AN Impartial Account OF THE Portsmouth DISPUTATION. With some Just REFLECTIONS on Dr. RVSSEL's Pretended Narrative. By Samuel Chandler, William Leigh, Benjamin Robinson. With an Abridgement of those Discourses that were the Innocent Occasion of that Disputation.  
LONDON: Printed for john Laurence at the Angel in the Poultry, and Abraham Chandler over-against the White Hart-Inn in Aldersgate-Street; and are to be Sold by A. Baldwin at the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane. 1699.   

To the Honourable Major General Earl, Governor; Colonel John Gibson, Lieutenant Governor, of His Majesty's Garrison of Portsmouth: and the Worshipful Henry Seager, Esq Mayor of Portsmouth.  
Honourable Sirs,  
WITH Hearts full of Loyalty and Thankfulness to our Rightful Sovereign King William, we humbly lay these Papers at your Feet, who procured for us a Grant from his Majesty, publicly to vindicate the Common Cause of the Reformed Churches, and settle the wavering among us in the belief and practice of those truths, which tend very much ●o the advancement of Early Piety and Religion.  
We appeal to you, the Honourable Go●ernour and Worshipful Mayor, as to Disin●erested Persons, and most proper Judges of ●he Truth and Impartiality of our Account; ●hich is, what was taken by the Pens of the ●cribes, without any material alteration. We thankfully acknowledge your Condescending Goodness, in Honouring us with your presence and preventing disorders, during the time of disputation.  
May you still continue maintainers of Justice and discipline in your respective Posts: May your Names be transmitted to Posterity, as Glorious Reformers of a corrupt and degenerate Age, in conformity to the Injunctions and Example of our Gracious King: May others be excited and influenced by your Example: May these hopeful beginnings be carried on, that there may be no profane Swearers or Debauchees in your Streets, and Vice and Wickedness may be put out of Countenance and not able to show its Head: This is, and shall be the constant Prayer of,  
Your Honours Obliged Humble Servant, SAMVEL CHANDLER   

To all the Pious and Sober amongst them that deny, or doubt of Infant Baptism.  
Brethren-in our Lord,  
THE matters in difference betwixt you and us, are not so great, as the angry and uncharitable on either side would make 'em seem; there may be some (we doubt not) both with us and you, that do Hereticate and Damn each other on the Account of their disagreeing Judgements about Baptism: (Nor is it to be wondered at▪ if those who are strangers to all serious Religion, should put the respective differing Opinions in the place and stead of it:) But we were willing here to let the World see, there are with us, and (we Charitably hope) with you also, those that are both of a sounder Judgement and of a much better Spirit.  
We are persuaded, there are many amongst you, who (though you do descent from us in some lesser matters, yet) are agreed with us in the most important and concerning things. Wherever there are real Christians on both sides, in any Controversy, (as we make no question but there are in this) it is most certain, the things wherein they are agreed, are greater, far greater, than any wherein they can differ. When all the great substantials of Christianity are out of doubt, both with you and us, that which shall afterwards remain as a disagreed, or doub●ed thing on either side, must needs be Comparatively very small, and not worthy of the Heat and Zeal too commonly laid out upon it.  
And we must profess for our own parts, (though wherein we differ from you, we are verily persuaded, the truth is on our side, yet reckoning it to be only truth of an inferior Nature) it has not been without regret, that we have been engaged in this Contention. The Disputation itself was not what we sought, or was forward to; it was not we that gave the Challenge: Nor when given, would we have accepted it, had it not been so circumstanced, as that our refusal would most probably have redounded to the detriment and dishonour of what we believe to be the Truth: Many, especially the more injudicious part of the Auditory, before whom the Challenge was given, not being likely to judge otherwise, than that what we maintain would not bear a public hearing, should we have declined a Disputation, which we were so publicly provoked to.  
And for this Publication of it, 'tis what we are alike passive in: The World should have had no after-trouble about that Disputation, might we have been the choosers: But since your Dr. Russel has abused the World with a most false and unfair Account of that matter; we are necessitated in our own defence, as well as that of the Truth, to Publish the ensuing Papers. We would not therefore, that either what was said by us at the Disputation, or is further added in these our Reflections should be misunderstood by you: This is not work that we take pleasure in, but what we have been constrained to: And if any Reflections should occur that may seem too severe; we would here declare, they proceed not from displeasure against the whole Body of those whose sentiments agree with yours, nor against any one barely for that reason: But we could not but manifest a just indignation against the Egregious falsehood and uncharitableness of him that published the late (pretended) Narrative: And we desire, that no one of the Pious and Sober amongst you, would apply to yourselves, what was only intended as a Rebuke to him, or those who are too like him. Nor will the rest of you (we hope) take it ill from us, that we expose, as it deserves, that which is so base, tho' it be found with a Person that pretends, in the present Controversy, to fall in with you. You will not, you cannot once imagine, that his Concurrence with you in this Point of Baptism, will hollow or excuse all that deceit and falsehood that appears in him: Nor can you your selves like it, that he should endeavour to support your cause with lies.  
This being premised, we are in hopes, the following Papers, if they should do no good amongst you, may at least be looked into without doing hurt. So far as they report matters of fact, we can boldly, and without fear of being put to shame, appeal to the All-knowing-God, and to the Numerous Assembly, who were Witnesses, that they are undisguised Truths: And so far as they contain Matters of Opinion on one side or other, we leave you and all others to judge for themselves.  
Yet (as we have already intimated) we would not that the matters contended about in these Papers, should be over-magnified on either side: Or that it should be supposed we differ further than we do: And 'tis a much greater pleasure to us, to offer any thing that may tend to narrow and lessen, than to Enhance the differences there are betwixt you and us. After we had been tired with an unpleasing contention, we therefore (as a refreshment to ourselves) undertook this more delightful service; here to attempt, so far as may be, (notwithstanding little differences) to reconcile, and bring nearer to each other the Pious and Sober on both sides. To which end we shall, first, mention to you how far, and wherein we apprehend we are agreed: And thence manifest in the second place, how inconsiderable the things are, about which we differ.  
I. We are agreed, (without doubt) in every thing that is of absolute necessity to salvation: This is as certain as that there are christian's (that are truly such) on both sides; that there are those that shall be saved on both sides: Nothing that does Essentially constitute Christianity is controverted betwixt us: And even with reference to this very point of Baptism, we are verily persuaded, there is a nearer agreement betwixt the truly Pious and Serious on both sides, than is commonly considered. Particularly,  

(1.) It is, it must needs be agreed by all such, that there is no possibility of salvation, for any Soul in our Apostate World, but only in and through Christ, Act. 4.12.  
(2.) 'Tis also agreed, that the Covenant of Grace does fix the terms, upon which Christ will be a Saviour to any: That thence only it is to be known, whom he will save, and whom he will not be a Saviour to.  
(3.) 'Tis also undeniably plain, and what cannot but be agreed amongst us, that according to the Constitution of that Covenant Christ will be the Saviour of none, but such as are sincerely devoted to God: He never was, nor will he ever be the Saviour of any others; but such he has always b●en a Saviour to, jer. 31.33. Psal. 119.38. Heb. 7.25. Upon these Principles it is, that every serious Soul does devote itself to God in hope. And we doubt not, but you are also agreed with us.  
(4.) That such who are Solicitous about their own salvation, cannot be unconcerned about the State of their Infants. Every Pious Parent will (under the apprehension of that Gild and Corruption which they inherit with their Nature) with enlarged Affections yearn over their tender little ones, and earnestly cry to God for 'em, and gladly lay hold upon ●●y word of hope concerning 'em. Those amongst you who are Parents, feel and know what is the heart of a Parent towards its Child: And however you are (as all that are truly Christians are) unfeignedly concerned for, and desirous to promote the common salvation; yet for your Infants, that are so near you, that are (as it were) parts of yourselves, you feel yet another kind of concern: You cannot with any satisfaction die from 'em; you can't, when they are dying, part with 'em, unless ●ou hav● some ground of hope concerning 'em▪ Nor can any thing afford you Encouragement to hope; without som● word of Promise. Nor is there any word of Promise, only to such as are devoted to God and i● Covenant wi●h him, in and through Christ: To be without Christ, without hope, and without God in the W●rld, is represented as the Case of such as are out of Covenant with him, strangers to his Covenant, Eph. 2.12. Wherefore,  
(5.) ●e doubt not but you are also agreed with us, that we should do all that in us lies, that our Infants may be in Covenant ●ith G●d: You do desire (as well as we) t●●t they may be so; and we are persuaded, you will do whate●●r you are satisfy●d is your D●t●, in order to it. You w●ll (nay, we doubt not but you do) pray earnestly for ' e●; and 〈◊〉 ●is Promise with him, that he will b● your ●od; and the God of your Seed; and depending upon this promise, you do actually surrender and devote 'em to him; and look upon yourselves as obliged to educa●● and train 'em up for him, etc. This is what those that are seriously Religious amongst you, do, and dare not but do: Nor is any part of this a Controversy betwixt you and us. Now here is the internal and most excellent part of Baptism, in which we are agreed.— After which, 'tis somewhat to be wondered at, that there should be any remaining difference, as to this matter: However, that which can after such Agreements remain a Controversy, must needs be concluded to be of an inferior and less concerning Nature. Which we now therefore come to speak to.   
II. The things in which we differ (from what has been already said) appear to be no fundamental ones: Which will also yet farther be manifested, if the things themselves be particularly considered. That which is the Subject of the ensuing Papers, and which is commonly agitated betwixt you and us, may be reduced to these two heads, viz. (1.) Whether we may, and aught to devote our Infants to God in the Ordinance of Baptism? And, (2.) Whether in the Administration of it, we be obliged to dip the Person wholly under Water? As to both which, it must be owned, we are yet disagreed: You judging the Ordinance of Baptism, which we apply to Infants, not to belong to 'em: And while we apprehend sprinkling itself, especially pouring a little water upon the Face of a Person, or dipping his Face alone in water, to be Lawful in the Administration of this Ordinance; you suppose we are obliged to dip, or plunge the Person wholly into water. And while there is a difference in our apprehensions, it must also be concluded, that on one side or the other, there is certainly a mistake: But tho' there be a mistake, suppose it to be on your side, or on ours, 'tis far from being a damning one.  

1. We will first (as we think we have just reason) suppose the mistake to be with you; yet we dare not, nor do Accounted it a fatal, or undoing one. Those of your way, that agree with us as above (and all the Pious and Sober p●rt ●f you, we take it, for granted, do) do only differ from us in a Circumstance. You agree with us, that your Infants are to be entered into Covenant with God in Christ, and seriously devoted to him, etc. You only doubt, whether it may be done in this Ordinance: Now though we are persuaded, that they should not only be entered into Covenant, but also that this solemnity of Baptism should Accompany, and add force to the surrender we make of 'em to God: Yet we do not Account it so absolutely necessary, as if the salvation either of the Parent or Child were suspended on it. We read indeed that Baptism saves us, 1 Pet. 3.21. But the Apostle to prevent mistake, immediately explains himself, and tells us, he does not intend it of the External Ceremony, but of the Answer of a good Conscience: Our unfeigned consent to the Baptismal Covenant for ourselves and for those that we have Power to consent, and accept it for; and our sincere devoting ourselves and them in that Covenant to God in Christ, is indeed necessary to theirs, and to our own salvation; and this is that Answer of a good Conscience, which the Apostle calls for: But where this is found, tho' the External Ceremony should be omitted (whether through the mistake of the Parent, or through the absence of a Minister) we don't think God will, nor are we any of those who dare, pass a sentence of Death in such a Case. 
And for the point of dipping, we reckon it to be yet much less material: The necessity of it we do indeed oppose; and doubt not but the Ordinance of Baptism (so far as concerns this Controversy) is Lawfully Administered, if water be applied to a Person, in any other way or manner; so it be done with the awful and solemn mention of the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: But yet, supposing it be so ordered, that the Life of the Person be not hazarded by it; nor any breach made upon the Rules of modesty, we do not Condemn the Practice of Dipping: And in those two Cases, all that are truly Pious amongst yourselves, must (upon deliberation) needs disallow it, as well as we.   
2. And now we will suppose the mistake to be on our part: We make no difficulty of it, to own that we are fallible: As wise and good Men as we are, nay, far wiser and better than we, have been mistaken; and 'tis no wonder if in many things we be so; Nay, we doubt not, but in some things at least, we are so, because we are Men: Tho' we do not know, that in any Principle of Religion we are so, for that we dare not knowingly Err: Wherein soever we are convinced of a mistake, we do, and we are willing to retract it: But we may be in an error, and may not know it: And we will for a while suppose (tho' we have never yet seen reason to grant) that, as to the matters in difference betwixt you and us, we are under a mistake: Yet neither can the mistake on our side endanger the Foundations, supposing we should be mistaken. For,   
As to the Point of Infant-Baptism, if it should prove to be a mistake, 'tis only a Circumstantial one, a mistake as to the time of Administration: This is the worst that can be made of it, if we should be mistaken: And where is the damage, supposing we should be too early laid under the most-solemn Bonds to be the Lords? Tho' by the way, we see not how this can be done too soon. We do not, we dare not rest upon our having been baptised in Infancy, as if that would of itself save us: We do indeed reckon it to be Valid Baptism, and that we do not need to be Baptised again, when we become Adult; but we don't think our Infant-Baptism will stand instead of Regeneration, or exempt us from the necessity of Faith, Repentance, or a life of serious Holiness, when we are Adult; Nay, we look upon ourselves (by Virtue of that Baptism) to lie under unalterable Bonds and Obligations hereunto. And now, tho' it should be supposed, we are under a mistake, as to the time, when this Ordinance should be Administered; yet can it have no hurtful influence upon us, or upon any of those great, and important Principles of Christianity in which we are agreed.  
Or again, if you suppose us also mistaken as to the manner of application, while we do not (as you) dip, or plunge the Person baptised wholly under water, but only apply a small quantity of water to 'em, most commonly by Pouring it upon their Faces: Yet neither can this surely, (if a mistake) be by you Accounted a very dangerous one: No part of serious Religion can be thought to be endangered by it. The Kingdom of Christ does not consist in Dipping; so as that he that is Dipped shall be saved, and he that is not Dipped shall be Damned: You yourselves dare not lay so great a stress upon it. What! Shall a Soul that is truly Penitent, and with serious Actings of Faith and Love, gives up itself to God in Christ, a Soul that resolvedly lies at his Foot, that will not wickedly depart from him; Can you think such a Soul shall yet be rejected by him, merely because in their Baptism they were not Dipped under water! This is what upon serious deliberation, we are persuaded, none of you dare avow.  
III. Now then, since it appears, that the matters in contest betwixt you and us (at least amongst the Pious and Sober on both sides) are so inconsiderable and comparatively small; we would make it the matter of our earnest request to you, that they may accordingly be owned and looked upon by you, do not enhance or over-rate the Value of 'em: By this means, a happy mutual agreement might most probably be effected, however all the ill effects of our remaining disagreements would be prevented or removed. (1.) No way more likely than this to promote an Agreement amongst us: Apprehensions that the differences are greater, and the mistakes more dangerous than they are, do naturally influence both si●e to ●ook with strangenest upon each other, and prejudice 'em against what is, or may be offered on either side: But were it rightly considered, how little the difference is, it would yet tend to ●ake it less; by softening minds on each side, and preparing 'em with greater impartiality to entertain whatever convincing evidence is laid before 'em. Or, (2.) If it would not remove our differences themselves, it would (at least) prevent all the ill effects of 'em: For instance, why might we not love, and live like Christians (notwithstanding the remaining differences in our Opinions)? Wh● might we not pray with, and for each other? Wh● might we not, according to the Rule of the Gospel, look favourably upon each others mistakes, and receive each other to Love and Communion, avoiding doubtful disputations, Rom. 14. throughout the Chapter. We solemnly declare, we are ready thus to receive you; we dare not but receive all whom we are persuaded, our Lord himself will receive: Let there not be a breach maintained on your Part, while we impose no sinful, or so much as suspected Term of Communion on you. Or, supposing upon one or other mistake, you should think fit to separate yourselves from us, from our Assemblies, yet, at least, we beg, you would in your distinct Assemblies see to it, that the great and uncontroverted Principles of Christianity may be ordinarily, and with greatest warmth and earnestness insisted on; and let not your Heat and Zeal be laid out upon the little things in which we differ: Let your endeavours be rather to make Men Christians, than to make 'em Antipaedobaptists; and show that you prefer the interests of our common Lord, before those of your particular Party. For a close, we would leave those Words of the Apostle with you, Phil. 3.15, 16. Nevertheless, wherein we have already attained, let us walk by the ●ame Rule, let us mind the same things: And if in any thing ye ●e neve● 〈◊〉- minded, God will reveal even this unto you.  
B. Robinson, S. Chandler, W. Leigh.   

AN INTRODUCTION.  
MUST I again, be called out to engage in this irksome and unpleasing Controversy? Who had much rather spend my time in healing differences, and provoking all Christians to love one another. I have often read with some pleasing satisfaction, those Expressions of Archbishop Tillotson, (that Great Good Man, and National loss.) I know not (says he) whether St. Paul, 
Tillotson, Pres. to six Ser. on family Religion, pag. 3.  who had been taken up into the third Heavens, did by that Question of his; Where is the Disputer of this World? Intent to insinuate that this wrangling work hath place only in this World, and upon this Earth, where only there is a dust to be raised; but will have no place in the other. But whether St. Paul intended this or not, the thing itself I think is true, that in the other World all things will be clear and past dispute; to be sure among the Blessed, and probably also among the miserable, unless fierce and furious Contentions, with great heat, without light, about things of no moment and concernment to them, should be designed for a part of their torment. I had much rather be dressing my own Soul for Eternity, and preparing others for those calm and peaceable Regions, where perfect Charity and Good will Reign for ever: Than in fomenting and increasing those Divisions among Christians, which are too unmeasurably wide already.  
My Charity is not confined to any particular Sect, or Party of Christians; but I bear a hearty good will to all that agree in the Essentials of Religion, Notwithstanding their distant Opinions, in matters of an inferior Nature. A reformed Catholic Christian, is a Name that pleaseth me better, than any of those distinguishing Titles which the Contentions of Men have occasioned in the Christian Church. Tho' I was urged by many serious Christians, before the disputation, to Print my Sermons on this subject, which were managed rather in a Practical than Controversal way; Yet so averse was I to foment or Increase differences, that I willingly forbore. And if Dr. Russel had only Printed the Imperfect Notes of his own Scribes, perhaps we should still have been silent; and left the World to judge between us: but seeing he hath been guilty of so many Notorious Falsehoods and Misrepresentations, both on his side and ours, we are unavoidably constrained to Vindicate the Truths of Christ, the common cause of the reformed Churches, and our own Reputation, against the bold insolence of a Scandalous Libeler:  
The true occasion of my being engaged in this matter is this: I was invited some years ago, before any Anabaptist Meeting was set up at Gosport, to Preach a Lecture once a fortnight at Portsmouth; which I have continued (I bless God with no small success) ever since. In the course of my Lecture, I thought it most adviseable to give my hearers a true and orderly Scheme of the Christian Religion. Having therefore explained the Creed and Lords Prayer (Mr. Williams undertaking the Ten Commandments) I did without any importunity from others, but purely in the method I had laid down, explain the Doctrine of the Sacraments: Here I largely explained the Nature of Baptism, and could not do right to my subject, without defending our own practice as to Infants right, and the way of Administration. Dr. Russel himself knows how falsely he hath Published to the World, that I inveighed against the Poor Baptists (as he calls them) with most severe Reflections: Seeing he hath read those Notes which Mr. Ring took of my Sermons. The very hardest expression in those Notes, is the Title of mistaken Brethren. These Sermons Mr. Samuel Ring, who, tho' of that persuasion, usually attends our Lecture, penned down in short hand, and afterwards wrote out at length; with an Innocent design (as he himself professeth) to show them to some of his Brethren. Farmer Bows, a pretended Messenger of the Churches, hearing of this, applies himself to Mr. Ring for a sight of these Sermons, and having read them, used words to this effect. Shall we bear this? If we suffer Mr. Chandler thus to go on, it will prejudice our cause. Mr. Ring replied, Mr. Chandler takes but the same liberty in his own Congregation, to defend his own practice, that we do in ours.  
But this was not satisfactory. Mr. Bowes goes over to Gosport, to Mr. John Webber, Pastor of a Congregation of particular Anabaptists, as they are called, opposite in their judgements, in many great points of Religion, to those in Portsmouth. Mr. Webber (as he told me himself) was willing to live in Peace, and did not desire to be engaged: But Mr. Leddel, and some others, Men of heat without light, were very urgent, and willing even to accept of Matthew Caffen for their Champion, whom Mr. Bows proposed: A Man that denies both the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, and is justly protested against, by many of his Brethren, and particularly by Dr. Russel. Mr. Webber justly refused to own Matthew Caffen, as a Christian, or a Brother. And therefore, since they would have a dispute, rather proposed Dr. Russel. Accordingly, December 21▪ 98. Mr. Bows, Mr. Webber, and about twenty of their Party came to my Lecture boldly to confront me, when I was Answering the Anabaptists Objections. At the Conclusion, Farmer Bowes stands up, and in the Name of the rest Challenges me with Preaching Doctrines false and wholly untrue, and desired I would admit of a public dispute with an ordained Minister of the Gospel: This bold Challenge I accepted, provided they would procure a Man that understood the regular Laws of disputation, and preliminaries were first settled. Accordingly the next Day, Preliminaries were settled and Papers interchanged, between Thomas Bows and William Leddel, as asserters of the two Questions on the one part: And Francis Williams, and Samuel Chandler, as deniers of the two Questions on the other Part. This Dr. Russel perfectly conceals, in his Account of the Preliminaries, pag. 4. Because it would have confuted his slander upon the Learned Dr. Smith, as if he designed, by saying, he that asserts must prove, that the Proof lay upon us; but this is Accounted for elsewhere. Mr. Webber afterwards declares his utter dislike of the dispute, and wished i● had never been: And before myself and Mr. Smith, denied that the Letter in the Name of the Church at Gosport, Narr. p. 2. was wrote with his Knowledge or consent. Therefore we Impute not the Falsehood of the matter, as if Mr. Chandler had inveighed against and ridiculed their Practice; nor the false Grammar in that Letter to him. Mr. Ring expressed his hearty sorrow by Letter (as well as otherwise) in these following words— (after having sent me the notes of my Sermons, and delivered a Copy of the Disputation to Mr. Smith.)— I am troubled at the Sad Effects of the Disputation. I mean the difference it hath raised among those, that I hope are all the People of God: And the Grief it may have occasioned to any of his faithful Ministers: And most of all that I have contributed any thing towards it: Tho' it hath been by accident and no otherwise: and as I pray God forgive me, so I beg your pardon, and crave a share in your Prayers. I always respected you, as a Minister of Christ jesus; have prayed for the Success of your Ministry, and have heard you with a great deal of Satisfaction, and I hope have profited by it; and shall continue to do so, and so attend your Ministry without the le●st Prejudice, and I hope with better Success than formerly. I am, Sir, yours in all Christian Service. Samuel Ring. Portsmouth, May 29.99.  
This is the true Copy of Mr. Ring's Letter to me, who according to his promise usually attends our Lecture at Portsmouth, Now let the World judge whether my Prejudice against the growth of the Church at Gosport, could put me upon this work; or whether I ever inveighed against them; many of them can testify to the contrary, to whom I have, and shall bear an hearty love and good will; own them as excellent Servants of Christ, and be very willing to contribute my Assistance, to help them forward in their way to Heaven. But alas! 'Tis Mr. Bows and his party that are afraid of the growth of Mr. Webbers' Congregation: And therefore did suspend from their Communion, one Isaac Harman by Name, a joiner in Portsmouth, for bearing Mr. Webber: this the Young Man told me himself, and asked my advice about it; and Mr. Bows told me himself before Mr. Francis Williams, that if he could Believe that our Doctrine of Original Sin, he should think Infants had need of Baptism: And wondered the People of Gosport should Scruple the Practice of Infant Baptism, and yet maintain the Doctrine of Original Sin. This Man it seems wants not express Command or Example, but only to be feelingly acquainted with the universal Corruption of Humane Nature; and then would readily Embrace our Practice. I Pray God open his Eyes, and convince him of this great truth, which is of far greater weight than this of Baptism.   

AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THOSE SERMONS THAT WERE The Innocent Occasion of the Disputation.  
HEre I must unavoidably dip my Pen in the Watery Controversy: I love not to meddle with matters of Dispute, especially where Sober and Good Men are at Odds: But I cannot do right to my Subject, without mentioning the Grounds of our Practice, both as to the Subjects of Baptism, and the manner of its Administration. I shall according to the order o● the Disputation,  
First, mention what I offered, as to the Subjects of Baptism.  
1. I shall prove from Scripture, 〈◊〉 warrantableness of Infant Baptism, or of the Baptising the Infants of Believing Parents. Here I shall not burden you with many Scriptures, that might be produced: but only mention some few that I think most clear.  
First From Mat. 28.19. Go, Disciple all Nations Baptising them. From hence I thus argue.  
1. The Infants of Believing Parents are Disciples, and therefore aught to be Baptised. Now we have a plain Text that these Infants are Disciples, in Act● 15.19. Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear? This Yoke was that of Circumcision, a very painful ordinance. Administered to Infants of 8 days old; this Yoke these false Teachers would impose not only on the Gentile Christians but their Infants too, and therefore St. Paul was acused by them, that he taught, they should not Circumcise their Children nor Keep the Customs of Moses, Acts 21.21. Now when our Saviour says Go, Disciple all Nations: The Apostles must need understand, that such as were Disciples in the Jewish State, should be admitted to this ordinance in the Christian Church.  
2. Infants are a considerable part of a Nation, and therefore we cannot suppose, they should be excluded, except they were excluded by Name or good Consequence.  
3. All Nations, is here put in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews. As if our Saviour had said, whereas the Jews have hitherto been the peculiar People of God, and admitted to peculiar Privileges, now I admit all Nations to the same Privileges, the Jews only enjoyed before; Eph. 2.12, 13. Now it was a great Privilege among the Jews, that their Infants were dedicated and devoted to God, and admitted into his Church, and Covenant, in their early years; therefore the Apostles must needs understand, when our Saviour said, all Nations should be Discipled, that the Gentiles, and their Children should be admitted to the same Privileges the Jews enjoyed before.  
4. Our Saviour must needs intend Infants unless he had excluded them. If he would not be any longer a God in Covenant with them, he would have razed out their Names. Suppose the words had run thus: Go, Disciple all Nations, Circumcising them; the Apostles must have understood that their Infants were intended, and why not the same, when only the rite is altered? Or suppose it had run, Go, Disciple the jews, Baptising them; They must needs admit Infants that were admitted before. So that whereas our mistaken Brethren call for an express Scripture for Infant Baptism, we have reason to answer, there needs express Scripture to revoke that Privilege and Covenant Interest which Infants enjoyed before. If it had been Christ's intention to have excluded Infants from the Church, there must have been a positive Law, where such an intention of Christ should have been expressed: for nothing can make that unlawful, which was a Duty before, but a direct and ' express prohibition from the Legislator himself; 
* Stilling-Fleet Iren. pag. 7.  who alone hath Power to Rescind, as well as make Laws. You know there was a great Controversy, whether Circumcision should continue or not, Acts 21.21: and certainly there would have been a far greater, if, upon their coming to Christ, their Infants had been excluded the Church, and ranked with Heathens; but seeing we find no Objections made about this matter, nor that our Saviour ever revoked this Privilege, we may be assured they still enjoy it.  
5. The Practice of Baptising Infants was customary among the jews; those that have but dipped their fingers in the jewish Writings know, that not only Proselytes (as Mr. Tombs acknowledgeth) but Native jews themselves, were admitted into the Church by Circumcision, as an initiating ordinance; by Baptism, as a purifying Ceremony, to wash them from Legal Uncleanness, which they might ignorantly contract; and by Sacrifice to expiate their Sin; and that this was not a Corrupt Tradition, but grounded on those many Texts, that require washing from uncleanness: And therefore this Practice is grounded on, Gen. 35.2. Exod. 19.10. by the Gemera Talmud, and Maimonides. Now therefore seeing Infants were thus admitted by Baptism, and our Saviour was pleased to adopt this custom into a Christian Sacrament, we have reason to believe that Infants are admitted now as before.  
2. Another Scripture is in Acts 2.38, 39 Repent and be Baptised, for the promise is to you and to your Children; and to those afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. The Apostle Peter doth in this place persuade those he had convinced, of the greatness of their Sin, in murdering the Lord of Glory, penitently to return to God, and then Incourages them to hope, they should again be received into Favour with God: And, says he, the promise will be made good, not only to you but to your Children too: And to the Gentile World also, Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call. Thence I argue.  
1. This promise, was the great promise to Abraham. Some pretend it is only that promise in joel 2.8. God's giving extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; That their Sons and Daughters should Prophecy. But this cannot be, because that promise was not fulfilled to all afar off. Have all the Gifts of Tongues? Do all Prophecy? The promise signifys the great promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed, Gen. 17.17. Therefore this is called the promise Gal. 3.14. That the blessing ' of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, through jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, through Faith. The Blessing of Abraham: That great Blessing that God would be a God to him and his seed. Now if this great Blessing come to the Gentiles, Then they and their seed ought to receive the token of the Covenant; the Children of the promise ought to have the Seal affixed to it.  
2. The Apostle useth these words to comfort the jews, that had Imprecated Divine Vengeance on themselves and their Children, Infants as well as others; a curse that lies on the unbelieving jews to this day: His blood be upon us and our Children; no doubt, but many of those, that were pricked at the heart at Peter's Sermon, joined with the rabble in that Loud cry; Crucify him, Crucify him, and were concerned not only for themselves but their Children too; therefore the Apostle uses this Argument, if you penitently return to God by faith in Christ, the curse shall be taken off from you and your Children, you and yours shall be admitted again, and not only so, but those that are afar off, the Gentile World, when called.  
3. If the words were to be restrained, only to those that believe and repent themselves, and concern not their Infants; this would be an Argument to persuade the jews, to continue in the Synagogue still, rather than to come into the Christian Church. While Synagogue worship stood before Christ's coming, God had promised happy Privileges, to themselves and Children; but now if afterwards their Children must be cast off, and looked on as no other than Heathens, and strangers to the Covenants of promise, this would incline them rather to continue in the Synagogue, than enter into the Christian Church.  
A Third Scripture is in Rom. 11.15, 25. In those verses, these following things are contained.  
1. The Apostle speaks of breaking off from and grasfing into the Visible Church; that the Unbelieving jews were broken off from that Visible Church, to which they were related before, by their positive unbelief, and rejecting Christ; and that the Gentile Believers were graffed in, and so partook of those Privileges, from which the Gentiles were broken off.  
2. Some only were broken off, the rest that Believed, enjoyed the same Privileges they did before, v. 17 th'. Now this was a great Privilege, that God would be a God to them and to their seed: Therefore they still enjoyed the same.  
3. What Privileges the jews left, the whole body shall be restored to when the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in, v. 25. therefore their Infants shall be restored to the same Privileges th● enjoyed before.  
4. The Believing Gentiles are admitted to the Privileges the jews enjoyed before, graffed into the same Olive-Tree, v. 24. S●eing jewish infants w●re interested in the Church and Covenant of God, the Inf●●ts of Believing Gentiles are also in Covenant, and consequently aught to have Baptism, the Seal, applied to them.  
4. A Fourth Scripture is in 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. Hence I argue, If the Children of Believers are holy, than this ordinance ought to be Administered to them. The only difficulty here, is to understand what is meant, by holiness in this place.  
1. Internal Holiness cannot be ascribed to all the Infants of believers. Because we find by sad experience, that many of them shamefully Apostatise from God, and thereby plainly show, the Seed of Grace was never in them, 1 john 3.9.  
2. Neither can it be understood of bare Legitimacy, as our mistaken brethren pretend. For,  
1. The Word is never used in this sense, in all the Scripture.  
2. The Children of Heathens, if begotten in Lawful Wedlock, are Legitimate, as well as of Believers; therefore this can be no distinguishing mark, as in this place.  
3. The Apostle's Argument would be weak and unconcluding, if he should only prove that they were Lawful Man and Wife, because their Children were Lawfully begotten. The Question proposed to the Apostle was this. Supposing a believing Wife Married to an unbeliever, or e contra, whether the believer should dwell with the unbeliever, or part one from another. The Apostle Answers,  
If the unbeliever be willing to abide, let them do so, For the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband, and else were ●our Children unclean, but now are they Holy. Because one Parent is a believer, therefore their Children are peculiarly related to God, and in Covenant with him.  
Now if bare Legitimacy were intended, than the Argument would run thus: You have no Reason to question, whether you are Man and Wife, because your Children are Lawfully begotten. Can any believe any could question the one, and yet grant the other?  
4. This would not answer the Corinthians Scruple: They did not question, whether co-habiting with Unbelievers, exposed them to Fornication; but, whether it would expose them to Irreligion, or at least, great Temptations. Now, says the Apostle, How Knowest thou, O Man, but thou may'st save thy Wife? However, your Children are holy, because one is a believer.  
3. By holiness is meant Relative or Federal Holiness. That the Children of Believers are Separated to God, entered into a new Relation to him, by virtue of his Covenant. Thus the Israelites are said to be a holy People, because Separated to God as his peculiar Treasure, Deut. 14.2.26.19. the Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy, as related to God and enjoying distinguishing marks of Favour, therefore aught to have this distinguishing ordinance applied to them?  
2. What Privileges are the Infants of Believers Invested in by Baptism?  
1. They are solemnly admitted into the Visible Church; no longer strangers to the Covenants of Promise, but more nearly related to God, than the Infants of Heathens.  
2. Peculiarly interested in the Church's Prayers; we are bound indeed to pray for all Men, but more peculiarly for the Church of God, Gal: 6.16.  
3. Have a Title to God's peculiar care. God gives his Angels a charge over them, Mat. 18.10.  
4. They stand nearer to, and are the more especial Objects of the promises of Grace, Is. 44.3.59. Infants are called by God's Name, therefore tho' God's Grace is free, yet we have more Reason to hope, the promises will be made good to them than others. The vein of Election frequently runs in the Channel of Believing Parents, and their seed.  
5. They are put into a new Covenant Relation. As Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, to himself and seed, Rom. 4.11. So this ordinance of Baptism, shall be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, to Believers and their seed.  
6. If they die during their Infant State, they shall be saved. Our Saviour useth this Argument for the proof of the Resurrection. I am the God of Abraham, Mat. 22.32. Now for God to be the God of any, is to distinguish them from others by his rewards; he did not do thus for Abraham, and his Family, in this World, therefore there is another, Heb. 11.16. Now when God is said to be a God to Believers and their seed, the meaning is, he will be a rewarder of them; therefore if they die in their Infant State, they have a promise to rely on, that God will receive them to Salvation. Whereas others must leave their Children to the unfathomable depths of Divine Mercy, as they do the Heathen World.  
3. The Practical uses of Infant Baptism beyond that of Years. This I do the rather, to take off the Common Objection, that Infant Baptism is an useless Ordinance.  
1. By Baptising our Infants we practically own our Original Pollution. Those Baptised at R●per Years own themselves Sinners by Practice; but do not necessarily own, that there is a Fountain of Sin within: But when we offer our Children to be Baptised, we acknowledge that we have been Instruments of conveying polluted Natures to our Infants; and that they need washing by the Blood and Spirit of Christ. Thus the Prophet sets forth our sinful State, by the Pollutions of a new born Infant, Ezek. 16.4.  
2. Hereby we practically acknowledge the Necessity of God's free Grace in order to our recovery. As an Infant cannot contribute to his Baptism, but is purely passive; So we can contribute nothing, by any Work or Merit of our own, towards obtaining the Grace of God, and Regenerating Influences of his Spirit. It is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth Mercy, Rom. 9.16.  
3. Hereby we practically own Christ's universal Headship, that he is Lord of all, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions. Those that deny their Children, to be in Covenant with God, hereby deny them to be Visible Members of Christ; And thus rob him of a great part of his Subjects, and indeed rob themselves of that comfort they might enjoy: they look upon their Infants, as in the same case and State, with the Heathen World. If Christ save them, it is by a Prerogative of Mercy, and not as his Members or Covenant Children; but for this cause Christ both Died, ●●d Rose, and revived, that he might be the Lord, of the Dead and Living. Rom. 14.9. and as Christ whilst an Infant himself, was head of the Church, so he is pleased to admit of Infant Members, in Covenant with him.  
4. Infant Baptism lays stronger Obligations on Parents, to train up their Children for God. Certainly 'tis a mighty Obligation on a Parent to consider. 1. I have Solemnly devoted my Child to God. Solemnly promised, before the Minister, and in the Face of a great Congregation, that I will Endeavour by hearty Prayers, Serious Instructions, and a Religious Example, to train up my Child for God; the vows of the Lord are upon me, and I shall add perjury to the rest of my Sins, if I Neglect them. The Prophet makes it, a great Agravation of the Israelites Sin, that they had taken their Sons and Daughters that they had Born unto God, and Sacraficed them to Idols. Ezek. 16.21. and it follows, Thou hast slain my Children. God calls them his Children, as born in his Family, and Solemnly devoted to him. So the sin of Christians will be highly aggravated, if they bring up their Children for the destroyer, and Neglect those Parental Instructions, they have obliged themselves to.  
5. Infant Baptism Engages Children to acquaint themselves, with the Terms and Tenor of the Covenant. When Children are told by their Parents, how Solemnly they were entered into Covenant with God, this engages them to inquire betimes, what they are by Nature, what they may be by Grace, and to understand all the Principles of Religion, in order to that end.  
6. Infant Baptism Engages us against Sin Betimes. We are prepossessed with a happy Prejudice against Sin, in our Early Years; and this is a great advantage. When Hannibal was but 9 years Old, his Father made him la● his hand upon the Altar, and Swear, that he would be an Irreconcilable Enemy to the Romans: And this was the Reason he would never admit of any Peace with them. My Friends, we were Engaged for God against Sin, and the Devil, as our Irreconcilable Enemies, not at 9 Years Old, but in our Infant State; and this obliges us to maintain a constant Enmity against them for ever.  
7. Infant Baptism is a great Encouragement for Faith in Prayer, with Respect to our Children. Those that have dedicated their Children to God in Baptism, may pray to God, with larger Measures of Faith and Hope, than such as have Neglected this Duty. They may say, Lord I have resigned them up unto thee; Brought them to thine Authorised Representative to be listed into thy Family; consented for them, to the claims of thy Covenant; and the token of thy Covenant, hath been applied to them; let the Promises of thy Covenant be made good to them. They are called by thy Name, do thou receive them: They are Visible Members of thy Church. Oh give them the Favours that belong to thy Children. A Visible Relation to God is a good Encouragement for Faith in Prayer. We are called by thy Name: Thou bearest not Rule over them. jer. 14.9. Those that have not thus dedicated their Children to God, can only say, Lord be Merciful to them, tho' they are not called by thy Name, and make them thine. But we have a better Plea; and can say, Lord they are called by thy Name.  
8. Infant Baptism adds to the Parents comfort. They may comfortably hope as to their living seed, that if they are Faithful in training them up for God, he will according to his promise, Is. 44.3. pour out his Spirit and Blessing upon them: and as to those that die in an Infant State, they have Reason to Believe and hope, that they are happy, because God hath promised to be a God to them, and to their seed: Whereas those that Neglect this ordinance have no more Reason to hope for the Salvation of their Infants, than the Heathens; must only leave them, to the unfathomable depths of God's Goodness, having no promise to rely upon.  
4. I shall answer some Principal Objections against this Truth.  
1. There is no Precept nor Example for Infant Baptism, in all the New Testament; This is a Common Objection, and therefore deserves a distinct answer,  
1. To this I Answer: What Express Command or Example can they produce for previous Examination of Persons that offer themselves to be Baptised; for Stated Prayer, before and after this Ordinance; or for dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water? All these things must be deduced by consequence; for no express Scripture can be produced for them. I may add, what express Command have they for singing Psalms in Rhyme and Metre, which is the Practice of the most Orthodox Anabaptists at this day? I mention this the rather, to convince Mr. Webber and his adherents, what a doughty Champion they have chosen for themselves. For this Dr. Russel hath written some Animadversions on his Brother Allen's Essay, on singing Psalms; wherein he advances the very same Arguments, against their Practice of singing Psalms, that he doth against ours for Infant Baptism; and therefore hath proved himself a Hackney disputant, that hath one constant Road, and train of Arguments, upon all occasions. Perhaps I may be so dull of Apprehension, as not to be able to Answer them, therefore must cry, Men of Israel help. The Arguments of Russel against Allen, pag. 9  
If it doth not appear from Scripture, or any Authentic. History, that the Psalms of David were Translated into Rhyme or Metre till the 16 th' Century, than it is Impossible any Church could so sing them, as our Brethren now do; the Major is undeniable, the Minor I thus prove.  
If it be so recorded, you or some other are able to show it.  
Further, if Singing in Rhyme or Metre was never practised in any Church, till the 16 th' Century, than it was, because our Lord Jesus had not commanded it so to be.  
If our Lord had Commanded it▪ his Apostles would have so taught the Churches.  
If the Apostles were faithful in the discharge of their Ministry, and kept back nothing, that was profitable to the Churches, but declared to them the whole Council ●● God, than they did teach the Churches all that the Lord Jesus Commanded.  
If the Apostles did teach the Churches to sing in Rhyme and Metre, than it is somewhere so recorded in the New Testament. Thus argues this mighty Man of Logic; but as he cannot distinguish between Rhyme and Metre, ●o I can see▪ neither Rhyme nor Reason in his discourse: these were the Arguments for want of better, he ●rif●ed w●th at Portsmouth; but Mr. Webber (to whose Civility I am indebted, for a sight of this curious piece,) must either Renounce his beloved Rhimes, or comply with the Practice of Infant Baptism, notwithstanding the Wonderful Arguments of his Champion to the contrary. But to return from this digression.  
2. Those Truths that were Established in the Old Testament, are rather supposed than positively expressed in the New; but the Grounds and Foundations upon which Infant Baptism stands, were Established in the Old Testament. Infants were then admitted into the Covenant and Church of God: Except therefore Christ had blotted their Names out of the Covenant, and Rolls of the Church; They are to be continued there, under the New Testament. Thus a Magistracy was settled under the Old Testament, but there is no precept for it under the New; the Lawfulness of War was then settled, but supposed, not express under the New. The forbidden degrees of Marriage, were settled under the Old Testament: No need of mentioning them again under the New.  
3. Ans. There are many Virtual and General Commands for the Baptising of Infants in the New Testament, which were mentioned before.  
4. Ans. There was no need of an express Command, because it was the constant Practice of the Church, when the Scripture was written, in conformity to the Practice of the jews, for many Ages before. I cannot here express myself better, than in the words of the Learned Lightfoot 
* Lightfoots Harmony on Joh. 1 25.  If Baptism and Baptising of Infants had been as strange and unheard of a thing, till john Baptist came; as Circumcision was ●till God appointed it to Abraham; There would then no doubt, have been an express Command for Baptising Infants, as there was for Circumcising them. But when the Baptising of Infants, was a thing commonly known and used, as appears by Contestable Evidence from all their Writers; there need not be express Assertions, that such and such Persons were to be the Objects of Baptism, when it was as well known before the Gospel began, that Men, Women and Children were Baptised, as it is to be known that the Sun is up when it shines at noon day.  
5. There would need a Positive Command, to exclude Infants, who were admitted into Covenant before. The jews were extremely tender of their Privileges, and you know there was a great dispute among them, whether their Children should be Circumcised, Acts. 21.21. Now if their Children were wholly cast out of Covenant, this would have enraged them much more; seeing therefore, there is not one word in Scripture, that once mentions the unchurching of Infants, not one Apostle, that once questions or discovers it, the believing jews did not once Scruple it, nor the unbelieving once charge it on Christ; nor the Council in Acts 15. Reveal it, though they that taught Infants should be Circumcised, did suppose they were Church-Members. I say seeing all these things are True, Infants are Church-Members still, and consequently aught to be Baptised.  
6. There are Examples of whole Households that were Baptised in Scripture, and we may well conclude, as Abraham's Children, In Luk. 19.9. Christ saith to Zaccheus, Salvation is come to this House, for that he also is the Son of Abraham. Zaceheus was a Publican, and a gatherer of the Roman Tribute, and perhaps a Gentile, but upon his Faith in Christ, he becomes a Spiritual Son of Abraham, and Salvation comes not only to himself, but his House; God becomes a God to him and his. So when we read of so many Households' Baptised, upon the Parents and Masters Believing, we have Reason to conclude their Infants were Baptised, as Abraham and his were Circumcised.  
7. There is no Instance of any Christian Child, whose Baptism was deferred still he came to Years. There was great Reason that they who had been jews or Heathens before, should upon their undertaking Christianity, be Baptised at Years: as Abraham at the first Institution of Circumcision was Circumcised, when he was old; but we may well suppose, their Children (as abraham's,) were Baptised with them, and afterwards in their Infant State. Now it is utterly unaccountable, that in that long tract of time, between St. Mathews Gospel and the Revelations, when many Christian Infants were grown adult, we should read of none that were Baptised, but only of jews and Heathens, I say this is unaccountable, and therefore supposeth they were Baptised in Infancy.  
Obj. 2. Infants are uncapable of performing the Duties prerequired to Baptism. Of confessing their Sins, Mat. 3.6. Of Repenting, Acts 2.38. Of gladly receiving the word, Acts 2.41. Of Believing, Mar. 16.16.  
1. Infants are admitted on the account of their Parent's faith. As the Infants of Believing jews, so are the Infants of Christians; nor is this at all unreasonable. For as Infants contract Gild from their Parents, why may they not also partake of Mercy, on account of their Parents; except God be more inclined to Acts of Justice, than Mercy▪ As many were healed of their Bodily diseases, by the faith of their Parents, Math. 15.28. So why may they not be admitted into God's Church on the same account? As the jewish Infants, Covenanted with God, in and by their Parents, Deut. 29.11.12. So why may not Christian Infant's Covenant in and by them? As Children are said to come to Christ, being brought in the Arms of their Nurses or Parents, Luk. 18.15.16. So why may they not be said Spiritually to come to Christ, in the Arms of their Parent's Faith? As Parents enter their children's Names in Leases and Covenants, and the Children are obliged to stand to these Covenants, and do Enjoy these Privileges, when they come to Years: So why may they not enter their children's Names into the Covenant, and Church of God, tho' at present they are uncapable of Personally Engaging themselves?  
2. Infants are obliged to these duties as soon as they are capable; and their Early Engagements in Baptism, lay the more strong and forcible Obligation upon them to do so. If afterwards they revolt from God, their Sin will be more highly aggravated, as adding Perjury and Apostasy to the rest of their Sins: and this may be one Reason why, sometimes, the Children of Believers are worse than others, because they Sin against greater Light and Love, and stronger Engagements than other men, and therefore justly provoke the Holy Spirit to forsake them. The Levites of a Month Old are said to keep the charge of the Sanctuary, because they were devoted to this Office, and bound to it when capable, Num. 3.28. So the Infants of Believers are devoted to the Service of God: And bound to Believe, repent, confess their Sins, and gladly receive the word, as soon as capable.  
3. These Texts therefore only show what was required of grown Persons, when Baptism was first appointed in the Christian Church. Those Persons were either jews or Heathens before, and therefore must Renounce their former Errors, and profess the Christian Faith; but this is no Prejudice against Infants who are to be admitted with them. As when Abraham was Circumcised, he first Believed in God, and Submitted to this Ordinance, but afterwards the Infants of the jews were Circumcised in their Infant State●: So if we were to Preach to the Indians, we must first persuade them to Believe and Repent before Baptism; but when once they had Believed, their Infants would have the same right with themselves.  
4. As to Mar. 16.16. because many are apt to insist on the order of the words, and argue that Faith is put before Baptism, and therefore aught to preceded it,  
I Answer: The order of the words is not always to be exactly regarded. For confessing ●f Sin is put after Baptisms Matth. 3.6. Besides, this would condemn all Infants; for, if, because they cannot Believe, they ought not to be Baptised, then for the same Reason they must all be damned. 'Tis not positively said he that is not Baptised shall be damned; Baptism is not of Absolute: Necessity to Salvation: But it is positively said, he that Believeth not sh●ll be damned. If the latter part of this verse be Interpreted of Grown Persons, so also must the● former. As for Grown Persons, Faith must go before Baptism: But it doth not follow, that Infants are hence excluded from Baptism, no more than▪ from Salvation. Our Saviour doth therefore here, only give a general direction to his Apostles, to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, and admit the Gentiles to the same Privileges with the jews, and shows them the Issue of the Execution of their Commission; that those jews, or Heathens that would renounce their former Idolatry, and believing y submit to the Ordinance, as a Solemn Entrance into the Church, should be saved; bu● those that wilfully persisted in unbelief, should be damned. So that this is no Prejudice to Infants, who are still in Covenant with God thro' their Parent's Faith, and were never cast out.  
I proceed to the 2d General Question. After what manner, the outward Element in Baptism, aught to be applied, whether by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water, or whether pouring Water on the Face be not sufficient? To which I Answer,  
1. It is not Absolutely Necessary that this Ordinance should be administered by dipping or plunging the whole Body under the Water. There are many mistaken Brethren lay too great a stress on this; but it proceeds from their ignorance of the Scriptures.  
1. The Holy Ghost, never uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which most frequently signifys to dip, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Now why should the Holy Ghost consecrate a new World for this Ordinance; if dipping had been the only way of administering it? Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always used where dipping is signified. Mat. 26.23. joh. 13.26. He that dippeth with me in the dish. Luk 16.24. dip his finger. Rev. 19.13. with Garments dipped in Blood.  
2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is used in a differing sense in Scripture. Thus you read, Mar. 7.4. The Pharisees eat not except they wash oft.  
Now the way of washing among the jews, was this; a Servant was ready to p●ur water, on his Master's hands, hence Elisha is thus described. 2 Kings 3.11. Here is Elisha that poured Water on the hands of his Master Eli●ah. So we read of washing of cups and pots, Brazen Vessels, and Tables or Beds. Mar. 7.4. the Greek word is Baptizo. Surely they did not carry them out to a River and dip them there, but poured water on them, and so made them clean. Again, Heb. 9.10. we read of divers washings; Baptisms in the Greek. Now what were these Baptisms but v. 13.21. Moses' Sprinkling the Book and all the People, with the Blood of Calves and Goats and Water. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the same thing. Let not Injudicious People therefore pretend, that ours is only Rantism, when we find in Scripture that Rantism; and Baptism are used promiscuously for the same.  
3. There is no certainty that dipping was ever used in Scripture times. All those Scriptures that are commonly urged to this purpose, may be easily applied another way. If we begin with john the Baptist, he is said to Baptise not in, but with Water, as Christ with the Holy Ghost and Fire. Luk. 3.16. Now how did Christ Baptise with the Holy Ghost and Fire? but at the day of pentecost when the Holy Ghost was poured on them. Acts. 10.45. I know the learned Casaubon's witty Criticism that in Acts 2. when the Holy Ghost came upon them it is said; There came a ●ound from Heaven as of a rushing might● wind, and it filled the House. So that they were as in a Fish Pond Overwhelmed with the Holy Ghost. But to this I Answer, it was the sound that filled the House, and not the Cloven Tongues of Fire, which were the Emblems of the Holy Ghost, and sure they were not Overwhelmed wi●h these; but that promise was made good. I will pour out my Spirit. Acts 2.17. Now the pouring out of the Spirit, is frequently represented by pouring out water, Is. 44.3.  
But several Scriptures are pretended for dipping; the most material are these.  
1. Mat. 3.16. jesus went up out of the water.  
I Answer, he might according to the Practice of those times, go into the Water to wash his Feet, foul with Travelling, and john might pour Water on his Face; but the Greek word may be rendered, he went up from the Water. The like Answer may be given to Mar. 1.9. jesus was Baptised of john in jordan. It doth not prove his whole Body was plunged there. Nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently signifys to, and if we compare this place with Mat. 3.13. jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to jordan to be Baptised of john. So here we may read the words with a Parenthesis▪ And jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, (and was Baptised of john) to jordan  
2. Another Scripture is joh. 3.23. john Baptised in Enon, because there was much Water there.  
I Answer, much Water may be meant not of depth but length, many streams and Rivulets, where john and his Disciples might conveniently together Baptise or pour Water on the Multitudes.  
3. Another Scripture is Acts 8.38. where Philip and the Eunuch are said both to go down into the Water; whence some would infer that the Eunuch was dipped. I Answer, they might only go down to, and come from the Water. So the Greek may be rendered, the Water running in the valleys. B●t if Men will insist on the letter of the Text, Philip must dip himself as well as the Eunuch; for they both went down. Or they might go ankle deep, and Philip might pour Water on his Head or Face: either of these interp●etations are probable, and therefore it cannot Necessarily be proved he was dipped; besides the unlikelihood that he was dipped on a Journey, when perhaps he might have no clothes to change.  
4. The Principal Scripture they boast of, is Rom. 6.4. Being Buried with Christ in Baptism. Whence they argue B●p●ism must represent a Burial, therefore the whole B●dy must be covered with Water. This Text we have given a distinct Answer to, in our Reflections on Dr: Russel, Chap. 2. Refl. 12.13. therefore thither I Refer the Reader, and shall only say here,  
1. It is no where said that Baptism represents Christ's Burial, but only that we are obliged to conform ourselves thereby to Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection, to die to Sin, and rise again to newness of Life: This we do whatever ri●e be used.  
2. In our way (if that will satisfy) there is a Representation of Christ's Death▪ the pouring out of Water denoting the pouring his Blood or Soul; of his Burial, as the Face the Principal part of the Body, is put under the Water; of his Resurrection when the Child is taken up and delivered again to its Parents or O●●erers.  
3. If they will keep strictly to the Significancy of a Burial; the Person to be Baptised, must not walk into the Water, but be taken up by the Baptizer and cast down into it: for indeed the difference between our way and theirs is only this, we Baptise the face and they Baptise the head and shoulders too.  
4. Metaphors must not be stretched too far, and let our Brethren take heed, how they stretch this Expression so, as to Justify the Practice of others, that differ from them; you read v. 6. our Old Man is Crucify'd with Christ. H●●ce the Romanists infer the Necessity of Crossing in Ba●●ism; let not the Metaphor therefore be stretched too ●ar.  
5. There are many more Scriptures, that have an Allusion to Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face: thus we r●ad Is. 44.3. I will pour Water on him that is thirsty, etc. which is Interpreted of Gods pouring out his Spirit, and Blessing on the seed of Believers. So Heb. 10.22. Having your Heart's Sprinkled from an Evil Conscience, and your bodies washed with pure Water: And many other places. So that our way most fairly Represents the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ, together with the Application of his Blood, and Spirit; and the Anabaptists of Amsterdam are so sensible of this, that they Generally Baptise by pouring Water upon the Head.  
4. There is great probability, (if not certainty) that many were not dipped in Scripture times. Particularly Acts 2.41. we read of 3000 Baptised in part of a day. And this was at jerusalem where there were no Rivers, but only the Brook Cedron. Besides these were either dipped naked, or with their clothes; if Naked, this would be an unseemly sight, and look as if they were full of New Wine indeed, tho' (by the way) I think that part, that is Baptised, aught to be Naked, to Represent our Nakedness before God: if with their clothes this would be as strange, for it cannot be expected, they brought clothes with them at that Juncture, and it would have been very unseemly, to see so many Persons come out of the Water in such a condition▪ and go down to their Houses, which might be at a great distance; not to mention that it was hardly possible, for the 12 Apostles, if we should add the 70 Disciples to them (〈◊〉 y●●●he Text mentions not) to dip 3000 in so sho●t a time, they had need have brawny Arms and an Here●●●an strength to do this.  
Again we read A●ts 9 ●. 18. that Saul after 3 days fasting w●s Baptised by Ananias, we read not that he wen● out of the Ho●●e; nor is it probable, that God (who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice,) would at that time require, he should be plunged in Cold Water, which might Prejudice his Health o● Life.  
Again Acts 16.33. The Jailor and all his were Baptised at midnight. 'Tis unlikely they went to a River at that time.  
5. It is not the quantity of Water, but the quality that is Significant. As in the other Sacrament we are Commanded to Eat Bread and drink Wine in Remembrance of Christ; So in this to be washed in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost: and as in the other, it is not said what quantity of Bread we shall Eat, or Wine we shall Drink; So neither in this, after what manner the Water shall be applied, whether by dipping, Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face. It might be equally pretended, that we must Eat and Drink plentifully at the Lord's Table, because this best sets forth a Feast, as it is called 1 Cor. 5.8. or Eat a whole Loaf to represent our partaking of Christ's fullness, and receiving from him Grace for Grace: there is as much Necessity for this, as for dipping, to represent our Burial with Christ. But as a small bit of Bread, and Moderate Draught of Wine, doth significantly represent the Death of Christ; so a little Water doth as significantly Represent the cleansing virtue of Christ's Blood.  
6. It is very unlikely that dipping, which when mentioned in Scripture, is generally used as a token of God's Vengeance, should in this Sacrament be used as a token of his Mercy. Thus the Old World was dipped and drowned for their Sins, God's Vengeance followed them, and they sunk as lead in the Mighty Waters:  
But Noah and his Family, whose entrance into the Ark, was a Type of Baptism, as that is an Entrance into the Christian Church 1 Pet. 3.21. They were only wet with the Rain they met with in their passage. Thus the Egyptians were dipped and drowned in the Red-Sea, but the Israelites were Baptised unto Moses, in the Cloud and the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. by the dewing of the Cloud, and dashing of the Waves. Thus the Lord Jesus shall come down from Heaven, to render Vengeance on his Antichristian Enemies, with Garments dipped in Blood. Rev. 19, 1●. I know the usual Objection of Naaman the Syrian, of whom it is said 2 Kings 5, 14. he dipped himself in the River jordan, Seven times, according to the saying of the Man of God. But this Objection I took off in the Disputation itself Not according to the fa●se representation of the Narrative, but thus: The Prophet bids him. v. 10 go and wash in jordan Seven times; and he washed himself, as the H●●rew●ay ●ay be rendered, according to the saying of the M●n of God As when our Saviour commanded the blind man ●o w●n the Pool of Siloam, john 9.7. he had 〈◊〉 need to dip himself, but only to wash his Eyes▪ So N●aman the Syrian had no need to wash any part of his bod●, b●t only where he was affected w●th Leprosy: And therefore till it can be proved, that N●aman was a Leper ●ll over, this Objection is of no Force. This was my Answer then, which perfectly silenced Russel. This Argument I used n●t to prove the absolute Unlawfulness of D●pping; for I lay n●●tr●ss at all on the Mode of Administration; ●nd though Dipping be used in these places, as a Token of Vengeance, y●● it may be applied in a way of Mercy. But I h●nce argue, it i● very unlikely, that this way, and no other must be used in Baptism. And this may be a sufficient Answer to all tha● little Story about Mr. Fox in the Preface, and the Trifling Queries upon it.  
2. Sprinkling, or pouring Water on the Face, in this Sacrament, is most significant. We pour wate● on the Face, the Noblest and Chiefest Part of Man That part we pour water on is naked to represent our nakedness before God; and this is sufficient, and significantly represents, 

