Yes that was agreed Rus. Well then I shall endeavour God assisting to prove Infants are not according to Christ's Commission the proper Subjects of Baptism Arg. If Christ hath no where required any of his Minister to baptize Infants then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers c. Ergo. Chan. I distinguish here upon your Antecedent If you mean by Christ's Requiring his Requiring Infants expresly and by Name there is no need of it But iâ— by Reqâ—iring you mean either expresly or by just consequence then I deny your Miâ—or Rus. Then you suppose that Christ hath no where required it Chan. No. Distinguish between express words and good consequential Proofs Rus. It 's necessary the peopâ—e should know wâ—at Mr Chandler means and therefore Robinson It 's fit indeed they should know what he means but it 's also fit he should explain his own meaning You must not be permitted to eâ—plain Mr. Chandler's meaning in your own words Your business is to prove what he denies Rus. I do hope Gentlemen that you will not thus break in upon us Rob. I do stand here on purpose to prevent Irregularity in the Disputants Leigh This Gentleman is our Moderator Rus. Pray what is your Name Rob. My Name is Robinson Rus. Now if you will be silent and Mr. Chandler be pleased to tell me what part of my Argument he denies I shall proceed in the defence of iâ— Chan. Repeat your Argument then Rus. If Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants then the Baptism oâ— Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord J. C. But Christ hath no where required c. Ergo. Chan. Here I say as to the Major If you mean by requiring Christ's expresly Requiring in so many words that Infants shall be baptized then I deny the Consequence but if you mean that by genuine consequence it cannot be drawn from Scripture I deny the Minor Rus. The Term is very lax I do not say that he hath no where commanded it but no where required it If it be any where required it 's enough Give a direct Answer Leigh VVill you allow good Scripture Consequence to be Proof in this case or do you expect Scripture words expresly Let us not dispute in the dark Gentlemen you that are Notaries pray observe how ambiguously Mr. Russel expresseth himself He will not say whether he 'll allow just Scripture consequence for sufficient Proof Rus. I think I give my Sense in as plain words as I can L. Will you have it in express words or good Consequence Williams No reason for such a Distinction because our brother hath said any way Rus. It 's all one to me so you prove the thing Prove it any way Chand I deny your Minor Rus. I prove it thus Only I would let the people know what you say viz. That Christ hath somewhere required his Ministers to baptize Infants Leigh Either expresly or by Just Consequence Rus. If Christ hath any where required any of his Ministers to baptize Infants then it is somewhere so recorded in the holy Scripture But it is no where so recorded in the holy Scripture Therefore Chand This I answer by distinguishing again If you mean by being so recorded in holy Scripture its being there in so many express words then I deny your Consequence but if you mean that it 's not so by good consequence I deny your Minor again Rus. Let us not confound the people with so many Distinctions but plainly deny what part you please Leigh I will make it appear that there is that recorded in Scripture which by just consequence will prove what you deny Rus. If you can prove it so recorded 't is enough Rob. Pray Mr. Leigh Mr. Russel must prove that it is not so recorded This is what lies upon you Sir Rus. I would know what part Mr. Chandler denies Chan. I deny the Minor Rus. Then you say it 's somewhere so recorded in the holy Scriptures Chan. It 's your business to prove the Negative Rus If it be somewhere so recorded in Scripture then Mr. Chandler Mr. Leigh or some other person is able to shew it But neither Mr. Chandler Mr. Leigh or any other person is able to shew it Therefore Chan. I deny the Minor Râ—s It 's a Universal Negative you must prove it I appeaâ—â—o the Moderator Rob. This ought not to be put upon the Respondent You must prove it still Supposing that neither Mr. Chandler nor Mr. Leigh can give you an instance you can't prove that none else can If you can we desire you would Will. You are but Moderator Let the disputants alone Rob. But Mr. Russel appeal'd to me Rus. I would have these honourable persons here present to consider that I am under great disadvantage you are to give an Instance Rob. This is your Popular argument to shift the Opponency and turn it upon the Respondent Rus. If Mr. Chandler can give an instance why do you hinder him I say it 's an Universal Negative and I demand only an instance to the contrary Leigh Offer him the Commission All Nations Robin No reason for it to be allow'd But if Mr. Chandler is pleased to take the part of an Opponent upon him Now he may I Suppose Mr. Russel you must needs know since you have been so often engaged in such work as this that according to all rules of Logick you ought to prove the Negative You do Universally Affirm this Proposition tho' in form it runs Negatively That no person can give one instance in any record of holy Scripture from whence we are obliged to baptize infants How do you prove this â— It lyes upon you to prove it Otherwise we must suppose Mr. Russel is a confident man and asserts what he cannot prove Will. Mr. Moderator keep your place Rob. Sir I am in my place I must not suffer the Disputants to break order Mr. Chandler iâ— Respondent and you are Opponents and therefore pray keep your pâ—ace Rus. I would take noâ—ice of one thing Mr. Chandler hath preach'd to the People That there is a plain command for Infant Baptism in Scripture and I argue upon him to give but one Instance and you will not suffer him to do it Leigh It 's not Mr. Chandlers Sermon but the Question which we now argue upon Rus. I hope that there are some Honourable Pâ—â—sons here that do understand the nature of this Controâ—â—â—sy And I suppose they will think it reasonable that those who have made such a noise about this Practice ought to bring some colourable Proof for it No not one instance hath Mr. Chandler given I am sure according to the rules of Dispute Mr. Chandler must prove the Negative Rob. I desire that the Persons here present would take notice that however Mr. Chandler have
Christ as to come to Christ Corporally when brought in their Arms. You know Christ says suffer little Children to come to me It 's most probable these were brought in Arms to Christ. Why may they not be said Imputatively to believe as well as Imputatively to come Wil. I deny that the parent's faith was ever imputed to the Child L. You know the distinction of Believers In foro Dei In foro Ecclesiae which I suppose you 'll allow And under the notion of believers In foro Ecclesiae The Parents faith may be imputed to their Children VVil. We do say that a Person is not a Disciple of Christ before he have learned Christ L. Then do we send Children to School because they have learned or that they may learn Rus. I think we should now see whether we can possibly by force of Argument bring you to give an Instance Therefore I argue thus Arg. 5. If the Apostles of our Lord never did Baptize any Infants then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostles of our Lord never did c Therefore Chand I deny the Minor Rus. If the Apostles did Baptize any Infants it is some where to be found in the writings of the new Testament But it 's no where to be found c. L. I deny your Major Rus. If there be no other rule to direct us concerning Holy Baptism than what is in the new Testament then because it 's no where to be found in the writings of the new Testament the Apostles did never Baptize any Infants But there is no other rule c Therefore c. L. You are come from an Example to a Rule I say it may not be recorded in the writings of the New Testament and yet the Apostles might Baptize Infants But this is not granted only supposed that it 's not recorded It is not recorded in the New Testament what you practise that Grown Children of Believers were when adult Baptized I challenge you to produce one Instance of any born of Believing Parents baptized at Age. Rus. That 's no business of ours Don't think to sham off the business so We have called for your Instance several times of an Infant Baptized and you have not been able to give it L. It 's the custom of these Persons to Baptize Grown Persons tho' Baptized before and yet there is no Scripture for it They talk much of our having no Scripture for Infant Baptism and of their having Abundance for their Practice Now let them give one Instance of what is their Practice viz Of one Person born of a believer Baptized at years and I 'll give them the cause Wil. Give your instance for Infant Baptism or else I hope the People will go away and conclude you have none L. Give your instance to prove your Practice or else I hope the People will go away satisfy'd you have none to give It was by the Computation of the learned from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. Iohn the Apostle near Sixty Years in which time many Thousands of the Children of Believing Parents became adult yet we challenge you to produce one Instance in all that time of any of their Children Baptiz'd when adult Rus. The Emperour Constantine was born of a Christian Parent and yet not baptized till adult L. But not because they then thought the Children of Believing Parents had no right to Baptism but because they thought that sins committed after Baptism were unpardonable therefore they oftentimes defer'd it till Death Besides this is not to the purpose because a Scripture instance was call'd for VVill. We are able to produce several instances where grown believers were Baptized but you not one of Infant Baptism L. That was at the first planting of the Gospel Give an instance of a grown person descending from believing Parents that was baptized when adult Rus. If this were any thing to the purpose I would then say something to it But I wonder you should talk thus when it was practised a great many years in the Church to give the Lord's Supper to Infants L. Was it Then ad hominem they were Baptized because they were not to receive that Ordinance before they were baptized We demand an instance of any child of a believing Parent that was baptized when adult Give this and we will give you the Cause Wil. Was the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ a believer L. Yes Wil. Well then there 's the Son of a believer baptized at age Here the Anabaptists fell a laughing and some cry'd out it 's done it 's done And for a while Mr. Leigh attempting several times to speak could not be heard L. I thought our discourse had been grounded on the Commission Was this before or after the Commission Here the people laugh'd again Rus. What do they laught at Not at what the Old Gentleman said but at what Mr. Leigh says The Old Gentleman gave a right instance Rob. It 's not at all to the purpose Rus. Mr. Williams's instance was sufficiently to the purpose for that Mr. Leigh called for an instance of the child of a believing Parent baptized at grown years The Virgin Mary was a Believer Rob. Tho Mr. Leigh did express himself in such general Terms yet the whole strain of the discourse sufficiently manifests he meant the child of such a believer as was properly Christian. The Virgin Mary was undoubtedly a believing Member of the Jewish Church but this is not to our purpose for we want an instance of the child of a Christian Parent after Baptism was instituted by our Lord that yet was baptized at grown years The instance of our Saviour doth not agree to such a case as this is For that Christianity as distinguished from Iudaism had not then a being and the Virgin Mary was not in this sense Christian nor was baptism it self then instituted by our Lord and therefore this instance can signify nothing to the case in hand Will. I have given an instance of the Child of a believing Parent baptized at Age. Give us an instance of any Infant that was baptized L. As for that Our Lord Jesus Christ is not to be imitated in that particular Rus. No VVill. Do you prove he was not L. If he were then there is no Person to be baptized till 30 years of Age nor baptized at all unless Circumcised at eight days old And thus their Scripture instance with their triumph upon it vanished VVill. I demand an instance of an Infant that was baptiz'd L. I demand an express prohibition VVill. I demand an express prohibition of Salt Cream Oyl and Spittle L. I Answer 1. The case is not parallel You speak of the substance we of the subjects of baptism 2. Infants are included in the words All Nations But Salt Cream Oyl c. are not in the word Disciple or Baptize Rob. What need of an instance when
you as a Minister of Christ Iesus have pray'd for the Success of your Ministry and have heard you with a great deal of Satisfaction and I hope have profited by it and shall continue to do so and so attend your Ministry without the leâ—st Pâ—ejudice and I hope with better Success than formerly I am Sir yours in all Christian Service Samuel Ring Portsmouth May 29.99 This is the true Copy of Mr. Ring 's Letter to me who according to his promise usually attends our Lecture at Portsmouth Now let the World Iudg whether my Prejudice against the growth of the Church at Gosport could put me upon this work or whether I ever inveigh'd against them many of them can testify to the contrary to whom I have and shall bear an hearty love and good will own them as excellent Servants of Christ and be very willing to contribute my Assistance to help them forward in their way to Heaven But alas 'T is Mr. Bows and his party that are afraid of the growth of Mr. Webbers Congregation And therefore did suspend from their Communion one Isaac Harman by Name a Ioyner in Portsmouth for bearing Mr. Webber this the Young Man told me himself and ask'd my advice about it and Mr. Bows told me himself before Mr. Francis Williams that if he could Believe that our Doctrine of Original Sin he should think Infants had need of Baptism And wonder'd the People of Gosport should Scruple the Practice of Infant Baptism and yet maintain the Doctrine of Original Sin This Man it seems wants not express Command or Example but only to be feelingly acquainted with the universal Corruption of Humane Nature and then would readily Embrace our Practice I Pray God open his Eyes and convince him of this great truth which is of far greater weight than this of Baptism AN ABRIDGMENT OF THOSE SERMONS THAT WERE The Innocent Occasion of the Disputation HEre I must unavoidably dip my Pen in the Watry Controversy I love not to meddle with matters of Dispute especially where Sober and Good Men are at Odds But I cannot do right to my Subject without mentioning the Grounds of our Practice both as to the Subjects of Baptism and the manner of its Administration I shall according to the order oâ— the Disputation First mention what I offer'd as to the Subjects of Baptism 1. I shall prove from Scripture 〈◊〉 â—arrantableness of Infant Baptism or of the Baptizing the Infants of Believing Parents Here I shall not burden you with many Scriptures that might be produced but only mention some few that I think most clear First From Mat. 28.19 Go Disciple all Nations Baptizing them From hence I thus argue 1. The Infants of Believing Parents are Disciples and therefore ought to be Baptiz'd Now we have a plain Text that these Infants are Disciples in Actâ— 15.19 Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear This Yoke was that of Circumcision a very painful ordinance Administred to Infants of 8 days old this Yoke these false Teachers would impose not only on the Gentile Christians but their Infants too and therefore St. Paul was acus'd by them that he taught they should not Circumcise their Children nor Keep the Customs of Moses Acts 21.21 Now when our Saviour says Go Disciple all Nations The Apostles must need understand that such as were Disciples in the Jewish State should be admitted to this ordinance in the Christian Church 2. Infants are a considerable part of a Nation and therefore we cannot suppose they should be excluded except they were excluded by Name or good Consequence 3. All Nations is here put in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews As if our Saviour had said whereas the Jews have hitherto been the peculiar People of God and admitted to peculiar Priviledges now I admit all Nations to the same Priviledges the Jews only enjoy'd before Eph. 2.12 13. Now it was a great Priviledg among the Jews that their Infants were dedicated and devoted to God and admitted into his Church and Covenant in their early years therefore the Apostles must needs understand when our Saviour said all Nations should be Discipled that the Gentiles and their Children should be admitted to the same Priviledges the Jews enjoy'd before 4. Our Saviour must needs intend Infants unless he had excluded them If he would not be any longer a God in Covenant with them he would have raz'd out their Names Suppose the words had run thus Go Disciple all Nations Circumcising them the Apostles must have understood that their Infants were intended and why not the same when only the rite is alter'd Or suppose it had run Go Disciple the Iews Baptizing them They must needs admit Infants that were admitted before So that whereas our mistaken Brethren call for an express Scripture for Infant Baptism we have reason to answer there needs express Scripture to revoke that Priviledg and Covenant Interest which Infants injoy'd before If it had been Christs intention to have excluded Infants from the Church there must have been a positive Law where such an intention of Christ should have been express'd for nothing can make that unlawful which was a Duty before but a direct and ' express prohibition from the Legislator himself who alone hath Power to Rescind as well as make Laws You know there was a great Controversy whether Circumcision should continue or not Acts 21.21 and certainly there would have been a far greater if upon their coming to Christ their Infants had been excluded the Church and ranked with Heathens but seeing we find no Objections made about this matter nor that our Saviour ever revok'd this Priviledg we may be assur'd they still enjoy it 5. The Practice of Baptizing Infants was customary among the Iews those that have but dip'd their fingers in the Iewish Writings know that not only Proselytes as Mr. Tombs acknowledgeth but Native Iews themselves were admitted into the Church by Circumcision as an initiating ordinance by Baptism as a purifying Ceremony to wash them from Legal Uncleanness which they might ignorantly contract and by Sacrifice to expiate their Sin and that this was not a Corrupt Tradition but grounded on those many Texts that require washing from uncleanness And therefore this Practice is grounded on Gen. 35.2 Exod. 19.10 by the Gemera Talmud and Maimonides Now therefore seeing Infants were thus admitted by Baptism and our Saviour was pleas'd to adopt this custom into a Christian Sacrament we have reason to believe that Infants are admitted now as before 2. Another Scripture is in Acts 2.38 39. Repent and be Baptized for the promise is to you and to your Children and to those afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call The Apostle Peter doth in this place perswade those he had convinc'd of the greatness of their Sin in murdering the Lord of Glory penitently to return to God and
