CHAP. I. On the Narrative in general.

I have several Reasons to question the Truth of the Narrative of the Portsmuoth Dispute, as it is related by Dr. Russel.

First, I take Notice in the Dedication, that he composed it from several Letters compared toge­ther, and the help of his own Memory. Mr. Williams sent him the [...]uments which he used, and what else he could remember; whereas if those that writ could have taken it all, he had not needed all this; but in this way it was impossible that he should collect a true Narrative of a near eight hours Disputation.

His own Arguments he might in part remem­ber, and Mr. Williams his; but who sent him the Arguments of their Antagonists? Therefore I think h [...]re are, comparatively, but few of them, [Page 2]and those that are delivered, in such a way that they may easily, be answered; nor can it thus hardly possibly be otherwise.

2dly. In the Dedication they tell, that Mr. Ro­binson gave one of them the Lye, but I do not find it in the Narrative, which, since they have publi­shed it here, I conclude, it would not have been wanting there, if their Memory would have ser­ved to know where to place it; which shews that there is much wanting.

3dly. In six or eight hours Discourse without Intermission, would have made a much larger Volumn than the Whole Book, whereas a great part of the Book is made up of other matter, as the Dedication, &c. and many remarks of Dr. Russels after the Dispute, and his Quotations in the end of the Book.

4thly, I find several times that he tells us of a long Discourse of one of their Antagonists about such or such a thing, but relates little of it, and sometimes says it was not worth Writing.

5thly. I have heard several wayes, and from such as know not each other, that this is a false Narrative, and that it has occasioned the true (really taken from the Town-Clerks) Notes to be also printed.

6thly. Another Reason, which confirms me in it, is, that according to this Narrative the Presby­terians have acted as if their very design was to give away their Cause, by calling a multi­tude together to hear, and then purposely pre­tending to dispute, but always making sure to [Page 3]leave room to be answered, and giving their Opponents opportunity to frame their Argu­ments, and pretending to answer them, but always making sure to leave them them unans­wered. It can hardly be that they were serious if this Narrative be True.

7thly. I find much said by him, but little by his Antagonists through the Book, &c.

My 8th Reason I leave till afterwards. But is not this very unfair, (not to call it worse) if they not only to detract from Mens Reputation, but also deceive people (by a false Narrative) in things concerning their Salvation; (making people believe, this is the strength of what is alledged against their way, when indeed it is not the tenth part, yea, I may say, not the hundredth part of it, as to solid Arguments) For the tell­ing a part of the truth, and leaving out a part, is many times as pernicious Lying, as utter­ing down-right falshood, and many times does more harm, because it is more easily believed. And if I may say it, without Comparing the Narrator to him, the Devil, the Father of Lyes does, for the most part, exercise his most hurt­ful falshood this way. However, I will hope that the Narrator (having so light an esteem of the Arguments which he thinks are against the truth) did set down all the Arguments brought against him, which he thought had any weight in them so far as they came to his knowledge.

Yet I must, as a Friend, advise the Antipaedo-Baptists to disown this Narrative, (under these circumstances) left they make people think they [Page 4]resemble the Kingdom of the Devil, which is built up by Lyes, and lest people think they are conscious, that their Cause is so weak that truth alone is not sufficient to defend it, and left People think it is not for Conscience sake that they hold their way, but from some am­bitious Contentions and uncharitable Disposition; For any one may know, that he, that holds any Tenet for Conscience-sake, will desire no­thing but the Truth to defend it, and his Con­science will oblige him as soon to believe the contrary, when he sees good Evidence for it. But whether this Narrative be true or false, the Truth is the Truth, if those men could not de­fend it. And it not being defended in this Nar­rative, is the reason of my writing this Reply.

I take Notice also of ( I think) a contradicti­on; in the Title-page it is said, It was taken from two Copies taken at the Dispute; And in the Dedication he tells us of other Letters, his Memory, &c. If part of it was taken from those Copies, yet it is not true to say, the Narrative was, except it was all.

I also observe in the Dedication, That Dr. Russel seems to be concern'd for his own honour, by publishing to the world, That his Preaching was approved, and how he deserves the Title of Doctor, and being concerned left his partner, Mr. Williams, should have the greatest share of the Honour of their Days works, saying, What he spoke was far short of what Dr. Russel spoke. But it may be he had good cause for all this.

So I proceed to their Arguements, wherein I [Page 5]shall always repeat the Medium, and so much more, that the Argument composed, shall be clearly understood, and I hope to leave none of their Arguments unanswered, either directly, or by ans­wering other Arguments; and such as question it may have recourse to the Narrative it self, which is now plentiful in the Country.

In the General, I find not one Argument used by them, but what is either a Fallacy or improved into a Fallacy. And never did I before see so much Sophistry put together and approved by a learned Man. If it had been one that knew not the Rules of Argument, he might be better excused. I am sorry to offend his Friends, by saying it, but I dare not mince the Truth when I am called to speak; He has often said worse of his Antagonists, both in his Dedication and Narrative, and that without cause. But I must proceed to shew that I have cause to say this.

CHAP. II On Dr. Russel's first Argument.

THe first Question in the Dispute was (as he re­lates it,)

Whether, according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Adult believers are only the proper Subjects of Baptism, and not Infants?

Dr. Russel takes it in the Affirmative, and his first Argument is,

[Page 6] If Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to Baptize Infants, then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

But Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to Baptize Infants.

Ergo.

This Argument is well enough according to the Rule, but his fallacy is in proving it, as we shall see by his insisting to have them expressed in the Commission, saying, That some are expresly Commanded to be Baptized in the Commission. The fallacy lies here, [Expressed] is a Word that may be taken several ways, and so have one signification in the Major, and another in the Minor, which will necessarily make a false conclusion, as every Logician well knows. For thus it is, Some are expressed in the Commission, viz. Believers and Disciples, but the Commission does not tell us, whether they be Adult or Infants, it may be either or both, or neither, if a third sort could be found, notwith­standing those Words; But under the Name of Believers and Disciples are expressed the persons that are so, whether Adult or Infants.

But to shew his fallacy, and prove the contrary to his Minor,

First. By his way of arguing, and their way of Answering (as here related) he would have been as hard put to it to prove Adult persons included in the Commission; for they are no more expressed than Infants; But by as good Consequence as express Words, some Adult persons are ex­cluded [Page 7]and others included; and I hope by Gods Grace to make the same appear of Infants.

Yea, by his arguing, how will he prove himself a Minister, seeing he is not experssed in the Com­mission?

2dly. The Quakers argue the very same against Baptism with Watter, because Water is not ex­pressed in the Commission, or any Command; and in truth, they have equal Reason for it, and I know not one of his Arguments to prove his first by, but what the Quakers use.

3dly. That Infants are as much expressed in the Commission as the Adulte I prove thus,

All that are Believers in Christ are included in the Commission.

But There are Infants who are Believers in Christ.

Ergo, There are Infants included in the Commssion.

The Major will not be disputed. The Minor I Prove thus,

All that are saved by Christ are Believers in Christ.

But there are Infants saved by Christ.

Ergo, There are Infants who are Believers in Christ.

The Minor I think will be granted: The Major I shall prove. But first, to feed the Antipedobaptists with a little of their own meat, I cite Mark 16.16. He that Believeth not shall be damned. The foregoing Words, He that Believeth and is Baptized, is impro­ved by them with that Acts 8.37. to prove that a profession of faith is pre-requisite to baptism.

I argue, either these texts concern only the Adult, or it concerns Adult and Infants both. If it concern only the Adult, then Infants are not concerned in it, and if Infants are not concerned [Page 8]in it, then here is nothing to be proved for or a­gainst Infants Baptism by it. Yea, suppose Infants have not Faith, these Scriptures speaking nothing of them, but only of Adult, that Faith is a neces­sary pre-requisit to Baptism in them which Believe and practise. These Texts do not prove but that Infants may be Baptized without Faith, though Adult may not, as well as be saved without Faith, as the Antipedobaptists believe they are. Therefore if these and such like Texts concern not Infants, let them not plead any more Believe and be baptized, against Infants Baptism.

They must take some other Arguments to deny them Baptism, if they will do it.

But if such Texts do concern Adult and Infants both, then it must follow of Infants so well as Adult They either are Believers, or else they are Damned. But there are Infants, who dye in Infancy, are sa­ved and not damned. Therefore they are Believers, and therefore so well or as much expressed in the Commission as adult Believers.

But take it either way, and it is as rational to infer from such Scriptures, that Infants are dam­ned, as that they are not the Subjects of Baptism. But they say, Infants cannot have Faith for want of the Act of Ʋnderstanding and Will. pag. 54.

I Reply,

First. A Man has not the exercise or act of his Understanding when he is a sleep, and few men have it when they dye, shall we from thence infer that they dye Unbelievers, and are damned, or that Unbelievers are saved?

2dly. This which is the foundation of denying [Page 9]Infants Baptism, is wholy Unscriptural, and against express Scripture, and is the very same Argument used by the Pelagians to deny Original sin; and if the one may be denyed by it, the other may also. Or does God require more to constitute a good Act than he imputes to be an evil Act? But hence many Antipedobaptists deny original Sin with Pelagius their Father. Therefore I advise such of them as believe Original Sin, to reject this Argument, lest they bring in that Old Heresy, and overthrow all sound Repentance.

3dly. It matters not to us in what sence they may be said to believe, so long as God owns them for Believers, by giving them the Priviledge of Be­lievers, which is Salvation. I argue thus:

Those that God does own for Believers, by gi­ving them the Priviledge of Believers, we ought to own for Believers included in the Commission.

But God doth own Infants for Believers, by giving them the Priviledge of Believers.

Ergo, we ought to own them for Believers inclu­ded in the Commission.

If they deny the Major, let then shew us by what Rule they can shew us, that God requires us to make a diffrence, where he makes none.

If they deny the Minor, they must deny that Infants are saved by Faith, and so bring in a new way of Salvation, never heard of in the Gospel.

I will not here plead for the Acts of Faith, nor undertake to prove a Habit of Faith in infants; It matters not, whether I know what it is or no, so long as I know it is that which God accepts of for Faith, and therefore that His Ministers ought to [Page 10]do it also, and that God does give them the Pri­viledge of Believers by saving them, and therefore that his Ministers ought to do it by Baptizing them.

But to prove that Infants are saved by Faith, whatever that Faith be, I argue,

All that are saved, are in this World sanctifyed, Hebr. 12.14. Holiness without which no man (or as the prime Signification of the Word oudeis is no one) shall see the Lord. Eccl. 11.3.

But there are Infants that are saved.

Ergo, there are Infants in this World sanctifyed.

I hope they will not say that this Text also speaks only of the Adult, and so that Infants may be saved without Holiness, and so make God unholy, which they must do, or grant my Argument, or else deny Original Sin, as Pelagius a Heretick about four hunderd Years after Christ, denyed Infant Baptism, and with some reason, according to his principle; For he denyed Original Sin, and so be­lieving they had no Sin nor pollution by Sin, be believed they needed no cleansing nor Sign of cleansing.

So denying Infants Baptism, and denying Origi­nal Sin agree excellent well together, as has been shewn before, and may be shewed again.

