AN Impartial Account OF THE Portsmouth DISPUTATION. With some Just REFLEC­TIONS on Dr. RVSSEL's Pretended Narrative. By Samuel Chandler, William Leigh, Benjamin Robinson. With an Abridgment of those Discourses that were the Innocent Oc­casion of that Disputation.

LONDON: Printed for Iohn Lawrence at the Angel in the Poultry, and Abraham Chandler over-against the White Hart-Inn in Aldersgate-Street; and are to be Sold by A. Baldwin at the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane. 1699.

To the Honourable Major General Earl, Governor; Colonel John Gibson, Lieutenant Governor, of His Majesties Garison of Portsmouth: and the Worship­ful Henry Seager, Esq Mayor of Portsmouth.

Honourable Sirs,

WITH Hearts full of Loyalty and Thank­fulness to our Rightful Sovereign King William, we humbly lay these Papers at your Feet, who procur'd for us a Grant from his Majesty, publickly to vindicate the Common Cause of the Reformed Churches, and settle the wavering among us in the belief and pra­ctice of those truths, which tend very much [...]o the advancement of Early Piety and Reli­ [...]ion.

We appeal to you, the Honourable Go­ [...]ernour and Worshipful Mayor, as to Disin­ [...]erested Persons, and most proper Judges of [...]he Truth and Impartiality of our Account; [...]hich is, what was taken by the Pens of the [...]cribes, without any material alteration. We [...]hankfully acknowledge your Condescending [Page] Goodness, in Honouring us with your pre­sence and preventing disorders, during the time of disputation.

May you still continue maintainers of Ju­stice and discipline in your respective Posts: May your Names be transmitted to Posterity, as Glorious Reformers of a corrupt and dege­nerate Age, in conformity to the Injunctions and Example of our Gracious King: May o­thers be excited and influenc'd by your Exam­ple: May these hopeful beginnings be car­ry'd on, that there may be no prophane Swearers or Debauchees in your Streets, and Vice and Wickedness may be put out of Coun­tenance and not able to shew its Head: This is, and shall be the constant Prayer of,

Your Honours Oblig'd Humble Servant, SAMVEL CHANDLER

To all the Pious and Sober amongst them that deny, or doubt of In­fant Baptism.

Brethren-in our Lord,

THE matters in difference betwixt you and us, are not so great, as the angry and uncharitable on ei­ther side wou'd make 'em seem; there may be some (we doubt not) both with us and you, that do Hereticate and Damn each other on the Account of their disagreeing Judgments about Baptism: (Nor is it to be wonder'd at▪ if those who are strangers to all serious Re­ligion, should put the respective differing Opinions in the place and stead of it:) But we were willing here to let the World see, there are with us, and (we Charitably hope) with you also, those that are both of a sounder Judgment and of a much better Spirit.

We are perswaded, there are many amongst you, who (tho you do dissent from us in some lesser matters, yet) are agreed with us in the most important and concerning things. Wherever there are real Christians on both sides, in any Controversie, (as we make no question but there are in this) it is most certain, the things wherein they are a­greed, are greater, far greater, than any wherein they can differ. When all the great substantials of Christianity are out of doubt, both with you and us, that which shall af­terwards remain as a disagreed, or doub [...]ed thing on ei­ther side, must needs be Comparatively very small, and not worthy of the Heat and Zeal too commonly laid out upon it.

And we must profess for our own parts, (tho wherein we differ from you, we are verily perswaded, the truth is [Page] on our side, yet reckoning it to be only truth of an infe­rior Nature) it has not been without regret, that we have been engag'd in this Contention. The Disputation it self was not what we sought, or was forward to; it was not we that gave the Challenge: Nor when given, would we have accepted it, had it not been so circumstanc'd, as that our refusal wou'd most probably have redounded to the detriment and dishonour of what we believe to be the Truth: Many, especially the more injudicious part of the Auditory, before whom the Challenge was given, not be­ing likely to judge otherwise, than that what we main­tain wou'd not bear a publick hearing, shou'd we have declin'd a Disputation, which we were so publickly pro­vok'd to.

And for this Publication of it, 'tis what we are alike passive in: The World shou'd have had no after-trouble about that Disputation, might we have been the choosers: But since your Dr. Russel has abus'd the World with a most false and unfair Account of that matter; we are ne­cessitated in our own defence, as well as that of the Truth, to Publish the ensuing Papers. We wou'd not therefore, that either what was said by us at the Disputa­tion, or is further added in these our Reflections shou'd be misunderstood by you: This is not work that we take pleasure in, but what we have been constrain'd to: And if any Reflections shou'd occur that may seem too severe; we wou'd here declare, they proceed not from displea­sure against the whole Body of those whose sentiments agree with yours, nor against any one barely for that reason: But we cou'd not but manifest a just indignation against the Egregious falsehood and uncharitableness of him that publish'd the late (pretended) Narrative: And we desire, that no one of the Pious and Sober amongst you, wou'd apply to your selves, what was only intend­ed as a Rebuke to him, or those who are too like him. Nor will the rest of you (we hope) take it ill from us, that we expose, as it deserves, that which is so base, tho' it be found with a Person that pretends, in the present Controversie, to fall in with you. You will not, you cannot once imagine, that his Concurrence with you in this Point of Baptism, will hallow or excuse all that de­ceit and falsehood that appears in him: Nor can you your [Page] selves like it, that he shou'd endeavour to support your cause with lies.

This being premis'd, we are in hopes, the following Papers, if they shou'd do no good amongst you, may at least be look'd into without doing hurt. So far as they re­port matters of fact, we can boldly, and without fear of being put to shame, appeal to the All-knowing-God, and to the Numerous Assembly, who were Witnesses, that they are undisguised Truths: And so far as they contain Matters of Opinion on one side or other, we leave you and all others to judge for themselves.

Yet (as we have already intimated) we wou'd not that the matters contended about in these Papers, shou'd be over-magnified on either side: Or that it shou'd be sup­pos'd we differ further than we do: And 'tis a much grea­ter pleasure to us, to offer any thing that may tend to narrow and lessen, than to Enhance the differences there are betwixt you and us. After we had been tir'd with an unpleasing contention, we therefore (as a refreshment to our selves) undertook this more delightful service; here to attempt, so far as may be, (notwithstanding little dif­ferences) to reconcile, and bring nearer to each other the Pious and Sober on both sides. To which end we shall, first, mention to you how far, and wherein we appre­hend we are agreed: And thence manifest in the second place, how inconsiderable the things are, about which we differ.

I. We are agreed, (without doubt) in every thing that is of absolute necessity to salvation: This is as certain as that there are Christians (that are truly such) on both sides; that there are those that shall be sav'd on both sides: Nothing that does Essentially constitute Christianity is controverted betwixt us: And even with reference to this very point of Baptism, we are verily perswaded, there is a nearer agreement betwixt the truly Pious and Serious on both sides, than is commonly consider'd. Particularly,

  • (1.) It is, it must needs be agreed by all such, that there is no possibility of salvation, for any Soul in our A­postate World, but only in and thro' Christ, Act. 4.12.
  • (2.) 'Tis also agreed, that the Covenant of Grace does fix the terms, upon which Christ will be a Saviour to any: That thence only it is to be known, whom he will save, and whom he will not be a Saviour to.
  • [Page](3.) 'Tis also undeniably plain, and what cannot but be agreed amongst us, that according to the Constitution of that Covenant Christ will be the Saviour of none, but such as are sincerely devoted to God: He never was, nor will he ever be the Saviour of any others; but such he has alw [...]ys b [...]en a Saviour to, Ier. 31.33. Psal. 119.38. Heb. 7.25. Upon these Principles it is, that every serious Soul does devote it self to God in hope. And we doubt not, but you are also agreed with us.
  • (4.) That such who are Sollicitous about their own salvation, cannot be unconcern'd about the State of their Infants. Every Pious Parent will (under the apprehension of that Guilt and Corruption which they inherit with their Nature) with enlarged Affections yearn over their tender little ones, and earnestly cry to God for 'em, and gladly lay hold upon [...]y word of hope concerning 'em. Those amongst you who are Parents, feel and know what is the heart of a Parent towards its Child: And however you are (as all that are truly Christians are) un­f [...]ignedly concern'd for, and desirous to promote the common salvation; yet for your Infants, that are so near you, that are (as it were) parts of your selves, you feel yet another kind of con [...]ern: You cannot with any sa­tisfaction die from 'em; you can't, when they are dying, part with 'em, unless [...]ou hav [...] some ground of hope con­cerning 'em▪ Nor can any thing afford you Encourage­ment to hope; without som [...] word of Promise. Nor is there any word of Promise, only to such as are devoted to God and i [...] Coven [...]nt wi [...]h him, in and thro' Christ: To be with [...]ut Christ, without hope, and without God in the W [...]rld, is represented as the Case of such as are out of Co­venant with him, strangers to his Covenant, Eph. 2.12. W [...]erefore,
  • (5.) [...]e d [...]ubt not but you are also agreed with us, that we shou'd do all that in us lies, that our Infants may be in C [...]venant [...]ith G [...]d: You do desire (as well as we) t [...]t they may be so; and we are persw [...]ded, you will do whate [...]r you are satisfy [...]d is your D [...]t [...], in order to it. You w [...]ll (nay, we doubt not but you do) pray earnestly for 'e [...]; and [...] [...]is Promise with him, that he will b [...] your [...]od; and the God of your Seed; and depen [...]ing up­on this promise, you do actually surrender and devote 'em [Page] to him; and look upon your selves as oblig'd to educa [...] and train 'em up for him, &c. This is what those that are seriously Religious amongst you, do, and dare not but do: Nor is any part of this a Controversie betwixt you and us. Now here is the internal and most excellent part of Baptism, in which we are agreed.—After which, 'tis somewhat to be wonder'd at, that there shou'd be any remaining difference, as to this matter: However, that which can after such Agreements remain a Controversie, must needs be concluded to be of an inferior and less concerning Nature. Which we now therefore come to speak to.

II. The things in which we differ (from what has been already said) appear to be no fundamental ones: Which will also yet farther be manifested, if the things them­selves be particularly consider'd. That which is the Sub­ject of the ensuing Papers, and which is commonly agi­tated betwixt you and us, may be reduc'd to these two heads, viz. (1.) Whether we may, and ought to devote our Infants to God in the Ordinance of Baptism? And, (2.) Whether in the Administration of it, we be oblig'd to dip the Person wholly under Water? As to both which, it must be own'd, we are yet disagreed: You judging the Ordinance of Baptism, which we apply to Infants, not to belong to 'em: And while we apprehend sprinkling it self, especially pouring a little water upon the Face of a Per­son, or dipping his Face alone in water, to be Lawful in the Administration of this Ordinance; you suppose we are ob [...]ig'd to dip, or plunge the Person wholly into wa­ter. And while there is a difference in our apprehensi­ons, it must also be concluded, that on one side or the o­ther, there is cert [...]inly a mistake: But tho' there be a mistake, suppose it to be on your side, or on our's, 'tis far from being a damning one.

  • 1. We will first (as we think we have just reason) sup­pose the [...]istake to be with you; yet we dare not, nor do A [...]count it a fatal, or undoing one. Those of your way, that agree with us as above (and all the Pious and Sober p [...]rt [...]f you, we take it, for granted, do) do only differ from us in a Circumstance. You agree with us, that your Infants are to be enter'd into Covenant with God in Christ, and seriously devoted to him, &c. You on­ly [Page] doubt, whether it may be done in this Ordinance: Now tho we are perswaded, that they shou'd not only be en­ter'd into Covenant, but also that this solemnity of Bap­tism shou'd Accompany, and add force to the surrender we make of 'em to God: Yet we do not Account it so absolutely necessary, as if the salvation either of the Pa­rent or Child were suspended on it. We read indeed that Baptism saves us, 1 Pet. 3.21. But the Apostle to pre­vent mistake, immediately explains himself, and tells us, he does not intend it of the External Ceremony, but of the Answer of a good Conscience: Our unfeigned consent to the Baptismal Covenant for our selves and for those that we have Power to consent, and accept it for; and our sincere devoting our selves and them in that Covenant to God in Christ, is indeed necessary to theirs, and to our own salvation; and this is that Answer of a good Consci­ence, which the Apostle calls for: But where this is found, tho' the External Ceremony shou'd be omitted (whether thro' the mistake of the Parent, or thro' the absence of a Minister) we don't think God will, nor are we any of those who dare, pass a sentence of Death in such a Case.

    And for the point of dipping, we reckon it to be yet much less material: The necessity of it we do indeed op­pose; and doubt not but the Ordinance of Baptism (so far as concerns this Controversie) is Lawfully Administer'd, if water be apply'd to a Person, in any other way or man­ner; so it be done with the awful and solemn mention of the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: But yet, supposing it be so order'd, that the Life of the Person be not hazarded by it; nor any breach made upon the Rules of modesty, we do not Condemn the Practice of Dipping: And in those two Cases, all that are truly Pious amongst your selves, must (upon deliberation) needs dis­allow it, as well as we.

  • 2. And now we will suppose the mistake to be on our part: We make no difficulty of it, to own that we are fal­lible: As wise and good Men as we are, nay, far wiser and better than we, have been mistaken; and 'tis no wonder if in many things we be so; Nay, we doubt not, but in some things at least, we are so, because we are Men: Tho' we do not know, that in any Principle of Religion we are so, for that we dare not knowingly Err: Wherein so­ever [Page] we are convinc'd of a mistake, we do, and we are willing to retract it: But we may be in an errour, and may not know it: And we will for a while suppose (tho' we have never yet seen rea­son to grant) that, as to the matters in difference betwixt you and us, we are under a mistake: Yet neither can the mistake on our side endanger the Foundations, supposing we shou'd be mi­staken. For,

As to the Point of Infant-Baptism, if it shou'd prove to be a mistake, 'tis only a Circumstantial one, a mistake as to the time of Administration: This is the worst that can be made of it, if we shou'd be mistaken: And where is the damage, supposing we shou'd be too early laid under the most-solemn Bonds to be the Lords? Tho' by the way, we see not how this can be done too soon. We do not, we dare not rest upon our having been bap­tiz'd in Infancy, as if that wou'd of it self save us: We do indeed reckon it to be Valid Baptism, and that we do not need to be Bap­tiz'd again, when we become Adult; but we don't think our In­fant-Baptism will stand instead of Regeneration, or exempt us from the necessity of Faith, Repentance, or a life of serious Holiness, when we are Adult; Nay, we look upon our selves (by Vertue of that Baptism) to lie under unalterable Bonds and Obligations hereunto. And now, tho' it shou'd be suppos'd, we are under a mistake, as to the time, when this Ordinance shou'd be Admini­stred; yet can it have no hurtful influence upon us, or upon any of those great, and important Principles of Christianity in which we are agreed.

Or again, if you suppose us also mistaken as to the manner of application, while we do not (as you) dip, or plunge the Person baptiz'd wholly under water, but only apply a small quantity of water to 'em, most commonly by Pouring it upon their Faces: Yet neither can this surely, (if a mistake) be by you Accounted a very dangerous one: No part of serious Religion can be thought to be endanger'd by it. The Kingdom of Christ does not consist in Dipping; so as that he that is Dipp'd shall be sav'd, and he that is not Dipp'd shall be Damn'd: You your selves dare not lay so great a stress upon it. What! Shall a Soul that is truly Penitent, and with serious Actings of Faith and Love, gives up it self to God in Christ, a Soul that resolvedly lies at his Foot, that will not wickedly depart from him; Can you think such a Soul shall yet be rejected by him, meerly because in their Bap­tism they were not Dipp'd under water! This is what upon seri­ous deliberation, we are perswaded, none of you dare avow.

III. Now then, since it appears, that the matters in contest betwixt you and us (at least amongst the Pious and Sober on [Page] both sides) are so inconsiderable and comparatively small; we wou'd make it the matter of our earnest request to you, that they may accordingly be own'd and look'd upon by you, do not enhance or over-rate the Value of 'em: By this means, a happy [...]utual agreement might most probably be effected, however all the ill effects of our remaining disagreements wou'd be prevent­ed or rem [...]v'd. (1.) No way more likely than this to promote an Agreement amongst us: Apprehensions that the differences are greater, and the mistakes more dangerous than they are, do naturally influence both si [...]e to [...]ook with strangenest upon each other, and prejudice 'em against what is, or may be offer'd on ei­ther side: But were it rightly consi [...]er'd, how little the difference is, it wou'd yet tend to [...]ake it less; by softening minds on each side, and preparing 'em with greater impartiality to entertain whatever convincing evidence is laid before 'em. Or, (2.) If it wou'd not remove our differences themselves, it wou'd (at least) prevent all the ill effects of 'em: For instance, why might we not love, and live like Christians (notwithstanding the remain­ing differences in our Opinions)? Wh [...] might we not pray with, and for each other? Wh [...] might we not, according to the Rule of the Gospel, look favourably upon each others mistakes, and receive each other to Love and Communion, avoiding doubtful disputations, Rom. 14. throughout the Chapter. We solemnly declare, we are ready thus to receive you; we dare not but re­ceive all whom we are perswaded, our Lord himself will re­ceive: Let there not be a breach maintain'd on your Part, while we impose no sinful, or so much as suspected Term of Commu­nion on you. Or, supposing upon one or other mistake, you shou'd think fit to separate your selves from us, from our Assem­blies, yet, at least, we beg, you wou'd in your distinct Assem­blies see to it, that the great and uncontroverted Principles of Christianity may be ordinarily, and with greatest warmth and earnestness insisted on; and let not your Heat and Zeal be laid out upon the little things in which we differ: Let your endea­vours be rather to make Men Christians, than to make 'em Anti­paedobaptists; and shew that you prefer the interests of our com­mon Lord, before those of your particular Party. For a close, we would leave those Words of the Apostle with you, Phil. 3.15, 16. Nevertheless, wherein we have already attain'd, let us walk by the [...]ame Rule, let us mind the same things: And if in any thing ye [...]e neve [...] [...]-minded, God will reveal even this unto you.

B. Robinson, S. Chandler, W. Leigh.

AN INTRODUCTION.

MUST I again, be call'd out to engage in this irksome and unpleasing Controversy? Who had much rather spend my time in healing differences, and provoking all Christians to love one another. I have often read with some pleasing satisfaction, those Expressions of Arch-Bishop Til­lotson, (that Great Good Man, and National loss.) I know not (says he) whether St. Paul, Tillotson, Pres. to six Ser. on family Religi­on, pag. 3. who had been taken up into the third Heavens, did by that Question of his; Where is the Disputer of this World? Intend to insinuate that this wrangling work hath place only in this World, and upon this Earth, where on­ly there is a dust to be raised; but will have no place in the other. But whether St. Paul intended this or not, the thing it self I think is true, that in the other World all things will be clear and past dispute; to be sure a­mong the Blessed, and probably also among the miserable, unless fierce and furious Contentions, with great heat, without light, about things of no mo­ment and concernment to them, should be design'd for a part of their torment. I had much rather be dressing my own Soul for Eternity, and preparing others for those calm and peaceable Regions, where perfect Charity and Good will Reign for ever: Than in fomenting and increas­ing those Divisions among Christians, which are too un­measurably wide already.

My Charity is not confin'd to any particular Sect, or Par­ty of Christians; but I bear a hearty good will to all that agree in the Essentials of Religion, Notwithstanding their [Page] distant Opinions, in matters of an inferior Nature. A re­form'd Catholick Christian, is a Name that pleaseth me better, than any of those distinguishing Titles which the Contentions of Men have occasion'd in the Christian Church. Tho' I was urg'd by many serious Christians, before the dis­putation, to Print my Sermons on this subject, which were manag'd rather in a Practical than Controversal way; Yet so averse was I to foment or Increase differences, that I wil­lingly forbore. And if Dr. Russel had only Printed the Imperfect Notes of his own Scribes, perhaps we should still have been silent; and left the World to judge between us: but seeing he hath been guilty of so many Notorious Falsehoods and Misrepresentations, both on his side and ours, we are unavoidably constrain'd to Vindicate the Truths of Christ, the common cause of the reformed Churches, and our own Reputation, against the bold insolence of a Scanda­lous Libeller:

The true occasion of my being engag'd in this matter is this: I was invited some years ago, before any Anabaptist Meeting was set up at Gosport, to Preach a Lecture once a fortnight at Portsmouth; which I have continu'd (I bless God with no small success) ever since. In the course of my Lecture, I thought it most adviseable to give my hearers a true and orderly Scheme of the Christian Religion. Hav­ing therefore explain'd the Creed and Lords Prayer (Mr. Williams undertaking the Ten Commandments) I did with­out any importunity from others, but purely in the method I had laid down, explain the Doctrine of the Sacraments: Here I largely explain'd the Nature of Baptism, and could not do right to my subject, without defending our own practice as to Infants right, and the way of Administration. Dr. Russel himself knows how falsely he hath Publish'd to the World, that I inveigh'd against the Poor Baptists (as he calls them) with most severe Reflections: Seeing he hath read those Notes which Mr. Ring took of my Sermons. The very hardest expression in those Notes, is the Title of mistaken Brethren. These Sermons Mr. Samuel Ring, who, tho' of that perswasion, usually attends our Lecture, pen'd down in short hand, and afterwards wrote out at length; with an Innocent design (as he himself professeth) to shew them to some of his Brethren. Farmer Bows, a pre­tended [Page] Messenger of the Churches, hearing of this, appli [...]s himself to Mr. Ring for a sight of these Sermons, and having read them, us'd words to this effect. Shall we bear this? If we suffer Mr. Chandler thus to go on, it will prejudice our cause. Mr. Ring reply'd, Mr. Chandler takes but the same liberty in his own Congregation, to de­fend his own practice, that we do in ours.