be taught c And Erasmus tho' he was none of the best of Men yet he was accounted a great Schollar in his day he reads it When they have learned dip thou them L. Here are two things that this old Gentleman argues from the first is The Instance of the Eunuch The Second is The Authority of Erasmus Will. Not from his Authority but Judgment Rob. Did Erasmus write in English You say you do not understand Latin Wil. In English Here the people brake out into a great Laughter Rus. Is Erasmus in your esteem so mean a Schollar that there must be such Laughing at the old Gentleman's mentioning the Name of Erasmus L. Well but as to the first thing you argue from the Instance of the Eunuch The Eunuch was a Proselyte of the Gate and a grown person and therefore Philip deals with him as such Now according to the Iewish Law a Proselyte's Infant was to be taken into their Church as the Infant of an home-born Inhabitant And because Philip requires of him a Profession of his Faith suppose he had had an Infant in the Chariot must that be denied Baptism and so lookt upon as the Infant of a Pagan and be shut out of visible Church-membership which he enjoyed before Did his Parents Faith deprive him of Church-membership Then as to Erasmus he was an Interpendent between a Papist and Protestant and many of these Gentlemen in their great Zeal against Infant-baptism will call it a peice of Popery and yet can make use of the Name of an Half-Papist when it serves their Cause Wil. If the Administrator must have an account of the Subjects Learning before he be baptiz'd then Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism But he must c. Therefore L. I deny your Minor That he that administers the Ordinance must always have an account of the Subjects Learning VVil. I will prove it first by that of Philip If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest The contrary whereunto is If thou dost not thou mayest not Again Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. The word is relative to all Nations discipled They must have an account whether they are Disciples or not This is the Antecedent L. All Nations Wil. Nay all Nations Discipled L. So you say But prove it What! perhaps you think that All Nations cannot be the Antecedent to Them because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Neuter Gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Masculine Rus. Yes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Masculine Gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Masculine Gender and agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rob. I thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been a Verb. Rus. I answer to what he says he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Masculine Gender and I say so and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same Gender and agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. I suppose Mr. Russel thinks he is got among his Hebrew Verbs They notwithstanding refer each to other tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of the Neuter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Masculine Gender For a Boy of 12 years of age that hath lookt into the Greek can tell you that such a Synthesis is frequently to be met with in the Greek VVil. If Infants are uncapable of denying themselves for Christ then they are uncapable of being Disciples to Christ. But c. Therefore c. L. I deny the sequel of the Major Will. I prove it out of Luke 14. If he doth not deny himself he cannot be Christ's Disciple L. This purely refer's to the adult And I will argue ab absurdo If any work not let him not eat but Infants cannot work therefore they must not eat But both one Text and the other refer to the adult pâ—â—ly Rus. What 's all this We do say that Infants are not at all concerned in the Commission Mat. 28.19 Because they cannot perform the prerequisites Faith and Repentance therefore are not capable of Baptism Now if you 'll say that incapable Persons are intended in the Commission then I hope you may put that upon your selves Then you must argue Infants must be starved to Death because they will not work I demand of any of you to give an instance of any one Scripture that speaks of Baptism in the New Testament that doth respect any other but adult Persons Will. If the essence of faith consist in the Acts of the understanding and will then Infants are incapable of being Disciples But o. Therefore c. L. I deny the sequel of the Major viz. That Infants are uncapable of being Disciples VVill. If a Disciple and a Believer be the same thing then the sequel of the Major is true But a Disciple and Believer are the same thing Therefore L. I distinguish upon the Minor It 's not Universally and in all respects the same thing Those may be Disciples that are not actual Believers VVill. He that is a Disciple of Christ according to the Commission is a Believer But Infants are not capable of believing Therefore He that is a Believer in Mark is a Disciple in Matthew L. This I deny and answered it before It 's not Vniversally true VVill. If the essence of faith consist in the Act of the understanding and will then Infants are uncapable of believing But c. L. I acknowledge The Act of faith consists in the Act of the understanding and the will and that Infants are uncapable of actual believing but not of being Disciples in an imperfect sense But I would fain know if Infants are not as capable of believing Imputatively as of coming to Christ when brought in the Arms of other Persons VVill. They can do both alike as well come to Christ as believe in him by believing I mean actual believing This I acknowledge L. Why cannot Children be said in a Spiritual sense to come to Christ Imputatively as well as to come to Christ Corporally when only brought in others Arms. Coming to Christ and believing are the same Tho' he that is brought in the Arms of the Parents faith cannot be 〈◊〉 actually to believe yet Imputatively he may VVil. How could they come to Christ when they were brought L. And yet they are expresly said to come to Christ. And may they not as well be said to be capable of Spiritual as of Corporal coming when they were brought to him Why can they not come Spiritually by Imputation as before Will. They cannot come Spiritually unless they actually believe 〈◊〉 child cannot thus come to Christ without a sight of Christ and also of himself L. I do own in a proper and strict sense none can be said thus to come to Christ but adult persons yet in a more large sense they may as well be said to believe on Christ Imputatively when their Parents believe and devote them to
we have a rule Now Mr. Chandler if you please you may take the Part of an Opponent And prove our practice to be agreeable to Scripture Mr. Chandler turns Opponent Arg. 1. Chand Visible Church Members ought to be baptized But some Infants are visible Church Members Therefore some Infants c. Rus. Adult believers may but not Infants Rob. What 's this to the purpose we are upon Which of Mr. Chandlers propositions do you deny Rus. Let him repeat his Argument Chand Visible Church Members ought to be baptized according to Christ's Commission But some Infants are visible Church Members Therefore c. Rus. I deny the Major Chand That all visible Church Members are to be baptized according to Christs Commission I prove thus If there be no Precept or Example in all the Word of God since Christ ordain'd baptism that makes any other ordinance the visible means of encring a Person into the visible Church then visible Church Members ought to be baptized But there is no c. Therefore Rus. This is to say Because they are Members therefore they are to be made Members Chand No. Because they are Members they ought to be solemnly Recogniz'd as Members Like the Coronation of a King He is a King before he is Crown'◠but he is Crown'd that he might be own'd as King VVill. If baptism be the initiating ordinance into the Church then they were not Church Members before Chand I say baptism is the solemn investing sign Rus. That baptism is an initiating ordinance I grant Rob. This Argument was brought to prove that visible Church Members ought to be baptiz'd VVill. I deny that Infants are visible Church Members in their Infancy L. I 'll prove that some Infants are Church-Members in their Infancy Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 Hence I argue Those that belong to the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. the Church-Militant here upon Earth are visible Church-Members But some Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven i e. The Church-Militant here on Earth Therefore Will. I deny the Minor That text proves it not L. If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken any otherwise in this Text to make good sense of the Text then it must be so taken i. e. For the Church-Militant here on Earth But it cannot be taken any otherwise to make good sense of the Text. Therefore c And this I prove by an Induction of particulars There are various acceptations of this Expression The Kingdom of Heaven in the Word of God Sometimes it signifys The Laws and Promises of the Kingdom it doth also signify the Graces by which we observe those Laws and believe those Promises Thus it 's represented by a grain of Mustard-seed Sometimes the Kingdom of Glory And sometimes it signifies the Church-Militant Hence therefore I thus argue If in this place it can neither signify the Laws and Promises of Gods Kingdom nor the Graces by which we observe those Laws and Embrace those Promises nor the Kingdom of Glory then it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth But it cannot signify either of the former Therefore it must signify the last viz. the Church-Militant Will. I deny the Minor I say it signifys the Kingdom of Glory L. If it be nonsense so to understand the words then they are not so to be understood But its nonsense c For then the Kingdom of Glory must consist in part of poor little weak things such as Infants are Whereas after Death all are perfect in the Kingdom of Glory whatever they are here on Earth Will. I thought it had been to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven Chand Mat. 19.14 In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven L. That is of such it consists in part If we mention the Kingdom of England or France and say of such is the Kingdom c. It 's to be understood In part it consists of these Will. I deny that the Visible Church in part consists of these If they are neither Members of the Universal Church nor of a Particular Church then the Church doth not in part consist of these But c Therefore c. L. I Answer Now you relinguish my Medium But farther If they are Members of the Church at all then they are Members of the Universal Church visible But they are Members of the Church Therefore c. VVill. I deny the Minor i. e. That they are visible Members of the Church L. There are two sorts of Members of the Universal Church There are Members in foro Ecclesiae and Members in foro Caeli In which of these senses do you deny they are Members of the Church VVill. If by the Church you mean the visible Church I deny your Minor Here for about four or five lines there is great confusion in what our scribes have written But this I take to be the sense of it L. If they are Members of the Church in any sense then they are Members of a Particular or the Universa◠Church and if of a Particular then of the Universa◠which includes it and therefore they are Members of the visible Church But they are Members of the Church in some sense and for Proof hereof I return to my Argument which you have not been able to Answer Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. The Church Militant VVill. I distinguish as to the Kingdom of Heaven It 's there meant of the Kingdom of Glory L. If of the Kingdom of Glory then it 's nonsence But by the way the Kingdom of Glory either is put for the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory If the Happiness then the words must run thus Of such little Children is the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory If the subjects then thus Of such little Children are the subjects of the Kingdom of Glory Now neither of these is sense Therefore cannot be meant but my first interpretation stands good still VVill. I distinguish between a right Title and Possession Here is a vacancy Three things It 's true faith gives a right to baptism according to the Commission a profession of that faith gives a right to the Administration of that ordinance and it 's the Commission that authoriseth the Administrators Rus. This Text you produce hath no Relation at all to the Commission nor is Baptism in the least intended in the Text. L. Mr. Russel I 'll propose this question to you Whether both what Christ said and did together with what the Apostles said and did be the best explication of Christs Commission And then whether I may not argue from Christs own Words For visible Church Membership and so for baptism Rus. I do allow that what Christ said and did and what the Apostles said and did is a very good interpretation of the Commission of our Lord. And I do say that only adult Persons are intended in the
Commission And that the Apostles never did baptize any other than adult believers L. Then I hope we may argue from Christs own Words Did he speak pertinently or impertinently If pertinently how comes he to say of such is the Kingdom of Heaven unless he meant the visible Church which alone makes sense of the Text. But is this an Answer to my Question to say that Adult believers are only intended in the Commission Rus. Yes if your question relate to water baptism L. If the Kingdom of Heaven in part consists of Infants then Infants ought to be baptized But c. Therefore c. Rob. Pray Mr. Russel which of Mr. Leighs propositions do you deny L. Give me an Answer directly Rus. I demand an Exposition What do you mean by the Kingdom of Heaven L. I mean the Church and Kingdom of God here on Earth Rus. I deny your Minor L. I prove it from the forecited Scripture If by the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19. is signified the Church visible here on Earth Then Infants do in part make up the Church But c Therefore c. Rus. I deny your Minor L. If we must make good sense of Scripture then it must so signify But c. Rus. I deny the Consequence of your Major L. If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken in any other signification to make good sense of it in that place then it must so be taken But it cannot c Therefore Rus. I deny your Minor L. If you can produce no other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture Then c. Rus. I deny the Consequence of your Major It doth not follow because I cannot do it that therefore it cannot be done L. Then I say if neither you nor any other person can produce any other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture Then c. Rus. Is this a good way of arguing If it be then it was so in me as well as you Rob. Mr. Leigh It was not fair therefore not allowed them You must not put the Proof upon the Respondent Leigh I was not driving them to Proof but going to prove my Assertion by an Induction of Particulars as I have already done and that I shall do again If the Kingdom of Heaven here signifys neither the Laws nor Promises of the Kingdom nor Graces by which these Laws and Promises are observed and embraced nor Jesus Christ's Management of his Kingdom nor the Glory of Heaven nor the Subjects of Glory then it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth But it signifys neither of the former Therefore the last Rus. I deny the Minor L. I prove it by a Recapitulation of those Particulars Of such little Children are the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom of such are the Graces by which we observe and embrace them of such is Christs Management of his Kingdom of such is the Kingdom of Glory of such is the Happiness or Subjects of Glory Now is there any good sense in all this Rus. It s meant of the Kingdom of Glory L. By the Kingdom of Glory you must mean either the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom If it be taken for the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory then I ask whether little Children are the Happiness of Heaven If for the Subjects then I ask whether of such consists the Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory when every one belonging to that Kingdom i.e. as distinct from the Church-Militant immediately upon his expiring is compleat even an Infant 3 days old Rus. This is very uncharitable to exclude Infants from Heaven I would rather incline to say and I am sure the contrary to it Mr. Leigh can never prove that all Infants belong to the Kingdom of Glory than that none do L. Yes we know your Judgment of that matter well enough But you wilfully misrepresent my sense I do not say that none who dy Infants go to the Kingdom of Glory but that none are Infants when they come there But the Text says Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven This therefore is what I assert that it is absurd to say that the Kingdom of Glory is in any part of it made up of weak imperfect things as little Infants are And therefore that the Kingdom of Heaven here spoken of must mean the Church-Militant here on Earth which is in part made up of such Here Mr. Russel was silent for a considerable time Rob. What Mr. Russel have you no reply to make to all this Pray if you have any thing to say let us hear it Otherwise be so kind as to tell the People you can give no Answer that we may go on to some what further Rus. My Answer is this That whereas you have undertaken to prove that Infants are the Subjectâ— of Baptism according to Christs Commission you bring a Text for it that hath neither the word Baptism in it nor the Commission of our Lord. L. Very well then If we prove from any Text of Scripture the right of Infants to Baptism it must not be allowed unless we find it in the close of the Evangelists where is what you call the Commission or unless the word Baptism be in it Rob. Mr. Russel They are not obliged to have the mention either of Baptism or the Commission of our Lord in the conclusion of every Syllogism They had it in the first They then told you That such as were Members of the Church-Militant on Earth were to be Baptiz'd according to the Commission of our Lord. And this was the case of some Infants You denyed any Infants were Members of Christs Kingdom or Church-Militant here on Earth and to prove this they brought that Text. And I suppose the whole company was satisfy'd that it doth sufficiently prove what it was produced for And now you dare not deny the Major if you do I doubt not but they are ready to prove it VVill. If Church Members have been denyed Baptism then Church-Membership is not the ground of Baptism but c. L. I deny the Minor VVil. If Church-Members came to Iohn to be Baptized and were denyed then Church-Membership is is not the Ground of Baptism But c. L. I deny the Minor VVill. I prove it Mat. 3. When he saw the Multitude and many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism he said to them O Generation of Vipers c. L. I deny that they were de jure Church Members whatever they were de facto Their being a Generation of Vipers is sufficient to prove they were not Church Members De jure And we are speaking of rightful Church Members VVill. I have proved that Church Members were denied baptism L. I deny it and distinguish between Church Members De jure De facto Will. I will not meddle with your distinctions Rob. And can you think that the word Church-Members cannot possibly admit of more senses than one L.
