Baptist.
Was not that of Paul spoken of man onely at years? yet is it reckoned by you exclusive of infants, and why not Philips also?
Secondly if Philip spake but to one single man, and Ananias to another, when the one said if thou believest thou mayest be baptized, and the other arise and be baptized calling on the Lord &c. yet Iohn baptist spake to more then one, even to all the people that came forth to his baptism, or to be baptized of him when he said repent, and amend your lives, and they did so, and were baptized of him in Ior∣dan accordingly, confessing their sins i. e. they that were at all baptized by him; and Peter said repent as well as be baptized to all that he preacht to, yea repent every one of you exempting no one from repentance, to whom he enjoined baptism and they did so, and were baptized accordingly i. e. as many (no more, for else its a fallacious relation) as gladly received his word, that did not infants, there∣fore all this is also as exclusive of them from baptism surely, as let a man examine himself, and so let him eat is exclusive of them from the supper, or else Ile never trust reason more, but f••rgo it, and become as reasonlesse as your selves.
To conclude then, in granting positively that without self-examination there is no right of accesse to the supper, and also in granting it suppositively, that if there be any thing equivalent to that required of all that are to be baptized, then in∣fants may lawfully be barred from baptism, you answer as answerably to rea∣son as men can do, or even reason it self: but in supposing that no such thing as self-examination is required in order to baptism, as it is to the receiving of the supper, you wretchedly bewray your self-non-examination of the Scrip∣ture.