But this was not satisfactory. Mr. Bows goes over to Gosport, to Mr. John Webber, Pastor of a Congregation of particular Anabaptists, as they are call'd, opposite in their Iudgments, in many great points of Religion, to those in Portsmouth. Mr. Webber (as he told me himself) was willing to live in Peace, and did not desire to be engag'd: But Mr. Leddel, and some others, Men of heat without light, were very urgent, and willing even to accept of Matthew Caffen for their Champion, whom Mr. Bows propos'd: A Man that denies both the Divinity and Huma­nity of Christ, and is justly protested against, by many of his Brethren, and particularly by Dr. Russel. Mr. Webber justly refus'd to own Matthew Caffen, as a Christian, or a Brother. And therefore, since they would have a dispute, rather propos'd Dr. Russel. Accordingly, December 21▪98. Mr. Bows, Mr. Webber, and about twenty of their Party came to my Lecture boldly to confront me, when I was Answering the Anabaptists Objections. At the Conclu­sion, Farmer Bows stands up, and in the Name of the rest Challenges me with Preaching Doctrines false and wholly untrue, and desir'd I would admit of a publick dispute with an ordain'd Minister of the Gospel: This bold Challenge I accepted, provided they would procure a Man that under­stood the regular Laws of disputation, and preliminaries were first settled. Accordingly the next Day, Prelimina­ries were settled and Papers interchang'd, between Thomas Bows and William Leddel, as asserters of the two Que­stions on the one part: And Francis Williams, and Samuel Chandler, as deniers of the two Questions on the other Part. This Dr. Russel perfectly conceals, in his Account of the Preliminaries, pag. 4. Because it would have confuted his slander upon the Learned Dr. Smith, as if he design'd, by saying, he that asserts must prove, that the Proof lay upon us; but this is Accounted for elsewhere. Mr. Webber after­wards [Page] declares his utter dislike of the dispute, and wish'd i [...] had never been: And before my self and Mr. Smith, deny'd that the Letter in the Name of the Church at Gosport, Narr. p. 2. was wrote with his Knowledg or consent. There­fore we Impute not the Falshood of the matter, as if Mr. Chandler had inveigh'd against and ridicul'd their Practice; nor the false Grammar in that Letter to him. Mr. Ring express'd his hearty sorrow by Letter (as well as otherwise) in these following words — (after having sent me the notes of my Sermons, and delivered a Copy of the Disputation to Mr. Smith.) — I am troubled at the Sad Effects of the Disputation. I mean the difference it hath rais'd among those, that I hope are all the People of God: And the Grief it may have occasion'd to any of his faithfull Ministers: And most of all that I have contributed any thing towards it: Tho' it hath been by accident and no otherwise: and as I pray God forgive me, so I beg your pardon, and crave a share in your Prayers. I always respected 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 le [...]st P [...]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! 'Tis 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 [Page] 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 o [...] the Disputation,

First, mention what I offer'd, as to the Subjects of Bap­tism.

[Page]1. I shall prove from Scripture, [...] [...]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 Act [...] 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.

[Page 4]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; Stilling-Fleet Iren. pag. 7. 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 [Page 5] 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 then Incoura­ges them to hope, they should again be receiv'd into Favour with God: And, says he, the promise will be made good, not only to you but to your Children too: And to the Gentile World also, Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call. Thence I argue.

1. This promise, was the great promise to Abraham. Some pretend it is only that promise in Ioel 2.8. Gods giving extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; That their Sons and Daughters should Prophecy. But this cannot be, because that promise was not fullfill'd to all afar off. Have all the Gifts of Tongues? Do all Prophecy? The promise signifys the great promise [...] to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed, Gen. 17.17. Therefore this is call'd the promise Gal. 3.14. That the blessing' of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, thro' Iesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, thro' Faith. The Blessing of Abraham: That great Blessing that God would be a God to him and his seed. Now if this great Blessing come to the Gentiles, Then they and their seed ought to receive the token of the Covenant; the Children of the promise ought to have the Seal affixed to it.

2. The Apostle useth these words to comfort the Iews, that had Imprecated Divine Vengeance on them­selves and their Children, Infants as well as others; a curse that lies on the unbelieving Iews to this day: His blood be upon us and our Children; no doubt, but many of those, that were prick'd at the heart at Peters Sermon, joyn'd with the rabble in that Loud cry; Crucifie him, [Page 6] Crucifie him, and were concern'd not only for themselves but their Children too; therefore the Apostle uses this Argument, if you penitently return to God by faith in Christ, the curse shall be taken off from you and your Children, you and yours shall be admitted again, and not only so, but those that are afar off, the Gentile World, when call'd.

3. If the words were to be restrain'd, only to those that believe and repent themselves, and concern not their Infants; this would be an Argument to perswade the Iews, to continue in the Synagogue still, rather than to come into the Christian Church. While Synagogue worship stood before Christs coming, God had pro­mis'd happy Priviledges, to themselves and Children; but now if afterwards their Children must be cast off, and look'd on as no other than Heathens, and strangers to the Covenants of promise, this would incline them rather to continue in the Synagogue, than enter in­to the Christian Church.

A Third Scripture is in Rom. 11.15, 25. In those ver­ses, these following things are containd.

1. The Apostle speaks of breaking off from and gra­sfing into the Visible Church; that the Unbelieving Iews were broken off from that Visible Church, to which they were related before, by their positive unbelief, and rejecting Christ; and that the Gentile Believers were graff'd in, and so partook of those Priviledges, from which the Gentiles were broken off.

2. Some only were broken off, the rest that Believ'd, injoy'd the same Priviledges they did before, v. 17 th. Now this was a great Priviledg, that God would be a God to them and to their seed: Therefore they still in­joy'd the same.

3. What Priviledges the Iews left, the whole body shall be restor'd to when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, v. 25. therefore their Infants shall be restor'd to the same Priviledges th [...] injoy'd before.

4. The Believing Gentiles are admitted to the Privi­ledges the Iews injoy'd before, gra [...]fed into the same Olive-Tree, v. 24. S [...]eing Iewish infants w [...]re interested in the Church and Covenant of God, the Inf [...]ts of Be­lieving [Page 7] Gentiles are also in Covenant, and consequently ought to have Baptism, the Seal, applyed to them.

4. A Fourth Scripture is in 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. Hence I argue, If the Children of Believers are holy, then this ordi­nance ought to be Administer'd to them. The only diffi­culty here, is to understand what is meant, by holiness in this place.

1. Internal Holiness cannot be ascrib'd to all the In­fants of believers. Because we find by sad experience, that many of them shamefully Apostatize from God, and thereby plainly shew, the Seed of Grace was never in them, 1 Iohn 3.9.

2. Neither can it be understood of bare Legitimacy, as our mistaken brethren pretend. For,

1. The Word is never us'd in this sense, in all the Scripture.

2. The Children of Heathens, if begotten in Lawful Wed­lock, are Legitimate, as well as of Believers; therefore this can be no distinguishing mark, as in this place.

3. The Apostle's Argument would be weak and un­concluding, if he should only prove that they were Lawful Man and Wife, because their Children were Lawfully begotten. The Question propos'd to the Apo­stle was this. Supposing a believing Wife Marry'd to an unbeliever, or e contra, whether the believer should dwell with the unbeliever, or part one from another. The Apostle Answers,

If the unbeliever be willing to abide, let them do so, For the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband, and else were [...]our Children unclean, but now are they Holy. Because one Parent is a believer, therefore their Children are peculiarly related to God, and in Covenant with him.

Now if bare Legitimacy were intended, then the Ar­gument would run thus: You have no Reason to questi­on, whether you are Man and Wife, because your Chil­dren are Lawfully begotten. Can any believe any could question the one, and yet grant the other?

4. This would not answer the Corinthians Scruple: They did not question, whether co-habiting with Unbe­lievers, [Page 8] expos'd them to Fornication; but, whether it would expose them to Irreligion, or at least, great Tem­ptations. Now, says the Apostle, How Knowest thou, O Man, but thou may'st save thy Wife? However, your Children are holy, because one is a believer.

3. By holiness is meant Relative or Federal Holiness. That the Children of Believers are Separated to God, enter'd into a new Relation to him, by vertue of his Covenant. Thus the Israelites are said to be a holy Peo­ple, because Separated to God as his peculiar Treasure, Deut. 14.2.26.19. the Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy, as related to God and enjoying distinguishing marks of Favour, therefore ought to have this distinguish­ing ordinance apply'd to them?

2. What Priviledges are the Infants of Believers In­vested in by Baptism?

1. They are solemnly admitted into the Visible Church; no longer strangers to the Covenants of Promise, but more nearly related to God, than the Infants of Hea­thens.

2. Peculiarly interested in the Churches Prayers; we are bound indeed to pray for all Men, but more peculi­arly for the Church of God, Gal: 6.16.

3. Have a Title to Gods peculiar care. God gives his Angels a charge over them, Mat. 18.10.

4. They stand nearer to, and are the more especial Objects of the promises of Grace, Is. 44.3.59. In­fants are call'd by Gods Name, therefore tho' Gods Grace is free, yet we 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 [Page 9] 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 R [...]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 [Page 10] cause Christ both Died, [...]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 tis 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 la [...] 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.

[Page 11]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 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 [Page 12] 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 [...] 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 [Page 13] Metre, [...]o I can see▪ neither Rhime nor Reason in his discourse: these were the Arguments for want of better, he [...]rif [...]ed w [...]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 expres [...] 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 Lightfoots Har­mony on Joh. 1 25. If Bap­tism and Baptizing of Infants had been as strange and unheard of a thing, till Iohn Baptist came; as Circumcision was [...]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 [Page 14] 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. [Page 15] 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 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 [Page 16] 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 State [...]: 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 [...]f Sin is put after Baptism [...] 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. 'Tis 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 sh [...]ll be damn'd. If the latter part of this verse be Interpreted of Grown Persons, so also must the [...] 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 [Page 17] Iews, or Heathens that would renounce their former Idolatry, and be [...]eving y submit to the Ordinance, as a So­lemn Entrance into the Church, should be saved; bu [...] those that wilfully persisted in unbelief, shou'd be damn'd. So that this is no Preju [...]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 p [...]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 Eli­ [...]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; [Page 18] and Baptism are us'd promisc [...]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 [...]ound from Heaven as of a rushing might [...] wind, and it fill'd the House. So that they were as in a Fish Pond Overwhelm'd with the Holy Ghost. But to this I Answer, it was the sound that fill'd the House, and not the Cloven Tongues of Fire, which were the Em­blems of the Holy Ghost, and sure they were not Over­whelm'd wi [...]h these; but that promise was made good. I will pour out my Spirit. Acts 2.17. Now the pouring out of the Spirit, is frequently represented by pouring out water, Is. 44.3.

But several Scriptures are pretended for dipping; the most material are these.

1. Mat. 3.16. Iesus went up out of the water.

I Answer, he might acording to the Practice of those times, go into the Water to wash his Feet, foul with Travelling, and Iohn might pour Water on his Face; but the Greek word may be render'd, he went up from the Water. The like Answer may be given to Mar. 1.9. Iesus was Baptiz'd of Iohn in Iordan. It doth not prove his whole Body was plung'd there. Nay [...] frequently signifys to, and if we compare this place with Mat. 3.13. Iesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to Iordan to be Baptized of Iohn. So here we may read the words with a Parenthesis▪ And Iesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, (and was Baptiz'd of Iohn) to Iordan

2. Another Scripture is Ioh. 3.23. Iohn Baptized in Enon, because there was much Water there.

I Answer, much Water may be meant not of depth but length, many streams and Rivulets, where Iohn and his Disciples might conveniently together Baptize or pour Water on the Multitudes.

[Page 19]3. Another Scripture is Acts 8.38. where Philip and the Eunuch are said both to go down into the Water; whence some would infer that the Eunuch was dip'd. I Answer, they might only go down to, and come from the Water. So the Greek may be render'd, the Water running in the valleys. B [...]t if Men will insist on the let­ter of the Text, Phillip must dip himself as well as the Eunuch; for they both went down. Or they might go ankle deep, and Philip might pour Water on his Head or Face: either of these interp [...]etations are probable, and therefore it cannot Necessari [...]y be prov'd he was dipt; besides the unlikelihood that he was dipt on a Journey, when perhaps he might have no cloaths to change.

4. The Principal Scripture they boast of, is Rom. 6.4. Being Buried with Christ in Baptism. Whence they argue B [...]p [...]ism must represent a Burial, therefore the whole B [...]dy must be cover'd with Water. This Text we have given a distinct Answer to, in our Reflections on Dr: Russel, Chap. 2. Refl. 12.13. therefore thither I Refer the Reader, and shall only say here,

1. It is no where said that Baptism represents Christs Burial, but only that we are oblig'd to conform our selves thereby to Christs Death, Burial, and Resurrection, to die to Sin, and rise again to newness of Life: This we do whatever ri [...]e be us'd.

2. In our way (if that will satisfy) there is a Repre­sentation of Christs Death▪ the pouring out of Water denoting the pouring his Blood or Soul; of his Burial, as the Face the Principal part of the Body, is put un­der the Water; of his Resurrection when the Child is taken up and deliver'd again to its Parents or O [...]e­rers.

3. If they will keep strictly to the Significancy of a Burial; the Person to be Baptiz'd, must not walk into the Water, but be taken up by the Baptizer and cast down into it: for indeed the difference between our way and theirs is only this, we Baptize the face and they Bap­tize the head and shoulders too.

4. Metaphors must not be stretched too far, and let our Brethren take heed, how they stretch this Expressi­on so, as to Justify the Practice of others, that differ [Page 20] from them; you read v. 6. our Old Man is Crucify'd with Christ. H [...]ce the Romanists infer the Necessity of Crossing in Ba [...]ism; let not the Metaphor therefore be stretch'd too [...]ar.

5. There are many more Scriptures, that have an Al­lusion to Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face: thus we r [...]ad Is. 44.3. I will pour Water on him that is thirsty, &c. which is Interpreted of Gods pouring out his Spirit, and Blessing on the seed of Believers. So Heb. 10.22. Having your Hearts Sprinkled from an Evil Consci­ence, and your Bodys wash'd with pure Water: And many other places. So that our way most fairly Represents the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ, together with the Application of his Blood, and Spirit; and the Anabaptists of Amsterdam are so sensible of this, that they Generally Baptize by pouring Water upon the Head.

4. There is great probability, (if not certainty) that many were not dip'd in Scripture times. Particularly Acts 2.41. we read of 3000 Baptiz'd in part of a day. And this was at Ierusalem where there were no Rivers, but only the Brook Cedron. Besides these were either dipt naked, or with their Cloaths; if Naked, this would be an unseemly sight, and look as if they were full of New Wine indeed, tho' (by the way) I think that part, that is Baptiz'd, ought to be Naked, to Represent our Nakedness before God: if with their Cloaths this would be as strange, for it cannot be expected, they brought Cloaths with them at that Jun­cture, and it would have been very unseemly, to see so many Persons come out of the Water in such a condi­tion▪ and go down to their Houses, which might be at a great distance; not to mention that it was hardly possi­ble, for the 12 Ap [...]s [...]les, if we should add the 70 Disci­ples to them ( [...] y [...] [...]he Text mentions not) to dip 3000 in so sho [...]t a time, they had need have brawny Arms and an Here [...]an strength to do this.

Again we read A [...]ts 9. [...].18. that Saul after 3 days fasti [...]g w [...]s Baptiz [...]d by Ananias, we read not that he wen [...] out of the Ho [...]e; nor is it probable, that God ( who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice,) would at that time require, he should be plung'd in Cold Water, [Page 21] which might Prejudice his Health o [...] Life.

Again Acts 16.33. The Jaylor and all his were Bap­tiz'd at midnight. 'Tis unlikely they went to a River at that time.

5. It is not the quantity of Water, but the quality that is Significant. As in the other Sacrament we are Commanded to Eat Bread and drink Wine in Remem­brance of Christ; So in this to be wash'd in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost: and as in the other, it is not said what quantity of Bread we shall Eat, or Wine we shall Drink; So neither in this, after what manner the Water shall be apply'd, whether by dipping, Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face. It might be equally pre­tended, that we must Eat and Drink plentifully at the Lords Table, because this best sets forth a Feast, as it is call'd 1 Cor. 5.8. or Eat a whole Loaf to represent our partaking of Christs fulness, and receiving from him Grace for Grace: there is as much Necessity for this, as for dipping, to represent our Burial with Christ. But as a small bit of Bread, and Moderate Draught of Wine, doth significantly represent the Death of Christ; so a little Water doth as significantly Represent the cleansing vir­tue of Christs Blood.

6. It is very unlikely that dipping, which when mention'd in Scripture, is generally us'd as a token of Gods Vengeance, should in this Sacrament be us'd as a token of his Mercy. Thus the Old World was dip'd and drown'd for their Sins, Gods Vengeance fol­low'd them, and they sunk as lead in the Mighty Waters:

But Noah and his Family, whose entrance into the Ark, was a Type of Baptism, as that is an Entrance into the Christian Church 1 Pet. 3.21. They were only wet with the Rain they met with in their passage. Thus the Egyptians were dip'd and drown'd in the Red-Sea, but the Israelites were Baptiz'd unto Moses, in the Cloud and the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. by the dewings of the Cloud, and dashing of the Waves. Thus the Lord Jesus shall come down from Heaven, to render Vengeance on his Antichristian Enemies, with Garments dipt in Blood. Rev. 19, 1 [...]. I know the usual Objection of Naaman the Syrian, of whom it is said 2 Kings 5, 14. he dip'd him­self [Page 22] in the River Iordan, Seven times, according to the say [...]ng of the Man of God. But this Objection I took off in the Disputation it self Not according to the fa [...]se represen [...]tion of the Narr [...]ive, but thus: The Prophet bids bim. v. 10 go and wash in Iordan Seven times; and he washed himself, as the H [...]rew [...]ay be rendred, accord­ing to the saying of the M [...]n of God As when our Savi­our commanded the blind man [...]o w [...]n the Pool of Siloam, Iohn 9.7. he had [...] need to dip himself, but on­ly to wash his Eyes▪ So N [...]aman the Syrian had no need to wash any part of his bod [...], b [...]t only where he was af­fected w [...]th Leprosie: And therefore till it can be prov'd, that N [...]aman was a Lep [...]r [...]ll over, this Objection is of no Force. This was my Answer then, which perfectly silen­ced Russel. This Argument I [...]s'd n [...]t to prove the a [...]so­lute Unlawfulness of D [...]pping; for I lay n [...] [...]tr [...]ss at all on the Mode of Administration; [...]nd tho Dipping be u [...]'d in these places, as a Token of Vengeance, y [...] it may be app [...]y'd in a way of Mercy. But I h [...]nce argue, it i [...] very unlikely, that this way, and no other must be us'd in Bap­tism. And this may be a sufficient Answer to all tha [...] lit­tle Story about Mr. Fox in the Preface, and the T [...]ifling Querys upon it.

2. Sprinkling, or pouring Water on the Face, in this Sacrament, is most significant. We pour wate [...] on the Face, the Noblest and Chiefest Part of Man That part we pour water on is naked to represent our nakedness be­fore God; and this is sufficient, and significantly repre­sents,

  • 1. The Blood of Christ, whereby we are cleans'd from the Guilt and Fi [...]th of Sin. To this, there are particular Allusions made in many places of Scripture, Heb. 10, 22.12.23. 1 Pet. 1, 2.
  • 2. It fitly Represents the Communications of the Spirit. The Spirit of God is promis'd to us under this Metaphor, Is. 44.3.52.15, Ezek. 36.25. Thus in this Ordinance is signifyd the pouring out of the Spirit, to cleanse [...]s from that Pollution we have contracted.
  • 3. Pouring Water on the Face, doth most aptly Re­present the Grace of God apply'd to us, rather than dip­ping, whereby it may seem, as if we first apply'd our [Page 23] selves to him. In dipping, the body is apply'd to the Water; in pouring, Water is apply'd to the body.

This most fitly Represents, that God is the first Mover in our Conversion; that Regeneration and Sanctification is his Work: Whereas the other way, inclines us rather to think that we cleans [...] and purify our selves. It is no wonder, that they who mag [...]ify the Power of Nature, and think by their own free will they change and convert themselves, are for this way; but as for those that better understand the Scriptures, and their own weakness, and acknowle [...]g [...]hat it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that sheweth Mercy, Rom. 9, 16. and that God Works in us both to will and to do, according to his own Good Pleasure, Phil. 2, 13. It seems very unreasonable for them to use such a Practice, that Intimates as if Man had Power to change and con­vert himself.

Mr. Chandler's Prologue.

My Friends,

IT is not out of Pride or Vanity, that I now appear in this Place, upon this occasion. Most of you know; and I suppose many of you have heard, that, in the course of my Lecture here, I have been dis­coursing of the Principles of Religion: And having explain'd the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, did un­dertake to treat of the Doctrine of the Sacraments, particularly that of Baptism. Those that then heard me know, that I spake with a great deal of Modesty, calling those who deny Infant-Baptism, by no hard­er Name than Mistaken Brethren; when I was unavoidably engag'd in this Disputation by a bold and confident Challenge given me, which I knew not how to refuse, unless I would betray that Truth which I believe to be the Truth of the Gospel. They themselves not being able to answer the Arguments I then used, have cryed out, Men of Israel, come and help; and therefore have sent for this Gentleman from London. Now I desire that all things may be managed with the greatest Fairness and▪ Calmness, that we may debate of these matters as Christians, that nothing may be done that is tumultuous or dis­orderly: And, as we have the Favour of the Govern­ment [Page 2] both Civil and Military, so, that we may give them no occasion to repent of giving this Liberty. And I hope we shall all of us be willing to submit to the Truth, as it is revealed in the Gospel, and lay our selves open to Conviction. I have no more to add, but desire all of you to joyn with me in this one Request, That God would grant that Truth may pre­vail.

Chand.

THE Questions to be disputed of are these in order:

  • Q. 1. Whether, according to the Commission of our Lord Iesus Christ, Adult Believers only are the proper Subjects of Baptism, or their Infants also?
  • Q. 2. Whether this Ordinance of Baptism, as appointed by Christ, be to be administred by Dipping, Plunging, Over­whelming only, and not otherwise? We deny, and they af­firm.
Russel.

I do suppose it [...] be necessary to understand, how much of this, that we affirm, Mr. Chandler owns, that we may not dispute about those things wherein we are a­gre [...]d; whether you do own, that Adult Believers are the proper Subjects of Baptism?

Chand.

If they were not baptized in Infancy, they ought to be so at Age.

Rus.

You do suppose then that they are to be baptized by vertue of some Com [...]ission, and that, the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Chand.

Yes.

Rus.

Then with respect to the first Question, Whether Adult believers only, or whether Infants also may be admitted to Baptism? And I suppose you do expect that I should be Opponent.

Chan.