then Incourages them to hope they should again be receiv'd into Favour with God And says he the promise will be made good not only to you but to your Children too And to the Gentile World also Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Thence I argue 1. This promise was the great promise to Abraham Some pretend it is only that promise in Ioel 2.8 Gods giving extraordinary gifts of the Spirit That their Sons and Daughters should Prophecy But this cannot be because that promise was not fullfill'd to all afar off Have all the Gifts of Tongues Do all Prophecy The promise signifys the great promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy seed Gen. 17.17 Therefore this is call'd the promise Gal. 3.14 That the blessing ' of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles thro' Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit thro' Faith The Blessing of Abraham That great Blessing that God would be a God to him and his seed Now if this great Blessing come to the Gentiles Then they and their seed ought to receive the token of the Covenant the Children of the promise ought to have the Seal affixed to it 2. The Apostle useth these words to comfort the Iews that had Imprecated Divine Vengeance on themselves and their Children Infants as well as others a curse that lies on the unbelieving Iews to this day His blood be upon us and our Children no doubt but many of those that were prick'd at the heart at Peters Sermon joyn'd with the rabble in that Loud cry Crucifie him Crucifie him and were concern'd not only for themselves but their Children too therefore the Apostle uses this Argument if you penitently return to God by faith in Christ the curse shall be taken off from you and your Children you and yours shall be admitted again and not only so but those that are afar off the Gentile World when call'd 3. If the words were to be restrain'd only to those that believe and repent themselves and concern not their Infants this would be an Argument to perswade the Iews to continue in the Synagogue still rather than to come into the Christian Church While Synagogue worship stood before Christs coming God had promis'd happy Priviledges to themselves and Children but now if afterwards their Children must be cast off and look'd on as no other than Heathens and strangers to the Covenants of promise this would incline them rather to continue in the Synagogue than enter into the Christian Church A Third Scripture is in Rom. 11.15 25. In those verses these following things are containd 1. The Apostle speaks of breaking off from and grasfing into the Visible Church that the Unbelieving Iews were broken off from that Visible Church to which they were related before by their positive unbelief and rejecting Christ and that the Gentile Believers were graff'd in and so partook of those Priviledges from which the Gentiles were broken off 2. Some only were broken off the rest that Believ'd injoy'd the same Priviledges they did before v. 17 th Now this was a great Priviledg that God would be a God to them and to their seed Therefore they still injoy'd the same 3. What Priviledges the Iews left the whole body shall be restor'd to when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in v. 25. therefore their Infants shall be restor'd to the same Priviledges thâ— injoy'd before 4. The Believing Gentiles are admitted to the Priviledges the Iews injoy'd before graâ—fed into the same Olive-Tree v. 24. Sâ—eing Iewish infants wâ—re interested in the Church and Covenant of God the Infâ—â—ts of Believing Gentiles are also in Covenant and consequently ought to have Baptism the Seal applyed to them 4. A Fourth Scripture is in 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Hence I argue If the Children of Believers are holy then this ordinance ought to be Administer'd to them The only difficulty here is to understand what is meant by holiness in this place 1. Internal Holiness cannot be ascrib'd to all the Infants of believers Because we find by sad experience that many of them shamefully Apostatize from God and thereby plainly shew the Seed of Grace was never in them 1 Iohn 3.9 2. Neither can it be understood of bare Legitimacy as our mistaken brethren pretend For 1. The Word is never us'd in this sense in all the Scripture 2. The Children of Heathens if begotten in Lawful Wedlock are Legitimate as well as of Believers therefore this can be no distinguishing mark as in this place 3. The Apostle's Argument would be weak and unconcluding if he should only prove that they were Lawful Man and Wife because their Children were Lawfully begotten The Question propos'd to the Apostle was this Supposing a believing Wife Marry'd to an unbeliever or e contra whether the believer should dwell with the unbeliever or part one from another The Apostle Answers If the unbeliever be willing to abide let them do so For the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband and else were â—our Children unclean but now are they Holy Because one Parent is a believer therefore their Children are peculiarly related to God and in Covenant with him Now if bare Legitimacy were intended then the Argument would run thus You have no Reason to question whether you are Man and Wife because your Children are Lawfully begotten Can any believe any could question the one and yet grant the other 4. This would not answer the Corinthians Scruple They did not question whether co-habiting with Unbelievers expos'd them to Fornication but whether it would expose them to Irreligion or at least great Temptations Now says the Apostle How Knowest thou O Man but thou may'st save thy Wife However your Children are holy because one is a believer 3. By holiness is meant Relative or Federal Holiness That the Children of Believers are Separated to God enter'd into a new Relation to him by vertue of his Covenant Thus the Israelites are said to be a holy People because Separated to God as his peculiar Treasure Deut. 14.2.26.19 the Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy as related to God and enjoying distinguishing marks of Favour therefore ought to have this distinguishing ordinance apply'd to them 2. What Priviledges are the Infants of Believers Invested in by Baptism 1. They are solemnly admitted into the Visible Church no longer strangers to the Covenants of Promise but more nearly related to God than the Infants of Heathens 2. Peculiarly interested in the Churches Prayers we are bound indeed to pray for all Men but more peculiarly for the Church of God Gal 6.16 3. Have a Title to Gods peculiar care God gives his Angels a charge over them Mat. 18.10 4. They stand nearer to and are the more especial Objects of the promises of Grace Is. 44.3.59 Infants are call'd by Gods Name therefore tho' Gods Grace is free yet we
a Common Objection and therefore deserves a distinct answer 1. To this I Answer What Express Command or Example can they produce for previous Examination of Persons that offer themselves to be Baptiz'd for Stated Prayer before and after this Ordinance or for dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water All these things must be deduc'd by consequence for no express Scripture can be produc'd for them I may add what express Command have they for singing Psalms in Rhime and Metre which is the Practice of the most Orthodox Anabaptists at this day I mention this the rather to convince Mr. Webber and his adherents what a doughty Champion they have chosen for themselves For this Dr. Russel hath written some Animadversions on his Brother Allen's Essay on singing Psalms wherein he advances the very same Arguments against their Practice of singing Psalms that he doth against ours for Infant Baptism and therefore hath prov'd himself a Hackny disputant that hath one constant Road and train of Arguments upon all occasions Perhaps I may be so dull of Apprehension as not to be able to Answer them therefore must cry Men of Israel help The Arguments of Russel against Allen pag. 9. If it doth not appear from Scripture or any Authentic History that the Psalms of David were Translated into Rhime or Metre till the 16 th Century then it is Impossible any Church could so sing them as our Brethren now do the Major is undeniable the Minor I thus prove If it be so recorded you or some other are able to show it Further if Singing in Rhime or Metre was never practic'd in any Church till the 16 th Century then it was because our Lord Jesus had not commanded it so to be If our Lord had Commanded it his Apostles would have so taught the Churches If the Apostles were faithful in the discharge of their Ministry and kept back nothing that was profitable to the Churches but declar'd to them the whole Councel â—â— God then they did teach the Churches all that the Lord Jesus Commanded If the Apostles did teach the Churches to sing in Rhime and Metre then it is somewhere so recorded in the New Testament Thus argues this mighty Man of Logick but as he cannot distinguish between Rhime and Metre â—o I can see neither Rhime nor Reason in his discourse these were the Arguments for want of better he â—rifâ—ed wâ—th at Portsmouth but Mr. Webber to whose Civility I am indebted for a sight of this curious peice must either Renounce his beloved Rhimes or comply with the Practice of Infant Baptism notwithstanding the Wonderful Arguments of his Champion to the contrary But to return from this digression 2. Those Truths that were Establish'd in the Old Testament are rather suppos'd than positively express'd in the New but the Grounds and Foundations upon which Infant Baptism stands were Establish'd in the Old Testament Infants were then admitted into the Covenant and Church of God Except therefore Christ had blotted their Names out of the Covenant and Rolls of the Church They are to be continued there under the New Testament Thus a Magistracy was setled under the Old Testament but there is no precept for it under the New the Lawfulness of War was then setled but suppos'd not expresâ— under the New The forbidden degrees of Marriage were setled under the Old Testament No need of mentioning them again under the New 3. Ans. There are many Virtual and General Commands for the Baptizing of Infants in the New Testament which were mention'd before 4. Ans. There was no need of an express Command because it was the constant Practice of the Church when the Scripture was written in conformity to the Practice of the Iews for many Ages before I cannot here express my self better than in the words of the Learned Lightfoot If Baptism and Baptizing of Infants had been as strange and unheard of a thing till Iohn Baptist came as Circumcision was â—till God appointed it to Abraham There would then no doubt have been an express Command for Baptizing Infants as there was for Circumcising them But when the Baptizing of Infants was a thing commonly known and us'd as appears by Uncontestable Evidence from all their Writers there need not be express Assertions that such and such Persons were to be the Objects of Baptism when it was as well known before the Gospel began that Men Women and Children were Baptiz'd as it is to be known that the Sun is up when it shines at noon day 5. There would need a Positive Command to exclude Infants who were admitted into Covenant before The Iews were extremely tender of their Priviledges and you know there was a great dispute among them whether their Children should be Circumcis'd Acts. 21.21 Now if their Children were wholly cast out of Covenant this would have enrag'd them much more seeing therefore there is not one word in Scripture that once mentions the unchurching of Infants not one Apostle that once questions or discovers it the believing Iews did not once Scruple it nor the unbelieving once charge it on Christ nor the Councel in Acts 15. Reveal it tho they that taught Infants should be Circumciz'd did suppose they were Church-Members I say seeing all these things are True Infants are Church-Members still and consequently ought to be Baptiz'd 6. There are Examples of whole Housholds that were Baptiz'd in Scripture and we may well conclude as Abrahams Children In Luk. 19.9 Christ saith to Zaccheus Salvation is come to this House for that he also is the Son of Abraham Zaceheus was a Publican and a gatherer of the Roman Tribute and perhaps a Gentile but upon his Faith in Christ he becomes a Spiritual Son of Abraham and Salvation comes not only to himself but his House God becomes a God to him and his So when we read of so many Housholds Baptiz'd upon the Parents and Masters Believing we have Reason to conclude their Infants were Baptiz'd as Abraham and his were Circumciz'd 7. There is no Instance of any Christian Child whose Baptism was defer'd still he came to Years There was great Reason that they who had been Iews or Heathens before should upon their undertaking Christianity be Baptiz'd at Years as Abraham at the first Institution of Circumcision was Circumciz'd when he was old but we may well suppose their Children as Abrahams were Baptiz'd with them and afterwards in their Infant State Now it is utterly unaccountable that in that long tract of time between St. Mathews Gospel and the Revelations when many Christian Infants were grown adult we should read of none that were Baptiz'd but only of Iews and Heathens I say this is unaccountable and therefore supposeth they were Baptiz'd in Infancy Obj. 2. Infants are uncapable of performing the Duties prerequir'd to Baptism Of confessing their Sins Mat. 3.6 Of Repenting Acts 2.38 Of gladly receiving the word Acts 2.41 Of Believing Mar. 16.16 1. Infants are admitted on the account of their
Parents faith As the Infants of Believing Iews so are the Infants of Christians nor is this at all unreasonable For as Infants contract Guilt from their Parents why may they not also partake of Mercy on account of their Parents except God be more inclin'd to Acts of Justice than Mercy As many were heal'd of their Bodily diseases by the faith of their Parents Math. 15.28 So why may they not be admitted into Gods Church on the same account As the Iewish Infants Covenanted with God in and by their Parents Deut. 29.11.12 So why may not Christian Infants Covenant in and by them As Children are said to come to Christ being brought in the Arms of their Nurses or Parents Luk. 18.15.16 So why may they not be said Spiritually to come to Christ in the Arms of their Parents Faith As Parents enter their Childrens Names in Leases and Covenants and the Children are oblig'd to stand to these Covenants and do Injoy these Priviledges when they come to Years So why may they not enter their Childrens Names into the Covenant and Church of God tho' at present they are uncapable of Personally Engaging themselves 2. Infants are oblig'd to these duties as soon as they are capable and their Early Engagements in Baptism lay the more strong and forcible Obligation upon them to do so If afterwards they revolt from God their Sin will be more highly aggravated as adding Perjury and Apostacy to the rest of their Sins and this may be one Reason why sometimes the Children of Believers are worse than others because they Sin against greater Light and Love and stronger Engagements than other men and therefore justly provoke the Holy Spirit to forsake them The Levites of a Month Old are said to keep the charge of the Sanctuary because they were devoted to this Office and bound to it when capable Num. 3.28 So the Infants of Believers are devoted to the Service of God And bound to Believe repent confess their Sins and gladly receive the word as soon as capable 3. These Texts therefore only shew what was requir'd of grown Persons when Baptism was first appointed in the Christian Church Those Persons were either Iews or Heathens before and therefore must Renounce their former Errors and profess the Christian Faith but this is no Prejudice against Infants who are to be admitted with them As when Abraham was Circumciz'd he first Believ'd in God and Submitted to this Ordinance but afterwards the Infants of the Iews were Circumciz'd in their Infant Stateâ— So if we were to Preach to the Indians we must first perswade them to Believe and Repent before Baptism but when once they had Believ'd their Infants would have the same right with themselves 4. As to Mar. 16.16 because many are apt to insist on the order of the words and argue that Faith is put before Baptism and therefore ought to preceed it I Answer The order of the words is not always to be exactly regarded For confessing â—f Sin is put after Baptismâ— Matth. 