. 15. Paul might have declar'd the Baptism of Infants an hundred times over and yet it might not be left on Record in his Epistle to the Ephesians nor any part of the New Testament that he did so I therefore demand of these Presbyters that if they be not of the Papists Opinion that Infant-Baptism is an unwritten Tradition what moved them to use their very Language Had they not a fit opportunity to produce a Scripture-instance if they had been able But it seems all the skill they have with all their pretences to Learning is not sufficient to inable them to find it out and therefore we must still charge it upon them as a Scripture-less Practice and a mere Human Invention without the least shew of either Precept or Example to be found for it in all the Word of God And consequently we must reject it as an unwritten Tradition and Will-worship and as such forbidden by the holy Scriptures and that from the Pens of the most learned Pedo-Baptists in their Expositions of the second Commandment And seeing these Men grant this Practice of theirs is not exprest in the Writings of the New Testament let them tell us the reason of this total silence therein Why did not our Lord command it if he intended it should be practised Why did not the Apostles set it down in their Writings What can be the reason why those holy Men should not make some mention of it in the many Books they have purposely written for our Instruction Why did the four Evangelists conceal it The Acts of the Apostles make no mention of it when they set down in writing so many thousands of Men and Women that were baptized How comes it to pass that the Apostles Peter James John and Jude who wrote such excellent Epistles should not say one word about it But above all the Apostle Paul who wrote fourteen admirable Epistles and speaks in them so often of this holy Ordinance of Baptism who professes he did declare all the Counsel of God and kept back nothing that was profitable to be known and praises them for keeping the Ordinances as they were delivered to them and declares that as he received them of the Lord so he had delivered them does not in all his Epistles make the least mention of Infant-Baptism Is not this alone a great Argument against your Practice I pray consider it For the Apostle saith Let every Man prove his own Work You assert it and therefore it lies upon you to prove it But to evade this you make use of the same method against us as the Papists do against the Protestants when they demand of them to give some formal Passage in Scripture that doth expresly and by name deny what they affirm viz. where it 's said expresly that there is no fire of Purgatory and that the Pope of Rome is not the Head of the universal Church and that the Mass is not a Propitiatory Sacrifice Now this method of Disputation is accounted in the Papists an unjust caviling to demand such unreasonable Proof or else to pretend the Protestants cannot answer them The Turks may as reasonably demand of the Papists where there is to be found any formal Passage in Scripture that saith expresly that Mahomet is not a true Prophet c. and then pretend the Papists cannot answer them And surely if it be unjust caviling in their own esteem when demanded of them it must be the same in themselves when they demand it from the Protestants Just so you Presbyters serve us It belongs to you that impose this Opinion of yours upon us and oblige others to believe it to make the truth of it appear from holy Scripture For no one is bound to believe that which cannot be prov'd to be true You say that the Infants of believing Parents ought to be baptized but we deny it It 's not our business to prove our denial by shewing some formal Passage in Scripture where it 's said in terminis that Infants are not to be baptized it 's enough for us to â—â—ll you that there is neither Command nor Example for 〈◊〉 in all the holy Scripture And till you give your Instance where it is so written we shall neither believe nor practise it For till that be done the Controversy betwixt you and us is at an end And in my opinion you had better have forbore ingaging in it at first seeing you have so little skill to manage it There was one present at the Dispute who wrote thus to his Friend in London Sir We have seen the gross Abuses of the Dispute printed by Mr. Chandler c. who makes Lies his Refuge c. to favour his bad Cause But as a Minister of the Church of England said If Chandler and the rest had no better Proof for their Separation from the Church or Arguments to defend it they were grand Schismaticks for they proved nothing Another Minister of the Church of England that was also at the Dispute told a friend of mine that he had seen our printed Narrative and did declare that it was a very good Account of the Disputation Also a Doctor of Divinity who came to give me a Visit told me that a Country Parson of his Acquaintance who heard the Dispute did declare to him his great Dissatisfaction against the Presbyters both for their weak and ill management of themselves in that Dispute and did also declare to him that the Baptists were too hard for them And this was
It 's not the Faith of Assurance but the Faith of Recombance or Reliance that gives a right to the Ordinance Acts 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst and this a Person may do that yet is in the dark whether he do believe or no Isa 50. 10. 4. If you can take up the Ordinance purely in obedience to the Command of God submitting your selves to the Mediatory Authority of the Lord Jesus you may go on with Comfort it 's a true sign that your Natures are changed For the carnal Mind is Enmity against God and is not subject unto the Law of God neither indeed can be Rom. 8. 7. And if your Natures are changed there is a Light infused by which you are instantly discipled unto Christ 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded Light to shine out of Darkness hath shined in our Hearts to give the light of the knowledg of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ For Dr. WILLIAM RUSSEL dwelling in Barbican London SIR I Have read your Narrative of the Portsmouth Disputation with some Ministers of the Presbyterians and have also seen another Book published by your Adversaries intituled An Impartial Account of the Portsmouth Disputation by Samuel Chandler William Leigh Benjamin Robinson Wherein I find such unchristian Reflections and Wrong done you as sutes not with the Profession they make of true Religion but greatly demonstrates the badness of their Cause And I wonder at their Impudence in putting so plain a Cheat upon the World as I find in pag. 79. in these words viz. Whether he might not have spared all his Dutch seeing Doop in that Language signifies only to wash and is used when they only pour on Water That this account of the word Doop is notoriously false appears from the common use of the word and the account which is given of it in their Dictionaries One I have by me which I believe is the largest and best in that Tongue it being a double Dictionary of Dutch and English and English and Dutch