Yes, that was agreed.

Rus.

Well then, I shall endeavour (God assisting) to prove, Infants are not, according to Christ's Commission, the proper Subjects of Baptism.

Arg.

If Christ hath no where required any of his Mini­ster [Page 3] to baptize Infants, then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers, &c. Ergo.

Chan.

I distinguish here upon your Antecedent. If you mean by Christ's Requiring, his Requiring Infants expres­ly, and by Name, there is no need of it: But i [...] by Req [...]i­ring, you mean either expresly, or by just consequence; then I deny your Mi [...]or.

Rus.

Then you suppose that Christ hath no where requi­red it.

Chan.

No. Distinguish between express words and good consequential Proofs.

Rus.

It's necessary the peop [...]e should know w [...]at Mr Chandler means; and therefore —

Robinson.

It's fit indeed they should know what he means; but it's also fit he should explain his own mean­ing. You must not be permitted to e [...]plain Mr. Chandler's meaning in your own words. Your business is to prove what he denies.

Rus.

I do hope, Gentlemen, that you will not thus break in upon us.

Rob.

I do stand here on purpose to prevent Irregularity in the Disputants.

Leigh.

This Gentleman is our Moderator.

Rus.

Pray what is your Name?

Rob.

My Name is Robinson.

Rus.

Now if you will be silent, and Mr. Chandler be plea­sed to tell me what part of my Argument he denies, I shall proceed in the defence of i [...].

Chan.

Repeat your Argument then.

Rus.

If Christ hath no where required any of his Mini­sters to baptize Infants, then the Baptism o [...] Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord J. C. But Christ hath no where required, &c. Ergo.

Chan.

Here, I say, as to the Major: If you mean by re­quiring, Christ's expresly Requiring in so many words, that Infants shall be baptized, then I deny the Consequence; but if you mean, that by genuine consequence it cannot be drawn from Scripture; I deny the Minor.

Rus.

The Term is very lax. I do not say, that he hath no [Page 4] where commanded it, but no where required it. If it be any where required, it's enough. Give a direct Answer.

Leigh.

VVill you allow good Scripture Consequence to be Proof in this case; or do you expect Scripture words ex­presly? Let us not dispute in the dark.

Gentlemen, you that are Notaries, pray observe how ambiguously Mr. Russel expresseth himself. He will not say whether he'll allow just Scripture consequence for sufficient Proof.

Rus.

I think I give my Sense in as plain words as I can.

L.

Will you have it in express words, or good Consequence?

Williams.

No reason for such a Di­stinction, because our brother hath said Any way; before, the words were any where. any way.

Rus.

It's all one to me, so you prove He is attempting to shift the Opponency. the thing: Prove it any way.

Chand.

I deny your Minor.

Rus.

I prove it thus. Only I would let the people know what you say, viz. That Christ hath Somewhere. The word is again altered from any way to some­where. somewhere required his Ministers to baptize Infants.

Leigh.

Either expresly, or by Just Consequence.

Rus.

If Christ hath any where required any of his Mini­sters to baptize Infants, then it is somewhere so recorded in the holy Scripture. But it is no where so recorded in the holy Scripture. Therefore.

Chand.

This I answer by distinguishing again; If you mean by being so recorded in holy Scripture, its being there in so many express words, then I deny your Consequence; but if you mean that it's not so by good consequence, I deny your Minor again.

Rus.

Let us not confound the people with so many Di­stinctions, but plainly deny what part you please The Dr. now seems unwil [...]ing again to al­low Scripture Conse­quence..

Leigh.

I will make it appear, that there is that recorded in Scripture, which by just consequence will prove what you deny.

Rus.

If you can prove it so record­ed, 'tis enough. Here Mr. Leigh was willing (tho the Respondent ought not to Prove) to offer Pr [...]of for the peoples satisfaction.

Rob.
[Page 5]

Pray Mr. Leigh—Mr. Russel must prove, that it is not so recorded. This is what lies upon you, Sir Mr. Robinson will keep him to the Opponency..

Rus.

I would know what part Mr. Chandler denies.

Chan.

I deny the Minor.

Rus.

Then you say, it's somewhere so recorded in the holy Scriptures.

Chan.

It's your business to prove the Negative.

Rus

If it be somewhere so recorded in Scripture, then Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or some other person is able to shew it. But neither Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or any o­ther person is able to shew it. Therefore.

Chan.

I deny the Minor.

R [...]s.

It's a Universal Negative, you must prove it. I ap­pea [...] [...]o the Moderator.

Rob.

This ought not to be put upon the Respondent. You must prove it still. Supposing that neither Mr. Chand­ler, nor Mr. Leigh, can give you an instance, you can't prove that none else can. If you can, we desire you would.

Will.

You are but Moderator, Let the disputants alone.

Rob.

But Mr. Russel appeal'd to me.

Rus.

I would have these honourable persons here present, to consider that I am under great disadvantage—you are to give an Instance.

Rob.

This is your Popular argument to shift the Op­ponency and turn it upon the Respondent.

Rus.

If Mr. Chandler can give an instance, why do you hinder him? I say it's an Universal Negative, and I de­mand only an instance to the contrary.

Leigh.

Offer him the Commission— All Nations.

Robin.

No reason for it to be allow'd; But if Mr. Chandler, is pleased to take the part of an Opponent up­on him, Now he may.

—I Suppose, Mr. Russel you must needs know, since you have been so often engaged in such work as this, that, according to all rules of Logick, you ought to prove the Negative. You do Universally Affirm this Proposition, tho' in form it runs Negatively, That no person can give one instance in any record of holy Scrip­ture, from whence we are obliged to baptize infants! [Page 6] How do you prove this [...] It lyes upon you to prove it. Otherwise we must suppose Mr. Russel is a confident man, and asserts what he cannot prove.

Will.

Mr. Moderator keep your place.

Rob.

Sir I am in my place. I must not suffer the Dis­putants to break order: Mr. Chandler i [...] Respondent and you are Opponents, and therefore pray keep your p [...]ace.

Rus.

I would take no [...]ice of one thing. Mr. Chandler hath preach'd to the People, That there is a plain com­mand for Infant Baptism in Scripture, and I argue upon him to give but one Instance, and you will not suffer him to do it.

Leigh.

It's not Mr. Chandlers Sermon, but the Questi­on, which we now argue upon.

Rus.

I hope that there are some Honourable P [...]sons here that do understand the nature of this Contro [...]sy; And, I suppose, they will think it reasonable, that those who have made such a noise about this Practice ought to bring some colourable Proof for it. No, not one instance hath Mr. Chandler given. I am sure according to the rules of Dispute Mr. Chandler must prove the Negative.

Rob.

I desire that the Persons here present would take notice, that however Mr. Chandler have asserted in this place, and very clearly proved the Baptism of Infants from the Commission of our Ld. I. C. yet you are not now to call upon him for proof, you having undertaken to prove the contrary. Mr. Chandler gives an answer; he de­ny's your assertion, and therefore you must prove it, and not sit down and say, Do you prove the contrary, or else I'll take it.—But if you can carry this argument no far­ther, it's time to proceed to another.

Rus.

So I design, if there be no answer given.

Chan.

Here is an answer. I deny the Minor.

Rus.

I have prov'd it, according to the Judgment of all present.

Leigh,

According to the Judgment of those that under­stand the rules of Disputation, you ought to prove the Negative. But we will undertake to prove, that there is that recorded in Scripture which will prove by just Con­sequence what you deny.

Rob.

If you will change sides you may.

Rus.
[Page 7]

This is no changing sides: For I do not design to quit the Opponency, only let him bring an instance. 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.

Leigh.

I would beg one favour, i. e. the offering a few words. I'll un­dertake in any Disputation, Philoso­phical or Divine, by this method, to turn the Opponency on the Respon­dent. I'll but make him bring one Proof of what he says, and this way, immediately turn the Opponency on him.—And as for this, Here's a Gentleman that understands the Rules of Disputation. —I desire, Sir, you would declare whether Mr. Russel, be not oblig'd to prove the Negative hē hath asserted.

Dr. Smith.

According to the Rules of Disputation. Negantis non est probare. Or, Asserenti in­cumbit probatio.

Rus.

Well, what must I do?

Rob.

Sir, you are to prove your Proposition. Here is this worthy Gentleman of the same mind.

Rus.

How do you mean prove? The whole Current of Scripture sufficiently proves it. The total silence of Scri­pture in this matter is Proof; What is not in Scripture, &c.

Rob.

If you can proceed no farther upon this, then it's time you go on.

Arg. 2. Rus.

If Infants are not capable to be made Di­sciples by the Ministry of Men, then they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commis­sion. But they are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Therefore, &c.

Chan.

Here if you mean by Disciples, Actual and Com­pleat Disciples, then I deny your Major. But if you mean Incompleat Disciples, such as are entred into a School in order to be instructed, and given up in order to learn there, I deny the Minor

Rus.

The Major is this. If Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, then they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism.

Chand.
[Page 8]

Well then. As to your Major. That they that are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, are not capable Subjects of Baptism. Distinguish between Compleat and Incompleat Disciples. Here we expected that the Dr. should ei­ther have shewn that this distinction is groundless, or that he should have brought it into his ne [...]t Syllogism. But he doth neither.

Rus.

What doth he mean by de­nying my Major?

Rob.

Mr. Chandler distinguishes between Compleat and Incompleat Disciples. If you mean Compleat Dis­ciples, he denys the Major. If you mean Incompleat Disciples, he denys the Minor.

Rus.

Well, come, Tell me what he means by Com­pleat and Incompleat Disciples, by the Ministry of Men?

Chand.

I mean by Compleat Disciples, such as are actually capable of Learning; by Incompleat, such par­ticularly, as are enter'd into the School of Christ in order to their future Learning, as we send Children to School before they are capable of Learning one Letter.

Rus.

I do not talk of that, I speak of their being actu­ally capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.

Chand.

I deny that those, that are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men in your sense, are the only Subjects of Baptism. That's what you are to prove. 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.

Rus.

Well, if that be the thing you deny, you deny the Conse­quence. And I prove it thus. If our Lord in the Commission which he hath given for Holy Baptism hath required h [...]s Disciples and Apostles, who were Men, to make those Dis­ciples by their Ministry who were to be Baptized, then my Consequence is true. But our Lord in the Com­mission hath, &c. Therefore.

Chand.

I deny the Minor. He hath not Commanded all that were to be Baptized by the Apostles, first to be made [Page 9] Disciples by their Ministry in your sense; I think here ought to be a distinction. Persons may have a right to publick visible entrance into the Church of God, before they are compleat Disciples; that, we say, Infants have before Baptism, and so in a more imperfect sense are Disciples, but in a more perfect sense are made so by Baptism.

Rus.

We are talking whether Infants are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.

Leigh.

We say, that as they are the Infants of believ­ers, so they are in a more imperfect sense really Disciples before Baptism. And it's nothing, to talk of their being made such by the Ministry of Men.

Will.

If they are such, then it is by the Ministry of Men.

Leigh.

That I deny, Knowing that you Ground your As­sertion upon the position of Teach before Baptize, Mat. 28.19.

Rus.

Our Saviour hath joyn'd Discipling and Baptizing together. They are commanded first to make Disciples, and then to baptize them. Therefore, I say, if Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men, they are not, according to this Commission, to be baptized.

Chan.

Prove that Mr. Chandler calls for a Proof of the Consequent, a [...] the Dr. goes upon the Proof of the Ante [...] ­dent..

Rus.

If Infants have no Know­ledge to discern between Good and Evil, then they are not capable to be made Disciples by the ministry of men. But they have no Knowledge, &c. Therefore, &c.

Chan.

Here you trick all this while. I told you, by Disciples I meant incompleat ones, and such as are given up in order to be instructed in the School of Christ. I re­quire you to prove that these ought not to be baptized, be­cause not capable of Instruction by the Ministry of Men.

Rus.

What do I care what you mean: we are speaking of the Commission of Christ.

Will.

The Scripture says they must be Disciples accord­ing to the Commission.

Rus.

We are talking of the Prerequisites to Baptism: Therefore it's plain, according to what I have told you, [Page 10] and the Argument is express and full, according to the words of the Text, that they must be made Disciples by the ministry of men, if they be to be baptized: For in Mark Christ commissioneth to go into all the World, and preach the Gospel to every Creature. In Mat. 28. they were to Disciple all Nations, and then to baptize them. Now if Infants be not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men, then they are not capable Subjects of Baptism. Now you denied this Consequence of the Ma­jor, which I proved thus Here the Dr. blun­ders again, confounding Antecedent and Conse­quent.. If In­fants have no Knowledge to discern between good and evil, then they are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men. But, &c.

Rob.

By his former distinction he denies both Antece­dent and Consequent.

Chan.

I deny your Consequence with my former Distinction 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..

Rus.

Then you say, tho they have no knowledge, yet still they are ca­pable of being made Disciples by the ministry of men Here is not a word of the Consequence, which is still deny'd; but be goes on upon the Antecedent..

Chan.

I only desire a Syllogism.

Rob.

You industriously seek to hide your meaning. If you mean by Dis­ciples such as are so in the fullest and compleatest Sense, Prove that all must be made such, in order to their being baptized. But if you mean Disciples in the lowest Sense, as it intends such as are given up in order to be instructed in the School of Christ, prove that Infants are not capable of being made such Disciples. This Mr. Chandler's Distinction puts upon you. We do not know what you mean.

Rus.

The Argument is so plain, that I doubt not but a­ny body of understanding may know what I mean; there­fore it's strange that Mr. Chandler, Leigh, Robinson, do not understand me.

Leigh.

We know there is a double sense of the word, and accordingly we deny either Antecedent or Consequent.

Chan.

You will not allow the distinction of Compleat or Incompleat Disciples, nor yet shew it to be groundless.

Rus.

Fix upon something.

Chan.
[Page 11]

I told you before, If in your Argument, by Dis­ciples you mean Incompleat ones, I deny your Minor. But if Compleat ones, I deny the Consequence of your Major.

Leigh.

Give a direct answer according to this distinction; i. e. Either prove that Infants are not Incompleat Disciples, or that they are not to be baptized, because but Incompleat; i. e. not capable of Instruction by the Ministry of men.

Rus.

Have Infants any knowledge?

Chan.

No, not in actual exercise.

Rus.

Then I proceed. If the Gospel, in the ministration of it, was appointed to inform men what is good and what is evil, and Infants have no knowledge to discern between good and evil, then Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men He takes no no­tice at all of the di­stinction, but goes on to prove that Infants can't be compleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men..

Leigh.

You ought to add (Incom­pleat).

Rus.

What doth he mean by In­compleat Disciples?

Here Mr. Chandler is forc't to ex­plain his distinction, as before.

Rus.

You forget we are speaking according to the Commission.

Chand.

No I don't. I say, &c. As before.

Rus.

Then by Compleat you mean such as are Actual­ly Disciples.

Leigh.

A Compleat Disciple is one actually capable of Learning. An Incompleat, is one given up as aforesaid in order to Learn. And we appeal to the whole Auditory, whether or no, a child of two years old thus devoted to Learning by the Resignation of the Parent and Accepta­tion of the Master, is not justly in an imperfect sense deem'd a Schollar?

Rus.

Infants Schollars! Very mean Schollars indeed, not capable of Learning one word.

Leigh.

I believe here is a Gentleman who teaches School. Sir, I would fain know whether no one may be accounted a Schollar, but he that is actually capable of Learning?

Mr. Ridge School-Master.

I take all to be Disciples in my School, provided entrance Mo­ney be paid, Here followed a General Laughter. whether they Learn or not.

Rus.
[Page 12]

I must appeal to these Honourable Persons, whe­ther or no I did not tell Mr. Chandler, Compleat Disci­ples, such as are made by the Ministry of Men? What's the meaning of all this Noise about such little Children, do you think?

Rob.

Prove what Mr. Chandler deny's.

Rus.

Let me know, what Mr. Chandler deny's. You say that they have no Knowledge, and that they are not Compleat Disciples, the consequence then is, that they are not intended in the Commission, Mat. 28. Mar. 16. This is the Con­sequence that hath been still deny'd, and no Proof offer'd.

Chand.

Put it into a Syllogism.

Rus.

There's no need of putting it into a Syllogism: For you have granted all the Parts of my Argu­ment. Yes, every Part. You have granted. (1.) That Infants have no Knowledge to discern between good and evil. You have in the (2.) Place granted, that accord­ing to my Argument they are not capable of being made Compleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men. The Consequence then is, that they are not at all intended in the Commission. But the Dr. ought to have proved, either, that there are no In­compleat Disciples, or that they are excluded from the Commission for Bap [...] because they have no Know­ledge, &c.

Rob.

It's a most false thing you in­sinuate to the People, and what you your self cannot but know to be false. For that the Consequence, which, you would perswade the People, Mr. Chandler allows, is what he hath all along deny'd. And if you can't prove it, pray proceed to another Argument.

Arg. 3. Rus.

If the Apostle Paul did declare all the Councel of God, and kept back nothing that was profi­table for the Church of God, and yet did never declare the Baptism of infants to be an Institution of Christ, Then Infant Baptism is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostle Paul did declare all the Councel of God, and kept back nothing. &c. And yet did never declare the Baptism of Infants, &c. Therefore, &c.

Leigh.

Your Argument is very long. I deny that the Apostle Paul never spoke of Infant Baptism, which is [Page 13] part of your Minor. Prove that the Apostle Paul never did declare the Baptism of Infants.

Rus.

If the Apostle Paul hath so declared it, then it's some where to be be found in the Writings of the new Testament. But it's no where to be found in the Writings of the New Testament. Therefore &c.

Leigh.

I deny the consequence of your Major. For Paul might declare it, tho' the new Testament should not discover that he did; the Text you quote relates to the Church of Ephesus. And we have not the whole of the Apostles Sermons to them, no, not the hundredth part of them, he being among them for the space of two years. Now you must prove that this refer's to that Epistle he hath left upon record to the Ephesians. This being all that is left to posterity in Holy Writ of several hundred Sermons that he preach'd to that Church, wherein he might speak often of Infant Baptism, tho' it be not mention'd in this short Epistle.

Rus.

You then acknowledge, that it's no where recorded in the New Testament.

Leigh.

I deny that the Apostle did write the whole New Testament. And then, Would you confine what Paul is there said to have declared to the Church of Ephesus, To what is left on record, Viz, that particular. Epistle we find inscrib'd to them? He had spoken to the Church of Ephesus all the Councel of God, but we cannot suppose all that he deliver'd to them in 2 years to be contain'd with­in the compass of one short Epistle, containing but six Chapters.

Rus.

Is all the Councel, that the Apostle Paul wrote, in the New Testament? Is there any Commission for In­fant Baptism in the whole New Testament? Do you think you speak any thing to me? I hope you'll own that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the only rule to direct us how we may serve and glorify God.

Leigh.

Yes, that I will.

Rus.

I refer you to that Scripture and you run to a cer­tain sort of supposition, &c. Here the Dr. nei­ther deny's that Paul did declare the Baptism of Infants in his Ser­mons, nor asserts that all kc Preached is left on record.—I am not talking of any Sermons that are not in the Scripture, but of what is in the Scripture. The words [Page 14] are plain, Acts 20.20. I have kept back nothing that was profitable for you, and v. 27. I have not shunned to de­clare unto you the whole Councel of God. And again, 1 Cor. 4.17. He Declares, that his ways in Christ were such as he taught every where in every Church. I do not sup­pose that the Apostle Paul taught one Doctrine at one place, and another at another. Now if he never taught this Doctrine to the Church of Ephesus, nor to none else, I hope that then you'll acknowledge (since it's not to be found in the Writings of the New Testament) that he never declared the Baptism of Infants.

Leigh.

I utterly deny it, because in the Writings of the New Testament, are not all the Sermons that Paul Preached.

Rus.

I say this, if you'll declare before this People, that there is no Account that Paul did ever declare this in any of the Writings of the New Testament, It's suffici­ent; supposing the thing granted, that Pauls Epistles are not the whole of what he Preached. That's nothing to us, I suppose the People will not look any where else.

If Paul so declared it, then it's This Word It's may either refer to Pauls Declaration, or to Baptism. And this ambiguity caus'd some confusion afterwards. somewhere to be found in the Writings of the New Testament. But It's no where to be found, &c.

Leigh.

I utterly deny the Conse­quence.

Rus.

Then if it be any where in the New Testament, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or some other Person is able to shew it. But neither, &c. Here the Dr. was to prove the Conse­quent, and he goes on to prove the Antecedent.

Leigh.

I say, 'tis included in the Words, All Nations, Mat. 28. The Commission. The Dr. would ramble and we rath [...]r follow than leave him. And gave the Words (All Nations) sup­posing by the Word (It) he meant Baptism.

Rus.

Is Mr. Chandler of your mind. I tell you in my Argument, that it's not any where recorded in the New Testament, that Paul had thus declared the Baptism of Infants. And I deny that the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, tells you, that Paul did declare it.

Leigh.
[Page 15]

I Answer, that Paul might have declared 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.

Rob.

That's the Consequence you are now to prove. Because it's not left on record in his Epistle to the Ephe­sians, that therefore he never declared it to the Church of Ephesus.

Rus.

I have neither Ephesus nor Pauls Epistles in my Arguments, yet you tell me.— Here was a general mur­muring at the Drs. evasions, the weakness whereof was ob­vious to the Auditory

Leigh.

I'll beg a little silence. And first read what this Gentleman Quotes, ( Acts 20.)—The Apostle tells the Church of Ephesus, he had not shunned to declare to them the whole Council of God. From hence he con­cludes, ( Without Proof) that all that Paul had declared to them was written and left on record; and because the Bap­tism of Infants doth not stand on record, as being part of what he declar'd to the Church of Ephesus, therefore that he never did declare it. Remember. To the Church of Ephesus he speaks. Now of all the whole Councel of God, which he is said to have declared to them, there is but one Epistle containing six short Chapters left upon record. Can this short record contain all the Sermons that he Preached to them in two Years? Or dare any say, that he never declared to them the Baptism of Infants in two years Sermons and Discourses, because it's not contained in this short record? And so I have done.

Rus.

But I have not done with you, the Apostle Paul is the Person under consideration, and mention'd in my Argument, as one that did declare the whole Councel of God, and kept back nothing that was profitable for them. Who doubts this, And what is it to the purpose?