But because some Antipedobaptists will deny any thing rather than yield, I digress one word for that.

All that Christ came to save are sinners,

But Christ came to save Infants,

Ergo, Infants are Sinners.

The Major is evident, the Miner I prove thus:

[Page 11] If none under Heaven among men can be saved but by Christ, then Infants cannot be saved but by Christ.

But none under Heaven among men can be saved but by Christ. Ergo.

See Acts 4 12. The Greek word here [anthropes] as here used, signifies, All Men, Women and Children, not one excepted. Therefore Infants are Sinners.

As the Faith of Infants, so their Sin is that which I do not undertake to describe: But thus far I think, no man of reason can deny to follow of consequence, That as our Saviour, so Adam being a publick Person, to act in some things for his Posterity, Adam by sin having lost that which is greatest of all, viz. his Right and Title to Joy and Delight, in the enjoyment of the light of Gods Countenance, could not leave it to his Posterity, and so they are born without a Title to it, and cannot recover it but by that which God accepts of for Faith in Christ. And that he, having lost his Priviledge of ever being received into Glory, by keeping the Law, could not leave that Priviledge to his Children, and so they are born without it, and now cannot be received into Glory but by Faith in Christ. And Adam having his whole na­ture corrupted with an aversion from God and Holiness, could not beget Children of another na­ture, and therefore they cannot be received into Glory, till they are sanctified. So I argue,

If Sanctification cannot be without Faith, then all that are Sanctified have Faith.

But sanctification cannot be without Faith.

Therefore all that are sanctified, have Faith.

[Page 12] The sequel of the Major is self evident. The Proof of the Minor we shall hear more afterwards. So I argue,

If Infants are Sanctifyed, Infants have Faith.

But Infants are Sanctifyed.

Ergo, Infants have Faith.

2dly. Gods Love to Man is distinguished into a Love of Benevolence, or willing them Good, a Love of Beneficence, or doing them Good; and a Love of Complacency, or being pleased with them. With a Love of Benevolence God Loves his Elect from Eternity; and before their Conversion or Sanctifi­cation, with a Love of Beneficence when he does them good; and with a Love of Complacency, when they are sanctified, and not before.

So I argue,

All that are fit to be saved, God loves with a Love of Complacency, i. e. they please God.

But there are Infants fit to be saved, i. e. sancti­fyed.

Therefore there are Infants that please God.

I think neither part will or can be denyed by any.

Hence I argue,

None can please God but such as have Faith, Heb. 11.6.

But there are Infants that please God.

Ergo, there are Infants that have Faith.

If any object and say, it is after their death that they are sanctifyed and please God.

I answer;

It must be a true work, if not a perfect work be­fore death, except we bring in a new Gospel of Re­generation after Death.

[Page 13] It matters Not to us what this Regeneration & Faith in Infants is, so long as it is something real, and God accepts it.

3dly. I having from two undeniable arguments proved Infants Faith, proceed to express Scripture, Mat. 18.6. Whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me.

That this is spoken properly of a little Child or In­fant (whatever some Annotators may say) appears from these Reasons.

1st. If it were not litterally a little child or Infant, the end of our Saviours calling or setting him before his disciples was lost. For a Child of some Years is angry, contentious, deceitful, proud, &c. which evils this was to convince them of. It must have been a child who by reason of his ten­der age had none of these faults. I think it must have been a very young Infant; And if it had been one called a child, because of his child-like Humility, &c. this was no sign to those that knew not his heart, and they would have thought them­selves as good as he.

2dly. If this be admitted, we know not when the Scripture speaks properly, nor where parables.

3dly. Let him that can, produce any Scripture relating matter of fact, that relates it in Parables.

4thly. It is ever a Rule, for the right understand­ing of Scripture, to take it litterally, where there is no necessity to understand it otherwise, to take the plain obvious Signification; and here can be no pretence for taking it otherwise, except

1st. He called him. Whether it was the Child or h [...] Nurse that was called to bring him, is not certain, [Page 14]for such as were brought, were said to come. Chap. 19.13, 14. But a Child that is a perfect Infant in understanding may go alone, and understand to be called.

2. Such a child may be offended. I answer;

If offending be taken for Afflicting or making sorrowful, this may be done to a young sucking Child.

If offending be taken for Dishonour, Reproach and Scandal, this may be done to an Infant new born, by denying him to be a member of Christ's Church, and so ranking him among the Heathen.

If it be taken for a Stumbling-block and hinde­rance of his Edification, this may be done by put­ting them to be brought up where he shall not learn to know his Maker, Redeemer and Sanctifyer, or by setting evil examples before him when he begins to come to understanding, and while he is yet an Infant, as to his being capable of any knowledge.

3dly. A third pretence is, that such a Child is said to believe in Christ. And the fear of believing this, is it that makes some so loath to believe this place litterally; For some men will bend Gods Holy Word any way rather then bend themselves to that. But to say, they have that which God owns for Faith, and is as sufficient for them as the Faith of adult persons is for them, takes away this objec­tion. Now seeing all the other objections are taken away, I have not only incontestable proofs from Scripture Consequence, but express Scripture Testi­mony, that there are little Children or Infants which do believe in Christ.

And from the Text and Context I do infer and [Page 15]aver, that there are little Children, who are so young and small, that no evil example can be found in them, because they are uncapable of it, by rea­son of their tender age, of whom it may be said, They do believe in Christ.

Hence I argue,

All that are Believers are included in the Com­mission for Baptism.

But some Infants are Believers.

Ergo, Some Infants are included in the Commis­sion for Baptism.

Hence to answer Dr. Russels first argument, I say,

The Commission for Baptism includes infants.

Christ has required his Ministers to baptize all such as the Commission includes.

Ergo, Christ has required his Ministers to Bap­tize infants.

And it must be the same way that we prove any Adult person to be included in the Commission.

Thus far in answer to Dr. Russels first Argument, and his saying, That neither Mr. Chandler nor any other person whatsoever could show, that it is recorded in holy Scripture, that Christ has required any of his Ministers to Baptize infants.

But if by Recorded he mean in express words, I challenge him to show that he has required the bap­tizing of Adult persons in express words; But if the expressing such as believe, be to express some Adult, [...]hen the same does express some infants: And if he deny that an infant can believe, let him know that I will believe God before I will believe Dr. Russel and all his Sophistry.

[Page 16] If any enquire what infants we shall look upon as Believers, let him look for that in the next Chap­ter: I need not trace all his words, having as I think fully answered all his allegations. Yet I must take notice again how he would be seen to allow of good consequence, and yet from time to time presses so hard for express words.

CHAP. III. On Dr. Russel' s second Argument.

His Second Argument is,

If Infants are not capable to be made Disciples of Christ by the Ministry of Men, then they cannot possibly be the subject of Baptism intended in Christs Commis­sion.

But Infants are not capable to be made Disciples of Christ by the Ministry of Men. Ergo.

I deny his Minor, and affirm the contrary. For their Parents being brought into the School of Christ, to be learners of the Word, and that by the Ministry of Men; this brings the Children also in, and they no sooner begin to understand, but they begin to learn, and that by vertue of their Parents Discipleship, without any further work of the Ministry than what was improved on their Parents. So the Ministry of Men is the cause ef­fectually of their being learners of the Gospel of Christ, and a Disciple is nothing but a Learner. It matters not whether the Ministry be immedi­ately [Page 17]the cause of their discipleship, or mediately by their Parents, so it be the cause in Gods hand. We see by experience that the Children of true Disciples are always thus discipled; and they were entred in the School the day that their Parents were either Converted or brought to acknowledge the Truth' and seriously to Learn it, and if they are born afterwards, they are born in the School, and devoted to be learners of Christ. But it is not so with the Children of Heathen or other Prophane Persons, who teach not their children as Disciples ought to be taught in Word and Ex­ample.

And Mr. Chandler answered well, by distinguish­ing between compleat and incompleat Disciples; But this Dr. Russel could not bear, nor be found to un­derstand it.

The truth is, it was too hard for him, and so he blames such Distinctions as Equivocable Expressions. Surely Dr. Russel must know that Distinctions are absolutely necessary for the right understanding of the Truth, whether in Divinity or Philosophy, and what else is intended by those Words, 2. Tim. 2.15. Rightly dividing the word of Truth. And in Dispu­tations, one special use of Distinctions is to avoid the Fallacy of Equivocable Expressions. It is a general Rule Qui bene distinguit, bene docet. He that Distinguishes well, Teacheth well. But this was one of the Doctors Remarks after the Dis­pute was over, which might take with the ig­norant Reader, and, it may be, help prevail with him to be plunged before he should hear it answered, I think he knew that we use this Di­stinction, [Page 18]and it was his bufiness to make appear that there is no such distinction, if he did not believe it.

An infant is an in compleat Subject of the King. He is a real Subject, and the King defends him for a subject, and yet he cannot perform one action of Subjection.

As God does not expect that of any Creature, which he never made him capable of, so we do not expect that the Faith or discipleship is the same with that of Adult persons, who are capable of more, yet we believe it as acceptable with God, who has no need of our Service, and that what God has affixed his promise to in them, is as effectual a means for them as hearing and learning is for grown persons. So I argue,

If God own the infants of believing Parents, giving them the Blessings that belong to Disci­ples, obliging himself to them by his Covenant pro­mise, owning them as nigh and not afar off, and giving to some of them sanctifying Grace, which implyes all that he does for grown Disciples, and that on the account of their Parents discipleship, then he owns them as Disciples, & we ought to own them as Disciples

But all this God does for them, and that on the account of their Parents Diseipleship.

Ergo.

Now all that are brough into the School of Christ, or born in the School, they and their Children, so continuing, are under Gods Covenant promise, & therefore he gives to them all saving Grace, except they transgress the Condition after, which we do [Page 19]not know that infants can do.

And Heathens also after they are called and brought in, are under this Promise.

But what God does with the Infants of Unbe­lievers, he has not told us, and so it is none of our business to enquire; Nor has he told us what he does with any infants that are not devoted to be learners of Christ.

Now that saving Grace is the thing promised, appears Isai. 44.3.5. and that this promise is made to grown Disciples and their Children, appears Acts 2.38, 39. I argue.

Either the Children of those new Believers were of the number of those afar off, or they were not.

If they were, then their Parents were also; for it may be either three sorts, or but one sort that are spoken of. If but one sort, then the Parents, Children, and strangers were all the same persons, which is the greatest Non-sense; But the Scripture speaks of them as three sorts, whereof Two are nigh, and One afar off.

But if they were not afar off, then they were nigh, that is, of the Church de Jure, and so under the Covenant-Promise; for there are but those afar off, and those that are nigh, i. e. the World and the Church. See more Eph. 2.12. to 18. where also we find, that those afar off were strangers to the Covenant of Promise, and this being a property of their unhappiness, it must be, that those that were nigh, were not strangers to it. Therefore the Children of believing Parents being not afar off, out nigh, are not stranger to it, but fellows citi­zens under the Priveledge of Disciples contained in the promise.

