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
in a Fish Pond Overwhelm'd with the Holy Ghost But to this I Answer it was the sound that fill'd the House and not the Cloven Tongues of Fire which were the Emblems of the Holy Ghost and sure they were not Overwhelm'd wiâ—h these but that promise was made good I will pour out my Spirit Acts 2.17 Now the pouring out of the Spirit is frequently represented by pouring out water Is. 44.3 But several Scriptures are pretended for dipping the most material are these 1. Mat. 3.16 Iesus went up out of the water I Answer he might acording to the Practice of those times go into the Water to wash his Feet foul with Travelling and Iohn might pour Water on his Face but the Greek word may be render'd he went up from the Water The like Answer may be given to Mar. 1.9 Iesus was Baptiz'd of Iohn in Iordan It doth not prove his whole Body was plung'd there Nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently signifys to and if we compare this place with Mat. 3.13 Iesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to Iordan to be Baptized of Iohn So here we may read the words with a Parenthesis And Iesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was Baptiz'd of Iohn to Iordan 2. Another Scripture is Ioh. 3.23 Iohn Baptized in Enon because there was much Water there I Answer much Water may be meant not of depth but length many streams and Rivulets where Iohn and his Disciples might conveniently together Baptize or pour Water on the Multitudes 3. Another Scripture is Acts 8.38 where Philip and the Eunuch are said both to go down into the Water whence some would infer that the Eunuch was dip'd I Answer they might only go down to and come from the Water So the Greek may be render'd the Water running in the valleys Bâ—t if Men will insist on the letter of the Text Phillip must dip himself as well as the Eunuch for they both went down Or they might go ankle deep and Philip might pour Water on his Head or Face either of these interpâ—etations are probable and therefore it cannot Necessariâ—y be prov'd he was dipt besides the unlikelihood that he was dipt on a Journey when perhaps he might have no cloaths to change 4. The Principal Scripture they boast of is Rom. 6.4 Being Buried with Christ in Baptism Whence they argue Bâ—pâ—ism must represent a Burial therefore the whole Bâ—dy must be cover'd with Water This Text we have given a distinct Answer to in our Reflections on Dr Russel Chap. 2. Refl 12.13 therefore thither I Refer the Reader and shall only say here 1. It is no where said that Baptism represents Christs Burial but only that we are oblig'd to conform our selves thereby to Christs Death Burial and Resurrection to die to Sin and rise again to newness of Life This we do whatever riâ—e be us'd 2. In our way if that will satisfy there is a Representation of Christs Death the pouring out of Water denoting the pouring his Blood or Soul of his Burial as the Face the Principal part of the Body is put under the Water of his Resurrection when the Child is taken up and deliver'd again to its Parents or Oâ—â—erers 3. If they will keep strictly to the Significancy of a Burial the Person to be Baptiz'd must not walk into the Water but be taken up by the Baptizer and cast down into it for indeed the difference between our way and theirs is only this we Baptize the face and they Baptize the head and shoulders too 4. Metaphors must not be stretched too far and let our Brethren take heed how they stretch this Expression so as to Justify the Practice of others that differ from them you read v. 6. our Old Man is Crucify'd with Christ. Hâ—â—ce the Romanists infer the Necessity of Crossing in Baâ—â—ism let not the Metaphor therefore be stretch'd too â—ar 5. There are many more Scriptures that have an Allusion to Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face thus we râ—ad Is. 44.3 I will pour Water on him that is thirsty c. which is Interpreted of Gods pouring out his Spirit and Blessing on the seed of Believers So Heb. 10.22 Having your Hearts Sprinkled from an Evil Conscience and your Bodys wash'd with pure Water And many other places So that our way most fairly Represents the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ together with the Application of his Blood and Spirit and the Anabaptists of Amsterdam are so sensible of this that they Generally Baptize by pouring Water upon the Head 4. There is great probability if not certainty that many were not dip'd in Scripture times Particularly Acts 2.41 we read of 3000 Baptiz'd in part of a day And this was at Ierusalem where there were no Rivers but only the Brook Cedron Besides these were either dipt naked or with their Cloaths if Naked this would be an unseemly sight and look as if they were full of New Wine indeed tho' by the way I think that part that is Baptiz'd ought to be Naked to Represent our Nakedness before God if with their Cloaths this would be as strange for it cannot be expected they brought Cloaths with them at that Juncture and it would have been very unseemly to see so many Persons come out of the Water in such a condition and go down to their Houses which might be at a great distance not to mention that it was hardly possible for the 12 Apâ—sâ—les if we should add the 70 Disciples to them 〈◊〉 yâ—â—â—he Text mentions not to dip 3000 in so shoâ—t a time they had need have brawny Arms and an Hereâ—â—â—an strength to do this Again we read Aâ—ts 9. â— 18 that Saul after 3 days fastiâ—g wâ—s Baptizâ—d by Ananias we read not that he wenâ— out of the Hoâ—â—e nor is it probable that God who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice would at that time require he should be plung'd in Cold Water which might Prejudice his Health oâ— Life Again Acts 16.33 The Jaylor and all his were Baptiz'd at midnight 'T is unlikely they went to a River at that time 5. It is not the quantity of Water but the quality that is Significant As in the other Sacrament we are Commanded to Eat Bread and drink Wine in Remembrance of Christ So in this to be wash'd in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and as in the other it is not said what quantity of Bread we shall Eat or Wine we shall Drink So neither in this after what manner the Water shall be apply'd whether by dipping Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face It might be equally pretended that we must Eat and Drink plentifully at the Lords Table because this best sets forth a Feast as it is call'd 1 Cor. 5.8 or Eat a whole Loaf to represent our partaking of Christs fulness and receiving from him Grace for Grace there is as much Necessity for this as for dipping to represent our Burial with Christ. But as a small bit of
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.