Leigh.

The Church of the Ephesi­ans. Pray remember that.

Rus.

The Question under consi­deration and my Argument is of one that did declare the whole Councel of God. And that the Apostle Paul did so, I prove, Acts 20.20. Compared, with v. 27. I have kept back nothing that was profitable for you, but have shewed [Page 16] you and taught, &c. Testifying to Iews and Greeks, &c. v. 26. He doth not only say, That he was pure from the Blood of these Ephesians, but from the Blood of all Men. For v. 27. I have not shunned to declare to you. I do say, that in this Text, Paul doth solemnly declare that he had declared all the Councel of God, and I do say, that Paul was faithful. I believe Paul was as faithful, as laborious a Servant and Steward of Jesus Christ, as ever Christ had in the World. And I argue. If Paul did never declare the Baptism of Infants to be a Gospel Institution, then, I tell you, there can be no such thing. The Major is proved from the Words of the Text. The other I prove by a Syllogism, that if he declare it, it is somewhere so recorded in the New Testament. But it is, &c. Remember he doth not mention any here to whom he had declared the Councel, &c. but the Ephesians. He mentions Jews and Greeks, because there were Greeks or Hel­lenists at Ephesus, and many other places up and down, as well as Jews. And we don't Que­stion but he did declare the whole Councel, &c. and therefore Infant Baptism; but say it's not necessary to be left on record, as Preach't by Paul, especially to these Ephesians, when there is other good Scripture Proof for it. But the Dr. makes a long harangue only to bring over his own Ar­gument again, which he could not make good.

Chand.

I deny both your Antecedent and Consequent.

Leigh.

Here, Pray observe it Gen­tlemen, Greeks and Iews were in Corinth, Ephesus, and various places where Paul planted Churches. And [ all Men] very often signifies all sorts of Men. And Paul speaks still to these Ephesians, among whom were Jews and Greeks, all sorts of Men. And tho' it be a certain truth that Paul was pure from the blood of all Men, yet all may here be understood with Limitation, and so it may not be evi­dent from this Text.

Rus.

Did Paul ever speak one word of Infant Baptism.

Chan.

If Paul did not, in what is on record to the Ephesians, what then? We deny the consequence of the Argument. That because Paul says he had declar'd the whole Councel of God to the Church of E­phesus, among whom he Preached for 2 years, and yet doth not men­tion Infant Baptism in his Epistle [Page 17] left upon record to them, that therefore he did never speak of it to them, nor none elsewhere.

Rus.

I am bound to answer here. If there are any other writings of Paul that are not contain'd in the New Testa­ment, and you can produce them, then you say something to the purpose.

Rob.

Because this is what Mr. Respondent puts upon you to prove, unless you prove that you prove nothing: That, tho' Paul did not shun to declare the whole Council of God; and did not declare Infant Baptism in his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, therefore he did not declare it in his Sermons to them.

Arg. 4. Rus.

Christ's Commission doth shew who are to be Baptized. But it doth not shew that Infants are to be Baptized; Therefore Infants are not to be Baptized accord­ing to the Commission of our Lord.

Chan.

I deny your Minor. That it doth not shew that Infants are to be Baptized.

Rus.

If the Commission of our Lord doth shew that In­fants are to be Baptized, then Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or some body else is able to shew it. But neither Mr. Chandler. &c. Therefore &c.

Chand.

It's included in the words, ( All Nations.)

Rus.

I prove it against you that Infants are not includ­ed in the words ( All Nations) For if Infants then all In­fants would be so. But you only allow Infants of be­lieving parents.

Leigh.

The force of this Argument is this. That unless we will Baptize all of all Nations we must Baptize none of any Nation.

Rus.

No it it is not.

Leigh.

I say they are included in the words ( All Nati­ons) you must prove that they are not. And first of all, Gentlemen, I will appeal to you, Is it, in a Religious sense, improper to say, the whole Nation (suppose) of Palestine are Mahumetans, and so consequently, that their little Children are Young Mahumetans.

Chan.

You must prove that all Infants are excluded from the words ( All Nations.)

Rus.

Would you have me then shew you that there is a Limitation in the words ( All Nations.)

Leigh.
[Page 18]

The Point ly's here. If he will invalidate my Answer, he must shew, that, because all Nations are to be Baptized and infant are included in the words All Nations, therefore it follows, that all Infants are to be Baptized.

Rus.

Therefore, if I shew there is a Limitation I take away the force of the Argument, and this I do, by Mr. Chandler's confuting him­self. Here our Scribes were imperfect and I cannot Remember what ought to be inserted. But the force of the Ar­gument is not removed.

Leigh.

I deny your Minor, That Christ hath not included Infants in this Commission.

Rus.

If those that Christ hath commanded to be Baptized must be disciples, then Infants are not includ­ed in this Commission. But those, &c. Therefore.

Leigh.

I deny your Consequence.

Rus.

I prove it thus. If there are no others Express'd in this Commission, then they are not included. But no others are Express'd. Therefore.

Leigh.

They are implyed. The good consequence of the Commission I insist upon. I say there is no Necessity for all the Subjects, included in this Commission, to be Disciples in the fullest and compleatest sense.

Rus.

All those that are required to be Baptized by Christs Commission are Disciples. But Infants are not capable to be made Disciples. Therefore &c.

Leigh.

I deny your whole Argument, and first your Major.

Rus.

If there are no other express'd in Christs Com­mission, Then my Major is true.

Leigh.

They are imply'd. You know you allowed good consequence but now.

Rus.

We are talking of a Commission, good Sir.

Leigh.

I hope we are talking of good consequence from a Commission. That which I assert is this. That all are not to be Compleat Disciples, before Baptized, or, That they are not to be actually taught.

Rus.

I know not what you mean by How many times hath the Dr. been told what we mean by Com­pleat Disciples! Compleat Disciples; A Person may be a Disciple twenty years be­fore he be a Compleat one.

[Page 19]If our Lord requires none to be Baptized by the Com­mission, but such as he commands to be made Disciples before he commands them to be Ba [...]zed, then what I say is true. But our Lord requires [...] &c. There­fore,

Leigh.

I deny your Minor.

Rus.

I'll read the Commission, Mat. 28.18, [...]. And Jesus came and spake to them saying, All Powe [...]'s given unto me in Heaven and Earth. [...]o ye therefore and teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. Teaching them to observe all things, &c. This Commission is very solemn­ly given, &c. In this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare the great Power that was, &c. Here the Dr. was going on with a large harangue.

Rob.

Pray Mr. Russel, do not Preach us a Sermon, but bring us an Argument from the Words.

Rus.

I thought Mr. Leigh had brought the Com­mission for an instance, we are now coming to exam­ine, &c.

Leigh.

Pray form your Syllogism.

Chand.

Pray do.

Rus.

I say, in this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare, &c. He is going on again with his haran­gue.

Rob.

It's not a Sermon, but an Argument from the Commission, &c.

Rus.

What, will you not allow me to read my Ma­sters Commission? Here in spight of us all, he would go on with his tedious dictates.

Rus.

I argue thus from this Commission. If there be an express command for the Baptizing some Persons in Christs Commission, and there be no express command, neither there nor elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, for the Baptizing of Infants, then the Baptism of Infants is not contain'd in this Commission. But there is an express command, &c. Therefore,

Leigh.

Pray observe it, whereas good Consequence was but now allowed with great difficulty, now it's deny'd. He requires an express command. To this I answer. If Nations do include Infants, then there is a plain com­mand.

Chand.
[Page 20]

We deny the Consequence of your Major, and then we deny your Minor.

Rus.

My Argument was this. And thus to spend time, he will have his long Argument over again. If there be an express command in Christs Commision, &c. They deny the sequel of my Major, and by thus denying do say, that, notwithstand­ing there be no express command for the Baptizing of In­fants, neither in the Commission, nor any where else in the Holy Scripture, yet they do tell us by this denial, that they may be included in the Commission.

Rob.

Here is a sophism; says he, if it be neither in the Commission, nor any where else in the Holy Scriptures, then it is not in the Commission.

Rus.

If there be an express command for the Baptiz­ing of some Persons in Christs Commission, and there be no express command for the Baptizing of Infants, then Infants are not at all intended in Christs Commission. But, &c. Therefore, &c.

Leigh.

First, I deny the sequel of the Major, and then I deny the Minor.

Rus.

It seems very strange, that you do deny this, and I will endeavour to prove it. Here is an express com­mand for some Persons to be Baptized, here is no ex­press command for the Baptizing of Infants; is it not then a necessary consequence that they are not included in the Commission? An excellent Proof, i. e. turning the con­clusion into a question.

Leigh.

I deny both Parts, and first your Major.

Rus.

I shall prove it thus. Observe, he falls upon the Minor. Not a Word of the Major. That there is an express command for Baptizing some Persons, the Com­mission it self proves.

Leigh.

It's the sequel of the Major I deny. Pray prove that.

Rus.

Then you do say, That, notwithstanding our Lord hath expresly commanded some Persons to be Bap­tized in the Commission, and hath not expresly com­manded Infants, yet they may be some of the Number. Hath Christ two sorts of Subjects, one that he doth ex­presly command to be Baptized, and another that he doth not command?

Leigh.
[Page 21]

Put your Proof of the sequel of the Major into a Syllogism.

Rus.

We are upon the Commission.

Leigh.

I say, Prove the consequence of your Major.

Rus.

If no person be to be baptiz'd but what is expresly required to be so by Christ's Commission, then the conse­quence of the Major is true; i. e. That the Baptism of In­fants is not contained in the Commission. But no person is to be baptized, &c. Therefore.

Leigh.

I deny your Minor.

Rus.

That which I am to prove is this, That there are no persons to be baptized but what are expresly required in the Commission. I prove it thus. If the words of the Commission are an express command to the Apostles of our Lord, to direct them whom they should baptize, then the Minor is true. But the words of the Commission are, &c. Therefore, &c.

Leigh.

I deny your Minor.

Rus.

If there be no other Commission of our Lord and Saviour J. C. for holy Baptism, but what is recorded Mat. 28. Mar. 16. then the Minor is true. But there is no other, &c. Therefore, &c.

Leigh.

I deny the sequel of the Major.

Rus.

We are now upon the Commission.

Leigh.

That we are; and we say, That whatever by good consequence is fairly deducible from the Commission, is the true sense of it.

Rus.

They are not to baptize any but such as they are expresly commanded so to do.

Leigh.

I deny it.

Rus.

If there be no manner of allowance given them to baptize any other than whom they are expresly command­ed, then the consequence of the Major is true. But there is no manner of allowance, &c. Therefore, &c.

Leigh.

Now I deny your Minor.

Rus.

I f [...]ll recur to my former Argument. If there be an express command in the Commission to the Apostles, for the Baptism of all such as they are required to baptize by vertue of that Commission, then my Minor is true. But, &c. Here follows a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes.

R.

If for all those they are to baptize by vertue of the Com­mission, they are to have an express command from Christ [Page 22] so to do, then there is no allowance in the Commission to baptize any other person. But for all those they are required to baptize, &c. Therefore, &c.

Chand.

I deny the Minor.

Leigh.

I distinguish between the command's being ex­prest, and the Subjects of it.

Chand.

Prove that all the Subjects are exprest.

Rus.

If the words in the Commission, about holy Baptism, be a command of Christ to the Apo­stles Here the Dr. waves the distinction, that he may wrap up himself and the Auditory in con­fusion., then my Minor is true. But they are a command, &c. Therefore.

Leigh.

We allow it's a command, but deny that all the Subjects are ex­prest. I say, I allow the command to be express, but deny that all the Subjects are exprest; some are taken in by good consequence.

Rus.

If Christ hath commanded his Apostles to Bap­tize such as do believe and are made Disciples, then such are to be Baptized. But &c: Therefore &c.

L.

I find, in the first place, a fault with your Syllo­gism. The Major ought to be Universal. Whereas it is, such as do believe are the Subjects of Baptism; It ought to be, Such are the only, or all the Subjects of Bap­tism; and thus, in the Second Place, I deny the Sequel.

W [...]l.

Then I am to prove that Believers only are intended. If Believers are the only Persons that are in­cluded in the Commission, then no other persons are. But Believers are the only &c: Therefore.

L.

I deny your Minor.

W.

I will prove it in Mark 16. last. He that believ­eth is Baptized, &c. Hence I Argue that Believers are the only Subjects to be Baptized.

L.

To this I Answer, First. If Previous Actual Be­lieving be made Universally Necessary to Baptism, it is much more so to Salvation, and Consequently no Infant can be saved, For the following words are be that Believeth not shall be damned.

Rus.

I do not affirm any such thing, I would rather say that all Infants dying in their Infancy are Elect, and so saved, the contrary to which I believe Mr. Chandler 'cannot prove Here the Dr. se [...]ms willing to turn off the Disputation, to Original Sin, with those of his Profession d [...]n [...]..

L.
[Page 23]

Yes, we know your Opinion about this well enough. I have your Confession in my Ecclet. But if you will assert that actual believing is necessary to Baptism, then 'tis so to Salvation; for it follows, he that believeth not shall be dam­ned.

Wil.

If believers are the only Subjects of Baptism, accor­ding to the Commission, then Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism: but Believers are the only Subjects, &c. Therefore, &c.

L.

I deny your Minor.

Wil.

Then pray shew me where any others are in the Commission.

L.

In the words ( all Nations).

Wil.

In the words ( all Nations)? No, say I, It's all Nati­ons so modified. It's all Nations discipled.

L.

I deny it. This is not evident from this Text.

Wil.

Go, disciple unto me all Nations, baptizing them. The word them is relative to all Nations, discipled. If therefore there be none but believers, and such as are taught in the Commission, then Infants are not in the Commission. But there are none but believers, &c.

L.

I deny your Minor.

Wil.

If Infants are not capable of being taught, then they are no Disciples. But they are not, &c. Therefore.

L.

I deny it, i. e. the Sequel.

Wil.

If Infants are uncapable of learning Jesus Christ, then they are uncapable of being discipled unto Christ. But, &c.

L.

I deny the consequence of your Major; That be­cause they are uncapable of learning Christ, therefore they are uncapable of being Discipled to Christ.

Will.

I say, If Infants are not the Subjects in the Com­mission Here's a Fallacy; he will now suppose his own conclusion, and the sum of what we deny'd before., neither are capable of being taught and instructed, then they are not the Subjects of Bap­tism. But, &c: Therefore, &c.

L.

I deny that they are not the Subjects. And the Greek word signify's to make Disciples. I deny that they are uncapa­ble of being made Disciples, because not capable of learning.

Wil.
[Page 24]

If to be a Disciple of Christ is to be a Schollar of Christ, then Infants that are uncapable of Learning Christ can be no Disciples. But, &c. Therefore, &c.

L.

I deny still the Sequel of the Major.

Will

If he that hath learn't nothing is no Schollar, then because they are not capable of learning Jesus Christ, They are no Scholars of Christ. But, &c. Therefore &c.

L.

I appeal to all here present, Whether they do not count that child an Incompleat Schollar, that is resigned by the Parent and accepted by the Master, tho' it hath not learn'd any thing. And now I deny your Minor.

Wil.

Tell me where Christ's School is for teaching In­fants, and who is Christ's School-Master?

L.

Jesus Christ himself is the School-Master.

Wil.

Jesus Christ is the great School-Master, but his Mini­sters are appointed to make Disciples by teaching. Now you say a Child is a Disciple as soon as he goes to School.

L.

I say, the resignation of the Parent, and the accepta­tion of the Master, constitutes the Relation.

Wil.

If he that hath been at School, and taught by his own consent, must appear to be a Scholar of Christ by his hav­ing actually learn'd, before he be baptized, then Infants that are entred, according to your saying, must not be bap­tized. But he that hath been at School, &c. Therefore.

L.

I deny your consequence.

Wil.

I prove it thus. The Eunuch was content to be taught He was here to prove the Consequence, and he brings an In­stance to prove the An­tecedent and but barely asserts the Consequent.; Philip teacheth him: Yet afterward he must know whether he believed, before he baptized him. Therefore Infants, en­tred according to your saying, must not be baptized, because they are not content to be taught, &c: And Erasmus, tho' he was none of the best of Men yet he was accounted a great Schollar in his day, he reads it, When they have learned dip thou them.

L.

Here are two things that this old Gentleman ar­gues from, the first is, The Instance of the Eunuch. The Second is, The Authority of Erasmus.

Will.

Not from his Authority, but Judgment What is a man's Authority in this case but his Iudgment?.

Rob.
[Page 25]

Did Erasmus write in English? You say, you do not understand Latin.

Wil.

In English. Here the people brake out into a great Laughter.

Rus.

Is Erasmus in your esteem so mean a Schollar, that there must be such Laughing at the old Gentleman's mentioning the Name of Eras­mus? The people laughed not because Erasmus' s name was mentioned, but be­cause he said Erasmus wrote in English.

L.

Well, but as to the first thing; you argue from the Instance of the Eunuch; The Eunuch was a Prose­lyte of the Gate, and a grown person, and therefore Philip deals with him as such. Now, accord­ing to the Iewish Law, a Proselyte's Infant was to be ta­ken into their Church, as the Infant of an home-born Inhabitant Mr. Leigh since the Disputation, hath ac­knowledg'd himself guil­ty of a mistake, in call­ing the Eunuch a Pro­selyte of the Gate; whereas he was probably of the Church, and such a ones Infants were ac­counted Church-Mem­bers. But the Dr. had not the sense to discover this mistake.. And because Philip requires of him a Pro­fession of his Faith, suppose he had had an Infant in the Chariot, must that be denied Baptism, and so lookt upon as the Infant of a Pagan, and be shut out of visible Church-membership, which he enjoyed before? Did his Pa­rents Faith deprive him of Church­membership? Then as to Erasmus, he was an Interpendent between a Papist and Protestant; and many of these Gentlemen, in their great Zeal against Infant-baptism, will call it a peice of Popery, and yet can make use of the Name of an Half-Papist when it serves their Cause.

Wil.

If the Administrator must have an account of the Subjects Learning, before he be baptiz'd, then Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism. But he must, &c. Therefore.

L.

I deny your Minor, That he that administers the Or­dinance must always have an account of the Subjects Lear­ning.

VVil.

I will prove it first by that of Philip: If thou belie­vest with all thine heart, thou mayest. The contrary where­unto is, If thou dost not, thou mayest not. Again, Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. The word is re­lative [Page 6] to all Nations discipled. They must have an account whether they are Disciples or not. This is the Antece­dent.

L.

All Nations?

Wil.

Nay, all Nations Discipled.

L.

So you say. But prove it. What! perhaps you think that All Nations cannot be the Antecedent to Them; be­cause [...] is the Neuter Gender, and [...] is the Mas­culine.

Rus.

Yes, [...] is of the Masculine Gender, and [...] is of the Masculine Gender, and agrees with [...].

Rob.

I thought [...] had been a Verb.

Rus.

I answer to what he says; he says that [...] is of the Masculine Gender, and I say so, and that [...] is of the same Gender, and agrees with [...].

L.

I suppose Mr. Russel thinks he is got among his He­brew Verbs. They, notwithstanding, refer each to other, tho [...] be of the Neuter, and [...] of the Masculine Gender. For a Boy of 12 years of age, that hath lookt into the Greek, can tell you that such a Synthesis is frequently to be met with in the Greek.

VVil.

If Infants are uncapable of denying themselves for Christ, then they are uncapable of being Disciples to Christ. But, &c. Therefore, &c.

L.

I deny the sequel of the Major.

Will.

I prove it out of Luke 14. If he doth not deny himself, he cannot be Christ's Disciple.

L.

This purely refer's to the adult. And I will argue ab absurdo. 2 Thes. 3.10. If any work not let him not eat, but Infants cannot Mr. Leigh mis­took [...] word is would not. But it comes to the [...], for Infants have Power and will both alike. work, therefore they must not eat. But both one Text, and the other refer to the adult p [...]ly.

Rus.

What's all this? We do say, that Infants are not at all concerned in the Commission, Mat. 28.19. Be­cause they cannot perform the prerequisites, Faith and Repentance, therefore are not capable of Baptism. Now if you'll say, that incapable Persons are intended in the [Page 27] Commission, then I hope, you may put that upon your selves; Then you must argue, Infants must be starved to Death because they will not work. I demand of any of you to give an instance of any one Scripture, that speaks of Baptism in the New Testament, that doth respect any other but adult Persons. Reader, observe the Argument from Luk. 14. Is [...] opt. And what Mr. Rus. here says farther, had been Answered before in the Words, All Nations, Us (que) ad Nauseam.

Will.

If the essence of faith con­sist in the Acts of the understanding and will, then Infants are incapable of being Disciples. But, &o. There­fore, &c.

L.

I deny the sequel of the Ma­jor, viz. That Infants are uncapable of being Disciples.

VVill.

If a Disciple and a Believer be the same thing, then the sequel of the Major is true. But a Disciple and Believer are the same thing. Therefore,

L.

I distinguish upon the Minor. It's not Universal­ly and in all respects the same thing. Those may be Dis­ciples that are not actual Believers.

VVill.

He that is a Disciple of Christ according to the Commission, is a Believer. But Infants are not capable of believing. Therefore. He that is a Believer in Mark, is a Disciple in Matthew.

L.

This I deny, and answered it before. It's not Vni­versally true.

VVill.

If the essence of faith consist in the Act of the understanding and will, then Infants are uncapable of believing, But, &c.

L.

I acknowledge, The Act of faith consists in the Act of the understanding and the will, and that Infants are un­capable of actual believing, but not of being Disciples in an imperfect sense The contrary where­of, hath not yet been proved. But I would fain know if Infants are not as capable of believ­ing Imputatively, as of coming to Christ when brought in the Arms of other Persons. Mat. 19.14.

VVill.

They can do both alike, as well come to Christ as believe in him; by believing I mean actual believing. This I acknowledge.

L.
[Page 28]

Why cannot Children be said in a Spiritual sense to come to Christ Imputatively, as well as to come to Christ Corporally when only brought in others Arms. Coming to Christ and believing are the same. Tho' he that is brought in the Arms of the Parents faith cannot be [...] actually to believe, yet Imputatively he may.

VVil.

How could they come to Christ when they were brought?

L.