3.6 Besides this would condemn all Infants for if because they cannot Believe they ought not to be Baptiz'd then for the same Reason they must all be damn'd 'T is not positively said he that is not Baptiz'd shall be damn'd Baptism is not of Absolute Necessity to Salvation But it is positively said he that Believeth not shâ—ll be damn'd If the latter part of this verse be Interpreted of Grown Persons so also must theâ— former As for Grown Persons Faith must go before Baptism But it doth not follow that Infants are hence excluded from Baptism no more than from Salvation Our Saviour doth therefore here only give a general direction to his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and admit the Gentiles to the same Priviledges with the Iews and shews them the Issue of the Execution of their Commission that those Iews or Heathens that would renounce their former Idolatry and beâ—â—eving y submit to the Ordinance as a Solemn Entrance into the Church should be saved buâ— those that wilfully persisted in unbelief shou'd be damn'd So that this is no Prejuâ—ice to Infants who are still in Covenant with God thro their Parents Faith and were never cast out I proceed to the 2d General Question After what manner the outward Element in Baptism ought to be apply'd whether by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water or whether pouring Water on the Face be not sufficient To which I Answer 1. It is not Absolutely Necessary that this Ordinance should be administred by dipping or plunging the whole Body under the Water There are many mistaken Brethren lay too great a stress on this but it proceeds from their ignorance of the Scriptures 1. The Holy Ghost never uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most frequently fignifys to dip but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now why should the Holy Ghost consecrate a new World for this Ordinance if dipping had been the only way of administring it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always us'd where dipping is signify'd Mat. 26.23 Ioh. 13.26 He that dippeth with me in the dish Luk 16.24 dip his finger Rev. 19.13 with Garments dip'd in Blood 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a differing sense in Scripture Thus you read Mar. 7.4 The Pharisees eat not except they wash oft Now the way of washing among the Iews was this a Servant was ready to pâ—ur water on his Masters hands hence Elisha is thus describ'd 2 Kings 3.11 Here is Elisha that pour'd Water on the hands of his Master Eliâ—ah So we read of washing of cups and pots Brasen Vessels and Tables or Beds Mar. 7.4 the Greek word is Baptizo Surely they did not carry them out to a River and dip them there but pour'd water on them and so made them clean Again Heb. 9.10 we read of divers washings Baptisms in the Greek Now what were these Baptisms but v. 13.21 Moses's Sprinkling the Book and all the People with the Blood of Calves and Goats and Water So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the same thing Let not Injudicious People therefore pretend that ours is only Rantism when we find in Scripture that Rantism and Baptism are us'd promiscâ—ously for the same 3. There is no certainty that dipping was ever usd in Scripture times All those Scriptures that are commonly urg'd to this purpose may be easily apply'd another way If we begin with Iohn the Baptist he is said to Baptize not in but with Water as Christ with the Holy Ghost and Fire Luk. 3.16 Now how did Christ Baptize with the Holy Ghost and Fire but at the day of pentecost when the Holy Ghost was pour'd on them Acts. 10.45 I know the learned Casaubon's witty Criticism that in Acts 2. when the Holy Ghost came upon them it is said There came a â—ound from Heaven as of a rushing mightâ— wind and it fill'd the House So that they were as
asserted in this place and very clearly proved the Baptism of Infants from the Commission of our Ld. I. C. yet you are not now to call upon him for proof you having undertaken to prove the contrary Mr. Chandler gives an answer he deny's your assertion and therefore you must prove it and not sit down and say Do you prove the contrary or else I 'll take it But if you can carry this argument no farther it 's time to proceed to another Rus. So I design if there be no answer given Chan. Here is an answer I deny the Minor Rus. I have prov'd it according to the Judgment of all present Leigh According to the Judgment of those that understand the rules of Disputation you ought to prove the Negative But we will undertake to prove that there is that recorded in Scripture which will prove by just Consequence what you deny Rob. If you will change sides you may Rus. This is no changing sides For I do not design to quit the Opponency only let him bring an instance Leigh I would beg one favour i. e. the offering a few words I 'll undertake in any Disputation Philosophical or Divine by this method to turn the Opponency on the Respondent I 'll but make him bring one Proof of what he says and this way immediately turn the Opponency on him And as for this Here 's a Gentleman that understands the Rules of Disputation I desire Sir you would declare whether Mr. Russel be not oblig'd to prove the Negative heÌ„ hath asserted Dr. Smith According to the Rules of Disputation Negantis non est probare Rus. Well what must I do Rob. Sir you are to prove your Proposition Here is this worthy Gentleman of the same mind Rus. How do you mean prove The whole Current of Scripture sufficiently proves it The total silence of Scripture in this matter is Proof What is not in Scripture c. Rob. If you can proceed no farther upon this then it 's time you go on Arg. 2. Rus. If Infants are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men then they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission But they are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Therefore c. Chan. Here if you mean by Disciples Actual and Compleat Disciples then I deny your Major But if you mean Incompleat Disciples such as are entred into a School in order to be instructed and given up in order to learn there I deny the Minor Rus. The Major is this If Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men then they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism Chand Well then As to your Major That they that are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men are not capable Subjects of Baptism Distinguish between Compleat and Incompleat Disciples Rus. What doth he mean by denying my Major Rob. Mr. Chandler distinguishes between Compleat and Incompleat Disciples If you mean Compleat Disciples he denys the Major If you mean Incompleat Disciples he denys the Minor Rus. Well come Tell me what he means by Compleat and Incompleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men Chand I mean by Compleat Disciples such as are actually capable of Learning by Incompleat such particularly as are enter'd into the School of Christ in order to their future Learning as we send Children to School before they are capable of Learning one Letter Rus. I do not talk of that I speak of their being actually capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Chand I deny that those that are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men in your sense are the only Subjects of Baptism That 's what you are to prove Rus. Well if that be the thing you deny you deny the Consequence And I prove it thus If our Lord in the Commission which he hath given for Holy Baptism hath required hâ—s Disciples and Apostles who were Men to make those Disciples by their Ministry who were to be Baptized then my Consequence is true But our Lord in the Commission hath c. Therefore Chand I deny the Minor He hath not Commanded all that were to be Baptized by the Apostles first to be made Disciples by their Ministry in your sense I think here ought to be a distinction Persons may have a right to publick visible entrance into the Church of God before they are compleat Disciples that we say Infants have before Baptism and so in a more imperfect sense are Disciples but in a more perfect sense are made so by Baptism Rus. We are talking whether Infants are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Leigh We say that as they are the Infants of believers so they are in a more imperfect sense really Disciples before Baptism And it 's nothing to talk of their being made such by the Ministry of Men. Will. If they are such then it is by the Ministry of Men. Leigh That I deny Knowing that you Ground your Assertion upon the position of Teach before Baptize Mat. 28.19 Rus. Our Saviour hath joyn'd Discipling and Baptizing together They are commanded first to make Disciples and then to baptize them Therefore I say if Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men they are not according to this Commission to be baptized Chan. Prove that Rus. If Infants have no Knowledge to discern between Good and Evil then they are not capable to be made Disciples by the ministry of men But they have no Knowledge c. Therefore c. Chan. Here you trick all this while I told you by Disciples I meant incompleat ones and such as are given up in order to be instructed in the School of Christ. I require you to prove that these ought not to be baptized because not capable of Instruction by the Ministry of Men. Rus. What do I care what you mean we are speaking of the Commission of Christ. Will. The Scripture says they must be Disciples according to the Commission Rus. We are talking of the Prerequisites to Baptism Therefore it 's plain according to what I have told you and the Argument is express and full according to the words of the Text that they must be made Disciples by the ministry of men if they be to be baptized For in Mark Christ commissioneth to go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature In Mat. 28. they were to Disciple all Nations and then to baptize them Now if Infants be not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men then they are not capable Subjects of Baptism Now you denied this Consequence of the Major which I proved thus If Infants have no Knowledge to discern between good and evil then they are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men But c. Rob. By his former distinction he
denies both Antecedent and Consequent Chan. I deny your Consequence with my former Distinction Rus. Then you say tho they have no knowledge yet still they are capable of being made Disciples by the ministry of men Chan. I only desire a Syllogism Rob. You industriously seek to hide your meaning If you mean by Disciples such as are so in the fullest and compleatest Sense Prove that all must be made such in order to their being baptized But if you mean Disciples in the lowest Sense as it intends such as are given up in order to be instructed in the School of Christ prove that Infants are not capable of being made such Disciples This Mr. Chandler's Distinction puts upon you We do not know what you mean Rus. The Argument is so plain that I doubt not but any body of understanding may know what I mean therefore it 's strange that Mr. Chandler Leigh Robinson do not understand me Leigh We know there is a double sense of the word and accordingly we deny either Antecedent or Consequent Chan. You will not allow the distinction of Compleat or Incompleat Disciples nor yet shew it to be groundless Rus. Fix upon something Chan. I told you before If in your Argument by Disciples you mean Incompleat ones I deny your Minor But if Compleat ones I deny the Consequence of your Major Leigh Give a direct answer according to this distinction i. e. Either prove that Infants are not Incompleat Disciples or that they are not to be baptized because but Incompleat i. e. not capable of Instruction by the Ministry of men Rus. Have Infants any knowledge Chan. No not in actual exercise Rus. Then I proceed If the Gospel in the ministration of it was appointed to inform men what is good and what is evil and Infants have no knowledge to discern between good and evil then Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men Leigh You ought to add Incompleat Rus. What doth he mean by Incompleat Disciples Here Mr. Chandler is forc't to explain his distinction as before Rus. You forget we are speaking according to the Commission Chand No I don 't I say c. As before Rus. Then by Compleat you mean such as are Actually Disciples Leigh A Compleat Disciple is one actually capable of Learning An Incompleat is one given up as aforesaid in order to Learn And we appeal to the whole Auditory whether or no a child of two years old thus devoted to Learning by the Resignation of the Parent and Acceptation of the Master is not justly in an imperfect sense deem'd a Schollar Rus. Infants Schollars Very mean Schollars indeed not capable of Learning one word Leigh I believe here is a Gentleman who teaches School Sir I would fain know whether no one may be accounted a Schollar but he that is actually capable of Learning Mr. Ridge School-Master I take all to be Disciples in my School provided entrance Money be paid whether they Learn or not Rus. I must appeal to these Honourable Persons whether or no I did not tell Mr. Chandler Compleat Disciples such as are made by the Ministry of Men What 's the meaning of all this Noise about such little Children do you think Rob. Prove what Mr. Chandler deny's Rus. Let me know what Mr. Chandler deny's You say that they have no Knowledge and that they are not Compleat Disciples the consequence then is that they are not intended in the Commission Mat. 28. Mar. 16. Chand Put it into a Syllogism Rus. There 's no need of putting it into a Syllogism For you have granted all the Parts of my Argument Yes every Part. You have granted 1. That Infants have no Knowledge to discern between good and evil You have in the 2. Place granted that according to my Argument they are not capable of being made Compleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men. The Consequence then is that they are not at all intended in the Commission Rob. It 's a most false thing you insinuate to the People and what you your self cannot but know to be false For that the Consequence which you would perswade the People Mr. Chandler allows is what he hath all along deny'd And if you can't prove it pray proceed to another Argument Arg. 3. Rus. If the Apostle Paul did declare all the Councel of God and kept back nothing that was profitable for the Church of God and yet did never declare the Baptism of infants to be an Institution of Christ Then Infant Baptism is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostle Paul did declare all the Councel of God and kept back nothing c. And yet did never declare the Baptism of Infants c. Therefore c. Leigh Your Argument is very long I deny that the Apostle Paul never spoke of Infant Baptism which is part of your Minor Prove that the Apostle Paul never did declare the Baptism of Infants Rus. If the Apostle Paul hath so declared it then it 's some where to be be found in the Writings of the new Testament But it 's no where to be found in the Writings of the New Testament Therefore c. Leigh I deny the consequence of your Major For Paul might declare it tho' the new Testament should not discover that he did the Text you quote relates to the Church of Ephesus And we have not the whole of the Apostles Sermons to them no not the hundredth part of them he being among them for the space of two years Now you must prove that this refer's to that Epistle he hath left upon record to the Ephesians This being all that is left to posterity in Holy Writ of several hundred Sermons that he preach'd to that Church wherein he might speak often of Infant Baptism tho' it be not mention'd in this short Epistle Rus. You then acknowledge that it 's no where recorded in the New Testament Leigh I deny that the Apostle did write the whole New Testament And then Would you confine what Paul is there said to have declared to the Church of Ephesus To what is left on record Viz that particular Epistle we find inscrib'd to them He had spoken to the Church of Ephesus all the Councel of God but we cannot suppose all that he deliver'd to them in 2 years to be contain'd within the compass of one short Epistle containing but six Chapters Rus. Is all the Councel that the Apostle Paul wrote in the New Testament Is there any Commission for Infant Baptism in the whole New Testament Do you think you speak any thing to me I hope you 'll own that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the only rule to direct us how we may serve and glorify God Leigh Yes that I will Rus. I refer you to that Scripture and you run to a certain sort of supposition c. I am not talking of any Sermons that are
