A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A Paedo-Baptist, AND AN Antipaedobaptist: Containing the Strength of ARGUMENTS Offered on both sides at the Portsmouth Disputation: WITH The Addition of a few more Arguments, then ready to be offered, in Vindication of Infant-BAPTISM.  
By Samuel Chandler, and William Leigh.  
LONDON Printed for A. Chandler, at a Glover's Shop, over against the White-Hart-Inn, in Aldersgate-street, and Sold by A. Baldwin. 1699.   

TO THE READER.  
BEcause Dr. Russel, or some Friend of his, did a while since disgrace the Press, with some scraps of their Narrative, stuffed with Nonsense and Partiality; nay, and by its Title did delude the Vulgar with an Imagination, that it contained the true State of the Portsmouth Disputation; and the same, how Unjust soever, being Cheap, hath been scattered throughout most parts of the Kingdom: Therefore by Advice of our Brethren, from various Parts, we have offered (so far as this small Tract would admit) the strength of Arguments then urged on both Sides, omitting Names and Personal Reflections, apprehending this way may be most Grateful to Persons seriously Inquisitive. We have also annexed a few Arguments, which with others, were then ready to be urged, had the Company's Satisfaction required, and the approaching Evening, admitted.  
If this fall into the hands of the Learned, we request them to remember, That it is designed for Persons of meaner Capacities, that neither understand, Ornaments of Speech, nor affect Terms of Logic.  
If it fall into hands more Illiterate, yet willing to receìve Divine Truths, we request of them, that they would weigh it in the Balance of Scripture and Sanctified Reason; yea, and we request of God, that they may.  


Sam. Chandler,  
Will. Leigh.     

QUESTION I. Whether, according to the Commission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Adult Believers only, are the Proper Subjects of Baptism, and not Infants? Asserted by Anti-paedo-Baptists.  
THE Controversy is, Whether Christ's Ministers ought (1.) To deny Baptism to the Infants of professed Christians. (2.) To Baptise those at Mature Age, who by virtue of descent from professed Christians, were Baptised with a small quantity of Water, in Infancy?  
The first Argument offered at the Disputation by the Anti-paedo-Baptists, I consider last, because there it will come to be more fairly Answered.  Antipoedobaptist. 
I prove then, That no Infants can be the Subjects of Baptism according to Christ's Commission.  
Argument 1. No Infants can be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men; therefore no Infants can be the Subjects of Baptism, according to Christ's Commission, Mat. 28. 19 Go teach, etc. (or, Disciple) all Nations, etc.  Paedo-Bapt. 
I deny your whole Argument; and (1.) I assert, If they could not be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men, yet this Text would not exclude them from Baptism. And then, (2.) I assert, That they be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men.  Anti-Paed. 
Christ puts Teaching before Baptism; therefore it goes before, and consequently Infants are Excluded.  Paedo-Bapt. 
This is a weak way of Arguing. The word is placed before in Scripture, therefore the thing signified must go before. Were this true, than Baptism must go before Confession of Sin in the Adult, because it's said, They were Baptised, Confessing their sins▪ Mat. 3. 6. Nay, Sanctification and Preservation in Christ, must go before Calling, jude 1. But the contrary is evident to all.  
But farther, Infants may be Disciples, and therefore, by your own Argument, may be Baptised; they may be Taught in their Parents, as well as the Kohathites keep the Charge of the Sanctuary in their Parents, from a Month old, Numb. 3. 28. Or Levi pay Tithes in Abraham, Heb. 7. 9 Or the Israelites in David's time rejoice in their Ancestors on the Banks of the Red Sea, Ps. 66. 6. There did we rejoice. etc. i e. as considered in our Parents.  Anti-Paed. 
But how can this be by the Ministry of Men?  Paedo-Bapt. 
(1.) By the Preaching of Men, Parents may be constrained to resign their All to God, and so their Infants. (2.) They are immediately Discipled by Men's Ministry, when Parents and Ministers concur in their Solemn Dedication to God by Baptism.  Anti-Paed. 
But Teaching and Learning, make the Relation between Master and Scholar.  Paedo-Bapt. 
The contrary is most true; the Master doth care for and command; the Scholar is subject, in order to Instruction; and Resignation of the Scholar, or his Parents for him, and Acceptance of the Master, constitutes the Relation; and by virtue hereof, the Scholar is as much obliged to submit to his Master, according to his Capacity, before he touches a Book, as when he hath learned Seven Years. If Teaching were the ground of this Relation, than Persons long since Dead, might be our Governors. job 8. 8; 10. The former Age, and their Fathers shall teach thee. Nay the Beasts of the Field may be our Masters too, job 35. 11. Who teacheth us more than the Beasts of the Earth, etc. We may learn of them, and yet be our own Governors▪ But Christ's Disciples are resigned to him, in order to their being both Governed, Taught, and Disposed of by him, according to their Capacity.  Anti-Paed. 