And yet they are expresly said to come to Christ. And may they not as well be said to be capable of Spiri­tual as of Corporal coming when they were brought to him? Why can they not come Spiritually by Imputation, as before?

Will.

They cannot come Spiritually unless they actually believe [...] child cannot thus come to Christ without a sight of Christ and also of himself.

L.

I do own in a proper and strict sense, none can be said thus to come to Christ but adult persons; yet in a more large sense, they may as well be said to believe on Christ Imputatively when their Parents believe and de­vote them to Christ, as to come to Christ Corporally when brought in their Arms. You know Christ says, suffer little Children to come to me. It's most probable these were brought in Arms to Christ. Why may they not be said Imputatively to believe, as well as Imputa­tively to come?

Wil.

I deny that the parent's faith was ever imputed to the Child.

L.

You know the distinction of Believers, In foro Dei, & In foro Ecclesiae, which I suppose you'll allow. And under the notion of believers In foro Ecclesiae, The Parents faith may be imputed to their Children.

VVil.

We do say that a Person is not a Disciple of Christ before he have learned Christ Here is no notice taken of the Distinction, only the old thing asserted..

L.

Then do we send Children to School because they have lear­ned, or that they may learn?

Rus.

I think we should now see whether we can possi­bly by force of Argument bring you to give an Instance Therefore I argue thus.

Arg. 5.
[Page 29]

If the Apostles of our Lord never did Baptize any Infants, then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostles of our Lord never did, &c: Therefore.

Chand.

I deny the Minor.

Rus.

If the Apostles did Baptize any Infants, it is some where to be found in the writings of the new Testament. But it's no where to be found, &c.

L.

I deny your Major.

Rus.

If there be no other rule to direct us concerning Holy Baptism than what is in the new Testament, then, because it's no where to be found in the writings of the new Testament, the Apostles did never Baptize any In­fants. But there is no other rule &c: Therefore &c.

L.

You are come from an Example to a Rule. I say it may not be recorded in the writings of the New Testa­ment, and yet the Apostles might Baptize Infants. But this is not granted, only supposed, that it's not recorded. It is not recorded in the New Testament (what you practise) that Grown Children of Believers were, when adult, Baptized. I challenge you to produce one Instance of any, born of Believing Parents, baptized at Age.

Rus.

That's no business of ours. Don't think to sham off the business so. We have called for your Instance se­veral times of an Infant Baptized, and you have not been able to give it.

L.

It's the custom of these Persons to Baptize Grown Persons tho' Baptized before, and yet there is no Scrip­ture for it. They talk much of our having no Scripture for Infant Baptism, and of their having Abundance for their Practice. Now let them give one Instance of what is their Practice, viz: Of one Person born of a believer Baptized at years, and I'll give them the cause.

Wil.

Give your instance for Infant Baptism, or else I hope the People will go away, and conclude you have none.

L.

Give your instance to prove your Practice, or else I hope, the People will go away satisfy'd you have none to give. It was by the Computation of the learned from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. Iohn the Apostle near Sixty Years, in which time many Thousands of the Chil­dren [Page 30] of Believing Parents became adult, yet we chal­lenge you to produce one Instance in all that time of any of their Children Baptiz'd, when adult.

Rus.

The Emperour Constantine was born of a Christi­an Parent, and yet not baptized till adult.

L.

But not because they then thought the Children of Believing Parents had no right to Baptism, but because they thought that sins committed after Baptism were unpar­donable; therefore, they oftentimes defer'd it till Death. Besides, Constan­tine's father was a Pa­gan, and Constantine had a desire to be Bap­tiz'd in Jordan, be­cause Christ was. Besides, this is not to the purpose, because a Scrip­ture instance was call'd for.

VVill.

We are able to produce se­veral instances where grown believ­ers were Baptized, but you not one of Infant Baptism.

L.

That was at the first planting of the Gospel: Give an instance of a grown person, descending from believing Pa­rents, that was baptized when adult.

Rus.

If this were any thing to the purpose, I would then say something to it. But I wonder you should talk thus, when it was practised a great many years in the Church to give the Lord's Supper to In­fants The Dr. allow'd it to be the first 600 y [...]rs, as I remember.

L.

Was it? Then ( ad hominem) they were Baptized, because they were not to receive that Ordinance before they were baptized. We demand an instance of any child of a believing Parent that was baptized when adult. Give this, and we will give you the Cause.

Wil.

Was the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ a belie­ver?

L.

Yes.

Wil.

Well then, there's the Son of a believer baptized at age Observe, by Belie­vers was before under­stood a Christian Belie­ver, by themselves, wherever they spake of believing as necessary to Baptism: Neither was the word when in any other sense. Besides, it was granted before, that Iew; and Pagans ought not to be baptiz'd till adult; and both Christ and his [...]r were Iews at the time of his birth. Here the Anabaptists fell a laughing, and some cry'd out, it's done, it's done. And, for a while, Mr. Leigh attempting seve­ral times to speak, could not be heard.

L.
[Page 31]

I thought our discourse had been grounded on the Commission. Was this before or after the Commission? Here the people laugh'd again.

Rus.

What do they laught at? Not at what the Old Gentleman said, but at what Mr. Leigh says Indeed the people laughed both ways. The Old Gentleman gave a right instance.

Rob.

It's not at all to the purpose.

Rus.

Mr. Williams's instance was sufficiently to the pur­pose; for that Mr. Leigh called for an instance of the child of a believing Parent, baptized at grown years. The Vir­gin Mary was a Believer.

Rob.

Tho Mr. Leigh did express himself in such general Terms, yet the whole strain of the discourse sufficiently manifests, he meant the child of such a believer as was properly Christian. The Virgin Mary was undoubtedly a believing Member of the Jewish Church; but this is not to our purpose; for we want an instance of the child of a Christian Parent, after Baptism was instituted by our Lord, that yet was baptized at grown years. The in­stance of our Saviour doth not agree to such a case as this is. For that Christianity, as distinguished from Iu­daism, had not then a being, and the Virgin Mary was not in this sense Christian, nor was baptism it self then instituted by our Lord; and therefore this instance can signify nothing to the case in hand.

Will.

I have given an instance of the Child of a believ­ing Parent, baptized at Age. Give us an instance of any Infant that was baptized.

L.

As for that. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not to be imitated in that particular.

Rus.

No?

VVill.

Do you prove he was not.

L.

If he were, then there is no Person to be baptized till 30 years of Age, nor baptized at all, unless Circum­cised at eight days old. And thus their Scripture instance, with their triumph upon it, vanished.

VVill.

I demand an instance of an Infant that was bap­tiz'd.

L.

I demand an express prohibition.

VVill.
[Page 32]

I demand an express prohibition of Salt, Cream, Oyl and Spittle.

L.

I Answer, (1.) The case is not parallel. You speak of the substance, we of the subjects of baptism. (2.) In­fants are included in the words, All Nations. But Salt, Cream, Oyl, &c. are not in the word Disciple, or Bap­tize.

Rob.

What need of an instance when we have a rule. Now, Mr. Chandler, if you please, you may take the Part of an Opponent. And prove our practice to be agree­able to Scripture.

Mr. Chandler turns Opponent.

Arg.

1. Chand. Visible Church Members ought to be baptized. But some Infants are visible Church Members. Therefore some Infants, &c.

Rus.

Adult believers may, but not Infants.

Rob.

What's this to the purpose we are upon? Which of Mr. Chandlers propositions do you deny?

Rus.

Let him repeat his Argument.

Chand.

Visible Church Members ought to be baptized, according to Christ's Commission. But some Infants are visible Church Members; There­fore, &c.

Rus.

I deny the Major. Mark that. The Dr. denies that visible Church Members ought to be baptized.

Chand.

That all visible Church Members are to be baptized, accord­ing to Christs Commission, I prove thus. If there be no Precept or Ex­ample in all the Word of God, since Christ ordain'd bap­tism, that makes any other ordinance the visible means of encring a Person into the visible Church, then visible Church Members ought to be baptized, But there is no, &c. Therefore.

Rus.

This is to say. Because they are Members, there­fore they are to be made Members.

Chand.

No. Because they are Members, they ought to be solemnly Recogniz'd as Members: Like the Coro­nation of a King. He is a King before he is Crown' [...] but he is Crown'd that he might be own'd as King.

VVill.

If baptism be the initiating ordinance into the Church, then they were not Church Members before.

Chand.
[Page 33]

I say, baptism is the solemn investing sign.

Rus.

That baptism is an initiating ordinance, I grant.

Rob.

This Argument was brought to prove that visible Church Members ought to be baptiz'd.

VVill.

I deny that Infants are visible Church Members in their Infancy. The Major is dropt, and he denies the Minor; after a while, you will find the Ma­jor silently taken up again.

L.

I'll prove that some Infants, are Church-Members in their Infan­cy; Suffer little Children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 19.14. Hence I ar­gue: Those that belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. the Church-Militant here upon Earth, are visi­ble Church-Members. But some Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, i, e. The Church-Militant here on Earth. Therefore,

Will.

I deny the Minor. That text proves it not.

L.

If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken any otherwise in this Text to make good sense of the Text, then it must be so taken, i. e. For the Church-Militant here on Earth. But it cannot be taken any otherwise to make good sense of the Text. Therefore &c: And this I prove by an Induction of particulars. There are vari­ous acceptations of this Expression, [ The Kingdom of Hea­ven] in the Word of God. Sometimes it signifys, The Laws and Promises of the Kingdom; it doth also signify the Graces by which we observe those Laws and believe those Promises. Thus it's represented by a grain of Mu­stard-seed. Sometimes the Kingdom of Glory. And sometimes it signifies the Church-Militant. Hence there­fore I thus argue.

If in this place it can neither signify the Laws and Promises of Gods Kingdom, nor the Graces by which we observe those Laws and Embrace those Promises, nor the Kingdom of Glory; then it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth. But it cannot signify either of the former. Therefore it must signify the last, viz. the Church-Militant.

Will.

I deny the Minor. I say it signifys the King­dom of Glory.

L.
[Page 34]

If it be nonsense so to understand the words then they are not so to be understood. But its nonsense, &c: For then the Kingdom of Glory must consist in part of poor little weak things, such as Infants are: Whereas after Death all are perfect in the Kingdom of Glory, whatever they are here on Earth.

Will.

I thought it had been, to such belongs the King­dom of Heaven.

Chand.

Mat. 19.14. In the Greek it is, [...], of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

L.

That is; of such it consists in part. If we mention the Kingdom of England or France, and say, of such is the Kingdom, &c. It's to be understood, In part it con­sists of these.

Will.

I deny that the Visible Church in part consists of these. If they are neither Members of the Universal Church, nor of a Particular Church, then the Church doth not in part consist of these; But, &c: Therefore, &c. He Answers not my Argument by mak­ [...] [...]ood sense of the [...] [...]ny other way. [...] now brea [...]'s rule [...] [...]ns Opponent.

L.

I Answer. Now you relin­guish my Medium. But farther, If they are Members of the Church at all, then they are Members of the Universal Church visible. But they are Members of the Church. There­fore, &c.

VVill.

I deny the Minor, i. e. That they are visible Mem­bers of the Church.

L.

There are two sorts of Members of the Universal Church. There are Members in foro Ecclesiae, and Mem­bers in foro Caeli. In which of these senses do you deny they are Members of the Church?

VVill.

If by the Church, you mean the visible Church, I deny your Minor. Here for about four or five lines, there is great confusion in what our scribes have written. But this I take to be the sense of it.

L.

If they are Members of the Church in any sense then they are Members of a Particular or the Universa [...] Church, and if of a Particular then of the Universa [...] which includes it; and therefore they are Members of the visible Church. But they are Members of the [Page 35] Church in some sense, and for Proof hereof I return to my Argument which you have not been able to Answer; Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. The Church Mili­tant.

VVill.

I distinguish, as to the Kingdom of Heaven: It's there meant of the Kingdom of Glory.

L.

If of the Kingdom of Glory, then it's nonsence. But, by the way, the Kingdom of Glory either is put for the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory. If the Happiness, then the words must run thus. Of such little Children is the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory. If the subjects, then thus. Of such little Children are the subjects of the Kingdom of Glory. Now neither of these is sense; Therefore cannot be meant: but my first interpreta­tion stands good still.

VVill.

I distinguish between a right Title and Possessi­on. Here is a vacancy—Three things. It's true, faith gives a right to baptism according to the Commission, a profession of that faith gives a right to the Administrati­on of that ordinance, and it's the Commission that au­thoriseth the Administrators.

Rus.

This Text you produce hath no Relation at all to the Commission, nor is Baptism in the least intended in the Text.

L.

Mr. Russel, I'll propose this question to you. Whe­ther, both what Christ said and did, together with what the Apostles said and did, be the best explication of Christs Commission? And then, whether, I may not ar­gue from Christs own Words, For visible Church Mem­bership and so for baptism?

Rus.

I do allow that what Christ said and did, and what the Apostles said and did, is a very good interpreta­tion of the Commission of our Lord. And I do say, that only adult Persons are intended in the Commission; And that the Apostles never did baptize any other than adult believers. Here he takes no notice of the second part which is the main of my Question.

L.

Then I hope, we may argue from Christs own Words. Did he speak pertinently or impertinently? If pertinently, how comes he to say, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, unless he meant the [Page 36] visible Church, which alone makes sense of the Text. But is this an Answer to my Question, to say that Adult believ­ers are only intended in the Commission?

Rus.

Yes, if your question relate to water baptism.

L.

If the Kingdom of Heaven in part consists of In­fants, then Infants ought to be baptized. But, &c. Therefore, &c.

Rob.

Pray Mr. Russel, which of Mr. Leighs proposi­tions do you deny?

L.

Give me an Answer directly.

Rus.

I demand an Exposition. What do you mean by the Kingdom of Hea­ven? Here the Dr. could not tell what to say, and therefore will have all over again.

L.

I mean the Church and King­dom of God here on Earth.

Rus.

I deny your Minor.

L.

I prove it from the forecited Scripture. If by the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 19. is signified the Church visible here on Earth; Then Infants do in part make up the Church. But &c: Therefore &c.

Rus.

I deny your Minor.

L.

If we must make good sense of Scripture then it must so signify. But &c.

Rus.

I deny the Consequence of your Major.

L.

If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken in any other signification to make good sense of it in that place, then it must so be taken. But it cannot &c: There­fore.

Rus.

I deny your Minor.

L.

If you can produce no other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture, Then &c.

Rus.

I deny the Consequence of your Major. It doth not follow because I cannot do it, that therefore it cannot be done.

L.

Then I say if neither you, nor any other person can produce any other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture, Then &c.

Rus.

Is this a good way of arguing? If it be, then it was so in me as well as you.

Rob.

Mr. Leigh. It was not fair, therefore not allowed them. You must not put the Proof upon the Respon­dent.

Leigh.
[Page 37]

I was not driving them to Proof, but going to prove my Assertion by an Induction of Particulars, as I have already done and that I shall do again.

If the Kingdom of Heaven here signifys neither the Laws nor Promises of the Kingdom, nor Graces by which these Laws and Promises are observed and embra­ced, nor Jesus Christ's Management of his Kingdom, nor the Glory of Heaven, nor the Subjects of Glory, then it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth. But it signifys neither of the former. Therefore the last. Reader, to repeat all this is Nauseous, but because the Dr. could do nothing else be would force us to it.

Rus.

I deny the Minor.

L.

I prove it by a Recapitulation of those Particulars. Of such little Children are the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom, of such are the Graces by which we observe and embrace them, of such is Christs Management of his Kingdom, of such is the Kingdom of Glory, of such is the Happiness or Subjects of Glory. Now is there any good sense in all this.

Rus.

Its meant of the Kingdom of Glory.

L.

By the Kingdom of Glory you must mean either the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom. If it be ta­ken for the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory, then I ask whether little Children are the Happiness of Heaven? If for the Subjects; then I ask whether of such consists the Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory, when every one be­longing to that Kingdom, i.e. as distinct from the Church-Militant, immediately upon his expiring is compleat, e­ven an Infant 3 days old?

Rus.

This is very uncharitable, to exclude Infants from Heaven. I would rather incline to say, and I am sure the contrary to it Mr. Leigh can never prove, that all Infants belong to the Kingdom of Glory, than that none do.

L.

Yes we know your Judgment of that matter well enough. But you wilfully misrepresent my sense. I do not say that none who dy Infants go to the Kingdom of Glory, but that none are Infants when they come there. But the Text says, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. This therefore is what I assert, that it is absurd to say that [Page 38] the Kingdom of Glory is, in any part of it, made up of weak imperfect things as little Infants are; And there­fore that the Kingdom of Heaven, here spoken of, must mean the Church-Militant here on Earth which is in part made up of such,

Here Mr. Russel was silent for a considerable time. And thus to no purpose but to spen [...] time Mr. Russel would have the same over again.

Rob.

What Mr. Russel have you no reply to make to all this; Pray, if you have any thing to say, let us hear it; Otherwise, be so kind as to tell the People, you can give no Answer, that we may go on to some what further.

Rus.

My Answer is this. That whereas you have un­dertaken to prove that Infants are the Subject [...] of Bap­tism, according to Christs Commission, you bring a Text for it that hath neither the word Baptism in it nor the Commission of our Lord. This poor dry eva­sion, you see, he hath before, and i [...] beholden to his old Friend Dan­vers for.

L.

Very well then. If we prove from any Text of Scripture the right of Infants to Baptism, it must not be allowed, unless we find it in the close of the Evangelists, where is what you call the Commission; or unless the word Baptism be in it.

Rob.

Mr. Russel. They are not obliged to have the mention either of Baptism or the Commission of our Lord in the conclusion of every Syllogism. They had it in the first. They then told you; That such as were Mem­bers of the Church-Militant on Earth were to be Baptiz'd according to the Commission of our Lord. And this was the case of some Infants. You denyed any Infants were Members of Christs Kingdom, or Church-Militant here on Earth, and to prove this they brought that Text. And I suppose the whole company was satisfy'd that it doth sufficiently prove what it was produced for. And now you dare not deny the Major; if you do I doubt not but they are ready to prove it.

VVill.

If Church Members have been denyed Bap­tism, then Church-Membership is not the ground of Bap­tism, [Page 39] but &c. Here he shifts the Respondency and turns Opponent, which we give way to, because they could do nothing else.

L.

I deny the Minor.

VVil.

If Church-Members came to Iohn to be Baptized, and were de­nyed, then Church-Membership is is not the Ground of Baptism. But &c.

L.

I deny the Minor.

VVill.

I prove it, Mat. 3. When he saw the Multitude and many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his bap­tism, he said to them; O Generation of Vipers, &c.

L.

I deny that they were de jure, Church Members what­ever they were, de facto. Their being a Generation of Vipers is sufficient to prove, they were not Church Mem­bers, De jure; And we are speaking of rightful Church Members.

VVill.

I have proved that Church Members were deni­ed baptism.

L.

I deny it and distinguish between Church Mem­bers, De jure & De facto.

Will.

I will not meddle with your distinctions.

Rob.

And can you think that the word Church-Mem­bers cannot possibly admit of more senses than one?

L.

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? Here he drops his Argument, to prove that Church Member­ship is not the ground of baptism.

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.
[Page 40]

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 [...] 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. Observe how he leaves his Argument, and runs to what had been worn thredbare before.

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? The poor Man runs again from consequence [...]o express words, tho consequence was allow­ed before.

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. Remember, this re­fers to the Subjects on­ly, not the m [...]in [...].

VVill.

We agree, that those that are not baptized ought to be bapti­zed. [Page 41] 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. Now you see the Dr. very plainly takes the Opponency, because he could do nothing else; contrary to his most false assertion in his Narrative.

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 [...]he [...]hing upon such silly foundations. A wise Answer from a silly Doctor; is it not?

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. This was fully Answer before, there­fore it was tedious for Scribes to write it. 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 [Page 42] 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.

[...] 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, a [...] [...]p [...] the Law of Moses, they could not be saved. Now says the Apostle, Why do you lay a Yoke upon the neck o [...] the Disciples &c: This Yoke was the Yoke of Circumcision, which was laid on the neck of some In­fants.

Rus.
[Page 43]

No Infants can be here intended, for those, who are called Disciples in this verse, are called Brethren and Believers in the 9 th verse. And therefore it could not intend infants.

L.

We will read verse the First. Except ye be Circumci­sed after the manner of Moses. Now I ask you what was the manner of Moses?

Rus.

To cut the foreskin of their Flesh.

L.

Suppose we were to teach this People, as the Juda­izing Christians did them; Except you are Circumcised after the manner of Moses you can't be saved, no doubt but they would understand the manner of Moses to intend, not only all the Circumstances of it, but, that their Chil­dren must also be Circumcised, this being after the man­ner of Moses. Here I will form this Argument. If those are called Disciples who were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses, Then Infants are Disciples. But, &c: And so ought to be Baptized. Now they themselves allow that Disciples ought to be Baptized.

Rus.

It's the Gentile Believers that are there called Disciples.

Chand.

It is all upon whom the Yoke of Circumci­sion was laid, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear.

Will.

They could bear the Yoke of Circumcision.

Chand.

They were not able to bear it. The Holy Ghost says so expresly; which signifys the Painfullness and Troublesomeness of that Ordinance.

L.

What you say of moment is this. That Children are able to bear the Yoke of Circumcision, therefore that Yoke is not there intended, but the whole Ceremonial Law. We allow the Ceremonial Law was included, but Circumcision was here chiefly intended.

Will.

If Circumcision was binding to keep the whole Law, then this is not the Yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. But it was so, Gal. 5.3.

L.

Thus far I think the old Gentleman is in the right, that the Apostles are here and in the Epistle to the Gal. endeavouring the same thing, driving them off from the observation of the Ceremonial Law. But herein he is [Page 44] mistaken, He would leave out Circumcision, one of the prime and most painful parts of this Law, and so would leave out those Infants whom th [...]se Iudaizing Christians advised to be Circumcised.

Rus.

Prove that Infants are there intended.

L.

If the context do oblige us to take in Infants, then they are there intended. But the context, &c. Ergo. It is a reproof of, or reasoning with, those that were in­clined to impose Circumcision on the Necks of the Dis­ciples, and with it the whole Law of Moses, v. 5. They were strictly observant of Moses's Law, Nothing is more plain and obvious to one observant of Moses's Law than to Circumcise Infants at eight days old. And consequently nothing would they urge more on these Disciples.