words All Nations Rus. I prove it against you that Infants are not included in the words All Nations For if Infants then all Infants would be so But you only allow Infants of believing parents Leigh The force of this Argument is this That unless we will Baptize all of all Nations we must Baptize none of any Nation Rus. No it it is not Leigh I say they are included in the words All Nations you must prove that they are not And first of all Gentlemen I will appeal to you Is it in a Religious sense improper to say the whole Nation suppose of Palestine are Mahumetans and so consequently that their little Children are Young Mahumetans Chan. You must prove that all Infants are excluded from the words All Nations Rus. Would you have me then shew you that there is a Limitation in the words All Nations Leigh The Point ly's here If he will invalidate my Answer he must shew that because all Nations are to be Baptized and infant are included in the words All Nations therefore it follows that all Infants are to be Baptized Rus. Therefore if I shew there is a Limitation I take away the force of the Argument and this I do by Mr. Chandler's confuting himself Leigh I deny your Minor That Christ hath not included Infants in this Commission Rus. If those that Christ hath commanded to be Baptized must be disciples then Infants are not included in this Commission But those c. Therefore Leigh I deny your Consequence Rus. I prove it thus If there are no others Express'd in this Commission then they are not included But no others are Express'd Therefore Leigh They are implyed The good consequence of the Commission I insist upon I say there is no Necessity for all the Subjects included in this Commission to be Disciples in the fullest and compleatest sense Rus. All those that are required to be Baptized by Christs Commission are Disciples But Infants are not capable to be made Disciples Therefore c. Leigh I deny your whole Argument and first your Major Rus. If there are no other express'd in Christs Commission Then my Major is true Leigh They are imply'd You know you allowed good consequence but now Rus. We are talking of a Commission good Sir Leigh I hope we are talking of good consequence from a Commission That which I assert is this That all are not to be Compleat Disciples before Baptized or That they are not to be actually taught Rus. I know not what you mean by Compleat Disciples A Person may be a Disciple twenty years before he be a Compleat one If our Lord requires none to be Baptized by the Commission but such as he commands to be made Disciples before he commands them to be Baâ—â—â—zed then what I say is true But our Lord requires 〈◊〉 c. Therefore Leigh I deny your Minor Rus. I 'll read the Commission Mat. 28.18 〈◊〉 And Jesus came and spake to them saying All Poweâ—'s given unto me in Heaven and Earth â—o ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Teaching them to observe all things c. This Commission is very solemnly given c. In this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare the great Power that was c. Here the Dr. was going on with a large harangue Rob. Pray Mr. Russel do not Preach us a Sermon but bring us an Argument from the Words Rus. I thought Mr. Leigh had brought the Commission for an instance we are now coming to examine c. Leigh Pray form your Syllogism Chand Pray do Rus. I say in this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare c. He is going on again with his harangue Rob. It 's not a Sermon but an Argument from the Commission c. Rus. What will you not allow me to read my Masters Commission Here in spight of us all he would go on with his tedious dictates Rus. I argue thus from this Commission If there be an express command for the Baptizing some Persons in Christs Commission and there be no express command neither there nor elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures for the Baptizing of Infants then the Baptism of Infants is not contain'd in this Commission But there is an express command c. Therefore Leigh Pray observe it whereas good Consequence was but now allowed with great difficulty now it 's deny'd He requires an express command To this I answer If Nations do include Infants then there is a plain command Chand We deny the Consequence of your Major and then we deny your Minor Rus. My Argument was this If there be an express command in Christs Commision c. They deny the sequel of my Major and by thus denying do say that notwithstanding there be no express command for the Baptizing of Infants neither in the Commission nor any where else in the Holy Scripture yet they do tell us by this denial that they may be included in the Commission Rob. Here is a sophism says he if it be neither in the Commission nor any where else in the Holy Scriptures then it is not in the Commission Rus. If there be an express command for the Baptizing of some Persons in Christs Commission and there be no express command for the Baptizing of Infants then Infants are not at all intended in Christs Commission But c. Therefore c. Leigh First I deny the sequel of the Major and then I deny the Minor Rus. It seems very strange that you do deny this and I will endeavour to prove it Here is an express command for some Persons to be Baptized here is no express command for the Baptizing of Infants is it not then a necessary consequence that they are not included in the Commission Leigh I deny both Parts and first your Major Rus. I shall prove it thus That there is an express command for Baptizing some Persons the Commission it self proves Leigh It 's the sequel of the Major I deny Pray prove that Rus. Then you do say That notwithstanding our Lord hath expresly commanded some Persons to be Baptized in the Commission and hath not expresly commanded Infants yet they may be some of the Number Hath Christ two sorts of Subjects one that he doth expresly command to be Baptized and another that he doth not command Leigh Put your Proof of the sequel of the Major into a Syllogism Rus. We are upon the Commission Leigh I say Prove the consequence of your Major Rus. If no person be to be baptiz'd but what is expresly required to be so by Christ's Commission then the consequence of the Major is true i. e. That the Baptism of Infants is not contained in the Commission But no person is to be baptized c. Therefore Leigh I deny your Minor Rus. That which I am to prove is this That there are no persons to be baptized but what are expresly required in the Commission I prove it thus If the
I say they were not Church Members De jure VVill. Were they denied any priviledges Rob. According to what you said just now they were deny'd baptism was that no Church priviledge VVill. Such as are visible Members of the Universal Church are qualify'd with a work of Grace c. L. I deny it viz. That they are always so VVill. It is in the Judgment of Charity so L. Such as were a Generation of Vipers were not qualify'd with a Work of Grace and so were not Church Members according to your own assertion Rob. Especially such as were known to be a Generation of Vipers VVill. If our Lord Jesus did Disciple such as were Church Members before they were baptiz'd then Church Membership is not the ground of baptism But c. L. We distinguish between the Jewish Church and the Christian Church And then I distinguish between Infant Church Membership and Adult Church Members Now Christian Church Membership is a ground of baptism Sharp The Anabaptist Moderator You say Infants are Church Members Church Members upon their apostacy ought to be Excommunicated when were any admitted into Church Membership in their Infancy Excommunicated upon their apostacy Rob. There is with us as with the Jews Anciently a two fold Excommunication Excommunicatio Major and Excommunicatio Minor as to the first which is a solemn cutting off from the Vniversal Church I question whether our Laws gives us the liberty of practising it and as to the second which is a suspension from the Lords Supper I do not see that to be needful in the case before us Leigh to Mr. Sharp we are not now talking about the management of Church Members but who are the Persons which ought to be esteemed so Farther it is needless â—â— exclude those from Adult Church-Membership who never offered themselves to it It 's as if we should shut our doors against a Person who never attempts an entrance To this Mr. Sharp made no reply VVil. Ministers are to Baptize none but those that are discipled by the words of the Commission Chand Here 's the Consequence of it VVil. No here is no Genuine Consequence The Commission mentions no more but Disciples and Believers And if you can find one Person more besides Disciples and Believers do it Rus. It doth appear by all that hath been said that our practice is allow'd Rob. Not your practice L. We do not allow your practice unless to such as have not been baptized VVill. We agree that those that are not baptized ought to be baptized You are bound to baptize none but such as you are bound to Preach to L. I deny it Rus. Have Infants the use of reason Chand No. Rus. If Infants without understanding are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men Then may the Beasts of the Field But the Beasts of the Field may not c. Therefore L. I appeal to all present Is it as proper to take Pigs and Dogs to School as little Children of a year and half old Are those so capable of the Parent 's resignation and master's acceptation as these If Infants might keep the charge of the Sanctuary from a month old and upward they may be esteemed Believers and Disciples But c. Rus. I wonder you will maintain â—heâ—hing upon such silly foundations L. Pray Answer the last Argument Rus. There is nothing of Christs Commission in it L. Unless we can prove Infant baptism in the close of one of the Evangelists No proof is to be allowed Will. I thought it was to be argued according to the Commission but I see c. Rob. If you be of Mr. Russel's mind then you may turn your Children out to the Dogs and Pigs and Beasts of the Field It is most insufferable I never heard such an Expression in my Life But you may see what the Principles of Anabaptists naturally lead Men to Here the Anabaptists being shamefully nonpluss't Mr. Leigh apply'd himself to the Mayor and Governour in this manner You see they are not able to answer our first Argument but are entirely gravell'd The Rules of Disputation oblige us to go no farther in the Opponency Yet we will be at your command We have six Arguments more at hand if you please we will proceed to offer them Or if you please we will proceed to the Second Question Sharp Anabaptist Moderator Let us have a precept or an example Rob. A precedent we need not give here is a precept brought and yet no Answer given to it Rus What Precept Rob. That which by Undenyable Consequence obliges us to it tho' there be not in express words a requirement that we Baptize Infants One would have thought Mr. Russel should have allowed tho' they are not capable of Dutys yet they are capable of the Priviledges Here an Answer to our last Argument was again and again call'd for but none given Rob. Pray Mr. Chandler let no more time be lost but proceed to another Argument Arg. 2. Chand If some Infants be the Disciples of Christ then according to the Commission of our Lord some Infants are to be Baptized But some Infants are Disciples Therefore c. Rus. I deny your Minor Chand Those that the Holy Ghost in Scripture calls Disciples are Disciples But the Holy Ghost in Scripture calls some Infants Disciples Ergo they are Disciples Rus. I deny your Minor Chand I prove it from that Text Acts 15.10 Now therefore why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples Upon Infants the Yoke of Circumcision was laid They are call'd Disciples Rus. I deny that Text proves it Chan. If this Yoke were laid upon the neck of the Disciples then Infants are Disciples But c. Therefore c. Rus. â— deny that there is any such thing in the Text either 〈◊〉 or intended Chand The dispute was occasion'd by some false Teachers that had said except Christians were Circumcised aâ—â—â—â—pâ— the Law of Moses they could not be saved Now says the Apostle Why do you lay a Yoke upon the neck oâ— the Disciples c This Yoke was the Yoke of Circumcision which was laid on the neck of some Infants Rus. No Infants can be here intended for those who are called Disciples in this verse are called Brethren and Believers in the 9 th verse And therefore it could not intend infants L. We will read verse the First Except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Now I ask you what was the manner of Moses Rus. To cut the foreskin of their Flesh. L. Suppose we were to teach this People as the Judaizing Christians did them Except you are Circumcised after the manner of Moses you can't be saved no doubt but they would understand the manner of Moses to intend not only all the Circumstances of it but that their Children must also be Circumcised this being after the manner of Moses Here I will form this Argument If those are called Disciples
who were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Then Infants are Disciples But c And so ought to be Baptized Now they themselves allow that Disciples ought to be Baptized Rus. It 's the Gentile Believers that are there called Disciples Chand It is all upon whom the Yoke of Circumcision was laid which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Will. They could bear the Yoke of Circumcision Chand They were not able to bear it The Holy Ghost says so expresly which signifys the Painfullness and Troublesomeness of that Ordinance L. What you say of moment is this That Children are able to bear the Yoke of Circumcision therefore that Yoke is not there intended but the whole Ceremonial Law We allow the Ceremonial Law was included but Circumcision was here chiefly intended Will. If Circumcision was binding to keep the whole Law then this is not the Yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear But it was so Gal. 5.3 L. Thus far I think the old Gentleman is in the right that the Apostles are here and in the Epistle to the Gal. endeavouring the same thing driving them off from the observation of the Ceremonial Law But herein he is mistaken He would leave out Circumcision one of the prime and most painful parts of this Law and so would leave out those Infants whom thâ—se Iudaizing Christians advised to be Circumcised Rus. Prove that Infants are there intended L. If the context do oblige us to take in Infants then they are there intended But the context c. Ergo. It is a reproof of or reasoning with those that were inclined to impose Circumcision on the Necks of the Disciples and with it the whole Law of Moses v. 5. They were strictly observant of Moses's Law Nothing is more plain and obvious to one observant of Moses's Law than to Circumcise Infants at eight days old And consequently nothing would they urge more on these Disciples Rus. If they be such as had their hearts purified by faith brethren c. L. That 's not necessary Their being barely the Infants of these Disciples was enough If I were to act the part of a Judaizing Christian and were to perswade all these Gentlemen that they were to observe Circumcision according to the Law of Moses And did call those Disciples who were so Circumcised Would they not take it to be sufficiently plain that their Infants were intended as well as themselves And therefore that I called their Infants Disciples Rus. If you bring a Text and I shew you several weighty considerations why it should not be understood in your sense I expect not such â—tories as these Rob. Is it not enough if Mr. Leigh shews that this Text will admit of no other sense Will. If so be that children were brought in it would not follow that they were Disciples for those that were Circumcised were not Disciples L. You say the Qualification was they must be believers and have their hearts purified by faith I Answer These Judaizing Christians would perswade them to Circumcise after the manner of Moses And so to take the Yoke not only themselves but also on their Infants Now all these without distinction on whom this Yoke was about to be laid are called Disciples and therefore their Infants VVill. After the manner of Mosesâ— Thâ—e relates to the Form not the Subjects Here again is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes Rob. Here hath been a great deal of time spent about this Argument The Substance of what was said on both sides is this Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh have urged that such as are Disciples of Christ ought to be baptized and that some Infants are Disciples of Christ. This Mr. Russel deny's and they have proved it from this That some Infants are call'd Disciples by the Spirit of God This also Mr. Russel hath deny'd So that the whole Question result's to this head Whether any Infants be in Scripture call'd Disciples Now this hath been I think sufficiently clear'd from this Text Act. 15.10 where the Persons call'd Disciples are those upon whom the Judaizing Christians would have imposed the Yoke of Circumcision The Doctrine they taught the Christian Gentiles was That their Christianity would avail them nothing It was to no purpose tho' they did Believe in Christ unless they were also Circumcised according to the Law of Moses they could not be saved You all know what the Law of Moses doth prescribe and command in this case not only that they themselves but that every Male Child among them should be Circumcised Rus. It is not according to the Law of Moses but after the manner of Moses Rob. Mr. Russel it 's true it 's after the manner of Moses in the First verse but if you look forward into the Chapter you will find express mention of the Law of Moses You must be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses v. 5th I suppose you that have so oft read this Chapter could not but be sensible that such an Expression was there tho' not in the first verse And therefore the distinction you will pretend to make between the Law of Moses and the Manner of Moses was but a meer Evasion and in this case a Distinction without Difference The one explains the other That which is call'd their being Circumcised after the manner of Moses in one place is called their being Circumcised and Keeping the Law of Moses in the other place They must be Circumcised as Moses did order so that his Law might be observed and fulfilled in the doing of it which it could not be tho they themselves were Circumcised never so regularly unless their Infants were so too And yet the whole Body of those on whom the Pharisees would have imposed the Yoke of Circumcision are here expressly call'd Disciples This whole Body of Adult and Infants are therefore in common included under this Name which was all that we had to prove And we are now willing to refer it to the People whether what hath been said be not sufficient Proof If you please therefore we will now proceed to the Second question Pray Mr. Chandler let the Company understand what it is Reader Here observe We were ready as before mention'd to offer several other Arguments but no tollerable Answer being given to those two neither the Rules of Disputation did oblige us nor the Company 's patience and the approaching evening allow us to do it unless the Second Question were wholly excluded Q. 2. Whether according to the Commission of our Lord Baptism be to be Administred by Dipping Plunging or Overwhelming only and not otherways It lies upon you to prove that it is by Dipping Plunging Overwhelming only Rus. The Holy Scripture shews the way of baptizing But it doth not shew that sprinkling is the way Therefore c. L. This Argument doth not prove that it is by Dipping c. Only Rob. Conclude with the Words of the Question Rus.