Argum. 2. Paul did declare the whole Counsel of God, and yet did never declare the Baptism of Infants; therefore Infant-Baptism is no part of the Counsel of God.  
Paedo-Bapt. Neither ever did Paul declare, That the Baptism of Believers Children ought to be delayed, till they can Personally profess their Faith; therefore their Practice being such, is no part of the Counsel of God. Take the Argument to yourself, and make the most of it.  
2. But I hope to prove Infant-Baptism from Paul's Words. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Rom. 11. But pray, Is nothing part of the Counsel of God, but what stands on Record as delivered by Paul?  Anti-Paed. 
Nothing; and therefore not Infant-Baptism?  Paedo-Bapt. 
If nothing, then how great a part of the History of the Old World, of the succeeding Patriarches, of the Ceremonial Law, of Prophecies, Gospel-History, and other Sacred Matters in Holy Writ, is no part of the Counsel of God?  
The Truth therefore is, Paul might declare Infant-Baptism an hundred times, in his vast number of Sermons and Pious Discourses, and yet the Holy Ghost might not see fit to insert it, as delivered by him, this Doctrine being sufficiently Established in other New-Testament Texts.  
But farther, These words were spoken to the Church of Ephesus: And all that remains on Record of what he spoke to them in two Years, Acts 19 9, 10, 11. is but the Epistle to the Ephesians, and this in Acts 20. And dare any say, That he never declared 
* See our Account p. 70, 71. for further Answer.  it to them, because it's not herein contained.  
Here, because some Anabaptists, from Dr. Russel's false Narrative do report, That we pretended at the Disputation, that six Leaves of Paul's Writings containing Infant-Baptism, may be lost, therefore we will (though otherwise 'twere impertinent) give a true representation of that Matter. The Doctor's weak Evasions, did force us to make our Answers evident beyond all Contradiction: And thus we Argued. If there were a Controversy, whether such an Author did use such an Expression, and his Writings were produced, if six Leaves of these Writings were lost, none could determine that he had no such Expression, because it might be contained in those six Leaves. The Controversy is, Whether Paul ever did by Preaching, Writing, or Discourse, declare Infant-Baptism. We cannot say we have all his Writings; we dare say, we have not the Hundred part of his Sermons and Discourses: Who can then determine, that he never did any way declare Infant-Baptism to these Ephesians.  Anti-Paed. 
Arg. 3. Christ's Commission doth expressly show, who are to be Baptised: But it doth not expressly show that Infants are to be Baptised: Therefore Infants are not to be Baptised.  Paedo-Bapt. 
1. Pray take your Argument back again, and get rid of it as well as you can. Christ's Commission doth expressly show, who are to be Baptised: But it doth not expressly show, That Adult Persons, if Baptised in Infancy, are to be Baptised again: Therefore Adult Persons, if Baptised in Infancy, are not to be Baptised again. But,  
2. I deny that Infants or Adult Persons, are distinctly expressed in Mat. 28. 19 for both are included in the word Nations.  Anti-Paed. 
But the Commission doth express Disciples; Baptising them, i. e. Disciples. The Greek word for Nations, is of the Neuter Gender, and the word for them, is Masculine; therefore Disciples being Masculine, must be understood. 
* See our Account pag. 74.   Paedo-Bapt. 
1. If they must be Understood; then they are not Expressed. You have confuted yourself.  
2. But I assert, That them, though Masculine, may refer to Nations, though Neuter. For Instance, Let the Learned see Acts. 15. 17. Acts. 21. 
See our Account.  25. and elsewhere. The Greek informs a Schoolboy the Reason hereof.  
3. But suppose Disciples were understood, I have proved, That Infants may be Disciples, in answer to your first Argument, and shall yet more fully do it, when I take the Opponency.  Anti-Paed. 
But, Mark 16. 16. Believers are the only Subjects of Baptism; therefore Infants are not.  P. Bapt. 
The Text says no such thing: And if it did, Infants may as well be Believers, imputatively in their Parents, as the Kohathites Infants keep the Charge of the Sanctuary, or Levi pay Tithes in Abraham, Num. 3. 28. Heb. 7. 9  Antip. 
I deny that the Parent's Faith was ever imputed to the Child.  P. Bapt. 
Parent's Faith may be imputed to Infants, for their enjoying external Privileges, as well as the Parents coming Corporally, may be imputed to them for Christ's Blessing, Mat. 19 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, etc. when others (probably Parents) brought them. Yea, the Parent's Faith also, we find imputed to Infants, Heb. 11. 29. compared with Exod. 14. 22. By Faith the Children of Israel, (without Limitation) being 600000 Men, besides Children, (and many Thousand Children there must be) passed through the Red Sea. All the Children of Israel, passed by Faith; i. e. The Faith of Miracles; and therefore Infants, their Parent's Faith being imputed to them.  Antip. 
But it might be Moses his Faith, not their own.  P. Bapt. 