[Page 20] So it follows,

That the Children of grown Disciples are belie­vers, who are made so by the Ministry of Men, have the same Priviledges of Gods Covenant-Pro­mise with their Parents, and the Ministry is the cause of both, by one Act. Now as Dr Russel says, That which God hath joyned, let no man put asunder. Let him show us a Rule to shut out such as God has received, and by what Rule God has required or allowed us to receive Parents without their Children, when we read not of any Person baptized who had a Houshold, but his Houshold was also baptized, that I remember.

Discipleship is nothing but that which brings us under the advantage of obtaining saving Grace, or making a greater progress and growth therein, by bringing us into that state, which has Gods Promise annexed to it, which in grown persons is, The Diligent use of the Means God hath ap­pointed, as Hearing, Learning, &c. and in Infants it is the being the Children of such Parents devoted by Baptism, till they are grown big enough to learn, and then by the learning they have from them.

I do not say but that God does usually defer the giving affectual saving Grace to such as live to grow up, till they make choice for themselves, wherein they have the Promise of saving Grace, and conse­quently Salvation, upon condition, that they im­prove well the means which they now enjoy, which Promise the Heathen have not, and this is to be a Disciple, or else those that left our Saviour, Joh. 6.66. were no Disciples; but if they be not suf­ficiently Taught, that is their Parents breach of Vow. &c.

[Page 21] I further argue, from Acts 2.39.

Either those Words, As many as the Lord your God shall call, have reference to those Children of Believers, or they have not. If they have, then those Children were not yet called, but some of them were to be called, yet those Children were not reckoned among those afar off, i. e. the World, and therefore must be reckoned among those that were nigh, i. e. the Church. They were under Gods ordinary appointed means for Salvation, and so Disciples. Hence I infer, That Infants of Belie­vers are to be looked upon as Members of the Church before they are called; Therefore nigh, and under the Covenant-Promise, which is the Ground for Bap­tism, viz. the Promise of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2.38. But if those Words have not reference to those Children of Believers, then they are expresly un­der the Promise by being the Children of Believers, without respect to any other call.

Chuse which you will.

Now the reason here given for Baptism is the Promise; And if Dr. Russel can give a Reason to cut off the Apostles Reason, and shew us why the Apostles Reason is not sufficient for one, so well as another, let him do it: In the mean time, till Scripture teach us to make a diffrence, we dare make none.

Now if Dr. Russel's Argument be true, That none may be Baptized but Disciples, made so by the Ministry of Men,

I argue,

All that are under the Covenant promise must be baptized, according to the Commission (if the [Page 22]Apostles knew the Commission and acted by it.)

But Infants are under the Covenant promise.

Ergo, Infants are to be baptized, according to the Commission,

Whence, All that are to be Baptized, according to the Commission, are made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.

Infants are to be baptized, according to the Commission;

Ergo Infants are made Disciples by the Ministry of Men; and therefore are capable to be made so. And I will believe the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour, sooner than I will believe Dr. Russel, who has but his own Reason, helped by many sophisms, for what he says.

His Error is grounded in the meaning of the Word Disciple; For the Question is, What is in­tended by it in holy Scripture? Whether it signify one that is actually taught, or whether it intend one that is devoted to be a Learner, either by himself or by another? Dr. Russel takes it in the former sense; But the Apostles of Christ took it in the Latter, as appears, and I believe they knew best. Howe­ver, it is a poor case when men will build their Faith upon the acceptation of a Word, which in use commonly varys from the prime Signification; but that [ Mathetes] Disciple, need not do, to be taken after one devoted to be a Learner, although not yet taught.

But the Antipoedo Baptists object, That this we bring Ʋnregenerate Persons into the Church.

I answer;

1st. A Persons bring a Disciple does not infer his [Page 23]Regeneration, compare John 6.66. and 1 John 2, 19.

2dly. I think they will not pretend that all whom they baptize are regenerate, yea, doubtless in ma­ny Congregations the biggest part are not.

3dly. What the Ministry can do, is, to bring them into the School of Christ, and instruct them there; But it is the Spirit of God that sanctifies them there, (and has not promised to do it any where else) which he does some Adult and some Infants; But neither we, nor such as baptize only Adult Persons, know certainly who they are; But we must judge charitably of all that we find in the School, till their Works prove them other­wise, which if they do, before they are baptized, they ought to be refused, and if after it, to be disowned, &c. Once more,

Seeing they will have none baptized but such as are made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, yea, and by teaching too, I would know, how Annanias drust baptize Paul, who was not made a Disciple by the Ministry of Men? If they say he had a special Commission, let them shew it, or the account of it, seeing they vaunt so much that they have express Scripture for all they do.

Thus far against Dr. Russel's second Argument, and to prove the contrary viz, that infants of Believers are so well Disciples of Christ as their Parents.

But now comes the work which I do not love, which is, to answer his Argument by which he undertakes to prove this Argument, Though I have but one Reason not to Love it, and that is, he has [Page 24]used so much Sophistry, that it is necessary to expose him in the Answering it, which, I fear, will exasperate his Friends, and Anger works no Edification. But why should they be angry at the discovery of false reasons, for so they will seem to love them

Pag. 23. Dr. Russel turns his Making Disciples into Teaching. Of which more anon.

In the next page he commits a Fallacy, called, Petitio principii, drawing a Conclusion from a Prin­ciple never allowed, viz. That Disciples can be made no other way than by being actually Taught. Which is more commonly the Effect of being Dis­ciples, than the Cause.

Pag. 25. He shews his skill in expounding of Scripture, telling us, That the Apostles were com­manded, Mark 16.15, 16. To baptize such as they had made Disciples by their Preaching. Whereas there is not a word of Disciples there. I grant that our Lord commanded it, as he commanded the bap­tizing of Infants or Adult Persons, viz. by Con­sequence. But seeing Dr. Russel will not acknow­ledge the one, tho' from as good Consequence, why does he affirm the other, when there is not such a word in the Text?

Come Dr. Russel (to use his own way) I beg of you, shew me the word [ Disciple] there; you say it, if you do not shew it, the People will think you cannot.

He next tells us, That in Mat. 28.19. They were commanded to Baptize such as they had made Disciples by Teaching.

But this is worse, for Consequence will hardly [Page 25]help you here, Doctor. Here he allows Teaching and Making Disciples to be two things; for the one may be done by the other. And seeing they are Two Things, whereof the one at least may be without the other, how can he infer from hence That the word signifies both? For if Matheteusate here signifies Teach ye, that is all, and [ Make Dis­ciples] is not here; for an Old Disciple may be Taught, who was not made one by this Teaching; but if it signifie Make Disciples, that is all, and Teach is not here; and if they can be made Dis­ciples by other means, they are to Baptize them according to this Commission, and that although they were never Taught, notwithstanding this Text, but only they were made Disciples, in or­der to be Taught.

One word may signify several things, but not at one time, but according to what it is used for at several times. You might better have said, Make Disciples by Baptizing them; for both these words are in the Text, and Baptism is an Obliga­tion to be a Disciple; and if it be done by Baptism it is also done by the Ministry of Men.

[ Matheteusate] Make Disciples, is a Verb, and [ Baptizontes] Baptizing, is a Particle, which are usually used together in the Greek Tongue, to ex­press one act; as, [ Apocritheis Eipen] Answering, said. So, Make Disciples, Baptizing, may refer to one only act. But where is your Make Disciples, Teaching, when there is but one of the words?

Thus he will have [ Matheteusate] signify Make Disciples, when he thinks that will help him (to shut out those that God has received.) Then [Page 26]again, it must signify Teach, when he can improve it best so. And then he will have it both together, whereas if That be True, it is not in the Commis­sion that Christs Ministers shall preach at all, ex­cept there be some Unbelievers to hear, and be made Disciples by it.

Doctor, do you expound Scripture thus, when you preach to your People?

In the next page, he has another Fallacy, for want of the word Only in line 23. For it would not be true to say, The Ministration of the Gospel does only inform what is good, and what is evil, and does nothing else; and if he say not this, he had as good say nothing, except to amuse the ignorant: for there are other things wherein Infants may partake of the Ministration of the Gospel.

I think any one may see the Fallacy of such argu­ing, and learn to avoid such a Teacher. The Lord pity such as build their Faith on such Conse­quences.

I have not Room to enlarge upon his shufling off Mr Chandlers Distinction which so hurt him, and several other things. It seems his surest way of answering, to come off with honour, was, to evade it, and so he, as it were, forcibly proceeds to another Argument, leaving this, with that which is well if some do not say is a Lye; for he saith, That Mr. Chandler had granted every part of his Argument, when his own Narrative does not tell us (that I can find) any more that was granted than That Infants cannot be compleat Disciples, because they know not good and evil, which I know not that ever any denyed.

[Page 27] I suppose his word will be taken by those of his own party: But what shall we say to it? Is this Religon and Conscience? I must forbear to Remark more apon it.

CHAP. IV. On Dr. Russel 's Third and Fourth Arguments, pag. 29.

HIs Third Aargument is, That the Apostle Paul did declare all the Counsel of God, &c. and yet did never declare Infants Baptism.

This were something, if he could prove it, but which way can that be done, except we had all the Apostle Paul's Sermons, that ever he taught? Therefore his bringing this is Ridiculous, and the design of it is altogether a Sophism, as appears by his way of proving it.

However, his argument is not true, and I prove the contrary of it, thus.

All the Counsel of God, with respect to our Faith and Practice, was taught by the Apostle Paul.

But all the Commission for Baptism, is a part of of the Counsel of God in that respect.

Ergo, all the Commission for Baptism was taught by the Apostle Paul. Hence,

If the Commission for Baptism includes Infants, the Apostle Paul taught Infants Baptism,

But the Commission for Baptism includes in­fants.

[Page 28] Ergo, The Apostle Paul taught Infant Baptism.

The Minor, which only can be objected against, I have proved before.

But to return to Dr. Russel, p. 30.

His next arguement to prove his Third by, is both false in it self, and the Fallacy, called, The begging of a Principle, except all Pauls Sermons were written in the New Testament; But he is still a good help to the Quakers, for by the same Argu­ment Baptism with Water may be denyed, if it be not written in the New Testament, that the Apostle Paul taught it, and I think it was for such Reasons that a Palagian Quaker here was so forward to have it Re-printed. And by the same Rule we may deny that Buggery is a Sin, or for a Man to marry his Sister or his Daughter, if it be not writ­ten in the New Testament that Paul taught that it is.

In page 23. he very Uncivilly Scoffs at Mr. Leigh's Simile, and yet seems as if he were in Sober Earnest.

The following pages are almost full with his words, but I cannot see with what design, except to amuse the ignorant who judge of a Dispute only by the many Words, Scoffs and Triumphs used by the Disputant. And I fear too many of his Pro­selytes are won by no other means.

As for instance. In the end of the page 33, to prove that all that Paul taught is recorded in the Scripture, he cites Acts 20.27. I have not shunned to declare to you all the Counsel of God. Admirable Interpreter of Scripture! What is this at all to the purpose? If it had been, I have not shunned [Page 29]to write in my Epistles all the Counsel of God, it had been something to his purpose. All the rest of his discourse on this Argument is of the same Stamp. But I preceive his admirers think he has proved all he said effectually. The Lord pity them and all that are taught by such as can own such Arguments! if they apply Scripture thus also, when they teach the spiritual part of Religion.