under Water Or must it be by pouring Water on them c. Upon the whole the Application of a little Water in Baptism especially in these Cold Climates is grounded upon what Christ quotes I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now it being not Necessarily implyed in Scripture that Dipping was the ancient Practice we say that having a fair and probable way deducible from Scripture we must rest therein having recourse to that general rule Davids hunger was a fair excuse for eating the shew-bread which is call'd Most Holy and Lawful only for the Priests to Eat Therefore if Dipping in Cold Weather and Cold Climates do tend to the Prejudice of a Person 's Health yea to Endanger Life and it be not certainly fixt in Scripture as the only way of Administring the Ordinance we may use our own may as in General most agreeable to the word of God Rus. They think tho' they Transgress a Rule God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice L. No. This is not so We observe the rule a Moral Precept which take's place of a Ritual when opposite Much more is it Obligatory when it 's not evident that any Ritual one doth oppose it Chand If in those hot Countrys they had dip't or been obliged to dip this would not hold in such Climates and at such Seasons of the Year wherein the Life of a Person would this way be Manifestly exposed to Danger Mr. Russel here attempted to read several Quotations that he had Collected out of the Assemblies Annot. Pool Dr. Ham. c which had been before disowned And therefore the People refused to hear him as being nothing to the purpose however he spake to this effect Rus. I hope the People will observe that you are forc'd to differ from the Revd. Assembly of Divines c. Chand The Bible the Bible is our Religion Rob. Mr. Russel we are not ashamed to own our selves Protestants with whom it is a Fundamental Principle that the greatest and best of Men are fallible And therefore our Assent is not concluded by the meer words of one or other name how great soever We pay a just deference to the very worthy names you mention'd but we cannot think our selves obliged to believe every thing they say If you have any Solid Reasons to offer or the clear evidence of any Text of Scripture to determine this point pray let us hear it before we close up the day Nothing being said he applying himself to the People added Rob. A great deal of loose discourse you have heard upon this last Question Mr. Russel was obliged by all the Laws of Disputation to prove that according to the Commission of our Lord Baptism was to be administred by Dipping Plunging Overwhelming and no otherwise Some attempts he made towards it of the weakness of which I doubt not but you are all sensible And therefore which yet they were not obliged to Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh undertook to prove that it was not Necessarily to be so Administred For the clearing of which they have manifested that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew doth not necessarily signify any thing more than only to Wash or to apply water to a Person without determining whether it shall be by dipping a Person into water or pouring water upon him or any other way so that water be applyed it is all that can necessarily be concluded from the words Of this they have given clear evidence both from the Old Testament and the New And now upon the whole we are willing to refer it to your own Judgments whether you will be perswaded to account your own Baptism a Nullity because it hath not been administred in the way of these Persons If you can without any Solid Reason or without so much as the evidence of one single Text of Scripture be Satisfyed you may then take what our adversaries have said for Satisfaction But since it hath been fully proved that Christ hath only required that Persons be Solemnly entred into his Church by Baptizing or Washing them in the Name of Father Son and Spirit and hath not determined so far as doth appear whether this washing shall be performed this way or that we are willing I say to refer it to the Judgment of you all whether our way of Admistration be not the most commodious FINIS I have compar'd this Copy with the Original viz. Mr. Maltby's and my own and find it exactly agreeable thereto Witness my Hand this 10th day of Iuly 1699. W. SMITH Some Iust Reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended Narrative 'T IS with great Regret that we are again diverted from more pâ—easing and useful Studies to dip our Pens in this Watry Controversy and undertake this Invidious Service As we were Necessitated by the Anabaptists Challenge to the Disputation it self so had they not by Publishing a false account laid us under a like Necessity to Vindicate the Truth and our selves the World had never more heard of this matter In these our Reflections we shall Manifest the Author's Egregious Falshood in some parts of his Narrative his Trisling Impertinencys in others and the Uncharitable Principles that have drop'd from him The Narrative is pretended to be Transcrib'd from Mr. Bissel's and Mr. Ring 's Copy's Now we can assure the World that Mr. Bissel's Copy was like a Lawyer 's Breviate containing only hints for Memory and may be all contain'd in 3 or 4 pages and hardly one word of it in this Narrative As to Mr. Ring 's we have taken the pains to compare it with this account and find several hundred Falshoods Additions Alterations and Omissions It is an ill omen thus to stumble at the Threshold and what begins with a Falshood we have Reason enough to Mistrust But to the Narrative it self we shall as to some parts shew it's Egregious Falshood as to matters of fact and that by its Omissions of some and misciting other particulars as well as positive false assertions 1. It is Egregiously false by Reason of its Omissions Not that every Omission of a word or Sentence perhaps would have render'd it so but such Omissions as alter the very State of the Disputation and make it look like anâ—ther thing than it truly was are undoubtedly to be call'd Falshoods Should any one pretending to report the Psalmists Sense Ps. 14.1 leave out the first words and assure the world he said there is no God would not this be call'd a Notorious Falshood tho the Falseness of it lies in not relating the whole Sentence From whence it may be collected That it is not only asserting what was never said but also the Omission of something that was said may bring an Historian under the Guilt of Falsifying And whether it be not so in the present case we shall leave the World to judge in these few Instances Mr. Leigh upon their frequent pressing for an Instance from Scripture of our
Practice in Baptizing Infants happily retorted the Argument upon themselves and challeng'd them to produce one Instance of their Practice as theirs differs from ours For all that know us know we also baptize such as are adult upon the Profession of the Christian Faith that were not baptiz'd in Infancy Nay that we should refuse to baptize the Child of an Heathen or other Notorious Infidel unless adopted by some Christian till he become adult and make a credible Profession of Christianity Mr. Leigh therefore press'd them for one Scripture Instance of a believing meaning a Christian Parents Child whose Baptism was delay'd till adult And withal told them That from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. Iohn according to the computation of the Learned was about 60 years in which compass of Time multitudes of Christians Children were become adult Dr. Russel mention'd Constantine the Great as a Scripture-Instance which was justly ridicul'd Mr. Williams as he acknowledg'd to us afterwards thought it not of any Force and by the intimation of his Son alledges the Instance of our Lord as born of a Believer of the Virgin Mary To which Mr. Leigh reply'd I thought we had been speaking of the Commission now this was before the Commission Intimating that the Instance was not pertinent relating to a Baptism that preceeded the Commission of our Lord and therefore our Disputation was no way concern'd in it Notwithstanding this Dr. Russel would have it a pertinent Answer Christ being the Child of a Believer And to this he reports no Answer but makes Mr. Leigh seek to be Opponent upon it as if confounded with this Instance pag. 35. Whereas immediately upon the Reply of Dr. Russel Mr. Robinson our Moderator adds Tho Mr. Leigh express'd himself in so general Terms yet the whole strain of the Discourse did sufficiently manifest that an Instance of the Child of a Believer properly Christian was call'd for Now the Virgin Mary was a Iew and not then a Christian Nor was Christian Baptism then instituted With more to the same purpose Mr. Leigh also further replyed That Christ was not to be imitaâ—ed in that because then no Person ought to be baptized till 30 not except circumcis'd at 8 days old as the Reader may set in the foregoing Narrative After which Dr. Russel offer'd nothing Now we appeal to all the World whether when so large and distinct a Reply was made both by Mr. Robinson and Mr. Leigh this man hath fairly represented our Cause when he takes no notice at all of it But if this Gentleman or any of his Friends can yet produce one Scripture-Instance of the Child of a Christian Parent baptiz'd at grown years it will be somewhat to the purpose and they may haâ—e the confidence to call for Instances from us and to pretend that theirs as distinguish'd from ours is the Scripture-way and most agreeable to the Commission of our Lord But till then how unreasonable is it for them to expect Instances of our way when they have none to produce for their own Again he hath omitted to tell the World what all that were present well Remember that he was put to Silence by what was urg'd from Mat. 19.14 to prove Infant Members of the Church-Militant upon Earth Insomuch that after a long Silence Mr. Râ—binson call'd to him and ask'd if he had no reply to make and beg'd of him that if he had any thing to say he would speak otherwise tell the People that we might proceed To which Dr. Russel made a very weak reply that in this Text there is not a word of Baptism or the Commission and Mr. W. instead of Answering took the Oppenancy as in the Narrative But not one word more from that Argument could be got from Dr. Russel Besides tho' he hath conceal'd yet he cannot himself haâ—â— forgotten that the 2d Argument on our paâ—t where he was again Silenceâ— was sum'd up by Mr. Robinson in the words oâ— our Narative Then we refer'd iâ— to the Gentlemen present whether we should offer any more Argument on the 1st Question and â—â— was thought wholly needless Mr. Robinsons closing Speech on the 2d Question is also wholâ—y omitted We forbear to mention here how he hath omitted such passages as did sufficiently expose his Ignorance to the Learned part of the company Such aâ— were his telling us once and again that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was â—f the Masculine Gender agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Greek Verbs admit not of Genders tho' Hebrew do and his saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it had been with an Omega and I Consonant So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faults for which a School Boy would deserve the lash And when he was not allow'd to conclude his first Argument on the 2d Question otherwise than with the word of the Question it will be Remember'd tho' his Narrative hath not told us with how great difficulty he form'd his Syliegism and how many attempts he made before he could bring the words of the Question into the conclusion Insomuch that our Moderator offer'd him his Assistance These and several other particulars which quite aâ—ter the Face of the Disputation were by no means to be omitted Neither can that be call'd a True Narrative that suppresseth â—he Truth in such Instances as these 2. This Narrative is false in regard of its strange misplacing some Particulars on which account the Reader can form no true Idea of the Disputation So for instance whâ—â— hâ—â—ays concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 34. 〈…〉 is true should have come in in the midst of Mr William's rambling Discourse betwixt Dr. Russel's 4th and 5th Arguments and that about the Beasts of the Field should have had its place betwixt the 1st and 2d Argument on our part for Infant Baptism when Mr. Williams and Russel were both Rambling again And had they been found in their proper places as in Mr. Ring 's Copy which Narrative Russel pretends to transcribe they would only have serv'd to expose the Weakness of him that brought them But as he hath plac'd them here they serve to hide the shameful Baffle they and their Cause had by the Arguments on our side For as was said before they never re-assum'd the Opponency on the fi rst Question after the closing up the Argument from Infants Discipleship Tho Dr. Russel brings in these Two Arguments as if they went off with Triumph to the 2d Question Which yet every Judicious Auditor Knows to be False Lesser slips we pass by 3. He hath forg'd several downright Falshoods one of which is just under our Eye with relation to what is immdiately before said and therefore tho a little out of its place 〈◊〉 mention it here He 〈◊〉 tells the World that 〈◊〉 said they might take up the â—â—ponency again if they pleas'd And again that be re-assum'd the Opponenâ—y again at Mr. Leigh ' s Requeâ—t of which hâ— was