with Grammars to each of them by Hendrick Hexham and Daniel Manly and printed at Rotterdam 1675 and 1678. wherein the English word Dip is render'd Doop as to dip in a Sauce Doopen in een sansse to dip to the bottom Doopen tot den grondt toe Dipped Gedoopt a dipping een doopinge and Doop Doopsel Baptism Doopen to baptize Dooper Baptizer Doop dagh the day of Baptism Doopen onder her water to duck or dive under Water I also find that to wash or rince is in Dutch Wasschen ofte Spoelen to sprinkle Stroyen spreyden sprenckelen and also Besprengen is to sprinkle besprinkle or to strow to pour is in Dutch Gieten or storten poured upon Opgegoten ofte op Gestort Now seeing there is nothing of truth in what they say in contradiction to you of the word Doop but that it undeniably appears from the Dutch Dictionary to signify to dip to duck or dive and that it has nothing in its signification either to sprinkle or wash by pouring Water which things are render'd by other Dutch words I know not how they can clear themselves from the guilt of a wilful Lie to cheat the People of the true form of Gospel-Baptism which in my opinion is a greater Sin than to cheat them of their Mony And it 's greatly to be lamented that any professing Godliness should so grosly stain their Religion for the sake of Infant-sprinkling a meer human Tradition which has neither Command nor Example for it in the holy Scriptures Sir I was willing to communicate this unto you that if you need the Evidence of this Dictionary and have not already met with it you may have recourse unto it And so heartily wishing you the increase of true Wisdom and Christian Courage for the defence of the Truth of Christ which you are engaged in I rest your loving Christian Friend and Brother Isaac Marlow Leominster Nov. 17. 1699. I have examined this Letter and find it to agree exactly with Hexam's Dutch Dictionary and these Presbyters have most basely betray'd their Ignorance in that Language and have made their Reflections to consist of the most shameful Forgeries and Falshoods they could well have invented both in this and the rest of their Accusations against me and others as appears by those many authentick and undeniable Testimonies given under the Hands of so many Eye and Ear-Witnesses who have also some of them prov'd Mr. Chandler to be a most notorious Liar to his very face before divers of his Hearers and others then present And had not the Book swell'd too big there had been printed a large Letter from Mr. Williams's Son directed to those three Presbyters wherein he hath not only justified his Father but my self also from those vile Reflections they have unjustly cast both upon the Living and the Dead But if they offer to persevere in their lying Vanities and gross Abuses they may be furnished with that and much more not only from both his Sons but from an eminent Person living in Portsmouth who hath written largely upon that Subject and also in Vindication of me and my True Narrative who will neither be afraid nor asham'd to own what they have written having given it under their Hands And therefore both Mr. Sharp and my self do beg their Pardon that we have omitted to make it publick for the Reason above-mentioned There are many things which they have asserted that are utterly false which I have not took notice of but I cannot omit what they have asserted in p. 64. of their Partial Account where they bring me in saying But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Diminutive from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they pretend a Voucher for it but we must not know who This is like the story about Isaac Harman and is printed to no other purpose than to render me ridiculous as if I did not know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Theme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Derivative from it But I must charge it upon them as a Forgery and Invention of their own for I neither said so neither was it possible for me to think so But why should I think it strange for them to belie me when Mr. Leigh hath been so bold to belie the Lord Jesus For after they have mentioned Mark 7. 4. in their Printed Account in the Page before recited they bring in these words as spoken by me That it 's render'd dipping in our English Translation as He that dippeth with me in the dish And Mr. Leigh as they say replying The word is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now whether he means Mark 7. 4. or that Passage about Judas in the Evangelists it 's notoriously false for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be found in any of those places And he discovers his ignorance in the Greek Tongue to talk after that unthinking and loose manner W.
may charge it partly on the different Inclination of the Corrector and partly on the difficulty of bringing our common Printers to any Exactness If by a Corrector of a different Inclination they mean a Baptist the Doctor saith he doth not believe it for if he be not misinformed he is a Man of their Perswasion in the Point in Controversy But this he is certain of that the Gentleman who corrected his Copy when at the Press is a zealous Member of the Church of England and to his knowledg a Contender for Infant-Baptism and yet he must give him this Character that he was very faithful to the Trust reposed in him But an oversight may be by the best of Men But he is under a disadvantage about it where to charge it because the written Copy was never returned But it is so insignificant a Trifle to what they confess is in their own that it 's not worth contending about And certainly it deserved no such ridiculous and base descanting on it as to call it a word of the famous Doctor 's own coining with other Expressions which they in their Spleen have vented against him Is this their Charity and Good-will towards us Surely a little Charity would have serv'd to have excused so inconsiderable a fault especially when they only guess that he was chargeable with it not knowing but it might be an Error of the Press seeing there were so many in their own which they boldly charge upon the Corrector and Printer But they have not yet done with it for they say if he intend equivocal Expressions they are his own peculiar Talent Perhaps few Jesuits herein equal or exceed him at that sort of Weapon I cannot but wonder Gentlemen that you should thus proceed in this manner what can it be that thus moves you to speak against the Doctor Doth this agree with that Charity you speak of to those you call mistaken Brethren in the beginning of your Book Can you think that he deserved that Character from you when you call to mind with what coolness of Spirit and evenness of Temper he behaved himself during the whole time of the Disputation I appeal to your own Consciences whether you think he deserved such an uncharitable Insinuation and severe Reflection Doth this also agree with Mr. Chandler's short Request p. 2. that God would grant that Truth may prevail Surely this doth not shew you had any design it should prevail upon the Doctor and upon us either then or since