Page 58. Dr. Russel in his remark since the Dis­pute, tells us a ridiculous story of a Presbyterian Minister preaching about the Eunuchs Wife and Children. Though I do not believe so ignorant a Creature was ever approved by a Presbytrey to be a Minister, nor hath he recited all Mr. Leigh's words there. But I hope now that this party will not be angry if I tell them I have heard of an Antipedo-Baptist preacher, of a great Name among some of them, who, preaching, how Christ being rich, be­came Poor for our sakes, among other things, said, That he parted with his Eternity. Some call it Blasphe­my: And that some well approved Ministers of the Antipedobaptists interpret that in Luke 10.33. &c. the Samaritan to be our Saviour, the Host to be the Holy Ghost, the Two Pence to be Grace and Glory, &c. And that Dr. Russel (if he speak sence, and it were an affront to say he does not) infers from Acts 20.27. That the Scripture contains a Record of all that Paul taught, that is, that all Paul 's Sermons are at large recorded in the New Testa­ment, if he speaks to the purpose. I think this is as bad as the Eunuchs Wife and Children; and if this be not enough, we shall have more before the Dispute closes the first Question. and I think this [Page 30]may the better be remembred of Dr. Russel because of what he says in plain words from a saying of Mr. Leighs, viz.

In pag. 36. Dr. Russel tells his Reader, That these Men have the confidence to affirm before so great an Auditory that is written in the Commission that Paul did declare the Baptism of Infants to be a Gospel Institution. What shall we call this? Let the Reader view Dr. Russels own Narrative, and see if he can find such a word, or any thing more that Mr. Leigh said, I will say it is in the Commission, ALL NATIONS, which is as much to as say, As Paul taught all the Counsel of God, so he taught Infant Baptism, which is in the Commission implyed in these words, ALL NA­TIONS, although there be no other account of it. I will not plead the sufficiency of that argument; But what is this to affirming that it is written in the Commission that Paul taught it? Dr. Russel can make such long Consequences on a Mans words, and say the Man affirmed so. It is strange that he cannot take up with a necessary Consequence, that the Commission implies Infants; Yea, with the Hundredth part of the Consequence, that there is for it, he may as well say Infants are expressed in the Commission, as to say, that Mr. Leigh thus affirmed; But he ascribes it to them all, saying These Men. But in Truth Mr. Leigh did not say, it was written there, much less affirm it, except to say All Nations, be to say, Paul taught, &c. I must not remark upon it!

I observe, from one Argument to another, he has the last word, without being contradicted, That his Argument stands good.

[Page 31] These things considered, with Mr. Chandler's granting every part of his second Argument, and what he tells his Reader here, and some other things, do serve me for an eight Reason mentioned in my first Chapter.

And I cannot but take Notice, how he that in his Dedication, tells, how ready he is to suffer for Christ, does joyn with it so much Conscience of speaking the Truth, and using no Fallacious Argu­ments, nor striving for Mastery, but only sincerely for the Truth, without striving to hide his Re­spondents Arguments, which things the love of Christ obliges, so well as to suffer.

His Fourth Argument, pag. 39. is, Christs Com­mission doth shew who are to be Baptized,

But it doth not shew, that Infants are to be Bap­tized. Ergo.

This is a Fallacy all over, which he used in other words, on his first Argument, and I have answered it in the beginning of my second Chap­ter.

And by this Argument I can as well prove, that Dr. Russel has no power to Baptize. Thus,

Christs Commission doth shew us who are to Baptize,

But it doth not shew us that Dr. Russel is to baptize any,

Ergo, Dr. Russel is not to Baptize, according to Christs Commission.

If he say, The Commission shews it by Conse­quence, he must then acknowledge his Argument a Fallacy. For if the Commission shews it by Consequence, it shews it. And let him know, [Page 32]that the Commission expresses Believers, and that the Scripture calls some Infants Believers; but it does not call Dr. Russel a Minister.

Now, I having already answered all he says on this Argument, need not trouble the Reader fur­ther, only it is worth Noticing again, how strenu­ously he presses for Infants to be Expressed, or not baptized, although he allowed, or pretended to allow of Consequence, at first. And seeing he presses so hard for Express Scripture, I Challenge him to bring Express Scripture for Making Disciples by Teaching, which is his ground Work here.

Come, Doctor, You make a great Triumph, when you demand of your Respondents Express Scripture for that which they do not pretend to prove, but by Consequence, Where is your Express Scripture that says, Make Disciples by Teaching? seeing you pretend to have Express Scripture for all you do. And where is it written, That they cannot be made any other way?

If what I have said be not enough, I add, If the Anti-Paedo-Baptists, to prove making Disciples by Teaching, plead Mat 28.20. Teaching them, &c. I will, for once, allow it; but then let them re­member, That by the same Rule they are first to be made Disciples by Baptizing, v. 19. And if I should undertake to prove, that in Scripture ac­count, None are regularly Disciples till baptized, and that all such are, except by their Works they cut themselves off again; and that to be visibly a Disciple, or visibly a Church-Member, or to live under the ordinary appointed Means for Salva­tion, or to be [...], in Covenant with God, is [Page 33]all one thing; I think they would not easily find it Confuted.

And hence, the Faith, that in the Commission, is a Qualification for Baptism (if believing be there named as a Qualification) is joyned with the Promise of Salvation; and if I affirm, that all that are visibly Subjects of that Promise, and no other, are the Subjects of Baptism, according to the Commission, I think they will not easily find it Confuted.

I further add, If the Apostles had left out Infants, the Judaizing Christians would have more strenuously Opposed them for that, than they did for leaving out Circmucision, the Ceremonial Law, the yearly Feast-days, and Change of the Sabbath-day.

But the Judaizing Christians did not Oppose them for leaving out Infants, Ergo, The Apo­stles did not leave out Infants.

The Jews, who took such great Satisfaction in having their Children in Covenant, with them­selves, and in their receiving the Ordinance of being received into the Covenant, would not have silently left out their Children, and set them upon equal Terms with the Children of the Heathen, and make no Opposition.

Now, from time to time, as we have the account of their Opposing the Apostles for leaving out Circumcision, &c. and of the Apostles vindication of their so doing, there is never one title of the leaving out of infants, or of the Judaizing Chri­stians pleading for their being in the Covenant, or the Apostles pleading against it.

[Page 34] And when the scripture gives us the Account of the Opposition of these Judaizing Christians, so often and full, it is not rational to think it would have been silent in this, which would have been the greatest part of their Opposition, if Infants had not been still partakers of the Sign of entring into the Church or Covenant, so well as formerly.

The only Objection the Anti-Pedo-Baptists make, that has the colour of reason in it, is, That thus People are brought into the Church by natural Genera­tion, and not by Regeneration. To which I answer:

1st. the baptizing them, is an acknowledgment, that they cannot be saved without Regeneration; but such as deny them baptism, have no such sign, and yet believe they are saved.

2dly, It is not their natural Generation, but their being under the care of such Parents or Ma­sters as will bring them up under the ordinary ap­pointed means for Salvation, which entitles them to Baptism; for so was the Covenant with Father Abraham; And to be under the ordinary appointed means, is to be under a Conditional Promise, and so in Covenant, which is to be a Church-Member or Disciple. So this Objection is false.

CHAP. V. On Mr. Williams his Arguments, and the Rest of their Dispute on this Question.

PAg. 54. I find nothing, but what is answered already till we come to what the Doctor helps after the Dispute. It is his perverting that Scripture, Rom. 10.14. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, &c. which Text refers only to such as can actually Call upon the Name of the Lord. But if this Text concerns Infants, we may as well infer, that they cannot be saved, be­cause they call not on the Name of the Lord, as that they cannot believe, because they cannot hear with understanding.

His next Argument, That a Minister must have an account of a persons Faith, before he baptize him, is answered already. I now add, that we have no way to know an Adult Persons Faith, but by his Profession and Practice; But the Faith of Infants is known from a better Testimony, viz. of the Holy Scripture, as has been shewed.

And his next following pag. 60. Of Self-denyal being necessary to make a Disciple is of the same nature. The real design of that Scripture, Luke 14.27. and other like, is, to shew us that false Disciples cannot be saved; altho they be visible Disciples they shall not be accepted as true Disciples, even [Page 36]all such as will not deny themselves for Christ. In the same sence we read Rom. 2. leter end, That is not Circumcision which is outward in the Flesh, &c. So Rom. 9.6. They are not all Israel who are of Israel. So, if it be rational to apply this Scripture to In­fants, the inference must be, That they are all Damned who dye in Infancy. Judas was a Disci­ple, if the Scripture say true, and yet this Curse came upon him, because he had not the Grace of Self-denyal, but loved the Reward of Ʋnrighteous­ness. But how Unreasonable is it to apply to In­fants the Curses which belong only to grown Hypocrites, who for want of Self-denyal follow their Lusts, which Infants do not! That this is the design of such Scriptures, deny if you can. And for what Reason must they be kept out of the Church, for that which will not keep them out of Heaven? Assign a Reason from Scripture he that can. And why, seeing they own that Infants have the blessing of Disciples in their Salvation, how Unreasonable is it to apply to them the Curses that are intended only for Hypocrites! How these People understand the Scripture! If they under­stand it thus in all things, it is time for all such as love their Souls to be weary of them. I know they would take it very heniously if one should say of them, when the blind lead the blind, both fall into the Ditch. But I hope Gods Mercy does prevail above some of their ignorance, for I think I know some good men of their Profession, at least of one fort of them.

But I must observe, how readily they turn it off, as not to concern Infants, when such Scriptures, [Page 37]as, He that believeth not shall be damned, is alledged for Infants Faith; but how they take all that they can pervert against it, although never so forreign to the purpose. I would know, by what Rule they do it, except it be that of Resolving to see with but one Eye, although God has given them two? And by what Rule these scriptures concern Infants more than that?

Next comes in Dr. Russel again, with his old and common Sophism, Denying that ever the Apostles baptized any Infant, demanding an Instance that they did.

But if that be a Rule, we may deny that ever they gave the Lords supper to Women, or Prayed, when they met on the Lords Day, to Preach, &c. and many other things; for all their Acts are not Recorded; It is enough that they had Commission so to do.

But here lies the strength of his fallacy, In stead of arguing, If they did, there is some account of it in scripture, he leaps over that to prove there is no ac­count of it, and so might easily ground his Re­spondent, and blind the ignorant, and yet has proved nothing.

Page. 64. Mr. Leigh answers him well, by de­manding an Instance of one born of a believing Pa­rent that was baptized at age. But he omitting to insert ( after Baptism was instituted) Mr. Williams p 66. takes the advantage of it, to Instance our Saviour; Which proves as much as to Instance, Ishmael circumcised at thirteen years old, would prove that Infants were not to be circumcised at eight days old, when Circumcision was not insti­tuted [Page 38]before he came to that age. And the Reve­rend Dr. Russel approves it as a pertinent Answer, and so do his friends, as one of the greatest Ex­ploits they had performed; and Dr. Russel is so pleased with that Opinion, as to publish it in his Dedication. Indeed, it will serve a Sophister very well, who has no regard to Truth nor Conscience, but only to carry the Cause right or wrong.