was said at the closing up of that head by us doth sufficiently Manifest no Human Testimony can pinch us It was the Ridiculous weakness and not the force of the Argument couch'd in his Testimonies that occasion'd that noise And if there was any thing in it that was a grievance to him Let him thank his Anabaptist Friends that gave the first Example 10. It is false that Mr. Fox was dip'd by Mr. Williams's advice Who was not then in the Country nor did Mr. Earle know him That it was done by Mr. Chandlers advice is also false for he was then at London But that none of us would refuse to dip a Person in such a case is true We never pleaded against dipping as one way but as the only way not against ' its Lawfulness but Necessity So that this Instance is brought in to no purpose and Brother Duke should have inform'd himself better in the Circumstances of this story before he had convey'd it to London Nay he was dip'd not at Gosport but Havant We shall purposely wave the Falshoods in the Narrative it self because our own account doth sufficiently manifest them We shall only add that the Conclusion of the Book is as false as the rest For he says p. 59 60. That God was pleas'd to make the hearing of the dispute of such use to several Persons That they were fully convinc'd and did in few days after submit themselves to ' be dip'd in Water whereas we can hear of no unprejudiced Persons Who were any way inclin'd towards Anabaptism by any thing that was offer'd in the Disputation And we challenge them to Name us one Person so convinc'd Those that were fix'd in their Prejudices might perhaps take their weak Arguments and Trifling Answers for a sufficient Confutation of Infant Baptism But we provoke them to Name one unprejudic'd Person that did so And do offer for one such Person so naâ—â—'d by them We will if they demand it tell them the Names of several who did strongly incline to Anabaptism before who by that Disputation were set right and fully satisfy'd that the Anabaptist cause sloth rest on weak Unscriptural Principles how loudly soever they pretend to Scripture CHAP. II. HAving thus far manifested how little Regard the Anabaptist Dr. had to Truth in his Narrative this were enough to be offer'd by way of reply nor need there any thing more to discredit an History than to shew that it is false But we shall so far condescend to the weakness of Injudicious Persons as to animadvert also on the Trifling Impertinencies his Narrative abounds with 1. All the Arguments they offer'd were Trifling Cavils The First was design'd to turn off the Opponency upon us The 2 d supposes what was never granted them that the only Commission and universal directory for Baptism is contain'd in Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 For indeed if this were Christs only Commission then his Disciples did Baptize Ioh. 4.2 without his Commission for this Command was not then deliver'd again if thâ—s Command were design'd as an universal directory Then previous Examination discourses of the Significancy and Obligation of this Sacrament stated Prayer before and after are besides the Commission Nay the Apostles did deviate from the Commission when they Baptiz'd only in the Name of the Lord Jesus or of the Lord Acts 10. Vlt. 19.5 this is therefore no other than extending the Commission to the Gentile World supposing that the Practice of it both as to manner and Subjects was well known before only then conâ—â—ed to the lost sheep of the 〈◊〉 of Isâ—â—el So that Infants may be Baptiz'd if we can bring good proof for it out of the other parts of Holy Writ tho it could not be prey'd from Christ's Command For the whole Scripture is the will of Christ and his will discern'd in this Matter is his Commission But supposing not granting this to be an universal directory We distinguish'd between Disciples that are compleat or Incompleat Incompleat may be made by the Ministry of Men. 1. As by the Preaching of Men Parents may be converted and constrain'd to give up all they have and are to God and so their Infants thus consider'd in their Parents they are remotely made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. 2. They are immediately made Disciples by the Ministry of Men by the Parents devoting them to God and bringing them to his Ministers to be solemnly dedicated to him Russel's vain attempts to take off this distinction may be taken notice of in the foregoing Narrative to which we â—reâ—er the reader as also to observe the little Arguments they further us'd and weak Answers they gave to our Arguments 2. His Reflections in the time of the Disputation it self and what he hath added are equally Trifling and Insignificant For Instance 1. What he insinuates p. 6. as if in effect we gave away our cause because we refus'd at that time to give an Instance where there was any thing recorded in Scripture that did oblige us to Baptize Infants whereas it then lay on them to prove the contrary Our business who were the Respondents was to attend their proof the time was not yet come for us to produce our own It was agreed that they who had reflected on the Doctrine of Infant Baptism as false and wholly untrue should prove that it was so Yet this Trifler when he had undertaken to prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism At the very first would have put it upon us to prove they were so and would perswade the company we gave away our cause unless we did as he directed This was Doctor like Truly And one would not grudge however he came by it to give him the Title who does so powerfully carry all before him You have his whole sense in these few words Gentlemen if I prove that Infants are not the Sublects of Baptism you will allow I perform what I have undertaken pag. 5. now this I 'll make so plain you shall not be able to answer or evade the force of my Argument Thus I argue if they be the Subjects of Baptism Mr. Leigh Mr. Chandler or some Body else is able to prove it But therefore they are not so And now I have effectually done your business for if you say you can prove it let 's hear it if not you give away your cause To this sense doth this mighty Man of Logic Flourish at the entrance and Wonderful Feats no doubt he thinks he hath done in it But such Egregious Trifling is hardly found among any pretending to the least degree above common sense And it was fitter to have been hiss'd out than so soberly reply'd to as it was 1. What! Do you prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism by putting us to prove that they are Wonderful this 't is to be a Dr. and to know more than all the World besides For till this Dr. came upon the stage these 2 things were always very
that as he says he was Created a Dr in the most proper sense Ex Inhabili Materia Doctor ex non docto Yet if he intend Equivocal Expressions tho he charge them upon us they are his own peculiar Talent Perhaps few Iesuits herein equal or exceed him at that sort of Weapon If any thing said by us was grievous to him it was not that we us'd Equivocal Expressions of our own but that we repeated and distinguish'd upon his 3. How impertinently doth he Trifle when he over-loaded his 3d Argument with a multitude of Propositions Tho Mr. Leigh deny'd first That the Apostle Paul did never declare that Infant-Baptism is a Gospel Institution yet could he never have it prov'd Suppose he did which yet he neither did nor can prove that Paul never declar'd it in his Writings yet how will he ever prove that he never declar'd it at any time by word of mouth which yet if he assert he must prove And how frivolously doth he afterwards talk of our having in our Custody any such unwritten Tradition We never did assert the Apostle Paul did declare any such thing by word of mouth that is not written only said he might do it and put this wonderful man to prove he did not And how insufferably weak and trifling are all 〈◊〉 Reflections he hath under this Head cast upon us While this was the Sum of what was said to his Minor or Antecedent But afterwards we deny'd also his Major or consequent that unless Paul declar'd the Baptism of Infants â—t was no part of the Counsel of God which by his own account he never prov'd nor is it indeed capable of proof unless what Paul declar'd must stand instead of the whole Scripture to us And tho the Apostle tells us he had not shunn'd to declare yet he never tells us that he had actually declar'd the whole Counsel of God Acts 20.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word intimates he did not prevaricate with them or fraudulently keep back any truth that in the course of his Ministry among them he had a call from God to deliver to them He he did not do as Peter faultily did Gal. 2.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who with-drew sought Subterfuges thro' a mean and Timorous Spirit conceal'd the truth when it was most especially to be own'd by him and for which the Apostle rebuk'd him v. 11. now says he I did not from any such mean or base Principle suppress or hide from you or misrepresent to you any part of the Mind of God but have freely and boldly declar'd to you so far as I had opportunity and there was any occasion for it the whole Counsel of God Not that we can imagite the Apostle had any opportunity to declare the whole of what God had at any time by any Messenger reveal'd of his Counsel Nor was there occasion he should spend his Time among them upon such Points with which they were well acquainted before especially while he had himself immediate Revelations from Heaven to communicate to them If therefore it could as it never can be prov'd that Paul never said a word of Infant Baptism to them it would by no means follow that it is no part of the Counsel of God but only that it was no part of what was immediately reveal'd from Heaven to himself nor any thing that he needed to insist upon among them who might otherways and sufficiently be instructed about it We might therefore when we had deny'd the consequence with just Reason say as p. 21. Suppose but not grant that Paul had not spoken a word of Infant Baptism yet they cannot in the least advantage their cause by it And so our Opposition stands good against that Argument even as he himself doth represent the closing of it 4. His Reflection upon us especially upon Mr. Robinson for refusing to admit him to harrangue the People upon the words of the Commission is if possible yet more trifling Was he not not allow'd to argue from the Commission And was not that all that was fit to be allow'd him Was he interrupted in reading the Text What would the Man have Why verily he wanted to illuminate us and our hearers with his Preachâ—â—nt upon the Text. Poor Ignorant Souls He perhaps apprehended we could not understand the Commission without his help In the presence of so many Ministers and particularly of him that had the right of the place he might have had the Civility to have ask'd leave or to have forborn till invited to it Besides he knew our company came together not to hear a Sermon especially from him but to attend a Disputation The man must by all means Preach and having nam'd a Text he begins This Commission is very solemnly deliver'd wherein our Lord tells us that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to him and by vertue of that Power And here he takes it ill to be interrupted And we must be reflected on as Lucifugae Scripturarum Bats and Owls that are afraid of the Commission and fly the light of the Scripture because we would not suffer him to go on with his Impertinent Harangue As if it was all one to refuse to hear a Text of Scripture read to as hear his Comment upon it How excessively doth this man dote on his own Labours 5. How Egregiously doth he trifle p. 24. when because our Moderator would not suffer Mr. Calvins Authority to stand for an Argument he Reflects as if he had no esteem for him Whereas there are few Names since the Apostles days for which he hath so great a Veneration What is it impossible in this Dr's opinion to have a Veneration for a Person unless we take his ipse dixit and swallow down all he says without chewing But doth Mr. Calvin any where say That the whole of the Commission is expressed in Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 And tho he say Infants are not expresly mention'd in this Command yet we are sure his Comment on the Place which will best discover his Judgment says That God includes Infants in speaking to their Parents and so that Baptism when apply'd to Infants is not separatedâ— from Faith and teaching And this he speaks in opposition to the Anabaptists who made a great noise against Infant-Bapti sm upon this Pretence See his own words Harm Evang. in Mat. 28.19 Verum quia docere prius jubet Christus quam Baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non rite administrari Baptismus nisi fides praecesserit arque hoc praetextu multum tumultuati sum Anabaptistae contra Paedo-Baptismum Solutio tamen non difficilis est And so goes on to answer this Argument Wherein he hath these Words Quae olim Iudaeis data fuit promissâ— Inter gentes quoque 〈◊〉 hodie necesse est Ero Deus tuus Semiâ—is tui Gen. 17.7 Bâ—eos qui side in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in
this day argue more strongly for us than these Mens Opinions only without their Practice do against us 15. We have another Trifle pag. 45. They had pleaded Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the Water It had been reply'd that the word only signify'd they went down to the Water But Mr. Iohn Williams ventures upon a Greek Criticism and tells us he was inform'd there were 2 differing words in the Greek Text where 't is said v. 36. they came unto a certain Water and v 38. they went into This Dr. Russel confirm'd and thereupon as they represent the Matter Mr. Leigh concess'd There is a word for you 'T is well we understand a Little Latine Otherwise this Man would quite Silence us But to the Point who ever told them there were 2 differing words in the Greek told them true And we are very ready to concess or as we would chuse to speak consent and yeild to Truth The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the true reading of v. 36th is As they went on their way they came by near to or over against a certain Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Accusative well admits such a reading And v. 38. they went both down out of the Chariot unto this Water How well do these 2 verses Answer each other and where 's the difficulty this wonderful Critic hath left upon us But What need of going down to the Water unless he were to be dip'd A little might have been brought up into the Chariot if Sprinkling would have serv'd the turn In answer to which we say 1. His going down to or into the Water doth no more prove that the Eunuch was dip'd than that Philip was for both went down 2. 'T is Improbable he was dip'd being then on a Journey and having no cloths to change And if you still ask why they went down 3. 'T is not certain they were provided with a vessel to fetch up Water in 4. There was not convenient Room in the Chariot for the performance of the Action and what was to attend it 'T is not to be doubted but it was attended with Prayer your selves we hope would not administer Baptism without Prayer before or after or both But what Room could there be in a Chariot for these two Persons to place themselves in a Praying posture It would neither admit them at least if of the Modern form to stand nor kneel without uneasiness Which alone might be a sufficient Reason for their coming down out of the Chariot if there were no other 16. How he trifled about the Hebrew Bible and how fasly he Represents that matter appears by our Narrative Mr. Ring had given over writing long before this and Mr. Bows and Mr. Webber were asham'd of their Goliah and therefore about this time basely deserted and left him alone The true account in short is this Mr. Chandler told Dr. Russel that Baptizo was so far from always signifying to dip that Bapto it self sometimes signifys to wet or wash And mention'd that Text. Dan. 4.33 Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the dew of Heaven in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Russel reply'd the Hebrew is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Mr. Chandler return'd the Greek word we were then inquiring into However to try his skill in Hebrew who had so shamefully falter'd in the Greek he was ask'd what the Hebrew word was He said if he had an Hebrew Bible he could tell Mr. Chandler handed his being Athias's 2 d Edit Amstel 1668. with the Books in Latine Letters plac'd after the same order with other Hebrew Bibles He could not find the place but read Gen. 1.1 which he also falsly Pronounced Mr. Chandler return'd Sir we come not hither to inquire whether you can read Hebrew but what the Hebrew word is in this place Then Mr. Robinson folded down the place for him On which he mutter'd something to himself which his nearest Neighbours could not hear and said the word was not there But he hath not told us to this day what the word is Hebrew Bibles are all misplac'd with him for we hear from good hands that at Havering in Essex he was confounded with the same place and could not find the Prophecy of Daniel Now we would befriend him against he â—â—ngages in the next Heckny Prize