for your Practice contradicts your Expressions hitherto I know not what you may do for time to come But if you go on as you have begun I fear you may give the Government occasion to repent of allowing the liberty you speak of At least you may have cause to repent of allowing your selves such a liberty as ye do against us Who was it that trifled about the Mother of our Lord being a Believer you or we And who fairly improved it to the World you or we What reason had Mr. Leigh to allow the Eunuch to be a Christian and consider him as such altho as he faith he was but a Proselyte of the Gate And yet in p. 31. to deny in his sense the Virgin Mary to be a Christian and represent her a Jew distinct from that of a Christian and that Christianity in that sense had then no being There were many Believers in Christ throughout the several Ages of the World both before the Jewish Oeconomy as well under it witness Enoch the 7th from Adam who prophesied of him Jude 14 15. And were not Abraham Isaac and Jacob with all the rest mentioned in Heb. 11. with many others true Believers in Christ This you know is not to be denied And are not all true Believers in Christ real Christians And shall the Mother of our Lord be denied this Appellation when the holy Scripture calls her a Believer in Christ Luke 2. from v. 30 to v. 35. where it is thus written And blessed is she that hath believed And Mr. Leigh then confessed it The Answer therefore Mr. Williams gave to your Demand was good and proper altho you thus trifle with it since and change the word from what was then spoken For by what hath been said you may see that if it had been the word Christian as it was not yet if she was a Believer then a Christian for all true Believers in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles are Disciples and you know the Disciples were called Christians And altho that Name was first given at Antioch yet they had the thing before the Name was brought into use and imposed upon them And altho they then offered upon giving you such an instance to give us the Cause Yet I do not think they were willing either then or now to give it us for they have no mind to part with their Practice for if they had they would not have used such poor shifts as they have done to support it And amongst other Artifices they have made use of this was one to send a Certificate before their Book was printed down to Froome by the hands of Thomas Smithwick and Hugh Wats and I doubt not but the Men are so honest that they would not bring such a thing if it had not been given them so to do And the World shall have it in the same words as I had it delivered to me in my own House Mr. Chandler's and Mr. Leigh's Certificate THese are to certify all whom it may concern That Dr. Russel's Narrative of the Portsmouth Disputation is full of palpable notorious Falshoods and that there are many Alterations Additions and Omissions even from Mr. Samuel Ring 's own Copy which he hath honestly given to us We can procure the hands of vast numbers both of the Church of England and Dissenters and some Anabaptists themselves that will acknowledg we obtain'd an intire Victory The Governor and Mayor have promised their Testimonials but being both now at London we cannot send them at present but shall publish with all convenient speed a full Answer to Dr. Russel's Book with the Attestations of the principal Gentlemen present Therefore we humbly desire all Persons would suspend their Judgment of this matter till they have a view of our Answer Signed by Sam. Chandler Will. Leigh Portsmouth June 1. 1699. And now I hope Reader that Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh will not be angry for spending our Judgment upon their Narrative themselves giving us that liberty as I suppose is implied by this Certificate For altho it was sent to their own Friends yet it being directed to all whom it may concern I have reason to think it concerns me But I am sure it did concern them to make it appear that the Doctor 's Narrative was such as they have represented it to be which I am certain they have not yet done Had they procured those vast numbers both of the Church of England and Dissenters and also some
blame must have lain upon Mr. Robinson who did use his Endeavour to provoke them but as it was altogether without cause on our part so it proved to be without success with respect to the People who departed in a quiet and peaceable manner The Church of England hath less reason to be offended with us than with you for we deny nothiâ—â— to their Children that we allow our selves to do for our own If their Children are sick we pray for them if desired c. But it is you that put an affront upon those of that Communion by your Practice For whereas you say you baptize the Children of Believers consider'd as such and yet some of your Party have made some scruple of baptizing those whose Parents are not Members with you as I have been inform'd Do you think that all Parents in the Church of England are Unbelievers And altho you profess to have a large latitude it may be more than others of your Brethren yet you do not often baptize their Children which gives some seeming intimation as if you made such a distinction betwixt your Children and theirs For our parts we look upon our Children to have no more from us by Generation than the Children of others have from them And I dare not say as you intimate in your Book that the Line of Election runs to the Believers Seed For I know many that have been converted and yet their Parents to all visible appearance were unconverted Nay the Children have been instrumental in the hand of God for the good of their Parents And on the contrary some Godly Parents have had very Ungodly Children to the great grief and sorrow of their Souls Now therefore if there was any cause for the Multitude as you call them to be offended it is most likely to be at what you said and not what the Doctor then said that you should look upon them as Unbelievers for so you do by your Practice and Writing tho other things are pretended by you I would not have any think I am against the Doctrine of Election I hope I own it as a Truth And when your Children and mine come to be regenerated it is a sure Character they were elected And whereas you talk of the Parents Faith being imputed to their Children I must tell you plainly I have heard of the Righteousness of Christ being imputed but never that the Faith of the Parent was imputed to the Children before It may be you will say you do but suppose it or why may it not be so It 's the same method indeed that Mr. Chandler takes in his Sermons But in my judgment it is a way to make Men turn Atheists and Deists and to ridicule all Revealed Religion to make the holy Scriptures a nose of Wax to serve your turns I beg of you for time to come to leave off such ways and methods and to argue upon a firm and more certain Foundation But you proceed further in your Certificate and say you will give a full Answer to Dr. Russel's Book If you had perform'd your Promise herein as you have not I do believe I should have