Me thinks this should make Conscientious People weary of them, I could not have believed it of them, if I had not seen it in their own works, so much admired by their Party here. If I hadbeen half perswaded to be of their Opinion, I think such things would have made me Sick of them; For if their Opinion could be true, it is as clear as the shining of the Sun, that they are satisfied in it by false Arguments; and I know not of one true Argument they use, having also read and well per­used Mr. Keache's Rector rectified.

A Child may know, that neither Adult nor Infants should be baptized before Baptism was in­stituted, be they whose Children they will. And I do say, that, till they give an Instance, as the Question should be stated, Mr. Leigh's Argument is as good against them, as theirs against him, and a little better, because we read of several housholds baptized, though Infants be not expressed in them.

Dr. Russel's Instances, p. 65, of Constantine and others, are not scriptural, and therefore not to the Question, neither were these baptized by the Apostles, but long after.

But we must remember, that many Christians in those times had a fancy that Baptism cleansed [Page 39]them from all Sins past, but from none that were committed after, and therefore many inclined to have their Baptism deferred till just before their Death. And as for Constantine, his Father was a Pagan till Constantine was considerably grown, and being a Great Prince, and his Wife of the Nation of the Tributary Britains, it is rational to conclude, that he would not suffer him to be baptized in his Infancy. And moreover (if I mistake not) Con­stantine had a great desire to be baptized over the sepulchre of our Saviour, and so deferred it long, but how that could be done by plunging, I cannot tell.

Next, follows Mr. Leigh's Opponency, pag. 67. where Dr. Russel mannages his skill again into Sophistry, by not considering the Distinction be­tween Church Members de jure, of right, and de facto, in fact. Baptized persons, till excommuni­cated, are Church-Members, and disciples de facto. But its only sanctified Believers (bapti­zed or not baptized) are so de Jure.

His answer to Mr. Leighs Induction, is also like the rest. I pass by his Language, though as good a Gentleman as himself, and observe his addition since the dispute, when there was none to answer him, where he makes his Reader believe that which Mr. Leigh never said; For Mr. Leigh denies that Infants are the Graces of the Kingdom or the Glory of the Kingdom of Heaven; and Dr. Russel will seem to understand it, That they have no Interest in them; whereas a Child may know, that, to be a thing, and to have a right in a thing, are so far from being the same, that they are quite Opposite. And so [Page 40]he casts a scoff upon Mr. Leigh, for what he did not say, and seems to deny, but does not deny Mr. Leighs Argument. Indeed it will do to amuse the Ignorant, and help to lead the blind Captive. I am weary of this, and sorry that I must expose Men that profess Religon, to defend the Truth that suffers, and to defend those that they unjustly exposed. If I could but find fair Arguments modestly managed, to answer, it were a more grateful work. And if these Men that quietly an­swered him, must be so represented, how shall I escape, who expose their unfair dealing, &c.? I would not do it, if I durst omit it, for fear of the Lash of their Tongues, especially when they find that they cannot answer me any other way, though I encourage my self, that such of them as are good men, will not reproach me for my love to them; for if I could have found a way to clear the Truth from false arguments, without accusing them of Sophistry, &c. they should not have found that, nor any other word to gall them. And I comfort my self, that if I suffer Reproach for doing that, which I am bound in Conscience to do, it will not turn to my loss. However, I hope that the fence of my Duty to my Maker will keep me from fearing them, so as to desist, and I am willing to leave it to wise indifferent men to judge; and if I have wronged them, they shall have satisfaction.

The [...] of Mr. Williams his Oppsiote Argu­ment, I deny. For if Infants are not members of the Universal Church, I know not how they can be fit for Heaven when they dye.

[Page 41] And his reply to Mr. Robinsons demand of an ex­press Prohibition of Infants Church-membership, will not do in this case. For, first, we insist upon Scrip­ture-Consequence for it, which if it be overthrown it must be by express Scripture, or overturning our Consequence; But the Papists do not pretend Scripture (that I know of) for using Cream and Spittle in Baptism. 2 dly, We have express Scripture that has taken Infants into the Church, and we ex­pect that they may not be turned out again, with­out express Scripture. If the Anti-Pedo-Baptists have the power, we would be very glad to see their Commission, and to know what Offence the poor Infants have committed that they must be cast out of the Church, when they were Promised to have a right in it to all Generations.

It seems strange, that Mr. Leigh could not pro­duce Scripture for turning Wicked persons out of the Church, p. 73. but they say it.

Pag. 74. Dr. Russel, unasked, acknowledges, That Infants have a Title to Grace here. I would know how this can be reconciled, with their ha­ving no Faith, and which way their Grace shall be exercised without Faith? Or, if it can be in Habit only, why Faith may not also? But to have other Graces, and no Faith, seems to me like a Tree growing up and standing without Roots. I think all Christians call Faith the Radical Grace. How can one love, or fear, or hope in, or desire that which he believes nothing of, &c? If there be the Habit of one, I think of the other necessarily; But let Dr. Russel with his express Scripture, shew, why a Root of Faith may not as well be in them bernard villanueva [Page 42]as of other Graces? Yea, let him do it by Conse­quence, and in the mean time, I beg of him and his friends, to consider it well and Conscientiously, lest they be found such as resist the evidence of Truth, against their own Conscience. Or does he mean Grace after Death? No, for it is Grace here and Glory hereafter; beside, that must infer Re­generation after Death, which I cannot think he believes. Or by Grace does he mean only Temporal Comfort, such Grace as the Beasts have?

He says, this is by Christs Righteousness imputed to them, and when he brings Scripture to prove. that Christs Righteousness is imputed to such as have no Faith, we will bring Scripture to Baptize them. I may not enlarge to shew how he interprets Acts 15. (p. 75.) nor how he pleads that the Manner of Cir­cumcission was the thing there in debate, and says, The Manner of Moses was to cut off the fore-skin, &c, as if the Christians had used Circumcission, but in another manner, and many more such things. However I will not undertake to prove infants Discipleship from that Scripture, till I can do it by a Syllogism, which (according to Rule) shall have no Fallacy in it.

He says they (his Opponents) know, that the Churches in those times consisted of Adult persons. If he had said, Only Adult, I would have said something to him. He also vertuosly denys Infants, such as (he says) have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and have a Title to Grace & Glory, to be Brethren, so well as Believers. So they may have a Title to Glory in Heaven, and be the Brethren of our Lord and Saviour, who calls such Brethren, and [Page 43]yet (it seems) not good enough to be Dr. Russels Brethren.

Further on, pag. 77. Mr. Williams vertually denys their having received the Ho'y Ghost. But how this will agree with his Brother Russel, who says, They have a Title to Grace here (Or are they cheat­ed of their Title, and never have the thing) or with his own assertion, That Christs Righteousness is imputed to them, and not his Spirit given, I cannot understand, especially seeing the Apostle Paul whom I have a greater esteem of, says, ( Rom. 8.9.) If any Man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. The Greek [ 'Tis] any Man, is as applicable to Infants, as men. If they have Grace without the Spirit, I think it is not of Gods making, and so they had better be without it. However, I believe they cannot go to Heaven till they have received the Holy Spirit here in this Life, and I believe the Apostle Peter understood himself very well, when he said, Who can forbid Watter, that these may be bap­tized who have received the Holy Gost so well as we. And I pray these People to consider it, and I pray God to give them a heart to do it. They have need to believe something that will consist toge­ther.

Soon after, how sincerely does Mr. Williams beg of them for an instance of infants Baptism? Poor Man! how he longed for, it when he knew they did not pretend to prove it that way. But could they have found, & had the Conscience to bring a like In­stance to theirs, for a Child of a Believer baptized at age, I wonder if they would not have made a great cry of the Fallacy.

[Page 44] Next follows, after a few more of Dr. Russels Re­marks and Syllogisms, a great bluster about making Disciples of Beasts, which is about as reasonable as many other of their arguing. For.

1. Infants have immortal Souls, Beasts have not.

2. Infants are coming on to the use of Reason, Beasts not.

3. If we may believe Dr. Russel, infants have a Title of Grace here, i. e. Grace while Infants, Beasts have not.

4. Infants have a fair advantage for their Salva­tion by the instruction they shall have meerly by vertue of their Parents Discipleship, Beasts have not.

5. The Lord adds to the Church such as shall be saved, Acts 2.47. Infants are such as shall be saved, Beasts are not.

6. Infants of believing Parents, brought under the Covenant-Promise, have this Promise as effec­tual a means for them, as Deligent hearing is for their Parents, who have no other Title by it but Gods promise, Beasts have not.

7. Infants have Faith, Beasts have not.

8. Infants have the Spirit of Christ, else they are none of his, Beasts have not.

9. Infants have Christs Righteousness imputed to them, which I think infers that he owns them for Disciples, but Beasts have not.

10. Infants are devoted to be Learners of Christ, which is to be his Disciples, Beasts are not.

But perhaps Dr. Russel will here (as he often does) plead, That these things are not according to his Argument, for he says, Made Disciplis by Teach­ing.

[Page 45] [...];

1st. If his Argument be not true, what then? For though I acknowledge grown Disciples are made and edified by Teaching, and not without, yet I deny that the Commission for Baptism obliges only such to be baptized who are so made, as I have sufficiently shown; and his Argument is wholly a begging of a Principle: And so long as our Saviour owns them for Disciples, I am not so much concern­ed how Dr. Rus accounts them; But I desire him to shew me the Rule by which our Saviour has requi­red the Baptism of some Disciples, and not others.

2. But I will not be concerned much to deny the Medium of this his Argument. Let it be. that Disciples can be made no other way than by Teach­ing; It is Teaching that makes infants Disciples by making their Parents Disciples.

Dr. Russel in one of his Remarks, made after the Dispute, the better to help his cause, pag. 79 does give infants Baptism a title of an unscriptural Practice, not to call it worse; which indeed were enough to fright a person of a tender Conscience. But the best of it is, that his calling it so is a Re­proachful Slander, not only on those that do it in obedience to Gods Ordinance, but on the Ordinan­ce it self, as I have made appear, and hope by Gods blessing, further to make appear, and find him in Unscriptural Practice, not to call it worse.

In pag. 84. He would insinuate as if St. Augu­stine was against Infant Baptism, who wrote so much in defence of it, if I mistake not; for in his days lived the Heretick Pelagius, who denyed it, with Original sin, which must be a proper [Page 46]Consequence of it, or else the Damnation of all that dye in Infancy.

CHAP. VI. Containing some further Arguments for Infant Baptism.

FIrst, Baptism is the sign of the blessing of the Covenant of Grace.

To all those to whom the Grace signified be­longs, the sign belongs.

But to Infants the Grace signified belongs.

Ergo, To Infants the sign belongs.

We find Baptism given as a sign of the blessings of the Covenant of Grace, such as the Remission of fins, Cleansing from sin, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, &c. Now if Infants be in the Covenant of Grace, they have these and such like blessings, so well as the Adult. And if they can give a Reason, from Scripture, to give the sign to some, and not to others, who have as good a right in the things signified, let us see it, lest we accuse them of an Ʋnscriptural Practice in making a difference, where God has made none. But if they deny Infants to have these Blessings represented in Baptism, then Away with their pretended belief of Infants Grace here, and Glory hereafter, &c.