and inform him of a great Secret That Daniel is mostly Chaldee and the word there is not Tabal but Zavang 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the same Import And this Mr. Chandler understood not before he was Born but before the Creation of Dr. Russel CHAP. III. BY this time it appears how unregardable both this pretended Narrative is and it's pretended Anthoâ—â—â— A Pamphlet stuff'd with such Notorious Falshoods 〈…〉 happens to speak Truth trifling so Egregiously with what contempt doth it deserve to be Treated by the World But there is yet one thing further that may help to discover the man and that is the Narrow and uncharitable Principles that have drop'd from him and these we shall briefly animadvert upon 1. In the very first page of the Narrative Speaking of Mr. Chandler's Thursday Lectures at Portsmouth he tells you they were manag'd so as was to the Grief of such as truly Fear God in those parts Why What was the Offence He tells you it was given out that Mr. Chandler would not only prove Infant Baptism from Scripture but also furnish his hearers with Arguments to defend their Practice Why We cannot Imagine how this should grieve any that truly Fear God To have a truth prov'd a truth about which so many good Men differ to have it clear'd from Scripture Testimony to have the Oracles of God unfolded about it 'T is strange this should be grievous to any Yes says he It was to the Grief of them that truly Fear God in those parts We are at a loss to know the Reason why it should be grievous to any such and here he will not help us out However say we was it to the grief of such as were perswaded of this Truth Were they griev'd to have it clear'd up and be furnish'd with Arguments for the defence of it This can't be his meaning Every one is pleas'd to see what he believes to be the truth set in a clear Light those that were for the Baptism of Infants could not be griev'd at it No that he doth not say but those that Fear God that truly Fear him were grieved at it So that with him none that are for Infant Baptism in those parts will be allowed truly to Fear God Not one besides the poor Baptists as he calls them pag. 2. here 's Charity with a Witness All the Regular Members of the conforming and non-conforming Congregations are censur'd as destitute of the true Fear of God! Pray Dr. your Reason for this Will you condemn us and not tell us why What is there in the notion of
Infant Baptism that is inconsistent with the Fear of God Why may not a Person be of Opinion that he ought with the greatest seriousness to devote and consecrate his Children to God and enter them by Baptism into his Covenant and bring them under early bonds to him and yet for all this God! Nay the rather do it because he truly Fears God 2. That he may shew it is not an unwary Expression but his deliberate Judgment He doth in the very last Paragraph of his Pamphlet lay the same stress on the Point of Dipping His concluding Prayer is that as God had made the hearing of the dispute of such use to several Persons that they were fully convinc'd and did a few days after submit to be dipt So it may be of like use to many others in the Reading That so there may be added to the Church such as shall be say'd Such a Prayer scarce ever before appear'd in Print made up of falshood and uncharitableness It is amazing to us that a man dare venture into the presence of God with a 〈◊〉 in his Mouth and such uncharitableness in his Heart The â—â—lshooâ— we have animadverted upon Cap. 1. Paragraph 10. The uncharitableness we are now to take notice of He prays that as several 〈◊〉 hearing so many others by reading may be 〈◊〉 and Submit to be dipâ— haâ— so there may be added to the Church such as 〈◊〉 be sav'd What Apprehensions must thiâ— man have of those that never were dipt Why they are not yet added to the Church No not to the Anabaptists Church but we douâ—â—â—ot but 〈…〉 are added to the Church of 〈…〉 Yet whatever we think his charitable maâ— will not allow they can otherwise 〈…〉 the Church and consequently no otheâ—wise sav'd 〈…〉 it consists in deâ—â—ying Infant Baptism and 〈◊〉 the Necessity of Dipping If you agree with him in these and according 〈…〉 be dipt you are 〈…〉 as we can find added to the Church 〈…〉 of Faith Reâ—entaâ—ce Obedience toward 〈…〉 being dipt â—on water upon profession is with 〈◊〉 instead of all these But tho' you be Regenerate and Sanctify'd through 〈…〉 Soul and Spirit Walk humbly with God and unblamably before Men Yet if you were Baptiz'd only in your Infancy or â—f when adult not by dipping There is no 〈◊〉 for you if this man were to be your Judgâ— But blessed be God we are to be try'd at an anâ—ther Bar. And therefore with us it is a very small matter to be judg'd by him or of Mans day 1 Cor. 4.4 knowing that he that will judg 〈…〉 the Lord. To whose righteous Judgment we appeal and for which we wait in hope But let this Mans notions of Religion be never so narrow and uncharitable we declare our Religion is of no less compass than Christianity it self All that hold the Essentials of Religion we account to be of the same Religion with us Tho' they differ from us in some inconsiderable matters We will not be perswaded to look upon the English Episcopal or the Foreign Presbyterian The Congregational or Anabaptists themselves to be of a differing Religion from us to be destitute of the True Fear God or shut out of Christs Church Religion consists in thaâ— which is Common to the Pious and Sober of all these Partys and not in any thing that distinguisheth them from each other We abominate such a narrow strait-laced Principle as would place Religion in being for or against Liturgies for or against this or that form of Church-Government for or against Infant Baptism or this or that mode of Administration These things are none of them great enough to be the Terms of Eternal Life The Final Sentence will not proceed upon them We believe with St. Peter that God is no Respecter of Persons but in every Nation and among every party of Men that hold to the head Christ Jesus He that Feareth God and worketh Righteousness shall be accepted of him Acts 10.34 35. and with St. Paul The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but Righteousness and Peace and joy in the Holy Ghost and he that in these things serves Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd among Men. Whether he be for or agaiâ—st these things we have nam'd or any of the like kind Rom. 14.17 18. FINIS THE most material Errata observ'd in a Review are World for Word p. 17. l. 20. Word for World p. 58. l. 15. Subâ—ects for Subjects p. 67. l. 31. which with any others of the like Nature can create no difficulty to an intelligent Reader There are indeed several Letters dropt out in working for which tho room is left yet they disappear but they may be easily supply'd For instance the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dropt in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 17. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 49. and the Letter â— twice a line or two after in the same Page in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if any who are fond either of the Greek Accents or Hebrew Points complain of their omission in those Original Words that here occur they may charge it parâ—â— on the different inclination of the Corrector and partly on the difficulty of bringing our common Printers to any exactness in what lies out of their usual Road. To the latter of which â—is also to be ascrib'd that â—o many of the Hebrew Letters are needlesly Dagesch'd Tillotson Pres. to six Ser. on family Religion pag. 3. * Stilling-Fleet Iren. pag. 7. * Lightfoots Harmony on Joh. 1 25. * Any way before the words were any where †He is attempting to shift the Opponency * Somewhere The word is again altered from any way to somewhere * The Dr. now seems unwilâ—ing again to allow Scripture Consequence ⸫ Here Mr. Leigh was willing tho the Respondent ought not to Prove to offer Prâ—of for the peoples satisfaction * Mr. Robinson will keep him to the Opponency * The Drs. design even now was to turn the Opponency on us as I can prove from a Letter of Mr. Jo. Williams But now he will not quit the Opponency and yet expects from us a Scripture Proof for Infant Baptism * Or Asserenti incumbit probatio * Here we expected that the Dr. should either have shewn that this distinction is groundless or that he should have brought it into his neâ—t Syllogism But he doth neither * We seeing that the Dr. wav'd distinctions and grounded his Discipleship by the Ministry of Men upon the word Teach Mat. 28.19 And that because it goes before the Word Baptizing Therefore we denied the Major * Mr. Chandler calls for a Proof of the Consequent aâ—â— the Dr. goes upon the Proof of the Anteâ—â—dent * Here the Dr. blunders again confounding Antecedent and Consequent †i. e. Because they are not capable of Instruction or compleat Discipleship by the Ministry of men therefore that they are not to be baptized * Here is not
a word of the Consequence which is still deny'd but be goes on upon the Antecedent * He takes no notice at all of the distinction but goes on to prove that Infants can't be compleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men. * Here followed a General Laughter * This is the Consequence that hath been still deny'd and no Proof offer'd * But the Dr. ought to have proved either that there are no Incompleat Disciples or that they are excluded from the Commission for Bapâ—â—â— because they have no Knowledge c. * Here the Dr. neither deny's that Paul did declare the Baptism of Infants in his Sermons nor asserts that all kc Preached is left on record * This Word It 's may either refer to Pauls Declaration or to Baptism And this ambiguity caus'd some confusion afterwards * Here the Dr. was to prove the Consequent and he goes on to prove the Antecedent * The Dr. would ramble and we rathâ—r follow than leave him And gave the Words All Nations supposing by the Word It he meant Baptism * Who doubts this And what is it to the purpose * Remember he doth not mention any here to whom he had declared the Councel c. but the Ephesians He mentions Jews and Greeks because there were Greeks or Hellenists at Ephesus and many other places up and down as well as Jews And we don't Question but he did declare the whole Councel c. and therefore Infant Baptism but say it 's not necessary to be left on record as Preach't by Paul especially to these Ephesians when there is other good Scripture Proof for it But the Dr. makes a long harangue only to bring over his own Argument again which he could not make good * Here our Scribes were imperfect and I cannot Remember what ought to be inserted But the force of the Argument is not removed * How many times hath the Dr. been told what we mean by Compleat Disciples * And thus to spend time he will have his long Argument over again * An excellent Proof i. e. turning the conclusion into a question * Observe he falls upon the Minor Not a Word of the Major * Here the Dr. waves the distinction that he may wrap up himself and the Auditory in confusion * Here the Dr. seâ—ms willing to turn off the Disputation to Original Sin with those of his Profession dâ—nâ— * Here 's a Fallacy he will now suppose his own conclusion and the sum of what we deny'd before * He was here to prove the Consequence and he brings an Instance to prove the Antecedent and but barely asserts the Consequent * What is a man's Authority in this case but his Iudgment * The people laughed not because Erasmus ' s name was mentioned but because he said Erasmus wrote in English * Mr. Leigh since the Disputation hath acknowledg'd himself guilty of a mistake in calling the Eunuch a Proselyte of the Gate whereas he was probably of the Church and such a ones Infants were accounted Church-Members But the Dr. had not the sense to discover this mistake * 2 Thes. 3.10 * Mr. Leigh mistookâ—â— word is would not But it comes to the 〈◊〉 for Infants have Power and will both alike * Reader observe the Argument from Luk. 14. Is â—â— opt And what Mr. Rus. here says farther had been Answered before in the Words All Nations Usque ad Nauseam * The contrary whereof hath not yet been proved * Mat. 19.14 * Here is no notice taken of the Distinction only the old thing asserted * Besides Constantine's father was a Pagan and Constantine had a desire to be Baptiz'd in Jordan because Christ was * The Dr. allow'd it to be the first 600 yâ—â—rs as I remember * Observe by Believers was before understood a Christian Believer by themselves wherever they spake of believing as necessary to Baptism Neither was the word when in any other sense Besides it was granted before that Iew and Pagans ought not to be baptiz'd till adult and both Christ and his â—â—â—â—â—r were Iews at the time of his birth * Indeed the people laughed both ways * Mark that The Dr. denies that visible Church Members ought to be baptized * The Major is dropt and he denies the Minor after a while you will find the Major silently taken up again * He Answers not my Argument by makâ—â—â—â—ood sense of the 〈◊〉 â—ny other way 〈◊〉 now breaâ—'s rule 〈◊〉 â—â—ns Opponent * Here he takes no notice of the second part which is the main of my Question * Here the Dr. could not tell what to say and therefore will have all over again * Reader to repeat all this is Nauseous but because the Dr. could do nothing else be would force us to it * And thus to no purpose but to spenâ— time Mr. Russel would have the same over again * This poor dry evasion you see he hath before and iâ— beholden to his old Friend Danvers for * Here he shifts the Respondency and turns Opponent which we give way to because they could do nothing else * Here he drops his Argument to prove that Church Membership is not the ground of baptism * Observe how he leaves his Argument and runs to what had been worn thredbare before * The poor Man runs again from consequence â—o express words tho consequence was allowed before * Remember this refers to the Subjects only not the mâ—inâ—â—â— * Now you see the Dr. very plainly takes the Opponency because he could do nothing else contrary to his most false assertion in his Narrative * A wise Answer from a silly Doctor is it not * This was fully Answer before therefore it was tedious for Scribes to write it * Here is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes * Here observe again Dr. Russel would shift the Opponency on us * Reader Observe That the Dr. grounds his practice upon two Arguments link'd together viz. The resemblance between Dipping and a Burial And Primitive Practice Mr. Chandler denies this resemblance between Dipping and Burial to conclude for Dipping And he ought to have proved that it doth but instead thereof he insists upon his second Argument drawn from Primitive practice Hereupon there was no room without contention to urge any thing more against their first Argument But you have it sufficiently Answered in the brief Confutation * Excellent Greek †Good Greek still * Here we were going to read but they gave no room * The Text Ac. 8 38. hath not a word of putting him under the water * So the Greek Prepositions often signify * Where is dipping to be found in this Text * This whole passage hath been attested by the Person that spake the words * We have good Intelligence that the Dr. puzzl'd thus on the same Word at a Publick Disputation sometime before