been of your mind Neither have you been so good as your word in giving us the Attestations of the principal Gentlemen then present at your intire Victory unless by them you mean Mr. Smith Mr. Maultbey and Mr. Will. Wallen whom you produce as Witnesses in your Book And if so how can these be the principal Gentlemen present And if they are where be the Attestations under their hands that you obtained an intire Victory at the Dispute Or is there any else hath done it We find no such in your Book I would have you that are so rigid in charging Dr. Russel's Narrative as false by reason of some Omissions as you say in it whereas he was not willing if he could have done it to trouble the World with all those passionate Expressions that past from Mr. Robinson or others that were of little concern to the World lest he should have made it swell into too great a Volume even as I my self think it not convenient to make this my Writing swell with the several Remarks that might be made on many other Passages of your Book lest it be made too chargeable for the Purses of our poor People I would I sav have you and others consider whether the same Objection doth not fall as heavy upon your selves seeing you have not performed your Promise under your hands but have omitted to give us those Testimonials But I suppose you were not able to obtain such a Testimony from those Gentlemen or else we should have had it in your Book But there is one thing I would remark which is this That in p. 70. of your Narrative you use this Expression That false Lie Now altho I do not allow your Charge to be true yet suppose it had could not you by all your Learning and Skill have found out an Expression less liable to exception Pray Sirs when did you ever read or hear of a true Lie that you tell the World this is a false Lie Are there any Lies that are not false Now I think this deserves as much notice as that of the addition of a Letter and much more And yet how strangely did you improve that against the Doctor But I shall not deal so by you Thus Reader I hope I have made it appear how our Antagonists have no reason to boast so boldly as they have done of a Victory at the Dispute But whereas on the other hand they charge it as an egregious Falshood on Dr. Russel p. 64. as if he had boldly published amongst and by his Friends in London tho not in his Narrative that he to put it out of doubt and his Friends had carried the day at Portsmouth added the Bishop of Salisbury had received a Letter from Colonel GIBSON wherein he applauded our Performance Now for the undeceiving of the World I think good further to add that I charged the Doctor with this Report for which his said Enemies call him in the place aforecited a Falsifier of Reports but he told me he never said so nor thought so and therefore it must rest upon the Asserter till he can bring forth his Evidence that the Doctor said so and that it was from thence that such a Report has spread abroad However this may serve as another Instance of their Spleen and Virulency against him and how eager they are to snatch at any thing to asperse him and to render him little yea to degrade him in the highest manner And hence it is that they cannot forbear to trifle with his being a Graduate as in the last quoted Page Wherefore for the satisfaction of some Persons that may have read their Reflections on him and his Degree I shall here add the Certificate following together with some other Certificates that I have lately procured or have been sent to me out of the
undertaking the Opponency which they confess he ought not to have done But he only talked of it but did not do it for he knew it was a Task too heavy for him and so waved it Now there is not one word of all this in Mr. Ring 's Copy nor in Mr. Bissel's nor in mine And I am well satisfied there was not one word spoken by Mr. Leigh at that time 22. Upon Mr. Chandler's denying the minor of my universal Negative they have falsified my Answer and made it quite another thing For whereas I say to him Hold Sir it is an universal Negative you must give your Instance c. which are the words in Mr. Ring 's Copy They bring me in saying It 's an universal Negative you must prove it Now I did not call upon Mr. Chandler to prove my Argument as they do slily and disingenuously insinuate but I call'd upon him to give his Instance where it was so written in holy Scripture that Christ had required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants which I then told him and do still affirm he ought to have done otherwise we might argue ad infinitum And this Mr. Leigh knew right well and therefore he bids Mr. Chandler offer me the Commission for an Instance as themselves have confessed in their printed Account But Mr. Robinson they tell you opposed it for he knew there was no such thing exprest in the Commission and did in effect give away the Cause of Infant-Baptism at once For his words are these as recited both in Mr. Ring 's Copy and my True Narrative Mr. Robinson you must prove it still Suppose Mr. Chandler cannot give an Instance nor no body in the Company you cannot thence infer that none in the World can 23. This also they have falsified and set down in their printed Account a Fancy of their own invention They have put in Mr. Leigh who was not then mentioned by Mr. Robinson and have left out these words nor no body in the Company Now they know it was urged upon them all and desired that if any one of them could give an Instance they would please to do it And yet none of them could be prevailed upon so much as to attempt it Surely the New Testament is not so large a Volume but either Mr. Chandler or some other of those Ministers that were present whose number was said to be about five and twenty or thirty might have been supposed to have read it all over and to have known where such an Instance had been written in case any such thing had been contain'd therein What are they all so ignorant of the holy Scriptures that not one of them can tell what is written in the New Testament about holy Baptism How then can they be fit to teach others their Duty concerning it I must therefore once more take the liberty to tell them that when there were so many Men of Parts and Learning together as there then were if none of them are able to give us one Instance from Scripture for their Practice of Infant-Baptism we cannot expect that any body else should It 's much to me that instead of Mr. Chandler's old Sermons pick'd out of other Mens Works they had not tried their Skill to have attempted some Instance from Scripture for their Practice seeing they sat brooding upon their Narrative so long as not to suffer it to come abroad till more than six Months were past after the Dispute Surely they might have found it out in all that time if it had been so written in the New Testament If therefore Mr. Chandler's Sermons are esteemed by them as their ne plus ultra we must conclude they have nothing of that kind to produce and therefore must cease for time to come ever to expect it from them 24. Here they have thrust in Matter never spoken and