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
I understand you own it was in use in our Saviours time Here the Dr. spake several impertinencies which our Scribes thought not worth the Writing L. I deny all this Rob. Bring it into an Argument Rus. I put it into a Syllogism I say If the Holy Scriptures do shew us the right way of Baptizing according to Christ's appointment and yet do not shew us that sprinkling is the way of Baptizing then Sprinkling is not the right way of Baptizing But c Therefore c. Rob. There is not one word of Sprinkling in the Question It is whether it be to be administred by Dipping Plunging Overwhelming only Rus. I argue thus then If the Holy Scriptures He goes on as before Rob. Pray Mr. Russel Rus. What Can't I begin to speak but you must still be Interrupting me I don't speak to you I speak to Mr. Chand If the Holy Scriptures shew us the right way of Baptizing and yet do not shew us that Sprinkling Rob. If you would but observe order you should have no Interruption from me But you both must and shall conclude your Argument with the words of the Question before Mr. Respondent shall take any notice of it Rus. Must and shall Mr. Moderator Rob. Yes Mr. Russel you both must and shall Otherwise it were fitter you should call me Mr. Cypher then Mr. Moderator if in this case I cannot Moderari Rus. If chat Baptism which is appointed by Christ and doth properly set forth his Burial and Resurrection is the only right way of Baptizing then it must be performed by Dipping Plunging Overwhelming only and not otherways But that baptism c. Is the only right way c. Therefore c. Chand I first deny the Consequence of the Major And then I deny the Minor Rus. Then you do suppose that it doth represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ yet it doth not thence follow that this is the only right way of baptizing My Argument hath two parts which I shall prove First That it doth set forth the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Secondly That therefore it is the only right way of baptizing First It doth set forth the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Rom. 6.4 Col. 2.12 Buried with Christ in baptism wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the Operation of God And I do say that Buried with Christ in his Sepulchre we cannot possibly be but the Apostle says we are Buried with him in baptism which doth properly represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ Now I proceed to the next to shew that therefore it is the only right way If there was no other baptism instituted by Christ nor practised by the Apostles and first Ministers of the Gospel but what doth represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ Then Dipping only is the right way of baptizing But c. Therefore c. Chand This is not the Consequence of the Major You are to prove that because baptism is significant of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ Therefore it must be by Dipping only Rus. Therefore I argue thus If this was the only way practised in those times then it must be by dipping only Chand I deny the Minor Rus. If there be any other way then you or some other Person is able to shew it But c. Chand I can shew you another way I can shew that the word signifies Washing and there is great Probability that many had water poured on them Rus. Give an instance in the New Testament that any was baptized any other way L. We argue upon a Probability It might be otherwise than by Dipping there is no necessity of Dipping If you 'll grant that we will go upon somewhat else viz. That it must be in our climate according to our way But if not you must prove that there is no Probability that it might be done any other way than by Dipping Rus. Let us hear then what the Scripture says in this matter L. Prove that those Texts where you render baptism by dipping do truly and necessarily signify Dipping Take what Text you will Rus. I chuse that of our Saviour Mar. 1.9 He was baptized of Iohn in Iordan The Greek preposition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Into And to say he was washed of John into Jordan is not sense therefore it ought to be render'd thus He was dipped of John into Jordan L. The preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in in the New Testament as well as into so here he was baptized of Iohn in Iordan is the true sense of the Greek Now we will allow thus far That what was commodious and usually practised on other occasions without any burthen in that warm Country might be observed in baptism It is said that all Iudea and the Country round came to Iohn and were baptized of him in Iordan In those hot Countreys the custom was to go bare leg'd in sandals Now they might go into Iordan a little way and then have water pour'd upon them and if so allowing that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash They might be said in this manner to be washed in Jordan without the least necessity of Dipping I will offer it to the Company whether this be not a fair interpretation of those words Mar. 1.9 Christ came to Iohn and was baptized of him in Iordan i.e. He went a step into the water and was washed of him in the manner aforesaid Rus. I will not allow your signification of the word I say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more than In So Christ is said to come into the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 1.15 He went into the Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so into Iordan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This doth imply that he was Baptized or dipt into Jordan as those other Texts that he came into the Synagogue c. L. This Gentleman produceth three places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifys into and I can produce three times three where it cannot signify into but must signify In. The force of your Argument lies upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you would have render'd Into where it signify's In. Then add this to what I offer'd before as a probable Interpretation contrary to yours it 's evident that there 's no necessity of Dipping from this Text. Rob. There can be nothing beyond a probability asserted on our side or yours Chand Well prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifys abluo To wash frequently in Scripture Thither we will go That 's our tale Rus. According to all Lexicographers the primary signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mergo immergo to Plunge Overwhelm L. But by the way you prove your Practice from the Prime and Native Signification of the word Suppose it were mergo to Plunge and not abluo which yet we deny
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