Arg. 2. A Law made, stands good till repealed.

Those taken into Covenant by a Law unrepea­led, are in Covenant still.

[Page 47] But Infants are taken into Covenant by a Law unrepealed.

Ergo, Infants are in Covenant still.

I know they object, That the Circumcision Law of Moses is Repealed. But the Covenant with Abra­ham was a Gospel Covenant, and I hope they will not say that is repealed, though Circumcision, the sign, be repealed, because the Blood of the Redee­mer, promised in the Covenant, has been shed; for, what is performed, is no longer a Promise, yet the Covenant in the remaining part is the same still, see Rom. 4. v. 11. to 16. This was not a Co­venant of the Law to Abraham and his seed, but it was through the Righteousness of Faith, v. 13. there­fore a Gospel Covenant. It was not only the Pro­mise of the Land of Canaan, notwithstanding what Mr. Keach says, for that was only to the Circum­cised seed of Abraham; but this Promise was to the Ʋncircumcised also, v. 11. i. e. it was to remain, when Circumcision is abolished. Abraham was to be Heir of the World, v.13. The Uncircumcised Gentile Church, and not the Jewish only, were to come into his Covenant; Yea, it is express, v.16. Therefore it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all, Thus it was a Gospel Covenant, to remain for­ever. And because we are brought into it, he is called, The Father of us all, not our spiritual Father, except he were the Instrument of our Conversion, but the Man with whom a formal Covenant was made, not only for himself, but for all that should [Page 48]come into it; and this Covenant includes the Co­venanter and his seed, and it contains the whole Gospel of Salvation by Faith in Christ, who was promised in it. Now this Covenant was a Cove­nant of Faith with Abraham, and his Infant seed included in it, had no more Faith than ours have. His seed that lived to grow up might loose the Blessings of it by transgressing the Conditions be­fore they had obtained the covenanted saving Grace, and so may ours, and so may an Adult per­son, received in by Discipleship, but not yet fully regenerate. Now this Covenant being the Con­stitution of the visible Gospel Church, all that are included in it, are Church Members and Disci­ples. Now that which was legal, as Circumcision, is expressly repealed, but the same Covenant is still of as good force after that is repealed. This covenant made with Abraham was not repealed in St. Pauls time, and we believe it never was since. If the [ Antipedobapsists] say, it is, they would do well to shew it, for they have not done it yet. And if they say, Infants are also taken out of it, let them produce Scripture for it, and it will suf­fice; and they, who plead so hard for Express Scripture, I think, are obliged to do it, or yield. And in the mean time, we believe, that if Infants, or Children, or Seed, were never once mentioned in the New Testament, they have as good a Title as they had in Abrahams days, to all the Signs of the Covenant of Grace, and that it belongs not to us to prove them a New to be in the Covenant, whom we find once in the Covenant now in being, but that it belongs to such as deny it to prove them [Page 49]turned out. And we think that to be so far beyond any warrant they can find in Sripture, that we be­lieve Infants or Children, on the account of their Parents, are expressly included still, Acts 2.29. And that this Covenant or promise is the ground for Baptism. v. 28. Hence I argue,

If being in the Covenant, be the Ground for Baptism, then all in the Covenant ought to be baptized,

But being in the Covenant, is the Ground for Baptism.

Ergo, All in the Covenant ought to be baptized.

And now, Dr. Russel, for your Ʋnscriptural Pra­ctice, which you so vaunt with, If any still deny Infants being included in the Promise, contrary to Scripture, I would know of them, by what War­rant they believe GOD will do that which he has never promised? Or else I shall believe it an Un­scriptural Practice in Dr. Russel to believe so uncha­ritably of Infants; They may be every soul of them damned, for any thing he knows, if they are not included in the promise; Ay, but he has proved by Scripture, that they have a right to the King­dom of Glory in Heaven, see pag. 69. Very well, They are not in the Kingdom of Glory yet, The­refore it must be a Promise, and I know of no Gospel Promise but what is either Absolutely or Conditionally, and either mediately or immedi­ately the Promise of eternal Life; and I know of no such Promises to any of the Children of Men, but what are Gospel promises; and I know no distinction in such revealed Promises, with respect to Baptism.

[Page 50] Arg.3. If nothing without the promise be a Rule for Baptism, then the Promise is our Rule to know whom to Baptize.

But nothing without the Promise is a Rule for Baptism.

Ergo, The Promise is our Rule to know whom to baptize.

Discipleship, Faith, Repentance, and the Profession of Faith, are to the Ministers only Rules to know who are under the Promise, and thereby Rules for Baptism. So any other Mark of being under the promise, as to be the Child of a believing Pa­rent, is a Rule for Baptism. I wonder what good Discipleship or Faith would do us, in order to Sal­vation, if neither absolute nor conditional Promi­ses were annexed, and therefore are they expressed in the Commission. I conclude, that when an ac­count of the Eunuchs Faith were demanded, it was to know whether he had an Interest in the Cove­nant Promise; For other Marks are required in the Adult, than in infants. I argue a pari,

If the Promise be our Rule to know whom to baptize, then infants under the Promise, so well as their Parents, are to be baptized, so well as the Parents.

But the Promise is our Rule to know whom to Baptize,

Ergo, infants under the Promise, so well as their Parents, are to be baptized so well as their Parents.

The Adult have no other Title to it but the Promise, and if Dr Russel say true, that Infants have a right to the Kingdom of Glory before they are in it, they have their [...] by the Promise, [Page 51]and so ought to be baptized, so well as Adult.

Again, I argue,

If Baptism signify that which Circumcision did ( viz. an Entrance into the Church) then Baptism is (in that) come in the room of Circumcision. But this Baptism does (The Antipedobaptists use it as such a sign) Ergo, Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision.

Whence I argue,

If Baptism be come in the room of Circumci­sion, then all that were to be Circumcised, are to be baptized, except some new order to the con­trary.

But Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision, and no new order to prohibit any, but to add the Females.

Ergo, All that were to be circumcised, are to be baptized, and the Females added.

Arg.4. A causa finali.

Only that Baptism which represents every Ar­ticle of Faith, is the right Baptism.

But the Baptism only of Infants, so well as Adult, represents every Article of Faith.

Ergo, The Baptism only of Infants, so well as Adult, is the light Baptism.

Again,

That Baptism which represents only some Ar­ticles of Faith, is not the right Baptism.

But the Baptism of only Adult, represents only some Articles of Faith,

Ergo, The Baptism of only Adult, is not the right Baptism.

Now, I dare Challenge any one to name one [Page 52]Article of Faith, with respect to our Redemption, that so not represented in the Baptism of Infants; But the Baptism of only Adult persons, does not represent our belief of Original Sin, nor imply a Confession of it, which to be cleansed from, is the ground Work of our Regeneration, which has its name from thence, because our first Genera­tion does not qualify us for Heaven.

Arg.5. A Majori.

All that are fitted for Heaven are fit for the Church;

But Infants are fitted for Heaven,

Ergo, Infants are fit for the Church.

Again,

If the Church consist of Matter prepared for Heaven, and contain of right all the matter in this world prepared for Heaven, Then the Church does of right contain Infants,

But the former is true, Ergo, the latter.

Now if Baptism be the Sign or badge of Church-Membership, all that are Church-members, of right should have it,

But Baptism is the sign or badge of Church-Membership,

Ergo, All that are of right Church-Members, should have it.

Of whom are Infants.

Arg.6.

Those that have received, or have the Promise of the Holy Ghost, may not be forbidden Baptism, Acts. 10.47. & 2.47.

But Infants of Believers have either received or have the Promise of the Holy Ghost. Ergo,

[Page 53] Again, If Baptism belcome in the room of Cir­cumcision, then the Threatnings to the neglect of Circumcision are to be applyed to the neglect of Baptism, &c.

Now the Uncircumcised Child was threatned with something like damnation, Gen. 17.14 He was to be Cut off from his People. Make the least of it, it was to be cut off from the Covenant Promise, and so is out of the Church, and the New Testa­ment promises no Salvation to the Unbaptized, Mark. 16.16. Therefore let these People allow their Infants the Covenant-sign, or lay aside their confidence of their Salvation, when they dye in Infancy; For they have no promise of their Sal­vation, it is but guess-work, as appears, thus, If they are in Covenant, they are in the Church, and the sign belongs to them; But if there be no Covenant, there is no Promise belonging to them. And I think it is a sinful Presumption, to believe and rely upon that which God has not promised, especially when we thereby neglect that which he has annexed his Promise unto.

They ask express Scripture, Baptize Infants; But there is no express Scripture, Baptize Grown Persons, or give the Lords Supper to Women, or the like. But I think I have made appear, that there is in all things the same Rule for the one as the other. I might add much more, but I think it is needless, except there should need a few expla­nations to stop the Mouth of Momus but that may be best done when Momus has acted his part.

NB. Some of these Argumental have occasionally [Page 54]used before and proved them, I therefore only here name them in order, lest the Reader over­look them in reading the former; some are New, and some I have used several times upon di­vers occasions, and to conclude several Arguments.

Now if I have committed any Fallacy in all that I have done, it is more than I know of, and I ac­count, that such as do it knowingly, in things that concern the Worship of God and Mens immortal Souls, are the worst of men, and next to Devils.

In some lesser Arguments, that were not bind­ing, I have not taken so much pains to find out, if there were any Fallacy in them, as I have done in the greater, such as surely carry the Cause, if they be true; But if any Fallacy be found in grea­ter or lesser Arguments, I will retract them.

Perhaps our Opposers will object, That I have committed their Fault in applying some scriptures to Infants, which do not belong to them, &c. To which I say, I hope it will not be such scrip­tures as express them, nor such as mean the Univer­sality of Mankind, nor such as are as applicable to Infants as to grown Persons, if they have the pollution of Original sin; and if they find any other, and can give as good a Reason against its concerning Infants, as I gave against those they bring and apply to infants, I will retract its Quo­tation.

With respect to what is said, I desire the Reader to use this point of good Consideration, that if he find one Argument in the Book that is undeniably binding, to know that that Argument does carry it, although all the rest were nothing worth, and that he again pray God for wisdom.

[Page 55] A Word on this first Question.

I do not undertake to tell the reason why such as wickedly give themselves up to the Devil to serve him, can never finish their Covenant with him, till they Renounce their Baptism (which for the most part was performed by sprinkling in their Infancy) But we may remember, that Baptism is the signing of our Covenant which GOD has made with us.

CHAP. VII. On the Second Question.

The Second Question was,

WHether the Ordinance of Baptism, as appointed by Christ, is to be administred by Dipping, Plunging or Overwhelming only, and not otherwise?

Dr. Russel takes it in the Affirmative. His first Argument is.

The Holy Scripture shews us the right way of Bap­tizing, &c.

But it doth not shew us that it ought to be done by sprinkling.

Ergo, Sprinkling is not the right way of Baptizing.

First, I deny his Minor, and shall anon prove the contrary. Secondly, By the same argument I can prove that Plunging is not the right way; for the Scripture doth not shew us that is ought to be done so, as I shall shew.

His next Argument is, That Sprinkling does [Page 56]signify that which ought to be represented in Baptism, &c. which I also deny, and shall prove the contrary; and I say, and shall prove the same of Plunging.

