You cannot argue from the Native Signification of a word with any force when the Scripture acceptation of it is different Rus. I did urge the Commission of our Saviour Chand You are to prove that Dipping is the only way If the word will bear the sense of washing or pouring water then dipping is not the only way L. You argue from the Prime and Native Significatiof the word I 'll appeal to the Learned If this be a good way of arguing Then the Mathematics must include all kind of Learning Because it come's from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn Then every Youth that is skill'd but a little in Physicks may be call'd a Physician because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay and every Foot-boy sent with a Letter maybe called an Angel because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Messenger To know therefore the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this ordinance we must consider in what sense the word is usually taken in Scripture And to say it signify's to Dip where the ordinance is mentionâ—d is plainly to beg the Question to assert the thing without proof Therefore rightly to understand the sense of the word we must have recourse to those places where the word is used and the ordinance not intended Now I require one such place of Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify's to dip necessarily Rus. No there is no need of producing such a place I shall prove it from the story of the Eunuch and Philip. He commanded the Chariot to stand still and they both went down into the water and then when he had put him under water they both came out of the water L. I deny that the word Baptize signifys to dip in any place of Scripture or to put under water i. e. Necessarily Rus. Mat. 3.6 They were Baptized i.e. dip't of Iohn in Iordan L. How doth it appear that they were dip'd Rus. The Assembly The Continuators of Pool Calvin Dr. Hammond allow it Chand That 's nothign to us I defye you to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any Text of Scripture signify's to dip Rus. What then You deny what Dr. Hammond the Assembly the Dutch Annotations have said L. We cannot say they have said so We have not their Books at hand to turn to Besides suppose they should that 's no Proof We are no Papists to pin our faith on other Mens Sleeves In the next place Whereas Mr. Russel hath brought the passage of Philip and the Eunuch That they went down into the water and came up out of the water It might as well be render'd They went to and came from the water Now if they came by a River's side they might go down out of a Chariot to the water and when the Eunuch was Baptized they came up from the water Is not this a fair sense of these words They went to and came from the water Again if you argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I can tell you of Seven Places where the word is used and not applyed to the ordinance And you cannot prove that it signify's to dip in any of them I argue then If there are several Texts of Scripture where the word cannot possibly bear this sense Then it doth not necessarily bear it But c. Rus. I deny the Minor L. I prove it by some Instances Mark 7.4 Except they wash they eat not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they be Baptized But can it be imagined that they were plunged over head and ears every time they went to meals Rus. The word is sometimes render'd dipping in our English Translation as He that dippeth with me in the â—ish L. The word is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides this would avail your cause but little for can you suppose that he dip't himself over head and ears in the dish A Gentleman in the Company I 'm sure he would be foul and fawcy then Rus. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Diminutive from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Gentleman said to his Neighbour Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a smaller word be thinks it must be its Diminutive L. I find the word to signify no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 7.4 5. And so Naaman is said to observe the Prophets word which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he went and as we read dipped Now since he observed the command of the Prophet it is plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily signify any thing but washing Rus. What is the word in the Hebrew Chan. There are two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Prophet commanded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is added according to the word of the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is plain the words are used promiscuously and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also we may observe Christ commanded the blind man to wash in the Pool of Siloam Must it be said that he was dipt there or can it be proved that Naaman was dipt because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so far from always signifying to dip thâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self tho 〈…〉 in this sense yet sometimes signifies only to 〈…〉 Thus Dan. 4.33 Nebuchadnezzar 〈◊〉 with the Dew of Heaven The Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rus. But the Hebrew is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chan. What is it then Here is an Hebrew Bible if you 'll see Here the Hebrew Bible was handed to him of Leusden's 2d Edit and Mr. Russel kept it turning from place to place above 〈◊〉 a quarter of an hour and could not find out the Book of Daniel upon which the People fell a hissing Than the Hebrew Bible was handed to Mr. Robinson who 〈◊〉 the leaf down at the place and handed it back again to Mr. Russel who stood with his Spectacles on his nose a while longer poring on it but could not read it But he said he understood Hebrew before Mr. Chandler was born and to satisfy the Auditory that he did so turn'd to the First Chapter of Genesis where he read some part of a verse or verses And then again turned to Daniel and could not read the words yet After some time more Mr. Russel pretended to read some words but with a low Voice Chand We come not here Mr. Russel to know whether you understand Hebrew only tell us what the word is in this place Which he could not do L. We can produce several other texts of Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify Dipping as where we read of their washing Beds or Tables the word is Baptize according to the Greek Rus. I deny it Chand There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. What wash Beds or Tables by Dipping them
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.
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
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
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
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
as the Sentiments of the rest of my Brethren that whatever Credit not your cause but ye may have gain'd is wholly owing unto you To which Mr. Williams repâ—y'd don't Sir put that upon me I Answer'd I will speak it for you argu'd with more Simplicity and less Subtilty than Russel and so were the fairer Dispuâ—ant These words thus in Civility spoken had a plain Reference not to the cause disputed but Persons disputing not to the strength of Argument but form and manner of arguing many things Mr. Farrel offers that shew this was his sense which we think it needless to repeat bâ—cause the words thus Circumstanc'd carry their own Evidence with them he concludes his Letter thus I now leave it to the Judgment of the Ingenuous whether it can be fairly deduc'd from my words that we were conscious of any Credit gain'd by them to their cause or whether they are not conscious their cause was wounded and interest sinking when they readily catch at so vain a shadow to support their Cause and Reputation I will add no moâ—e but that having perus'd the Narrative find it so full of Fraud Partiality Falshood and Misrepresentation that this Instance may serve as a Specimen if not of the whole yet of the greatest part Attested by George Farrel 8. It is False that the Advertisement in the Post-Man was ours And we cannot but stand amaz'd at the Confidence of the man who dares say any thing It was well Known to Old Mr. Iohn Williams before he left Gosport that the Honourable Colonel Gibson sent up that Advertisement He generously allow'd us to mention him as the Author of it and hath given the annex'd Testimonial in Confirmation of it By Colonel IOHN GIBSON Lieutenant Governour of Portsmouth c. I do hereby Certify all whom it may any way concern That the Advertisement put in the Printed Paper commonly called The Post-Man upon the 25th day of February in relation to the Debate betwixt the Presbyterians and Anabaptists held at the Presbyterian Meeting-house at Portsmouth upon the 22d day of February I say the said Advertisement was inserted as above by my Direction I do also own I was then and am still of the same Opinion as mentioned in the above-said Advertisement Witness my Hand at Portsmouth June 9th 1699. J. GIBSON This we are well assur'd Dr. Russel knew as being told so by some of Mr. Chandlers Friends at the Coffee-House in Alderjgatestreet when he gave the Honourable Lieutenant Governour such Scurrilous Names as we will not foul our Paper with Notwithstanding this this Man hath the Impudence to dedicate his false Narrative to him Indeed with a Diminutive Title as if he were not Lieutenant Governour Receiving an Immediate Commission from the King but only deputy Govenour deputed by Major General Earl This he should have enquir'd into before he had dedicated his Book to him This Noble Gentleman is aspers'd and ridicul'd as one of our unthinking admirers Nar. pag 7. and a squirter out of Poolish Advertisements words that need no other Invective than the Bare Relation Pag. 10. what he adds further that we would not give him the Civil Title of Dr. that he took his degree at Cambridg admitted as a Member of that Honourable Senate and that not Ex gratia is partly false That he was created a Mandamus Dr. by King Iames in 1688. we understand and with how great a Price this Tool bought that priviledg we leave the World to Jndg. But what he means by a Senate at Cambridg is beyond our understanding That he was not regularly chosen as one well furnish'd with the Learned Qualifications requir'd his Ignorance in Greek we think to be a sufficient Evidence We could also inform him to whom he apply'd himself for the better understanding of the Latine Tongue That he also kept a Coffee-House in Bartholomew-Close is well known to the Neighbourhood there But supposing he he had been a Regular Dr. in Physic as he stiles himself this may no more qualify him for a Divinity Disputation than being a Coffeeman So that why he should insist on his Title in this case we know not Here we shall also take notice of another Falshood that this bold Gentleman hath Publish'd amongst and by his Friends in London Tho' he have not adventur'd it into his Narrative one of us hath been assur'd by a Person that had it from the Mouth of an Anabaptist of considerable note in London that Dr. Russel to put it out of doubt that he and his Friends had carry'd the day at Portsmouth added the Bishop of Salisbury had received a Letter from Colonel Gibson wherein he applauded their i. e. the Anabaptist's performance That such a report hath spread abroad we are well assur'd But that it is most Egregiously false that Right Reverend Person whose name he hath made use of hath given us leave to assure the World He doth indeed own he had a Letter from Colonel Gibson his near Kinsman Relating to the Disputation But to a purpose quite opposite to what this falsiefier reports and adds that not only the Letter he Receiv'd but one directed to the Ld. A. Biâ— of Casterbury did Represent the disputation as much to our advantage as could be desir'd To this sense his Lordship was pleas'd to express himself to Mr. Robinson our Moderator who waited on him on this occasion and Generously allow'd us to make use of his Name for the undeceiving the World in this matter 9. It is false what he intimates pr. pag. 11. that when we were pinch'd upon an Argument we made a Noise and Clamour that hindred the People from hearing what was said Whereas all that were present we doubt not well Remember the first disturbance we had of that kind was that mention'd in the Narrative pag. 35. when the Anabaptists upon the mention of our Saviour as an Instance of the Child of a Believer not Baptiz'd till adult rudely enough set up a shout And Mr. Webber Ignorantly cry'd 'T is done 'T is done Tho' the Triumph was but short liv'd for so soon as Mr. Leigh reply'd to the Instance the Body of the People return'd 'em their Civility and set up another shout at them Besides which there was no further Noise or Interruption of that Nature till that rude Comparison of Children and Beasts of the Feild of which more afterwards The last Interruption was when Russel would have put us off with a bundle of Humane Testimonys instead of proof and we had once and again protested against them and given our Reasons viz. that we had not the Authors at hand to try the truth of his Quotations besides that should they have said what he would have them their Testimony would not necessarily Engage our assent they being but fallible men When after this he yet would trouble us with his Impertinent long Quotations the People refus'd to hear him and continu'd to hiss till he gave over reading but what
was said at the closing up of that head by us doth sufficiently Manifest no Human Testimony can pinch us It was the Ridiculous weakness and not the force of the Argument couch'd in his Testimonies that occasion'd that noise And if there was any thing in it that was a grievance to him Let him thank his Anabaptist Friends that gave the first Example 10. It is false that Mr. Fox was dip'd by Mr. Williams's advice Who was not then in the Country nor did Mr. Earle know him That it was done by Mr. Chandlers advice is also false for he was then at London But that none of us would refuse to dip a Person in such a case is true We never pleaded against dipping as one way but as the only way not against ' its Lawfulness but Necessity So that this Instance is brought in to no purpose and Brother Duke should have inform'd himself better in the Circumstances of this story before he had convey'd it to London Nay he was dip'd not at Gosport but Havant We shall purposely wave the Falshoods in the Narrative it self because our own account doth sufficiently manifest them We shall only add that the Conclusion of the Book is as false as the rest For he says p. 59 60. That God was pleas'd to make the hearing of the dispute of such use to several Persons That they were fully convinc'd and did in few days after submit themselves to ' be dip'd in Water whereas we can hear of no unprejudiced Persons Who were any way inclin'd towards Anabaptism by any thing that was offer'd in the Disputation And we challenge them to Name us one Person so convinc'd Those that were fix'd in their Prejudices might perhaps take their weak Arguments and Trifling Answers for a sufficient Confutation 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
in his Sermons But because the main stress of the Anabaptists cause in this pointlys upon it We shall not satisfy our selvâ—s â—o have gravel'd them in the Disputation wheâ— we deny'd boâ—â— parts of the Argument as they form'd it neither of which they were able to prove But for the help of such as need 〈◊〉 Shall set this matter in a clear Light In order â—o which let it be consider'd 1. It is one thing for us tâ— be â—uried with Christ in Baptism and another â—â—ing for Baptism to repâ—esent a Burial The former the Apostle says The â—â—ter only Dr. Russel and his Brethren We are as the Apostle largelâ— Tâ—at Rom. 6.3.4.5.6 Baptiz'd into Christs Death Buried Resuâ—rection That is we are solemnly enter'd into the Christian Covenant which is founded in and secur'd by 〈◊〉 Deathâ— Buâ—â—â— and Resurrection of our Lord Which thereupon most strongly obliges us to Die unto Sin rise to and walk in newâ—ess 〈◊〉 Life But where doth he say a Syllable to intimate that our Baptism must represent these things Our Baptism is to oblige us heretoâ— and is accordingly urg'd by the Apostle for that purpose throughout this context But we would beg any one to shew us any Intimasion that our Baptism is to represent these things 2. And if Baptism must represent these things it must represent all as well as any of them There is at least as great if not greater evidence from the Context That the Death of Christ the manner and likeness of it as that the manner of his Burial should be Represented in our Baptism For besides that we are said to be Baptiz'd into is Dâ—ain v. 3. we are also said to be planted in the likeness of is Death v. 5. whereupon v. 〈◊〉 it follows our Old Man is Crucify'd with him But we are no where said to be planted in the likeness of his Burial Now what is there in your Administration that doth represent the likeness of Christs Death his Crucifixion By the same Reason that you would prove dipping necessary in Baptism a Papist or any other Person may prove crossing necessary too and therefore the same Answer will Invaâ—datâ— both i. e. that neitâ—er of them are requir'd to be represented 3. 'T is as Trifling what he adds pag. 39. where he says Mr. Chandler grants that Baptism doth signify a Burial and Resurrection Mr. Chandler only suppos'd did not grant it Besides if he had granted it it would not thence follow that it must necessarily be by dipping For 1. In our way by pouring water on the Face we represent Christs Death the pouring out of his Blood and Soul His Burial The Face the Principal part of Man being put under-water or having water poured on it as Earth is poured on a Dead Body His Ressurrection When the Child is taken up and deliver'd again to its Parents or Offerers This is a sufficient Allusion in Christian Sacraments which are Commemorative of what is past and there needs not a more exact Resemblance Naâ— it is as significant as breaking Bread and pouring out Wine to Represent the Sacrific'd Body and Blood of Christ. 2. If they will keep strictly to the Significancy of a Burial the person to be Baptizâ— must not walk into the water but be taken up by the Baptizer and cast down into it For indeed there is only this difference between our way and theirs We Baptize the Face and they Baptize the head and shoulders too Unless the Person going down into the Water may be said to baptize himself And then there are more Se-Baptists among them than we ever understood before 3. The Anabaptistâ— in Hollandâ—â—e â—â—e to sensible of the no necessity of Dipping that the general way among them at Amsterdam is to baptize by pouring Water upon the Head We need not send Dr. Russel cross the Seaâ— as he would us to the Turks Seragllo but to a place better known the Amsterdam Coffee-house to enquire into the Truth of this We would only here ask the Dr. these Two Civil Questions 1. Whether he might not have spar'd all his Dutch seeihg Doope in that Language signifies only to wash and is us'd when they only pour on Water 2. Whether his Anabaptist Friends at Amsterdam do practice a Right Baptism If not whether he would Baptize them again or exclude them from the Church of Christ as he doth us in his Closing Prayer of which more Anon If he owns their Baptism Lawfull Then why such a Câ—amour and Noise about a Circumstance If their way is Justifiable so is ours 13. How Egregiously doth he Trifle when he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is joyn'd with an Accusative case signifys into All that we can know from thence is what we well knew before that tho' this Man pretends to be a dignify'd Dr yet he hath not the Learning of a Common School Boy When 't is joyn'd with an Accusative Why pray Dr. what other case doth it any way admit We had thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soli accusativo jungitur had been a Rule no one could have missed that had but once cast his Eye on the Common Grammar Well Sir If you have any regard to your Reputation we would advise you never more to pretend to Greek and do not make too great a Noise about your degrees it will but expose you to the greater contempt You had better do as Mr. Williams did own your Ignotance and not Ambitously gape after the Name and Honour of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. As to his Humane Testimonys They are of little value with us for the Reasons given in the Disputation And it was an Evidence of the wretched weakness of his cause that these must stand instead of an Argument with him These Testimonys he hath chiefly borrow'd from Danvers and how Imperfectly and lamely they are quoted may be seen in Mr. Wills and Mr. Baxters Answers to him So that to wast time and Paper about them is but actum agere We shall therefore only put these following querys to him 1. Will you stand by the Authority of these Men in other Matters If not why would you have us in this 2. Do any of these say that to wash is not the New Testament sense of the word Baptize Or do any Answer those places we brought Or prove us in the wrong Or how many places can any bring where it necessarily signifys to dip We take not Mens Opinions upon Trust but Trial. 3. How few are there of those Learned Authors who have not adher'd to that in Mat. 12.7 I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice To Justify their Baptizing with a little Water in these Cold Countreys 4. Will not the Opinion and Practice of your Brethren in Holland argue as strongly against you as the Opinions of these Men had their Practice been dipping also do against us 5. Will not the Opinion and Practice of so many Thousand Men great for Learning and Piety at
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