Rus.

If they be such as Here is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes. had their hearts purified by faith, brethren, &c.

L.

That's not necessary. Their being barely the Infants of these Disciples was enough. If I were to act the part of a Judaizing Chri­stian, and were to perswade all these Gentlemen that they were to observe Circumcision according to the Law of Moses; And did call those Disciples, who were so Circumcised; Would they not take it to be sufficiently plain, that their Infants were intended as well as them­selves. And therefore, that I called their Infants Dis­ciples.

Rus.

If you bring a Text, and I shew you several weighty considerations, why it should not be understood in your sense. I expect not such [...]tories as these.

Rob.

Is it not enough, if Mr. Leigh shews that this Text will admit of no other sense?

Will.

If so be, that children were brought in, it would not follow that they were Disciples, for those that were Circumcised were not Disciples.

L.

You say, the Qualification was, they must be be­lievers and have their hearts purified by faith. I Answer. These Judaizing Christians would perswade them to Circumcise after the manner of Moses, And so to take the Yoke not only themselves, but also on their Infants. Now all [Page 45] these, without distinction, on whom this Yoke was about to be laid are called Disciples, and therefore their Infants.

VVill.

After the manner of Moses [...] Th [...]e relates to the Form, not the Subjects. Here again is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes.

Rob.

Here hath been a great deal of time spent about this Argument. The Substance of what was said on both sides is this: Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh have urged, that such as are Disciples of Christ ought to be baptized, and that some Infants are Disciples of Christ. This Mr. Rus­sel deny's; and they have proved it from this, That some Infants are call'd Disciples by the Spirit of God. This also Mr. Russel hath deny'd; So that the whole Questi­on result's to this head: Whether any Infants be in Scrip­ture call'd Disciples? Now this hath been, I think, suffici­ently clear'd from this Text, Act. 15.10. where the Per­sons call'd Disciples are those, upon whom the Judaiz­ing Christians would have imposed the Yoke of Circumci­sion. The Doctrine, they taught the Christian Gentiles, was, That their Christianity would avail them nothing, It was to no purpose tho' they did Believe in Christ; un­less they were also Circumcised according to the Law of Moses, they could not be saved. You all know what the Law of Moses doth prescribe and command in this case, not only, that they themselves, but that every Male Child among them should be Circumcised.

Rus.

It is not according to the Law of Moses, but after the manner of Moses.

Rob.

Mr. Russel, it's true; it's after the manner of Mo­ses in the First verse, but if you look forward into the Chapter, you will find express mention of the Law of Moses. You must be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. v. 5th. I suppose you that have so oft read this Chapter, could not but be sensible that such an Expressi­on was there, tho' not in the first verse; And therefore the distinction you will pretend to make between the Law of Moses and the Manner of Moses, was but a meer Evasion, and in this case a Distinction without Diffe­rence. The one explains the other. That which is call'd their being Circumcised after the manner of Moses, [Page 46] in one place, is called their being Circumcised and Keep­ing the Law of Moses in the other place. They must be Circumcised as Moses did order, so that his Law might be observed and fulfilled in the doing of it; which it could not be, tho they themselves were Circumcised never so regularly, unless their Infants were so too. And yet the whole Body of those on whom the Pharisees would have imposed the Yoke of Circumcision, are here ex­pressly call'd Disciples; This whole Body of Adult and Infants are therefore in common included under this Name, which was all that we had to prove. And we are now willing to refer it to the People, whether what hath been said be not sufficient Proof. If you please there­fore, we will now proceed to the Second question. Pray Mr. Chandler, let the Company understand what it is.

Reader, Here observe. We were ready (as before men­tion'd) to offer several other Arguments, but no tollerable Answer being given to those two, neither the Rules of Dis­putation did oblige us, nor the Company's patience, and the approaching evening allow us to do it, unless the Second Question were wholly excluded.

Q. 2.

Whether, according to the Commission of our Lord, Baptism be to be Administred by Dipping, Plung­ing, or Overwhelming only, and not otherways. It lies upon you to prove, that it is by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming only.

Rus.

The Holy Scripture shews the way of baptizing. But it doth not shew that sprinkling is the way. Therefore, &c. Here observe a­gain. Dr. Russel would shift the Opponency on us.

L.

This Argument doth not prove, that it is by Dipping, &c. Only.

Rob.

Conclude with the Words of the Question.

Rus.

I understand you own, it was in use in our Savi­ours time. Here the Dr. spake several impertinencies, which our Scribes thought not worth the Writing.

L.

I deny all this.

Rob.

Bring it into an Argument.

Rus.

I put it into a Syllogism. I say, If the Holy Scrip­tures do shew us the right way of Baptizing, according [Page 47] to Christ's appointment, and yet do not shew us that sprinkling is the way of Baptizing, then Sprinkling is not the right way of Baptizing. But &c: Therefore &c.

Rob.

There is not one word of Sprinkling in the Que­stion. It is, whether it be to be administred by Dip­ping, Plunging, Overwhelming, only.

Rus.

I argue thus then. If the Holy Scriptures —He goes on as before.

Rob.

Pray Mr. Russel.

Rus.

What? Can't I begin to speak, but you must still be Interrupting me. I don't speak to you. I speak to Mr. Chand. If the Holy Scriptures shew us the right way of Baptizing and yet do not shew us that Sprink­ling.—

Rob.

If you would but observe order, you should have no Interruption from me. But you both must and shall conclude your Argument with the words of the Question, before Mr. Respondent shall take any notice of it.

Rus.

Must and shall Mr. Moderator?

Rob.

Yes Mr. Russel you both must and shall. Other­wise it were fitter you should call me Mr. Cypher, then Mr. Moderator, if in this case I cannot Moderari.

Rus.

If chat Baptism which is appointed by Christ and doth properly set forth his Burial and Resurrection is the only right way of Baptizing, then it must be performed by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming only and not o­therways. But that baptism, &c. Is the only right way, &c. Therefore, &c.

Chand.

I first deny the Consequence of the Major. And then I deny the Minor.

Rus.

Then you do suppose, that it doth represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, yet it doth not thence follow, that this is the only right way of baptizing.

My Argument hath two parts which I shall prove. First, That it doth set forth the Burial and Resur­rection of Jesus Christ. Secondly, That therefore it is the only, right way of baptizing. First, It doth set forth the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Buried with Christ in baptism, wherein also [Page 48] you are risen with him through the faith of the Opera­tion of God. And, I do say that, Buried with Christ in his Sepulchre we cannot possibly be, but the Apostle says, we are Buried with him in baptism, which doth properly represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, Now I proceed to the next, to shew that therefore it is the only right way. If there was no other baptism in­stituted by Christ, nor practised by the Apostles and first Ministers of the Gospel, but what doth represent the Bu­rial and Resurrection of Christ; Then Dipping only is the right way of baptizing. But, &c. Therefore, &c.

Chand.

This is not the Consequence of the Major. You are to prove that, because baptism is significant of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ; Therefore it must be by Dipping only.

Rus.

Therefore I argue thus. If this was the only way practised in those times, then it must be by dipping only. Reader. Observe, That the Dr. grounds his practice upon two Arguments link'd toge­ther, viz. The resem­blance between Dipping and a Burial. And Primitive Practice. Mr. Chandler, denies this resemblance between Dipping and Burial, to conclude for Dip­ping. And he ought to have proved that it doth; but instead there­of, he insists upon his second Argument drawn from Primitive pra­ctice. Hereupon there was no room (without contention) to urge any thing more against their first Argument. But you have it suffici­ently Answered in the brief Confutation.

Chand.

I deny the Minor.

Rus.

If there be any other way, then you or some other Person is able to shew it. But, &c.

Chand.

I can shew you another way—I can shew that the word signifies Washing, and there is great Probability that many had water poured on them.

Rus.

Give an instance in the New Testament, that any was baptized any other way.

L.

We argue upon a Probability, It might be otherwise than by Dip­ping; there is no necessity of Dipping. If you'll grant that, we will go upon somewhat else, viz. That it must be in our climate according to our way. But if not; you must prove that there is no Probability, that it might be done any other way than by Dipping.

Rus.

Let us hear then what the Scripture says in this matter.

L.
[Page 49]

Prove that those Texts where you render [baptism] by dipping, do truly and necessarily signify Dipping. Take what Text you will.

Rus.

I chuse that of our Saviour, Mar. 1.9. He was baptized of Iohn in Iordan. The Greek preposition is, [...]. Into. And to say, he was washed of John into Jordan is not sense; therefore it ought to be render'd thus, He was dipped of John into Jordan.

L.

The preposition, [...], signifies [ in] in the New Te­stament, as well as into; so here, he was baptized of Iohn in Iordan, is the true sense of the Greek.

Now we will allow thus far. That what was com­modious and usually practised on other occasions without any burthen, in that warm Country, might be observed in baptism. It is said, that all Iudea and the Country round came to Iohn and were baptized of him in Iordan. In those hot Countreys the custom was to go bare leg'd, in sandals. Now they might go into Iordan a little way, and then have water pour'd upon them; and if so, al­lowing that the Word [...] signifies to wash, They might be said in this manner to be washed in Jordan, without the least necessity of Dipping. I will offer it to the Com­pany whether this be not a fair interpretation of those words, Mar. 1.9. Christ came to Iohn and was baptized of him in Iordan, i.e. He went a step into the water, and was washed of him, in the manner aforesaid.

Rus.

I will not allow your signification of the word. I say the word, [...] signifies more than, In; So Christ is said to come into the world, [...] Excellent Greek. [...], 1 Tim. 1.15. He went into the Sy­nagogue, [...]: And so into Iordan, [...] Good Greek still. [...]. This doth imply, that he was Baptized or dipt into Jordan, as those other Texts, that he came into the Synagogue, &c.

L.

This Gentleman produceth three places where [...] signifys into, and I can produce three times three, where it cannot signify into, but must signify Here we were go­ing to read, but they gave no room. In. The force of your Ar­gument lies upon [...] which you would have render'd Into, where it [Page 50] signify's In. Then, add this to what I offer'd before, as a pro­bable Interpretation contrary to yours, it's evident that there's no necessity of Dipping, from this Text.

Rob.

There can be nothing beyond a probability assert­ed on our side or yours.

Chand.

Well, prove that [...] signifys abluo, To wash frequently in Scripture. Thither we will go, That's our tale.

Rus.

According to all Lexicographers the primary sig­nification of the word [...] is, mergo, immergo, to Plunge, Overwhelm.

L.

But by the way, you prove your Practice from the Prime and Native Signification of the word. Suppose it were mergo, to Plunge, and not abluo, (which yet we deny) You cannot argue from the Native Signification of a word, with any force, when the Scripture acceptation of it is different.

Rus.

I did urge the Commission of our Saviour:

Chand.

You are to prove that Dipping is the only way. If the word will bear the sense of washing or pouring wa­ter, then dipping is not the only way.

L.

You argue from the Prime and Native Significati­of the word. I'll appeal to the Learned. If this be a good way of arguing; Then the Mathematics must include all kind of Learning. Because it come's from [...] to learn. Then every Youth that is skill'd but a little in Phy­sicks, may be call'd a Physician, because it comes from [...]. Nay, and every Foot-boy, sent with a Letter, maybe called an Angel, because [...] signifies Messenger. To know therefore the sense of the word [...] in this ordinance, we must consider in what sense the word is usually taken in Scrip­ture. And to say it signify's to Dip, where the ordinance is mention [...]d, is plainly to beg the Question, to assert the thing without proof; Therefore, rightly to understand the sense of the word, we must have recourse to those places where the word is used, and the ordinance not intended. Now I re­quire one such place of Scripture where the word [...] signify's to dip necessarily.

Rus.

No there is no need of producing such a place. I shall prove it from the story of the Eunuch and Philip. He commanded the Chariot to stand still, and they both [Page 51] went down into the water, and then, when he had put him under water, The Text Ac. 8, 38. hath not a word of putting him under the water. they both came out of the water.

L.

I deny that the word [Bap­tize] signifys to dip in any place of Scripture, or to put under water. i. e. Necessarily.

Rus.

Mat. 3.6. They were Baptized, i.e. dip't of Iohn in Iordan.

L.

How doth it appear that they were dip'd?

Rus.

The Assembly, The Continuators of Pool, Calvin, Dr. Hammond allow it.

Chand.

That's nothign to us. I defye you to prove that the word [...] in any Text of Scripture signify's to dip.

Rus.

What then? You deny what Dr. Hammond, the Assembly, the Dutch Annotations have said.

L.

We cannot say they have said so. We have not their Books at hand to turn to. Besides, suppose they should, that's no Proof. We are no Papists, to pin our faith on other Mens Sleeves.

In the next place. Whereas Mr. Russel hath brought the passage of Philip and the Eunuch, That they went down into the water and came up out of the water. It might as well be render'd, They went to and came from the water So the Greek Pre­positions often signify.. Now if they came by a River's side, they might go down out of a Chariot to the water, and when the Eunuch was Baptized, they came up from the water. Is not this a fair sense of these words? They went to and came from the wa­ter Where is dip­ping to be found in this Text?. Again if you argue from the word [...], I can tell you of Se­ven Places, where the word is used and not applyed to the ordinance, And you cannot prove that it signify's to dip in any of them. I argue then. If there are several Texts of Scripture, where the word cannot possibly bear this sense; Then it doth not necessa­rily bear it. But &c.

Rus.

I deny the Minor.

L.

I prove it by some Instances; Mark. 7.4. Except [Page 52] they wash, they eat not: [...] except they be Baptized. But can it be imagined that they were plun­ged over head and ears every time they went to meals?

Rus.

The word is sometimes render'd dipping in our English Translation, as, He that dippeth with me in the [...]ish.

L.

The word is there [...], not [...]; besides, this would avail your cause but little, for can you sup­pose that he dip't himself over head and ears in the dish?

A Gentleman in the Company.

I'm sure he would be foul and fawcy then.

Rus.

But [...], is a Diminutive from [...],

A Gentleman said to his Neighbour.

Because [...], is a smaller word, be thinks it must be its Diminutive. This whole passage hath been attested by the Person that spake the words.

L.

I find the word to signify no more then [...], Mark. 7.4, 5. And so Naaman is said to observe the Prophets word, which was [...], yet he went, and; as we read, dipped. Now since he observed the command of the Prophet, it is plain that [...] doth not necessarily signify any thing but washing.

Rus.

What is the word in the Hebrew?

Chan.

There are two words, [...] and [...]: And the Prophet commanded him, [...]; and it is added, ac­cording to the word of the Prophet, [...], where it is plain the words are used promiscuously; and [...] signi­fies no more than [...]. So also we may observe, Christ commanded the blind man to wash in the Pool of Silo­am. Must it be said, that he was dipt there? or can it be proved that Naaman was dipt, because [...]. Nay, [...] is so far from always signifying to dip, th [...] [...] it self, tho [...] in this sense, yet sometimes signifies only to [...]. Thus Dan. 4.33. Nebuchad­nezzar [...] with the Dew of Heaven. The Septuagint renders it [...].

Rus.

But the Hebrew is not [...].

Chan.

What is it then? Here is an Hebrew Bible, if you'll see.

[Page 53]Here the Hebrew Bible was handed to him, of Leusden's 2d Edit. and Mr. Russel kept it turning from place to place above [...] a quarter of an hour, and could not find out the Book of Daniel, upon which the People fell a hissing. Than the Hebrew Bible was handed to Mr. Ro­binson who [...] the leaf down at the place, and handed it back again to Mr. Russel, who stood with his Spectacles on his nose, a while longer, poring on it, but could not read it. But he said, he understood Hebrew before Mr. Chandler was born, We have good In­telligence that the Dr. puzzl'd thus on the same Word, at a Publick Disputation sometime before. and to satisfy the Auditory that he did so, turn'd to the First Chapter of Genesis, where he read some part of a verse, or verses. And then again turned to Daniel, and could not read the words yet. After some time more, Mr. Russel pretend­ed to read some words, but with a low Voice.

Chand.

We come not here, Mr. Russel, to know whe­ther you understand Hebrew, only tell us what the word is in this place. Which he could not do.

L.

We can produce several other texts of Scripture, where [...] cannot signify Dipping, as where we read of their washing Beds or Tables, the word is Bap­tize according to the Greek.

Rus.

I deny it.

Chand.

There is [...],—

L.

What wash Beds, or Tables, by Dipping them 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 shew­bread, 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 [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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.

W. SMITH.

Some Iust Reflections on Dr. Russel's pre­tended Narrative.

'TIS with great Regret, that we are again diverted from more p [...]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 an [...]ther thing, than it truly was, are undoubtedly to be call'd Falshoods. Should any one pretend­ing [Page 57] 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 Practice in Baptizing Infants, happily retort­ed the Argument upon themselves, and challeng'd them to pro­duce one Instance of their Practice, as theirs differs from ours. For all that know us, know we also baptize such as are adult, up­on the Profession of the Christian Faith, that were not baptiz'd in Infancy: Nay, that we should refuse to baptize the Child of an Heathen, or other Notorious Infidel, (unless adopted by some Christian) till he become adult, and make a credible Profession of Christianity. Mr. Leigh therefore press'd them for one Scrip­ture Instance of a believing, meaning a Christian Parents Child, whose Baptism was delay'd till adult. And withal, told them, That from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. Iohn, accor­ding to the computation of the Learned, was about 60 years, in which compass of Time, multitudes of Christians Children were become adult. Dr. Russel mention'd Constantine the Great as a Scripture-Instance, which was justly ridicul'd: Mr. Williams, as he acknowledg'd to us afterwards, thought it not of any Force, and by the intimation of his Son, alledges the Instance of our Lord, as born of a Believer, of the Virgin Mary. To which Mr. Leigh reply'd, I thought we had been speaking of the Commissi­on; now this was before the Commission. Intimating, that the In­stance was not pertinent, relating to a Baptism that preceeded the Commission of our Lord; and therefore our Disputation was no way concern'd in it. Notwithstanding this, Dr. Russel would have it a pertinent Answer, Christ being the Child of a Believer. And to this he reports no Answer, but makes Mr. Leigh seek to be Opponent upon it, as if confounded with this Instance, pag. 35. Whereas, immediately upon the Reply of Dr. Russel, Mr. Robinson, our Moderator, adds, Tho Mr. Leigh express'd himself in so general Terms, yet the whole strain of the Discourse did suffici­ently manifest that an Instance of the Child of a Believer, properly Christian, was call'd for: Now the Virgin Mary was a Iew, and not then a Christian: Nor was Christian Baptism then instituted. With more to the same purpose. Mr. Leigh also further reply­ed, That Christ was not to be imita [...]ed in that, because then no Person: [Page 58] ought to be baptized till 30; not except circumcis'd at 8 days old, as the Reader may set in the foregoing Narrative. After which Dr. Russel offer'd nothing. Now we appeal to all the World, whether when so large and distinct a Reply was made, both by Mr. Robinson and Mr. Leigh, this man hath fairly represented our Cause, when he takes no notice at all of it. But if this Gentleman, or any of his Friends, can yet produce one Scrip­ture-Instance of the Child of a Christian Parent, baptiz'd at grown years, it will be somewhat to the purpose; and they may ha [...]e the confidence to call for Instances from us, and to pretend that theirs (as distinguish'd from ours) is the Scripture-way, and most agreeable to the Commission of our Lord: But till then how unreasonable is it for them to expect Instances of our way, when they have none to produce for their own?

Again he hath omitted to tell the World, (what all that were present well Remember,) that he was put to Silence by what was urg'd from Mat. 19.14. to prove Infant Members of the Church-Militant upon Earth. Insomuch that after a long Silence, Mr. R [...]binson call'd to him, and ask'd if he had no reply to make and beg'd of him that if he had any thing to say he would speak; otherwise tell the People that we might proceed. To which Dr. Russel made a very weak reply▪ that in this Text there is not a word of Baptism, or the Commission; and Mr. W. instead of Answering took the Oppenancy, as in the Narrative. But not one word more from that Argument could be got from Dr. Russel.

Besides tho' he hath conceal'd yet he cannot (himself) ha [...] forgotten, that the 2d. Argument on our pa [...]t, where he was again Silence [...] was sum'd up by Mr. Robinson in the words o [...] our Na­rative: Then we refer'd i [...] to the Gentlemen present, whether we should offer any more Argument on the 1st Question, and [...] was thought wholly needless. Mr. Robinsons closing Speech on the 2d. Question, is also whol [...]y omitted.

We forbear to mention here, how he hath omitted such passa­ges as did sufficiently expose his Ignorance to the Learned part of the company: Such a [...] were his telling us once and again, that [...] was [...]f the Masculine Gender, agreeing with [...] when Greek Verbs admit not of Genders, tho' Hebrew do; and his saying [...] as if it had been with an Omega and I Consonant. So [...]. Faults for which a School Boy would deserve the lash.

And when he was not allow'd to conclude his first Argument▪ on the 2d. Question, otherwise than with the word of the Que­stion, it will be Remember'd (tho' his Narrative hath not told us,) with how great difficulty he form'd his Syliegism, [Page 59] and how many attempts he made before he could bring the words of the Question, into the conclusion: Insomuch that our Moderator offer'd him his Assistance.

These and several other particulars which quite a [...]ter the Face of the Disputation, were by no means to be omitted: Nei­ther can that be call'd a True Narrative, that suppresseth [...]he Truth in such Instances as these.

2. This Narrative is false, in regard of its strange misplacing some Particulars: on which account the Reader can form no true Idea of the Disputation. So, for instance, wh [...] h [...] [...]ays concerning [...], and [...] page 34. ( [...] is true) should have come in in the midst of Mr William's ram­bling Discourse, betwixt Dr. Russel's 4th and 5th Arguments; and that about the Beasts of the Field, should have had its place betwixt the 1st and 2d Argument on our part for Infant Baptism; when Mr. Williams and Russel were both Rambling again. And had they been found in their proper places, as in Mr. Ring's Co­py, which Narrative Russel pretends to transcribe, they would only have serv'd to expose the Weakness of him that brought them. But as he hath plac'd them here, they serve to hide the shameful Baffle they and their Cause had by the Arguments on our side. For, as was said before, they never re-assum'd the Opponency on the fi rst Question, after the closing up the Argu­ment from Infants Discipleship. Tho Dr. Russel brings in these Two Arguments, as if they went off with Triumph, to the 2d Question. Which yet every Judicious Auditor Knows to be False. Lesser slips we pass by.