transposed and mangled what was spoken and have formed it according to their pleasure without any regard had to Truth or Justice For 1. They have made a Speech for Mr. Robinson that he never spake and another for Mr. John Williams p. 5. And I appeal to Mr. Ring 's Copy for there is not one word of either of them there nor in any one of the other Copies I ever saw 2. They leave out almost a whole Sentence of mine and use their Art and Skill to deceive the Reader by making a stroke as if it were left out by the Scribes Whereas in that part they recite they had Mr. Ring 's Copy to inform them and therefore must know that they did not put it down right and so have wilfully misrepresented me to the World Their words are as follows Rus I would have these honourable Persons here present to consider that I am under great Disadvantage you are to give an Instance What my words are you may see in pag. 8. of my Narrative at the lower end they are too long to recite For my whole Answer to Mr. Robinson contains twelve Lines and theirs is contained in two Lines and a half Is this agreable to their Title An Impartial Account 3. Their transposing and altering For my next words which agree with Mr. Ring 's Account are these Mr. Chandler this is only a Trick to turn off the Opponency Dr. Russel What do you talk of a Trick I hope you are able to give an Instance of what is your daily Practice But instead thereof they put down this false Account Rob. This is your popular Argument to shift the Opponency and turn it upon the Respondent 1. Here is a change of Persons Rob. for Chandler 2. They proceed as they began and make a Speech for me at their own pleasure And thus they go on till they come to the next Page This is a Practice they have great cause to be ashamed of when at the same time they pretend to give an Impartial Account 25. In pag. 6. they bring me in saying I am sure according to the Rules of Dispute Mr. Chandler must prove the Negative This I must charge as another Falshood upon them For my words are these If you say you have no Scripture-Proof for Infants Baptism I have done But why must you prevent Mr. Chandler I hope here are some honourable Persons and others that understand the nature of this Controversy and they may reasonably expect that those who have made such a noise about it can give some tolerable Instance for it And if they will do that we will proceed to examine it It is therefore evident that here is not any thing like what they report so that if I charge them with down-right Forgery they must bear with it for they knew that my words were according to Mr. Ring 's Copy and that they had abused both him and me 26. They have again alter'd Mr. Robinson's next Answer and framed words for him that were not then spoken as appears by Mr. Ring 's Copy which I have truly recited in my Narrative to
which I refer you 27. Here they give an invented Answer again Rus So I design if there be no Answer given whereas my words are as Mr. Ring hath noted I have proved it till you give your Instance which they know to be the true sense of what I have put down in my Narrative 28. Chand Here is an Answer I deny the minor Now hear what Mr. Ring saith Robinson If you will change sides Mr. Chandler you may admit this Trick In this they have both changed the words and the Persons speaking 29. They have also invented an Answer for me directly contrary to Mr. Ring 's Copy 30. They have invented a Speech for Mr. Leigh of which there is not one word in Mr. Ring 's Copy 31. Here they have transposed Mr. Robinson's words and left out the one half of them as they are in Mr. Ring 's Copy 32. Here they have brought me in answering Mr. Robinson thus This is no changing sides for I do not design to quit the Opponency only let him bring an Instance Whereas I have truly represented the Answer I gave in p. 9. of my Narrative according to Mr. Ring 's Copy where you will find that the Answer was given in other words and not to Mr. Robinson but to Mr. Chandler 33. But why must this be put in here They tell ' you the Doctor 's design even now was to turn the Opponency on us as I can prove saith he from a Letter of Mr. John Williams But now he will not quit the Opponency and yet expects a Scripture-proof for Infant-Baptism To this I answer 1. That no Man in the World could have known this if I had so designed for I never said so And it 's God only that knows the Heart 2. I do now tell all the World as I then told you that I had no such design 3. What you say of the deceased Mr. John Williams is utterly false For he hath not so written in his Letter to Mr. Leigh altho he hath the confidence to tell the World that he can prove it from Mr. John William's Letter For I have a Copy of his Letter writ by himself and signed with his own hand and there are not those words that I designed to turn the Opponency upon you as you say The genuine sense of his words is to let you know what you might have done to have shewed your Parts in the Vindication of your beloved Practice if you had given an Instance when I run you upon it by an universal Negative and said you ought to have done it according to the Rules of Dispute And that the World may be satisfied herein both Mr. John Sharp and Mr. Williams his Sons have caused it to be printed as containing such things in it as are of use to the Publick with relation to the Disputation 34. They have introduced Mr. Leigh making a formal Speech of which there is not one word in any of the Copies I have seen But in Mr. Ring 's Copy Mr. Robinson is the Speaker which agrees with my Narrative But why is this done The reason seems to be this 1. To darken the Peoples Understandings that they might not discern their Fallacy 2. To throw the Reflection off from themselves and cast it as much as they can upon Dr. Smith for which he hath no reason to thank them The Question they say Mr. Leigh put was this I desire Sir you would declare whether Dr. Russel be not obliged to prove the Negative he hath asserted Now as I do not know any thing of it so there is not one word in Mr. Ring 's Copy neither of that nor any thing else that Mr. Leigh spake at that time But if Mr. Leigh had so spoken there had been as little sense in it as was in Mr. Robinson's words when he called a Negative an Affirmative But any thing serves to veil over a bad Cause For to set this in a clearer Light I will give the Reader a view of the first Argument and shew him how I brought them to that issue upon it And I might have forbore to have argued with them any longer unless they had given their Instance Arg. 1. If Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ But Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants Ergo The Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Mr. Chandler after divers shifts and evasions about the major says thus I deny your minor My Answer to him was By denying the minor you say that Christ hath somewhere required some of his Ministers to baptize Infants This being by them allowed I did proceed to make good my minor thus If Christ hath any where required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants it 's somewhere so recorded in the holy Scriptures But it 's no where so recorded in the holy Scriptures Ergo Christ hath not any where required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants Upon this after a Question put and a Distinction upon it Mr. Chandler said I deny the minor My Answer was Then you say it 's somewhere so recorded in holy Scripture I therefore argued thus If it be any where so recorded in holy Scripture Mr. Chandler or some other Person is able to shew it But neither Mr. Chandler nor any other Person whatsoever is able to shew it Ergo It is not any where so recorded in holy Scripture Whereupon Mr. Chandler said I deny your minor Now by denying my minor I appeal to all that understand an Argument whether in so doing he doth not assert that he or some other were able to shew where it is recorded in holy Scripture that Christ hath required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants And this is to go their own way But I told him it was an universal Negative and therefore he must give his Instance where it is so written but could by no means bring him to it and the reason was because he had none to give and till he doth my Argument will stand good as I then told him For otherwise we may argue ad infinitum and never bring any thing to an issue And I do once more challenge them to produce one single Instance for their Assertion After a tedious Discourse upon it Mr. Robinson said I appeal to any that understand Logick whether this be sufferable for him thus to turn the Opponency upon Mr. Chandler Then Dr. Smith stood up and said If I must speak then by your leave according to what I always understood He that asserts must prove Whereupon I answer'd Then they having asserted that Infants are the Subjects of Baptism they are to prove their Practice especially when they are forced upon it by an universal Negative We desire but one single Instance and they will not assign it 35.
But when they pretend to recite Dr. Smith's words they deal as unworthily by him as they had done by me For they bring him in saying according to the Rules of Disputation Negantis non est probare or Asserenti incumbit probatio He said the one or the other they tell you But they do not so much as pretend he said both What must the Reader conclude from hence but that they did not or would not know what he did say For by the same Rule they say it was this or that and are not certain which it was it might as well be neither but only what I have said according to Mr. Ring 's Copy And thus after they have wracked their Brains to evade the force of this Argument on purpose to shift off the giving an Instance out of holy Scripture for their unscriptural Practice they have only fulfilled the old Proverb Parturiunt montes nascitur ridiculus mus For if he had said negantis non est probare he that denies is not bound to prove as they would perswade us he did what advantage would it have been to them I was upon the Negative and had issued my first Argument by a universal Negative which can never be invalidated without an Instance Certainly then according to that I was not obliged to prove my Denial but theâ— to give their Instance for I had proved that before by such Arguments as they were not then nor yet since have been able by all their Learning to confute But themselves are doubtful whether Dr. Smith said so and therefore tell us if he did not say that he said Asserenti incumbit probatio which is the same with what Mr. Ring 's Copy saith He that asserts must prove But I do not believe he said either of them in Latin not that I doubt of his ability so to do for I have heard a good Character of him from a Physician who said he knew him in the University for as I my self know not any such thing so Mr. Ring who hath several times took notice of the Greek words spoken both by me and them only sets down Dr. Smith's words in English And whoever observes my Answer must needs know that I understood it so by telling them that they having asserted Infant-Baptism ought to prove their Practice by shewing us where it was so written in the holy Scriptures we demanding of them but only a single Instance by which the Controversy would have been at an end So that they have labour'd in vain and spent their Strength for nought leaving the Multitude as they call them as wise as they found them and so they are like to remain so far as I can perceive if they expect satisfaction from them For they that want Light themselves cannot impart it to others 36. Here they sham a Forgery upon me bringing me in saying Well what must I do As if I had been at a loss what to say and must ask them to direct me whereas they know in their Consciences I did not use to be at a loss to answer them when three or four of them have very uncivilly fallen upon me at once but it pleased God to keep me in a composed frame of Spirit and to assist me under it beyond what I could have expected But suppose I had been at a loss can the Reader think I would have told them so and ask'd their Advice what to do This is as improbable a Story as Mr. Chandler's lying Invention about Isaac Harman wherein he was disproved to his face before divers of his Hearers But however he is unwilling to be brought to confess the Truth but instead thereof in their second Edition seems only to make a weak excuse by saying a silly Woman told him so when he had reported the Story in Print as a thing of his own knowledg And to close his Story he tells us he shall no more trouble the World with personal matters but give Pilate's surly Answer to all such What I have written I have written But to come to the matter in hand I know what they have said here to be utterly false and contrary to Mr. Ring 's Copy as they also know But I perceive they are resolved to say any thing tho never so untrue and against their knowledg to avoid the shame if they could of being baffled in their Cause at the Disputation 37. Again they bring in another invented Story and make Mr. Robinson to speak what he did not speak and Dr. Smith to be of his mind I must here vindicate Dr. Smith again For if their own Story as I have before observed be true that Mr. Leigh should ask him this Question Whether Dr. Russel be not obliged to prove the Negative he hath asserted and he should answer as they say Negantis non est probare he that denies is not to prove with what fairness could he tell the World that Gentleman was of his mind And this they doubted would be discovered and therefore they did not only put the words in Latin but leave an excuse if they should be detected by declaring if he did not say so he said otherwise as is before noted 38. He doth also misrepresent my words in telling the World I said How do you mean prove c I have no such words nor any thing like them But seeing they have invented a Reply for me I desire they would answer it also They say the total silence of Scripture in this matter is Proof If I had said so there had been no reason to have denied it For I acknowledg the Assertion to be true tho not then spoken by me But it may now be