No, see Heb. 11. 27, 28. Moses his Faith is expressed as distinct from theirs, just before; and here theirs as distinct from his.  Antip. 
But why may not the Parent's Baptism be imputed to Infants, as well as their Faith?  P. Bapt. 
1. For the same reason that the Baptism of the Israelitish Parents in the Cloud and in the Sea, was not imputed to their Infants; All that were under the Cloud (and therefore Infants) were Baptised, 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. This was a Type of the Gospel-Baptism.  
2. Because Infants are capable of Baptism, the Subject being therein Passive. But they are not capable of a Personal act of Faith; if they were, it would be expected.  
But further; You may as well conclude, that no Infant shall be Saved, because Believing goes before the word [Saved], as that no Infant must be Baptised, because Believing goes before the word [Baptised.] But the weakness of this Argument, drawn from placing the words, I have shown before.  Antip. 
A Person already Taught, must profess his Faith before he be Baptised; therefore an Infant that cannot profess his Faith, must not be Baptised. Says Philip to the Eunuch, Acts 8. 37. If thou believest with all, etc.  P. Bapt. 
This Instance shows indeed, That an Adult Jewish Proselyte must confess his Faith before Baptism; but neither this, nor any one word of God, doth show, that Infants must be denied Baptism, because they cannot do what is required of Adult Persons. 
* See our Account, p. 73, 74.  This Eunuch was probably a Proselyte of the Covenant, and therefore a Member of the Jewish Church. The Infants of all such Proselytes (if they had any) were Church-Members with themselves. Now, must these poor Infants, immediately upon their Parent's Faith and Baptism, be shut out of God's Church, of which they were Members before, because they make no profession of their Faith, which is impossible for Infants to do?  Antip. 
Arg 4. If the Apostles never did Baptise Infants, than the Baptism of Infants is not according to Christ's Commission.  P▪ Bapt. 
1. I shall quickly show, that the Scripture doth authorise the practice of Infant-Baptism, and thence 'twill follow, that they did Baptise Infants; and they might Baptise Thousands, though the Scripture (which contains not the Hundred part of what they did) doth not expressly tell us so.  
2. But this Argument also will fall on yourselves. Thus, the Scripture doth not tell us, that the Apostles did deny Baptism to any Christian's Infant, or administer it to any Adult Person descending from a Christian, (though from the death of Christ, to the death of St. john, was near 60 Years; in which time, Thousands of Christian Infants must become Adult,) Therefore your Practice being such, is not according to Christ's Commission.  
3. But we have some probable Instances of Baptising Infants: Whole Households were Baptised. I only consider the Jailor, Acts 16. 33. He and all his were Baptised straightway. All his, upon his Believing.  Antip. 
But all his House Believed.  P. Bapt. 
The Original is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And he rejoiced in, with, or through all his House, he having believed in God. 
* I refer it to the Learned, whether this be not the fairest Translation of the Words.  Not a word of any believing but himself, yet he and all his are Baptised.  Antip. 
But the Word was Preached to all that were in his House, which of necessity supposeth them able to hear.  P. Bapt. 
1. No more than those words, Mark 16. 15. Go Preach the Gospel to every Creature, supposeth Stones able to hear, because Stones are Creatures. All in one place, and Every in the other, is to be understood with limitation, according to the Capacity of the Subject.  
2. But I add, it might be preached to some as included in their Parents. Pray give me the like probable Instance for your practice.  Antip. 
Christ himself was the Son of a Believer, yet not Baptised till Adult.  P. Bapt. 
But the Virgin Mary was a Jewish, not Christian Believer, in Christ's Infancy. The very first Commission for Christian Baptism, was not then given: Christ himself was born a Jew; and we all assert, that Jews though never so Pious, ought not to be Baptised, till they profess the Christian Faith▪ Christ, as to the time of Baptism, was not imitable by us: If he were, than none, how Pious soever, must be Baptised till about Thirty; nor Baptised at all, unless Circumcised at Eight days Old.  Antip. 
You demand of us, a prohibition of Infant-Baptism; I demand of you a Prohibition of Salt, Cream, Oil and spital, such as the Papists use.  P. Bapt. 
When you can show, that these are as plainly included in the word [Baptise] as Infants are in the word [Nations] we shall farther consider what you say.  
Now according to my promise, I consider the Doctor's first Argument, which will fairly introduce the Opponency.  Antip. 
Arg. 5. Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to Baptise Infants, therefore the Baptism of Infants, is not according to his Commission.  P. Bapt. 
I assert, Christ hath required his Ministers to Baptise the Infants of professed Christians. And now taking the Opponency, I Argue, from Mat. 28. 19, 20. Teach all Nations, Baptising, etc.  
Arg. 1. Those of Nations ought to be Baptised, that are not expressly or consequentially excluded by the word of God; therefore the Infants of Professing Christians ought to be Baptised. You have not been able hitherto to prove them Excluded; therefore my Argument stands good against you.  Antip. 
What is not expressly commanded in an Institution, is consequentially forbidden.  P. Bapt. 