3. He hath forg'd several downright Falshoods; one of which is just under our Eye, with relation to what is immdiately be­fore said, and therefore (tho a little out of its place [...] men­tion it here. He [...] tells the World, that [...] said, they might take up the [...]ponency again, if they pleas'd: And again, that be re-assum'd the Opponen [...]y again, at Mr. Leigh' s Reque [...]t of which h [...] was sick. With much of the same sort, page 34. Which is the meer Figment of his own Brain, and not one Sy [...]able of it True. The Omission of [...] things that were [...]aid, tho' it alter the Face of the Disputation, might be Impu [...]d to a weak Imperfect Copy: But this must nee [...]s be a Contriv'd and Deli­berate Falshood; nor hath he a right to be Believ'd in any thing, that dare Forge and Publish such an untruth.

But because the Preface is almost one continued Falshood, we shall particularly take notice of it.

1. He declares Mr. Bows and Mr. Webber were the sole cause of his being Engag'd in the Disputation, whereas Mr. W [...]b­ber hath declar'd to Mr. Smith and Mr. Chandler, that he utter­ly, [Page 60] disliked the dispute from the Beginning, and was only thus far concern'd; seeing they would Engage he advis'd rather to Dr. Russel than Mathew Cassin, whom Mr. Bows had pitch'd upon. A Man that denys both the Deity and Humanity of Christ, against whom Dr. Russel hath Printed an Honest Pro­testation. And this Man tho' overturning the Fundamentals of Christianity is hugg'd by Mr. Bows: Because he agrees with him, in the darling Notions of Believers Baptism by dipping; Which, he told the Worshipful the Mayor of Portsmouth, was a Fundamental of Religion. Thus uncharitably doth this Man shut us all out of Heaven, and confine Religion to his own par­ty, while a denyer of Christs Deity and Humanity hath been since, as well as before the Disputation, admitted into his Pul­pit, while he, as a Messenger of the Churches, was travelling busily to spread false Reports against us.

2. Another falshood which is indeed from the wrong Infor­mation of Mr. Leddell, (that Man of heat, which much Water cannot Quench,) is this; that he should twice go to Mr. Smith to compare Copys and he refus'd to do so, altho' his Copy, was then finish'd. This is a downright falshood as appears by the annexed Testimonial.

To convince the World of the falseness of what is said in the 2 Page of the first leaf of Dr. Russel's Dedication, with Respect to my self; I do declare, that Mr. William Leddel never came to me but once, wh [...] he ask'd me whether I had Transcrib'd what I wrote at the Disputation I told him I had not, but intended to do it. He farther said if I had, when I had done it, he desired to have it to read over; and I sho [...] have Mr. Samuel Rings Coppy which was Transcribed; to which Answered, that I had but an Imperfect Account of the Matter, which I Believe is the most that any Scribe who wrote at the dispute, could truly say of what they wrote, it being so full of confusion occasion [...] thro' the Anabaptists lo [...]se and shuffling way of Arguing. Mr. Le [...] ­del des never intimated to me any design they had to Prim the Disputation nor did I think they really intended any such thing; because not long [...] fore, In my own and several other Persons hearing, Mr. Leddel did [...] tell against Printing it. I had not when he came to me Transcribe one word from my Copy, neither was it finished till about 14 Day since; had I known their design of Printing I would have gotten my [...] ready for them: Which might have prevented Dr. Russel from [...] so many untruths to the World.

William Smith

The Truth of the above Relation, I do attest; being present when Mr Leddell came to Mr. Smith, and knowing what is said about the time of Transcribing his Coppy to be True.

William Wallen.

3. It is false that Mr. Chandlers Sermons were the occasion of the Dispute, and much more, that this is agreed to by us. As he asserts pr. pag. 2. We are all of Opinion, Mr. Bow's Impu­dent cha [...]l [...]ng was the occasion of it, tho' Mr. Chandlers Ser­mons were the innocent occasion of that challenge. So that ac­cording to the Proverb, he might as well have said Tenterden Steeple was the cause of Goodwin Sands.

4. It is false that it lay upon us to prove our Practice, when in the Preliminary [...] they that made the challenge undertook to be Asserters, and Dr. Russel took the Opponency upon him­self: He hath also abus'd Dr. Smith, who told him as he was Assertor he must prove, but Negantis non est probare.

5. It is false that as he says pr. pag. 8. Mr. Robinson should in the midst of the dispute give him the lye, and yet could not make any thing out about it. This sentence contains as many Falshoods as can possibly be crowded into so narrow a com­pass. That Mr. Robinson speaks with a loud voice, is what all that know him, know to be false. Yet this Gentleman ven­tures to say pag. 13. he bawl'd very loud; again pag. 35. Mr Robinson stood up, made a noise like one in a Delirious Pa­roxysm. What doth the Man mean to Write at such a rate as this? Surely he thinks loud lies will do no hurt.

And that Mr. Robinson ever did in the Disputation give him the lye, (as far as can by himself or Freinds be Recollected, or be made appear by any Copys then taken) is wholly untrue; and 'tis strange (if this Dignify'd Dr. So well Remember it) that he could find no place for it in his Narrative; that so the Circum­stances that attended it, might have assisted our Memories.

Yet (that we may not wrong him,) Mr. Leigh owns the words as his: That without a Complement it was a lie in him, to insinuate to the People, as if Mr. Leigh would have all In­fants excluded from Heaven.

Besides he intimates, upon giving him the lie, there was a challenge made to the party to prove it, and yet he could make nothing out about it. Whereas there was never any such challenge given, and we are ready to prove to his Face, that in the Disputation it self he told more lies than one; tho' he should not have had that coarse Complement from any of [Page 62] us, Had he but behav'd himself like a Scholar or a Gentleman▪

6. It is false that Mr. [...] said that Mr. Ro­binson exceede [...] the bounds of a [...] or abus'd Dr. Russel in [...] whole that Mr. Francis Willia [...]s said was [...] Iohn [...]iliiams com­plain'd that [...], he reply'd; if he did so, [...] But, as to Mr. Robinson's abusing [...] never said or thought any such thing. [...] said under this head, but th [...] unexpected [...] of O [...]d Mr Iohn Williams, restrained our [...] God he [...] gone to give his account, and we shall [...] of [...] is grave.

7. It is a false Misrep [...]ese [...]ation, that M [...] Farr [...]l should ac­knowledge they gain'd any Credit to their c [...]use by the Disputati­on, as appears by the following extract of a Letter from him.

‘I Solemnly appeal to the great God, who [...]est knows what were my words, that to the best of my Remembrance, I spake to Mr. Williams after this manner. Mr. Williams, I must tell you, and that not as mine own Sentiment only, but (I Believe I may speak it,) as the Sentiments of the rest of my Brethren, that whatever Credit (not your cause) but ye may have gain'd, is wholly owing unto you. To which Mr. Willi­ams rep [...]y'd, don't Sir put that upon me. I Answer'd, I will speak it, for you argu'd with more Simplicity, and less Subtilty, than Russel, and so were the fairer Dispu [...]ant. These words thus in Civility spoken, had a plain Reference, not to the cause disputed, but Persons disputing; not to the strength of Argument▪ but form and manner of arguing, (many things Mr. Farrel offers that shew this was his sense, which we think it needless to repeat, b [...]cause the words thus Circumstanc'd carry their own Evidence with them,) he concludes his Letter thus—I now leave, it to the Judgment of the Ingenuous, whether it can be fairly deduc'd from my words, that we were conscious of any Credit gain'd by them to their cause, or whether they are not consci­ous their cause was wounded, and interest sinking, when they readily catch at so vain a shadow to support their Cause and Reputation. I will add no mo [...]e, but that having perus'd the Nar­rative, find it so full of Fraud, Partiality, Falshood, and Misre­presentation; that this Instance may serve as a Specimen, if not of the whole, yet of the greatest part. Attested by George Farrel.

8. It is False, that the Advertisement in the Post-Man was ours. And we cannot but stand amaz'd at the Confidence of the man who dares say any thing. It was well Known to Old Mr. Iohn Williams, before he left Gosport, that the Honourable Colo­nel [Page 63] Gibson sent up that Advertisement. He generously allow'd us to mention him as the Author of it, and hath given the an­nex'd Testimonial in Confirmation of it.

By Colonel IOHN GIBSON, Lieu­tenant Governour of Portsmouth, &c.

I do hereby Certify all whom it may any way con­cern, That the Advertisement put in the Printed Paper commonly called, The Post-Man, upon the 25th day of February, in relation to the Debate betwixt the Presbyterians and Anabaptists, held at the Presbyterian Meeting-house at Portsmouth, upon the 22d day of February; I say, the said Advertisement was inserted, as above, by my Dire­ction. I do also own, I was then, and am still of the same Opinion as mentioned in the above-said Ad­vertisement.

J. GIBSON.

This we are well assur'd Dr. Russel knew, as being told so, by some of Mr. Chandlers Friends at the Coffee-House in Alderjgate­street: when he gave the Honourable Lieutenant Governour such Scurrilous Names, as we will not foul our Paper with. Notwithstanding this, this Man hath the Impudence, to dedi­cate his false Narrative to him; Indeed with a Diminutive Title as if he were not Lieutenant Governour, Receiving an Imme­diate Commission from the King, but only deputy Govenour, deputed by Major General Earl.

This he should have enquir'd into, before he had dedicated his Book to him. This Noble Gentleman is aspers'd and ridi­cul'd as one of our unthinking admirers Nar. pag, 7. and a squirter out of Poolish Advertisements, words that need no other Invective than the Bare Relation, Pag. 10. what he adds further, that we would not give him the Civil Title of Dr. that he took his degree at Cambridg, admitted as a Member of that [Page 64] Honourable Senate, and that not Ex gratia; is partly false. That he was created a Mandamus Dr. by King Iames in 1688. we understand, and with how great a Price this Tool bought that priviledg, we leave the World to Jndg. But what he means by a Senate at Cambridg, is beyond our understanding. That he was not regularly chosen as one well furnish'd with the Learned Qualifications requir'd, his Ignorance in Greek we think to be a sufficient Evidence. We could also inform him to whom he apply'd himself for the better understanding of the Latine Tongue. That he also kept a Coffee-House in Bartholomew-Close, is well known to the Neighbourhood there. But supposing he he had been a Regular Dr. in Physic, as he stiles himself, this may no more qualify him for a Divinity Disputation than be­ing a Coffeeman. So that why he should insist on his Title, in this case, we know not.

Here we shall also take notice of another Falshood, that this bold Gentleman hath Publish'd amongst and by his Friends in London. Tho' he have not adventur'd it into his Narrative; one of us hath been assur'd by a Person that had it, from the Mouth of an Anabaptist of considerable note in London, that Dr. Russel, to put it out of doubt, that he and his Friends had carry'd the day at Portsmouth, added, the Bishop of Salisbury had received a Letter from Colonel Gibson, wherein he applauded their i. e. the Anabaptist's performance. That such a report hath spread abroad we are well assur'd. But that it is most Egregiously false, that Right Reverend Person whose name he hath made use of, hath given us leave to assure the World▪ He doth indeed own he had a Letter from Colonel Gibson, his near Kinsman, Relating to the Disputation. But to a purpose quite opposite to what this falsiefier reports; and adds, that not only the Letter he Receiv'd, but one directed to the Ld. A. Bi [...] of Casterbury, did Represent the disputation as much to our ad­vantage as could be desir'd.

To this sense his Lordship was pleas'd to express himself to Mr. Robinson our Moderator, (who waited on him on this oc­casion) and Generously allow'd us to make use of his Name, for the undeceiving the World in this matter.

9. It is false, what he intimates pr. pag. 11. that when we were pinch'd upon an Argument, we made a Noise and Cla­mour that hindred the People from hearing what was said. Whereas all that were present, we doubt not, well Remember, the first disturbance we had of that kind, was that mention'd in the Narrative, pag. 35. when the Anabaptists (upon the mention of our Saviour, as an Instance of the Child of a Be­liever, not Baptiz'd till adult) rudely enough set up a shout. [Page 65] And Mr. Webber Ignorantly cry'd, 'Tis done! 'Tis done! Tho' the Triumph was but short liv'd, for so soon as Mr. Leigh reply'd to the Instance, the Body of the People return'd 'em their Civility, and set up another shout at them. Besides which, there was no further Noise or Interruption of that Nature, till that rude Comparison of Children and Beasts of the Feild, of which more afterwards. The last Interruption was when Russel would have put us off with a bundle of Humane Testimonys, instead of proof, and we had once and again protested against them, and given our Reasons viz. that we had not the Authors at hand, to try the truth of his Quotations; besides that should they have said what he would have them, their Testimo­ny would not necessarily Engage our assent, they being but fallible men. When after this he yet would trouble us with his Impertinent long Quotations, the People refus'd to hear him, and continu'd to hiss till he gave over reading; but what was said at the closing up of that head by us, doth suffi­ciently Manifest no Human Testimony can pinch us: It was the Ridiculous weakness and not the force of the Argument couch'd in his Testimonies that occasion'd that noise. And if there was any thing in it, that was a grievance to him; Let him thank his Anabaptist Friends that gave the first Example.

10. It is false, that Mr. Fox was dip'd by Mr. Williams's ad­vice, Who was not then in the Country, nor did Mr. Earle know him. That it was done by Mr. Chandlers advice, is also false; for he was then at London. But that none of us would refuse to dip a Person in such a case, is true. We never pleaded against dipping as one way, but as the only way; not against 'its Lawfulness, but Necessity. So that this Instance is brought in to no purpose; and Brother Duke should have inform'd him­self better in the Circumstances of this story, before he had con­vey'd it to London. Nay he was dip'd not at Gosport but Ha­vant.

We shall purposely wave the Falshoods in the Narrative it self, because our own account doth sufficiently manifest them. We shall only add that the Conclusion of the Book is as false as the rest. For he says p. 59, 60. That God was pleas'd to make the hearing of the dispute, of such use to several Persons; That they were fully convinc'd — and did in few days after, submit them­selves to 'be dip'd in Water; whereas we can hear of no unpre­judiced Persons, Who were any way inclin'd towards Anabap­tism, by any thing that was offer'd in the Disputation. And we challenge them to Name us one Person so convinc'd. Those that were fix'd in their Prejudices, might perhaps take their weak Arguments and Trifling Answers for a sufficient Confutation, [Page 66] of Infant Baptism: But we provoke them to Name one unpre­judic'd Person that did so. And do offer, for one such Person so na [...]'d by them, We will, if they demand it, tell them the Names of several who did strongly incline to Anabaptism before, who by that Disputation were set right and fully satisfy'd, that the Anabaptist cause sloth rest on weak Unscriptural Principles, how loudly soever they pretend to Scripture.

CHAP. II.

HAving thus far manifested, how little Regard the Ana­baptist Dr. had to Truth in his Narrative, this were enough to be offer'd by way of reply; nor need there any thing more to discredit an History, than to shew that it is false. But we shall so far condescend to the weakness of Injudicious Persons; as to animadvert also on the Trifling Impertinencies, his Narra­tive abounds with.

1. All the Arguments they offer'd were Trifling Cavils. The First was design'd to turn off the Opponency upon us. The 2 d supposes what was never granted them, that the only Com­mission and universal directory for Baptism is contain'd in Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. For indeed if this were Christs only Com­mission. then his Disciples did Baptize Ioh. 4.2. without his Commission; for this Command was not then deliver'd: again, if th [...]s Command were design'd as an universal directory, Then previous Examination, discourses of the Significancy and Obligation of this Sacrament, stated Prayer before and after, are besides the Commission. Nay, the Apostles did deviate, from the Commission, when they Baptiz'd only in the Name of the Lord Jesus or of the Lord, Acts 10. Vlt. 19.5. this is therefore no other than extending the Commission to the Gentile World; supposing that the Practice of it both as to manner and Subjects was well known before, only then con [...]ed to the lost sheep of the [...] of Is [...]el. So that Infants may be Baptiz'd if we can bring good proof for it out of the other parts of Holy Writ, tho it could not be prey'd from Christ's Command: For the whole Scripture is the will of Christ; and his will discern'd in this Matter, is his Commission. But supposing (not gran­ting) this to be an universal directory, We distinguish'd between Disciples, that are compleat or Incompleat. Incom­pleat may be made by the Ministry of Men.

[Page 67]1. As by the Preaching of Men, Parents may be converted and constrain'd to give up all they have and are to God, and so their Infants thus consider'd in their Parents, they are remotely made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.

2. They are immediately made Disciples by the Ministry of Men; by the Parents devoting them to God; and bringing them to his Ministers to be solemnly dedicated to him. Dr. Russel's vain attempts to take off this distinction, may be taken notice of in the foregoing Narrative, to which we [...]re [...]er the reader, as also to observe the little Arguments they further us'd, and weak Answers they gave to our Arguments.

2. His Reflections in the time of the Disputation it self and what he hath added, are equally Trifling and Insignificant. For Instance.

1. What he insinuates p. 6. as if in effect we gave away our cause, because we refus'd (at that time) to give an Instance, where there was any thing recorded in Scripture, that did ob­lige us to Baptize Infants, whereas it then lay on them to prove the contrary: Our business (who were the Respondents) was to attend their proof, the time was not yet come for us to produce our own. It was agreed that they who had reflected on the Doctrine of Infant Baptism as false and wholly untrue; should prove that it was so. Yet this Trifler when he had undertaken to prove, that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism, At the very first would have put it upon us to prove they were so, and would perswade the company we gave away our cause, unless we did as he directed. This was Doctor like Truly! And one would not grudge, (however he came by it) to give him the Title, who does so powerfully carry all before him. You have his whole sense in these few words. Gentlemen, if I prove that Infants are not the Sublects of Baptism, you will allow I perform what I have undertaken, pag. 5. now this I'll make so plain, you shall not be able to answer or evade the force of my Argument. Thus I argue; if they be the Subjects of Baptism, Mr. Leigh, Mr. Chandler or some Body else is able to prove it. But therefore they are not so: And now I have effectually done your business; for if you say you can prove it, let's hear it; if not, you give away your cause. To this sense doth this mighty Man of Logic Flourish at the entrance, and Wonderful Feats no doubt he thinks he hath done in it: But such Egregious Trifling is hardly found among any pretending to the least degree above common sense. And it was fitter to have been hiss'd out, than so soberly reply'd to as it was.

[Page 68]1. What! Do you prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism, by putting us to prove that they are. Wonderful! this 'tis to be a Dr. and to know more than all the World besides.

For till this Dr. came upon the stage, these 2 things were always very differing (to make proof of a thing, and put ano­ther to prove the contrary.) This Gentleman undertook to prove p. 5. but (as if he repented of his rash undertaking) he very courteously invites us to change sides with him, and there­by free him of a burthen that was too heavy for him.

2. Nor is every thing untrue, the contrary to which we can­not prove true. We cannot prove that this Narrative, Russel e­ver was at Cambridge, or took his Degrees there; but would he have us therefore take the contrary for certain Truth? Yes, we must, according to his method. If one boldly assert against us, That he never was at Cambridge, we desire they would prove it before we give Credit to 'em. In his way they'll prove it too, and then we must needs grant it. Well, we wait only for the Proof. Thus it is. You cannot prove that he ever was at Cam­bridge, or took any Degree there. Therefore, behold, he was not. The strange Effects of Logick!

3. Nor if we can prove it, doth it follow we needs must? es­pecially when he had undertaken the Opponency. We that stood upon our Defence (as Respondents) were only to attend to what they had to offer, and show the invalidity of it; but were by no Laws of Disputation, that ever yet were publish'd to the World, oblig'd to change sides with them and take the proving part on us. Tho' this we declare we were ready to do in due time but it was no way fit to be done at the beginning of the Disputation, unless this Doughty Dr. had said in plain words (as he did in effect in his first Argument,) Gentlemen, I have undertaken more than I can do. And therefore tho' I cannot prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism, I should take it kindly if you would please to prove the contrary.

4. And as to his pretence, that his Proposition was an Universal Negative; Therefore we were oblig'd by it to give our Instance: It is a great mistake, and contra­ry to all the uncontested Rules of Disputation, nor could any order possibly be observ'd, if it should be admitted. For how easy were it for an Opponent in any case, thus to oblige the Respondent to change places with him—which what confusion it would create, any one that hath an insight into these things, will easily imagine. That Rule hath therefore (as far as we can find) universally obtain'd.

[Page 69] Neuter Disputantium alterius partes suscipiat, neque; opponens in partem Respondentis involet, aut contra; And consequently a very Principal part of the work of a Moderatot lies, in keeping each within their proper Limits. Regimen praesidis in eo consistit, ut diligenter attendat, utrum Opponens & Respondens suo officio fungantur necne: Si utrumque aut alterutrum ab Officio suo recedentem conspexe­rit, eum sui muneris admoneat, & intra limites contineat, ne extra oleas (uti dici Solet) evagentur.

5. Nor will that known Rule Negantu non est probare, and asserenti incumbit probatio, mention'd by Dr. Smith at all avail our Anabaptist Champion: As indeed it never was intended by that Worthy Person to any such purpose, as he hath allow'd us to assure the World: and as did plainly enough appear to all the Judicious part of the Company, when he spoke those words: his design was (as the design of the Rule it self, at least when apply'd to Logical Disputations) that the Proof lies not on the Respondent, who only denies, or distinguishes upon his Adver­sary, but upon the Opponent, who is the Asserter, whether his Arguments run in an Affirmative or Negative Form. But thus much is more than sufficient to expose his ridiculous Trifling under that Head.