expected they should make some Answer to it that might invaâ—idate it but they only set it down and then run away from it Sirs I desire you seriously to consider what you have said herein against your own Practice Is it not a part of Divine Worship is it not that Holy Ordinance of Baptism as instituted by Christ that is the matter in general of our Disputation And is it not about the Subjects in particular that we were then speaking of And were not you called upon with great earnestness and pressing importunity to give us but one Instance where it was found written in the Holy Scriptures That Christ had required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants And do you after all tacitly acknowledg that there is a total silence of Scripture in this matter Surely it is time then for you to quit your practice if the Scripture says not one word about it And if Mr. Robinson's Supposition be allow'd it must needs be so Suppose saith he Mr. Chandler cannot give an Instance nor no body in the company you cannot thence infer that none in the World can To which I answer'd This is in effect to give away your Cause when there are so many Men of Parts and Learning present for if none of them are able to give us one Instance
from Baptism but with what reason do they do this none at all truly and therefore observe how this bold Assertion will stand Christ sent his Apostles to disciple all Nations and then to baptize them They affirm if the Apostles could not disciple some yet they might baptize them this Text excludes all but Disciples from Baptism they I say affirm the contrary without Proof That which they answer p. 6. This is a weak way of arguing I answer If the order of words signify nothing in the Commission as they feign Why do they not baptize the Adult first and teach them afterwards I would I could hear their Answer to this Not only the Practice of the Primitive Churches but even all down to this day yea even themselves keep to the order of the words in this place and teach the Adult before they baptize them So that it is manifest some ought to be taught before they are baptized even by virtue of the Commission let them prove by the same Commission that some may be baptized before they are taught if they can But some were baptized confessing their Sins Weakly urged for that Particle confessing doth not in propriety of Speech import that their Confession was after their Baptism but rather the contrary confessing their Sins they were baptized But if the order of words in some places were not strictly to be observed that they are not to be observed here is a weak way of arguing indeed and seeing themselves keep to the order of the words in respect of the Adult but not in Infants let them shew reason for this in the Commission But Infants may be Disciples by teaching viz. by their Parents being taught because the Kohathites in their Parents are said to keep the charge of the Sanctuary from a Month old c. It is false the Children of a Month old are not said to keep the Charge of the Sanctuary in their Parents as you affirm but all their Males the young as well as the old are said to keep the Charge of the Sanctuary And that the Charge was such that Children of a Month old could not be said to keep it let them shew if they can But Levi paid Tithes in Abraham Answ Therefore the great Grandfather's Learning makes the Grandchild a Scholar O excellent Logick By the same reason I will prove the Children of Heathens to be the Scholars and Disciples of Christ and so may be baptized because some of their Ancestors Adam Noah c. were taught and made Disciples There did we rejoice If the Israelites did rejoice in their Ancestors on the Banks of the Red Sea then Judas believed in his Ancestors at the Red Sea and was a true Disciple and so the Infants of unbelieving Jews believed in some of their Ancestors and therefore are Disciples and may be baptized Let the force then of their Scripture-Instances be weighed and you will see what broken Reeds they bring to support their Cause Pag. 6. line 23. By the preaching of Men Parents may be constrained to resign their All to God and so their Infants How is baptizing Infants a resigning them to God What Scripture or Reason for this Line 25. They viz. Infants are immediately discipled by Mens Ministry when Parents and Ministers concur in their solemn Dedication to God by Baptism I answer Then Baptism is not the Dedication of the Infant to God for say they the Parents and Minister concur in their Dedication but the Parents and Ministers do not concur in their Baptism for that is the sole Act of the Minister therefore Infants are not dedicated by Baptism these Disputants themselves being Judges against themselves Line 30. The Master doth c. This is altogether foreign to the Controversy and I must again observe that they have utterly rejected their Distinction of compleat and incompleat Disciples And now the resignation of the Parents and the acceptance of the Master is the only means to constitute the relation between Master and Scholar Here I demand 1. where Christ hath manifested his acceptance of all such as are sprinkled in his Name and hath undertaken to be their Master 2. If Christ hath undertaken the Tutorage of all such whence is it all such do not learn of him Can Christ fail in his Undertaking If there be any that won't be convinc'd that Infants are to be baptized by such wise Reasonings let them let it alone and be in their Wits still Pag. 6. l. 33. If Teaching were the ground of this Relation then Persons long since dead might be our Governors O strange What an Absurdity is here What Fools were the Jews to say We are Moses 's Disciples Their Argument is this It is absurd to say Teaching is the ground of the relation of Master and Scholar Job said the former Age and their Fathers shall teach thee therefore Job spake absurdly O rare Disputants that would charge Folly upon the holy Spirit himself Were these Mens Eyes in their heads that bring Scripture to confute themselves Nay the Beasts of the Field may be our Masters too Job 35. 11. Who teacheth us more than the Beasts of the field and maketh us wiser than the Fowls of Heaven for so it follows in the same Verse The sense then is either that none can teach us more than the Beasts of the Field can teach us and so these Disputants would perswade us that the Beasts are our Masters And truly had these Gentlemen but attended well to what might have been learned of the Beasts and the Fowls they would not have so much despised these Masters But alas these Gentlemen who would now signalize themselves to the World by some new strains of Wit have altogether mistook the meaning of the Text. Verse 10. None saith Where is God my Maker who giveth Songs in the night who teacheth us more than the Beasts of the Earth and maketh us wiser than the Fowls of Heaven In which words Elihu affirms 1. That God giveth Songs in the Night i. e. Matter of Praise 2. That God teacheth Men more viz. more excellent things than he teacheth to the Beasts of the Earth or to the Fowls of Heaven Pray wherein doth the holy Spirit in this place teach us that the Beasts of the Field may be our Masters And tho this is not in the Text yet I fear not to grant that what thing soever is said to teach us may be called our Teacher without any Disgrace to that Assertion they would here oppose viz. that Teaching and Learning make the relation between Master and Scholar I wonder they omitted their celebrated Distinction of compleat and incompleat Disciples What can that do nothing now that did so much before The Achillean Shield is not worth a Contention for And because they say they expected the Doctor should have shewn that that Distinction was groundless and did not speak directly to it If leave might be given me I would press them thus No unscriptural Distinction is to