1. Then the Baptism of Adult Persons descending from Christians, not being expressly commanded, is consequentially forbidden.  
2. I deny, That all things pertaining to an Ordinance, must be expressed in the Institution for that Ordinance. The Institution for the Passover doth not express the Cup, which yet was piously used by Christ himself, Luke 22. 17. because good Consequence did warrant it. Yourselves acknowledge previous Examination and stated Prayer necessary to the right Administration of Baptism, and have recourse to good Consequence for your Warrant: Nay, Consequence it is that doth oblige you to Baptise an Adult Person; you do not count these forbidden, because not expressed in the Institution, why then should you count Infant-Baptism forbidden, because not expressed, when we offer good Consequence for it.  P. Bapt. 
Arg. 2. Some Infants are Members of the Gospel-Church Visible, therefore they ought to be Baptised.  Antip. 
All Members of the Gospel-Church Visible, are made so by Baptism; therefore, unless you will admit of Rebaptising, they ought not to be Baptised.  P. Bapt. 
Baptism is the solemn investing Sign; the Infants of Believers, are Church-members before Baptism, but by Baptism, they are publicly owned as such. The Infants of the jews, were Church-members before Circumcision: The Israelites while in the Wilderness, though Uncircumcised, are called the Church, Acts 7. 38. Yet they must be recognized as such by Circumcision. A King is King before he is Crowned, but at Coronation, he is 〈◊〉 as such.  Antip. 
The Pharisees were Church-members, yet 〈◊〉 denies them Baptism; therefore Church-membership gives no right to Baptism.  P. Bapt. 
These were Members of the Jewish Church▪ such, without credible profession of Faith and Repentance▪ were not to be Baptised. But we speak of Members of the Christian Church.  Antip. 
Infants are not Christian Church-members  P. Bapt. 
I prove they are, from Mat. 19 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven. If by the Kingdom here, must be meant the Christian Church 
* Thus the 〈◊〉 taken, Mat. 13. 47. 48▪ 49. comp. with v 41▪ Mat. 11. 11. Mat. 25▪ 1. Mat. 5. 19  Visible, then little Children must be part of it.  Antip. 
I deny that the Christian Church Visible, is there meant.  P. Bapt. 
If the Kingdom of Heaven here, signify neither the 
See our Impartial Account, p. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40.  Laws nor Promises of the Gospel, nor the Graces, nor Heaven's Glory, than it must signify the Christian Church Visible. But it cannot signify either of the former; therefore the last, i. e. The Christian Church Visible.  Antip. 
It signifies the Kingdom of Glory.  P. Bapt. 
Then it must either signify the Happiness, or Subjects of it. If the Happiness, than the words must run thus; Of such little Children is the happiness of Heaven, which is Nonsense. If the Subjects, than the words must run thus; Of such little Children, are the Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory. Which cannot be, because every Infant that goes to Heaven, immediately upon his Expiration, his Infancy is dropped, and he enters perfect into Glory. [Hear the Anti-Pedo-Baptists 
See our Account, page 37, 38.  had not a word to answer for a considerable time, though the whole Company did earnestly wait for it: And they were provoked to give it.] At last, this Reply was given.  Antip. 
This Text hath not a word of Baptism in it.  P. Bapt. 
We before proved, That Members of the Christian Church have a right to Baptism, and now have proved. That Believers Infants are such Members. The Conclusion is easy; therefore such Infants ought to be Baptised.  Antip. 
When were any, who were Baptised in Infancy, Excommunicated upon their Apostasy, though so many prove Wicked?  P. Bapt. 
We are not discoursing how Baptised Persons ought to be Managed, but who ought to be Baptised. Yet, to answer directly, As Infants grow up, their Infant State ceaseth, and so their Infant Church-membership with it: And if, when they become Adult, by vicious Practice they renounce Adult Church-membership, they are no more Church-Members than Excommunicated Persons: And such need no Excommunication.  Anti P. 
If Infants without Understanding, may be Disciples by the Ministry of Men, the Beasts of the Field may.  P. Bapt. 
I have shown before, how Infants may be Disciples, and by the Ministry of Men, in answering your first Argument. 
See our Account, p. 75, 76, 77.  Pray show me how Beasts may; Have Beasts the Seeds of Reason? Are they capable to be Justified, Sanctified, Glorified; nay, to keep the Charge of the Sanctuary? Were they fit to be brought to Christ for his Blessing? But I proceed further to prove them Disciples.  
Argum. 3. The Infants of Believers, are called Disciples, Acts 15. 10. Therefore they ought to be Baptised. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, etc. The Yoke was Circumcision: Upon Infants as well as others, according 
The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may well be rendered Custom.  to Moses his Law v. 5. and Custom v. 1. * would they have put this Yoke; therefore Infants, as well as others, are here called Disciples.  Anti-ped. 
Infant's cannot be meant, because those that▪ are here called Disciples, are called Brethren, and such as are Taught.  P. Bapt. 