To prove this, he undertakes to shew from Rom. 6.4. and Col 2.12. That Baptism represents the Burial and Resurrection of our Saviour, and ours by him, which if true, does not prove his Argu­ment, except it represent nothing else, if it do then. But the design of these Scriptures is only to press to a Holy Life, and one Argument is taken from Baptism, because that it is an obligation to a holy Life, which is called a dying to Sin and a being crucified to the World, Gal. 6.14, &c. But if he will have the manner of Baptism represent Christ's Death or Burial, because it obliges to Duties of Mortification that resemble it, and are the effect of it, he would do well to bring some clearer Scripture for it. But if his Argument be true, our Baptism must resemble more, for it is said Ro. 6.3. are Baptized into his Death. Now that was by hanging on the Cross and sheding his blood; Therefore Baptism must also resemble that; But if the manner of Baptism must answer the Sig­nification, the truth is, it signifies the washing away of Sin by the blood of Christ, Acts 22.16. Arise and be Baptized, and wash away thy Sins. 1 Joh. 1.7. And the Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all Sin. Now the way which re­presents the application of the Blood of Christ, Is sprinkling, 1 Pet. 1.2. Through Sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience, and sprinkling of the Blood of JESƲS CHRIST.

Again, Baptism represents and is an engagement [Page 57]to the answer of a good Conscience 1 Pet. 3.21. The like Figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us, not the puting away the filth of the flesh, but the an­swer of a good Conscience, &c. Now this is repre­sented by sprinkling. Heb. 10.22. Having our Hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience. Now if the next words, And your Bodies washed with pure Water, signify the same with the former, then the washing thereis Sprinkling, which doubtless it is; but if it be ano­ther, it is not that which represents cleansing the Conscience, and therefore is not Baptism. But Baptism signifies Cleansing the Conscience, and that is done by sprinkling. Now this signifi­cation of Baptism and Sprinkling I have from express Scripture.

But where is his signification of Plunging from express Scripture, which they so much boast of? Therefore I must turn upon Dr. Russel a little of that which he lays so confidently upon others, with Triumph.

The way which doth not signifie that which ought to be represented in Baptism, according to Christs appointment, is not the right way of baptizing.

But Plunging doth not signify that which ought to be represented in Baptism, according to Christs appointment.

Ergo, Plunging is not the right way of Bapti­zing.

The Major is Dr. Russels own. The Minor they will deny; Therefore I must use his own Argument.

If plunging do signify that which ought to be [Page 58]represented in Baptism, according to Christs ap­pointment, then it is some where so recorded in Holy Scripture.

But it is nowhere so recorded in Holy Scripture.

Ergo, Plunging doth not signify that which ought to be represented in baptism according to Christs appointment.

The Major is his own Argument, and the Minor I must prove by his Argument.

If it be any where so recorded in Holy Scripture, Dr. Russel, or some other person, is able to shew it.

But neither Dr Russel nor any other person what­soever is able to shew it,

Ergo, It is no where so recorded.

Now if they cannot shew us by Scripture that Christ has appointed Plunging to signify that which ought to be represented in Baptism, they must not blame us if we, after their Example, accuse them of an Unscriptural Practice, not to call it worse, viz. a superstitious binding that which God has not bound, or laying a Command on Men in Gods Worship, which God has not commanded.

I have produced express scripture, that sprinkling does signify the Application of the Blood of Christ, and cleansing from an evil Conscience, and that these ought to be represented in Baptism; But they, without any true Consequence, much less express scripture, say, that Plunging represents a Burial, and that that ought to be represented in Baptism. However I will not contend about the latter, let Baptism represent a Burial, The ordi­nary way of burying is by throwing the Earth on [Page 59]to the Body, And hereafter we shall hear how it represents a Resurrection also.

Having tryed Plunging by some of Dr. Russels Arguments, I proceed to try Sprinkling by the same Rule, and say,

The way which doth signify that which ought to be represented in Baptism, according to Christs appointment, is the right way of baptizing.

But sprinkling doth signify that which ought to be represented in Baptism, according to Christs appointment.

Ergo, Sprinkling is the right way of Baptizing.

The Major is his own; the Minor I have proved by express Scripture.

Now by the same Rule, I say, That manner which signifies Cleansing from sin, must be used in Baptism. But sprinkling is that manner which signifies Cleansing from sin, Ergo, Sprinkling must be used in Baptism. Again,

That which is a sufficient sign of cleansing from sin, is a sufficient sign to be used in Baptism.

But sprinkling is a sufficient sign of cleansing from sin, Ezek. 36, 25. Then will I sprinkle Clean Water upon you, and ye shall be clean, &c. Ergo Sprink­ling is a sufficient sign to be used in Baptism.

Now that Plunging does Not signify that which ought to be represented in Baptism, appears thus,

The principal thing represented in Baptism is our cleansing from sin by the Blood of Christ.

But the Blood of Christ was not a River or Pond great enough to cover a Man, but some streams, enough to sprinkle with; and this agrees with scripture, which never describes our cleansing from [Page 60]sin by any other Figure than Sprinkling, that I remember.

Again, Baptism represents the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Mark. 1.8. This is expressed by Pouring, and not by plunging, that ever I remember. See Isai. 44.3. And I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, &c. See also Joel 2.28.

Thus name what Representation in Baptism you will, and sprinkling signifies it, As, sanct fication, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Cleansing from sin or Justifi­cation, a good Conscience or holy Life, the Applica­tion of the Blood of Christ, The Death of Christ, (by the sign of Sprinkling his Blood) a Burial, and also the Resurrection of the Body. But where is the scripture that Plunging signifies any one of these things, but most of them are expressed of Sprink­ling or Pouring, which is much the same. Hence the Blood of Christ where-with we are cleansed, is called The Blood of Sprinkling, Hebr. 12, 14.

So when the Conversion of the Gentiles was fore­told, it was said, so shall he Sprinkle many Nations, Isa. 52, 15. which must needs allude to something, and what more properly than their Baptism, at their Conversion, which was the Token of it.

And now, where is Dr. Russels Argument, that Rhantisma is never used where the Ordinance of Baptism is spoken of? Now let them, if they can, produce any scripture that says, I will Plunge them in clean Water, and they shall be clean; Or of the Con­version of the Gentiles. So shall he Plunge many Na­tions; Or [...] says, Planged from an evil Conscience; or calls the Blood of Christ The Blood of Plunging, or any thing equivolent to these?

[Page 61] His next Argument is, That there is no account in scripture that ever the Apostles, or any other Ministers in those times and baptize any other way than by dipping, p. 89. Whereas by the same Medium, I can as well prove Sprinkling to be the only right way, and say, there is no account that ever they bapti­zed any other way than by Springling. And till they produce an Instance of another way, my Argument is as good as his.

But they suppose they have plentiful proof for Dipping, of which we shall hear more anon.

The next Debate is upon the Etymology of the word Baptizo, p. 90. It is derived from Bapto which signifies To Dip. Now Baptizo being also a Verb, so well as Bapto, and being derived from it, must according to the ordinary and usual way have some difference of signification; and there is no better way to know what it is, than by seeing in what sense it is used in the New Testament, where the Ordinance of Baptism is not spoken of, to know how to understand it where the Ordinance is spo­ken of.

Mark. 7. We read of the Pharisees who wash their hands before they eat, vers. 4. When they come from the Market, except they wash, they do not eat. In the Greek Original it is [ ei me Baptizontai] Except they are Baptized, which was but the washing of their hands, Then follows the Washing of Cups and Pots and brazen Vessels, and Tables. In the Greek it is [ Baptismous] the Baptisms of Cups, &c. Now Tho smaller things they might easily Dip all over, but I conceive that in a Country where there was but little Water, sew had convenience to dip their [Page 62]Tables all over under water. Luke 11.38. The Pharisees marvelled that (our Saviour) had not first Washed before dinner; In the Greek it is [ e baptisthe] that he was not Baptized. Again, Heb. 9, 10. divers Washings; in the Greek it is divers Baptisms; but those Baptisms (as after described) were no­thing but Sprinklings. Hence Baptism and Sprink­ling are words so near of like signification, that they are used for the same thing. Now let them, if they can, produce one place where Baptizo, or its derivatives, are used for Dipping or Plunging. Bapto indeed is often used for Lipping, and I think in no other sense; but Baptizo is another word. It matters not so much how it is used in Authors, because several places and several Ages apply the same word to divers Uses, as may be seen in the several shires in England, (not to look into other Countries or Tongues) as I can perceive by such as come from thence; Therefore the New Testa­ment Dialect is the only best Rule, and there we find that on all other occasions Baptizo signifies either Washing or Sprinkling, and not Dipping.

He next argues upon the Preposition [ into] in the Greek [ eis] and says, that when it is joyned with an Accusative it signifies Into, which is not a Rule, and therefore not sufficient to rely ones Faith upon. Matth. 18.15, [ean amartese eis se Ad [...]lphos] If thy Brother trespass against thee. Here [eis] with an Accusative, is Against, and not into. Some times it signifies Ʋnto. John 13, 2 [eis telos] Ʋnto that end. John. 7. often [eis ten eorten] Ʋnto the Feast Acts 25 often Ʋnto Jerusalem. (and vers. 10. it is Of or About, Doubting of such Questions. [Page 63]I might add a multitude of Examples. So it is not certain that Phillip and the Eunuch went more than Ʋnto the water. John 12, 17. [eis ten he meran] Against the day, Not Into it, for she spent her Oyntment before the day came. Matth. 26, 10. [eis eme] Ʋpon me. All these, and hundreds more, with an Accusative; Yea, [Into] in our Lan­guage sometimes signifies but On to or Ʋpon, as when the Tempter took our Saviour up Into an high Mountain, it was but On to it, otherwise he could not have shewed him much. So the Particle [eis] cannot help them, nor can Into the Water (as it is translated.) They also plead the coming Out of the Water, which will help them no more. Our Saviour came [apo tou hudatos] From the Water, is the true Translation, if Matth. 19, 8. [ap' archis] From the beginning, be true, and many more such, as Matt. 1.17, &c. All with a Genitive, The Eunuch came [ec tou hudatos] and the same also with a Genitive. Matth. 19.20. [ecneotetos meu] From my Mouth, &c. I need not add; But see how they build their separation from other Christians on a false Foundation.

He brings the opinion of a multitude of Authors, which still is no Proof, if his Quotations be never so true; and tho they all had baptized by Dipping or Plunging.

We read Nehem. 8.17. of sitting under Booths, which was commanded in the Law of Moses, but had not been done since the days of Joshua the Son of Nun. Now if so many good Men, wise Men, and Kings and Prophets, such as David, Solomon, &c. did not see to amend this, it is no wonder now, if [Page 64]so many miss the signification of the word Baptizo, and take the Original signification in stead of that which was in use by the Apostles; and if they fall into a mistake, because we read sometimes of their going down Ʋnto the Water, &c. to Baptize, when they were in the woods, and had no other way.