no need to make choice of a place where there was much Water a little Water would have serâ—ed the turn especially if it had been by sprinkling as the manner of some is I suppose the same reason may be render'd why John did baptize in Jordan and the People came from all parts thither to be baptized for there was much Water Also Mark 1. 5. John baptized them in the River of Jordan It 's very strange that he should baptize them in the River if he did it by sprinkling a little Water on the Face 3. It appears it was by dipping in that the Subject and tâ—e Administrator went both down into the Water and then baptized and after the Subject was baptized they came both up out of the Water Acts 8. 38 39. And he commanded the Chariot to stand still and they went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him And when they were come up out of the Water c. Mat. 3. 16. And Jesus when he was baptized went straightway up out of the Water c. But here it is objected that the word that is translated Acts 8. 38. into is sometimes used for to and not for into it may signify either and is used promiscuously for to or into so that nothing may be concluded barely from the word To this I answer suppose this be granted yet it follows not but that it may and ought to be taken here for into as it is translated For 1. We see it was the Judgment of the Translators that it ought to be so taken here or else they would have translated it otherwise I can't think they did it contrary to their Judgment 2. The Text tells you they came to the Water antecedent to their going down into it First They came unto a certain Water ver 36. Did they draw back the Chariot that they might come unto it a second time and not go down into it at all 3. It is observed that the Greek word that is translated unto is a different word from that which is translated into 4. This word into is consonant with other Scriptures where Baptism is the Point in hand Christ came up out of the Water and if so he went first down into it John baptized them in the River of Jordan how could that be unless they went down into the River Again it 's observ'd that the Greek Prepositions are used elsewhere in their proper sense for into and out of Mat. 27. 53. And came out of their Graves and went into the holy City there it 's observ'd that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into are used in their proper sense John 20. 27. and thrust it into my side there the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used into Mat. 16. 9. Luke 8. 2. out of whom he cast seven here in both these Texts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of is used Acts 16. 40. And they went out of the Prison and entred into the House of Lydia where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both used in one Verse as well as in Acts 8. 38 39. and certainly they were both in Prison and Water before they came out here again these are borrowed Lines concerning the Greek words as the former were yet I suppose my Author hath not abused me in it 4. It appears it is by Dipping from the allusion it hath to a Burial We are buried with him by Baptism Col. 2. 12. A Person is not buried that hath only a little Dust or Earth sprinkled on his Face but he is then buried when he is laid into the Earth and covered all over Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by Baptism into death that even as Christ was raised by the Glory of the Father we also should walk in newness of Life 5. It appears it is by Dipping in that the whole of the Subject is to be baptized and not a part only the Commission is to baptize the Person the Face is no more mentioned than the Feet nor is there any part mentioned but the whole the word is baptizing them If it be objected that the Face doth signify the Person I answer if that be granted yet the Person doth not signify the Face It 's the Person that is to be baptized but the sprinkling a little Water on the Face doth never wash the whole of the Subject and this being done on the Face of a little Infant is neither the washing away the filth of the Flesh nor yet the answer of a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ there is neither the Figure nor the thing figured 2dly It must be by Dipping in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost In these two the Form of the Ordinance doth consist Secondly I shall prove the truth of the Point by Scripture And here first I shall prove that Disciples are the Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission And secondly That they are the only Subjects thereof First That Disciples or Believers are the Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission And here I need not multiply many Scriptures tho it be a Point the truth of which has been much opposed the Truth of the Poinâ— lying so full and clear in the Text which Text is the only Commission that Ministers have to act by and whatever Arguments are brought to prove that such as are not discipled to Christ by the Word that is by actual Instruction ought to be baptized are all insignificant unless they can prove it by this very Text if their Commission do not warrant them to baptize such as are not discipled to Christ by the Word there is no Text in all the New Testament that will warrant them so to do By the Commission it is to disciple and baptize yet I shall subjoin a few Scriptures for the Confirmation thereof First That Disciples are the Subjects of Baptism Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved this is the same Commission and here believing is to precede baptizing Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ If Repentance here be not to be taken for Faith yet I am sure it can't be without Faith For first there cannot be a true Godly Sorrow for crucifying the Son of God without a true sight of a crucified Christ Secondly There can be no acceptance of what is done without Faith for without Faith it is impossible to pleasâ— God Acts 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst that is thou mayst be baptized Secondly I shall prove it by Scripture Precedents And here we have not one Precedent in all the Scripture of any one Person that ever was baptized till such time as they did believe or were discipled unto Christ by the Word The first Precedent that I shall offer is those that were baptized