And if Infants are Church-members, (as I have proved) they are Brethren, and may be taught in their Parents. But (2.) I deny, that all who are here called Disciples, are called Brethren v. 1. or are said to be Taught. Those on whom the Yoke was like to be put, according to Moses his Law, v. 5. and Custom, v. 1. are here called Disciples. Now, you know Moses' Law and Custom, did require the Circumcising of Infants. Nay, this Custom, especially of Circumcising Infants, is expressly contended for by Judaizing Christians, Acts 21. 21. The word for Custom, is the same with that Acts 15. 1.  Antip. 
But how do you know any Infants were among these?  P. Bapt. 
From v. 22, 23. which tell us, That the Christians of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, (and therefore a great number who must have Infants) were concerned in this matter.  Antip. 
But v. 9 They are said, to have their Hearts purified by Faith.  P. Bapt. 
And cannot God give Infants the Seed of Faith, and purify their Hearts by so doing? May he not purge out old Principles by putting in new? (2.) But those v. 9 are the Gentiles of Caesarea, not those at Antioch, and therefore not the Disciples here meant, as the Context will show.  Antip. 
But Circumcision cannot be the Yoke here intended, because Infants did bear Circumcision; but this neither they, nor their Fathers, were able to bear.  P. Bapt. 
This Expression signifies no more, than that it was a very burdensome Yoke. Thus Prov. 30. 21. For three things the Earth is disquieted, and for four, which it cannot bear; and yet you may see in the Context, That they are such as the Earth hath born to this day; but it is burdened with them. So Prov. 18. 14.  Antip. 
But Circumcision binds to keep the whole Law, therefore the whole Law is here intended.  Pedo-Bapt. 
Then I am sure Circumcision, one of the prime and most painful parts of the Law, and the only Part particularly mentioned▪ must be intended, and therefore Infants must be some of those Disciples on whom they would impose this Yoke.   

QUESTION II. Whether, according to our Lord's Commission, Baptism ought to be administered by Dipping, Plunging, Overwhelming only, and not otherwise?  Antip. 
I Affirm and offer this Argument: Christ hath appointed it so to be Administered only: Therefore it must. I prove this, first, from the signification of the word Baptise. Lexicographers, say, it signifies to Dip.  P. Bapt. 
They say, it signifies also to Wash; and this is the usual Scripture Sense of the word: And Scripture is its own best Expositor. Now, to say, it signifies to Dip in those Texts where the Ordinance is mentioned, and which are especially the Subject of our present Controversy, is but barely to Assert, and not to Prove the thing in Question. Therefore let us first go to those Places where the Word is mentioned, and the Ordinance not intended, and consider other Texts afterwards.  Antip. 
I say, the Scripture Sense of the word is to Dip.  P. Bapt. 
I have Seven Places at hand wherein the word is used, and the Ordinance not meant; in none of which is Dipping necessarily included. (1.). Mark 7. 4. Except they Wash, (Greek, be Baptised) they eat not. Were they dipped over Head and Ears when they did Eat? No, they were zealous for the Traditions and Customs of their Elders, and therefore did imitate their two Great Prophets, Elijah, and Elisha. See 2 Kings 3. 11. It was Elisha's Custom, to pour water on the Hands of Elijah. Therefore, in all probability, they had Water poured on their Hands. And why may not a Person be Baptised with pouring Water on his Face, as well as with pouring Water on his Hands? (2.) In the same Verse, they hold the Washing (Greek, Baptisms)— of Tables, or Beds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Did they plunge their Tables or Beds into Water? (3. v. 8. Washing (Greek, Baptisms) of Cups, i. e. from Ceremonial Pollution. Burial is not the thing here intended, but Washing. And Washing the Hands was commonly used to cleanse from Ceremonial Pollution: Therefore Pilate, in compliance with the jews Custom, washeth his Hands, when he would declare himself pure from the Blood of Christ. (4.) Luke 11. 38. The Pharisee wondered that Christ had not first Washed: Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was not first Baptised. Did he wonder, that Christ was not plunged over Head and Ears before Dinner? The Greek word, to a Letter, is the same with that Mark 1. 9 And pray, why may it not signify applying a little Water, in Mark 1. 9 as well as in Luke 11. 38? (5. Heb. 9 10. Divers Washings: (Greek, Baptisms.) Such as those, Exod. 30. 19, 20, 21.  
Aaron and his Sons are bid to Wash; i. e. Their Hands and Feet. Num. 19 from the 8th to the 19th. The word in the Original, signifies purely to Wash, yet th● Apostle calls these Baptisms. If washing the Hands or Feet be Baptism, why may not washing▪ the Head? (6.) Baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10. 2. Not Dipped, be sure, for they went through the Sea as on dry Ground. Is any dipped in the Sea, when he hath dry Land under him, and only the droppings of the Rain and Sea▪ upon him. I must take▪ liberty to descent from the Reverend Author of the English Annotations, in this Matter; I never heard, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, much less 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did signify plunging under Water, unless the Water were applied, not by drops, but in a great quantity. (7.) Acts 1. 5. I will Baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire. Is it proper to say, I will Dip you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire?  Antip. 