In the next place he pleads from the places of Much Water spoken of, as Enon, which in the Hebrew signifies Springs, and Travellers tell us, it is only a place of Many Springs, but no place for plunging, and I think they would not have look­ed cold spring Water for that use; and the Greek word is Many Waters, which agrees with this Re­port; and it was therefore a convenient place that People might also have Water to drink.

His next Argument is from Acts 8.38. of Phillip and the Eunuch going down Into the Water. But does it say that he plunged or dipped him all over there? for the word Baptized does not prove that, as we have seen; nor is it certain that they went more than to the Water, so far as to dip a handful, as has been evidenced; nay, if they went but half way over Shoes, they went into the water. But he says, they could have sent for a little Water, But how does he know they had any empty vessel?

And what is the reason, (when we read of so many Persons, baptised in Houses and Cities) that there is never any mention of their going Ʋnto nor into that Water, but only in the woods (as John) and on the Road, as Phillip with the Eunuch.

Also, we read Acts 10.47. Who can forbid Wa­ter? which has as fair a show for its being brought, as going to the water, (when they had no other [Page 65]way to get it) has of their Plunging, and I think a little fairer.

And the baptizing in Jordan, does no more Prove their Plunging all over in it, than the man wa­shing his Eyes in the Pool of S [...]loam does prove that he was plunged all over, seeing [baptizo] proves no more but Sprinkling, and [eis] is so well used there as in the other.

Thus it appears, their Arguments from the word Baptizo, and from going to or Into, and Out of or From the Water, and of baptizing in Jordan, and where there was Much Water, carry no Proof in them, and are but Probabilities at the best; and so is en hudati, see Heb. 1.2. [en huio,] by his Son. And these are all the Proofs they have; For their Arguments from what should be repre­sented in baptism, are wholly for us; for we have plentiful Express-Scripture that Sprinkling signi­fies every thing that the scripture speaks of as re­presented in Baptism, but there is no scripture that speaks of Dipping, as signifying any such thing; And I hope, they will own, that it belongs to God, and not to Man, to appoint what sign shall represent the thing signifyed.

Come now Dr. Russel, Who are guilty of Un­scriptural Practice? Under the Ceremonial Law Typical Ordinances were commanded, in what manner they were to be used, unto a Circumstance; but under the Gospel Administration, the spiritual Improvement is principally looked upon. Baptism must be with Water, but it is not said How; and I believe, if it had been tyed to any set Form, it had been written in the Scripture; Therefore let [Page 66]us not Bind what God has left Unbound; but if the scripture have given us any Rule for the Man­ner, it must be Sprinkling; And it is most evident from scripture (as has been shown) that Sprink­ling is fully sufficient, and has the Promise annex­ed to that Sign, And they shall be Clean, but no such promise annexed to Plunging.

Wherefore, it must be none of the smallest of those Sins, that are committed under the colour of Gods Worship, when People deny the Baptism which they have received according to Gods ap­pointment, by receiving another.

But God does not always shew visible signs of his displeasure at evil Actions and profaning his Ordinances, seeing we have the scripture to te­stifie.

I find the Anabaptists (for they are worthily so called) often Challenge People to give an Instance of any one that ever got any harm by being plun­ged in cold Water, as if it were rational to expect that GOD had commanded a Duty, and that only in matter of sacrifice, which did many times re­quire a Miracle to preserve us above the ordinary course of Nature in performing it; Though I be­lieve it would be presumption for a person to run himself into imminent danger, under this imagination, if not a breach of the sixth Com­mandment, and a Tempting of God. Yet I know not but God may in his Mercy forgive the Igno­rance, and accept the Zeal of some, and not let them suffer for it, especially such as have not been baptized before, whose duty it is to be baptized some [Page 67]way; And I think, that People are so begotted to their Error, that if some get cold and dye of it, they would not believe that to be the cause.

But to answer that challenge, I can tell them of a more awful thing than getting Cold. I will not relate it as a thing of my own knowledge, for it was done before I was born, or not long after; but such as would be satisfied, may enquire at Dorchester in New-England, where dwelt one Betts, a Member of the Congregational Church there, who turned Anabaptist, and was dipped, and (as I am told) came out of the water distracted, and so remained; And his Children whom he, by this, did what was in him to throw out of the Church, be­came also Distracted: Two of his Sons I have seen, who are both Distracted Men; but his Grand Children are as other People; they all live now far from that place, and are as far from that Opi­nion, who have so much reason as to know of Re­ligion.

Page 102. (If it be worth troubling the Reader with it) I find Dr. Russel complaining of a need­less trouble put upon him in searching the Hebrew in Daniel 4.33 It was needless indeed to look Hebrew there; for the fourth Chapter of Daniel is not written in the Hebrew, but in the Chaldean Tongue. He tells us, that [Tabal] was not there; But why does he not tell us the word that was there, To signify Nebucadnezars being Wet with the dew; For it is Tsabaa (or as it is usually read Tsabang) which in the Caldean Tongue signifies To Dip, or to Paint or Dye, as Tabal in the Hebrew signifies. It is here used [...]itstabbaa in the third Person Aor prim, [Page 68]Passive, and he Wet himself. And the Translators of the septuagent, (so long before the coming of our Saviour) who no doubt understood Greek so well as any now do, accounted Bapto (or Ebaphe in the third Person pretor imperfect Tense) a proper word to signify such a wetting as is only with the Dew; And Baptizo signifies a less wetting than Bapto, according to the manner of such derived words.

The Hebrew word Tabal is used 2. Kings 5.14. it is not 'Vajithtabel, and he Dipped himself, but only 'vajitbol, and he dipped. Whether he dipped the leprose part of his body, or dipped water with his hand (or some other thing) seven times, and wash­ed the leprose part; or whether he dipped him­self all over, or only Wet himself or the leprose part seven times, is not certain, seeing the com­mand was only to Wash.

Toward the winding up of the Dispute, Dr. Rus­sel would have All doubtfull words reduced to their Roots. This is fine indeed! and the excellentest way to be deceived that can be devised! For deri­ved words seldom have the same signification with their Roots, and many times no relation to their signification.

Then he tells, there followed a Confused Jang­ling not worth taking, as he (the Amanuensis) judged.

Next he tells us of his Offer to Mr. Williams, the Presbyterian Minister, to dispute all over again with him, and tacitly glories in the refusal. But I must excuse Mr. Williams, who had then the Con­sumption, and dyed of it not long after, as I am informed.

[Page 69] I think I have not mist one Argument, but what I have answered, either directly or by answering other Arguments; but I have passed over his Ex­pressions applyed to his Antagonists, in great part, such as that They Bawl, speak Nonsense, &c.

CHAP. VIII. The Conclusion.

I Advise the Reader, First, Do not put away all Charity toward such as differ from you in this Doctrine, Provided you see in them the other Marks of the Fear of GOD; for great Faults in things not essentially necessary to salvation, when they proceed from meer Ignorance, do not hinder the salvation of such as are in the essential part sound and sincere, and therefore ought not to hin­der our love to them, for his sake that accepts and loves them, and forgives their Ignorance.

2dly, Do not think your salvation secure, meer­ly because you are satisfied, that you are purely right in this Doctrine; for Baptism, not impro­ved, will do you no more good than knowledge not improved.

To help you herein, consider That the Baptis­mal words represent the Faith of the Holy Trinity. Improve it in the saving knowledge of God our Maker, Redeemer, and Sanctifyer, and perform your Engagements to him, &c.

The Application of Clean Water implies a Con­fession [Page 70]that we are Polinted by Sin; For that which is clean, needs no Washing. Therefore be hum­ble and penitent, and judge and condemn your self from the sense of it, and so find your need of a Saviour, &c.

The Water applyed, represents, That our help comes from without our selves, namely, by the Blood of Christ that takes away our Guilt, and procures Pardon, &c. and by his spirit that ap­plies it in our Sanctification. There seek it.

Again, the Water, applyed by the hands of another, (who is Gods Officer) implies, That it is not in our own power to apply these things, &c. There­fore seek to him that can do it.

There being also Our Act in receiving Baptism on our selves or Children, implies, That we are not to expect the Blessings represented in Baptism, as Promises to us, except we be found seeking in Gods appointed way, as his Word, Meditations, Prayer, Practice, &c.

Again the Applying Clean Water, implies our Obligations and Engagements to a holy Life, &c. which cannot be without self-denyal.

And in the Baptismal words, Gods Name being put upon us, implies. That we are wholly his, and devoted to give up our selves to serve Him Only for­ever, and deny all that is against him.

Our bodies being the part that the Elementary part is applyed to, represents the Resurrection of the Body to enjoy these blessings.

These are some of the Chief things represented in our Baptisms; so improve it, and it will be your happiness, otherwise it is a Mockery, and taking Gods Name in vain.

[Page 71] 3dly, I advise such as have not been baptized, or have not got their Children baptized, not to delay it, lest the Curse written, Gen. 17.14. come upon them; Nor to delay performing that which is re­presented as our Duty in Baptism, that they may have the Grace represented in it; Otherwise the same Curse will nevertheless come upon them; Jer. 9.25, 26.

I am not of their mind, who would have the Unbaptized deprived of any of the Priviledges common to Mankind, to force them; for Christ, our Redeemer, needs no forced subjects. It were a dishonour to think he did, or that his Grace were not lovely enough it self for a Motive; Nei­ther do they come to him in Truth, who come against their will; and to administer his Ordinance to such, were greatly to profane it, and take Gods Name in vain; I mean, to such as are come of Age to chuse, and in their heart do refuse.

But I would have no other force or motive used than Gods Word. For though Baptism is not so essentially Necessary, but that he, that has not the opportunity, may be saved without it, if he have the Grace represented, yet it is not so with him that knows his duty, and has the Opportu­nity, and will not do it; For any wilful sin, though never so small, persisted in, brings Damnation, Jam. 2.10. because it is not want of Ability, but willful Rebellion. Hence salvation is promised to him that believes and is Baptized, but not to the Unbaptized, to him it is silent. And when some were pricked to the heart, and cryed, What shall we do? The reply was, Repent, and be Baptized, [Page 72]Acts 2.37, 38. and upon that condition the Holy Ghost was promised.

4thly, Let such, as have got their Children baptized, remember, you have in a most solemn manner declared them to be Disciples. Now, how came they to be Disciples, but by being the Children of one who will surely Teach them aili­gently, and set them all Examples of Piety. They are not Disciples by being under your care, if you do not do it so soon as they are capable. Now you have declared to God and his Church, That they are such, and that in a solemn manner, by having Gods sacred Name named over them, as his Di­sciples; so that, if you neglect, you are guilty in a high degree of Lying unto God, and of taking his holy Name in vain! beside many more evils. Oh tremble to think upon it! Therefore Teach, Per­swade, and Pray for them, till you see the blessings of Discipleship in them.

5thly, I advise the Reader, that, if he see ground of Conviction by this Doctrinal, or this latter Practical Discourse on Baptism, that he remem­ber, It is GOD, and not Man, with whom we have to do! Take heed, lest ye Resist the Holy Ghost, in refusing the evidence of Truth. It will not help you in the Day of Judgment, that you have been wont to believe or practise otherwise; for if GOD wincked at your Ignorance before, now he calls you to Re­pent, and you have no Excuse for the time to come. Therefore think upon it, as you expect to appear before the Judge of Quick and Dead.