2. He next reflects upon Mr. Chandler, as if he was at a Loss, so that Mr. Leigh and Mr. Robinson were forced to help him out with their Distinctions and Equivocable Expressions, page 11, Whereas, if, Mr. Leigh did offer any Distinctions, 'twas what belong'd to him, as an appointed Disputant with Mr. Chandler: And that they spoke promiscuously, is owing to a Proposal made by the A­nabaptists, that the Disputants might be allow'd it; which ac­cordingly was agreed before we went to the place of Disputati­on. So that 'tis Ridiculous Trifling for him, from Mr. Leigh's sometimes speaking, who was allow'd equal Liberty with Mr. Chandler himself, to infer that Mr. Chandler was at a Loss, and Mr. Leigh forc'd to help him out. And it is somewhat more than Trifling, and should be inserted among the Falshoods, what he asserts, p. 16. That Mr. Chandler finding himself unable to answer, quitted the place of a Disputant, and Mr. Leigh desired to take it up, which was admitted upon condition, &c. Whereas it was mov'd the Night before the Disputation, when the Anabaptists came in a Body to us at Mr. Williams's House, That we would admit the Principal and his Second to speak promiscuously. The Reason given was, Because Dr. Russel, or Mr. John Williams, had an Infirmity that sometimes disabled him from speaking for a considerable time vo­geb [...]er. We took till the morning to consider of the Proposal, and then at the Hour and Place prefix'd we gave that Liberty to them, provided the same might be allow'd to us, which was [Page 70] consented to. Upon which it was resolved on both sides, That the Disputants should be allow'd to assist each other, as they saw oc­casion. With what Face now can this man insinuate to the world, That Mr. Leigh, in the midst of the Disputation begg'd leave to speak, and could not be admitted but upon Terms: And all this only to set off that False Lie, viz. That Mr. Chandler quitted the Place of a Disputant.

But to return to what we were upon: Mr. Leigh help'd out Mr. Chandler with his Distinctions. We grant he was helpful to him, and was chosen for that purpose, and was not Mr. Williams also to the best of his skill helpful to Dr. Russel? But Mr. Leigh helped out Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Williams did his best to help out Dr. Russel, tho thro the badness of the Cause, he neither did, nor could help him out. But Mr. Robinson helpt too with his Distinctions. 'Tis false; and his own Narrative (as it happens) will manifest it to be so; for that Distinction there mention'd by Mr. Robinson, is there mentioned not as his own, but Mr. Chandler's; and it was only mention'd to shew the no occasion he had to spend Time in proposing such frivolous Que­stions; a sufficient Answer to which he had already had from Mr. Chandler.

There only remains under this head, Mr. Leighs and Mr. Ro­binsons helping out Mr. Chandler with their Equivocable Expressi­ons. But this ( Equivocable) like the ( Senate at Cambridge,) is a word of the Famous D [...]s. own coining, and therefore he best knows the meaning of it. Equivocal we have often heard of, but equivocable we know not what to make of, unless by this, added to the Hebrew and Greek Instances of his Learn­ing, we be left to collect 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 [Page 71] 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, [...]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 [Page 72] 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 Preach [...]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 separated [...] 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: ar (que) 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 promiss [...], Inter gentes quo (que) [...] hodie, necesse est. Ero Deus tuus & Semi [...]is tui, Gen. 17.7. B [...] ­eos [Page 73] qui side in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt, videmus cum sua sobole cense­ri in Christi membris, & in salutis Hereditarem simul vocari. Nec vero separ [...]tur hoc modo Baptismus a fide vel Doctrin [...], qu [...]a licet puerī Infantes nondum per ae [...]atem percipiant Dei gratiam, Deus tamen eo­rum Parentes compellans ipsos etiam complectitur. If this Famous Dr. hath not yet attain'd so considerable a Proficiency in the La­tin Tongue, as to construe this, there are many Worthy Doctors of the Colledge will assist aim. Let the Judicious consider whe­ther Calvin's Judgment and this Gentleman's be the same con­cerning this Command; and what a vain Flourish it is to bring in Calvin on this occasion. What he soon after adds, p. 24. to reflect on Mr. Robinson, as interrupting him, is as little to the purpose. He that pretends to Learning, and needs [...] hear any more of an Hypothetical Syllogism, than the Major, or conse­quent, is none of Solomon's wise men. 'Twas as well known to Mr. Robinson what would follow as to Dr. R. the Speaker. How is it then that he insinuates as if he answered a matter before he heard it?

6. As to what he says p. 30. about Erasmus's skill about the Etymology of a Greek Word, 'tis most ridiculously impertinent. Mr. Williams had a little before, very honestly acknowledg'd, that for his part, he neither knew what belong'd to Greek or Latine and yet presently quotes Erasmus as reading the Commission. Go Teach all Nations, and when they have learn'd dip them. Mr. Robinson remembring what he had said before, admir'd to hear him quote Erasmus: and therefore ask'd him whether Erasmus ever wrote in English? Or how he knew that he so read the Commission? But there was not a word said by any one about Erasmus's skill in the Etymology of a Greek word, but he must still be trifling.

7. The story of the Eunuch p. 31. is like all the rest; for Mr. Leigh said not that the Eunuch had Children, but if he had had one or more, they must not be look'd on as the Children of a Pa­ [...]an: He consider'd him not as an Eunuch but as a Christian. Be­sides might he not have adopted ones? Nay, might he not have Children, and be afterwards made an Eunuch? Beside; all this we will tell the Dr. what he never knew before, and what is better worth his Learning than O [...] Womens Fables. And that is, that the word [...] is Equivalent to [...], and signi­fys not only Eunuchus eviratus, but Princeps, Minister regius. Thus Potiphar is call'd an Eunuch or Officer of Pharaoh, tho' he had a Wife if not Children. Gen. 39.1. So Gen. 40.2. The chief Butler and Baker are call'd Eunuchs or Officers. Ier. 29.2. The Nobles and Princes of Iudah are call'd by this same Name in the Hebrew and Greek, and it is not probable they were all Evirati. Words have a different Signification in differ­ing [Page 74] Ages; and tho' this word bear an Infamous sense in this Age, yet formerly it had a more Honourable Signification. It would be we think profane and grating to Christian Ears, for any to call the sweet Ordinance of singing Psalms, by the Name of Ballad Singing, as this Dr. doth in his Animadversions upon his Brother Allen's Essay on that Subject. Tho' he Justify's himself from the Old Translation that calls the Song of Songs, the Ballad of Ballads; he might as well say Paul was a Knave, because the same. Translation calls him the Knave instead of Servant of Jesus Christ. To apply this to our purpose, the word Eunuch tho' now us'd in an Infamous, was once us'd in an Honourable sence, and the most Learned Critics tell us that this Noble Man had no such Infamous Character, but was high Treasurer or Chamberlain to Queen Candace. A Lapide, Meno­chius, Lud. de Dieu in Loc. So that all the Dr. here hath said is nothing but vain babling: And methinks what he says of the Turks S [...]raglio, is too Luscious for a man of his Gravity. But if ever he had been entred in that Academy, the World had never rung with such scandalous Reports Turpia-dictu, concerning him.

8. Another Trifle you find, p. 32. That them cannot agree with Nations, because them is Masculine, and Nations Neuter; but Rela­tivum cum Antecedente concordat genere, numero & Persona. Alas, poor Dr.! did you read this in your Latin or Greek Grammar? Not in your Greek certainly; for there you might have found somewhat better for the purpose. That by the Figure Synthesis­quando (que) relativum ad intellectum seu sensum non ad vocem conforma­tur. And you have a Scripture-Instance for it, Gal. 4.19. [...]. Nay, had you been able to read your Greek Testament you might have met with Instances as to this very word, Acts 15.17.21.25.26.17. Rev. 2.26.27.19.15. in all which places [...] agrees with [...] and [...]. So that had we not a rule in the Grammar to this purpose, it would have been highly fit to have Substituted one for this very occasion, rather than all these Text s should be accounted false Greek: and this we hope is a solid Answer worthy noting down, tho' the Dr. reciting it five leaves after forgot himself, and said we had no such Answer. But the Dr. hath recourse to Mr. Gosnold for his Assistance, who tells him that the Antecedent must be not the Verb, as he said in the dispute, but the Noun [...] but where is this to be found? It is not in the Text, unless the Verb be the Noun. But if the Dr. had been as well acquainted with his Greek Grammar, as with that Beloved Book of M [...] [...], he might have prevented our Trouble and the disco­very of his own Ignorance.

[Page 75]'Tis as Ridiculous to abuse his dear Friend, and prefix false Greek as a Title to his Book, when at least in that Edition we have seen there is only a plain English Title, of the Doctrine of Baptisms; calling it [...], but there he may think himself safe, in keeping to the letter of the Scripture [...] for the letters are the same, Heb. 6.2. from when [...] the Titl [...] is taken. As the Dr. before could not distinguish between a Verb and a Noun, so here he is not so great a C [...]i [...]ick a [...] to distinguish between the Nominative case and Genitive, but e­nough of this stuff.

9. How Impertinently did he alledg. p. 35. Constantine the great, as a Scripture Instance of a Believers Child Baptiz'd at Grown Years? What Dr. skip 200 Years at once, wh [...] you are pinch'd! Sure this Nimble Man was a Merry- Andrea before he commenc'd, Dr. It was a [...]criptu [...]e instance we cal [...]'d for, and an Instance of one Born in the latter end of the 3 d or Begin­ning of the 4 th Century, is given. Besides [...] the Father of Con­stantine was a Pagan, and it can't be prov'd that his Mother Helena was a Christian in her Sons Infancy As to his Flour­rish of the Fathers of the first Ages; we Remember not that it was mention'd in the Disputation, nor is it in any of the Copys; tho' we Remember the Dr. pretend [...]d that for the first 600 Years, Infants were admitted to Communion in the Lords Supper, upon which one of us reply'd; then by your own confession, they were Baptiz'd, otherwise the other Sacra­ment would not be administred [...]o them; which silence [...] the Dr. and we heard no more of the Fathers that day. But if the Dr. dare be so hardy, as [...]o abide by the Tes [...]ony of the Fathers, we will Joyn Issue with him here, whensoever he pleases.

10. How Impertinently doth he Harangue, (by way of Apology chiefly) pag. 35.36.37, for his having se [...] our Infants upon a level with brutes. [...] all that he can say, can neve [...] [...]x­cuse that beastly Comparison. Nay, to make the matte [...] [...], after he had thought of it again at London, where he d [...]w up the greatest part of this Apology, as we suppose, for we h [...] little of it at Portsmouth; Yet still he hath the Face, to challenge us to shew the Disparity if we can: As if it was his fix'd Opi­nion, that there is no difference between our Children and our Dogs. We must confess we said little to it, as thinking it ra­ther deserv'd stripes than an Answer. And the Honourable Colonel Gibson did profess to us, (the day after the Disputation) that he was so offended at it, that he would thereupon have quitted the place, had not some Gentlemen near him Prevail'd with him to stay, telling him if he went off, there was Danger, [Page 76] the provok'd Multitude would do him some mischief. And truly an higher [...] cannot be put upon any Parent, than to make his Infants no better than Brutes. But h [...] bears us in hand, he hath a might, esteem for our Infants, even a greater than we have, for he hat [...] [...]ver and over given it as his Opinion, that they are all [...] Die in I [...]fancy. Now the Infants of Believing Parent [...] [...] the compass of a promise. God will be their God [...] their seed. Gen. 17.7. So far therefore we may safely [...] But seeing God hath not told us, how he deals with the Infants of others, we dare not pretend to enter into his Secrets, or to tell what we do not know. 'Tis enough for us, t [...]at God [...]ll accept the dying Infants of such as have sincerely devoted 'em to him. And for others, they are not concern'd how God will deal with them. That Man can never be truly concern'd about the Salvation of his Child, that never was Solicitous about his own. But after all what strange kind of Salvation, what befor e unheard of Heaven hath this Gentleman discover'd for Creatures, between whom and beasts there is no disparity! What! No difference, no unlikeness at all! For we hope he may have Learning enough to know the English of Di [...]paritas. Well! (whatever this Dr. can satisfy him­self with,) we do both for our selves and dear Babes, wait and pray for such a Salvation and such a Heaven, out of which are excluded all Dogs and Hogs, and all of beastly Capacities and Inclinations, whether you take the Word Brute in a Natural or Moral Sense. Yet left this Man should think his Retortion, as he calls it, unanswerable, we add, there is a vast disparity be­tween Beasts and the Youngest Infants. For (as was hinted [...] in the time [...] the Disputation,) (tho' this Narrative not only omits but deny's it,) Supposing them utterly uncapable of the Dutys, yet no one can deny but they are capable of the Blessings and Priviledg [...]s o [...] the Baptismal Covenant.

They are capable of being Pardon'd, Justify'd, Sanctify'd and Clerified, and is it so with Brutes? But further, Infants are ca­pable of being oblig'd to the Duty of the Covenant, tho' they be not in a present Capacity to discharge them. Thus the [...] Infants by Circumcision were oblig'd to the Dutys of that Covenant, tho' during their Infant state they could not actually discharge them. If they had not been thus oblig'd how could they upon their after-forsaking God, be call'd Covenant [...] Breake [...], as we fin [...] they are Ezek. 16.8.59. and oft else­vvhere. Their Circumcision made them Debtors, brought them under obligation to the Law, Gal. 5.3. Lastly, Infants have a Fundamental and remote Capacity, to discharge the Dutys of [Page 77] The Covenant; tho' they have not an immediate Capacity for [...]it. They have a Principle of Reason, tho' they have it not perhaps in present exer [...]ise: Now is there vet no disparity be­tween them and Beasts? Tho' so soon as they have a being, they are capable of the Blessing of the Gospel Covenant; and as to the Dutys of the Covenant which is all that remains to be consider'd in it, they have such a Reasonable understanding Nature, as doth remotely capacitate them for the discharge of these Dutys, and that doth most nearly and immediately Capacitate them to come under Obligations thereto: So that Infants (as uncapable as any of ours,) have been all along ( [...]ver since there was a Sacrament appointed for that purpose,) Solemnly enter'd into Covenant with God, tho' we never find that any Brutes were.

11. What an Impertinent Trifler doth this Man shew him­self again, pag. 37. when instead of proving that Dipping is the only way of Baptizing, He would have put us to prove that Sprinkling is the way. That 'tis not the only way we Grant; that it is not a Lawful way he can never prove. But the Que­stion was not whether that was [...] way: But whether Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming was the only way? And when we held him to the proof of that, He knew not how to alter the Argument, so as to bring the words of the Question into the Conclusion of his Syllogism: We then perceiv'd him to be Cleri­cus in Libro; and that, when put out of his Road, he was lost. However that he might seem to say somewhat he told the Com­pany, his Argument was an Induction. It should be remembred, that he had lately been confounded by Mr. Leigh's Induction: and many Reasons concur, to make it probable, that he scarce ever heard so much as [...]he Name before. But with them that understood t he thing as little as himself, a hard word would make it look as if he had somewhat to say. This therefore must be an Induction. But his Argument he brought being only level'd against one particular thing, (which the Nature of an Inducti­on doth not admit,) Mr. Chandler told a pleasant story from the late Bishop of Worcester, of a Covey of Patridges which yet was but one. Adding, here we have as Wonderful a thing, an Induction of one. What he adds afterwards is what we suppose he may have Learn'd since his return to London, for we Remem­ber nothing of it. Nor is it in any of the Copys, whether on our side or theirs.

12. His Argument from Rom. 6.4. pag. 38.39. is very Frivolous: Because we are said to be Buried with Christ in Baptism, therefore it must necessarily be by Dipping. This was distinctly Answer'd by Mr. Chandler in his Sermons: But [Page 78] because the main stress of the Anabaptists cause in this pointlys upon it, We shall not satisfy our selv [...]s [...]o have gravel'd them in the Disputation, whe [...] we deny'd bo [...] parts of the Argument as they form'd it; neither of which they were able to prove: But for the help of such as need [...], Shall set this matter in a clear Light; In order [...]o which let it be con­sider'd,

  • 1. It is one thing for us t [...] be [...]uried with Christ in Bap­tism, and another [...]ing for Baptism to rep [...]esent a Burial. The former the Apostle says: The [...]ter only Dr. Russel and his Brethren. We are (as the Apostle largel [...] T [...]at. Rom. 6.3.4.5.6.) Baptiz'd into Christs Death, Buried, Resu [...]rection. That is, we are solemnly enter'd into the Christian Covenant, which is founded in, and secur'd by, [...] Death [...] Bu [...], and Resurrecti­on of our Lord; Which thereupon most strongly obliges us to Die unto Sin, rise to, and walk in, new [...]ess [...] Life: But where doth he say a Syllable to intimate that our Baptism must repre­sent these things? Our Baptism is to oblige us hereto [...] and is accordingly urg'd by the Apostle, for that purpose, throughout this context: But we would beg any one to shew us any Intima­sion, that our Baptism is to represent these things.
  • 2. And if Baptism must represent these things, it must repre­sent all as well as any of them. There is at least as great if not greater evidence from the Context, That the Death of Christ, the manner and likeness of it, as that the manner of his Bu­rial should be Represented in our Baptism. For besides that we are said to be Baptiz'd into is D [...]ain, v. 3. we are also said to be planted in the likeness of is Death. v. 5. whereupon v. [...] it follows, our Old Man is Crucify'd with him. But we are no where said to be planted in the likeness of his Burial. Now what is there in your Administration, that doth represent the likeness of Christs Death, his Crucifixion? By the same Rea­son that you would prove dipping necessary in Baptism, a Pa­pist or any other Person may prove crossing necessary too, and therefore the same Answer will Inva [...]dat [...] both: i. e. that nei­t [...]er of them are requir'd to be represented.
  • 3. 'Tis as Trifling, what he adds pag. 39. where he says Mr. Chandler grants that Baptism doth signify a Burial and Re­surrection. Mr. Chandler only suppos'd, did not grant it: Be­sides if he had granted it, it would not thence follow, that it must necessarily be by dipping. For,
    • 1. In our way, by pouring water on the Face, we represent Christs Death; the pouring out of his Blood and Soul: His Burial; The Face, the Principal part of Man being put under­water, [Page 79] or having water poured on it, as Earth is poured on a Dead Body: His Ressurrection; When the Child is taken up and deliver'd again to its Parents or Offerers. This is a sufficient Allusion in Christian Sacraments, which are Com­memorative of what is past; and there needs not a more exact Re­semblance. Na [...], it is as significant as breaking Bread, and pouring out Wine, to Represent the Sacrific'd Body and Blood of Christ.
    • 2. If they will keep strictly to the Significancy of a Burial, the person to be Baptiz [...] must not walk into the water, but be taken up by the Baptizer, and cast down into it. For indeed there is only this difference between our way and theirs: We Baptize the Face, and they Baptize the head and shoulders too: Unless the Person going down into the Water, may be said to baptize himself. And then there are more Se-Baptists among them than we ever understood before.
    • 3. The Anabaptist [...] in Holland [...]e to sensible of the no necessi­ty of Dipping, that the general way among them at Amsterdam is to baptize by pouring Water upon the Head. We need not send Dr. Russel cross the Sea [...] (as he would us to the Turks Serag­llo), but to a place better known, the Amsterdam Coffee-house, to enquire into the Truth of this. We would only here ask the Dr. these Two Civil Questions,
      • 1. Whether he might not have spar'd all his Dutch? seeihg Doope in that Language signifies only to wash, and is us'd when they only pour on Water?
      • 2. Whether his Anabaptist Friends at Amsterdam do practice a Right Baptism? If not, whether he would Baptize them again, or exclude them from the Church of Christ, as he doth us in his Closing Prayer of which more Anon? If he owns their Baptism Lawfull, Then why such a C [...]amour and Noise about a Circumstance? If their way is Justifiable, so is ours.

13. How Egregiously doth he Trifle, when he tells us that [...] when it is joyn'd with an Accusative case signifys into. All that we can know from thence, is (what we well knew before) that tho' this Man pretends to be a dignify'd Dr, yet he hath not the Learning of a Common School Boy. When 'tis joyn'd with an Accusative—Why pray Dr. what other case doth it any way admit? We had thought [...] Soli accusativo jungitur, had been a Rule no one could have missed, that had but once cast his Eye on the Common Grammar? Well Sir: If you have any regard to your Reputation, we would advise you never [Page 80] more to pretend to Greek, and do not make too great a Noise about your degrees, it will but expose you to the greater con­tempt: You had better do as Mr. Williams did own your Igno­tance, and not Ambitously gape after the Name and Honour of a [...].

14. As to his Humane Testimonys, They are of little va­lue with us, for the Reasons given in the Disputation: And it was an Evidence of the wretched weakness of his cause, that these must stand instead of an Argument with him. These Testimonys he hath chiefly borrow'd from Danvers, and how Imperfectly and lamely they are quoted may be seen in Mr. Wills and Mr. Baxters Answers to him. So that to wast time and Paper about them is but actum agere: We shall therefore only put these following querys to him.

  • 1. Will you stand by the Authority of these Men in other Matters? If not, why would you have us in this?
  • 2. Do any of these say that to wash is not the New Testament sense of the word Baptize? Or do any Answer those places we brought? Or prove us in the wrong? Or how many places can any bring where it necessarily signifys to dip? We take not Mens Opinions upon Trust, but Trial.
  • 3. How few are there of those Learned Authors, who have not adher'd to that in Mat. 12.7. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, To Justify their Baptizing with a little Water in these Cold Countreys?
  • 4. Will not the Opinion and Practice of your Brethren in Holland, argue as strongly against you, as the Opinions of these Men, (had their Practice been dipping also) do against us?
  • 5. Will not the Opinion and Practice of so many Thousand Men, great for Learning and Piety at 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 'tis 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. 'Tis well we understand a Little Latine: Otherwise this Man would quite Silence us. But [Page 81] 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. 'Tis 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. 'Tis 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 82] 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 [...]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 Antho [...] 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: 'Tis 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 [Page 84] 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 truly Fear 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 [...]lshoo [...] 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 dip [...]; ha [...] so there may be added to the Church such as [...] be sav'd. What Apprehensions must thi [...] 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 dou [...] [...]ot, but [...] are added to the Church of [...]. Yet whatever we think, his charitable ma [...] will not allow they can otherwise [...] the Church, and consequently no othe [...]wise sav'd, [...] it consists in de [...]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, Re [...]enta [...]ce, Obe­dience, toward [...] being dipt [...]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 [...]f when adult, not by dipping: There is no [...] for you if this man were to be your Judg [...] But blessed be God we are to be try'd at an an [...]ther Bar. And therefore with us it is a very small matter to be judg'd by him [Page 85] 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 tha [...] 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 agai [...]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. Sub [...]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 [...] 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 par [...] 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 [...]is also to be ascrib'd, that [...]o many of the Hebrew Letters are needlesly Dagesch'd.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.