But Acts 2. beginning. The Holy Ghost came upon them, and there came a sound from Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and filled the house, etc. So that they were as in a Fishpond, (says Causabon) overwhelmed with the Holy Ghost.  P. Bapt. 
But it was the Sound that filled the House: The resemblance of the Holy Ghost, were the cloven Tongues of Fire, and certainly they could not be overwhelmed with these. And may not a Man be Baptised with Water, when poured on him, as well as with Fire, when descending only in Cloven-Tongues upon him. Here are seven Places, (and more might be added▪) where the word is used, and not one of them doth necessarily include Dipping.  Antip. 
But it signifies to Dip, in Scripture: He that dippeth with me in the dish, Mat. 26. 23.  P. Bapt. 
The word there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And pray remember, The Holy Ghost never expresseth the Ordinance by the word Bapto, but always by Baptizo.  Antip. 
But in those Places where the Ordinance is mentioned, the word must signify to Dip; as Mark 1. 9 Christ was Baptised of john in jordan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into jordan. He could not be washed into jordan; therefore he must be Dipped. See various places, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies into, 1 Tim. 1. 15. john 3. 17. Luke 4. 16.  P. Bapt. 
I showed before, That the Greek word there for Baptised, to a Letter, signifies in Luke 11. 38. Washing, and that when applied to the Hands only. And now, whereas you produce three Places, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies into, I can produce more than three times three, where it signifies in. See Mat. 2. 23. Mat. 10. 41. Mark 3▪ 16. Luke 11. 7. Mark 5. 34. etc. Therefore the words may▪ be fairly rendered, He was Washed of John in Jordan.  Antip. 
But compare with this, Mat. 3. 16. Christ, when he was Baptised, went up out of the Water; therefore he must be Dipped.  P. Bapt. 
The Greek Preposition for Out of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be rendered From: See Mat. 24. 31. Luke 1. 78. Mat. 12. 42. And those words, Mat. 3. 16. may be rendered, Christ went up from the Water.  
Now, I offer a fair Paraphrase of these Texts, consistent with our way. john Preached in the Wilderness near jordan; jerusalem and all judea came to him, and Christ among others. The Multitude being so great, he goes to jordan (as he did another time to Enon) takes a step into the Water; those that are Baptised, do the like, (it being Refreshing rather than Afflicting in that hot Country.) and there john doth Baptise or Wash them, by pouring Water on them, and then they go up out of or from the Water, which always runs in a lower Place.  
This is much more probable, than that john or the Apostles, Acts 2. should Dip (according to your way) Hundreds, it may be Thousands in a day: That Person had need have Sinews of Brass, that could (according to your Custom) bear the weight of, lay down, and raise up so many in so little time: Besides his Limbs and Body must be sound soaked. I am sure the words will well bear our Sense. And Probability is much stronger on our side, than yours.  Antip. 
But the Eunuch is a clear Instance for us, Acts 8. 38, 39 They came to a certain Water, went both down into, and came up out of the Water.  P. Bapt. 
This Instance doth you not the least Service. The Greek Prepositions for to, into, out of, may be rendered fairly▪ By, To, From. And without the least Violence, the Text may be thus Translated. [They came by a certain Water, and went both down to the Water, and came up from the Water.  Antip. 
But could not Water be brought to them in the Chariot, if a little were sufficient?  P. Bapt. 
Do you think there was convenient room in the Chariot to place 
See our Account, p. 81.  themselves in a praying Posture, or that they were so Irreligious, as not to Pray at all?  Antip. 
But Baptism doth represent a Burial, Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in Baptism, etc. Therefore it must be administered by Dipping.  P. Bapt. 
It is one thing to be Buried with Christ in Baptism, and another for Baptism to represent a Burial. A Person is obliged in Baptism, to die and be buried with Christ, to Sin and 
See our Account, p. 78, 79.  the World; but it's not necessary that Baptism should represent these. In the Lord's- Supper we are obliged to this Burial; Doth it therefore follow, that the Lord's- Supper must represent a Burial? (2.) But supposing, (not granting) that Baptism must represent a Burial, pouring Water on the Face, the most remarkable part of the Body, doth represent a Person's being under Water, and raising him up; represents the Resurrection.  Antip. 
This is like burying with a Turf on the Head.  P. Bapt. 
What then? A Person may be Buried as well with a Turf on the Head, as 
* 1 Cor. 5. 8. Can't. 5. 1.  Feast abundantly at the Lord's- Supper, with a bit of Bread, and a sup of Wine; a small quantity of the Element is sufficient for its Sacramental use.  Antip. 
But let us keep strictly to the significancy of a Burial.  P. Bapt. 
Then I am sure, the Baptised Person must not go into the Water to his Waste. Do dead Men walk into the Grave, half bury themselves, and wait for the Sexton to bury their Head and Shoulders?  Antip. 
But the whole Body is under Water, when a Person is Baptised in our way.  P. Bapt. 
But the Administrator dips but one half. And, Doth he speak Truth, when he tells the World, that Baptism is dipping the whole Body under Water, and that he doth, according to his sense of the Word, Baptise, i. e. dip the whole Body under Water, when he dips but one half? And dare he to affix the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to an Untruth? Do you think, john the Baptist and the Apostles, did so? And if not, than you have not the least Precept or Example, for your Practice. Is our way attended with this Inconvenience?  
But further, Baptism is designed to signify the pouring out of Christ's Blood, Spirit, and Blessing; the application of this Blood, which is expressed by Sprinkling 
* Isa. 44. 3. Heb. 12. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 2.  to signify and excite to a submissive frame of Spirit. Is your way so well adapted to all these ends? Can any be thrust into the Spirit or Blessing of Christ, or are Persons like to be so Composed (supposing them Adult) when striving for Life, especially in Frost and Snow, as when a little water only is poured on them?  Antip. 
But many Learned Paedo-Baptists acknowledge, that our way is most agreeable to Scripture.  P. Bapt. 
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? Or, Do they prove us in the Wrong? We take not Men's Opinions upon Trust, but Trial. (3.) Who of those Authors have not adhered to that, 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 Opinion 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 Opinion only, without their Practice, do against us.  Antip. 
But all you can pretend to for your Way, is Probability; it may be so, and it may not.  P. Bapt. 
We acknowledge, The New-Testament hath not fixed the quantity of Water, and therefore we must have recourse to a Moral Precept, Mat. 12. 7. I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice: And this carries us beyond Probability, even to a Certainty; which is this; That we must so Administer it as shall consist with the safety of the Subject. Christ, v. 2, 3. justifies David's eating the Shewbread, from these words, though a positive Ritual Law were therein broken. Then certainly Christ will justify the Practice of applying a little Water in these cold Countries, where Life might be endangered by Dipping, especially when neither Gospel Precept, nor Example, doth in the least oppose us.  
Nay, and knowing that Christ hath appointed for the strongest Christians, a Sacrament as pleasant as Eating and Drinking, we cannot imagine, that he would appoint one so very sharp, as Plunging in Frost and Snow, for the Weakest.   

I proceed to offer an Argument or two more.  P. Bapt. 
I Argue from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were Children unclean, but now are they holy.  
Arg. The Infants of Believers, are Holy, therefore they have a right to Baptism.  Antip. 
Legitimacy is there meant by Holiness, and therefore this doth not entitle them to Baptism.  P. Bap. 
Legitimacy cannot descend from Believers, as Believers, but from Married Persons, as such, whether they believe or no. But this Holiness descends from Believers, as Believers, and therefore it cannot be Legitimacy. (2.) I deny that ever the word Holy is so used in all the New-Testament, though we have it many hundred times, and therefore you force this Sense upon it to serve a Turn. (3.) If Legitimacy were meant, than the Apostle would speak false. The Words would run thus [If the unbelieving Wife be not Sanctified by the believing Husband, your Children would be Bastards.] No, their being Husband and Wife, would secure their Children from Bastardy: Nay, and then all the Idolaters and Murderers in the World, if Legitimate, would be Holy.  Antip. 
But Holiness is not a ground of Baptism, if it were, than Horses Bells must be Baptised, etc. Zech. 12. 20.  P. Bapt. 
When you can show, that Bells were once Church-Members, that they have Immortal Souls, capable of Pardon, through the Blood and Merits of Christ, of going to Heaven, etc. then we will baptise Bells too.  Antip. 
But Children are Pure, or Holy, as all things else, that a Believer hath, are pure, i. e. for Enjoyment. To the Pure all things are Pure.  P. Bapt. 
Then I am sure Legitimacy is not here meant, because, if a Person that hath a Bastard, be Converted and he truly Penitent, that Bastard is also Sanctified to his Enjoyment, because all things are. But you ought to show, that Pure and Holy are the same; Holy doth imply a dedication to God. But Meat, which the Apostle there speaks of, might be clean, as many Creatures under the Law, which yet were not dedicated to God.  
In short, the word Holy is taken, as commonly it is in other Places, and it includes a visible separation for God, and Relation to him. Thus the Body of Israel 
* Deut. 7. 6.  and afterward of a Gospel-Church, are called Holy 
* 1 Cor. 3. 17.  in many Places.  
Arg. 2. From Acts 2. 39 The Promise is to you, and to your Children, etc. This Promise the Infants of Penitent Persons have a right to; therefore they have a right to Baptism; v. 38. Be Baptised, etc.  Antip. 
The Context doth exclude Infants from the Promise, and therefore from Baptism. The Promise is confined to those that the Lord shall Call.  P. Bapt. 
If 'twere so, then Peter just upon receiving extraordinary Wisdom from Heaven, would speak Impertinently: Whereas, he says, The Promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call: He might have left out their Children, and they would easily have understood, that their Children if once called, should be comprehended in those words, As many as the Lord shall call. And farther, supposing your Sense to be true, this Paraphrase may justly be put on the Words: [You grown Jews, and ye Gentiles, when Called, have a right to Church-Privileges; but your poor Infants, who for many hundred Years past have had the same, are now through the gracious efficacy of Christ's Death, stripped of it, though they (poor Hearts!) never did the least to forfeit it.] Do you think this would have been a good Plaster for their wounded Hearts? And can we imagine, that neither these, nor any tender Parents of all the Jewish Converts, would have put in the least Plea to God or Man on the behalf of their poor abject Infants; or if they had, that the Scripture would have quite buried it in Silence, when we have their Contests about Circumcising Infants, Recorded?  Antip. 
But Children are not impertinently mentioned, for the Jews had brought the guilt of Christ's Blood upon their Children as well as themselves; His Blood be on us and our Children. He drops a word of Comfort to them, with relation to these Children.  P. Bapt. 
Yes, all these Children, and therefore their poor Infants, on whom they had brought the Curse, as well as an those of riper Years. Say they, His blood be upon our children, whom we have a right in, and are concerned for. This they spoke to spit their Venom against Christ, And the Apostle chargeth these Jews with it, v. 23. 36. Now, the Apostle makes the Plaster as broad as the Wound, and assures them, That upon their Repentance, the Promise, and therefore Church-Privileges would belong to their Children, with themselves, even all on whom they brought the Curse.  
Supposing the Church-Membership of our Infants, to be the main thing opposed by you, I offer this Argument to prove it.  
Arg. 3. The Infants of converted Jews were not cast out of God's Church; therefore the Infants of converted Gentiles, are not kept out. I prove that God did not cast out the former, therefore neither doth he keep out the latter.  
Arg. 1. God did not cast out those Infants in Judgement to them, nor in Mercy; therefore not at all. Not in Judgement: For, how is it consistent with Infinite Grace to inflict so great a Judgement, as deprivation of Church-membership on those who never did the least to Forfeit it themselves, and whose Parents are God's peculiar Favourites? Nor yet in Mercy to those Infants; for how could he in Mercy deprive them of so great a Blessing 
* The great advantages of Infant Church-membership, see in our Account, p. 8.  except he gave them a greater in its room? But where's that greater Blessing vouchsafed to Infants?  
2. Not one Privilege of the Covenant of Grace, was ever taken away by the death of Christ, in whom all the Promises were, Yea and Amen. Therefore the Church-membership of Jewish Infants, was not taken away by the Death of Christ: And if not by his Death than not at all.  
I prove, That Church-membership is a Privilege of the Covenant of Grace. It must be of the Covenant of Grace, or of Works; but it cannot be of Works; therefore it must be of Grace. No other Covenant but that of Grace, hath set up a Church in the World, since the Fall of Man, or admitted any into it.  Antip. 
Have all Church-Members than a right to the Covenant of Grace?  P. Bapt. 
They have a Visible right to it. We ought so in Charity to judge, while they are rightful Members?  
None could justly Exclude those Jewish Infants that were regularly Circumcised from a visible Right, to the Promises of the Covenant of Grace: Because Circumcision made them Debtors to the whole Ceremonial Law, Gal. 5. 3. And God never yet divided the Promises from the Precepts of that Law, and these together made up the Covenant of Grace. Those who are visibly under the preceptive part of this Covenant, have visibly a right to the promissive part of it. But the Jewish Infants were to be managed by it, and (as they grew up) obedient to it, and so were under the preceptive part of it. Therefore, etc. Now, if no part of the Covenant of Grace, and so neither this Privilege, which the Infants of the Jewish Converts had, were ever taken away, than such Converts were never cast out of Gods' Church, upon Christ his Death, or their Parents Believing. And from hence We may conclude▪  
2. That the Infants of Gentile Converts, are not kept out: Because Jews and Gentiles have the same Privileges in Christ. This, I suppose, no Antipaedobaptist will deny▪ Col. 3. 11.  
Other Arguments might be offered, as the Reader may observe in the Abridgement of Mr. Chandler's Sermons prefixed to our Impartial Account. But a design of Brevity forbids here to add them.  Antip▪ 
But after all, the best Arguments you can offer for Infant-Baptism, are but Consequential. Let us have somewhat Express.  P. Bapt. 
Show me where an Adult Person is expressly Commanded to be Baptised.  Antip. 
Adult Persons making a credible profession of Faith, are Disciples of Christ; therefore brought to be Baptised.  P. Bapt. 
And what is this but Consequence? Such a one is a Disciple, therefore, by consequence, he ought to be Baptised. This Argument is convincing.  
I add, a Believer's Infant is, in a Scripture sense, Holy; a Church Member hath a visible right to that Promise, