A true narrative of the Portsmouth disputation, between some ministers of the Presbyterian, and others of the Baptist, persuasion, concerning the subjects and manner of baptism held in Mr. Williams's meeting-place there on Wednesday, Feb. 22. 1698/9. The managers for the Presbyterians were, Mr. Samuel Chandler of Fareham. Mr. Leigh of Newport in the Isle of Wight. Mr. Robinson of Hungerford in Berks, moderator. For the Baptists were, Dr. William Russel of London. Mr. John Williams of East Knoyle in Wiltshire. Mr. John Sharp of Froome in Somersetshire, moderator. Transcribed from two copies taken at the dispute; the one by Mr. Bissel Town-Clerk of Portsmouth, and the other by Mr. Samuel Ring. Revis'd and publish'd by Dr. William Russel.

The Occasion of this Disputation: And how Dr. Russel came to be ingaged therein; According to the Account received from Gosport and Portsmouth. The Occa∣sion was this:

THE Congregation of Baptized Believers at Gosport, were so blessed with Success in their Ministry, that in a short time they had gathered Twenty Members, very worthy Persons, who were added to them by Baptism. Many others were amuzed and put upon Enquiry. This startled the Presbyterian Party, because divers of them were of their Number, either Members or Benefactors; and they began to fear the Issue thereof.

Whereupon Mr. Sam. Chandler, of Fareham, about five or six Miles from Portsmouth, a Presbyterian Minister, whom they much esteemed for his Learning, was procured to come and Preach up the contrary Doctrine, first at Gosport, and af∣terwards at Fortsmouth, upon Thursdays, on purpose (as was sup∣posed) to put a Stop to this so hopeful a Beginning amongst the Baptists, and hinder their Progress therein. And this was managed by him and his Admirers in such a manner, as was to the Grief of such as truly fear God in those Parts. For it was given out, that Mr. Chandler would not only prove Infant Baptism from Scripture-Testimony, and answer all the Ob∣jections of the Baptists against it; but also sufficiently furnish his Hearers with Arguments to defend their Practice.

And in the Prosecution of this his Design, he took occasion to make his Excursions, wherein he spake very diminutively of those in the Ministry; representing them as Persons ignorant of, and unacquainted with the Holy Scriptures. He also ri∣diculed and mis-represented the Manner of their Performance of this Holy Ordinance as it represents a Burial and a Resur∣rection, wherein upon Rom. 6. 3, 4. he makes too bold with the manner of our Lord's Burial, and the Apostles Applica∣tion thereof to Holy Baptism. He might have been pleased to

have wounded the poor Baptists through the Sides of some other Person than so great an Apostle.

He also did greatly extol the Practice of Infant-Baptism, and the Use and Advantage of it to them, beyond those of riper Years; and did inveigh against their manner of Practice with most severe Reflections. Upon this, the Presbyterian Party began to triumph over the Baptists, and boasted, that what Mr. Chandler had said upon that Point was unanswerable.

Whereupon, when this last Sermon was to be Preached, wherein he was to shew his great Skill in Answering our Ob∣jections: Mr. Bowes, and divers other Brethren of both the baptized Congregations, went and heard him. When he had done. Mr. Bowes desired leave to speak, and in a modest and Christian-like Manner, did enter his Objection against what Mr. Chandler had spoken: and upon a meeting betwixt them∣selves, they did mutually Agree, That the Points in Diffe∣rence should be publickly disputed at Mr. Williams his Meeting∣house in Portsmouth; and that Mr. Chandler and Dr. Russel should be the Disputants.

As touching Dr. Russel, his being ingaged in it, it did not arise from any desire in himself to be concerned in it; but from the pressing Importunity of his Friends.

The Church at Gosport being newly constituted, and being more particularly concerned (as the thing was circumstanced) and supposing that all this Stir and Noise was chiefly designed against them, did first make their Application to him for his Assistance. And in the Name of the Church, a Letter was sent to him by one of their worthy Brethren, wherein they express themselves after this manner.

To our esteemed Brother Russel, we of the Church of Christ at Gosport, send Greeting.

VVE being under a Pressure of Conscience, having of late had the great Ordinance of our Lord Jesus Christ, (viz. that of Believers Baptism in Water) inveighed against, and ridiculed by one of the Presbyterian Ministers (Mr. Chandler by Name;) and being much grieved that the Ordinance of Christ should be thus triumphed over, and trodden under Foot: and ho∣ping you have so far ingaged your self in Christ's Cause, and that God hath given you Abilities to defend it, we don't only Beg, but Require your Personal Presence, and desire your Assistance to defend that Sacred Ordinance, &c.

He also received several other Letters, Signed by the Mini∣sters, and other Private Brethren, to press him to it.

He did send them word, that it was his Opinion, it would be the best way for Mr. Chandler and himself to exchange some Letters betwixt them in the first place, to try the strength and length of their Weapons; and thereby prevent a Publick Disputation, if possible. But when they let him understand that the Matter was too far proceeded in, and so circumstan∣ced, that nothing less than a Publick Dispute could decide it, he then consented to answer their Request therein, because (as they had signified to him) the Glory of God, the Ho∣nour of his Truth, and the Good of Souls, was eminently con∣cerned in such a Publick Defence, especially considering that the Presbyterian Party had given out, that we were afraid to meet them: But I shall detain you no longer from the Dis∣pute it self; an Account of which follows.

For the Presbyterians.

• Mr. Samuel Chandler, of Fareham.
• Mr. Leigh, of Newport in the Isle of Wight.
• Mr. Robinson, of Hungerford, Moderator.

For the Baptists

• Dr. William Russel, of London.
• Mr. John Williams, of East-Knoyl in Wiltshire.
• Mr. John Sharpe, of Froome, in Somersetshire, Moderator.

An Account of the Disputation held at Ports∣mouth, February the 22d. 1698/9.

THE Disputants going to the Place of Meeting, between the Hours of Nine and Ten in the Morning, having took their Places, Dr. Russel spake to this Effect.

Gentlemen Forasmuch as the Work we are going to en∣gage in, is a Part of Religious Exercise; It is my Opinion, we ought in the first place (as is usual upon such Occasions) to be seeking God by Prayer; that his Presence may be with us, and his Blessing upon our Endeavours.

The Motion being accepted, Mr. Chandler began the Meet∣ing with a short Prayer, which being ended, the Questions and Preliminaries agreed upon, were read, which are as followeth;

Whereas by Mr. Chandler's late Preaching on the Ordinance of Baptism, several Persons have taken offence; and upon desire of Satisfaction, it's mutually Agreed between us, whose Names are

under-written; That these Two Points be Amicably Disputed in the following Order, with Relation to Manner, Time, and Place; as hereafter express'd, viz.

Que. 1. Whether according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Adult Believers are only the pro∣per Subjects of Baptism: and not Infants?

Que. 2. Whether the Ordinance of Baptism as appointed by Christ, is to be Administred by Dipping, Plunging (or) Overwhelming only, and not otherways?

Agreed, the Disputation be held at Portsmouth in Mr. William's Meeting Place, on Friday the 10 of February next ensuing (if God permit) beginning at Nine in the Morning. And if in case the Providence of God should so Order, That either Party should fall sick, or any other unavoidable Circumstance happen; that then the Time shall be deferr'd to another Day, to be agreed on by the Parties concern'd, not exceeding a Fortnight after; provided a Week's Notice be given thereof before the 10th of February. Also Agreed, The Parties Disputants be Mr. Samuel Chandler of Farebam, and Dr. William Russel of London; or any other Persons in either of their Steads, supposing them Ordained Mini∣sters; and each Disputant to choose a Moderator.

The Disputation to be Managed Regularly, with strict Regard to the two above recited Subjects: And if the Moderators shall sce fit, during any interval of the Disputants for Refreshment, that two other Persons go on with the Dispute, until they reassume it.

Portsmouth, Decem∣ber, 23d. 1698.

• Samuel Chandler.
• Francis Williams.

Here follows Mr. Chandler's Apology to the People.

My Friends, It is not out of Vanity or Pride, I appear in this Place upon this Occasion at this Time: Most of you know, and I suppose many of you have heard, that in the Course of my Lecture in this Place, I have Discoursed of the great Principles of Religion; and having explained the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, I came to give an Account of the Two Sacrament, of the New Testament; and therein was una∣voidably concerned to speak to those Truths that are contra∣dicted by these Gentlemen here present.

Those that heard me, know that I was very Modest in ex∣pressing my self in this Controversie: But a bold and confi∣dent Challenge was given me, which I knew not how to re∣fuse; unless I would betray the Truths I believe in my Con∣science, or confess my self not able to vindicate them. And accordingly these Men have sent for some Assistance to op∣pose us in this Matter.

I desire these things may be handled with a great deal of Calm∣ness; that we may discourse of things as becomes Christians. And as we have the Favour of the Government both Civil and Military, so we may give them no occasion to repent of allowing us this Liberty.

And also I desire that nothing may be done unbecoming this place, where we usually meet together for the more im∣mediate Worship of God. And I would have you join with me in this Petition; That God would grant his Truth may takē place.

He then repeated the Questions to be Disputed, and said, These are the Two Articles we are to Dispute of at this Time. We Deny, and they Affirm.

Then Dr. Russel said, Gentlemen, you know I was not pre∣sent at the drawing up of the preliminaries, and therefore I think it may be necessary, before we enter upon the Disputa∣tion, to know wherein we agree about the first Question, and wherein we differ; that we may not discourse about those Things wherein we are Agreed.

I do suppose, by the stating of the Question, That you do own that Adult Believers are the proper Subjects of Baptism. And if you do, I would desire you to declare your selves herein.

Mr. Chandler said, He did own that Adult Believers were the proper Subjects of Baptism, but not the only proper: Infants were to be baptized also.

Dr. Russel.

Then you own our Practice to be right.

Mr. Chandler.

Yes, if they have not been Baptized in their Infancy; then they are to be Baptized upon Profession of their Faith, when they come to Years.

Dr. Russel.

You suppose they are to be Baptized by Virtue of some Commission; and that it is by the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Mr. Chandler.

Yes, I do so.

Dr. Russel.

I suppose you expect I should be Opponent first.

Mr. Chandler.

Yes, that was Agreed.

Dr. Russel.

If therefore I prove that Infants are not the proper Subjects of Baptism, you will allow that I perform what I have undertaken, we having no other Subjects in the Question but Adult Believers, and Infants.

Mr. Chandler.

Yes, we do allow it.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will undertake to prove, that Infants are so far from being the proper Subjects of Baptism, that they are not the Subjects of it at all.

And now I would know how we shall Dispute; whether by Reading the Commission, and making an Inference there∣from, and proving that (if we are not agreed about it) from some other Text; or what way we shall proceed in.

Mr. Chandler.

You must do it Syllogistically; and there∣fore form your Argument.

Dr. Russel.

My Argument is this.

Arg. 1. If Christ hath no where required any of his Mini∣sters to Baptize Infants, then the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

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

Ergo, The Baptism of Infants is not according to the Com∣mission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Mr. Chandler.

I distinguish here upon your Antecedent. If you mean that Christ hath not expresly commanded In∣fants to be Baptized; then I deny the Consequence of your Major. For Christ hath no where expresly commanded In∣fants to be Baptized.

Dr. Russel.

If you will insist upon that, I can easily prove it. For some Persons are expresly commanded to be Bapti∣zed in the Commission: Infants (by your own Confession) are not expresly commanded to be Baptized either in the Commission, or elsewhere: But I have neither the Word Commanded, nor expresly Commanded in my Argument; and you must Answer to my Argument.

For I agree with you, that Infants are no where expresly commanded to be Baptized.

Mr. Chandler.

There is no need of that; but those of your Way will not allow us to prove it by consequence.

Dr. Russel

I say, that it's no where required: If you prove it any way required, it shall suffice.

Mr. Chandler.

If you will allow good Consequences drawn from Scripture. I will deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

Then you must suppose that Christ hath requi∣red some of his Ministers to Baptize Infants.

Mr. Leigh.

We distinguish between consequential Truths, and express Words.

Dr. Russel.

So do we: But I hope our Lord's Commission about Holy Baptism, is delivered in express Words, and not consequential. The Term in my Argument is very lax, I do not there say Commanded, but required; and if you prove the Baptism of Infants any where required by Christ, it is sufficient.

Mr. Chandler.

Will you allow genuine Consequences drawn from Scripture?

Mr. Leigh.

Will you allow good Scripture Consequences in this Case, or do you expect plain Scripture Words?

Dr. Russel.

What need is there of so many Words about this? Certainly Mr. Chandler is bound to fix upon some Answer to my Argument. I say again, the Term I use admits of any Proof; he is not thereby obliged to produce any express Command, if he can do without it; if he prove that Christ hath any way required it, it will suffice.

Mr. Leigh.

Gentlemen, you that are Notaries, pray observe how ambiguously he expresses himself.

Dr. Russel.

I think I express my self plainly enough, when I tell you, that if you prove it any ways requir'd, I will allow it.

Mr. Robinson, their Moderator, saith, Will you allow this of Consequence, or not?

Dr. Russel.

Let us not thus stumble at the Threshold, how often must I tell you, that if you can prove it any way re∣quired by Christ; prove it either by Consequence, or which way you will, if you do but prove it, I will allow it. But you must remember that you are to prove it according to Christ's Commission, (for those are the Terms in the Queston.) and I believe you will find a difficult Task to do that by Consequence.

For suppose an Embassador should declare to the Prince to whom he is sent, That his Master hath given him Authority, by his Commission, to negotiate with him about such a parti∣cular matter that he shall name, and that he is charged to do this in his Master's Name and Stead. If when his Credentials are produced there is no such thing mentioned therein, he cannot expect the Prince should give credit to him therein, when he had told him before, it was a Part of his Master's Commission (which is our Case:) And his alledging only consequential Proofs after that, will not serve his turn. But if you think you can do it by Consequences, you may try your Skill, with all my heart, so you do but prove it requi∣red according to Christ's Commission; which is the thing in Question between us.

Mr. Chandler.

What, from the Commission?

Mr. Robinson the Moderator cries out to Mr. Chandler, Hold! Dr. Russel must prove it by an universal Negative.

Dr. Russel.

Then Mr. Chandler must deny some part of my Argument, which I have not yet been able to prevail with him to do.

Mr. Chandler.

I deny the Minor.

Dr. Russel.

By denying the Minor, you say that Christ hath some where required some of his Ministers to baptize In∣fants.

Mr. Chandler.

By good Consequence.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will make good my Minor thus: If Christ hath any where required any of his Ministers to baptize In∣fants, it's somewhere so recorded in the Holy Scriptures:

But it's no where so recorded in the Holy Scriptures:

Ergo, Christ hath not any where required any of his Mini∣sters to baptize Infants.

Mr. Chandler.

What do you mean by being recorded?

Dr. Russel.

I hope you know what the word Recorded sig∣nifies. I mean any where so written.

Mr. Chandler.

To this I answer, by distinguishing again. If you mean by being Recorded in Scripture, being Recorded in express Words, I deny your Major; but if you mean by Consequence, I deny the Minor.

Dr. Russel.

If you do but prove it recorded, it is sufficient.

Mr. Chandler.

I deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

Then you say it's somewhere so Recorded in Holy Scripture. I therefore argue thus,

If it be any where so recorded in Holy Scripture, Mr. Chandler, or some other Person is able to shew it.

But neither Mr. Chandler, not any other Person whatsoever, is able to shew it.

Ergo, It is not any where so recorded in Holy Scripture.

Mr. Chandler.

I deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

Hold Sir, it is an universal Negative. You must give your Instance where it is so written. I appeal to your Moderator.

Mr. Robinson.

You must prove it still. Suppose Mr. Chand∣ler cannot give an Instance, nor no body in the Company; you cannot thence infer that none in the World can.

Dr. Russel.

This is in Effect to give away your Cause, when there are so many Men of Parts and Learning present; if none of them are able to give us one Instance from Scripture for Infant-baptism, we cannot expect that any body else should.

Besides, I would desire those Honourable Persons and others in this Assembly that understand these things, to consider that I am not fairly dealt with, and that I am under a great Disad∣vantage, not having other learned Persons to assist me as Mr. Chandler hath, and yet am forced to answer two or three at a time. But to proceed, I do affirm, that it being an universal Negative, he ought to give his Instance, and I demand it of him; and till he doth, my Argument stands good.

Mr. Chandler.

This is only a Trick to turn off the Oppo∣nency.

Dr. Russel.

What do you talk of a Trick? I hope you are able to give one single Instance of what is your daily Practice.

Mr. Leigh.

You do this to turn the Opponency upon Mr. Chandler.

Dr. Russel.

If Mr. Chandler will say he can give no Instance I will urge it no further.

Here Mr. Chandler was going to speak and Mr. Leigh hindered him.

Dr. Russel.

Sir, why do you hinder Mr. Chandler from spea∣king?

Mr. Chandler.

Because you would turn the Opponency upon me.

Dr. Russel.

I intend no such thing. When you have brought your Instance, after I have spoken to it, I will then go on with the Opponency.

Mr. Leigh.

You can bring no Argument can throw the Op∣ponency upon him like this.

Mr. Robinson.

You must know that according to all the Rules of Logick you are to prove your Proposition. For you uni∣versally affirm it, though in Form it runs negatively. You say no Person can give an Instance in Scripture whereby we bap∣tize Infants: How do you prove this?

Dr. Russel.

I never yet knew that an universal Negative was an universal Affirmative. This is to say any thing. tho' never so contrary to Truth. I wonder at it that you should take the matter upon you thus by Turns; especially that you should take upon you to be a Disputant, whose Work is only to be a Me∣derator. Is this civil Treatment to a Stranger that comes so many Miles to meet you?

Mr. Robinson.

I must not suffer the Question to be alter'd. Mr. Chandler is Respondent; you put the part of an Opponent upon him, I must not allow it: Do you prove your Que∣stion.

Dr. Russel.

Mr. Chandler (I understand) hath signified to the People in his preaching, that there are plain Scriptures to be brought for the proof of Infant Baptism, and now is the time for him to produce them: I urge it upon him to assign but one Instance, and you will not suffer him so to do.

Mr. Leigh.

'Tis not Mr. Chandler's Sermon; it is the Question before us that you must regulate.

Dr. Russel.

If you say you have no Scripture proof for Infants Baptism, I have done. But why must you prevent Mr. Chand∣ler?

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

I hope here are some Honourable Persons and others that understand Nature of this Controversie, and they may rea∣sonably expect that those who have made such a Noise about it, can give some tolerable Instance for it; and if they will do that, we will proceed to examine it.

Mr Robinson

There are many here know how that Mr. Chandler hath asserted and proved that Infants are the Subjects of Bap∣tism; but you are not to call on him for that now. You did (by your Friends) undertake to prove the contrary, and it rests upon you so to do.

Dr Russel.

I have already proved the contrary, and my Ar∣gument will stand good till you give your Instance.

Mr. Robinson.

If you will change Sides, Mr. Chandler, you may admit this Trick.

Dr. Russel.

Can you (at other times) boast of so many plain Scriptures for your Practice, and now you are brought to the Test about it, you are not able to produce one; what will the People think of you?

Mr. Leigh.

I will undertake in any Dispute Philosophical or Divine, in this manner immediately to turn the Opponency upon the Respondent. When I cannot prove the Assertion, I will presently say, If you can bring any solid Proof for your Practice it is true, if not, false. And I appeal to the Modera∣tor, whether it be not his Business to keep the Disputants to the Rules of Dispute.

Mr. Robinson.

The Moderator is to regulate them if they transgress Bounds; but you have grossly transgressed: I appeal to any that understand Logick, whether this be sufferable for him thus to turn the Opponency upon Mr. Chandler.

Then Dr. Smith stood up and said, If I must speak, then by your Leave, according to what I always understood, He that asserts must prove.

Dr. Russel.

Then they having asserted that Infants are the Subjects of Baptism, they are to prove their Practice, especially when they are forc'd upon it by an Universal Negative. We desire but one single Instance, and they will not assign it.

Mr. Robinson.

No; you are to prove your Argument.

Dr. Russel.

I have done that already, and therefore if Mr. Chandler will confess he hath no Instance to give, I will pro∣ceed to a new Argument.

This Mr. Chandler refused to do, and yet would not give his Instance.

Dr. Russel.

If Mr. Chandler can give no Instance, here are divers other Ministers, Gentlemen of Parts and Learning: Have

none of them an Instance to produce? If you thus refuse to produce it, the People will think you have none to give.

Notwithstanding this, none of them could be prevailed up∣on to do it, although they were called upon, and challenged to give any one Instance (where it was so written) if they could.

Whereupon Dr. Russel spake to this effect, Gentlemen, It may be you think I have but one Argument; if you will say no more to this, I am not willing to tire out the Auditory; I will therefore proceed to a New Argument.

But take notice (by the way) that my first Argument stands good, till you give your Instance to the contrary.

Arg. 2. If Infants are not capable to be made Disciples of Christ by the Ministry of Men, then they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission.

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

Ergo, They cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism in∣tended in Christ's Commission.

Mr. Chandler repeats the Argument and then saith, Here if you mean by being made Disciples, Actual and Compleat Disciples, I deny your Major: But if you mean such as are entered into a School and given up to Instruction, then I deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel Repeats his Major, and desires Mr. Chandler to tell him what he denies in it. For (saith he) my Words are plain, to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Chandler distinguishes between Compleat and Incompleat Disciples.

Dr. Russel.

But what then doth he mean by denying my Major?

Mr. Robinson.

He denies, that they that cannot be made Compleat Disciples, are not intended in the Commission.

I hope the Reader will observe how often Mr. Chandler was at a loss, and Mr. Leigh and Mr. Robinson were forced to help him out with their Distinctions and equivocable Expressions.

Here Dr Russel (seeing they would not be brought to give any direct Answer) turns his Hypothetical into a Categorical Syllogism.

Whosoever are uncapable to be made Disciples by the Mi∣nistry of Men, they cannot be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission:

But Infants are uncapable to be made Disciples by the Mini∣stry of Men:

Ergo, They cannot be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission.

Now let Mr. Chandler tell me what he means by being made Compleat, or Incompleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men (according to my Argument) if he can.

Mr. Chandler.

I mean by Compleat Disciples, such as are actually capable of Learning: By Incompleat, such as are en∣tered in such Places in order to be taught. We send Children to School before they know a Letter.

Dr. Russel

My Argument speaks not of such; but of those who have understanding, and are capable to be made Actual Disciples; which Infants are not.

Mr. Chandler.

That such as are so capable, are the only Subjects of Baptism; you are to prove it.

Dr. Russel.

Then you deny the Major.

Mr. Chandler.

Yes, as to your Hypothetical Argument.

Dr. Russel.

If you had done this before, you had saved your self and me much trouble. Then I prove it thus.

If our Lord in that Commission given for Holy Baptism, hath commanded his Apostles, that were Men, to make Disciples by their Ministry, and after that, to Baptize them, then the Con∣sequence of the Major is true.

But our Lord in that Commission given for Holy Baptism hath commanded his Apostles, that were Men, to make Disci∣ples by their Ministry, and after that to Baptize them.

Ergo, The Consequence of the Major is true.

Mr. Leigh.

I distinguish thus. They may be entered into the Church in Order for Learning, and so they are Disciples be∣fore Baptism: Yet in a more visible Sense, they are made Disciples by Baptism.

Dr. Russel.

Then you suppose Infants not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.

Mr. Chandler.

Not solemnly invested.

Dr. Russel.

We are not talking of that; the Question betwixt us is, Whether they are capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Will you assert that?

Mr. Leigh.

We assert they are Disciples, as Children of Be∣lievers, before Baptism.

Dr. Russel.

This is nothing to the purpose, but to spin out Time. Mr. Chandler or Mr. Leigh should have answered to my Argument, which neither of them have done. For if Infants are Disciples simply, as being Children of Believing Parents, before Baptism (as Mr. Leigh saith) then it is done, without any Ministetial Instruction. And therefore is so far from being an Answer to my Argument, that it is a meer Evasion.

I therefore Argue thus upon them.

If Infants are not the Subjects of Teaching, according to Christ's Commission, then they are not the Subjects of Baptism by that Commission.

But Infants are not the Subjects of Teaching, according to Christ's Commission.

Ergo, They are not the Subjects of Baptism by that Com∣mission.

For what our Lord hath joined together, no Man ought to separate.

But our Lord hath joined Teaching and Baptizing together.

Therefore no man ought to separate.

And it is further manifest, That our Lord did not command his Father to make Disciples by some secret Work of his; but he commanded his Apostles (that were Men) to make Disciples by their Ministry; and that is the Point you are to Answer to.

Mr. Robinson.

He denies they are uncapable to be made Disci∣ples by the Ministry of Men.

Dr. Russel.

Then by the way take notice, that he grants my Major to be true; that unless they are capable to be taught by the Ministry of Men, they cannot be the Subjects of Baptism. I shall therefore proceed to the proof of my Minor.

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 Infants have no Knowledge to discern between Good and Evil

Ergo, They are not capable to be made Disciples by the Mi∣nistry of Men.

Mr. Chandler.

You Trick all this while. I told you by In∣fants being Disciples, I meant their being solemnly Invested by Baptism.

Dr. Russel.

You still mistake, we are not speaking of their Investiture, but of the Prerequisites of Baptism: And it is evi∣dent from what I have said, that those that are truly Baptized according to Christ's Commission (which is the thing we are upon) must first be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. For the Commission in Mark 16. 15, 16. is a Command to his Apostles to go into all the World, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature, and that such of them that were made Disci∣ples by their Preaching, they should Baptize. And in Matth. 28. 19. They are commanded to Disciple all Nations, and to Baptize such of them whom they had made Disciples by Teach∣ing.

Now when I have shewed you, how that Infants not being capable thus to be made Disciples, they cannot be the Subjects of Baptism intended in that Commission; then you grant the Consequence of the Major; and by denying my Minor, you say they are capable.

And when I have brought another Argument to prove my Minor, you then evade it by an indirect Answer.

Sir, you are bound to give a direct Answer to my Argument.

Mr. Chandler.

I deny the Consequence of your Major.

Dr. Russel.

By so doing, you say, though they have no Know∣ledge to discern between Good and Evil, yet they are capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. How can this possibly be true?

Mr. Leigh.

You will not allow of Compleat and Incompleat Disciples.

Dr. Russel.

What is this to my Argument? Pray let Mr. Chand∣ler six on something.

Mr. Chandler

I say if you mean Incompleat Disciples, I de∣ny that they are uncapable to be such.

Dr. Russel.

How often must we have this distinction repeated to keep us from the Point in hand. We are now upon this, Whether Infants have Knowledge to discern between Good and Evil; which is the medium I bring to prove the other by: Why do you not answer to that?

Mr. Chandler.

They have no Knowledge, yet are capable of be∣ing Incompleat Disciples.

Dr. Russel.

If by Compleat, you mean perfectly so, I know not of any such Christian in the World. But I hope this doth not hinder, but there may be Real and Actual Disciples of Christ, made so by the Ministry of Men, and fitted for Holy Baptism. But I proceed to the proof of my Minor.

If the Gospel in the Ministration of it, was appointed to in∣form Men what is Good, and what is evil, and Infants have no Knowledge to discern betwixt Good and Evil (as Mr. Chand∣ler hath been forced to confess) then they are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men:

But the Gospel in the Ministration of it was appointed to in∣form Men what is Good, and what is Evil, and Infant have no Knowledge to discern betwixt Good and Evil, as Mr. Chandler hath been forc'd to confess:

Therefore they are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.

Mr. Robinson.

When Mr. Chandler hath distinguished, you most put it into a Syllogism, else you will still confound it.

Dr. Russel Answers, Have I not put it into an Argument, and you will not suffer him to answer it? If you think he hath not sufficiently done that already, let him do it again, and tell to what he means by it, if he can.

Mr. Chandler.

I mean one designed and given to Learning, solemnly engaged to it, dedicated to the Work, as a Child

entered into a School before he understands one Letter; this is Incompleat; Compleat is to be made so by Learning.

Here Dr. Russel would have spoke, but was not permitted, but broke in upon.

Mr. Leigh.

I appeal to any, whether a Child sent to School to a Master, or Mistress; given up by the Parents, and accepted by them; whether the Notion of a Scholar be not grounded on such a Relation?

Dr. Russel.

I speak of Actual Disciples, made so by Teaching; are these such, who (by your own Confession) know not one Letter of the Book? These are Incompleat Scholars indeed Mr. Leigh. I believe there is a School-Master here; let him speak whether such be not immediately Scholars.

Upon this, Mr. Ridge the School Master stood up and said, Upon the Parents Dedication, and the Masters Acceptation, and the payment of Entrance-Money, we do look upon him as a Scholar. Whereupon there followed a general Laughter.

Dr. Russel.

I appeal to this Assembly, whether my Argu∣ment did not express such that were made Disciples by the Mi∣nistry of Men. What therefore is the Reason of your making such a noise and stir about such being accounted Scholars so soon as they enter the School, before they know one Letter of the Book. Are these made Scholars by Teaching, when they have never learned, nor cannot learn; because they have no Knowledges to discern between Good and Evil: And yet this is the Case of those little Infants you pretend to Baptize.

Mr. Chandler.

We allow they are not capable of Knowledge to discern between Good and Evil, nor of being made Com∣pleat Disciples.

Dr Russel.

Then the Consequence necessarily follows, that In∣fants are not at all intended in the Commission of our Saviour, Matth. 28. 19.

Mr. Robinson.

Put it into a Syllogism.

Dr. Russel.

There is no need of that, for Mr. Chandler hath granted every part of my Argument.

For 1. He hath granted that Infants have no Knowledge to discern between Good and Evil.

2dly. That (according to my Argument) Infants are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. And then it must unavoidably follow, they are not intended in Christ's Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

How Sirs! Did we say Incompleat Disciples are not in the Commission?

Dr. Russel.

That hath been sufficiently spoke to already; I shall therefore proceed to a new Argument.

Arg. 3. If the Apostle Paul did declare all the Counsel 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 a Gospel Institution according to Christ's Commission; then it is no Gospel Institution, nor any part of the Counsel of God, nor profitable for the Church of God.

But the Apostle Paul did declare all the Counsel 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 a Gospel-institution according to Christ's Commission.

Ergo, It is no Gospel-institution, nor any Part of the Coun∣sel of God, nor profitable for the Church of God.

Mr. Chandler.

Your Argument is long.

Dr. Russel.

Not so long, nor so hard to be understood.

Mr. Robinson.

Such long Arguments are never admitted in any Disputation.

Dr. Russel.

Let Mr. Chandler speak to the Argument.

Upon this, Mr. Chandler finding himself unable to answer it, notwithstanding he had two or three Prompters to instruct him, he quitted the Place of a Disputant, and Mr. Leigh desir'd to take it up, which was admitted him, upon Condition he would speak to that Argument, which he promised to do.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny that the Apostle Paul did never declare Infant Baptism to be a Gospel-Institution.

Dr. Russel.

Then you deny my Minor, which I thus prove.

If the Apostle Paul hath so declared it, it is somewhere to be found in the Writings of the New Testament.

But it is not any where to be found in those Writings.

Ergo, the Apostle Paul did never so declare it.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny the sequel of your Major; for the Words were spoken to the Church at Ephesus; and what do you talk of Paul's Epistles, he wrote but one that I know of to the Church at Ephesus.

Dr. Russel.

Part of the Words in my Argument were spoken to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus; but I have neither E∣phesus, nor Church of Ephesus, nor Paul's Epistles in my Argu∣ment. Why do you not answer to the Argument.

Mr. Leigh.

We have not the whole of the Apostle Paul's Writings in the New Testament; and this that he wrote to the Church of Ephesus is but a small part thereof.

Dr. Russel.

Pray speak to the Argument: You see I have no such Expressions in it as are taken up by you.

Mr. Leigh.

I will do it by a Simile.

You know that Paul wrote divers Epistles, and in them of different Subjects.

It is as if a Man should write a Book of several things, and when he hath finished it, one comes and cuts off six Leaves thereof; and after this, there is a Question arises, whether such a Man hath writ any thing about such a particular Subject. Now it doth not follow, that because it is not contain'd in the rest of his Book, that therefore it is not in the six Leaves that were cut off.

Dr. Russel.

If Mr. Leigh speaks ad Rem, as I suppose he thinks he doth, then I thus infer upon him. First, That he doth by this allow, that there is no Mention made of Infant-Baptism in any of those Writings of the Apostle Paul's, that we have bound up with the rest of the Holy Scriptures. Secondly, He supposes there may be something said of it in those six Leaves that were cut off after he had finished his Epistles.

Now the Assembly of Divines tell us, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the only Rule to direct us in Matters of Worship. But whether Mr. Leigh be of their Mind I cannot tell.

Mr. Leigh.

Yes, I am.

Dr. Russel.

Then what you mean by it I know not, but I believe they meant what we have in the Bible, and not what is contained in those six Leaves that were cut off, or else they designed to put a Cheat upon the whole World, which I do not suppose.

But as touching those six Leaves, I conclude our Brethren have them not in their Custody, because I never heard them speak any thing in the least concerning it.

For my own part, I can speak for my self; I never saw them, nor heard of them till now; neither do I know any thing of the Matter. But if Mr. Leigh or his Brethren have them in their Custody, I desire they would produce them. And when they have so done, if they will please to favour us so far as first to prove that those were the very six Leaves that were written by Paul, we will take the Pains to examine them: And if it then appears that there is any such thing contained in them as Mr. Leigh speaks of, we will allow it.

Mr. Leigh was angry hereupon, saying, What do you talk of our being the keepers of them? and what do you talk of all the New Testament? is all the New Testament the Apostle Paul's writings?

Dr. Russel.

I say I do not confine you to Paul's Epistles, much less pretend all the new Testament to be of the Apostle Paul's Writing, as you would insinuate to the People; but my Words are, It's no where so declared in the Writings of the New Testament. And do you produce one Instance that it is, if you can, for that will put an Issue to our Controversie.

Mr. Leigh.

You would refer what Paul saith to the Church of Ephesus, to the whole New Testament.

Dr. Russel.

I hope you will own the Holy Scriptures to be the only Rule to direct us in Matters of Worship.

Here Mr. Leigh breaks in upon the Doctor, not permitting him to speak what he had to say: but instead thereof, he saith, I will not own that we have all the Sermous that Paul preached to the Church at Ephesus, and if we had, he might preach it to some others though he did not to them, for this was spoken to them.

Dr. Russel.

I refer you to the Scripture. You say that Paul might declare some such thing, and yet it may not be recorded in the Scripture. The Words are plain. I have not shunned to declare to you all the Counsel of God, Acts 20. 27. And in Ver. 20. I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you. And I do not suppose that Paul taught one Doctrine in one Church and another Doctrine in another. For in 1 Cor. 4. 17. He tells that Church, Timothy shall bring you into remembrance of my ways in Christ as I teach every where in every Church.

Besides, he doth not only tell them that he had so discharg'd his Office among them as to be free from the Guilt of their Blood, but that he was also free from the Blood of all Men, Ver. 21. Testifying to the Jews and also to the Greeks, Repen∣tance toward God, and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

And I further add, That if Paul never taught Infant-Bap∣tism in the Church of Ephesus, nor in the Church of Corinth, nor in any other Place, I hope you will then acknowledge it to be no Gospel institution, nor any Part of the Counsel of God, nor yet profitable for the Church of God: And there is no Record in Holy Scripture of his so doing.

Mr. Leigh.

I say Paul's Writings are not the hundredth Part of what Paul preached. We cannot suppose that in those six Chapters to the Ephesians he could contrive to put down the whole of his Preaching to them.

Dr. Russel.

Sir, you might have spared all thisLabour; for I am satisfied the People will not trouble themselves to seek for it any where else, but only in the Writings of the New Testament; and if they will take my Word I can assure them 'tis not there to be found. And I perceive you think so too, or else you need not referr them to Paul's Sermons which are not written. I have heard, indeed, of some unwritten Traditions that are lock'd up in the Pope's Ereast, to be delivered out as he finds Occasion for the serving of a Turn; but I never knew that the Presbyterians were ever intrusted with any such Treasure.

Mr. Leigh.

You say it is not to be found in the Writings of the New Testament; I deny it.

Dr. Russel.

Then you deny my Minor, which is the thing you should have done before, only you were afraid of being brought to give an Instance. Now by denying my Minor, you say it's somewhere so recorded in the Writings of the New Testament, that Paul did declare the Baptism of Infants to be a Gospel-institution, &c. And, to prove it is not, I argue thus.

If it be so recorded in the Writings of the New Testament, then Mr. Leigh or some body else is able to shew it.

But neither Mr. Leigh, nor any body else, is able to shew it.

Ergo, It is not so recorded in the Writings of the New Te∣stament.

Sir, I have now brought it to an Universal Negative, as I did with Mr. Chandler upon the former Argument; and now it rests upon you to produce your Instance.

Mr. Leigh.

I will say it is in the Commission, All Nations.

Dr. Russel.

Are you of Mr. Chandler's Opinion?

Mr. Leigh.

I will not answer you.

Dr. Russel.

Then I say it is not written in the Commission that Paul did ever declare any thing concerning the Baptism of Infants.

But what do you bring this for now? You might have done it upon the first Argument, when we were upon the Commission; but it's wholly improper now; for this that we are now upon, is, Whether the Apostle Paul hath any where so declared it.

Reader, Observe these Mens Trifling. Do they not know as well as we, that the Commission of our Lord for Holy Baptism was given long before Paul's Conversion; and yet they have the Confidence to affirm before so great an Audi∣tory, That it is written in the Commission, that Paul did de∣clare the Baptism of Infants to be a Gospel-institution, &c. which is the thing expressed in my Argument.

Upon this, the Reverend Mr. Chandler, (who had quitted the Work before) began now in a great Fury to break Silence again, saying, You are a perfect Sophister, your Arguments are full of Fallacies.

Dr. Russel.

It is an easie Matter for a Man to say so, that understands not an Argument himself.

Mr. Leigh.

Then, pray Sir, begin again from Acts 20. 27.

Dr. Russel.

Truly, Mr. Leigh, I did not come so many Miles to spend my Time thus, to go backwards and forwards after this manner.

Mr. Chandler.

You must do so, if you understand the Rules of Tergiversation.

[This was one of Mr. Chandler's Witticisms]

Dr. Russel.

If I do not understand those Rules when I have occasion for them, I will come to you and learn.

But to return to Mr. Leigh, for I have not done with him yet: Sir, you have assigned the Commission to prove that Paul did declare Infant-Baptism to be a Gospel-Institution, part of the Counsel of God, &c. Now it's impossible that should be written in the Commission, as I have told you before: You must therefore shew us where it is so Recorded in some other part of the New Testament; and not assign a place where there can be no mention of it.

Mr. Leigh.

He says he gives us the Latitude of the whole New Testament, but will not admit of the Commission, because that doth not say that Paul hath so declared.

Dr. Russel.

And there is very good reason for it, for the Apo∣stle Paul is now under consideration, as mention'd in my Ar∣gument; who solemnly protesteth, that in the discharge of his Ministry, he had freed himself from the blood of all Men, in delivering to them all that his Master had given him in Com∣mission. That he had not shunned to declare all the Counsel of God, he had kept back nothing that was profitable for the Church of God; but as faithful Steward of the Mysteries of God, he did dispence the Word, as himself declares in 1 Cor. 4. 1, 2. And I verily believe, that Paul was as Faithful, as Emi∣nent, and as Laborous a Servant as ever Christ had upon Earth. And therefore the force of my Argument depends upon this, That if Paul never said one word about Infant-Baptism, then it can be no part of the Counsel of God, nor a Gospel In∣stitution, nor ever given him in Commission by his Lord and Master.

You have denied my Minor; I have proved it by bringing you to an Instance by an Universal Negative. You have assigned the Commission; I have shewed you the impossibility of pro∣ving it from thence. I have pressed you to assign some other part of the New Testament for an Instance. I have not as yet been able no obtain it. Here are divers Men of Parts and Learning among you, can none of you produce so much as one Instance to prove it? Surely the People must needs con∣clude you have none to give. I therefore challenge you to produce the place where it is written, that Paul ever said one word of Infant-Baptism. And till that be done, my Argu∣ment will stand good.

Mr. Leigh.

If Paul did not declare it, if we have other places apparent and plain, at least consequential, it is sufficient.

Dr. Russel.

This is not an Answer to my Argument, you might have gone here upon the other, but cannot upon this; why did you not assign some of those places then?

Mr. Chandler.

We deny the Consequence, Paul might speak of it some where else, though it is not found in his Epistles.

Mr. Robinson.

You are to prove that, because Paul did not shun to declare to the Church of Ephesus the whole Counsel of God, therefore Baptizing of Infants must be found there, or else it is no part of the Counsel of God.

Mr. Leigh.

However, we will suppose the thing (but not grant it) that Paul has not spoken of Infant Baptism.

Mr. Williams.

If you suppose it, we will take it for granted; if we may not, say so.

Thus ended their Opposition to this Argument.

Dr. Russel.

I will now proceed to another Argument.

Arg. 4. Christ's Commission doth shew who are to be Bap∣tized.

But it doth not shew that Infants are to be Baptized:

Ergo, Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny the Minor.

Dr. Russel.

By so doing, you suppose it doth shew it.

I therefore thus Argue

If the Commission doth shew that Infants are to be Baptized, Mr. Leigh, or some other Person can shew it us in the Com∣mission.

But neither Mr. Leigh, nor any other Person is able to shew it us in the Commission.

Ergo, The Commission doth not shew that Infants are to be Baptized.

Mr. Leigh.

It is included in the word, All Nations.

Dr. Russel.

I beg your favour; Mr. Chandler asserted in his Sermon, That it was the Infants of Believing Parents that were to be Baptized: And that it was necessary Men should Repent and Believe, otherwise they had no Right to this Or∣dinance. And if we were sent (saith he) into an Heathen Na∣tion, we ought to ingage Men to Repent and Believe, before we Administer this Ordinance to them. Here are Qualifica∣tions required in the Persons to be Baptized (by your own Con∣fession) without which you must not Administer it. And it is contrary both to your own Principles and Practice, to Baptize Jews, Turks and Heathens, and all their Infants, without previous Qualifications to fit them for it.

Mr. Leigh.

I say it is included in the Word, All Nations: Do you prove it is not.

Dr. Russel.

You have brought an Instance, and it is your business to make good your own Instance; otherwise my Ar∣gument stands firm and untouch'd.

But if I shew there are some Qualifications required in the Commission, and prove that those cannot be found in Infants; then Infants cannot be included in the Word, All Nations.

I tell you he hath commanded us to Baptize some Persons, but he hath not commanded us to Baptize any Infants; which I thus prove.

If those that Christ in his Commission hath commanded to be Baptized, must first be made Disciples according to that Commission; then Infants are not to be Baptized by Virtue of that Commission.

But those that Christ in his Commission hath commanded to be Baptized, must first be made Disciples according to that Commission.

Ergo, Infants are not to be Baptized by Virtue of that Com∣mission.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny your Consequence. Repeat it again.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will make it Categorical.

All those required to be Baptized by Christ's Commission, are Disciples: Infants are not capable to be Disciples, as I have already proved.

Ergo, Not required to be Baptized by Christ's Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny your whole Argument: That all that Christ requires to be Baptized, are Disciples, and that Infants are not capable.

Dr. Russel.

If no other but Disciples are express'd in the Commission, then the Major is true.

And if Infants are uncapable to be made Disciples, then the Minor is true also.

Mr. Leigh.

We say they are implied; you allowed good Consequences but now.

Dr. Russel.

But here are Disciples mentioned in the Commis∣sion; and none but such that are made so by the Ministry of Men.

Mr. Leigh.

You talk of the Commission: It is the good Con∣sequences I insist upon; and say, Persons are not to be Com∣pleat Disciples before they are Baptized; nor actually Taught before they are Disciples.

Dr. Russel.

Perhaps you mean a man is not a Compleat Chri∣stian, if he hath not attained to the highest Perfection he is ca∣pable of whilst in this Life; although he hath been a real Chri∣stian for many Years. I speak not of such a Completion, but of such that are actual Disciples of Christ, made so by the Ministry of Men.

Mr. Leigh.

I say there is no necessity of being Disciples in your Sense, before they are Baptized.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will prove there is a necessity.

If our Lord in his Commission did not require his Apostles to Baptize any, but only such as they had before made his Di∣sciples by Teaching; then there is a necessity they should be Actual Disciples before they are Baptized.

But our Lord in his Commission did not require his Apostles to Baptize any, but only such as they had before made his Di∣sciples by Teaching.

Ergo, There is a necessity they should be Actual Disciples be∣fore they are Baptized.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny the Minor.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will read the Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

You need not do that, we all know the Com∣mission very well.

Dr. Russel.

I will read my Master's Commission, Matth 28. 19. Go ye therefore and Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This Commission is very solemnly delivered, wherein our Lord declares, that all Power in Heaven and Earth was given to him. And by Virtue of that Power—Here Mr. Robinson stops the Doctor, and cries out, You are not to Preach here, Sir.

Dr. Russel.

May I not have leave to draw my Inference from the Text?

Mr. Leigh.

Form your Argument. The Text doth not disco∣ver it.

Dr. Russel.

Is not our Lord's Commission of as good Autho∣rity as my Argument? When I have spoken to that, I will then form an Argument from it, if you will be silent, and suffer me so to do.

I say, that in this great Commission, our Lord declares his great Power.

Mr. Leigh.

Form your Argument.

Dr. Russel.

I hope the use of all our Syllogisms is to bring us to the Commission: And now we are come to it, let us see whether these things are to be found therein, or not. Will you pretend that Infants are in the Commission, and must not the People be suffered to see whether there be any thing men∣tion'd about them, or not.

Mr. Robinson.

Is this your Argument? Bring your Argument. And then he bawls very loud, saying, Mr. Williams, will you suffer him to Preach?

Mr. Williams answers, No, I will not suffer him to Preach here.

Dr. Russel.

What do you talk of Preaching? Are ye afraid of the Commission? I hope it is not so bad with you, as it was

with some in Times past, whom one of the Fathers (i. e. Ter∣tallian) calls by the Name of Lucifugae Scripturarum, &c. Flyers from the Light of the Scripture (as Bats do from the light of the Sun:) What is the reason, Gentlemen, you will not en∣dure to hear the Commission opened? Will you fly from the Light of the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Is it not the Subject contained in the Question; And will you (or dare you) deny that what I have said is in the Commission?

Mr. Leigh.

We say not so.

Dr. Russel.

If you should, you would directly oppose Mr. Calvin. For he saith, There is no mention made of Infants in the Commission, as it is express'd either in Matth. 28. or Mark 16. And further saith we may as well apply those words in 2 Thess. 3. 10. That if any would not work, neither should he eat: To little Infants, and so keep them from Food till they starve, as to ap∣ply what is said in the Commission to them, whereas it belongs only to the Adult.

Mr. Robinson.

This is not to the purpose, what have we to do with what Mr. Calvin says?

Dr. Russel.

I did not know but you might have had a Vene∣ration for Mr. Calvin; but seeing it's otherwise, I will thus Ar∣gue from the Commission.

If there be an express Command in our Lord's Commission for the Baptizing of some Persons, and there be no express Command neither there nor elsewhere, for the Baptizing of Infants; then the Baptism of Infants is not contained in that Commission:

Mr. Robinson.

We say though—

Dr. Russel.

What again Mr. Robinson? must I always be thus broke in upon by you; What is the meaning of it? When you see you are like to be pinched upon an Argument, then you make it your business to hinder me from speaking: Doth this become a Moderator?

I beg I may have Liberty to speak out, and not be thus taken up in the midst of an Argument. Pray, Sir, remember what the Wise man saith of such a one, that answers a matter before he hears it.

I say, if there be an express Command in our Lord's Com∣mission for the Baptizing of some Persons, and there be no express Command neither there nor elsewhere for the Baptizing of Infants; then the Baptism of Infants is not contained in that Commission:

But there is an express Command in our Lord's Commission for: the Baptizing of some Persons, and there is no express Command either there or elsewhere for the Baptizing of Infants:

Ergo, The Baptism of Infants is not contained in that Com∣mission.

Mr. Leigh.

Instead of giving his Answer to the Argument, he shams it off after this manner; saying, I appeal to the Peo∣ple. Though he allowed Consequences but now, yet now he requires an express Scripture. And yet I say, If Nations in∣clude Infants, they are expresly mentioned.

Upon this, Mr. Robinson turns Dictator, and says to Mr. Leigh, You were better deny his Consequence.

Dr. Russel saith, Pray, Mr. Leigh, be pleased to change places with Mr. Robinson, let him be Disputant, and you Moderator; for I perceive neither you, nor I are able to please him. This was refused. Upon which Dr. Russel said to Mr. Robinson, Pray Sir, do not you thus Dictate to him, I have none to Dictate to me: Pray let him answer my Argument.

Here Mr. Leigh did as Mr. Robinson had taught him, and de∣nied the Consequence; and also that an express Command was ne∣cessary to Authorize the Baptizing of Infants.

Dr. Russel.

My Argument was, If there be an express Com∣mand for the Baptizing of some Persons, you deny the Sequel of the Major; and in so doing you say, That notwithstanding there is no express Command for the Baptizing of Infants, neither there nor elsewhere in all the Holy Scripture; yet ne∣vertheless they are intended in the Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

I do so.

Dr. Russel.

And I say, if there be an express Command for the Baptizing of some Persons; but none at all for the Bap∣tizing of Infants: Then they are not at all intended in that Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny first the sequel of the Major, and then I will deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

This seems very strange, that when I have made it appear so evidently from the Commission it self, that there is an express Command for the Baptizing of some Persons; and yet it should not be allowed as a necessary Consequence from the Premises, that Infants are not intended; when your selves have confessed there is no express Command in all the Scriptures, for the Baptizing of Infants.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny the sequel.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will prove that there is an express Command for the Baptizing of some Persons, from the Commission it self.

Mr. Leigh.

That is not the sequel of the Major, it is that I deny.

Dr. Russel.

And I bring the Commission to prove it. But you say, that notwithstanding our Lord hath expresly commanded

some Persons to be Baptized; although he hath not commanded Infants to be Baptized, yet they may be some of that Number. Hath Christ two sorts of Subjects that he commands to be Bap∣tized in that Commission? Or, rather, are some commanded, and others not commanded, and yet both to be Baptized; the one by a Command, and the other without?

Here Mr. Leigh refuses to Answer, and cries out, Put it into a Syllogism.

Dr. Russel.

If no Persons are to be Baptized according to that Commission, but what are there expresly commanded; and Infants are not so commanded; then the Consequence of the Major is true:

But no Persons are to be Baptized, according to that Com∣mission, but what are there expresly commanded; and Infants, are not so commanded:

Ergo, The Consequence of the Major is true.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

By so doing you say there are some to be Baptized that are not there expresly commanded.

Mr. Leigh.

Do you not know your own Argument?

Dr. Russel.

I repeat it not for my own Knowledge, but for the Peoples Information. And I prove my Minor thus:

If the words of the Commission are express Command to the Apostles, to direct them who they should Baptize, then the Minor is true:

But the words of the Commission are an express Command to the Apostles, to direct them who they should Baptize:

Ergo The Minor is true.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

If there be no other Commission of our Lord for Holy Baptism, but what is Recorded in Matth. 28. and Mark 16. then the Minor is true:

But there is no other: Ergo, The Minor is true.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny tae sequel of your Major.

Dr. Russel.

But we are now upon the Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

We are so: But we say good Consequences de∣rived from the Commission, are sufficient.

Dr. Russel.

So you may if you please; but I had rather walk exactly according to the Commission of our Lord, than by such Consequences wherein I may be deceived.

Mr. Robinson.

I matter not what you had rather do, or what your Opinion is. I am for Consequences.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny the sequel of the Major; That they are to Baptize none, but such as they are expresly commanded.

Dr. Russel.

Thenl thus Argue:

If there be no manner of Allowance given them to baptize any other but what they are expresly commanded, then the Sequel of the Major is true:

But there is no manner of Allowance given them to baptize any other but what they are expresly commanded:

Ergo, the Sequel of the Major is true.

Mr. Leigh was pleased here to give a general Denial, without Distinguishing: Upon which Dr. Russel referr'd him to his for∣mer Argument, wherein he had already shewed, that there is an express Command for the Baptizing of all such, that they are required to baptize by Virtue of Christ s Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny your Minor, but distinguish between the Command being expressed and the Subjects intended.

Dr. Russel.

If the Words in the Commission about Holy Baptism be a Command from Christ to his Apostles, then the Minor is true:

But the Words in the Commission about Holy Baptism are a Command from Christ to his Apostles:

Ergo, The Minor is true.

Mr. Leigh.

Upon Distinction, we deny that all the Subjects are express'd.

Dr. Russel.

My Argument saith, They have not Allowance to baptize any other. I am now therefore to prove that the Commission is Command to them, if you deny it.

Mr. Leigh.

I allow that the Command is express'd: But I say the Subjects are to be brought in by Consequence.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will prove that the Subjects are express'd.

If Christ did command his Apostles to baptize such as be∣lieve and are made Disciples, then the Subjects are express'd:

But Christ did Command his Apostles to baptize such as be∣lieve and are made Disciples:

Ergo, The Subjects are express'd.

Mr. Leigh.

I find a fault with your Syllogism; your Major should be Universal.

Dr Russel.

I was to prove there is a Command, with Respect to the Subjects; and therefore I have form'd the Syllogism right. For it is evident that Believers and Disciples are the Subjects they are commanded to baptize.

Mr. Robinson.

You must say all the Subjects.

Dr. Russel.

By yo••r Favour, there is no need of that. For Mr. Leigh denies there is an express Command in Christ's Commission for any Subjects.

Mr. Leigh.

I hope the People can testifie that I said the Command is express'd: But the Subjects to be brought in Consequentially.

Dr. Russel.

Is not that the same which I say you said? I know you allowed there was a Command for the thing it self, but not for the Subjects. And therefore I have answered rightly, and your Opposition is unreasonable.

Mr. Leigh.

We must all confess that Jesus Christ gave Com∣mission to baptize Believers when at the age of Maturity. Such as were before Jews and Greeks, and Newly-believing in the Lord Jesus, were thereupon to be baptized; but afterwards the Children of those Believers.

Dr. Russel.

It's said in Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Here is not one Word of Infants.

Mr. Leigh.

And it follows, He that believeth not, shall be damn'd. Now if believing be previous to Baptism, by the same Way of Arguing it must be necessary to Salvation; and so you must say, That all not believing are damn'd, and so all Infants are damn'd.

D. Russel.

This is a Non-sequitur: For Infants are not at all intended in this Commission, as I have already shewed you; and as Mr. John Calvin doth also affirm.

But I hope Mr. Leigh will allow our Saviour's Words to be True; That all those his Apostles preached to, according to his Commission, if they did not believe, they should be damned. For of such it is said, He that believeth not, is con∣demned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God.

But as touching Infants, I am far from believing that God hath decreed them (as such) to eternal Damnation. I will rather believe that all Infants dying in their Infancy are ele∣cted, than conclude that any of them are damned. And I sup∣pose you do not know the contrary. If you do, I desire you would tell the People so.

Mr. Leigh.

What do you put that upon us for?

Dr. Russel.

Because I think it's reasonable you should tell the People what your Opinion is, seeing you have started it; for you see I have given my Opinion freely about it; and if you think otherwise, pray tell the People so.

For then I conceive that your Baptizing their Infants will do them no good; for you cannot alter the Decrees of Hea∣ven: Or if you believe, as the Papists do, that Grace is con∣veyed to them barely by the Act done, notwithstanding the Children are wholly passive in it, pray tell us so.

Mr. Leigh refused to answer to the former, but gave this Answer to the latter: No, we deny that.

Here Mr. John Williams, baptiz'd Minister, offered his Argu∣ments.

If Believers are the only Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission, then Infants are not:

But Believers are the only Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission:

Therefore Infants are not.

Mr. Leigh denied the sequel of the Major; which was thus proved.

If Infants are incapable of believing, then they are not the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission:

But Infants are incapable of believing:

Therefore they are not the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission.

Mr. Leigh said the Greek Word signified to make Disciples; and I deny that Infants are incapable of being made Disciples.

Mr. Williams said he did not understand Greek; he must leave that to his Brother.

Then Mr. Leigh said, I deny the Minor.

Mr. Williams proved his Minor thus:

If the Essence of Faith consists in the Act of the Understan∣ding and of the Will, then Infants are incapable of believing:

But the Essence of Faith consists in the Act of the Under∣standing and of the Will:

Therefore Infants are incapable of believing.

Mr. Leigh denied the Sequel of the Major, which Mr. Wil∣liams thus proved.

If none can believe on Jesus Christ, that never heard of Jesus Christ, then Infants are incapable of believing:

But none can believe on Jesus Christ, that never heard of Jesus Christ:

Therefore Infants are incapable of believing.

Mr. Leigh denied the Sequel of the Major.

But he should have remembred what is written, Rom. 10, 14. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? And I do not suppose our Antagonists think they are obliged to preach to New-born Infants. And yet the Administration of Baptism is (by the Commission) restrained to such as are made Believers by the Preaching of the Word.

These Arguments being sufficient to prove the Incapacity of Infants believing, the next Argument Mr. Williams offer'd, was (from thence) to prove that Infants could not be the Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission.

If the Administrator must have an Account of the Faith of the Subject before he baptize him, then Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission:

But the Administrator must have an Account of the Faith of the Subject before he baptize him:

Therefore Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission.

Mr. Leigh denied the Minor.

For the Proof of which, Mr. Williams urged two Scriptures, Acts 8. 36, 37. and Mat. 28. 19. and said, when the Eunuch proposed for Baptism, Philip tells him, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayst. The contrary (that fairly offers it self) is this; That if thou dost not believe with all thine Heart, thou mayst not. And upon this, the Eunuch declared his Faith before he was Baptized.

From whence it's evident, the Eunuch was content to be taught; Philip teaches him; and yet after this, he must know whether he believes before he baptized him. Therefore it follows, they must have actual Learning; and the Minister must also know that they have it before he baptize them.

And in Mat. 28. 19 Go disciple to me all Nations, baptizing them. From whence I thus argue.

If Ministers have no Commission to baptize any but such as are discipled to Christ, then they must have an Account of their Discipleship before they baptize them:

But Ministers have no Commission to baptize any but such as are discipled to Christ:

Therefore they must have an Account of their Discipleship before they baptize them.

To which was added, That Erasmus in his Paraphrase upon the New Testament, reads the Commission thus, Go and teach all Nations, and when they have learned, dip them. And I fur∣ther say, If the Administrator must have an Account of the Person's Learning before he be baptized, then a bare going to School is not sufficient to constitute him a Disciple.

Mr. Robinson.

Do you see, Sirs! this Gentleman grounds his Opinion upon the Authority of Erasmus.

Dr. Russel.

Why must Erasmus be thus slighted? Here are some Honourable Persons know very well, that Erasmus was a Man not to be despised for his Skill about the Etymology of a Greek Word. But any thing serves your turn at a Pinch.

Mr. Leigh.

He quotes Erasmus; and it's well known he was between Papist and Protestant. Now many of these Men, speaking against Infant-Baptism, will call it Popery; and yet he quotes Erasmus for their Judgment.

Now, forasmuch as Mr. Leigh slipp'd the Argument, and only replied to that of Erasmus, that he was an Inter-Papist, &c. Mr. Williams gave him this Answer.

Sir, You have heard my Argument to which you have given no Answer. As touching Erasmus, I did not quote him as building my Faith on his Authority, but for his Judgment; it being the Translation of a Man that understood the Original: And although he was not accounted one of the best of Men; yet he was accounted one of the best of Scholars in his Time.

Mr. Leigh.

And now as to the Eunuch, he was a Proselyte too, and his Infants, if he had any, were to be taken in also. Philip comes to him and he requires a Confession of his Faith, because he was a grown Man. Yet had he had an Infant with him, he had had a Right to this Ordinance after he believed. When by your Opinion it must be cast out; because not capa∣ble of Actual Believing.

Now I deny that he that Administers the Ordinance, must always have an account of the Person, whether he hath Lear∣ned, or not.

(I suppose Mr. Leigh forgot himself, to talk of an Eunuch's having Children. It puts me in mind of a Story I lately heard, of a Presbyterian Minister that undertook (in a Sermon) to prove Infant-Baptism, and to that end chose this Text for his purpose, of Philip's Baptizing the Eunuch. And when he had insisted some time upon it, he speaks after this manner to the People: Beloved, when you are gone, perhaps you will say, What is all this to the purpose? Here is not one word of Infants in the Text. It is true, says he, there is not, but I will tell you how that comes in: Had he had his Wife and Children with him, they had then been Baptized as Well as himself: But they were at a great distance from him; but as soon as he came home, immediately he Baptized them all. I will make no Comment upon it, but only this. If these Gentlemen know what an Eunuch is, then it's vain Ba∣bling: If they do not, let them go to the Grand Senior's Se∣raglio and learn.)

Mr. Williams.

We have plain direction for what I have said; Philip said to the Eunuch, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And accordingly he took an account of his Faith.

And in the Commission, Go Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them. From whence it's evident, it was those they had made Disciples, that they were to Baptize. And therefore they must know whether they are Disciples or no, before they must ad∣venture to Baptize them.

Mr. Leigh.

You Argue thus, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Them, is of the Masculine Gender, it must agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Disciples, being of the same Gender: And not with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all Nations. But any School Boy that hath but learned his Greek Grammar, can resolve thi••.

Now Mr. Williams had told him before, that he did not under∣stand Greek; and so he made bold to vapour with it, when he was Responding to him.

But Mr. Leigh might have been so civil to have told the Old Gen∣tleman his Sense of it, and not (in such a light manner) to have referr'd him to a School-boy for his Information.

A School-boy knows (if Mr. Leigh doth not) that the Rule in the Greek Grammar is as follows:

Relativum cum Antecedente Concordat genere, numero & personâ. And therefore must give it for Mr. Williams.

But I will refer the Reader to a better Authority than a School-boy: The late Reverend and Learned Minister of the Gospel, Mr. John Gosnold, in his Book Entituled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pag. 24 who thus saith, The word Them (Baptizing them) hath no reference unto All Nations, as is to be seen in the Grammar of the Text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Them being of the Masculine Gender, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, All Nations, of the Neuter.

This Them then must have reference to Disciples, to such as are first Taught:

But Mr. Williams passes by this trivial Flourish; and pro∣ceeds to a new Argument.

If Infants are incapable of denying themselves for Christ, then they are incapable of being made Disciples of Christ:

But Infants are incapable of denying themselves for Christ: Therefore they are incapable of being made Disciples of Christ.

Mr. Leigh denies the Sequel of the Major.

Mr. Williams proves it thus.

If a Person cannot be his Disciple unless he deny both Re∣lative Self and Personal Self, then the Sequel is true:

But Infants are not capable so to do:

Therefore the Sequel is true.

Mr. Leigh.

This purely refers to grown Persons; and by the same Argument you may say Infants must not Eat; because it is said in another place, He that cannot work, must not eat.

Mr. Williams.

Nay, Sir, It is he that will not work, not he that cannot. It is he that is able and will not. For I hope you will provide for your Parents, when by reason of Age they are not able to work for themselves.

Mr. Leigh.

But this purely refers to grown Persons, and I deny that Believers only are Disciples.

Mr. Williams.

I proved that thus: Those that in Matth. 28. are called Disciples, are in Mark 16. called Believers: So that they are the same Persons intended.

Hereupon Mr. Leigh not being able to give a direct Answer, en∣deavours to shift off the force of those two Texts, and his Inference from them, by this Evasion.

Mr. Leigh.

I would know whether Infants are not as capable of Believing in Christ, as of coming to Christ? Now they are said to come when their Parents brought them. For Christ says, Suffer little Children to come unto me: And it's most pro∣bable they were brought in the Arms to Christ. Why may they not be said to Believe, when they do not actually Be∣lieve; if imputatively they are said to come when their Par∣rents brought them?

So, why may not they be said to Believe imputatively, when their Parents devote them to Jesus Christ, although the Chil∣dren do not actually Believe, but only the Parents?

Mr. Williams.

I deny the Parents Faith was ever imputed to the Child. Prove it if you can.

Mr. Leigh.

We talk of Believers in foro Ecclesiae and in foro Dei with Distinction. And under this Notion, and no other do we account Believers are so.

And under this Notion, I mean in foro Ecclesiae, the Parents Faith may be imputed to their Children.

Mr. Williams.

We say a Person is not a Disciple of Christ, till he hath learned Christ. We do not allow of any such Im∣putation: And Mr. Leigh hath not offer'd any thing to prove it.

Dr. Russel.

It is time to come to some Instance; therefore to force you upon it, I argue thus:

If the Apostles of our Lord did never Baptize any Infant, then the Baptism of Infants is not according to Christ's Com∣mission:

But the Apostles of our Lord did never Baptize any Infant:

Ergo, The Baptism of Infants is not according to Christ's Commission.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

I prove my Minor thus.

If there be any account that the Apostles did ever Baptize any Infant, it is somewhere Recorded in the Writings of the New Testament:

But it is no where so Recorded in those Writings:

Ergo, There is not any account that the Apostles did ever Baptize any Infant.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny your Minor.

Dr. Russel.

I must now force you upon an Instance by an Universal Negative.

If there be any such account in those Writings, Mr. Leigh, or some other Person is able to shew it us:

But neither Mr. Leigh nor any other Person is able to do it:

Ergo, There is no such account there to be found.

Here Mr. Leigh, being wholly destitute of an Instance; to shift it off, he denies the Sequel of the Major. And saith, it doth not follow it must of necessity be written in the New Testament.

Now although this was contrary to the Rules of Dispute; yet Dr. Russel could not urge him to give any Instance; wherefore he Ar∣gues upon him thus.

Dr. Russel.

If nothing else will do with you, I will prove the sequel of my Major, according to your denial.

If there be no other Rule left to direct us how we are to Wor∣ship God in this Ordinance of Baptism according to the Go∣spel but what is contained in the Writings of the New Testa∣ment; then it must of necessity follow, that it be therein writ∣ten, if such an account be any where to be found:

But there is no other Rule left to direct us how we are to Worship God in this Ordinance of Baptism according to the Gospel, but what is contained in the Writings of the New Testa∣ment:

Ergo, It must of necessity follow, that it be therein written, if such an account be any where to be found.

Mr. Leigh.

I say it might be practised in those Times, though not Recorded in the New Testament.

Dr. Russel.

Will you grant that it is not Recorded in the New Testament?

Mr. Leigh.

We will suppose it; but not grant it.

Dr. Russel.

The reason why you suppose it, is because you cannot prove it: For you are not so free of your Concessions.

Mr. Leigh.

It is not Recorded in the New Testament what you practise, that grown Children of Believers were Baptized. I challenge you to give one Instance of any one born of Be∣lieving Parents, Baptized at Age.

Dr. Russel.

I have called for one Instance from Scripture se∣veral times, of any one Infant that was ever Baptized, and you have not been able to produce it. This you now speak of, is besides the Matter we are upon: And is used on purpose to divert us from our Argument, and lead us to some thing else that is foreign to it. Pray do you first shew us where it is so written in the New Testament, that any one Infant was Baptized, if you can; and then you shall hear what we have to say.

Mr. Leigh.

These Men talk much of Scripture, and call upon us to produce Scripture for our Baptizing of Infants; as if they had abundance of proof for their Practice: Now let them give but one Instance of what is their Practice; namely, of one Person that was born of a Believer, and was Baptized when he came to grown Years; and I will give them the Cause.

Dr. Russel.

I will Instance in Constantine the Great, whose Mo∣ther Helena was a Christian, and yet he was not Baptized till he was considerably in Years.

Besides, I do not remember, that there is any account in History, during the first 500 Years, that any one of the Fathers, or Eminent Bishops of the Church, that were born of Christian Parents, were Baptized until they were about 20 or 30 Years of Age. And if any of you know the contrary, I desire you would shew it.

Mr. Leigh.

What do you tell us of the Fathers? We are not bound to abide by their Testimony.

Dr. Russel.

This is the first time I have ever met with this Answer from you Paedobaptists, to tell us you disown the Te∣stimony of the Fathers in the point of Infant Baptism. When you think the Fathers are on your side, then we can hear enough of them; but now you see they are against you, you will not abide by their Testimony. You know I do not alledge it to prove the Institution, but only Matter of Fact. But seeing you will not abide by their Testimony, I shall leave it to be con∣sidered by the People; For I am well satisfied there are some Honourable Persons here, know what I say to be true.

Mr. Williams doth then proceed to a Scripture Instance; and asks Mr Leigh this Question. Was not the Mother of our Lord a Believer, when Christ was born?

Mr. Leigh Answers, What do you ask that Question for▪ Every Body knows that.

Mr. Williams.

But do you believe it?

Mr. Leigh.

Yes, I do believe it: What then?

Mr. Williams.

Then here is an Instance for you from Scrip∣ture, of the Child of a Believer, that was a Believer before he was born; and yet he was not Baptized till he came to Years. And this we can prove.

Upon this the People fell a laughing at Mr. Leigh, and his Countenance changed pale; and he was under some seeming Conster∣nation of Mind, so that he could not presently recover himself; but at last his Spirits rallied again, and then he spake to this effect.

Mr. Leigh.

Our Discourse was grounded on the Commission. Now was this before the Commission, or after it?

Dr. Russel.

It is a mistake, Mr. Leigh, we were not now upon the Commission, but upon your Question. And I think Mr. Williams hath given you a pertinent Answer, every way suitable to your Question, and the Challenge you made us: and you are bound to take it. Upon this he made no Reply; But Addressed himself to us after this manner. Now if you please I will become Opponent. Our Answer was, You may, if you think fit, we are contented.

Mr. Leigh.

Then I Argue thus.

If Infants are visible Church-Members, then they are to be Baptized.

But Infants are visible Church-Members.

Ergo, They are to be Baptized.

Dr. Russel.

This Argument doth not include the Point in que∣stion for you ought to put in these words, according to Christ's Commission.

Mr. Leigh refused so to do.

Upon which Dr. Russel asked him this Question.

Are you of Mr. Chandler's mind in this Matter? He says, That Baptism is an Initiating Ordinance.

Mr. Leigh answered, Yes, I am.

Dr. Russel.

Then make Sense of your Argument, if you can: For it will run thus.

If Infants are already visible Members of the Church, then they are to be Baptized that they may be made so.

It is as if I should say, That because such a Man is in this House already, therefore there must some Act pass upon him to bring him in, when he is actually in the House before. Make Sense of this, if you can.

However, I will deny the Minor; and say they are not visible Church-Members before they are Baptized.

Mr. Chandler.

If there be no Precept or Example in all the Word of God, to warrant us to make any other Initiating Or∣dinance into the Church but Baptism, then visible Church-Members ought to be Baptized.

But there is no other Initiating Ordinance into the Church besides Baptism:

Ergo, Visible Church-Members ought to be Baptized.

Dr. Russel.

What, doth not Mr. Chandler know the difference between the Major and Minor? I deny the Minor, and his Argu∣ment is to prove the Sequel of the Major; which I had confute•• before.

But if this be true that Mr. Chandler says, it is a full Answer to Mr. Leigh's Minor: For then it runs thus; If there be no other way to bring Persons into the visible Church but by Baptism then they were not visible Church-Members before they were Baptized. Which is directly opposite to what Mr. Leigh hath affirmed.

Mr. Robinson.

This Argument was brought to prove that vi¦sible Church-Members are to be admitted to Baptism.

Mr. Williams.

I deny that Infants are visible Church-Member in their Infancy.

Mr. Leigh.

I will prove that some are so, from Matth. 19. 14. Suffer the little Children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Dr. Russel.

Do you bring this to prove that these Children were Baptized?

Mr. Leigh.

No, I do not pretend to any such thing.

Dr. Russel.

What then do you bring it for?

Mr. Leigh.

I bring it to prove that Infants are visible Church-Members.

Dr. Russel.

If you had brought it to prove that Infants had a right to the Kingdom of Glory, I should have thought you had brought it to a better purpose, and more agreeable to the scope of the Place.

Mr. Leigh.

I Argue thus upon it.

Those that belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, the visible Church of Christ, are visible Church-Members:

But the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, the visible Church of Christ, is in part made up of little Children:

Ergo, Little Children are visible Church-Members.

Dr. Russel.

I might here object against the form of your Argument: But to pass that by, I do deny your Minor.

Mr. Leigh.

I shall prove my Minor, by an Induction of Par∣ticulars.

There are divers Acceptations of the Kingdom of Heaven in Scripture. As,

1. It signifies the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom.

2. The Graces of the Kingdom, whereby we are ena∣bled to observe those Laws. And thus it is set forth by a grain of Mustard-seed, by Leaven, and the like.

3. It sometimes signifies Jesus Christ his Management of his Subjects on Earth.

4. And sometimes it signifies the happiness of the Saints in Glory.

5. And many times it is taken for the visible Church Mili∣tant. And in no other Sense but this last, can it be taken in this Scripture to make good Sense of it; which I shall prove by an Argument of Induction.

If it be Nonsense to say, Of such is the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom; If it be Nonsense to say, Of such is the Graces of the Kingdom, If it be Nonsense to say, Of such is Christ's Management of his Subjects on Earth; If it be Non∣sense to say, Of such is the Happiness of the Saints in Glory; and it be good Sense to say. Of such is the visible Church; then the visible Church is in part made up of little Children:

But it is Nonsence to apply it to all the other, and it is good Sense to say, of such to the visible Church:

Ergo, The visible Church is in part made up of little Chil∣dren.

Dr. Russel.

There is so much Nonsense in this Argument. I know not well how to make Sense of it: It seems to me little to the purpose. But however, I will deny your Minor, and say, It is good Sense to say, that little Children belong to the Kingdom of Glory.

I pray observe (by the way) what sort of Subjects Mr. Leigh's Church must consist of; if they have no Interest in the Graces of the Kingdom, nor yet in the Glory of the Kingdom.

Mr. Leigh.

I say it's Nonsense to understand it otherwise.

And upon this he desired, that all those who were satisfied with what he had said should hold up their hands. And of that great Multitude, there was but a very few that did it: So that it was manifest they were not satisfied with what he had said.

Mr. Williams.

Is it Nonsense then to say, that any Infants be∣long to the Kingdom of Glory?

Mr. Leigh.

Yes, while they are in their Infant State; for when arrived to Glory, they are perfect as grown Men, what∣ever they were on Earth. Otherwise we must say that there are Infants of two foot long, poor, weak, ignorant things in Glory: Therefore it must be thus taken, for we must make good Sense of Scripture.

Mr. Williams.

I deny you Minor, and shall form an opposite Argument thus:

If Infants are neither Members of the Universal visible Church, nor yet of a particular Constituted Church, then they are not Members of the visible Church at all:

But they are neither Members of the Universal visible Church, nor yet of a particular Constituted Church:

Therefore they are not Members of the visible Church at all.

Mr. Leigh took no notice of this Argument, but said, It did not belong to a Respondent to form an Argument.

To which Mr. Williams Reply'd, My work is to clear the Truth; I will not be ty'd up to your Rules of Disputation.

Mr. Robinson required an express prohibition of Infants Church Membership.

Mr. Williams Reply'd, That is fine indeed; Pray give us an express prohibition of Baptizing with Cream, and Spittle, and Salt, and Oyl; and the use of the Cross in Baptism: (all which you reject) and of many things more that might be brought into the Worship of God. And to this no Reply was made.

Mr. Leigh insisting again upon his Argument for excluding In∣fants out of the Kingdom of Heaven, from Matth. 19. affirming,

that from thence it was Nonsense to say, they were the Subjects of Glory.

Mr. Williams said, We must distinguish between a Title to Glory, and the actual Enjoyment of Glory. Elect Infants have a Title to Glory, by Virtue of the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them; although they are not actually in it.

In the next place Mr. Williams denied the Major, and proved to him from Matth ••3 7. That Church-Membership could not be the ground of Baptism; because those many Pharisees and others, that came and offer'd themselves to John for Baptism, were Church-Members: And yet John denied to admit them to Baptism.

Here Mr. Leigh distinguished between Church-Members de jure, and such that were only so de facto.

Mr. Williams asked him, whether he did own them to be Church-Members de facto.

His Answer was, He did.

Then Mr. Williams told him Church-Membership could not be the ground of Baptism.

Mr. Leigh said, They were not so de jure, because they were a Generation of Vipers, and therefore ought by the Law to have been cast out.

But when Mr. Williams did desire him to tell him where that Law was written, he could not produce it.

Upon this Dr. Russel asked Mr. Leigh, what Relation this Ar∣gument of his had to the Commission? For he did not know that they were obliged to follow them any longer in answering such Impertinencies, that were not at all included in the Que∣stion. And therefore desired him to produce some Argu∣ment that was more consonant to the Point in Question, for this was foreign to it. For we have granted you more than you seem willing to desire, in favour of Infants; namely, That they have a Title both to Grace here, and Glory hereafter, through the Merits of Christ and his Righteousness imputed to them. And yet we cannot allow that they are the Subjects of Baptism, according to Christ's Commission; or, a Part of the visible Church. Nevertheless we have very Charitable Thoughts towards them, because we believe their Salvation is secured to them another way.

Mr. Leigh then proceeds to another Argument:

If Infants are Disciples, then they have a Right to Baptism according to the Commission:

But Infants are Disciples:

Ergo, They have a Right to Baptism according to the Com∣mission.

Mr. Williams denied the Minor.

In defence of which, they Argued from Acts 15. 10. after this Manner.

If those upon whom the Yoke of Circumcision was imposed after the manner of Moses, were called Disciples, and the man∣ner of Moses was to Circumcise Infants; then Infants are called Disciples.

But those upon whom the Yoke of Circumcision was im∣posed after the manner of Moses, were called Disciples, and the manner of Moses was to Circumcise Infants:

Ergo, Infants are called Disciples.

Dr. Russel.

I both distinguish upon your Major, and deny the Consequence thereof. For I hope you understand a difference betwixt the Manner of performing an Action, and the Subjects upon whom it is performed.

The Manner of Moses is the thing here spoken of; which was to cut off the Foreskin of the Flesh with a Knife, a sharp Stone, or the like Instrument: And this was sometimes practised upon grown Persons, and sometimes upon Infants. As touching Infants, they are neither expressed, nor intended in the Scrip∣ture you have alledged. For they are called Brethren, Believing Gentiles, such that had an Epistle sent to them, and when they heard it read, they rejoyced at the Consolation, were esta∣blish'd in the Faith, and are called Churches: which your selves know (in those Times) consisted of Adult Persons, Mul∣titudes both of Men and Women. But not of one Infant that we read of among them. And indeed, none of those fore∣mentioned Characters can agree to little Infants.

Mr. Leigh.

I grant the Manner is there spoken of, and the Subjects brought in afterwards. But would not the People conclude that Infants were intended, if I tell them it must be done after the manner of Moses?

Dr. Russel.

It's no matter what those People conclude, that know not how to distinguish between the Subjects, and the Manner. But those of whom this was spoken, knew right well, that the false Teachers imposed it upon the Gentiles that did Believe: And they are the Subjects here spoken of.

Mr. Leigh.

I would form this Argument.

If those are called Disciples who are advised by Judaizing Christians to be Circumcised after the Manner of Moses, then Infants are called Disciples:

But they are called Disciples that are advised so to be Cir∣cumcised:

Ergo, Infants are called Disciples.

Dr. Russel denies the Consequence of the Major, for it doth not follow that because Adult Believers who are the Subjects

there spoken of (as is already proved) are call'd Disciples; that therefore Infants, who are neither expressed, nor inten∣ded, must be so call'd. For Mr. Leigh hath allowed the Di∣stinction betwixt the Subjects, and the Manner.

Mr. Leigh.

Read the first Verse, and you will find, that there came Men from Judea, that taught the Gentile Church that believed, That unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved, &c. It was the Yoke of Circumcision here intended.

Whereupon Mr. Williams did deny, that barely Circumci∣sion was that intolerable Yoke, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear, that is there spoken of by Peter. For Circumcision, barely considered, Children of Eight Days old were able to bear it, and did bear it.

But Circumcision, as it obliged to the Law in Point of Justi∣fication, was that intolerable Yoke, which neither they, nor their Fathers were able to bear. For the Apostle tells the Ga∣latians, That if they were circumcised, Christ should profit them nothing; and that they were bound to keep the whole Law.

Now, altho' Circumcision, barely considered, might be im∣posed on Infants; yet the false Doctrine in which that into∣lerable Yoke did consist, together with Circumcision, could not be imposed on Children.

Besides, that Circumcision, after the Manner of Moses, did not respect the Subjects, but the Form. It was the Brethren that were the Subjects the false Teachers would have had to have been circumcised after the Manner of Moses; amongst which, Children could not be numbred.

• For, 1st. They were such Brethren that had received the Holy Ghost.
• 2dly. They had purified their Hearts by Faith.
• 3dly. They were such that from among the Gentiles were turned to God.

Then they went off also from this, and said. Infants are part of a Nation, and therefore might be Baptized.

Mr. Williams replied, Though Children are part of a Na∣tion; yet not of a Nation modify'd according to Christ's Commission.

Whereupon their Moderator said, He thought Mr. Willi∣ams had but little Academical Learning.

Mr. Williams Replied, He was warned by the Word, to have a care of vain Philosophy. And presently demanded, what was the Antecedent to the Relative them, in the Com∣mission.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

The Moderator making no Answer, Mr. Williams said, It was all Nations Discipled.

And upon this, Dr. Russel, and Mr. Williams did both de∣sire them to produce one Instance for Infant Baptism, out of the Word of God. And this they did very many times desire of them, but no Instance was produced. At length Mr. Williams desired them, in these Words:

Brethren, I would beg you to produce one Instance for Infants ••aptism; it will reflect upon you if you do not. What will all this People say, when they are gone? So many times one Instance desired: So many Ministers here, and not one Instance produced: They must needs conclude there was not one to be produced.

Notwithstanding this, the Ministers were all silent; and not a Man did reply to it.

Then Mr. Leigh said, We might take up the Opponency again if we pleased.

Thus ended their so much boasted of Opponency, in that vain-glorious Advertisement, published in the Post-man, the Saturday Morning after the Dispute, (either by one of them∣selves, or of their unthinking Admirers) before Dr. Russel could return to London, altho' he set forth from Portsmouth the next Morning after the Dispute; his pressing Occasions necessitating him thereto.

Dr. Russel did then, at Mr. Leigh's Request, reassume the Op∣ponency, of which Mr. Leigh seemed to be sick, and was wil∣ling to get rid of it. Which was a sign they had no mind to inform the People of the Grounds upon which they keep up the Practice of Infants Baptism; when they had so fair an Oppor∣tunity put into their Hands to do it, and made no better Im∣provement of it. But having no Scripture Proof for it, they were not willing to let so great an Auditory know the true Cause why they continue such a Scriptureless Practice; to say no worse of it.

Dr. Russel.

I will therefore prove, that no Infants are to be Baptized by virtue of Christ's Commission.

If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath no other Antecedent agreeing therewith but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then none are to be Baptized but such as are first made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, which Infants are not capable of.

But the Antecedent is true; as is also the Consequence; and therefore no Infants are to be Baptized.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath no other Antecedent but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Dr. Russel.

If there be another, pray assign it.

Mr. Leigh.

I say it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all Nations.

Dr. Russel.

That cannot possibly be; because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, them, is of the Masculine Gender, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all Nations, is of the Neuter Gender. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, them, doth very well agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Disciples, they being both of the Masculine Gender.

To this they gave no solid Answer, worthy of noting down, according to my Remembrance, or the Notaries Observation.

Dr. Russel having observed what evasive Answers they had given to his own and Mr. Williams's Arguments, was resolved to force them to a direct Answer (if possible) by retorting their own Allegation upon themselves, that they might see the Absurdity of it: And this put them into a flame, and great confusion.

The Argument was this:

If Infants are capable to be made Disciples of Christ by the Mini∣stry of Men, without the use of Reason, then the Beasts of the Field are also capable: but the Beasts of the Field are not ca∣pable: therefore Infants are not capable.

Upon this there was a great Disorder among them, and a Person in the Company cried out, He speaks Blasphemy. But one of the Ministers that sat by him was so just, as to satisfie him to the contrary; for which he deserves Thanks.

But Mr. Robinson, their Moderator, stood up, and threw himself about, making a noise like one in a delirious Paroxysm; and bid the People take notice, that Dr. Russel had ranked their Infants among the brute Beasts; and that if they became of his Opinion, they must look upon them as Dogs, or Cats, or Hogs, &c. with much more of the same sort of Rhetorick; endeavouring all he could to enrage the multitude of unthink∣ing persons against him, and put the People into a Confusion.

Upon this Mr. Sharp, the Baptist Moderator, stood up, and said, Gentlemen hold! what is to do now? What, doth Colo∣nel Self ride Lord General in the Town of Portsmouth to day? What is the Reason of this?

Dr. Russel.

Hold, Mr. Robinson. Must I be thus misrepresen∣ted to the People, because I say (that which you all know to be true) that Infants want the Use of Reason? I hope you will be quiet a little time, and give me leave to make my De∣fence to the People against your clamorous Expressions.

I am now put upon a necessity to tell this Assembly (of ho∣nourable Persons, and others) what my Thoughts are con∣cerning the State of Mankind in general, and of little Infants in particular.

I believe that Man, as he came out of the hands of God, was a noble Creature, the top Perfection of all his Creation here below and was substituted Lord of this lower World; was endowed with the Image of his Maker, both natural and divine.

But by his Sin he lost the divine Image, and brought him∣self thereby under the Curse, and into a state of Condemnati∣on, in which his Posterity were also involved.

But it pleased God, of his infinite Mercy, not to leave him in that miserable Estate, as he had left the fallen Angels. But Christ interposed between Justice and the Sinner, the Promise being made before the Sentence was pronounced, Gen. 3. 15. That the seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head. And this promised Seed hath (through the Grace of God) opened a door of mercy for little Infants, who never sinned in their own persons; as well as for others.

And you know, Gentlemen, I have already told you how great an Esteem I have for your little Infants; that I will ra∣ther believe that all Infants dying in their Infancy are elected, than I will conclude that any one of them are damn'd: And this is more than I could persuade our Opposites to confess, al∣though they were urged upon it.

So that (for ought yet appears) we have a greater Esteem for your tender Babes than these Gentlemen have, notwith∣standing Mr. Robinson's unreasonable Clamour against me. And having thus Apologized for my self, I do now expect an An∣swer to my Argument.

Mr. Robinson

What a strange thing is this, to talk of Baptizing the Beasts of the Field! Who ever did so?

Dr. Russel.

I am so far from talking of Baptizing the Beasts of the Field, that my Argument is rather to prove the direct contrary. And whereas you affirm that Infants have a Capaci∣ty to be made Disciples of Christ by the Ministry of Men (or else you have been saying nothing to the purpose all this tim•• about it) I bring this to shew you the Absurdity of such a No▪ tion: And you are bound to shew the Disparity, or confes•• you cannot.

Sirs, I would put this Case to you. Suppose there were twenty or thirty new born Infants in a Room, and you should chuse out the most able and learned Person among you to preach to them, in order to make them Disciples according to Christ's Commission; I believe he would have no better Suc∣cess than St. Anthony had (as the Story goes) when he took upon him to instruct the Pigs; or, as some others have don•• (even Popish Saints) who have took upon them to preach 〈◊〉〈◊〉

the Fowls of the Air, &c. of which I could furnish you with divers Instances.

But why should Mr. Robinson think it strange that any body should have such a Conceit in their Minds? Doth he not know that the Church of Rome baptize things of an inferiour Na∣ture? for they baptize Churches and Bells.

And if I had compared your Practice to theirs of baptizing Belle, you had had no reason to complain, for they are both passive in the Act; only if you will give credit to one of the Fathers (viz. Augustine) the Bells are upon that account the fittest Subjects, for they are wholly passive: but (saith he) the little Children are not so; for they shew their Resistance by their Crying. And now I demand of any of you to take off the Retortion, and shew the Disparity if you can.

Upon this they were all silent, and none of them would un∣dertake to shew the Disparity: and till they do it, my Retor∣tion will remain upon them.

Then Mr. Leigh said, It is time to proceed to the other Que∣stion.

Dr. Russel.

I will now enter upon it.

The second Question is this:

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

I take the Question in the Affirmative, and my first Argu∣ment is this.

Arg. 1. The Holy Scripture shews us the right way of Bap∣tizing, as appointed by Christ:

But it doth not shew us that it ought to be done by Sprink∣ling:

Ergo, Sprinkling is not the right way of Baptizing.

Mr. Leigh.

Sir, you must bring in that Dipping is absolutely necessary (as in the Question) what do you talk of Sprinkling for?

Dr. Russel.

Sir, I know not of any other way that is practi∣sed by you; nor, I suppose, any of these People: I conclude they have often seen you sprinkle Infants; and Mr. Chandler hath particularly recommended it in his Preaching, as the best way of Baptizing: and I hope you are not asham'd of your Practice.

But if you will disown Sprinkling to be the right way of Baptizing, I am contented; I will not then insist upon it.

Mr. Robinson.

We are not discoursing of that now; you are to prove Dipping to be the only way; and you must and shall prove it.

Dr. Russel.

Must and Shall! Must and Shall is for the King, and not for Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Leigh.

But we will not admit of this Argument, because it hath not the word Only in it. You are to prove that your Way is the only right Way of Baptizing.

Dr. Russel.

Mr. Leigh was pleased to make use of an Argu∣ment of Induction, upon the Question about the Subjects: And why may not I use the same Liberty about the Manner, and prove it by Arguments of Inductions?

Upon this some of them fell a laughing, and Mr. Chandler thus exprest himself; Your Induction is an Induction like the man's Covey of Partridges.

Mr. Williams ask'd him how many there was in the Covey?

Mr. Chandler said, Why there was but one.

Mr. Williams replied, But there was more a hatching.

Dr. Russel.

What is the Reason of all this? I tell you I will make it good by Arguments of Induction: And if you do not understand my meaning, I will inform you; and shew that it is a good way of arguing, and will answer the End I bring it for.

For. I will first argue off your way of Sprinkling; and after that, if you shall assign a Third way, that is neither practised by you nor us, I will then argue that off also: and then (I hope) I shall fully prove what I design by it; namely, that Ours is the only right way of Baptizing.

Upon this they readily discerned they should be forced to give an instance from Scripture for their Practice of Sprinkling, which they were conscious to themselves they were not able to do; and therefore utterly refused to answer the Argument.

Dr. Russel.

If this Argument will not be admitted, I will proceed to another.

That Way which doth not signify that which ought to be represented in Baptism, according to Christ's Appointment, is not the right way of Baptizing.

But this your pretended way doth not do:

Ergo, It is not the right way of Baptizing.

And this I shall make good by the following Syllogism.

If that Baptism which was appointed by Christ doth pro∣perly represent his Burial and Resurrection, and ours by him, then it must be done not by Sprinkling, but by Dipping, Plung∣ing, or overwhelming the Person Baptized into Water:

But that Baptism which was appointed by Christ doth pro∣perly represent his Burial and Resurrection, and ours by him:

Ergo, It must be done not by Sprinkling, but by Dipping, Plunging, or Overwhelming the Person Baptized into Water.

Mr. Chandler.

I deny the consequence of the Major; that it properly sets forth a Burial and a Resurrection. It is not for this Reason the only Way; and I deny that this Way doth on∣ly set forth a Burial and a Resurrection.

Dr. Russel.

Then I will prove,

• 1. That it doth truly represent a Burial and a Resurrection. And,
• 2. That it is the only right way of practising this Ordi∣nance.

1. That it doth represent a Burial and a Resurrection, I prove from Rom. 6. and Coloss. 2. In Rom. 6. 4. Therefore we are bu∣ried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up, &c. Coloss. 2. 12. Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, &c.

This cannot be understood literally; for so they were not, could not be buried with him in his Sepulchre, neither can we, But the Apostle resolves us how this was done, and how they were, and we may, be buried with him, and also rise with him; and that is by Baptism. Buried with him in Baptism, where∣in also ye are risen with him. Therefore Baptism is to be per∣formed in such a way that represents a Burial and a Resurrecti∣on: which is most aptly represented by Dipping, Plunging, or Overwhelming the Person baptized, into the Water, and raising him up again out of it.

2. That this is the only right way of performing this Or∣dinance, I prove thus:

If there were no other way practised by John the Baptist, Christ, nor his Apostles, but what did represent a Burial and a Resurrection, then ours is the only right way of Baptizing.

But there was no other way practised by John the Baptist, Christ, nor his Apostles, but what did represent a Burial and a Resurrection:

Ergo, Ours is the only right way of Baptizing.

Mr. Chandler.

You are to prove, that because Baptism is sig∣nificant of a Burial and Resurrection, therefore it must be done only by Dipping.

Dr. Russel.

By this Mr. Chandler grants that Baptism doth signifie a Burial and Resurrection; and I have already proved that therefore it is the only right way of Baptizing that we practise, because there was no other practised in those first Times of the Gospel. And till he give an Instance to the contrary, my Proof stands good.

But I shall farther prove it by this Argument.

If there can no Instance be given that ever the Apostles did Baptize other ways than by Dipping, then ours is the right Way of Baptizing.

But there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be no Instance given, that ever the Apostles did Baptize other ways than by Dipping:

Ergo, Ours is the right way of Baptizing.

Mr. Leigh.

I deny the Enumeration in your Argument: for it doth not follow, that because the Apostles did not practise it any other way, that there were no others that did. For there were divers other Ministers in those Times, besides the Apostles, that did also Baptize.

Dr. Russel.

By this you grant that the Apostles of our Lord did not practise Baptism any other way than by Dipping. And to prove that no others did use a different Practice, I thus argue.

If we have no Account in Holy Scripture, that either the Apostles, or any other Ministers in those Times, did Baptize any one Person other ways than by Dipping, then Dipping is the only right way of Baptizing.

But we have no Account in Holy Scripture, that either the Apostles, or any other Ministers in those Times, did Baptize any one Person other ways than by Dipping:

Ergo, Dipping is the only right way of Baptizing.

Mr. Chandler.

I can shew there is another way that it might be done, and not by Dipping; and that from the Etymology of the word Baptizo, for it signifies also to wash.

Dr. Russel.

I remember what Alstedius saith in his Lexicon The∣ologicum. Having before been speaking about the Etymology of that word; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tantum significat immergere, non lava∣re, nisi ex consequenti: and therefore it signifies to wash only in a secondary and remote sense, because things that are dip'd, may be said to be wash'd. But the proper and primary Sig∣nification of Baptizo is, to dip; for it comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mer∣go, immergo, to dip, to plunge, to overwhelm, to dip into, &c.

Mr. Chandler.

I own that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies mergo, immergo. But I can shew great probability, that many, in Scripture times, were Baptized by pouring a little Water on the Face: and there is no Certainty that Dipping was ever used.

Dr. Russel.

How doth that appear?

Mr. Leigh

We will argue on a Probability. It might be done other ways than by Dipping; and a Probability is the most you can pretend to for Dipping. I require you to prove that Dip∣ping was certainly intended in those places you bring for it; and then I will prove, that Dipping was not intended, but on∣ly an Application of Water to the Person.

Dr. Russel.

The first Instance I shall give is the Baptism of our Saviour, as it is exprest in Mark 1. 9. Jesus came from Naza∣reth of Galilce, and was baptized of John in Jordan. The words

are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which words do certainly signifie, that he was Dipped into ••••rdan.

Mr. Leigh.

The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in, as well as into, and is often so Translated in the New Testament.

Dr. Russel.

That it may sometimes so signify where the Scope of the place may shew it, I will not contend. But you know very well, that where it is joined with an Accusative (as it is here) it signifies into. And I can shew that our Translators have so rendred it in many places in the New Testament. And it would many times be Nonsence to understand it otherwise. I will give you some Instances of it, in the room of many that might be given.

As in John 3. 17. God sent not his son into the World to condemn the World; but that the World through him might be saved. Here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred into: for the Words in the Greek are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and I hope you will not deny that God sent Christ into the World.

And in 1 Tim. 1. 15. Christ Jesus came into the World to save sinners, &c. There 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is also Translated into. And I hope you will not deny, that Christ came into the World to save Sinners. It's joined with the same Words as in John 3. 17. before re∣cited.

And in Luke 4. 16. it's said, He went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read. Here again it is so ren∣dred; for the Words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, into the Syna∣gogue, And the eyes of all them that were in the Synagogue were fastned on him, ver. 20. which could not have been, had he not gone into the Synagogue; as it's manifest he did. And I hope you will not deny that Christ went into the Synagogue: but you may do it with as much colour of Reason, as to say he was not Dip'd, or Plunged of John into the River of Jordan. when the same Word is used in the same Sense. And besides if we do but consider those multitudes that John Baptized in the River of Jordan, and other places where there was much Water; we have no reason to doubt of the Truth thereof.

Mr. Leigh.

We allow, that what cannot be now used without being burdensome. might be more commodious in that day, and observed in that hot Country of Judaea, when there was so many came to John to be Baptized: and therefore it may be that they went out to Rivers. But I will argue upon a Pro∣bability. It is well known, in those hot Countries the People wore Sandals: and they might go into the Water a little way to wash their Feet. Now I offer this fair Interpretation: They might step a little way into Jordan for Ease and Refreshment, and then John might pour a little Water on them.

Now allow ••ut the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie to wash, as we can easily pr••••e it is often so taken in Scripture; and I offer to all the Company, whether this be not a fair Interpretation of the place, That John washed him with Water, he going a little way into Jordan

Dr. Russel.

Notwithstanding this Flourish of a pretended Probability, you know that the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth proper∣ly signifie to Dip, as all the great Lexicographers and Criticks do tell us; and that its proper and native Signification is to Dip into Water, or to Plunge under Water: and that I could give you many Instances of, out of Scapula, Stephanus, Schre∣velius, and many others. And they also tell us, That if it be used for Washing, it is in a remote Sense: and if it be taken in its primary Sense, it's such a Washing as is by Dipping, or Plunging into the Water, and being covered therewith.

But that you may see I am not singular in my Opinion, I will shew you that your own Expositors do thus render it, and some of the greatest Men among the Protestants that ever wrote since the Reformation: of which I have made a Col∣lection out of their own Works, because I would not wrong them.

I shall begin with the Testimony of those learned and judi∣cious Divines of your own Perswasion, who were those that continued Mr. Peol's Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6. These are their own words, Were Baptized, that is, Dipped in Jordan.

Upon John 3. 22, 23. There John was Baptizing, because this Aenon was a Brook or River that had much Water. It is from this apparent, that both Christ and John Baptized by Dipping the Body in the Water; else they need not have sought Places where had been a great plenty of Water.

Before Dr. Russel had read this last Sentence wholly out, the Presbyterian Ministers, even Mr. Leigh himself, as well as the rest of them, fell a hissing so loud, and set others of their Par∣ty to make a noise also by their ill Example, that altho Dr. Russel went on with his Work, yet the Noise was so great, that it wholly drowned his Voice, that he could not be heard.

Whereupon Mr. Sharp, the Moderator, call'd out aloud to still this great Noise, and spoke to this effect: What is the rea∣son of this Hissing? Gentlemen, are you not asham'd? You preach to others the Doctrine of Sanctification and Self-denial, and to act thus your selves, I am asham'd to see it. I pray, good People, take no notice of it now.

When Dr. Russel perceived they would not forbear this His∣sing and uncivil Carriage, he forbore to read any farther. And when Silence was obtained, he addressed himself to the Mini∣sters after this manner:

Sirs, What is the matter with you? Must I n•••• be permitted to recite your own Authors, and some of the gre••test Men that have written since the Reformation? Although their Testimo∣ny against us is of little value, because they are Parties in the Controversie; yet when the clear evidence of Truth shall enforce a Confession from their Pens that we are in the right, it is then a great Testimony for us.

Here is first of all Pool's Annotators, certain learned and judi∣cious Divines, that say in that matter as we do: and they are Men of your own Party. There is also Dr. Hammond saith the same.

Here the Doctor was interrupted again, and they cried out, What do you tell us of Dr. Hammond? What have we to do with Dr. Hammond?

Dr. Russel.

Why certainly, Gentlemen, Dr. Hammond is not thus to be despised upon his Judgment about a Greek word. I have also Mr. Baxter, Wollebius, Tilenus, the Learned Perkins, and Luther also, who was against Sprinkling, and practised Dip∣ping; and so did the rest of the Divines at Wistenburgh. Mr. Calvin also, although he did allow a Liberty of Sprinkling in cold Climates, yet he saith as I do as to the Signification of the word Baptiz••, that it signifies to Dip, and was so used in the Primitive Church.

There is also the Dutch Translators, they do every where render the words that are used to express this Ordinance by, as we do; and they call John the Baptist, Joannes de Dooper, John the Dipper. And I know not of any place but it's so ex∣prest. And these are Presbyterians, Men of your own Reli∣gion.

Upon this, one of the Ministers said, What! do you under∣stand Dutch?

Dr. Russel said, Yes, he understood it, but he could not speak it readily.

They replied, We will try that; for we have a Gentleman here that understands Dutch very well.

Dr. Russel.

You may ask that Gentleman if you think fit: he can satisfie you, that what I say is true.

But they had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Discretion than to call the Gentleman out to confute them∣selves.

Dr. Russel

I have also the Testimony of the Dutch Annota∣tors, who say the same thing. And these also are Men of your own Persuasion.

And, to add no more, I have also the Testimony of the As∣sembly of Divines, sitting at Westminster: And I hope they may be of some credit with you.

But they would not suffer him to proceed in the Reading thereof to the People; but cried out, We are Protestants, and will not pin our Faith on other Mens sleeves.

Dr. Russel.

What! not the Assembly of Divines? I thought, though you had no regard to my words, you might have had some regard to the Assembly of Divines. You know I do not wrong these Authors: and therefore what must the People think of you, to oppose your selves thus against these great Men, and such multitudes of them, that are of your own Per∣suasion (as many of them are) and the rest, some of the great∣est Men since the Reformation. Surely the People cannot take it kindly at your hands, to reject the Authority of these Men in a matter of this Nature.

Their Answer was, We do reverence these Divines, but adhere to what they say no farther than it agrees with the Word of God.

Dr. Russel.

We say, that in this Particular, what they have written doth agree with the Word of God.

Mr. Leigh.

You have recourse to the prime Signification of the Word, whereas we must take it according to its Accepta∣tion in Scripture. And I offer it to the Consideration of the Learned, whether the prime Signification of the Word be a sufficient Argument in this case? And here he makes his Rhe∣torical Excursions about a Mathematician, an Angel, a Foot∣boy that carries a Letter, a Physician, &c. and concludes thus, but we must go to the Scripture Acceptation of the Word. And I challenge you to bring one place of Scripture where it must be understood that it was done by Dipping.

Dr. Russel.

It is very well, Mr. Leigh will allow that I have given the People the proper Meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that its prime Signification is to Dip. Now he might have spared all the rest that he hath said; for we do not lay the stress only upon the Etymology of the Word, but also upon the concurrent Testimonies of Holy Scripture, that it was so understood and so practised by John the Baptist, Christ, and his Apostles, and so represented by the Metaphors made use of (as a Burial and a Resurrection) to set it forth by: as also their choosing places where there was much Water to Baptize in, as I have already shewed, so far as they would permit me; and should have made it manifest beyond exception, if I might have been heard.

But to answer your Demand, I alledge Acts 8. 38, 39. And they went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and by Baptized him. And when they were come up out of the Wa∣ter, &c. Here we have an account, that both the Administra∣tor,

and the Person to be Baptized, went both down into the Water: and when they came there, he Baptized him. And if Philip had not been to put the Eunuch into the Water, and co∣ver him with it, why should they go down both into the Wa∣ter? A little of it might have been brought up to them into the Chariot, if Sprinkling would have served the turn. But it appears manifestly, that nothing less would serve for to answer the Commission, but to Dip the Person Baptized into the Wa∣ter, otherwise they did that which was wholly needless, and besides the Rule that was given them to practise by. And their coming up again out of the Water, doth evidently shew that he was Plunged into it, and overwhelm'd with it.

Mr. Leigh replied, That the Greek word signified to go down to, and come up from the Water.

Mr. Williams replied, That there was two differing Words (as he had been informed) in the Greek Text; as there are two different Words in the Translation. For it is said, As they went on their way, they came unto a certain Water: This was before he proposed for Baptism. But when a Grant was given him that he might be Baptized, it is then said, They went down both of them into the Water, and Philip Baptized him there. Now as they are different Words in the Translation, coming unto, and going down into, even so they are differing Words in the Greek.

Dr. Russel said, They were two different Words; to which Mr. Leigh concessed.

But after the Meeting was over, Mr. Williams the Presbyte∣rian Minister, in whose Meeting place the Dispute was, told Mr. Williams the Baptist Disputant, he was in the right, and that they were two differing Words in the Greek; one for coming unto, the other for going down into.

Dr. Russel.

I then farther argue:

If the Spirit of God doth never use the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where the Ordinance of Baptism is mentioned, but al••ays ex∣presses it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; then it was performed by Dipping, Plunging, or Overwhelming only: But the Spirit of God doth never use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where the Ordinance of Baptism is mentioned, but always expresses it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

Ergo. It was performed by Dipping, Plunging, or Over∣whelming only.

Mr. Chandler.

I deny the Sequel of the Major; because the Word doth sometimes signify a Washing that is short of Dip∣ping.

Dr. Russel.

You must then assign your Instance.

Mr. Chandler

You must know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tabal. And I will shew that it denotes such a Washing as is short of Dipping. And in Dan. 4. 33. where it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, His body was wet with the dew of Heaven; the Septuagint render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so that it cannot be understood in your sense.

Dr. Russel.

That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in the stead of Tabal, is true. But how do you know that the Word was so Rendred by the Septuagint?

Mr. Chandler.

It is so in that Translation that goes in their Name.

Dr. Russel.

That I deny; for the Word there is Ebaphe, and not Baptizo. But do you not know what Weemes saith in his Christian Synagogue, That the Septuagint Translation was burnt, and only some Fragments of it remaining, which was made up by others: so that neither you nor I know when we read the Septuagint, and when we read other men. But what doth all this signify? That is but a Translation, and I think ours to be much better than that, if it were as you say; and more agreeable to the scope of the place, to say his body was wet with the dew of Heaven, than to say it was dipt with the dew of Heaven.

But I pray let Mr. Chandler tell us how it is in the Hebrew, which is the Language in which it was written.

Mr. Chandler.

The Word in the Hebrew is Tabal.

Dr. Russel.

That I deny.

Whereupon an Hebrew Bible was produced, and handed up to Dr. Russel. And the Book of Daniel not being placed in its right order, as in other Hebrew Bibles, he did not readily find it; whereupon they cried out, They believ'd he could not read it. The Dr. answered, He could read Hebrew before Mr. Chandler was born: and as a demonstration of it, he read a Verse or two in the Beginning thereof. Upon this Mr. Robin∣son took the Book, and with some difficulty found out the Book of Daniel and then gave it to Dr. Russel again, who read the Place by them directed to, and told Mr. Chandler that the Word Tabal was not there. And then, after all this needless trouble, Mr. Chandler did confess that it was not: and so all his Pretention from thence vanished into Smoak.

Mr. Chandler also urged for another instance, to prove that Tabal signified a Washing less than that by Dipping, 2 Kings 5. 10, 14. Go and wash in Jordan, and be clean. And in Verse 14. H•• dipped himself in Jordan. Now this must signifie a Washing short of Dipping; because though Tabal doth express the Act done in Ver. 14. yet the Command is given by Rachatz, which signifies to wash.

Dr. Russel.

I do allow that the Command is ••xprest by Ra∣chatz, and also that it sometimes is used, as we•• as Cabas, to signifie less than Dipping when it is applied to some particular things, or parts of things, which are to be cleansed from Filth; as you know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek is to wash the hands.

But where Rachatz in the Hebrew is used in the Sence as it's here exprest, namely, to wash himself; it's always to be under∣stood of such a Washing as is by Dipping. The Jews under∣stood it so, and Naaman the Syrian understood the Prophet in that sence; for it's said he dipped himself in Jordan seven times. And that he was not mistaken about it, is evident; for that the Spirit of God hath left it upon Record, that what he did was according to the Saying of the Man of God: so that the Prophet did not intend by Rachatz any other Washing than what is performed by Dipping of the Person so washed into the Water. And had this been a Derivative, there might have been some doubt raised about it; but seeing Tabal is the Root it self, it can signify nothing less than what is the known sence thereof, viz. he Dipped. He dipped himself in Jordan seven times, according to the Saying of the Man of God. Thus I have cleared this Text from your Objection, as not intending any such thing as you have brought it for, but the direct con∣trary.

Then Mr. Chandler said, We challenge you to prove, by Scripture, that the Word Baptizo signifies to Dip, and that that is intended by Baptism.

Dr. Russel.

I will prove it from all the Places where the Or∣dinance of Baptism is spoken of, if you will let me prove it from the Greek.

Mr. Chandler.

No, you shall prove it from our Translation, that it's there any where so rendred; but you shall not do it from any of those places where the Ordinance of Baptism is spoken of.

Dr. Russel.

That is unreasonable, that when the Use of a Word is enquired into, and what was the Practice of the first Ministers, pursuant to that Word by which they are command∣ed to Baptize; for all those Scriptures where it is so mentioned to be excluded out of our Enquiry.

Mr. Chandler.

I will not allow you to prove it from any of those places where the Ordinance of Baptism is either exprest or intended.

Dr. Russel.

If nothing else will do with you, I will then un∣dertake to prove from divers places in Scripture, that either Bapto, or its Derivatives, is so rendred in our English Transla∣tion.

The first Scripture I shall instance in, is, Revel. 19. 1••. He was cloathed with a Vesture dipt in Blood.

Mr. Chandler.

This is not Bapto.

Dr. Russel.

No more is Baptizo, Baptismos, Baptisma, &c. but they are all Derivatives from it; and so is the Word that is here used. And this Mr. Chandler did not deny.

Dr. Russel did then urge the several places in the Evangelists about Judas dipping with Christ in the dish; as, Matt. 26. 23. He that dippeth. Mark 14. 20. John 13. 26. When I have dip∣ped it. And when he had dipped, &c. Now in all these places you see it's thus rendred, and the Ordinance of Baptism not in the least intended.

Moreover, I will give you one Instance more, in which the most minute Action imaginable is intended, and yet so much as was put into the Water is said to be dipt.

Luke 16. 24. Where the rich Man being in Hell, desired Fa∣ther Abraham to send Lazarus, that he might dip the tip of his finger in Water, to cool his tongue, &c.

By this it appears, that our Translators did thus understand the Word to intend Dipping; and have never rendred it to Sprinkle in all the New Testament.

I would only add, That when Learned Men come to have but the same Wisdom as the Jewish Rabbies have, to reduce all doubtful Words to their Roots and Theme from whence they are derived, then much of our present Disputes will issue in the Knowledge of the Truth; and we shall cease to strive about Words to no profit, but to the subverting of the Hear∣ers.

Upon this followed a confused Jangling and Noise, so that the Amanuensis could not take it down, neither did he think it worth the taking.

But Mr. Williams, the Presbyterian Minister, said, he thought there had been little said to the purpose.

Upon this Dr. Russel said, Mr. Williams, I think there hath been a great deal said more than hath been answered: but if you are not satisfied, we will wave all that hath been said, and I will dispute it over with you de novo.

Mr. Williams shrugged, and answered no; I am not very well.

Although he had not been engaged at all in the Dispute himself, and the Doctor had been fatigued by so long a Dispu∣tation, yet Mr. Williams refused to accept his Offer.

It was at last thought meet by them to put an Issue to the Disputation. And Mr Leigh (after he had made a Speech to thank the Governour and the Mayor for their Civility towards

them, and the Baptists had returned their Thanks also) he then concluded in Prayer; and so dismist the Assembly. It was be∣tween the hours of Six and Seven of the Clock when the Dis∣pute ended.

I do now think it proper to give you an Account of those Learned Mens Testimonies to justifie our Practice of Dipping, which Dr. Russel was then prevented to recite, by reason of the Ministers Hissing, and the Noise and Clamour of their Party, that would not suffer him to be heard.

Pool's Annotations.

Matt. 3. 6 Were Baptized: that is, Dipped in Jordan.

Matt. 28. 19. It's true, the first Baptisms of which we read in Holy Writ, were by Dipping of the Persons Baptized. Where it may be we judge it reasonable, and most resembling our Burial with Christ by Baptism into Death.

John 3. 22, 23. There John was Baptizing, because this Aenon was a Brook or River that had much Water. It is from this apparent, that both Christ and John Baptized by Dipping the Body in the Water; else they need not have sought places where had been a great plenty of Water.

Acts 8. 38. In hot Countries this was usual, to Baptize by Dipping the Body in the Water.

Rom. 6. 4. He seems here to allude to the manner of Bapti∣zing in those warm Eastern Countries, which was to Dip or Plunge the Party Baptized; and, as it were, to bury him for a while under Water.

Dr. Hammond's Annotations.

Matth. 3. John put the Persons whom he Baptized into the Water, Dipped them all over, and so took them out again. And in his Paraphrase on

Mark 1. 5. And John's Baptism was done in Jordan, a River convenient for that purpose.

The Learned Perkins.

Rom. 6. The ancient Custom of Baptizing was to Dip, and as it were to dive all the Body of the Baptized in the Water; as may appear in Paul, Rom. 6. And the Councils of Laodicea, and Neocaesarea. The Action of the Minister, is his washing of the Party Baptized with the Element of Water.

Of Washing there be three parts: The putting into the Wa∣ter, the continuance in the Water, and the coming out of the Water. Perkins's Order of the Causes of Salvation and Dam∣nation, cap. 33. pag. 74. vol. 1.

And in his Comment on Golat. 3. 27. vol. 2. pag 257. the Dipping of the Body signifies Mortification, or Fellowship with Christ in his Death: the staying under the Water, signi∣fies the Burial of Sin; and the coming out of the Water, the Resurrection from Sin to Newness of Life.

And upon Matth. 28 19. Here (saith he) a Question may be made, whether washing the Body in Baptism, must be by Dipping or Sprinkling? His Answer is this; In hot Countries, and in the Baptism of Men of years, Dipping was used, and that by the Apostles: And to this Paul alludes Rom. 6. 3, 4. And Dipping doth more fully represent our spiritual Washing, than Sprinkling. Ibid. pag. 257.

Mr Baxter, in his Paraphrase.

Matth. 3. 5. We grant that Baptism then was by washing the whole Body.

Matth. 3. 6. Baptism was in John's time, by washing the whole Body.

Rom. 6. 4. Therefore in our Baptism we are Dipped under the Water.

Coloss. 2. 12. Ye are dead and buried with him; for so your Baptism signified, in which ye are put under the Water, to sig∣nify and profess that your Old man, or fleshly Lust, is dead and buried with him; and you rise thence, to signify and pro∣fess, that you rise to Newness of Life.

In his third Argument against Mr. B••ake, he saith, quoad mo∣dum, with respect to the Manner, It is commonly confest by us to the Anabaptists (as our Commentators declare) that in the Apostles time, the Baptized were Dipt over head in Water. And though we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of Dipping, yet we presume not to change the Use and Signifi∣cation of it.

Dr. Cave.

In his Primitive Christianity, pag. 320. saith, That the Party baptized was wholly immerged, or put under Water; which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those times: whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great End and Effects of Baptism; for as in Immerging there are in a manner three several Acts, the putting the Person into

Water, his abiding there for some time, and his rising up again, thereby representing Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrecti∣on, &c.

Dr. Nicholson, late Lord Bishop of Glocester.

In his Exposition of the Church-Catechism, saith, in pag. 174. And the ancient manner in Baptism, the putting the Person Baptized under the Water, and then taking him out again did well set out these two Acts, the first his dying, the second his rising again. And in the same Page, upon Col. 2. 12. he saith, Into the Grave with Christ we went not, for our Bodies were not, could not be buried with his; but in our Baptism, by a kind of Analogy or Resemblance, while our Bodies are under the Water, we may be said to be buried with him.

Dr. Fowler, present Lord Bishop of Glocester.

In his Scope of the Christian Religion, upon Rom 6 4. saith, Christians being pl••nged into the Water in Baptism, signifieth their undertaking and obliging themselves, in a spiritual sense, to die and be buried with Jesus Christ, that so answerably to his Resurrection, they may live a holy and godly Life.

Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury.

In his Sermon upon 2 Tim. 2. 19. saith, Anciently those who were Baptized put off their Garments, which signified the put∣ting off the Body of Sin; and were immersed and buried in the Water, to represent the Death of Sin; and then did rise up again out of the Water, to signifie their Entrance upon a new Life. And to these Customs the Apostle alludes, Rom. 6. 4.

Dr. Jer. Taylor, late Lord Bishop of Down.

In his Ductor dubitantium, lib. 3 cap. 4. saith, The Custom of the ancient Church was not Sprinkling, but Immersion, in pursuance of the sence of the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both in the Commandment and Example of our Blessed Saviour. And this agrees with the Mystery of the Sacrament it self; for we are buried with him in Baptism (saith the Apostle;) The Old-man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under Water: and when the Baptized Person is lifted up from the Water, it re∣presents the Resurrection of the New-man to Newness of Life.

The Learned Joseph Mede.

In his Diatribe on Titus 3. 5. saith, There was no such thing as Sprinkling used in Baptism in the Apostles time, nor many Ages after them.

Mr. Daniel Rogers.

None of old were wont to be Sprinkled, and (saith he) I confess my self unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling. It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution, which is Dipping. And he betrays the Church, whose Officer he is, to a disorder'd Error, if he cleave not to the Institution, which is to Dip. Rogers's Treatise of the two Sacraments, part 1. chap. 5.

The famous Reformer Luther.

Luther de Baptismo, tom. 1. fol. 71. in the Latin Edition, printed at Wittemburgh, saith, Baptism is a Greek word; it may be translated a Dipping, when we dip something in Water, that it may be covered with Water. And although it be for the most part altogether abolished, for that they do not Dip the whole Children, but only Sprinkle them with a little Wa∣ter, they ought nevertheless to be wholly dipt, and presently to be drawn out again.

And in Tome 2. fol. 79. concerning Babylon's Captivity. The other thing (saith he) which belongs to Baptism, is the Sign, or the Sacrament, which is the dipping it self into the Water: from whence also it hath its Name. Nam baptizo Graece, mer∣go Latinè, & Baptisma mersio est. For Baptizo in Greek, is in Latin Mergo, to dip; and Baptisma, is dipping. And a little af∣ter, speaking of Rom. 6. 4. he saith, Being moved by this Rea∣son, I would have those that are to be Baptized, to be wholly dipt into the Water; as the Word doth sound, and the Myste∣ry doth signifie.

And when Complaint was made to him and other Divines at Wittemburgh, That a Child had been Sprinkled at Hamburgh, and their Advice desired upon it; he wrote to Hamburgh to ac∣quaint them, that their Use of Sprinkling was an Abuse, which they ought to remove. Ita mersionem Hamburgi restitutam esse. So Dipping was restored at Hamburgh Author Joannes Bugen∣hagius Pomeranius, in his Book printed Anno 1542. He was Contemporary with, and a Successor of Luther at Wittemburgh.

The Learned Grotius.

On Matth. 3. 6. Mersatione autem, non perfusione agi solitum hunc ritum indicat & vocis proprietas, & loca ad eum ritum de∣lecta, John 3. 23. Acts 8. 38. Et allusiones multae Apostolorum quae ad aspersionem referri non possunt, Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12.

Mr. John Calvin.

On John 3. 23. Baptism was performed by John and Christ, by dipping of the whole Body in Water.

And in his Institutions, lib. 4. cap. 15. sect. 19. he saith thus, Caeterum mergaturne totus qui tingitur, idque ter an semel, an infu∣sa tantum aqua aspergatur, minimum refert: sed id pro regionum diversitate Ecclesis liberum esse debet. Quanquam & ipsum bapti∣zandi verbum mergere significat, & mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesia observatum fuisse constat.

Here you may see, that although he thinks it a thing indif∣ferent whether it be done by Dipping or Sprinkling, and that thrice or once only; and that it's left to the Churches Liber∣ty, according to the diversity of Countries: yet he comes in at last with his Quanquam, notwithstanding the word Baptism signifies to Dip, and it is evident that the Rite of Dipping was observed by the Old Church.

The Case is so clear (as a learned Writer hath noted) that Calvin up and down his Works doth often confess, that the ancient manner of Baptism in the Primitive times was by Dip∣ping the whole Body under Water.

Piscator,

On John 3: 23. saith, That Baptism was performed by Dip∣ping the whole Body under Water.

The Dutch Translators.

Matth. 3. 1. Joannes de Dooper, John the Dipper. Vers 6. Gedoopt in de Jordaen, Dipt in Jordan. Vers. 16 Ende Jesus ge∣doopt zynde epgeklommen uyt het water. And Jesus being Dipt, he (climbed or) came up out of the Water. Matth. 28 19. Onderwyst alle de volckeren, deselve dopende in den name des va∣ders, &c. Instruct all the People, dipping the same in the name of the Father, &c. Mark 1. 9. Ende wiert van Joanne gedoopt in de Jordaen. Ende terstont als by uyt het Water opklaem, &c.

And was dipt of John in Jordan. And straightways as he climb'd up out of the Water, &c.

Acts 8. 36. Wat verhindert my gedoopt te worden? What hin∣ders me to be dipt? v. 38. Ende hy doopte hem. And he dipt him. v. 12. Wierden sy gedoopt beyde Mannen ende Vrouwen. They were dipt both Men and Women.

Rom. 6. 3. Ofte en wetet ghy niet dat soo vele als wy in Chri∣stum Jesum dedoopt zyn, wy in Synen doodt gedoopt zyn? Know ye not that so many of us as were dipt into Christ Jesus, we were dipt into his Death? And the same in Coll. 2. 12. And (according to what I find) in all other places where this Ordi∣nance of Baptism is mentioned.

Dutch Annotations.

On John 3. 23. And John also Baptized in Aenon near Salim, &c. seeing there were many Waters there, that is Brooks or Rivelets, or much Water, Because they that were Baptized by John, went into the Water with their whole Bodies. See Matth. 3. 16. Acts 8. 38.

And on Rom. 6. 3. We are Baptized into his Death. The Apostle seems here to allude to the manner of Baptizing much used in those warm Eastern Countries; where Men were wholly Dipt into the Water, and remained a little while under the Water; to shew that this Dipping into, and remaining in the Water, is a Representation of Christ's Death and Burial: and the rising up out of the Water, of his Resurrection.

Beza on Matth. 3. 11.

The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies to die by dipping or washing, and differs from the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to drown, or go down to the bottom like a Stone.

Causabon's Annotations

Upon Matth 3. He saith, Immerging was the proper Rite in Baptism, which the Word it self sufficiently declares; which as it signifies not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a going down to the bottom without any ascending; so not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a swimming like a Cork above the Water; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a going down and coming up again.

Tilenus, a Learned Protestant Writer,

In his Disputation, page 886, 889, 890. saith, Baptism is the first Sacrament of the New Testament Instituted by Jesus Christ.

The Outward Rite in Baptism is Three fold.

• First, Immersion into the Water.
• 2dly, Abiding under the Water.
• 3dly, A rising again out of the Water.

And he there shews at large, what a most lively Similitude it is of the Sorrows of Christ which he was plung'd into un∣der Divine Justice, and of his Burial and Resurrection, &c.

Leigh, in his Critica Sacra.

He saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tingo, to dip or plunge into the Water, and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks, where Linen is plunged or dipt. It implieth the washing of their whole Body. The Native and Proper signification of it is, to dip into Water, or to plunge under Water, John 3. 22, 23. Matth. 3. 16. Acts 8. 38.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dipping into Water, or washing with Wa∣ter, &c.

And in his Annotations on Rom 6 4. He alludes to the man∣ner in which Baptism was then Administred, which was to plunge them in the Water; the plunging of them into Water that were Baptized, was a Sign of their Death and Burial with Christ.

Wollebius in his Compendium, &c.

Speaking of their present Practise, saith, The Action is sprinkling of Water, which is usurped in the stead of Dip∣ping. And then adds, Immersio & emersio illustre Symbolum fuit Sepulturae & Resurrectionis Christi. Their being plunged into the Water, and coming up again out of the Water, was an Illu∣strious Symbol of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ.

Daille, on the Fathers.

Lib. 2. p. 148. saith, It was a Custom heretofore in the An∣cient Church, to plunge those they Baptized, over Head and Ears in the Water; and cites for his Authority, Tertullian,

Cyprian, Epiphanius, and others. And this is still (saith he) the Practice both of the Greeks and Russians at this Day. And Cites Cassander de Baptismo, pag. 193. and yet notwithstanding this Custom, which is both so Ancient and so Universal, is now abolished by the Church of Rome.

And this is the reason that the Moscovites say that the Latines are not rightly and duly Baptized; because they do not use this Ancient Ceremony in their Baptism.

Also, in that Greek Lexicon, Published and Recommended to all, for the encrease of Knowledge (and explained in English) by Mr. Joseph Caryll, Mr. George Cockayne, Mr. Ralph Vening, Mr. William Dell, Mr. Matthew Barker, Mr. William Adderly, Mr. Matthew Mead, Mr. Henry Jessey. They render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dip, plunge, or drown. In the passive Voice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be plunged, or overwhelmed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dip in, as one doth his Finger in Liquor. [From this we may allow, that the Presbyterian Ministers do Baptize their Fingers when they dip them into the Waters: but cannot be said to Baptize the Children, because they do not dip them in the Water, but sprinkle only a little Water upon their Faces] Mat. 26. 23. John 13. 26. Mark 14. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to plunge, to overwhelm, to wash, to dip, Mat. 3. 11. John 1. 25. Chap. 3. 26. John 4. 1. 1 Cor. 1. 17. John 1. 31. Matth. 28. 19. John 3. 22. John 4. 2. Chap. 1. 28.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be plunged, to be Baptized, or Dipt.

By a Metaphor, it's taken for Affliction, Matth. 20. 22. which is familiarly read in Scripture; whereby Afflictions are compared to the Gulphs and Whirl-Pools of Water, into which those are plunged, who struggle with the Miseries and Calami∣ties of this Life. Yet they are so plunged, that they can lift up themselves again.

I might also add, what those several great Masters of the Greek Tongue, us Scapula, Stephanus, Schrevelius, and divers others, have said concerning the Etymology thereof. But the Learned being so well acquainted therewith, I shall only touch upon it: They confirming what I have already observed from others. They tell us in their Lexicons, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies mergo, immergo, submergo, obruo; item tingo, quod fit immergendo. To dip, to overwhelm, to plunge or dip in, to drown or sink in the Water, to overwhelm, to dip, or plunge; to put under, to cover clean over, &c. And that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rantizo, is Aspergo, to sprinkle: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aspersio, sprinkling.

Now these two different Words, do signifie two different Actions: For he that is only sprinkled, cannot be said to be dipt, or plunged under the Water, and to come up again out

of the Water, (when they were never in it) as those are said to do, in Acts 8. 38. They went both down into the Water, and they came up again out of the Water. Besides, I challenge all the Learned in the World to shew one Instance in the New Testament, that these words Rantizo, Rantismos, or Rantisma, are ever made use of by the Spirit of God, to express that Or∣dinance of Baptism by. For they know right well that Bapto, and its Derivatives are always made use of to express it by. And where they are translated into English, the one is rendred Dipping, and the other Sprinkling. But if these Men will keep up a Practise contrary to Holy Scripture. and the Judg∣ment of the most Learned Lexicographers and Criticks in the Greek Tongue, it's their own fault, and not ours.

The Assembly of Divines Annotations.

Acts 8. 38. They went both down into the Water.

They were wont to dip the whole Body, or go down into the Water, as here, and Matth. 3. 16.

And upon Rom. 6. 4. Buried with him by Baptism.

See Col. 2. 12. In this Phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to the Ancient Manner of Baptism; which was to Dip the Parties Baptized, and as it were, to bury them under the Water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and lift them up; to represent the Burial of our Old Man, and our Resurrection to newness of Life.

The late Dr. Gabriel Towerson, in his Explication of the Ca∣techism of the Church of England, Part 4. pag. 20 &c. speaks largely upon it, in Vindication of the Rite of Dipping in Bap∣tism; of which I shall recite some few Passages, and refer you to his Book for the rest.

Baptism is intended as a Sign, and that in respect of the Manner of Application used; I mean the dipping, or plun∣ging the Party Baptized in it. A signification which St. Paul will not suffer those to forget, who have been acquainted with his Epistles, for which he Quotes Rom 6 4. and Col. 2. 12. It was performed by the Ceremony of Immersion, that the Person Immersed, might by that Ceremony (which was no obscure Image of a Sepulture) be minded of the pre∣cedent Death, as in like manner by his coming again out of the Water, of his rising from that Death to Life, after the Example of the Institutor thereof.

Then he puts this Question, Whether it ought to be per∣formed by an Immersion, or an Aspersion, &c?

His Answer is, It may be a more material Question than is commonly deemed by us who have been accustomed to Bap∣tize by a bare Effusion and Sprinkling of Water upon the Party.

For things which depend for their force on the meer Will and Pleasure of him who Instituted them, there ought (no doubt) great regard to be had to the Commands of him that did so; as without which there is no reason we should receive the benefit of that Ceremony to which he has been pleased to annex it.

Now what the Command of Christ was in this particular, cannot be well doubted of by those who shall consider; First, The words of Christ, Matth 28. 19. concerning it, and the Practice of those Times, whether in the Baptism of John or our Saviour; for the words of Christ are, That they should Baptize or Dip those whom they made Disciples to him; for (so no doubt) the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Baptizontes, properly signifies: Though if there could be any doubt concerning the signification of the words themselves, yet would that doubt be removed by con∣sidering the Practice of those Times. For such as was the Practice of those Times in Baptizing, such in reason we are to think our Saviour's Command to have been concerning it, &c. there being not otherwise any means either for those, or future Times to discover his intention concerning it.

What the Practice of those Times were, will need no other proof, than the resorting to Rivers and other such Receptacles of Water for the performance of that Ceremony, as that be∣cause there was much Water there, Matth. 3. 5. John 3. 23. And the Scripture expresly affirming concerning the Baptism of the Eunuch, Acts 8. 38. That Philip and the Eunuch went both down into a certain Water (which they met with in their Journey) in order to the Baptizing of the latter.

For what need would there have been of the Baptists re∣sorting to great Confluxes of Water; or of Philip's and the Eunuch's going down into this, were it not that the Baptism both of the one and of the other, were to be performed by an Immersion; a very little Water (as we know it doth with us) sufficing for an Effusion or Sprinkling.

The same is to be said yet more, upon the account of our conforming to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, which we learn from St. Paul to be the design of Baptism to signifie; for though that might, and was well enough represented by the Beptized Persons being buried in Baptism, and their rising

out of it; yet can it not be said to be so, or, at least but very imperfectly, by the bare pouring out, or sprinkling the Bap∣tismal Water on him.

But therefore; as there is so much the more Reason to repre∣sent the Rite of Immersion as the Only Legitimate Rite of Baptism, because the Only One that can answer the ends of its Institution, and those things that were to be signified by it; so especially, if (as is well known, and undoubtedly of great force) the general Practice of the Primitive Church was agreea∣ble thereto, and the Greek Church to this very Day: for who can think that either the one, or the other, would have been so tenacious of so troublesom a Rite, were it not that they were well assured (as they of the Primitive Church might very well be) of its being the Only Instituted and Legitimate One. I cannot but think the forementioned Arguments to be so far of force, as to evince the necessity thereof, &c. For what benefit can Men ordinarily expect from that which depends for its force upon the Will of him that Instituted it; where there is no such compliance in the least with it, and the Com∣mand of the Institutor; as may answer those ends for which he applied it.

Dr. Barlow, late Bishop of Lincoln, in his Letter to Mr. John Tombes, Printed in his Life-time and owned by him.

He saith thus; I believe and know, that there is neither Precept nor Practice in the Scripture for Paedo-Baptism; nor any just Evidence for it, for about two hundred Years after Christ. Sure I am, that in the Primitive Times they were to be Catechumeni, and then Illuminati, or Baptizati: And this not only Children of Pagans, or Pagans Converted; but Chil∣dren of Christian Parents. Nazianzen, though a Bishop's Son, being not Baptized till he was about Thirty Years of Age, as appears in his Life. And the like is evident in some others.

I have seen what my Learned and Worthy Friend Dr. Ham∣mond, Mr. Baxter, and others, say in defence of it; and I confess I wonder not a little, that Men of such Parts should say so much to so little purpose: For I have not seen any thing like an Argument for it.

I shall add no more, but my hearty Wishes, That as God was pleased to make the Hearing of the Dispute, of such use to several Persons, that they were fully convinced (by the Grace of God towards them) of the Truth of the Doctrine of Holy Baptism, and did in few Days after submit them∣selves

to be Dipt in Water, upon Profession of their Faith, according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, That it may also be of the like use to many others, in the Reading of it; that so there may be added to the Church daily▪ such as shall be Saved. And then my design will be answered in its Publication; and I shall count it a sufficient Reward for all my Pains and Labour therein.

FINIS.