1. The Blood of Christ, whereby we are cleansed from the Gild and Fi●th of Sin. To this, there are particular Allusions made in many places of Scripture, Heb. 10, 22.12.23. 1 Pet. 1, 2.  
2. It fitly Represents the Communications of the Spirit. The Spirit of God is promised to us under this Metaphor, Is. 44.3.52.15, Ezek. 36.25. Thus in this Ordinance is signifyd the pouring out of the Spirit, to cleanse ●s from that Pollution we have contracted.  
3. Pouring Water on the Face, doth most aptly Represent the Grace of God applied to us, rather than dipping, whereby it may seem, as if we first applied our selves to him. In dipping, the body is applied to the Water; in pouring, Water is applied to the body.    
This most fitly Represents, that God is the first Mover in our Conversion; that Regeneration and Sanctification is his Work: Whereas the other way, inclines us rather to think that we cleanse and purify ourselves. It is no wonder, that they who magnify the Power of Nature, and think by their own free will they change and convert themselves, are for this way; but as for those that better understand the Scriptures, and their own weakness, and acknowledge ●hat it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth Mercy, Rom. 9, 16. and that God Works in us both to will and to do, according to his own Good Pleasure, Phil. 2, 13. It seems very unreasonable for them to use such a Practice, that Intimates as if Man had Power to change and convert himself.   


Mr. Chandler's Prologue.  
My Friends,  
IT is not out of Pride or Vanity, that I now appear in this Place, upon this occasion. Most of you know; and I suppose many of you have heard, that, in the course of my Lecture here, I have been discoursing of the Principles of Religion: And having explained the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, did undertake to treat of the Doctrine of the Sacraments, particularly that of Baptism. Those that then heard me know, that I spoke with a great deal of Modesty, calling those who deny Infant-Baptism, by no harder Name than Mistaken Brethren; when I was unavoidably engaged in this Disputation by a bold and confident Challenge given me, which I knew not how to refuse, unless I would betray that Truth which I believe to be the Truth of the Gospel. They themselves not being able to answer the Arguments I then used, have cried out, Men of Israel, come and help; and therefore have sent for this Gentleman from London. Now I desire that all things may be managed with the greatest Fairness and▪ Calmness, that we may debate of these matters as Christians, that nothing may be done that is tumultuous or disorderly: And, as we have the Favour of the Government both Civil and Military, so, that we may give them no occasion to repent of giving this Liberty. And I hope we shall all of us be willing to submit to the Truth, as it is revealed in the Gospel, and lay ourselves open to Conviction. I have no more to add, but desire all of you to join with me in this one Request, That God would grant that Truth may prevail.   
Chand. 
THE Questions to be disputed of are these in order:  

Q. 1. Whether, according to the Commission of our Lord jesus Christ, Adult Believers only are the proper Subjects of Baptism, or their Infants also?  
Q. 2. Whether this Ordinance of Baptism, as appointed by Christ, be to be administered by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming only, and not otherwise? We deny, and they affirm.   Russel. 
I do suppose it 〈◊〉 be necessary to understand, how much of this, that we affirm, Mr. Chandler owns, that we may not dispute about those things wherein we are agreed; whether you do own, that Adult Believers are the proper Subjects of Baptism?  Chand. 
If they were not baptised in Infancy, they ought to be so at Age.  Rus. 
You do suppose then that they are to be baptised by virtue of some Commission, and that, the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Chand. 
Yes.  Rus. 
Then with respect to the first Question, Whether Adult believers only, or whether Infants also may be admitted to Baptism? And I suppose you do expect that I should be Opponent.  Chan. 
Yes, that was agreed.  Rus. 
Well then, I shall endeavour (God assisting) to prove, Infants are not, according to Christ's Commission, the proper Subjects of Baptism.  Arg. 
If Christ hath no where required any of his Minister to baptise Infants, than the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
But Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers, etc. Ergo.  Chan. 
I distinguish here upon your Antecedent. If you mean by Christ's Requiring, his Requiring Infants expressly, and by Name, there is no need of it: But i● by Requiring, you mean either expressly, or by just consequence; then I deny your Mi●or.  Rus. 
Then you suppose that Christ hath no where required it.  Chan. 
No. Distinguish between express words and good consequential Proofs.  Rus. 
It's necessary the people should know w●at Mr Chandler means; and therefore—  Robinson. 
It's fit indeed they should know what he means; but it's also fit he should explain his own meaning. You must not be permitted to e●plain Mr. Chandler's meaning in your own words. Your business is to prove what he denies.  Rus. 
I do hope, Gentlemen, that you will not thus break in upon us.  Rob. 
I do stand here on purpose to prevent Irregularity in the Disputants.  Leigh. 
This Gentleman is our Moderator.  Rus. 
Pray what is your Name?  Rob. 
My Name is Robinson.  Rus. 
Now if you will be silent, and Mr. Chandler be pleased to tell me what part of my Argument he denies, I shall proceed in the defence of i●.  Chan. 
Repeat your Argument then.  Rus. 
If Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to baptise Infants, than the Baptism o● Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord J. C. But Christ hath no where required, etc. Ergo.  Chan. 
Here, I say, as to the Major: If you mean by requiring, Christ's expressly Requiring in so many words, that Infants shall be baptised, than I deny the Consequence; but if you mean, that by genuine consequence it cannot be drawn from Scripture; I deny the Minor.  Rus. 
The Term is very lax. I do not say, that he hath no where commanded it, but no where required it. If it be any where required, it's enough. Give a direct Answer.  Leigh. 
Will you allow good Scripture Consequence to be Proof in this case; or do you expect Scripture words expressly? Let us not dispute in the dark.  
Gentlemen, you that are Notaries, pray observe how ambiguously Mr. Russel expresseth himself. He will not say whether he'll allow just Scripture consequence for sufficient Proof.  Rus. 
I think I give my Sense in as plain words as I can.  L. 
Will you have it in express words, or good Consequence?  Williams. 
No reason for such a Distinction, because our brother hath said 
* Any way; before, the words were any where.  any way.  Rus. 
It's all one to me, so you prove 
† He is attempting to shift the Opponency.  the thing: Prove it any way.  Chand. 
I deny your Minor.  Rus. 
I prove it thus. Only I would let the people know what you say, viz. That Christ hath 
* Somewhere. The word is again altered from any way to somewhere.  somewhere required his Ministers to baptise Infants.  Leigh. 
Either expressly, or by Just Consequence.  Rus. 
If Christ hath any where required any of his Ministers to baptise Infants, than it is somewhere so recorded in the holy Scripture. But it is no where so recorded in the holy Scripture. Therefore.  Chand. 
This I answer by distinguishing again; If you mean by being so recorded in holy Scripture, its being there in so many express words, than I deny your Consequence; but if you mean that it's not so by good consequence, I deny your Minor again.  Rus. 
Let us not confound the people with so many Distinctions, but plainly deny what part you please 
* The Dr. now seems unwilling again to allow Scripture Consequence. .  Leigh. 
I will make it appear, that there is that recorded in Scripture, which by just consequence will prove what you deny.  Rus. 
If you can prove it so recorded, 'tis enough. 
⸫ Here Mr. Leigh was willing (though the Respondent aught not to Prove) to offer Proof for the people's satisfaction.   Rob. 
Pray Mr. Leigh— Mr. Russel must prove, that it is not so recorded. This is what lies upon you, Sir 
* Mr. Robinson will keep him to the Opponency. .  Rus. 
I would know what part Mr. Chandler denies.  Chan. 
I deny the Minor.  Rus. 
Then you say, it's somewhere so recorded in the holy Scriptures.  Chan. 
It's your business to prove the Negative.  Rus 
If it be somewhere so recorded in Scripture, than Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or some other person is able to show it. But neither Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or any other person is able to show it. Therefore.  Chan. 
I deny the Minor.  R●s. 
It's a Universal Negative, you must prove it. I appea●●o the Moderator.  Rob. 
This ought not to be put upon the Respondent. You must prove it still. Supposing that neither Mr. Chandler, nor Mr. Leigh, can give you an instance, you can't prove that none else can. If you can, we desire you would.  Will. 
You are but Moderator, Let the disputants alone.  Rob. 
But Mr. Russel appealed to me.  Rus. 
I would have these honourable persons here present, to consider that I am under great disadvantage— you are to give an Instance.  Rob. 
This is your Popular argument to shift the Opponency and turn it upon the Respondent.  Rus. 
If Mr. Chandler can give an instance, why do you hinder him? I say it's an Universal Negative, and I demand only an instance to the contrary.  Leigh. 
Offer him the Commission— All Nations.  Robin. 
No reason for it to be allowed; But if Mr. Chandler, is pleased to take the part of an Opponent upon him, Now he may.  
— I Suppose, Mr. Russel you must needs know, since you have been so often engaged in such work as this, that, according to all rules of Logic, you ought to prove the Negative. You do Universally Affirm this Proposition, tho' in form it runs Negatively, That no person can give one instance in any record of holy Scripture, from whence we are obliged to baptise infants! How do you prove this ● It lies upon you to prove it. Otherwise we must suppose Mr. Russel is a confident man, and asserts what he cannot prove.  Will. 
Mr. Moderator keep your place.  Rob. 
Sir I am in my place. I must not suffer the Disputants to break order: Mr. Chandler i● Respondent and you are Opponents, and therefore pray keep your p●ace.  Rus. 
I would take no●ice of one thing. Mr. Chandler hath preached to the People, That there is a plain command for Infant Baptism in Scripture, and I argue upon him to give but one Instance, and you will not suffer him to do it.  Leigh. 
It's not Mr. Chandler's Sermon, but the Question, which we now argue upon.  Rus. 
I hope that there are some Honourable P●●sons here that do understand the nature of this Controversy; And, I suppose, they will think it reasonable, that those who have made such a noise about this Practice ought to bring some colourable Proof for it. No, not one instance hath Mr. Chandler given. I am sure according to the rules of Dispute Mr. Chandler must prove the Negative.  Rob. 
I desire that the Persons here present would take notice, that however Mr. Chandler have asserted in this place, and very clearly proved the Baptism of Infants from the Commission of our Ld. I. C. yet you are not now to call upon him for proof, you having undertaken to prove the contrary. Mr. Chandler gives an answer; he denies your assertion, and therefore you must prove it, and not sit down and say, Do you prove the contrary, or else I'll take it.— But if you can carry this argument no farther, it's time to proceed to another.  Rus. 
So I design, if there be no answer given.  Chan. 
Here is an answer. I deny the Minor.  Rus. 
I have proved it, according to the Judgement of all present.  Leigh, 
According to the Judgement of those that understand the rules of Disputation, you ought to prove the Negative. But we will undertake to prove, that there is that recorded in Scripture which will prove by just Consequence what you deny.  Rob. 
If you will change sides you may.  Rus. 
This is no changing sides: For I do not design to quit the Opponency, only let him bring an instance. 
* The Drs. design even now was to turn the Opponency on us, as I can prove from a Letter of Mr. Jo. Williams. But now he will not quit the Opponency, and yet expects from us a Scripture Proof for Infant Baptism.   Leigh. 
I would beg one favour, i. e. the offering a few words. I'll undertake in any Disputation, Philosophical or Divine, by this method, to turn the Opponency on the Respondent. I'll but make him bring one Proof of what he says, and this way, immediately turn the Opponency on him.— And as for this, Here's a Gentleman that understands the Rules of Disputation.— I desire, Sir, you would declare whether Mr. Russel, be not obliged to prove the Negative he hath asserted.  Dr. Smith. 
According to the Rules of Disputation. Negantis non est probare. 
* Or, Asserenti incumbit probatio.   Rus. 
Well, what must I do?  Rob. 
Sir, you are to prove your Proposition. Here is this worthy Gentleman of the same mind.  Rus. 
How do you mean prove? The whole Current of Scripture sufficiently proves it. The total silence of Scripture in this matter is Proof; What is not in Scripture, etc.  Rob. 
If you can proceed no farther upon this, then it's time you go on.  Arg. 2. Rus. 
If Infants are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, than they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission. But they are not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Therefore, etc.  Chan. 
Here if you mean by Disciples, Actual and Complete Disciples, than I deny your Major. But if you mean Incomplete Disciples, such as are entered into a School in order to be instructed, and given up in order to learn there, I deny the Minor  Rus. 
The Major is this. If Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, than they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism.  Chand. 
Well then. As to your Major. That they that are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, are not capable Subjects of Baptism. Distinguish between Complete and Incomplete Disciples. 
* Here we expected that the Dr. should either have shown that this distinction is groundless, or that he should have brought it into his ne●t Syllogism. But he doth neither.   Rus. 
What doth he mean by denying my Major?  Rob. 
Mr. Chandler distinguishes between Complete and Incomplete Disciples. If you mean Complete Disciples, he denys the Major. If you mean Incomplete Disciples, he denys the Minor.  Rus. 
Well, come, Tell me what he means by Complete and Incomplete Disciples, by the Ministry of Men?  Chand. 
I mean by Complete Disciples, such as are actually capable of Learning; by Incomplete, such particularly, as are entered into the School of Christ in order to their future Learning, as we send Children to School before they are capable of Learning one Letter.  Rus. 
I do not talk of that, I speak of their being actually capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.  Chand. 
I deny that those, that are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men in your sense, are the only Subjects of Baptism. That's what you are to prove. 
* We seeing that the Dr. waved distinctions, and grounded his Discipleship by the Ministry of Men upon the word Teach, Mat. 28.19. And that because it goes before the Word Baptising. Therefore we denied the Major.   Rus. 
Well, if that be the thing you deny, you deny the Consequence. And I prove it thus. If our Lord in the Commission which he hath given for Holy Baptism hath required h●s Disciples and Apostles, who were Men, to make those Disciples by their Ministry who were to be Baptised, than my Consequence is true. But our Lord in the Commission hath, etc. Therefore.  Chand. 
I deny the Minor. He hath not Commanded all that were to be Baptised by the Apostles, first to be made Disciples by their Ministry in your sense; I think here aught to be a distinction. Persons may have a right to public visible entrance into the Church of God, before they are complete Disciples; that, we say, Infants have before Baptism, and so in a more imperfect sense are Disciples, but in a more perfect sense are made so by Baptism.  Rus. 
We are talking whether Infants are capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.  Leigh. 
We say, that as they are the Infants of believers, so they are in a more imperfect sense really Disciples before Baptism. And it's nothing, to talk of their being made such by the Ministry of Men.  Will. 
If they are such, than it is by the Ministry of Men.  Leigh. 
That I deny, Knowing that you Ground your Assertion upon the position of Teach before Baptise, Mat. 28.19.  Rus. 
Our Saviour hath joined Discipling and Baptising together. They are commanded first to make Disciples, and then to baptise them. Therefore, I say, if Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men, they are not, according to this Commission, to be baptised.  Chan. 
Prove that 
* Mr. Chandler calls for a Proof of the Consequent, a●● the Dr. goes upon the Proof of the Antecedent. .  Rus. 
If Infants have no Knowledge to discern between Good and Evil, than they are not capable to be made Disciples by the ministry of men. But they have no Knowledge, etc. Therefore, etc.  Chan. 
Here you trick all this while. I told you, by Disciples I meant incomplete ones, and such as are given up in order to be instructed in the School of Christ. I require you to prove that these ought not to be baptised, because not capable of Instruction by the Ministry of Men.  Rus. 
What do I care what you mean: we are speaking of the Commission of Christ.  Will. 
The Scripture says they must be Disciples according to the Commission.  Rus. 
We are talking of the Prerequisites to Baptism: Therefore it's plain, according to what I have told you, and the Argument is express and full, according to the words of the Text, that they must be made Disciples by the ministry of men, if they be to be baptised: For in Mark Christ commissioneth to go into all the World, and preach the Gospel to every Creature. In Mat. 28. they were to Disciple all Nations, and then to baptise them. Now if Infants be not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men, than they are not capable Subjects of Baptism. Now you denied this Consequence of the Major, which I proved thus 
* Here the Dr. blunders again, confounding Antecedent and Consequent. . If Infants have no Knowledge to discern between good and evil, than they are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men. But, etc.  Rob. 
By his former distinction he denies both Antecedent and Consequent.  Chan. 
I deny your Consequence with my former Distinction 
† i e. Because they are not capable of Instruction, or complete Discipleship by the Ministry of men; therefore that they are not to be baptised. .  Rus. 
Then you say, though they have no knowledge, yet still they are capable of being made Disciples by the ministry of men 
* Here is not a word of the Consequence, which is still denied; but be goes on upon the Antecedent. .  Chan. 
I only desire a Syllogism.  Rob. 
You industriously seek to hide your meaning. If you mean by Disciples such as are so in the fullest and compleatest Sense, Prove that all must be made such, in order to their being baptised. But if you mean Disciples in the lowest Sense, as it intends such as are given up in order to be instructed in the School of Christ, prove that Infants are not capable of being made such Disciples. This Mr. Chandler's Distinction puts upon you. We do not know what you mean.  Rus. 
The Argument is so plain, that I doubt not but any body of understanding may know what I mean; therefore it's strange that Mr. Chandler, Leigh, Robinson, do not understand me.  Leigh. 
We know there is a double sense of the word, and accordingly we deny either Antecedent or Consequent.  Chan. 
You will not allow the distinction of Complete or Incomplete Disciples, nor yet show it to be groundless.  Rus. 
Fix upon something.  Chan. 
I told you before, If in your Argument, by Disciples you mean Incomplete ones, I deny your Minor. But if Complete ones, I deny the Consequence of your Major.  Leigh. 
Give a direct answer according to this distinction; i. e. Either prove that Infants are not Incomplete Disciples, or that they are not to be baptised, because but Incomplete; i. e. not capable of Instruction by the Ministry of men.  Rus. 
Have Infants any knowledge?  Chan. 
No, not in actual exercise.  Rus. 
Then I proceed. If the Gospel, in the ministration of it, was appointed to inform men what is good and what is evil, and Infants have no knowledge to discern between good and evil, than Infants are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men 
* He takes no notice at all of the distinction, but goes on to prove that Infants can't be complete Disciples by the Ministry of Men. .  Leigh. 
You ought to add (Incomplete).  Rus. 
What doth he mean by Incomplete Disciples?  
Here Mr. Chandler is forced to explain his distinction, as before.  Rus. 
You forget we are speaking according to the Commission.  Chand. 
No I done't. I say, etc. As before.  Rus. 
Then by Complete you mean such as are Actually Disciples.  Leigh. 
A Complete Disciple is one actually capable of Learning. An Incomplete, is one given up as aforesaid in order to Learn. And we appeal to the whole Auditory, whether or no, a child of two years old thus devoted to Learning by the Resignation of the Parent and Acceptation of the Master, is not justly in an imperfect sense deemed a Scholar?  Rus. 
Infant's Scholars! Very mean Scholars indeed, not capable of Learning one word.  Leigh. 
I believe here is a Gentleman who teaches School. Sir, I would fain know whether no one may be accounted a Scholar, but he that is actually capable of Learning?  Mr. Ridge Schoolmaster. 
I take all to be Disciples in my School, provided entrance Money be paid, 
* Here followed a General Laughter.  whether they Learn or not.  Rus. 
I must appeal to these Honourable Persons, whether or no I did not tell Mr. Chandler, Complete Disciples, such as are made by the Ministry of Men? What's the meaning of all this Noise about such little Children, do you think?  Rob. 
Prove what Mr. Chandler denies.  Rus. 
Let me know, what Mr. Chandler denies. You say that they have no Knowledge, and that they are not Complete Disciples, the consequence than is, that they are not intended in the Commission, Mat. 28. Mar. 16. 
* This is the Consequence that hath been still denied, and no Proof offered.   Chand. 
Put it into a Syllogism.  Rus. 
There's no need of putting it into a Syllogism: For you have granted all the Parts of my Argument. Yes, every Part. You have granted. (1.) That Infants have no Knowledge to discern between good and evil. You have in the (2.) Place granted, that according to my Argument they are not capable of being made Complete Disciples by the Ministry of Men. The Consequence than is, that they are not at all intended in the Commission. 
* But the Dr. ought to have proved, either, that there are no Incomplete Disciples, or that they are excluded from the Commission for Bap●●● because they have no Knowledge, etc.   Rob. 
It's a most false thing you insinuate to the People, and what you yourself cannot but know to be false. For that the Consequence, which, you would persuade the People, Mr. Chandler allows, is what he hath all along denied. And if you can't prove it, pray proceed to another Argument.  Arg. 3. Rus. 
If the Apostle Paul did declare all the Council of God, and kept back nothing that was profitable for the Church of God, and yet did never declare the Baptism of infants to be an Institution of Christ, Then Infant Baptism is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostle Paul did declare all the Council of God, and kept back nothing. etc. And yet did never declare the Baptism of Infants, etc. Therefore, etc.  Leigh. 
Your Argument is very long. I deny that the Apostle Paul never spoke of Infant Baptism, which is part of your Minor. Prove that the Apostle Paul never did declare the Baptism of Infants.  Rus. 
If the Apostle Paul hath so declared it, then it's some where to be be found in the Writings of the new Testament. But it's no where to be found in the Writings of the New Testament. Therefore etc.  Leigh. 
I deny the consequence of your Major. For Paul might declare it, tho' the new Testament should not discover that he did; the Text you quote relates to the Church of Ephesus. And we have not the whole of the Apostles Sermons to them, no, not the hundredth part of them, he being among them for the space of two years. Now you must prove that this refers to that Epistle he hath left upon record to the Ephesians. This being all that is left to posterity in Holy Writ of several hundred Sermons that he preached to that Church, wherein he might speak often of Infant Baptism, tho' it be not mentioned in this short Epistle.  Rus. 
You than acknowledge, that it's no where recorded in the New Testament.  Leigh. 
I deny that the Apostle did write the whole New Testament. And then, Would you confine what Paul is there said to have declared to the Church of Ephesus, To what is left on record, Viz, that particular. Epistle we find inscribed to them? He had spoken to the Church of Ephesus all the Council of God, but we cannot suppose all that he delivered to them in 2 years to be contained within the compass of one short Epistle, containing but six Chapters.  Rus. 
Is all the Council, that the Apostle Paul wrote, in the New Testament? Is there any Commission for Infant Baptism in the whole New Testament? Do you think you speak any thing to me? I hope you'll own that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the only rule to direct us how we may serve and glorify God.  Leigh. 
Yes, that I will.  Rus. 
I refer you to that Scripture and you run to a certain sort of supposition, etc. 
* Here the Dr. neither denies that Paul did declare the Baptism of Infants in his Sermons, nor asserts that all kc Preached is left on record. — I am not talking of any Sermons that are not in the Scripture, but of what is in the Scripture. The words are plain, Acts 20.20. I have kept back nothing that was profitable for you, and v. 27. I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole Council of God. And again, 1 Cor. 4.17. He Declares, that his ways in Christ were such as he taught every where in every Church. I do not suppose that the Apostle Paul taught one Doctrine at one place, and another at another. Now if he never taught this Doctrine to the Church of Ephesus, nor to none else, I hope that then you'll acknowledge (since it's not to be found in the Writings of the New Testament) that he never declared the Baptism of Infants.  Leigh. 
I utterly deny it, because in the Writings of the New Testament, are not all the Sermons that Paul Preached.  Rus. 
I say this, if you'll declare before this People, that there is no Account that Paul did ever declare this in any of the Writings of the New Testament, It's sufficient; supposing the thing granted, that Paul's Epistles are not the whole of what he Preached. That's nothing to us, I suppose the People will not look any where else.  
If Paul so declared it, then it's 
* This Word It's may either refer to Paul's Declaration, or to Baptism. And this ambiguity caused some confusion afterwards.  somewhere to be found in the Writings of the New Testament. But It's no where to be found, etc.  Leigh. 
I utterly deny the Consequence.  Rus. 
Then if it be any where in the New Testament, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or some other Person is able to show it. But neither, etc. 
* Here the Dr. was to prove the Consequent, and he goes on to prove the Antecedent.   Leigh. 
I say, 'tis included in the Words, All Nations, Mat. 28. The Commission. 
* The Dr. would ramble and we rath●r follow than leave him. And gave the Words (All Nations) supposing by the Word (It) he meant Baptism.   Rus. 
Is Mr. Chandler of your mind. I tell you in my Argument, that it's not any where recorded in the New Testament, that Paul had thus declared the Baptism of Infants. And I deny that the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, tells you, that Paul did declare it.  Leigh. 
I Answer, that Paul might have declared the Baptism of Infants an hundred times over, and yet it might not be left on record in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Nor any part of the New Testament that he did so.  Rob. 
That's the Consequence you are now to prove. Because it's not left on record in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that therefore he never declared it to the Church of Ephesus.  Rus. 
I have neither Ephesus nor Paul's Epistles in my Arguments, yet you tell me.— Here was a general murmuring at the Drs. evasions, the weakness whereof was obvious to the Auditory  Leigh. 
I'll beg a little silence. And first read what this Gentleman Quotes, (Acts 20.)— The Apostle tells the Church of Ephesus, he had not shunned to declare to them the whole Council of God. From hence he concludes, (Without Proof) that all that Paul had declared to them was written and left on record; and because the Baptism of Infants doth not stand on record, as being part of what he declared to the Church of Ephesus, therefore that he never did declare it. Remember. To the Church of Ephesus he speaks. Now of all the whole Council of God, which he is said to have declared to them, there is but one Epistle containing six short Chapters left upon record. Can this short record contain all the Sermons that he Preached to them in two Years? Or dare any say, that he never declared to them the Baptism of Infants in two years' Sermons and Discourses, because it's not contained in this short record? And so I have done.  Rus. 
But I have not done with you, the Apostle Paul is the Person under consideration, and mentioned in my Argument, as one that did declare the whole Council of God, and kept back nothing that was profitable for them. 
* Who doubts this, And what is it to the purpose?   Leigh. 
The Church of the Ephesians. Pray remember that.  Rus. 
The Question under consideration and my Argument is of one that did declare the whole Council of God. And that the Apostle Paul did so, I prove, Acts 20.20. Compared, with v. 27. I have kept back nothing that was profitable for you, but have showed you and taught, etc. Testifying to jews and Greeks, etc. v. 26. He doth not only say, That he was pure from the Blood of these Ephesians, but from the Blood of all Men. For v. 27. I have not shunned to declare to you. I do say, that in this Text, Paul doth solemnly declare that he had declared all the Council of God, and I do say, that Paul was faithful. I believe Paul was as faithful, as laborious a Servant and Steward of Jesus Christ, as ever Christ had in the World. And I argue. If Paul did never declare the Baptism of Infants to be a Gospel Institution, then, I tell you, there can be no such thing. The Major is proved from the Words of the Text. The other I prove by a Syllogism, that if he declare it, it is somewhere so recorded in the New Testament. But it is, etc. 
* 
Remember he doth not mention any here to whom he had declared the Council, etc. but the Ephesians. He mentions Jews and Greeks, because there were Greeks or Hellenists at Ephesus, and many other places up and down, as well as Jews.  
And we don't Question but he did declare the whole Council, etc. and therefore Infant Baptism; but say it's not necessary to be left on record, as Preached by Paul, especially to these Ephesians, when there is other good Scripture Proof for it.  
But the Dr. makes a long harangue only to bring over his own Argument again, which he could not make good.    Chand. 
I deny both your Antecedent and Consequent.  Leigh. 
Here, Pray observe it Gentlemen, Greeks and jews were in Corinth, Ephesus, and various places where Paul planted Churches. And [all Men] very often signifies all sorts of Men. And Paul speaks still to these Ephesians, among whom were Jews and Greeks, all sorts of Men. And tho' it be a certain truth that Paul was pure from the blood of all Men, yet all may here be understood with Limitation, and so it may not be evident from this Text.  Rus. 
Did Paul ever speak one word of Infant Baptism.  Chan. 
If Paul did not, in what is on record to the Ephesians, what then? We deny the consequence of the Argument. That because Paul says he had declared the whole Council of God to the Church of Ephesus, among whom he Preached for 2 years, and yet doth not mention Infant Baptism in his Epistle left upon record to them, that therefore he did never speak of it to them, nor none elsewhere.  Rus. 
I am bound to answer here. If there are any other writings of Paul that are not contained in the New Testament, and you can produce them, than you say something to the purpose.  Rob. 
Because this is what Mr. Respondent puts upon you to prove, unless you prove that you prove nothing: That, tho' Paul did not shun to declare the whole Council of God; and did not declare Infant Baptism in his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, therefore he did not declare it in his Sermons to them.  Arg. 4. Rus. 
Christ's Commission doth show who are to be Baptised. But it doth not show that Infants are to be Baptised; Therefore Infants are not to be Baptised according to the Commission of our Lord.  Chan. 
I deny your Minor. That it doth not show that Infants are to be Baptised.  Rus. 
If the Commission of our Lord doth show that Infants are to be Baptised, than Mr. Chandler, Mr. Leigh, or some body else is able to show it. But neither Mr. Chandler. etc. Therefore etc.  Chand. 
It's included in the words, (All Nations.)  Rus. 
I prove it against you that Infants are not included in the words (All Nations) For if Infants then all Infants would be so. But you only allow Infants of believing parents.  Leigh. 
The force of this Argument is this. That unless we will Baptise all of all Nations we must Baptise none of any Nation.  Rus. 
No it it is not.  Leigh. 
I say they are included in the words (All Nations) you must prove that they are not. And first of all, gentlemans, I will appeal to you, Is it, in a Religious sense, improper to say, the whole Nation (suppose) of Palestine are Mahumetans, and so consequently, that their little Children are Young Mahumetans.  Chan. 
You must prove that all Infants are excluded from the words (All Nations.)  Rus. 
Would you have me then show you that there is a Limitation in the words (All Nations.)  Leigh. 
The Point ly's here. If he will invalidate my Answer, he must show, that, because all Nations are to be Baptised and infant are included in the words All Nations, therefore it follows, that all Infants are to be Baptised.  Rus. 
Therefore, if I show there is a Limitation I take away the force of the Argument, and this I do, by Mr. Chandler's confuting himself. 
* Here our Scribes were imperfect and I cannot Remember what ought to be inserted. But the force of the Argument is not removed.   Leigh. 
I deny your Minor, That Christ hath not included Infants in this Commission.  Rus. 
If those that Christ hath commanded to be Baptised must be disciples, than Infants are not included in this Commission. But those, etc. Therefore.  Leigh. 
I deny your Consequence.  Rus. 
I prove it thus. If there are no others Expressed in this Commission, than they are not included. But no others are Expressed. Therefore.  Leigh. 
They are employed. The good consequence of the Commission I insist upon. I say there is no Necessity for all the Subjects, included in this Commission, to be Disciples in the fullest and compleatest sense.  Rus. 
All those that are required to be Baptised by Christ's Commission are Disciples. But Infants are not capable to be made Disciples. Therefore etc.  Leigh. 
I deny your whole Argument, and first your Major.  Rus. 
If there are no other expressed in Christ's Commission, Then my Major is true.  Leigh. 
They are employed. You know you allowed good consequence but now.  Rus. 
We are talking of a Commission, good Sir.  Leigh. 
I hope we are talking of good consequence from a Commission. That which I assert is this. That all are not to be Complete Disciples, before Baptised, or, That they are not to be actually taught.  Rus. 
I know not what you mean by 
* How many times hath the Dr. been told what we mean by Complete Disciples!  Complete Disciples; A Person may be a Disciple twenty years before he be a Complete one.  
If our Lord requires none to be Baptised by the Commission, but such as he commands to be made Disciples before he commands them to be Baptised, than what I say is true. But our Lord requires 〈◊〉 etc. Therefore,  Leigh. 
I deny your Minor.  Rus. 
I'll read the Commission, Mat. 28.18, 〈◊〉. And Jesus came and spoke to them saying, All Powe●'s given unto me in Heaven and Earth. ●o ye therefore and teach all Nations, Baptising them, etc. Teaching them to observe all things, etc. This Commission is very solemnly given, etc. In this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare the great Power that was, etc. Here the Dr. was going on with a large harangue.  Rob. 
Pray Mr. Russel, do not Preach us a Sermon, but bring us an Argument from the Words.  Rus. 
I thought Mr. Leigh had brought the Commission for an instance, we are now coming to examine, etc.  Leigh. 
Pray form your Syllogism.  Chand. 
Pray do.  Rus. 
I say, in this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare, etc. He is going on again with his harangue.  Rob. 
It's not a Sermon, but an Argument from the Commission, etc.  Rus. 
What, will you not allow me to read my Master's Commission? Here in spite of us all, he would go on with his tedious dictates.  Rus. 
I argue thus from this Commission. If there be an express command for the Baptising some Persons in Christ's Commission, and there be no express command, neither there nor elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, for the Baptising of Infants, than the Baptism of Infants is not contained in this Commission. But there is an express command, etc. Therefore,  Leigh. 
Pray observe it, whereas good Consequence was but now allowed with great difficulty, now it's denied. He requires an express command. To this I answer. If Nations do include Infants, than there is a plain command.  Chand. 
We deny the Consequence of your Major, and then we deny your Minor.  Rus. 
My Argument was this. 
* And thus to spend time, he will have his long Argument over again.  If there be an express command in Christ's Commission, etc. They deny the sequel of my Major, and by thus denying do say, that, notwithstanding there be no express command for the Baptising of Infants, neither in the Commission, nor any where else in the Holy Scripture, yet they do tell us by this denial, that they may be included in the Commission.  Rob. 
Here is a sophism; says he, if it be neither in the Commission, nor any where else in the Holy Scriptures, than it is not in the Commission.  Rus. 
If there be an express command for the Baptising of some Persons in Christ's Commission, and there be no express command for the Baptising of Infants, than Infants are not at all intended in Christ's Commission. But, etc. Therefore, etc.  Leigh. 
First, I deny the sequel of the Major, and then I deny the Minor.  Rus. 
It seems very strange, that you do deny this, and I will endeavour to prove it. Here is an express command for some Persons to be Baptised, here is no express command for the Baptising of Infants; is it not then a necessary consequence that they are not included in the Commission? 
* An excellent Proof, i. e. turning the conclusion into a question.   Leigh. 
I deny both Parts, and first your Major.  Rus. 
I shall prove it thus. 
* Observe, he falls upon the Minor. Not a Word of the Major.  That there is an express command for Baptising some Persons, the Commission itself proves.  Leigh. 
It's the sequel of the Major I deny. Pray prove that.  Rus. 
Then you do say, That, notwithstanding our Lord hath expressly commanded some Persons to be Baptised in the Commission, and hath not expressly commanded Infants, yet they may be some of the Number. Hath Christ two sorts of Subjects, one that he doth expressly command to be Baptised, and another that he doth not command?  Leigh. 
Put your Proof of the sequel of the Major into a Syllogism.  Rus. 
We are upon the Commission.  Leigh. 
I say, Prove the consequence of your Major.  Rus. 
If no person be to be baptised but what is expressly required to be so by Christ's Commission, than the consequence of the Major is true; i. e. That the Baptism of Infants is not contained in the Commission. But no person is to be baptised, etc. Therefore.  Leigh. 
I deny your Minor.  Rus. 
That which I am to prove is this, That there are no persons to be baptised but what are expressly required in the Commission. I prove it thus. If the words of the Commission are an express command to the Apostles of our Lord, to direct them whom they should baptise, than the Minor is true. But the words of the Commission are, etc. Therefore, etc.  Leigh. 
I deny your Minor.  Rus. 
If there be no other Commission of our Lord and Saviour J. C. for holy Baptism, but what is recorded Mat. 28. Mar. 16. then the Minor is true. But there is no other, etc. Therefore, etc.  Leigh. 
I deny the sequel of the Major.  Rus. 
We are now upon the Commission.  Leigh. 
That we are; and we say, That whatever by good consequence is fairly deducible from the Commission, is the true sense of it.  Rus. 
They are not to baptise any but such as they are expressly commanded so to do.  Leigh. 
I deny it.  Rus. 
If there be no manner of allowance given them to baptise any other than whom they are expressly commanded, than the consequence of the Major is true. But there is no manner of allowance, etc. Therefore, etc.  Leigh. 
Now I deny your Minor.  Rus. 
I f●ll recur to my former Argument. If there be an express command in the Commission to the Apostles, for the Baptism of all such as they are required to baptise by virtue of that Commission, than my Minor is true. But, etc. Here follows a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes.  R. 
If for all those they are to baptise by virtue of the Commission, they are to have an express command from Christ so to do, then there is no allowance in the Commission to baptise any other person. But for all those they are required to baptise, etc. Therefore, etc.  Chand. 
I deny the Minor.  Leigh. 
I distinguish between the command's being expressed, and the Subjects of it.  Chand. 
Prove that all the Subjects are expressed.  Rus. 
If the words in the Commission, about holy Baptism, be a command of Christ to the Apostles 
* Here the Dr. waves the distinction, that he may wrap up himself and the Auditory in confusion. , than my Minor is true. But they are a command, etc. Therefore.  Leigh. 
We allow it's a command, but deny that all the Subjects are expressed. I say, I allow the command to be express, but deny that all the Subjects are expressed; some are taken in by good consequence.  Rus. 
If Christ hath commanded his Apostles to Baptise such as do believe and are made Disciples, than such are to be Baptised. But &c: Therefore etc.  L. 
I find, in the first place, a fault with your Syllogism. The Major aught to be Universal. Whereas it is, such as do believe are the Subjects of Baptism; It ought to be, Such are the only, or all the Subjects of Baptism; and thus, in the Second Place, I deny the Sequel.  W●●l. 
Then I am to prove that Believers only are intended. If Believers are the only Persons that are included in the Commission, than no other persons are. But Believers are the only &c: Therefore.  L. 
I deny your Minor.  W. 
I will prove it in Mark 16. last. He that believeth is Baptised, etc. Hence I Argue that Believers are the only Subjects to be Baptised.  L. 
To this I Answer, First. If Previous Actual Believing be made Universally Necessary to Baptism, it is much more so to Salvation, and Consequently no Infant can be saved, For the following words are be that Believeth not shall be damned.  Rus. 
I do not affirm any such thing, I would rather say that all Infants dying in their Infancy are Elect, and so saved, the contrary to which I believe Mr. Chandler' cannot prove 
* Here the Dr. se●ms willing to turn off the Disputation, to Original Sin, with those of his Profession d●n●. .  L. 
Yes, we know your Opinion about this well enough. I have your Confession in my Ecclet. But if you will assert that actual believing is necessary to Baptism, then 'tis so to Salvation; for it follows, he that believeth not shall be damned.  Wil 
If believers are the only Subjects of Baptism, according to the Commission, than Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism: but Believers are the only Subjects, etc. Therefore, etc.  L. 
I deny your Minor.  Wil 
Then pray show me where any others are in the Commission.  L. 
In the words (all Nations).  Wil 
In the words (all Nations)? No, say I, It's all Nations so modified. It's all Nations discipled.  L. 
I deny it. This is not evident from this Text.  Wil 
Go, disciple unto me all Nations, baptising them. The word them is relative to all Nations, discipled. If therefore there be none but believers, and such as are taught in the Commission, than Infants are not in the Commission. But there are none but believers, etc.  L. 
I deny your Minor.  Wil 
If Infants are not capable of being taught, than they are no Disciples. But they are not, etc. Therefore.  L. 
I deny it, i. e. the Sequel.  Wil 
If Infants are uncapable of learning Jesus Christ, than they are uncapable of being discipled unto Christ. But, etc.  L. 
I deny the consequence of your Major; That because they are uncapable of learning Christ, therefore they are uncapable of being Discipled to Christ.  Will. 
I say, If Infants are not the Subjects in the Commission 
* Here's a Fallacy; he will now suppose his own conclusion, and the sum of what we denied before. , neither are capable of being taught and instructed, than they are not the Subjects of Baptism. But, &c: Therefore, etc.  L. 
I deny that they are not the Subjects. And the Greek word signifies to make Disciples. I deny that they are uncapable of being made Disciples, because not capable of learning.  Wil 
If to be a Disciple of Christ is to be a Scholar of Christ, than Infants that are uncapable of Learning Christ can be no Disciples. But, etc. Therefore, etc.  L. 
I deny still the Sequel of the Major.  Will 
If he that hath learned nothing is no Scholar, then because they are not capable of learning Jesus Christ, They are no Scholars of Christ. But, etc. Therefore etc.  L. 
I appeal to all here present, Whether they do not count that child an Incomplete Scholar, that is resigned by the Parent and accepted by the Master, tho' it hath not learned any thing. And now I deny your Minor.  Wil 
Tell me where Christ's School is for teaching Infants, and who is Christ's Schoolmaster?  L. 
Jesus Christ himself is the Schoolmaster.  Wil 
Jesus Christ is the great Schoolmaster, but his Ministers are appointed to make Disciples by teaching. Now you say a Child is a Disciple as soon as he goes to School.  L. 
I say, the resignation of the Parent, and the acceptation of the Master, constitutes the Relation.  Wil 
If he that hath been at School, and taught by his own consent, must appear to be a Scholar of Christ by his having actually learned, before he be baptised, than Infants that are entered, according to your saying, must not be baptised. But he that hath been at School, etc. Therefore.  L. 
I deny your consequence.  Wil 
I prove it thus. The Eunuch was content to be taught 
* He was here to prove the Consequence, and he brings an Instance to prove the Antecedent and but barely asserts the Consequent. ; Philip teacheth him: Yet afterward he must know whether he believed, before he baptised him. Therefore Infants, entered according to your saying, must not be baptised, because they are not content to be taught, &c: And Erasmus, tho' he was none of the best of Men yet he was accounted a great Scholar in his day, he reads it, When they have learned dip thou them.  L. 
Here are two things that this old Gentleman argues from, the first is, The Instance of the Eunuch. The Second is, The Authority of Erasmus.  Will. 
Not from his Authority, but Judgement 
* What is a man's Authority in this case but his judgement? .  Rob. 
Did Erasmus write in English? You say, you do not understand Latin.  Wil 
In English. Here the people broke out into a great Laughter.  Rus. 
Is Erasmus in your esteem so mean a Scholar, that there must be such Laughing at the old Gentleman's mentioning the Name of Erasmus? 
* The people laughed not because Erasmus' s name was mentioned, but because he said Erasmus wrote in English.   L. 
Well, but as to the first thing; you argue from the Instance of the Eunuch; The Eunuch was a Proselyte of the Gate, and a grown person, and therefore Philip deals with him as such. Now, according to the jewish Law, a Proselyte's Infant was to be taken into their Church, as the Infant of an home-born Inhabitant 
* Mr. Leigh since the Disputation, hath acknowledged himself guilty of a mistake, in calling the Eunuch a Proselyte of the Gate; whereas he was probably of the Church, and such a ones Infants were accounted Church-Members. But the Dr. had not the sense to discover this mistake. . And because Philip requires of him a Profession of his Faith, suppose he had had an Infant in the Chariot, must that be denied Baptism, and so looked upon as the Infant of a Pagan, and be shut out of visible Church-membership, which he enjoyed before? Did his Parent's Faith deprive him of Church-membership? Then as to Erasmus, he was an Interpendent between a Papist and Protestant; and many of these Gentlemen, in their great Zeal against Infant-baptism, will call it a piece of Popery, and yet can make use of the Name of an Half-Papist when it serves their Cause.  Wil 
If the Administrator must have an account of the Subjects Learning, before he be baptised, than Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism. But he must, etc. Therefore.  L. 
I deny your Minor, That he that administers the Ordinance must always have an account of the Subjects Learning.  Wil 
I will prove it first by that of Philip: If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. The contrary whereunto is, If thou dost not, thou mayest not. Again, Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. The word is relative to all Nations discipled. They must have an account whether they are Disciples or not. This is the Antecedent.  L. 
All Nations?  Wil 
Nay, all Nations Discipled.  L. 
So you say. But prove it. What! perhaps you think that All Nations cannot be the Antecedent to Them; because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Neuter Gender, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Masculine.  Rus. 
Yes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Masculine Gender, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Masculine Gender, and agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Rob. 
I thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been a Verb.  Rus. 
I answer to what he says; he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Masculine Gender, and I say so, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same Gender, and agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  L. 
I suppose Mr. Russel thinks he is got among his Hebrew Verbs. They, notwithstanding, refer each to other, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of the Neuter, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Masculine Gender. For a Boy of 12 years of age, that hath looked into the Greek, can tell you that such a Synthesis is frequently to be met with in the Greek.  Wil 
If Infants are uncapable of denying themselves for Christ, than they are uncapable of being Disciples to Christ. But, etc. Therefore, etc.  L. 
I deny the sequel of the Major.  Will. 
I prove it out of Luke 14. If he doth not deny himself, he cannot be Christ's Disciple.  L. 
This purely refers to the adult. And I will argue ab absurdo. 
* 2 Thes. 3.10.  If any work not let him not eat, but Infants cannot 
* Mr. Leigh mistook●● word is would not. But it comes to the 〈◊〉, for Infants have Power and will both alike.  work, therefore they must not eat. But both one Text, and the other refer to the adult p●●ly.  Rus. 
What's all this? We do say, that Infants are not at all concerned in the Commission, Mat. 28.19. Because they cannot perform the prerequisites, Faith and Repentance, therefore are not capable of Baptism. Now if you'll say, that incapable Persons are intended in the Commission, than I hope, you may put that upon yourselves; Then you must argue, Infants must be starved to Death because they will not work. I demand of any of you to give an instance of any one Scripture, that speaks of Baptism in the New Testament, that doth respect any other but adult Persons. 
* Reader, observe the Argument from Luk. 14. Is ●● oped. And what Mr. Rus. here says farther, had been Answered before in the Words, All Nations, Usque ad Nauseam.   Will. 
If the essence of faith consist in the Acts of the understanding and will, than Infants are incapable of being Disciples. But, & o. Therefore, etc.  L. 
I deny the sequel of the Major, viz. That Infants are uncapable of being Disciples.  William 
If a Disciple and a Believer be the same thing, than the sequel of the Major is true. But a Disciple and Believer are the same thing. Therefore,  L. 
I distinguish upon the Minor. It's not Universally and in all respects the same thing. Those may be Disciples that are not actual Believers.  William 
He that is a Disciple of Christ according to the Commission, is a Believer. But Infants are not capable of believing. Therefore. He that is a Believer in Mark, is a Disciple in Matthew.  L. 
This I deny, and answered it before. It's not universally true.  William 
If the essence of faith consist in the Act of the understanding and will, than Infants are uncapable of believing, But, etc.  L. 
I acknowledge, The Act of faith consists in the Act of the understanding and the will, and that Infants are uncapable of actual believing, but not of being Disciples in an imperfect sense 
* The contrary whereof, hath not yet been proved.  But I would fain know if Infants are not as capable of believing Imputatively, as of coming to Christ when brought in the Arms of other Persons. 
* Mat. 19.14.   William 
They can do both alike, as well come to Christ as believe in him; by believing I mean actual believing. This I acknowledge.  L. 
Why cannot Children be said in a Spiritual sense to come to Christ Imputatively, as well as to come to Christ Corporally when only brought in others Arms. Coming to Christ and believing are the same. Tho' he that is brought in the Arms of the Parents faith cannot be 〈◊〉 actually to believe, yet Imputatively he may.  Wil 
How could they come to Christ when they were brought?  L. 
And yet they are expressly said to come to Christ. And may they not as well be said to be capable of Spiritual as of Corporal coming when they were brought to him? Why can they not come Spiritually by Imputation, as before?  Will. 
They cannot come Spiritually unless they actually believe 〈◊〉 child cannot thus come to Christ without a sight of Christ and also of himself.  L. 
I do own in a proper and strict sense, none can be said thus to come to Christ but adult persons; yet in a more large sense, they may as well be said to believe on Christ Imputatively when their Parents believe and devote them to Christ, as to come to Christ Corporally when brought in their Arms. You know Christ says, suffer little Children to come to me. It's most probable these were brought in Arms to Christ. Why may they not be said Imputatively to believe, as well as Imputatively to come?  Wil 
I deny that the parent's faith was ever imputed to the Child.  L. 
You know the distinction of Believers, In foro Dei, & In foro Ecclesiae, which I suppose you'll allow. And under the notion of believers In foro Ecclesiae, The Parent's faith may be imputed to their Children.  Wil 
We do say that a Person is not a Disciple of Christ before he have learned Christ 
* Here is no notice taken of the Distinction, only the old thing asserted. .  L. 
Then do we send Children to School because they have learned, or that they may learn?  Rus. 
I think we should now see whether we can possibly by force of Argument bring you to give an Instance Therefore I argue thus.  Arg. 5. 
If the Apostles of our Lord never did Baptise any Infants, than the Baptism of Infants is not according to the Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostles of our Lord never did, &c: Therefore.  Chand. 
I deny the Minor.  Rus. 
If the Apostles did Baptise any Infants, it is some where to be found in the writings of the new Testament. But it's no where to be found, etc.  L. 
I deny your Major.  Rus. 
If there be no other rule to direct us concerning Holy Baptism than what is in the new Testament, then, because it's no where to be found in the writings of the new Testament, the Apostles did never Baptise any Infants. But there is no other rule &c: Therefore etc.  L. 
You are come from an Example to a Rule. I say it may not be recorded in the writings of the New Testament, and yet the Apostles might Baptise Infants. But this is not granted, only supposed, that it's not recorded. It is not recorded in the New Testament (what you practise) that Grown Children of Believers were, when adult, Baptised. I challenge you to produce one Instance of any, born of Believing Parents, baptised at Age.  Rus. 
That's no business of ours. Don't think to shame off the business so. We have called for your Instance several times of an Infant Baptised, and you have not been able to give it.  L. 
It's the custom of these Persons to Baptise Grown Persons tho' Baptised before, and yet there is no Scripture for it. They talk much of our having no Scripture for Infant Baptism, and of their having Abundance for their Practice. Now let them give one Instance of what is their Practice, viz: Of one Person born of a believer Baptised at years, and I'll give them the cause.  Wil 
Give your instance for Infant Baptism, or else I hope the People will go away, and conclude you have none.  L. 
Give your instance to prove your Practice, or else I hope, the People will go away satisfied you have none to give. It was by the Computation of the learned from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. john the Apostle near Sixty Years, in which time many Thousands of the Children of Believing Parents became adult, yet we challenge you to produce one Instance in all that time of any of their Children Baptised, when adult.  Rus. 
The Emperor Constantine was born of a Christian Parent, and yet not baptised till adult.  L. 
But not because they then thought the Children of Believing Parents had no right to Baptism, but because they thought that sins committed after Baptism were unpardonable; therefore, they oftentimes deferred it till Death. 
* Besides, Constantine's father was a Pagan, and Constantine had a desire to be Baptised in Jordan, because Christ was.  Besides, this is not to the purpose, because a Scripture instance was called for.  William 
We are able to produce several instances where grown believers were Baptised, but you not one of Infant Baptism.  L. 
That was at the first planting of the Gospel: Give an instance of a grown person, descending from believing Parents, that was baptised when adult.  Rus. 
If this were any thing to the purpose, I would then say something to it. But I wonder you should talk thus, when it was practised a great many years in the Church to give the Lord's Supper to Infants 
* The Dr. allowed it to be the first 600 y●●rs, as I remember.   L. 
Was it? Then (ad hominem) they were Baptised, because they were not to receive that Ordinance before they were baptised. We demand an instance of any child of a believing Parent that was baptised when adult. Give this, and we will give you the Cause.  Wil 
Was the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ a believer?  L. 
Yes.  Wil 
Well then, there's the Son of a believer baptised at age 
* Observe, by Believers was before understood a Christian Believer, by themselves, wherever they spoke of believing as necessary to Baptism: Neither was the word when in any other sense. Besides, it was granted before, that jew; and Pagans ought not to be baptised till adult; and both Christ and his ●●●●●r were jews at the time of his birth.  Here the Anabaptists fell a laughing, and some cried out, it's done, it's done. And, for a while, Mr. Leigh attempting several times to speak, could not be heard.  L. 
I thought our discourse had been grounded on the Commission. Was this before or after the Commission? Here the people laughed again.  Rus. 
What do they laughed at? Not at what the Old Gentleman said, but at what Mr. Leigh says 
* Indeed the people laughed both ways.  The Old Gentleman gave a right instance.  Rob. 
It's not at all to the purpose.  Rus. 
Mr. Williams' instance was sufficiently to the purpose; for that Mr. Leigh called for an instance of the child of a believing Parent, baptised at grown years. The Virgin Mary was a Believer.  Rob. 
Tho Mr. Leigh did express himself in such general Terms, yet the whole strain of the discourse sufficiently manifests, he meant the child of such a believer as was properly Christian. The Virgin Mary was undoubtedly a believing Member of the Jewish Church; but this is not to our purpose; for we want an instance of the child of a Christian Parent, after Baptism was instituted by our Lord, that yet was baptised at grown years. The instance of our Saviour doth not agree to such a case as this is. For that Christianity, as distinguished from judaism, had not then a being, and the Virgin Mary was not in this sense Christian, nor was baptism itself then instituted by our Lord; and therefore this instance can signify nothing to the case in hand.  Will. 
I have given an instance of the Child of a believing Parent, baptised at Age. Give us an instance of any Infant that was baptised.  L. 
As for that. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not to be imitated in that particular.  Rus. 
No?  William 
Do you prove he was not.  L. 
If he were, than there is no Person to be baptised till 30 years of Age, nor baptised at all, unless Circumcised at eight days old. And thus their Scripture instance, with their triumph upon it, vanished.  William 
I demand an instance of an Infant that was baptised.  L. 
I demand an express prohibition.  William 
I demand an express prohibition of Salt, Cream, Oil and spital.  L. 
I Answer, (1.) The case is not parallel. You speak of the substance, we of the subjects of baptism. (2.) Infants are included in the words, All Nations. But Salt, Cream, Oil, etc. are not in the word Disciple, or Baptise.  Rob. 
What need of an instance when we have a rule. Now, Mr. Chandler, if you please, you may take the Part of an Opponent. And prove our practice to be agreeable to Scripture.  
Mr. Chandler turns Opponent.  Arg. 
1. Chand. Visible Church Members ought to be baptised. But some Infants are visible Church Members. Therefore some Infants, etc.  Rus. 
Adult believers may, but not Infants.  Rob. 
What's this to the purpose we are upon? Which of Mr. Chandler's propositions do you deny?  Rus. 
Let him repeat his Argument.  Chand. 
Visible Church Members ought to be baptised, according to Christ's Commission. But some Infants are visible Church Members; Therefore, etc.  Rus. 
I deny the Major. 
* Mark that. The Dr. denies that visible Church Members ought to be baptised.   Chand. 
That all visible Church Members are to be baptised, according to Christ's Commission, I prove thus. If there be no Precept or Example in all the Word of God, since Christ ordained baptism, that makes any other ordinance the visible means of encring a Person into the visible Church, then visible Church Members ought to be baptised, But there is no, etc. Therefore.  Rus. 
This is to say. Because they are Members, therefore they are to be made Members.  Chand. 
No. Because they are Members, they ought to be solemnly Recognised as Members: Like the Coronation of a King. He is a King before he is Crown'● but he is Crowned that he might be owned as King.  William 
If baptism be the initiating ordinance into the Church, than they were not Church Members before.  Chand. 
I say, baptism is the solemn investing sign.  Rus. 
That baptism is an initiating ordinance, I grant.  Rob. 
This Argument was brought to prove that visible Church Members ought to be baptised.  William 
I deny that Infants are visible Church Members in their Infancy. 
* The Major is dropped, and he denies the Minor; after a while, you will find the Major silently taken up again.   L. 
I'll prove that some Infants, are Church-Members in their Infancy; Suffer little Children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 19.14. Hence I argue: Those that belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. the Church-Militant here upon Earth, are visible Church-Members. But some Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, ay, e. The Church-Militant here on Earth. Therefore,  Will. 
I deny the Minor. That text proves it not.  L. 
If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken any otherwise in this Text to make good sense of the Text, than it must be so taken, i. e. For the Church-Militant here on Earth. But it cannot be taken any otherwise to make good sense of the Text. Therefore &c: And this I prove by an Induction of particulars. There are various acceptations of this Expression, [The Kingdom of Heaven] in the Word of God. Sometimes it signifys, The Laws and Promises of the Kingdom; it doth also signify the Graces by which we observe those Laws and believe those Promises. Thus it's represented by a grain of Mustardseed. Sometimes the Kingdom of Glory. And sometimes it signifies the Church-Militant. Hence therefore I thus argue.  
If in this place it can neither signify the Laws and Promises of God's Kingdom, nor the Graces by which we observe those Laws and Embrace those Promises, nor the Kingdom of Glory; than it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth. But it cannot signify either of the former. Therefore it must signify the last, viz. the Church-Militant.  Will. 
I deny the Minor. I say it signifys the Kingdom of Glory.  L. 
If it be nonsense so to understand the words than they are not so to be understood. But its nonsense, &c: For then the Kingdom of Glory must consist in part of poor little weak things, such as Infants are: Whereas after Death all are perfect in the Kingdom of Glory, whatever they are here on Earth.  Will. 
I thought it had been, to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.  Chand. 
Mat. 19.14. In the Greek it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.  L. 
That is; of such it consists in part. If we mention the Kingdom of England or France, and say, of such is the Kingdom, etc. It's to be understood, In part it consists of these.  Will. 
I deny that the Visible Church in part consists of these. If they are neither Members of the Universal Church, nor of a Particular Church, than the Church doth not in part consist of these; But, &c: Therefore, etc. 
* He Answers not my Argument by mak●●●●ood sense of the 〈◊〉 ●ny other way. 〈◊〉 now brea●'s rule 〈◊〉 ●●ns Opponent.   L. 
I Answer. Now you relinguish my Medium. But farther, If they are Members of the Church at all, than they are Members of the Universal Church visible. But they are Members of the Church. Therefore, etc.  William 
I deny the Minor, i. e. That they are visible Members of the Church.  L. 
There are two sorts of Members of the Universal Church. There are Members in foro Ecclesiae, and Members in foro Caeli. In which of these senses do you deny they are Members of the Church?  William 
If by the Church, you mean the visible Church, I deny your Minor. Here for about four or five lines, there is great confusion in what our scribes have written. But this I take to be the sense of it.  L. 
If they are Members of the Church in any sense than they are Members of a Particular or the Universal Church, and if of a Particular then of the Universal which includes it; and therefore they are Members of the visible Church. But they are Members of the Church in some sense, and for Proof hereof I return to my Argument which you have not been able to Answer; Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. The Church Militant.  William 
I distinguish, as to the Kingdom of Heaven: It's there meant of the Kingdom of Glory.  L. 
If of the Kingdom of Glory, then it's nonsense. But, by the way, the Kingdom of Glory either is put for the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory. If the Happiness, than the words must run thus. Of such little Children is the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory. If the subjects, than thus. Of such little Children are the subjects of the Kingdom of Glory. Now neither of these is sense; Therefore cannot be meant: but my first interpretation stands good still.  William 
I distinguish between a right Title and Possession. Here is a vacancy— Three things. It's true, faith gives a right to baptism according to the Commission, a profession of that faith gives a right to the Administration of that ordinance, and it's the Commission that authoriseth the Administrators.  Rus. 
This Text you produce hath no Relation at all to the Commission, nor is Baptism in the least intended in the Text.  L. 
Mr. Russel, I'll propose this question to you. Whether, both what Christ said and did, together with what the Apostles said and did, be the best explication of Christ's Commission? And then, whether, I may not argue from Christ's own Words, For visible Church Membership and so for baptism?  Rus. 
I do allow that what Christ said and did, and what the Apostles said and did, is a very good interpretation of the Commission of our Lord. And I do say, that only adult Persons are intended in the Commission; And that the Apostles never did baptise any other than adult believers. 
* Here he takes no notice of the second part which is the main of my Question.   L. 
Then I hope, we may argue from Christ's own Words. Did he speak pertinently or impertinently? If pertinently, how comes he to say, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, unless he meant the visible Church, which alone makes sense of the Text. But is this an Answer to my Question, to say that Adult believers are only intended in the Commission?  Rus. 
Yes, if your question relate to water baptism.  L. 
If the Kingdom of Heaven in part consists of Infants, than Infants ought to be baptised. But, etc. Therefore, etc.  Rob. 
Pray Mr. Russel, which of Mr. Leighs propositions do you deny?  L. 
Give me an Answer directly.  Rus. 
I demand an Exposition. What do you mean by the Kingdom of Heaven? 
* Here the Dr. could not tell what to say, and therefore will have all over again.   L. 
I mean the Church and Kingdom of God here on Earth.  Rus. 
I deny your Minor.  L. 
I prove it from the forecited Scripture. If by the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 19 is signified the Church visible here on Earth; Then Infants do in part make up the Church. But &c: Therefore etc.  Rus. 
I deny your Minor.  L. 
If we must make good sense of Scripture than it must so signify. But etc.  Rus. 
I deny the Consequence of your Major.  L. 
If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken in any other signification to make good sense of it in that place, than it must so be taken. But it cannot &c: Therefore.  Rus. 
I deny your Minor.  L. 
If you can produce no other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture, Then etc.  Rus. 
I deny the Consequence of your Major. It doth not follow because I cannot do it, that therefore it cannot be done.  L. 
Then I say if neither you, nor any other person can produce any other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture, Then etc.  Rus. 
Is this a good way of arguing? If it be, than it was so in me as well as you.  Rob. 
Mr. Leigh. It was not fair, therefore not allowed them. You must not put the Proof upon the Respondent.  Leigh. 
I was not driving them to Proof, but going to prove my Assertion by an Induction of Particulars, as I have already done and that I shall do again.  
If the Kingdom of Heaven here signifys neither the Laws nor Promises of the Kingdom, nor Graces by which these Laws and Promises are observed and embraced, nor Jesus Christ's Management of his Kingdom, nor the Glory of Heaven, nor the Subjects of Glory, than it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth. But it signifys neither of the former. Therefore the last. 
* Reader, to repeat all this is Nauseous, but because the Dr. could do nothing else be would force us to it.   Rus. 
I deny the Minor.  L. 
I prove it by a Recapitulation of those Particulars. Of such little Children are the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom, of such are the Graces by which we observe and embrace them, of such is Christ's Management of his Kingdom, of such is the Kingdom of Glory, of such is the Happiness or Subjects of Glory. Now is there any good sense in all this.  Rus. 
It's meant of the Kingdom of Glory.  L. 
By the Kingdom of Glory you must mean either the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom. If it be taken for the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory, than I ask whether little Children are the Happiness of Heaven? If for the Subjects; then I ask whether of such consists the Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory, when every one belonging to that Kingdom, i.e. as distinct from the Church-Militant, immediately upon his expiring is complete, even an Infant 3 days old?  Rus. 
This is very uncharitable, to exclude Infants from Heaven. I would rather incline to say, and I am sure the contrary to it Mr. Leigh can never prove, that all Infants belong to the Kingdom of Glory, than that none do.  L. 
Yes we know your Judgement of that matter well enough. But you wilfully misrepresent my sense. I do not say that none who die Infants go to the Kingdom of Glory, but that none are Infants when they come there. But the Text says, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. This therefore is what I assert, that it is absurd to say that the Kingdom of Glory is, in any part of it, made up of weak imperfect things as little Infants are; And therefore that the Kingdom of Heaven, here spoken of, must mean the Church-Militant here on Earth which is in part made up of such,  
Here Mr. Russel was silent for a considerable time. 
* And thus to no purpose but to spen● time Mr. Russel would have the same over again.   Rob. 
What Mr. Russel have you no reply to make to all this; Pray, if you have any thing to say, let us hear it; Otherwise, be so kind as to tell the People, you can give no Answer, that we may go on to some what further.  Rus. 
My Answer is this. That whereas you have undertaken to prove that Infants are the Subjects of Baptism, according to Christ's Commission, you bring a Text for it that hath neither the word Baptism in it nor the Commission of our Lord. 
* This poor dry evasion, you see, he hath before, and i● beholden to his old Friend Danvers for.   L. 
Very well then. If we prove from any Text of Scripture the right of Infants to Baptism, it must not be allowed, unless we find it in the close of the Evangelists, where is what you call the Commission; or unless the word Baptism be in it.  Rob. 
Mr. Russel. They are not obliged to have the mention either of Baptism or the Commission of our Lord in the conclusion of every Syllogism. They had it in the first. They then told you; That such as were Members of the Church-Militant on Earth were to be Baptised according to the Commission of our Lord. And this was the case of some Infants. You denied any Infants were Members of Christ's Kingdom, or Church-Militant here on Earth, and to prove this they brought that Text. And I suppose the whole company was satisfied that it doth sufficiently prove what it was produced for. And now you dare not deny the Major; if you do I doubt not but they are ready to prove it.  William 
If Church Members have been denied Baptism, than Church-Membership is not the ground of Baptism, but etc. 
* Here he shifts the Respondency and turns Opponent, which we give way to, because they could do nothing else.   L. 
I deny the Minor.  Wil 
If Church-Members came to john to be Baptised, and were denied, than Church-Membership is is not the Ground of Baptism. But etc.  L. 
I deny the Minor.  William 
I prove it, Mat. 3. When he saw the Multitude and many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism, he said to them; O Generation of Vipers, etc.  L. 
I deny that they were de jure, Church Members whatever they were, de facto. Their being a Generation of Vipers is sufficient to prove, they were not Church Members, De jure; And we are speaking of rightful Church Members.  William 
I have proved that Church Members were denied baptism.  L. 
I deny it and distinguish between Church Members, De jure & De facto.  Will. 
I will not meddle with your distinctions.  Rob. 
And can you think that the word Church-Members cannot possibly admit of more senses than one?  L. 
I say, they were not Church Members, De jure.  William 
Were they denied any privileges?  Rob. 
According to what you said just now, they were denied baptism, was that no Church privilege? 
* Here he drops his Argument, to prove that Church Membership is not the ground of baptism.   William 
Such as are visible Members of the Universal Church, are qualified with a work of Grace, etc.  L. 
I deny it, viz. That they are always so.  William 
It is in the Judgement of Charity so.  L. 
Such as were a Generation of Vipers were not qualified with a Work of Grace, and so were not Church Members, according to your own assertion.  Rob. 
Especially such as were known to be a Generation of Vipers.  William 
If our Lord Jesus did Disciple such as were Church Members before they were baptised, than Church Membership is not the ground of baptism. But, etc.  L. 
We distinguish between the Jewish Church and the Christian Church. And then I distinguish between Infant Church Membership; and Adult Church Members. Now Christian Church Membership is a ground of baptism.  Sharp. 
The Anabaptist Moderator. You say Infants are Church Members; Church Members upon their apostasy ought to be Excommunicated: when were any admitted into Church Membership in their Infancy, Excommunicated upon their apostasy?  Rob. 
There is with us as with the Jews Anciently, a two fold Excommunication, Excommunicatio Major, and Excommunicatio Minor: as to the first, which is a solemn cutting off from the Universal Church, I question, whether our Laws gives us the liberty of practising it; and as to the second, which is a suspension from the Lords Supper; I do not see that to be needful in the case before us.  
Leigh to Mr. Sharp; we are not now talking about the management of Church Members, but who are the Persons which ought to be esteemed so? Farther, it is needless ●● exclude those from Adult Church-Membership who never offered themselves to it. It's as if we should shut our doors against a Person, who never attempts an entrance.  
To this Mr. Sharp made no reply.  Wil 
Ministers are to Baptise none, but those that are discipled by the words of the Commission. 
* Observe how he leaves his Argument, and runs to what had been worn threadbare before.   Chand. 
Here's the Consequence of it.  Wil 
No here is no Genuine Consequence. The Commission mentions no more but Disciples and Believers. And if you can find one Person more besides Disciples and Believers, do it? 
* The poor Man runs again from consequence ●o express words, though consequence was allowed before.   Rus. 
It doth appear by all that hath been said, that our practice is allowed.  Rob. 
Not your practice.  L. 
We do not allow your practice, unless to such as have not been baptised. 
* Remember, this refers to the Subjects only, not the m●in●●●.   William 
We agree, that those that are not baptised aught to be baptised. You are bound to baptise none, but such, as you are bound to Preach to.  L. 
I deny it.  Rus. 
Have Infants the use of reason?  Chand. 
No. 
* Now you see the Dr. very plainly takes the Opponency, because he could do nothing else; contrary to his most false assertion in his Narrative.   Rus. 
If Infants, without understanding, are capable of being made Disciples, by the Ministry of Men; Then may the Beasts of the Field. But the Beasts of the Field may not, etc. Therefore.  L. 
I appeal to all present. Is it as proper to take Pigs and Dogs to School, as little Children of a year and half old? Are those so capable of the Parent's resignation and master's acceptation as these? If Infants might keep the charge of the Sanctuary from a month old and upward, they may be esteemed Believers and Disciples. But etc.  Rus. 
I wonder you will maintain ●he●hing upon such silly foundations. 
* A wise Answer from a silly Doctor; is it not?   L. 
Pray Answer the last Argument.  Rus. 
There is nothing of Christ's Commission in it.  L. 
Unless we can prove Infant baptism in the close of one of the Evangelists; No proof is to be allowed.  Will. 
I thought it was to be argued according to the Commission. 
* This was fully Answer before, therefore it was tedious for Scribes to write it.  but I see, etc.  Rob. 
If you be of Mr. Russel's mind, than you may turn your Children out to the Dogs and Pigs, and Beasts of the Field. It is most insufferable; I never heard such an Expression in my Life. But you may see what the Principles of Anabaptists naturally lead Men to.  
Here the Anabaptists being shamefully nonplussed, Mr. Leigh applied himself to the Mayor and Governor, in this manner: You see they are not able to answer our first Argument, but are entirely graveled. The Rules of Disputation oblige us to go no farther in the Opponency. Yet we will be at your command. We have six Arguments more at hand; if you please, we will proceed to offer them: Or, if you please, we will proceed to the Second Question.  Sharp. 
Anabaptist Moderator. Let us have a precept or an example.  Rob. 
A precedent we need not give, here is a precept brought and yet no Answer given to it.  Rus 
What Precept?  Rob. 
That which by Undeniable Consequence obliges us to it tho' there be not, in express words, a requirement that we Baptise Infants.— One would have thought, Mr. Russel should have allowed, tho' they are not capable of Duties, yet they are capable of the Privileges:  
Here an Answer to our last Argument was again and again called for, but none given.  Rob. 
Pray Mr. Chandler, let no more time be lost, but proceed to another Argument.  Arg. 2. Chand. 
If some Infants be the Disciples of Christ, then, according to the Commission of our Lord, some Infants are to be Baptised. But some Infants are Disciples. Therefore etc.  Rus. 
I deny your Minor.  Chand. 
Those that the Holy Ghost in Scripture calls Disciples, are Disciples. But the Holy Ghost in Scripture calls some Infant's Disciples; Ergo they are Disciples.  Rus. 
I deny your Minor.  Chand. 
I prove it from that Text: Acts 15.10. Now therefore, why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples? Upon Infants the Yoke of Circumcision was laid, They are called Disciples.  Rus. 
I deny that Text proves it.  Chan. 
If this Yoke were laid upon the neck of the Disciples, than Infants are Disciples. But &c.: Therefore etc.  Rus. 
● deny that there is any such thing in the Text either 〈◊〉 or intended.  Chand. 
The dispute was occasioned by some false Teachers, that had said, except Christians were Circumcised, a●●●●p● the Law of Moses, they could not be saved. Now says the Apostle, Why do you lay a Yoke upon the neck o● the Disciples &c: This Yoke was the Yoke of Circumcision, which was laid on the neck of some Infants.  Rus. 
No Infants can be here intended, for those, who are called Disciples in this verse, are called Brethren and Believers in the 9 th' verse. And therefore it could not intend infants.  L. 
We will read verse the First. Except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses. Now I ask you what was the manner of Moses?  Rus. 
To cut the foreskin of their Flesh.  L. 
Suppose we were to teach this People, as the Judaizing Christians did them; Except you are Circumcised after the manner of Moses you can't be saved, no doubt but they would understand the manner of Moses to intend, not only all the Circumstances of it, but, that their Children must also be Circumcised, this being after the manner of Moses. Here I will form this Argument. If those are called Disciples who were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses, Then Infants are Disciples. But, &c: And so ought to be Baptised. Now they themselves allow that Disciples ought to be Baptised.  Rus. 
It's the Gentile Believers that are there called Disciples.  Chand. 
It is all upon whom the Yoke of Circumcision was laid, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear.  Will. 
They could bear the Yoke of Circumcision.  Chand. 
They were not able to bear it. The Holy Ghost says so expressly; which signifys the Painfullness and Troublesomeness of that Ordinance.  L. 
What you say of moment is this. That Children are able to bear the Yoke of Circumcision, therefore that Yoke is not there intended, but the whole Ceremonial Law. We allow the Ceremonial Law was included, but Circumcision was here chiefly intended.  Will. 
If Circumcision was binding to keep the whole Law, than this is not the Yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. But it was so, Gal. 5.3.  L. 
Thus far I think the old Gentleman is in the right, that the Apostles are here and in the Epistle to the Gal. endeavouring the same thing, driving them off from the observation of the Ceremonial Law. But herein he is mistaken, He would leave out Circumcision, one of the prime and most painful parts of this Law, and so would leave out those Infants whom th●se judaizing Christians advised to be Circumcised.  Rus. 
Prove that Infants are there intended.  L. 
If the context do oblige us to take in Infants, than they are there intended. But the context, etc. Ergo. It is a reproof of, or reasoning with, those that were inclined to impose Circumcision on the Necks of the Disciples, and with it the whole Law of Moses, v. 5. They were strictly observant of Moses' Law, Nothing is more plain and obvious to one observant of Moses' Law than to Circumcise Infants at eight days old. And consequently nothing would they urge more on these Disciples.  Rus. 
If they be such as 
* Here is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes.  had their hearts purified by faith, brethren, etc.  L. 
That's not necessary. Their being barely the Infants of these Disciples was enough. If I were to act the part of a Judaizing Christian, and were to persuade all these Gentlemen that they were to observe Circumcision according to the Law of Moses; And did call those Disciples, who were so Circumcised; Would they not take it to be sufficiently plain, that their Infants were intended as well as themselves. And therefore, that I called their Infant's Disciples.  Rus. 
If you bring a Text, and I show you several weighty considerations, why it should not be understood in your sense. I expect not such ●tories as these.  Rob. 
Is it not enough, if Mr. Leigh shows that this Text will admit of no other sense?  Will. 
If so be, that children were brought in, it would not follow that they were Disciples, for those that were Circumcised were not Disciples.  L. 
You say, the Qualification was, they must be believers and have their hearts purified by faith. I Answer. These Judaizing Christians would persuade them to Circumcise after the manner of Moses, And so to take the Yoke not only themselves, but also on their Infants. Now all these, without distinction, on whom this Yoke was about to be laid are called Disciples, and therefore their Infants.  William 
After the manner of Moses● Th●e relates to the Form, not the Subjects. Here again is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes.  Rob. 
Here hath been a great deal of time spent about this Argument. The Substance of what was said on both sides is this: Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh have urged, that such as are Disciples of Christ ought to be baptised, and that some Infants are Disciples of Christ. This Mr. Russel denies; and they have proved it from this, That some Infants are called Disciples by the Spirit of God. This also Mr. Russel hath denied; So that the whole Question results to this head: Whether any Infants be in Scripture called Disciples? Now this hath been, I think, sufficiently cleared from this Text, Act. 15.10. where the Persons called Disciples are those, upon whom the Judaizing Christians would have imposed the Yoke of Circumcision. The Doctrine, they taught the Christian Gentiles, was, That their Christianity would avail them nothing, It was to no purpose tho' they did Believe in Christ; unless they were also Circumcised according to the Law of Moses, they could not be saved. You all know what the Law of Moses doth prescribe and command in this case, not only, that they themselves, but that every Male Child among them should be Circumcised.  Rus. 
It is not according to the Law of Moses, but after the manner of Moses.  Rob. 
Mr. Russel, it's true; it's after the manner of Moses in the First verse, but if you look forward into the Chapter, you will find express mention of the Law of Moses. You must be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. v. 5th. I suppose you that have so oft read this Chapter, could not but be sensible that such an Expression was there, tho' not in the first verse; And therefore the distinction you will pretend to make between the Law of Moses and the Manner of Moses, was but a mere Evasion, and in this case a Distinction without Difference. The one explains the other. That which is called their being Circumcised after the manner of Moses, in one place, is called their being Circumcised and Keeping the Law of Moses in the other place. They must be Circumcised as Moses did order, so that his Law might be observed and fulfilled in the doing of it; which it could not be, though they themselves were Circumcised never so regularly, unless their Infants were so too. And yet the whole Body of those on whom the Pharisees would have imposed the Yoke of Circumcision, are here expressly called Disciples; This whole Body of Adult and Infants are therefore in common included under this Name, which was all that we had to prove. And we are now willing to refer it to the People, whether what hath been said be not sufficient Proof. If you please therefore, we will now proceed to the Second question. Pray Mr. Chandler, let the Company understand what it is.  
Reader, Here observe. We were ready (as before mentioned) to offer several other Arguments, but no tolerable Answer being given to those two, neither the Rules of Disputation did oblige us, nor the Company's patience, and the approaching evening allow us to do it, unless the Second Question were wholly excluded.  Q. 2. 
Whether, according to the Commission of our Lord, Baptism be to be Administered by Dipping, Plunging, or Overwhelming only, and not otherways. It lies upon you to prove, that it is by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming only.  Rus. 
The Holy Scripture shows the way of baptising. But it doth not show that sprinkling is the way. Therefore, etc. 
* Here observe again. Dr. Russel would shift the Opponency on us.   L. 
This Argument doth not prove, that it is by Dipping, etc. Only.  Rob. 
Conclude with the Words of the Question.  Rus. 
I understand you own, it was in use in our Saviour's time. Here the Dr. spoke several impertinencies, which our Scribes thought not worth the Writing.  L. 
I deny all this.  Rob. 
Bring it into an Argument.  Rus. 
I put it into a Syllogism. I say, If the Holy Scriptures do show us the right way of Baptising, according to Christ's appointment, and yet do not show us that sprinkling is the way of Baptising, then Sprinkling is not the right way of Baptising. But &c: Therefore etc.  Rob. 
There is not one word of Sprinkling in the Question. It is, whether it be to be administered by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming, only.  Rus. 
I argue thus then. If the Holy Scriptures— He goes on as before.  Rob. 
Pray Mr. Russel.  Rus. 
What? Can't I begin to speak, but you must still be Interrupting me. I don't speak to you. I speak to Mr. Chand. If the Holy Scriptures show us the right way of Baptising and yet do not show us that Sprinkling.—  Rob. 
If you would but observe order, you should have no Interruption from me. But you both must and shall conclude your Argument with the words of the Question, before Mr. Respondent shall take any notice of it.  Rus. 
Mu and shall Mr. Moderator?  Rob. 
Yes Mr. Russel you both must and shall. Otherwise it were fitter you should call me Mr. cipher, than Mr. Moderator, if in this case I cannot Moderari.  Rus. 
If chat Baptism which is appointed by Christ and doth properly set forth his Burial and Resurrection is the only right way of Baptising, than it must be performed by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming only and not otherways. But that baptism, etc. Is the only right way, etc. Therefore, etc.  Chand. 
I first deny the Consequence of the Major. And then I deny the Minor.  Rus. 
Then you do suppose, that it doth represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, yet it doth not thence follow, that this is the only right way of baptising.  
My Argument hath two parts which I shall prove. First, That it doth set forth the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Secondly, That therefore it is the only, right way of baptising. First, It doth set forth the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Buried with Christ in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the Operation of God. And, I do say that, Buried with Christ in his Sepulchre we cannot possibly be, but the Apostle says, we are Buried with him in baptism, which doth properly represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, Now I proceed to the next, to show that therefore it is the only right way. If there was no other baptism instituted by Christ, nor practised by the Apostles and first Ministers of the Gospel, but what doth represent the Burial and Resurrection of Christ; Then Dipping only is the right way of baptising. But, etc. Therefore, etc.  Chand. 
This is not the Consequence of the Major. You are to prove that, because baptism is significant of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ; Therefore it must be by Dipping only.  Rus. 
Therefore I argue thus. If this was the only way practised in those times, than it must be by dipping only. 
* Reader. Observe, That the Dr. grounds his practice upon two Arguments linked together, viz. The resemblance between Dipping and a Burial. And Primitive Practice. Mr. Chandler, denies this resemblance between Dipping and Burial, to conclude for Dipping. And he ought to have proved that it doth; but instead thereof, he insists upon his second Argument drawn from Primitive practice. Hereupon there was no room (without contention) to urge any thing more against their first Argument. But you have it sufficiently Answered in the brief Confutation.   Chand. 
I deny the Minor.  Rus. 
If there be any other way, than you or some other Person is able to show it. But, etc.  Chand. 
I can show you another way— I can show that the word signifies Washing, and there is great Probability that many had water poured on them.  Rus. 
Give an instance in the New Testament, that any was baptised any other way.  L. 
We argue upon a Probability, It might be otherwise than by Dipping; there is no necessity of Dipping. If you'll grant that, we will go upon somewhat else, viz. That it must be in our climate according to our way. But if not; you must prove that there is no Probability, that it might be done any other way than by Dipping.  Rus. 
Let us hear then what the Scripture says in this matter.  L. 
Prove that those Texts where you render [baptism] by dipping, do truly and necessarily signify Dipping. Take what Text you will.  Rus. 
I choose that of our Saviour, Mar. 1.9. He was baptised of john in jordan. The Greek preposition is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Into. And to say, he was washed of John into Jordan is not sense; therefore it ought to be rendered thus, He was dipped of John into Jordan.  L. 
The preposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies [in] in the New Testament, as well as into; so here, he was baptised of john in jordan, is the true sense of the Greek.  
Now we will allow thus far. That what was commodious and usually practised on other occasions without any burden, in that warm Country, might be observed in baptism. It is said, that all judea and the Country round came to john and were baptised of him in jordan. In those hot Countries the custom was to go bare legged, in sandals. Now they might go into jordan a little way, and then have water poured upon them; and if so, allowing that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash, They might be said in this manner to be washed in Jordan, without the least necessity of Dipping. I will offer it to the Company whether this be not a fair interpretation of those words, Mar. 1.9. Christ came to john and was baptised of him in jordan, i.e. He went a step into the water, and was washed of him, in the manner aforesaid.  Rus. 
I will not allow your signification of the word. I say the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more than, In; So Christ is said to come into the world, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Excellent Greek.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 1.15. He went into the Synagogue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And so into jordan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
† Good Greek still.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This doth imply, that he was Baptised or dipped into Jordan, as those other Texts, that he came into the Synagogue, etc.  L. 
This Gentleman produceth three places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifys into, and I can produce three times three, where it cannot signify into, but must signify 
* Here we were going to read, but they gave no room.  In. The force of your Argument lies upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you would have rendered Into, where it signify's In. Then, add this to what I offered before, as a probable Interpretation contrary to yours, it's evident that there's no necessity of Dipping, from this Text.  Rob. 
There can be nothing beyond a probability asserted on our side or yours.  Chand. 
Well, prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifys abluo, To wash frequently in Scripture. Thither we will go, That's our tale.  Rus. 
According to all Lexicographers the primary signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, mergo, immergo, to Plunge, Overwhelm.  L. 
But by the way, you prove your Practice from the Prime and Native Signification of the word. Suppose it were mergo, to Plunge, and not abluo, (which yet we deny) You cannot argue from the Native Signification of a word, with any force, when the Scripture acceptation of it is different.  Rus. 
I did urge the Commission of our Saviour:  Chand. 
You are to prove that Dipping is the only way. If the word will bear the sense of washing or pouring water, then dipping is not the only way.  L. 
You argue from the Prime and Native Significatiof the word. I'll appeal to the Learned. If this be a good way of arguing; Then the Mathematics must include all kind of Learning. Because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn. Then every Youth that is skilled but a little in Physics, may be called a Physician, because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nay, and every Footboy, sent with a Letter, maybe called an Angel, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Messenger. To know therefore the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this ordinance, we must consider in what sense the word is usually taken in Scripture. And to say it signifies to Dip, where the ordinance is mentioned, is plainly to beg the Question, to assert the thing without proof; Therefore, rightly to understand the sense of the word, we must have recourse to those places where the word is used, and the ordinance not intended. Now I require one such place of Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip necessarily.  Rus. 
No there is no need of producing such a place. I shall prove it from the story of the Eunuch and Philip. He commanded the Chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, and then, when he had put him under water, 
* The Text Ac. 8, 38. hath not a word of putting him under the water.  they both came out of the water.  L. 
I deny that the word [Baptise] signifys to dip in any place of Scripture, or to put under water. i e. Necessarily.  Rus. 
Mat. 3.6. They were Baptised, i.e. dipped of john in jordan.  L. 
How doth it appear that they were dipped?  Rus. 
The Assembly, The Continuators of Pool, Calvin, Dr. Hammond allow it.  Chand. 
That's nothign to us. I defy you to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any Text of Scripture signifies to dip.  Rus. 
What then? You deny what Dr. Hammond, the Assembly, the Dutch Annotations have said.  L. 
We cannot say they have said so. We have not their Books at hand to turn to. Besides, suppose they should, that's no Proof. We are no Papists, to pin our faith on other men's Sleeves.  
In the next place. Whereas Mr. Russel hath brought the passage of Philip and the Eunuch, That they went down into the water and came up out of the water. It might as well be rendered, They went to and came from the water 
* So the Greek Prepositions often signify. . Now if they came by a River's side, they might go down out of a Chariot to the water, and when the Eunuch was Baptised, they came up from the water. Is not this a fair sense of these words? They went to and came from the water 
* Where is dipping to be found in this Text? . Again if you argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I can tell you of Seven Places, where the word is used and not applied to the ordinance, And you cannot prove that it signifies to dip in any of them. I argue then. If there are several Texts of Scripture, where the word cannot possibly bear this sense; Then it doth not necessarily bear it. But etc.  Rus. 
I deny the Minor.  L. 
I prove it by some Instances; Mark. 7.4. Except they wash, they eat not: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they be Baptised. But can it be imagined that they were plunged over head and ears every time they went to meals?  Rus. 
The word is sometimes rendered dipping in our English Translation, as, He that dippeth with me in the ●ish.  L. 
The word is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; besides, this would avail your cause but little, for can you suppose that he dipped himself over head and ears in the dish?  A Gentleman in the Company. 
I'm sure he would be foul and fawcy then.  Rus. 
But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Diminutive from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  A Gentleman said to his Neighbour. 
Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a smaller word, be thinks it must be its Diminutive. 
* This whole passage hath been attested by the Person that spoke the words.   L. 
I find the word to signify no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark. 7.4, 5. And so Naaman is said to observe the Prophet's word, which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet he went, and; as we read, dipped. Now since he observed the command of the Prophet, it is plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily signify any thing but washing.  Rus. 
What is the word in the Hebrew?  Chan. 
There are two words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And the Prophet commanded him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and it is added, according to the word of the Prophet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it is plain the words are used promiscuously; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So also we may observe, Christ commanded the blind man to wash in the Pool of Siloam. Must it be said, that he was dipped there? or can it be proved that Naaman was dipped, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nay, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so far from always signifying to dip, th●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself, though 〈…〉 in this sense, yet sometimes signifies only to 〈…〉. Thus Dan. 4.33. Nabuchadnezzar 〈◊〉 with the Dew of Heaven. The Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Rus. 
But the Hebrew is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Chan. 
What is it then? Here is an Hebrew Bible, if you'll see.  
Here the Hebrew Bible was handed to him, of Leusden's 2d Edit. and Mr. Russel kept it turning from place to place above 〈◊〉 a quarter of an hour, and could not find out the Book of Daniel, upon which the People fell a hissing. Than the Hebrew Bible was handed to Mr. Robinson who 〈◊〉 the leaf down at the place, and handed it back again to Mr. Russel, who stood with his Spectacles on his nose, a while longer, poring on it, but could not read it. But he said, he understood Hebrew before Mr. Chandler was born, 
* We have good Intelligence that the Dr. puzzled thus on the same Word, at a Public Disputation sometime before.  and to satisfy the Auditory that he did so, turned to the First Chapter of Genesis, where he read some part of a verse, or verses. And then again turned to Daniel, and could not read the words yet. After some time more, Mr. Russel pretended to read some words, but with a low Voice.  Chand. 
We come not here, Mr. Russel, to know whether you understand Hebrew, only tell us what the word is in this place. Which he could not do.  L. 
We can produce several other texts of Scripture, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify Dipping, as where we read of their washing Beds or Tables, the word is Baptise according to the Greek.  Rus. 
I deny it.  Chand. 
There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,—  L. 
What wash Beds, or Tables, by Dipping them under Water? Or must it be by pouring Water on them & c.? Upon the whole, the Application of a little Water in Baptism, especially in these Cold Climates, is grounded upon what Christ quotes. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice. Now it being not Necessarily employed in Scripture that Dipping was the ancient Practice, we say, that having a fair and probable way deducible from Scripture, we must rest therein, having recourse to that general rule. David's hunger was a fair excuse for eating the shewbread, which is called Most Holy, and Lawful only for the Priests to Eat. Therefore, if Dipping in Cold Wether, and Cold Climates, do tend to the Prejudice of a Person's Health, yea to Endanger Life, and it be not certainly fixed in Scripture, as the only way of Administering the Ordinance, we may use our own may, as, in General, most agreeable to the word of God.  Rus. 
They think, tho' they Transgress a Rule, God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice.  L. 
No. This is not so. We observe the rule, a Moral Precept, which takes place of a Ritual, when opposite; Much more is it Obligatory when it's not evident that any Ritual one doth oppose it.  Chand. 
If in those hot Countries they had dipped, or been obliged to dip, this would not hold in such Climates, and at such Seasons of the Year wherein the Life of a Person would, this way, be Manifestly exposed to Danger.  
Mr. Russel here attempted to read several Quotations, that he had Collected out of the Assemblies Annot. Pool, Dr. Ham. &c: which had been before disowned. And therefore the People refused to hear him, as being nothing to the purpose, however he spoke to this effect.  Rus. 
I hope the People will observe, that you are forced to differ from the Reud. Assembly of Divines, etc.  Chand. 
The Bible, the Bible is our Religion.  Rob. 
Mr. Russel, we are not ashamed to own ourselves Protestant's, with whom it is a Fundamental Principle, that the greatest and best of Men are fallible; And therefore our Assent is not concluded by the mere words of one or other name how great soever. We pay a just deference to the very worthy names you mentioned, but we cannot think ourselves obliged to believe every thing they say. If you have any Solid Reasons to offer, or the clear evidence of any Text of Scripture, to determine this point, pray let us hear it before we close up the day. Nothing being said, he, applying himself to the People, added.  Rob. 
A great deal of loose discourse you have heard, upon this last Question. Mr. Russel was obliged by all the Laws of Disputation, to prove, that according to the Commission of our Lord, Baptism was to be administered by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming, and no otherwise. Some attempts he made towards it, of the weakness of which, I doubt not but, you are all sensible; And therefore (which yet they were not obliged to) Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh undertook to prove that it was not Necessarily to be so Administered. For the clearing of which, they have manifested that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew doth not, necessarily, signify any thing more than only to Wash, or, to apply water to a Person, without determining whether it shall be by dipping a Person into water, or pouring water upon him, or any other way; so that water be applied, it is all that can necessarily be concluded from the words. Of this they have given clear evidence both from the Old Testament and the New.  
And now upon the whole, we are willing to refer it to your own Judgements, whether you will be persuaded to account your own Baptism a Nullity, because it hath not been administered in the way of these Persons. If you can without any Solid Reason, or without so much as the evidence of one single Text of Scripture, be Satisfied, you may then take what our adversaries have said for Satisfaction. But, since it hath been fully proved, that Christ hath only required that Persons be Solemnly entered into his Church by Baptising or Washing them in the Name of Father, Son and Spirit, and hath not determined, so far as doth appear, whether this washing shall be performed this way or that, we are willing, I say, to refer it to the Judgement of you all, whether our way of Admistration be not the most commodious:  
FINIS.   

I have compared this Copy with the Original, viz. Mr. Maltby's and my own, and find it exactly agreeable thereto.  
Witness, my Hand, this 10th day of july, 1699. W. SMITH.    

Some Just Reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended Narrative.  
'TIS with great Regret, that we are again diverted from more pleasing and useful Studies, to dip our Pens in this Watery Controversy, and undertake this Invidious Service. As we were Necessitated by the Anabaptists Challenge to the Disputation itself, so had they not (by Publishing a false account,) laid us under a like Necessity to Vindicate the Truth and ourselves, the World had never more heard of this matter. In these our Reflections, we shall Manifest the Author's Egregious Falsehood, in some parts of his Narrative, his Trisling Impertinencies in others, and the Uncharitable Principles that have dropped from him.  
The Narrative is pretended to be Transcribed from Mr. Bissel's and Mr. Ring's Copy's. Now we can assure the World, that Mr. Bissel's Copy was like a Lawyer's Breviate, containing only hints for Memory, and may be all contained in 3 or 4 pages, and hardly one word of it in this Narrative. As to Mr. Ring's, we have taken the pains to compare it with this account, and find several hundred Falsehoods, Additions, Alterations and Omissions. It is an ill omen thus to stumble at the Threshold; and what begins with a Falsehood, we have Reason enough to Mistrust. But to the Narrative itself, we shall (as to some parts) show its Egregious Falsehood as to matters of fact, and that by its Omissions of some, and misciting other particulars, as well as positive false assertions.  
1. It is Egregiously false by Reason of its Omissions. Not that every Omission of a word or Sentence, (perhaps) would have rendered it so; but such Omissions as alter the very State of the Disputation, and make it look like an●ther thing, than it truly was, are undoubtedly to be called Falsehoods. Should any one pretending to report the Psalmists Sense, Ps. 14.1. leave out the first words, and assure the world he said, there is no God; would not this be called a Notorious Falsehood? though the Falseness of it lies, in not relating the whole Sentence. From whence it may be collected, That it is not only asserting what was never said, but also the Omission of something that was said, may bring an Historian under the Gild of Falsifying. And whether it be not so in the present case, we shall leave the World to judge, in these few Instances.  
Mr. Leigh, upon their frequent pressing for an Instance from Scripture, of our Practice in Baptising Infants, happily retorted the Argument upon themselves, and challenged them to produce one Instance of their Practice, as theirs differs from ours. For all that know us, know we also baptise such as are adult, upon the Profession of the Christian Faith, that were not baptised in Infancy: Nay, that we should refuse to baptise the Child of an Heathen, or other Notorious Infidel, (unless adopted by some Christian) till he become adult, and make a credible Profession of Christianity. Mr. Leigh therefore pressed them for one Scripture Instance of a believing, meaning a Christian Parents Child, whose Baptism was delayed till adult. And withal, told them, That from the Death of Christ to the Death of St. john, according to the computation of the Learned, was about 60 years, in which compass of Time, multitudes of Christians Children were become adult. Dr. Russel mentioned Constantine the Great as a Scripture-Instance, which was justly ridiculed: Mr. Williams, as he acknowledged to us afterwards, thought it not of any Force, and by the intimation of his Son, alleges the Instance of our Lord, as born of a Believer, of the Virgin Mary. To which Mr. Leigh replied, I thought we had been speaking of the Commission; now this was before the Commission. Intimating, that the Instance was not pertinent, relating to a Baptism that preceded the Commission of our Lord; and therefore our Disputation was no way concerned in it. Notwithstanding this, Dr. Russel would have it a pertinent Answer, Christ being the Child of a Believer. And to this he reports no Answer, but makes Mr. Leigh seek to be Opponent upon it, as if confounded with this Instance, pag. 35. Whereas, immediately upon the Reply of Dr. Russel, Mr. Robinson, our Moderator, adds, Tho Mr. Leigh expressed himself in so general Terms, yet the whole strain of the Discourse did sufficiently manifest that an Instance of the Child of a Believer, properly Christian, was called for: Now the Virgin Mary was a jew, and not then a Christian: Nor was Christian Baptism then instituted. With more to the same purpose. Mr. Leigh also further replied, That Christ was not to be imitated in that, because than no Person: ought to be baptised till 30; not except circumcised at 8 days old, as the Reader may set in the foregoing Narrative. After which Dr. Russel offered nothing. Now we appeal to all the World, whether when so large and distinct a Reply was made, both by Mr. Robinson and Mr. Leigh, this man hath fairly represented our Cause, when he takes no notice at all of it. But if this Gentleman, or any of his Friends, can yet produce one Scripture-Instance of the Child of a Christian Parent, baptised at grown years, it will be somewhat to the purpose; and they may ha●e the confidence to call for Instances from us, and to pretend that theirs (as distinguished from ours) is the Scripture-way, and most agreeable to the Commission of our Lord: But till then how unreasonable is it for them to expect Instances of our way, when they have none to produce for their own?  
Again he hath omitted to tell the World, (what all that were present well Remember,) that he was put to Silence by what was urged from Mat. 19.14. to prove Infant Members of the Church-Militant upon Earth. Insomuch that after a long Silence, Mr. R●binson called to him, and asked if he had no reply to make and begged of him that if he had any thing to say he would speak; otherwise tell the People that we might proceed. To which Dr. Russel made a very weak reply▪ that in this Text there is not a word of Baptism, or the Commission; and Mr. W. instead of Answering took the Oppenancy, as in the Narrative. But not one word more from that Argument could be got from Dr. Russel.  
Besides tho' he hath concealed yet he cannot (himself) ha●● forgotten, that the 2d. Argument on our pa●t, where he was again Silence● was summed up by Mr. Robinson in the words o● our Narative: Then we referred i● to the Gentlemen present, whether we should offer any more Argument on the 1st Question, and ●● was thought wholly needless. Mr. Robinson's closing Speech on the 2d. Question, is also whol●y omitted.  
We forbear to mention here, how he hath omitted such passages as did sufficiently expose his Ignorance to the Learned part of the company: Such a● were his telling us once and again, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ●f the Masculine Gender, agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Greek Verbs admit not of Genders, tho' Hebrew do; and his saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it had been with an Omega and I Consonant. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Faults for which a School Boy would deserve the lash.  
And when he was not allowed to conclude his first Argument▪ on the 2d. Question, otherwise than with the word of the Question, it will be Remembered (tho' his Narrative hath not told us,) with how great difficulty he formed his Syliegism, and how many attempts he made before he could bring the words of the Question, into the conclusion: Insomuch that our Moderator offered him his Assistance.  
These and several other particulars which quite a●ter the Face of the Disputation, were by no means to be omitted: Neither can that be called a True Narrative, that suppresseth ●he Truth in such Instances as these.  
2. This Narrative is false, in regard of its strange misplacing some Particulars: on which account the Reader can form no true Idea of the Disputation. So, for instance, wh●● h●●ays concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 34. (〈…〉 is true) should have come in in the midst of Mr William's rambling Discourse, betwixt Dr. Russel's 4th and 5th Arguments; and that about the Beasts of the Field, should have had its place betwixt the 1st and 2d Argument on our part for Infant Baptism; when Mr. Williams and Russel were both Rambling again. And had they been found in their proper places, as in Mr. Ring's Copy, which Narrative Russel pretends to transcribe, they would only have served to expose the Weakness of him that brought them. But as he hath placed them here, they serve to hide the shameful Baffle they and their Cause had by the Arguments on our side. For, as was said before, they never reassumed the Opponency on the first Question, after the closing up the Argument from Infant's Discipleship. Tho Dr. Russel brings in these Two Arguments, as if they went off with Triumph, to the 2d Question. Which yet every Judicious Auditor Knows to be False. Lesser slips we pass by.  
3. He hath forged several downright Falsehoods; one of which is just under our Eye, with relation to what is immdiately before said, and therefore (though a little out of its place 〈◊〉 mention it here. He 〈◊〉 tells the World, that 〈◊〉 said, they might take up the opponency again, if they pleased: And again, that be reassumed the Opponency again, at Mr. Leigh ' s Request of which h● was sick. With much of the same sort, page 34. Which is the mere Figment of his own Brain, and not one Syllable of it True. The Omission of 〈◊〉 things that were ●aid, tho' it alter the Face of the Disputation, might be Imputed to a weak Imperfect Copy: But this must needs be a Contrived and Deliberate Falsehood; nor hath he a right to be Believed in any thing, that dare Forge and Publish such an untruth.  
But because the Preface is almost one continued Falsehood, we shall particularly take notice of it.  
1. He declares Mr. Bows and Mr. Webber were the sole cause of his being Engaged in the Disputation, whereas Mr. W●bber hath declared to Mr. Smith and Mr. Chandler, that he utterly, disliked the dispute from the Beginning, and was only thus far concerned; seeing they would Engage he advised rather to Dr. Russel than Matthew Cassin, whom Mr. Bows had pitched upon. A Man that denys both the Deity and Humanity of Christ, against whom Dr. Russel hath Printed an Honest Protestation. And this Man tho' overturning the Fundamentals of Christianity is hugged by Mr. Bows: Because he agrees with him, in the darling Notions of Believers Baptism by dipping; Which, he told the Worshipful the Mayor of Portsmouth, was a Fundamental of Religion. Thus uncharitably doth this Man shut us all out of Heaven, and confine Religion to his own party, while a denier of Christ's Deity and Humanity hath been since, as well as before the Disputation, admitted into his Pulpit, while he, as a Messenger of the Churches, was travelling busily to spread false Reports against us.  
2. Another falsehood which is indeed from the wrong Information of Mr. Leddell, (that Man of heat, which much Water cannot Quench,) is this; that he should twice go to Mr. Smith to compare Copies and he refused to do so, altho' his Copy, was then finished. This is a downright falsehood as appears by the annexed Testimonial.  

To convince the World of the falseness of what is said in the 2 Page of the first leaf of Dr. Russel's Dedication, with Respect to myself; I do declare, that Mr. William Leddel never came to me but once, wh● he asked me whether I had Transcribed what I wrote at the Disputation I told him I had not, but intended to do it. He farther said if I had, when I had done it, he desired to have it to read over; and I sho● have Mr. Samuel Rings Copy which was Transcribed; to which Answered, that I had but an Imperfect Account of the Matter, which I Believe is the most that any Scribe who wrote at the dispute, could truly say of what they wrote, it being so full of confusion occasions through the Anabaptists lo●se and shuffling way of Arguing. Mr. Le●del des never intimated to me any design they had to Prim the Disputation nor did I think they really intended any such thing; because not long● fore, In my own and several other Persons hearing, Mr. Leddel did 〈◊〉 tell against Printing it. I had not when he came to me Transcribe one word from my Copy, neither was it finished till about 14 Day since; had I known their design of Printing I would have gotten my 〈◊〉 ready for them: Which might have prevented Dr. Russel from 〈◊〉 so many untruths to the World.  
Witness my hand the 10 day July, 1699. William Smith   

The Truth of the above Relation, I do attest; being present when Mr Leddell came to Mr. Smith, and knowing what is said about the time of Transcribing his Copy to be True.  
Witness my hand the Day and year above said. William Wallen.   
3. It is false that Mr. Chandler's Sermons were the occasion of the Dispute, and much more, that this is agreed to by us. As he asserts pr. pag. 2. We are all of Opinion, Mr. Bow's Impudent charling was the occasion of it, tho' Mr. Chandler's Sermons were the innocent occasion of that challenge. So that according to the Proverb, he might as well have said Tenterden Steeple was the cause of Goodwin Sands.  
4. It is false that it lay upon us to prove our Practice, when in the Preliminary● they that made the challenge undertook to be Asserters, and Dr. Russel took the Opponency upon himself: He hath also abused Dr. Smith, who told him as he was Assertor he must prove, but Negantis non est probare.  
5. It is false that as he says pr. pag. 8. Mr. Robinson should in the midst of the dispute give him the lie, and yet could not make any thing out about it. This sentence contains as many Falsehoods as can possibly be crowded into so narrow a compass. That Mr. Robinson speaks with a loud voice, is what all that know him, know to be false. Yet this Gentleman ventures to say pag. 13. he bawled very loud; again pag. 35. Mr Robinson stood up, made a noise like one in a Delirious Paroxysm. What doth the Man mean to Write at such a rate as this? Surely he thinks loud lies will do no hurt.  
And that Mr. Robinson ever did in the Disputation give him the lie, (as far as can by himself or Friends be Recollected, or be made appear by any Copies then taken) is wholly untrue; and 'tis strange (if this Dignifyed Dr. So well Remember it) that he could find no place for it in his Narrative; that so the Circumstances that attended it, might have assisted our Memories.  
Yet (that we may not wrong him,) Mr. Leigh owns the words as his: That without a Compliment it was a lie in him, to insinuate to the People, as if Mr. Leigh would have all Infants excluded from Heaven.  
Besides he intimates, upon giving him the lie, there was a challenge made to the party to prove it, and yet he could make nothing out about it. Whereas there was never any such challenge given, and we are ready to prove to his Face, that in the Disputation itself he told more lies than one; tho' he should not have had that corpse Compliment from any of us, Had he but behaved himself like a Scholar or a Gentleman▪  
6. It is false that Mr. 〈…〉 said that Mr. Robinson exceede● the bounds of a 〈…〉 or abused Dr. Russel in 〈…〉 wholethat Mr. Francis Willia●s said was 〈…〉 john ●iliiams complained that 〈…〉, he replied; if he did so, 〈…〉 But, as to Mr. Robinson's abusing 〈…〉 never said or thought any such thing. 〈…〉 said under this head, but th● unexpected 〈…〉 of O●d Mr john Williams, restrained our 〈…〉 God he ●● gone to give his account, and we shall 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 is grave.  
7. It is a false Misrepresentation, that M● Farr●l should acknowledge they gained any Credit to their c●use by the Disputation, as appears by the following extract of a Letter from him.  
I Solemnly appeal to the great God, who ●est knows what were my words, that to the best of my Remembrance, I spoke to Mr. Williams after this manner. Mr. Williams, I must tell you, and that not as mine own Sentiment only, but (I Believe I may speak it,) as the Sentiments of the rest of my Brethren, that whatever Credit (not your cause) but ye may have gained, is wholly owing unto you. To which Mr. Williams rep●y'd, don't Sir put that upon me. I Answered, I will speak it, for you argued with more Simplicity, and less Subtlety, than Russel, and so were the fairer Disputant. These words thus in Civility spoken, had a plain Reference, not to the cause disputed, but Persons disputing; not to the strength of Argument▪ but form and manner of arguing, (many things Mr. Farrel offers that show this was his sense, which we think it needless to repeat, b●cause the words thus Circumstanced carry their own Evidence with them,) he concludes his Letter thus— I now leave, it to the Judgement of the Ingenuous, whether it can be fairly deduced from my words, that we were conscious of any Credit gained by them to their cause, or whether they are not conscious their cause was wounded, and interest sinking, when they readily catch at so vain a shadow to support their Cause and Reputation. I will add no mo●e, but that having perused the Narrative, find it so full of Fraud, Partiality, Falsehood, and Misrepresentation; that this Instance may serve as a Specimen, if not of the whole, yet of the greatest part. Attested by George Farrel.  
8. It is False, that the Advertisement in the Post-Man was ours. And we cannot but stand amazed at the Confidence of the man who dares say any thing. It was well Known to Old Mr. john Williams, before he left Gosport, that the Honourable Colonel Gibson sent up that Advertisement. He generously allowed us to mention him as the Author of it, and hath given the annexed Testimonial in Confirmation of it.  

By Colonel JOHN GIBSON, Lieutenant Governor of Portsmouth, etc.  
I do hereby Certify all whom it may any way concern, That the Advertisement put in the Printed Paper commonly called, The Post-Man, upon the 25th day of February, in relation to the Debate betwixt the Presbyterians and Anabaptists, held at the Presbyterian Meetinghouse at Portsmouth, upon the 22d day of February; I say, the said Advertisement was inserted, as above, by my Direction. I do also own, I was then, and am still of the same Opinion as mentioned in the abovesaid Advertisement.  
Witness my Hand at Portsmouth, June 9th. 1699. J. GIBSON.   
This we are well assured Dr. Russel knew, as being told so, by some of Mr. Chandler's Friends at the Coffeehouse in Alderjgatestreet: when he gave the Honourable Lieutenant Governor such Scurrilous Names, as we will not foul our Paper with. Notwithstanding this, this Man hath the Impudence, to dedicate his false Narrative to him; Indeed with a Diminutive Title as if he were not Lieutenant Governor, Receiving an Immediate Commission from the King, but only deputy Govenour, deputed by Major General Earl.  
This he should have enquired into, before he had dedicated his Book to him. This Noble Gentleman is aspersed and ridiculed as one of our unthinking admirers Nar. pag, 7. and a squirter out of Poolish Advertisements, words that need no other Invective than the Bare Relation, Pag. 10. what he adds further, that we would not give him the Civil Title of Dr. that he took his degree at Cambridg, admitted as a Member of that Honourable Senate, and that not Ex gratia; is partly false. That he was created a Mandamus Dr. by King james in 1688. we understand, and with how great a Price this Tool bought that privilege, we leave the World to Jndg. But what he means by a Senate at Cambridg, is beyond our understanding. That he was not regularly chosen as one well furnished with the Learned Qualifications required, his Ignorance in Greek we think to be a sufficient Evidence. We could also inform him to whom he applied himself for the better understanding of the Latin Tongue. That he also kept a Coffeehouse in Bartholomew-Close, is well known to the Neighbourhood there. But supposing he he had been a Regular Dr. in Physic, as he styles himself, this may no more qualify him for a Divinity Disputation than being a Coffeeman. So that why he should insist on his Title, in this case, we know not.  
Here we shall also take notice of another Falsehood, that this bold Gentleman hath Published amongst and by his Friends in London. Tho' he have not adventured it into his Narrative; one of us hath been assured by a Person that had it, from the Mouth of an Anabaptist of considerable note in London, that Dr. Russel, to put it out of doubt, that he and his Friends had carried the day at Portsmouth, added, the Bishop of Salisbury had received a Letter from Colonel Gibson, wherein he applauded their i. e. the Anabaptist's performance. That such a report hath spread abroad we are well assured. But that it is most Egregiously false, that Right Reverend Person whose name he hath made use of, hath given us leave to assure the World▪ He doth indeed own he had a Letter from Colonel Gibson, his near Kinsman, Relating to the Disputation. But to a purpose quite opposite to what this falsiefier reports; and adds, that not only the Letter he Received, but one directed to the Ld. A. Bi● of Casterbury, did Represent the disputation as much to our advantage as could be desired.  
To this sense his Lordship was pleased to express himself to Mr. Robinson our Moderator, (who waited on him on this occasion) and Generously allowed us to make use of his Name, for the undeceiving the World in this matter.  
9 It is false, what he intimates pr. pag. 11. that when we were pinched upon an Argument, we made a Noise and Clamour that hindered the People from hearing what was said. Whereas all that were present, we doubt not, well Remember, the first disturbance we had of that kind, was that mentioned in the Narrative, pag. 35. when the Anabaptists (upon the mention of our Saviour, as an Instance of the Child of a Believer, not Baptised till adult) rudely enough set up a shout. And Mr. Webber Ignorantly cried, 'Tis done! 'Tis done! Tho' the Triumph was but short lived, for so soon as Mr. Leigh replied to the Instance, the Body of the People returned 'em their Civility, and set up another shout at them. Besides which, there was no further Noise or Interruption of that Nature, till that rude Comparison of Children and Beasts of the Field, of which more afterwards. The last Interruption was when Russel would have put us off with a bundle of Humane Testimonies, instead of proof, and we had once and again protested against them, and given our Reason's viz. that we had not the Authors at hand, to try the truth of his Quotations; besides that should they have said what he would have them, their Testimony would not necessarily Engage our assent, they being but fallible men. When after this he yet would trouble us with his Impertinent long Quotations, the People refused to hear him, and continued to hiss till he gave over reading; but what was said at the closing up of that head by us, doth sufficiently Manifest no Human Testimony can pinch us: It was the Ridiculous weakness and not the force of the Argument couched in his Testimonies that occasioned that noise. And if there was any thing in it, that was a grievance to him; Let him thank his Anabaptist Friends that gave the first Example.  
10. It is false, that Mr. Fox was dipped by Mr. Williams' advice, Who was not then in the Country, nor did Mr. Earl know him. That it was done by Mr. Chandler's advice, is also false; for he was then at London. But that none of us would refuse to dip a Person in such a case, is true. We never pleaded against dipping as one way, but as the only way; not against ' its Lawfulness, but Necessity. So that this Instance is brought in to no purpose; and Brother Duke should have informed himself better in the Circumstances of this story, before he had conveyed it to London. Nay he was dipped not at Gosport but Havant.  
We shall purposely wave the Falsehoods in the Narrative itself, because our own account doth sufficiently manifest them. We shall only add that the Conclusion of the Book is as false as the rest. For he says p. 59, 60. That God was pleased to make the hearing of the dispute, of such use to several Persons; That they were fully convinced— and did in few days after, submit themselves to ' be dipped in Water; whereas we can hear of no unprejudiced Persons, Who were any way inclined towards Anabaptism, by any thing that was offered in the Disputation. And we challenge them to Name us one Person so convinced. Those that were fixed in their Prejudices, might perhaps take their weak Arguments and Trifling Answers for a sufficient Confutation, of Infant Baptism: But we provoke them to Name one unprejudiced Person that did so. And do offer, for one such Person so na●●'d by them, We will, if they demand it, tell them the Names of several who did strongly incline to Anabaptism before, who by that Disputation were set right and fully satisfied, that the Anabaptist cause sloth rest on weak Unscriptural Principles, how loudly soever they pretend to Scripture.  

CHAP. II.  
HAving thus far manifested, how little Regard the Anabaptist Dr. had to Truth in his Narrative, this were enough to be offered by way of reply; nor need there any thing more to discredit an History, than to show that it is false. But we shall so far condescend to the weakness of Injudicious Persons; as to animadvert also on the Trifling Impertinencies, his Narrative abounds with.  
1. All the Arguments they offered were Trifling Cavils. The First was designed to turn off the Opponency upon us. The 2 d supposes what was never granted them, that the only Commission and universal directory for Baptism is contained in Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. For indeed if this were Christ's only Commission. than his Disciples did Baptise joh. 4.2. without his Commission; for this Command was not then delivered: again, if th●s Command were designed as an universal directory, Then previous Examination, discourses of the Significancy and Obligation of this Sacrament, stated Prayer before and after, are besides the Commission. Nay, the Apostles did deviate, from the Commission, when they Baptised only in the Name of the Lord Jesus or of the Lord, Acts 10. Vlt. 19.5. this is therefore no other than extending the Commission to the Gentile World; supposing that the Practice of it both as to manner and Subjects was well known before, only then congeed to the lost sheep of the 〈◊〉 of Is●●el. So that Infants may be Baptised if we can bring good proof for it out of the other parts of Holy Writ, though it could not be preyed from Christ's Command: For the whole Scripture is the will of Christ; and his will discerned in this Matter, is his Commission. But supposing (not granting) this to be an universal directory, We distinguished between Disciples, that are complete or Incomplete. Incomplete may be made by the Ministry of Men.  
1. As by the Preaching of Men, Parents may be converted and constrained to give up all they have and are to God, and so their Infants thus considered in their Parents, they are remotely made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.  
2. They are immediately made Disciples by the Ministry of Men; by the Parents devoting them to God; and bringing them to his Ministers to be solemnly dedicated to him. Dr. Russel's vain attempts to take off this distinction, may be taken notice of in the foregoing Narrative, to which we ●re●er the reader, as also to observe the little Arguments they further used, and weak Answers they gave to our Arguments.  
2. His Reflections in the time of the Disputation itself and what he hath added, are equally Trifling and Insignificant. For Instance.  
1. What he insinuates p. 6. as if in effect we gave away our cause, because we refused (at that time) to give an Instance, where there was any thing recorded in Scripture, that did oblige us to Baptise Infants, whereas it then lay on them to prove the contrary: Our business (who were the Respondents) was to attend their proof, the time was not yet come for us to produce our own. It was agreed that they who had reflected on the Doctrine of Infant Baptism as false and wholly untrue; should prove that it was so. Yet this Trifler when he had undertaken to prove, that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism, At the very first would have put it upon us to prove they were so, and would persuade the company we gave away our cause, unless we did as he directed. This was Doctor like Truly! And one would not grudge, (however he came by it) to give him the Title, who does so powerfully carry all before him. You have his whole sense in these few words. Gentlemen, if I prove that Infants are not the Sublects of Baptism, you will allow I perform what I have undertaken, pag. 5. now this I'll make so plain, you shall not be able to answer or evade the force of my Argument. Thus I argue; if they be the Subjects of Baptism, Mr. Leigh, Mr. Chandler or some Body else is able to prove it. But therefore they are not so: And now I have effectually done your business; for if you say you can prove it, let's hear it; if not, you give away your cause. To this sense doth this mighty Man of Logic Flourish at the entrance, and Wonderful Feats no doubt he thinks he hath done in it: But such Egregious Trifling is hardly found among any pretending to the least degree above common sense. And it was fitter to have been hissed out, than so soberly replied to as it was.  
1. What! Do you prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism, by putting us to prove that they are. Wonderful! this 'tis to be a Dr. and to know more than all the World besides.  
For till this Dr. came upon the stage, these 2 things were always very differing (to make proof of a thing, and put another to prove the contrary.) This Gentleman undertook to prove p. 5. but (as if he repented of his rash undertaking) he very courteously invites us to change sides with him, and thereby free him of a burden that was too heavy for him.  
2. Nor is every thing untrue, the contrary to which we cannot prove true. We cannot prove that this Narrative, Russel ever was at Cambridge, or took his Degrees there; but would he have us therefore take the contrary for certain Truth? Yes, we must, according to his method. If one boldly assert against us, That he never was at Cambridge, we desire they would prove it before we give Credit to 'em. In his way they'll prove it too, and then we must needs grant it. Well, we wait only for the Proof. Thus it is. You cannot prove that he ever was at Cambridge, or took any Degree there. Therefore, behold, he was not. The strange Effects of Logic!  
3. Nor if we can prove it, doth it follow we needs must? especially when he had undertaken the Opponency. We that stood upon our Defence (as Respondents) were only to attend to what they had to offer, and show the invalidity of it; but were by no Laws of Disputation, that ever yet were published to the World, obliged to change sides with them and take the proving part on us. Tho' this we declare we were ready to do in due time but it was no way fit to be done at the beginning of the Disputation, unless this Doughty Dr. had said in plain words (as he did in effect in his first Argument,) Gentlemen, I have undertaken more than I can do. And therefore tho' I cannot prove that Infants are not the Subjects of Baptism, I should take it kindly if you would please to prove the contrary.  
4. And as to his pretence, that his Proposition was an Universal Negative; Therefore we were obliged by it to give our Instance: It is a great mistake, and contrary to all the uncontested Rules of Disputation, nor could any order possibly be observed, if it should be admitted. For how easy were it for an Opponent in any case, thus to oblige the Respondent to change places with him— which what confusion it would create, any one that hath an insight into these things, will easily imagine. That Rule hath therefore (as far as we can find) universally obtained.  
Neuter Disputantium alterius partes suscipiat, neque; opponens in partem Respondentis involet, aut contra; And consequently a very Principal part of the work of a Moderatot lies, in keeping each within their proper Limits. Regimen praesidis in eo consistit, ut diligenter attendat, utrum Opponens & Respondens suo officio fungantur necne: Si utrumque aut alterutrum ab Officio suo recedentem conspexerit, eum sui muneris admoneat, & intra limites contineat, ne extra oleas (uti dici Solet) evagentur.  
5. Nor will that known Rule Negantu non est probare, and asserenti incumbit probatio, mentioned by Dr. Smith at all avail our Anabaptist Champion: As indeed it never was intended by that Worthy Person to any such purpose, as he hath allowed us to assure the World: and as did plainly enough appear to all the Judicious part of the Company, when he spoke those words: his design was (as the design of the Rule itself, at least when applied to Logical Disputations) that the Proof lies not on the Respondent, who only denies, or distinguishes upon his Adversary, but upon the Opponent, who is the Asserter, whether his Arguments run in an Affirmative or Negative Form. But thus much is more than sufficient to expose his ridiculous Trifling under that Head.  
2. He next reflects upon Mr. Chandler, as if he was at a Loss, so that Mr. Leigh and Mr. Robinson were forced to help him out with their Distinctions and Equivocable Expressions, page 11, Whereas, if, Mr. Leigh did offer any Distinctions, 'twas what belonged to him, as an appointed Disputant with Mr. Chandler: And that they spoke promiscuously, is owing to a Proposal made by the Anabaptists, that the Disputants might be allowed it; which accordingly was agreed before we went to the place of Disputation. So that 'tis Ridiculous Trifling for him, from Mr. Leigh's sometimes speaking, who was allowed equal Liberty with Mr. Chandler himself, to infer that Mr. Chandler was at a Loss, and Mr. Leigh forced to help him out. And it is somewhat more than Trifling, and should be inserted among the Falsehoods, what he asserts, p. 16. That Mr. Chandler finding himself unable to answer, quitted the place of a Disputant, and Mr. Leigh desired to take it up, which was admitted upon condition, etc. Whereas it was moved the Night before the Disputation, when the Anabaptists came in a Body to us at Mr. Williams' House, That we would admit the Principal and his Second to speak promiscuously. The Reason given was, Because Dr. Russel, or Mr. John Williams, had an Infirmity that sometimes disabled him from speaking for a considerable time vogeb●er. We took till the morning to consider of the Proposal, and then at the Hour and Place prefixed we gave that Liberty to them, provided the same might be allowed to us, which was consented to. Upon which it was resolved on both sides, That the Disputants should be allowed to assist each other, as they saw occasion. With what Face now can this man insinuate to the world, That Mr. Leigh, in the midst of the Disputation begged leave to speak, and could not be admitted but upon Terms: And all this only to set off that False Lie, viz. That Mr. Chandler quitted the Place of a Disputant.  
But to return to what we were upon: Mr. Leigh helped out Mr. Chandler with his Distinctions. We grant he was helpful to him, and was chosen for that purpose, and was not Mr. Williams also to the best of his skill helpful to Dr. Russel? But Mr. Leigh helped out Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Williams did his best to help out Dr. Russel, though thro' the badness of the Cause, he neither did, nor could help him out. But Mr. Robinson helped too with his Distinctions. 'Tis false; and his own Narrative (as it happens) will manifest it to be so; for that Distinction there mentioned by Mr. Robinson, is there mentioned not as his own, but Mr. Chandler's; and it was only mentioned to show the no occasion he had to spend Time in proposing such frivolous Questions; a sufficient Answer to which he had already had from Mr. Chandler.  
There only remains under this head, Mr. Leighs and Mr. Robinson's helping out Mr. Chandler with their Equivocable Expressions. But this (Equivocable) like the (Senate at Cambridge,) is a word of the Famous D●s. own coining, and therefore he best knows the meaning of it. Equivocal we have often heard of, but equivocable we know not what to make of, unless by this, added to the Hebrew and Greek Instances of his Learning, we be left to collect that (as he says) he was Created a Dr in the most proper sense Ex Inhabili Materia. Doctor ex non docto. Yet if he intent Equivocal Expressions, though he charge them upon us, they are his own peculiar Talon. Perhaps few jesuits herein equal or exceed him at that sort of Weapon. If any thing said by us, was grievous to him, it was not that we used Equivocal Expressions of our own, but that we repeated and distinguished upon his.  
3. How impertinently doth he Trifle, when he overloaded his 3d Argument with a multitude of Propositions? Tho Mr. Leigh denied first, That the Apostle Paul did never declare that Infant-Baptism is a Gospel Institution: yet could he never have it proved. Suppose he did (which yet he neither did nor can) prove that Paul never declared it in his Writings, yet how will he ever prove that he never declared it at any time by word of mouth? which yet if he assert, he must prove. And how frivolously doth he afterwards talk of our having in our Custody any such unwritten Tradition? We never did assert, the Apostle Paul did declare any such thing by word of mouth that is not written, only said, he might do it, and put this wonderful man to prove he did not. And how insufferably weak and trifling are all 〈◊〉 Reflections he hath under this Head cast upon us! While this was the Sum of what was said to his Minor or Antecedent. But afterwards we denied also his Major or consequent; that unless Paul declared the Baptism of Infants, ●t was no part of the Counsel of God, which (by his own account) he never proved; nor is it indeed capable of proof, unless what Paul declared must stand instead of the whole Scripture to us. And though the Apostle tells us, he had not shunned to declare, yet he never tells us that he had actually declared the whole Counsel of God, Acts 20.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The word intimates he did not prevaricate with them, or fraudulently keep back any truth, that in the course of his Ministry among them, he had a call from God to deliver to them: He he did not do as Peter faultily did Gal. 2.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who withdrew, sought Subterfuges through a mean and Timorous Spirit, concealed the truth when it was most especially to be owned by him; and for which the Apostle rebuked him v. 11. now (says he) I did not from any such mean or base Principle, suppress or hide from you, or misrepresent to you any part of the Mind of God; but have freely and boldly declared to you, so far as I had opportunity, and there was any occasion for it, the whole Counsel of God. Not that we can imagite the Apostle had any opportunity to declare the whole of what God had at any time, by any Messenger, revealed of his Counsel. Nor was there occasion he should spend his Time among them upon such Points with which they were well acquainted before; especially while he had himself immediate Revelations from Heaven to communicate to them. If therefore it could (as it never can) be proved that Paul never said a word of Infant Baptism to them, it would by no means follow that it is no part of the Counsel of God: but only, that it was no part of what was immediately revealed from Heaven to himself, nor any thing that he needed to insist upon among them, who might otherways and sufficiently be instructed about it. We might therefore (when we had denied the consequence) with just Reason say as p. 21. Suppose but not grant that Paul had not spoken a word of Infant Baptism, yet they cannot in the least advantage their cause by it. And so our Opposition stands good against that Argument; even as he himself doth represent the closing of it.  
4. His Reflection upon us especially upon Mr. Robinson, for refusing to admit him to harangue the People upon the words of the Commission is (if possible) yet more trifling. Was he not not allowed to argue from the Commission? And was not that all that was fit to be allowed him? Was he interrupted in reading the Text? What would the Man have! Why verily he wanted to illuminate us and our hearers with his Preachment upon the Text. Poor Ignorant Souls! He perhaps apprehended we could not understand the Commission without his help. In the presence of so many Ministers and particularly of him that had the right of the place; he might have had the Civility to have asked leave, or to have forborn till invited to it. Besides he knew our company came together, not to hear a Sermon especially from him, but to attend a Disputation: The man must by all means Preach and having named a Text, he begins, This Commission is very solemnly delivered, wherein our Lord tells us, that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to him, and by virtue of that Power.— And here he takes it ill to be interrupted.— And we must be reflected on as Lucifugae Scripturarum, Bats and Owls that are afraid of the Commission, and fly the light of the Scripture, because we would not suffer him to go on with his Impertinent Harangue: As if it was all one to refuse to hear a Text of Scripture read, to as hear his Comment upon it: How excessively doth this man dote on his own Labours!  
5. How Egregiously doth he trifle p. 24. when because our Moderator would not suffer Mr. calvin's Authority to stand for an Argument, he Reflects as if he had no esteem for him. Whereas there are few Names since the Apostles days, for which he hath so great a Veneration. What? is it impossible, in this Dr's opinion, to have a Veneration for a Person, unless we take his, ipse dixit, and swallow down all he says without chewing. But doth Mr. Calvin any where say, That the whole of the Commission is expressed in Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. And though he say, Infants are not expressly mentioned in this Command, yet we are sure his Comment on the Place (which will best discover his Judgement) says, That God includes Infants in speaking to their Parents; and so that Baptism, when applied to Infants, is not separated● from Faith and teaching. And this he speaks in opposition to the Anabaptists, who made a great noise against Infant-Bapti sm, upon this Pretence. See his own words, Harm. Evang. in Mat. 28.19. Verum quia docere prius jubet Christus, quam Baptizare; & tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi, videtur non rite administrari Baptismus, nisi fides praecesserit: arque hoc praetextu multum tumultuati sum Anabaptistae contra Paedo-Baptismum; Solutio tamen non difficilis est. And so goes on to answer this Argument. Wherein he hath these Words, Quae olim Iudaeis data fuit promise, Inter gentes quoque 〈◊〉 hodie, necesse est. Ero Deus tuus & Semi●is tui, Gen. 17.7. B●eos qui side in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt, videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris, & in salutis Hereditarem simul vocari. Nec vero separ●tur hoc modo Baptismus a fide vel Doctrine, qu●a licet puerin Infants nondum per ae●atem percipiant Dei gratiam, Deus tamen eorum Parentes compellans ipsos etiam complectitur. If this Famous Dr. hath not yet attained so considerable a Proficiency in the Latin Tongue, as to construe this, there are many Worthy Doctors of the College will assist aim. Let the Judicious consider whether Calvin's Judgement and this Gentleman's be the same concerning this Command; and what a vain Flourish it is to bring in Calvin on this occasion. What he soon after adds, p. 24. to reflect on Mr. Robinson, as interrupting him, is as little to the purpose. He that pretends to Learning, and needs 〈◊〉 hear any more of an Hypothetical Syllogism, than the Major, or consequent, is none of Solomon's wise men. 'Twas as well known to Mr. Robinson what would follow as to Dr. R. the Speaker. How is it then that he insinuates as if he answered a matter before he heard it?  
6. As to what he says p. 30. about Erasmus' skill about the Etymology of a Greek Word, 'tis most ridiculously impertinent. Mr. Williams had a little before, very honestly acknowledged, that for his part, he neither knew what belonged to Greek or Latin and yet presently quotes Erasmus as reading the Commission. Go Teach all Nations, and when they have learned dip them. Mr. Robinson remembering what he had said before, admired to hear him quote Erasmus: and therefore asked him whether Erasmus ever wrote in English? Or how he knew that he so read the Commission? But there was not a word said by any one about Erasmus' skill in the Etymology of a Greek word, but he must still be trifling.  
7. The story of the Eunuch p. 31. is like all the rest; for Mr. Leigh said not that the Eunuch had Children, but if he had had one or more, they must not be looked on as the Children of a Pa●an: He considered him not as an Eunuch but as a Christian. Besides might he not have adopted ones? Nay, might he not have Children, and be afterwards made an Eunuch? Beside; all this we will tell the Dr. what he never knew before, and what is better worth his Learning than O●● women's Fables. And that is, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and signifys not only Eunuchus eviratus, but Princeps, Minister regius. Thus Potiphar is called an Eunuch or Officer of Pharaoh, tho' he had a Wife if not Children. Gen. 39.1. So Gen. 40.2. The chief Butler and Baker are called Eunuches or Officers. jer. 29.2. The Nobles and Princes of judah are called by this same Name in the Hebrew and Greek, and it is not probable they were all Evirati. Words have a different Signification in differing Ages; and tho' this word bear an Infamous sense in this Age, yet formerly it had a more Honourable Signification. It would be we think profane and grating to Christian Ears, for any to call the sweet Ordinance of singing Psalms, by the Name of Ballad Singing, as this Dr. doth in his Animadversions upon his Brother Allen's Essay on that Subject. Tho' he Justify's himself from the Old Translation that calls the Song of Songs, the Ballad of Ballads; he might as well say Paul was a Knave, because the same. Translation calls him the Knave instead of Servant of Jesus Christ. To apply this to our purpose, the word Eunuch tho' now used in an Infamous, was once used in an Honourable sense, and the most Learned Critics tell us that this Noble Man had no such Infamous Character, but was high Treasurer or Chamberlain to Queen Candace. A Lapide, Menochius, Lud. de Dieu in Loc. So that all the Dr. here hath said is nothing but vain babbling: And methinks what he says of the Turks Seraglio, is too Luscious for a man of his Gravity. But if ever he had been entered in that Academy, the World had never rung with such scandalous Reports Turpia-dictu, concerning him.  
8. Another Trifle you find, p. 32. That them cannot agree with Nations, because them is Masculine, and Nations Neuter; but Relativum cum Antecedente concordat genere, numero & Persona. Alas, poor Dr.! did you read this in your Latin or Greek Grammar? Not in your Greek certainly; for there you might have found somewhat better for the purpose. That by the Figure Synthesisquandoque relativum ad intellectum seu sensum non ad vocem conformatur. And you have a Scripture-Instance for it, Gal. 4.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nay, had you been able to read your Greek Testament you might have met with Instances as to this very word, Acts 15.17.21.25.26.17. Rev. 2.26.27.19.15. in all which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that had we not a rule in the Grammar to this purpose, it would have been highly fit to have Substituted one for this very occasion, rather than all these Text s should be accounted false Greek: and this we hope is a solid Answer worthy noting down, tho' the Dr. reciting it five leaves after forgot himself, and said we had no such Answer. But the Dr. hath recourse to Mr. Gosnold for his Assistance, who tells him that the Antecedent must be not the Verb, as he said in the dispute, but the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but where is this to be found? It is not in the Text, unless the Verb be the Noun. But if the Dr. had been as well acquainted with his Greek Grammar, as with that Beloved Book of M● 〈◊〉, he might have prevented our Trouble and the discovery of his own Ignorance.  
'Tis as Ridiculous to abuse his dear Friend, and prefix false Greek as a Title to his Book, when at least in that Edition we have seen there is only a plain English Title, of the Doctrine of Baptisms; calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but there he may think himself safe, in keeping to the letter of the Scripture● for the letters are the same, Heb. 6.2. from when● the Title is taken. As the Dr. before could not distinguish between a Verb and a Noun, so here he is not so great a C●i●ick a● to distinguish between the Nominative case and Genitive, but enough of this stuff.  
9 How Impertinently did he allege. p. 35. Constantine the great, as a Scripture Instance of a Believers Child Baptised at Grown Years? What Dr. skip 200 Years at once, wh●● you are pinched! Sure this Nimble Man was a Merry- Andrea before he commenced, Dr. It was a ●criptu●e instance we cal●'d for, and an Instance of one Born in the latter end of the 3d or Beginning of the 4 th' Century, is given. Besides● the Father of Constantine was a Pagan, and it can't be proved that his Mother Helena was a Christian in her Son's Infancy As to his Flourrish of the Fathers of the first Ages; we Remember not that it was mentioned in the Disputation, nor is it in any of the Copies; tho' we Remember the Dr. pretended that for the first 600 Years, Infants were admitted to Communion in the Lord's Supper, upon which one of us replied; then by your own confession, they were Baptised, otherwise the other Sacrament would not be administered ●o them; which silence● the Dr. and we heard no more of the Fathers that day. But if the Dr. dare be so hardy, as ●o abide by the Testimony of the Fathers, we will Join Issue with him here, whensoever he pleases.  
10. How Impertinently doth he Harangue, (by way of Apology chiefly) pag. 35.36.37, for his having se● our Infants upon a level with brutes. 〈◊〉 all that he can say, can neve●●xcuse that beastly Comparison. Nay, to make the matte● 〈◊〉, after he had thought of it again at London, where he d●●w up the greatest part of this Apology, as we suppose, for we h●● little of it at Portsmouth; Yet still he hath the Face, to challenge us to show the Disparity if we can: As if it was his fixed Opinion, that there is no difference between our Children and our Dogs. We must confess we said little to it, as thinking it rather deserved stripes than an Answer. And the Honourable Colonel Gibson did profess to us, (the day after the Disputation) that he was so offended at it, that he would thereupon have quitted the place, had not some Gentlemen near him Prevailed with him to stay, telling him if he went off, there was Danger, the provoked Multitude would do him some mischief. And truly an higher 〈◊〉 cannot be put upon any Parent, than to make his Infants no better than Brutes. But h● bears us in hand, he hath a might, esteem for our Infants, even a greater than we have, for he hat●●ver and over given it as his Opinion, that they are all 〈◊〉 Die in Infancy. Now the Infants of Believing Parent● 〈◊〉 the compass of a promise. God will be their God 〈…〉 their seed. Gen. 17.7. So far therefore we may safely 〈◊〉 But seeing God hath not told us, how he deals with the Infants of others, we dare not pretend to enter into his Secrets, or to tell what we do not know. 'Tis enough for us, t●at God ●●ll accept the dying Infants of such as have sincerely devoted 'em to him. And for others, they are not concerned how God will deal with them. That Man can never be truly concerned about the Salvation of his Child, that never was Solicitous about his own. But after all what strange kind of Salvation, what before e unheard of Heaven hath this Gentleman discovered for Creatures, between whom and beasts there is no disparity! What! No difference, no unlikeness at all! For we hope he may have Learning enough to know the English of Di●paritas. Well! (whatever this Dr. can satisfy himself with,) we do both for ourselves and dear Babes, wait and pray for such a Salvation and such a Heaven, out of which are excluded all Dogs and Hogs, and all of beastly Capacities and Inclinations, whether you take the Word Brute in a Natural or Moral Sense. Yet left this Man should think his Retortion, as he calls it, unanswerable, we add, there is a vast disparity between Beasts and the Youngest Infants. For (as was hinted● in the time 〈◊〉 the Disputation,) (tho' this Narrative not only omits but denies it,) Supposing them utterly uncapable of the Duties, yet no one can deny but they are capable of the Blessings and Privileges o● the Baptismal Covenant.  
They are capable of being Pardoned, Justified, Sanctify'd and Clerified, and is it so with Brutes? But further, Infants are capable of being obliged to the Duty of the Covenant, tho' they be not in a present Capacity to discharge them. Thus the 〈◊〉 Infants by Circumcision were obliged to the Duties of that Covenant, tho' during their Infant state they could not actually discharge them. If they had not been thus obliged how could they upon their after-forsaking God, be called Covenants Breake●, as we fin● they are Ezek. 16.8.59. and oft elsewhere. Their Circumcision made them Debtors, brought them under obligation to the Law, Gal. 5.3. Lastly, Infants have a Fundamental and remote Capacity, to discharge the Duties of The Covenant; tho' they have not an immediate Capacity for ●it. They have a Principle of Reason, tho' they have it not perhaps in present exercise: Now is there vet no disparity between them and Beasts? Tho' so soon as they have a being, they are capable of the Blessing of the Gospel Covenant; and as to the Duties of the Covenant which is all that remains to be considered in it, they have such a Reasonable understanding Nature, as doth remotely capacitate them for the discharge of these Duties, and that doth most nearly and immediately Capacitate them to come under Obligations thereto: So that Infants (as uncapable as any of ours,) have been all along (●ver since there was a Sacrament appointed for that purpose,) Solemnly entered into Covenant with God, tho' we never find that any Brutes were.  
11. What an Impertinent Trifler doth this Man show himself again, pag. 37. when instead of proving that Dipping is the only way of Baptising, He would have put us to prove that Sprinkling is the way. That 'tis not the only way we Grant; that it is not a Lawful way he can never prove. But the Question was not whether that was 〈◊〉 way: But whether Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming was the only way? And when we held him to the proof of that, He knew not how to alter the Argument, so as to bring the words of the Question into the Conclusion of his Syllogism: We than perceived him to be Clericus in Libro; and that, when put out of his Road, he was lost. However that he might seem to say somewhat he told the Company, his Argument was an Induction. It should be remembered, that he had lately been confounded by Mr. Leigh's Induction: and many Reasons concur, to make it probable, that he scarce ever heard so much as ●he Name before. But with them that understood 't he thing as little as himself, a hard word would make it look as if he had somewhat to say. This therefore must be an Induction. But his Argument he brought being only levelled against one particular thing, (which the Nature of an Induction doth not admit,) Mr. Chandler told a pleasant story from the late Bishop of Worcester, of a Covey of Patridges which yet was but one. Adding, here we have as Wonderful a thing, an Induction of one. What he adds afterwards is what we suppose he may have Learned since his return to London, for we Remember nothing of it. Nor is it in any of the Copies, whether on our side or theirs.  
12. His Argument from Rom. 6.4. pag. 38.39. is very Frivolous: Because we are said to be Buried with Christ in Baptism, therefore it must necessarily be by Dipping. This was distinctly Answered by Mr. Chandler in his Sermons: But because the main stress of the Anabaptists cause in this pointlies upon it, We shall not satisfy our selves ●o have gravelled them in the Disputation, whe● we denied bo●● parts of the Argument as they formed it; neither of which they were able to prove: But for the help of such as need 〈◊〉, Shall set this matter in a clear Light; In order ●o which let it be considered, 

1. It is one thing for us t● be ●uried with Christ in Baptism, and another ●●ing for Baptism to represent a Burial. The former the Apostle says: The ●●ter only Dr. Russel and his Brethren. We are (as the Apostle largely T●at. Rom. 6.3.4.5.6.) Baptised into Christ's Death, Buried, Resurrection. That is, we are solemnly entered into the Christian Covenant, which is founded in, and secured by, 〈◊〉 Death● Bu●●●, and Resurrection of our Lord; Which thereupon most strongly obliges us to Die unto Sin, rise to, and walk in, newness 〈◊〉 Life: But where doth he say a Syllable to intimate that our Baptism must represent these things? Our Baptism is to oblige us heretog and is accordingly urged by the Apostle, for that purpose, throughout this context: But we would beg any one to show us any Intimasion, that our Baptism is to represent these things.  
2. And if Baptism must represent these things, it must represent all as well as any of them. There is at least as great if not greater evidence from the Context, That the Death of Christ, the manner and likeness of it, as that the manner of his Burial should be Represented in our Baptism. For besides that we are said to be Baptised into is D●ain, v. 3. we are also said to be planted in the likeness of is Death. v. 5. whereupon v. 〈◊〉 it follows, our Old Man is Crucify'd with him. But we are no where said to be planted in the likeness of his Burial. Now what is there in your Administration, that doth represent the likeness of Christ's Death, his Crucifixion? By the same Reason that you would prove dipping necessary in Baptism, a Papist or any other Person may prove crossing necessary too, and therefore the same Answer will Inva●dat● both: i. e. that neither of them are required to be represented.  
3. 'Tis as Trifling, what he adds pag. 39 where he says Mr. Chandler grants that Baptism doth signify a Burial and Resurrection. Mr. Chandler only supposed, did not grant it: Besides if he had granted it, it would not thence follow, that it must necessarily be by dipping. For, 

1. In our way, by pouring water on the Face, we represent Christ's Death; the pouring out of his Blood and Soul: His Burial; The Face, the Principal part of Man being put under-water, or having water poured on it, as Earth is poured on a Dead Body: His Ressurrection; When the Child is taken up and delivered again to its Parents or Offerers. This is a sufficient Allusion in Christian Sacraments, which are Commemorative of what is past; and there needs not a more exact Resemblance. Na●, it is as significant as breaking Bread, and pouring out Wine, to Represent the Sacrificed Body and Blood of Christ.  
2. If they will keep strictly to the Significancy of a Burial, the person to be Baptise must not walk into the water, but be taken up by the Baptizer, and cast down into it. For indeed there is only this difference between our way and theirs: We Baptise the Face, and they Baptise the head and shoulders too: Unless the Person going down into the Water, may be said to baptise himself. And then there are more Se-Baptists among them than we ever understood before.  
3. The Anabaptist● in Holland●●e ●●e to sensible of the no necessity of Dipping, that the general way among them at Amsterdam is to baptise by pouring Water upon the Head. We need not send Dr. Russel cross the Sea● (as he would us to the Turks Seragllo), but to a place better known, the Amsterdam Coffee-house, to inquire into the Truth of this. We would only here ask the Dr. these Two Civil Questions, 

1. Whether he might not have spared all his Dutch? seeihg Doope in that Language signifies only to wash, and is used when they only pour on Water?  
2. Whether his Anabaptist Friends at Amsterdam do practice a Right Baptism? If not, whether he would Baptise them again, or exclude them from the Church of Christ, as he doth us in his Closing Prayer of which more Anon? If he owns their Baptism Lawful, Then why such a Clamour and Noise about a Circumstance? If their way is Justifiable, so is ours.        
13. How Egregiously doth he Trifle, when he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is joined with an Accusative case signifys into. All that we can know from thence, is (what we well knew before) that tho' this Man pretends to be a dignifyed Dr, yet he hath not the Learning of a Common School Boy. When 'tis joined with an Accusative— Why pray Dr. what other case doth it any way admit? We had thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soli accusativo jungitur, had been a Rule no one could have miss, that had but once cast his Eye on the Common Grammar? Well Sir: If you have any regard to your Reputation, we would advise you never more to pretend to Greek, and do not make too great a Noise about your degrees, it will but expose you to the greater contempt: You had better do as Mr. Williams did own your Ignotance, and not Ambitously gape after the Name and Honour of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
14. As to his Humane Testimonies, They are of little value with us, for the Reasons given in the Disputation: And it was an Evidence of the wretched weakness of his cause, that these must stand instead of an Argument with him. These Testimonies he hath chiefly borrowed from Danvers, and how Imperfectly and lamely they are quoted may be seen in Mr. Wills and Mr. Baxters' Answers to him. So that to waste time and Paper about them is but actum agere: We shall therefore only put these following queries to him.  

1. Will you stand by the Authority of these Men in other Matters? If not, why would you have us in this?  
2. Do any of these say that to wash is not the New Testament sense of the word Baptise? Or do any Answer those places we brought? Or prove us in the wrong? Or how many places can any bring where it necessarily signifys to dip? We take not men's Opinions upon Trust, but Trial.  
3. How few are there of those Learned Authors, who have not adhered to that in Mat. 12.7. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, To Justify their Baptising with a little Water in these Cold Countries?  
4. Will not the Opinion and Practice of your Brethren in Holland, argue as strongly against you, as the Opinions of these Men, (had their Practice been dipping also) do against us?  
5. Will not the Opinion and Practice of so many Thousand Men, great for Learning and Piety at this day, argue more strongly for us; than these men's Opinions only, without their Practice do against us?   
15. We have another Trifle pag. 45. They had pleaded Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the Water. It had been replied that the word only signified they went down to the Water. But Mr. john Williams ventures upon a Greek Criticism, and tells us, he was informed there were 2 differing words in the Greek Text, where 'tis said v. 36. they came unto a certain Water, and v▪ 38. they went into. This Dr. Russel confirmed and thereupon, (as they represent the Matter,) Mr. Leigh concessed. There is a word for you. 'Tis well we understand a Little Latin: Otherwise this Man would quite Silence us. But to the Point: who ever told them there were 2 differing words in the Greek, told them true. And we are very ready to concess, or (as we would choose to speak, consent and yield to Truth. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the true reading of v. 36th is, As they went on their way, they came by, near to, or over against, a certain Water: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with an Accusative, well admits such a reading. And v. 38. they went both down out of the Chariot unto this Water. How well do these 2 verses Answer each other? and where's the difficulty this wonderful Critic hath left upon us? But, What need of going down to the Water, unless he were to be dipped? A little might have been brought up into the Chariot if Sprinkling would have served the turn. In answer to which we say.  

1. His going down to, or into the Water, doth no more prove that the Eunuch was dipped, than that Philip was; for both went down.  
2. 'Tis Improbable he was dipped, being then on a Journey, and having no clothes to change. 
And if you still ask why they went down?   
3. 'Tis not certain, they were provided with a vessel to fetch up Water in.  
4. There was not convenient Room in the Chariot for the performance of the Action, and what was to attend it. 'Tis not to be doubted, but it was attended with Prayer: yourselves, we hope, would not administer Baptism without Prayer, before, or after, or both. But what Room could there be in a Chariot, for these two Persons to place themselves in a Praying posture? It would neither admit them, (at least if of the Modern form) to stand nor kneel without uneasiness— Which alone might be a sufficient Reason, for their coming down out of the Chariot, if there were no other.   
16. How he trifled about the Hebrew Bible, and how falsely he Represents that matter appears by our Narrative. Mr. Ring had given over writing long before this, and Mr. Bows and Mr. Webber were ashamed of their Goliath, and therefore about this time basely deserted and left him alone. The true account in short is this. Mr. Chandler told Dr. Russel that Baptizo was so far from always signifying to dip, that Bapto itself sometimes signifys to wet or wash; And mentioned that Text. Dan. 4.33. Nabuchadnezzar was wet with the dew of Heaven, in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To which Russel replied the Hebrew is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Mr. Chandler returned the Greek word we were then enquiring into. However, to try his skill in Hebrew, who had so shamefully faltered in the Greek, he was asked what the Hebrew word was. He said, if he had an Hebrew Bible he could tell. Mr. Chandler handed his, being Athias' 2 d Edit. Amstel. 1668. with the Books in Latin Letters, placed after the same order with other Hebrew Bibles. He could not find the place, but read Gen. 1.1. which he also falsely Pronounced. Mr. Chandler returned: Sir we come not hither, to inquire whether you can read Hebrew, but what the Hebrew word is in this place. Then Mr. Robinson folded down the place for him: On which he muttered something to himself, which his nearest Neighbours could not hear; and said the word was not there. But he hath not told us to this day what the word is. Hebrew Bibles are all misplaced with him; for we hear from good hands that at Havering in Essex, he was confounded with the same place, and could not find the Prophecy of Daniel. Now we would befriend him against he ●●ngages in the next Heckny Prize, and inform him of a great Secret; That Daniel is mostly Chaldee and the word there is not Tabal but Zavang 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word of the same Import. And this Mr. Chandler understood, not before he was Born, but before the Creation of Dr. Russel.   

CHAP. III.  
BY this time it appears how unregardable both this pretended Narrative is, and its pretended Antho●●● A Pamphlet stuffed with such Notorious Falsehoods, 〈…〉 happens to speak Truth, trifling so Egregiously, with what contempt doth it deserve to be Treated by the World? But there is yet one thing further, that may help to discover the man, and that, is the Narrow and uncharitable Principles, that have dropped from him; and these we shall briefly animadvert upon.  

1. In the very first page of the Narrative, Speaking of Mr. Chandler's Thursday Lectures at Portsmouth, he tells you they were managed, so as was to the Grief of such as truly Fear God in those parts. Why! What was the Offence? He tells you it was given out, that Mr. Chandler would not only prove Infant Baptism from Scripture; but also furnish his hearers with Arguments to defend their Practice. Why! We cannot Imagine how this should grieve any that truly Fear God. To have a truth proved, a truth about which so many good Men differ, to have it cleared from Scripture Testimony, to have the Oracles of God unfolded about it: 'Tis strange this should be grievous to any: Yes (says he) It was to the Grief of them that truly Fear God in those parts. We are at a loss to know the Reason why it should be grievous to any such, and here he will not help us out. However (say we,) was it to the grief of such as were persuaded of this Truth! Were they grieved to have it cleared up and be furnished with Arguments for the defence of it? This can't be his meaning. Every one is pleased to see what he believes to be the truth, set in a clear Light— those that were for the Baptism of Infants could not be grieved at it: No, that he doth not say, but those that Fear God, that truly Fear him, were grieved at it. So that (with him) none that are for Infant Baptism in those parts will be allowed truly to Fear God. Not one besides the poor Baptists, as he calls them, pag. 2. here's Charity with a Witness! All the Regular Members of the conforming and nonconforming Congregations, are censured as destitute of the true Fear of God Pray Dr. your Reason for this! Will you condemn us and not tell us why? What is there in the notion of Infant Baptism that is inconsistent with the Fear of God? Why may not a Person be of Opinion, that he ought with the greatest seriousness to devote and consecrate his Children to God; and enter them by Baptism into his Covenant, and bring them under early bonds to him, and yet for all this God Nay the rather do it, because he truly Fears God?  
2. That he may show it is not an unwary Expression, but his deliberate Judgement; He doth in the very last Paragraph of his Pamphlet lay the same stress on the Point of Dipping. His concluding Prayer is, that as God had made the hearing of the dispute of such use to several Persons, that they were fully convinced, and did a few days after submit to be dipped— So it may be of like use to many others in the Reading— That so there may be added to the Church such as shall be said. Such a Prayer scarce ever before appeared in Print, made up of falsehood and uncharitableness. It is amazing to us that a man dare venture into the presence of God with a 〈◊〉 in his Mouth, and such uncharitableness in his Heart. The falsehood we have animadverted upon, Cap. 1. Paragraph 10. The uncharitableness we are now to take notice of. He prays that as several 〈◊〉 hearing, so many others by reading, may be 〈◊〉 and Submit to be dip●; ha● so there may be added to the Church such as 〈◊〉 be saved. What Apprehensions must thi● man have of those that never were dipped? Why they are not yet added to the Church. No not to the Anabaptists Church! but we dou●●●ot, but 〈…〉 are added to the Church of 〈…〉. Yet whatever we think, his charitable ma● will not allow they can otherwise 〈…〉 the Church, and consequently no otherwise saved, 〈…〉 it consists in de●●ying Infant Baptism, and 〈◊〉 the Necessity of Dipping. If you agree with him in these and according 〈…〉 be dipped, you are (〈…〉 as we can find,) added to the Church 〈…〉 of Faith, Repentance, Obedience, toward 〈…〉 being dipped ●on water upon profession, is with 〈◊〉 instead of all these; But tho' you be Regenerate and Sanctified through 〈…〉, Soul and Spirit, Walk humbly with God, and unblamably before Men; Yet if you were Baptised only in your Infancy, or ●f when adult, not by dipping: There is no 〈◊〉 for you if this man were to be your Judge But blessed be God we are to be tried at an an●ther Bar. And therefore with us it is a very small matter to be judged by him or of Man's day, 1 Cor. 4.4. knowing that he that will judge 〈…〉 the Lord. To whose righteous Judgement we appeal, and for which we wait in hope.   
But let this Man's notions of Religion be never so narrow and uncharitable, we declare our Religion is of no less compass than Christianity itself. All that hold the Essentials of Religion, we account to be of the same Religion with us: Tho' they differ from us in some inconsiderable matters. We will not be persuaded to look upon the English Episcopal, or the Foreign Presbyterian. The Congregational, or Anabaptists themselves, to be of a differing Religion from us; to be destitute of the True Fear God, or shut out of Christ's Church, Religion consists in tha● which is Common to the Pious and Sober of all these Parties, and not in any thing that distinguisheth them from each other.— We abominate such a narrow straitlaced Principle, as would place Religion in being for or against Liturgies, for or against this or that form of Church-Government, for or against Infant Baptism, or this or that mode of Administration. These things are none of them great enough, to be the Terms of Eternal Life: The Final Sentence will not proceed upon them: We believe with St. Peter that God is no Respecter of Persons, but in every Nation, and among every party of Men, that hold to the head Christ Jesus: He that Feareth God and worketh Righteousness, shall be accepted of him. Acts 10.34, 35. and with St. Paul: The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but Righteousness and Peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and he that in these things serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved among Men. Whether he be for or against these things we have named, or any of the like kind. Rom. 14.17, 18.  
FINIS.    

THE most material Errata, observed in a Review are World for Word, p. 17. l. 20. Word for World, p. 58. l. 15. Subjects for Subjects, p. 67. l. 31. which with any others of the like Nature, can create no difficulty to an intelligent Reader.  
There are indeed several Letters dropped out in working, for which though room is left, yet they disappear: but they may be easily supplied. For instance: the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dropped in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 17. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 49. and the Letter ● twice, a line or two after in the same Page, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And if any who are fond either of the Greek Accents, or Hebrew Points, complain of their omission in those Original Words that here occur, they may charge it par●● on the different inclination of the Corrector, and partly on the difficulty of bringing our common Printers to any exactness in what lies out of their usual Road. To the latter of which ●is also to be ascribed, that ●o many of the Hebrew Letters are needlessly Dagesched.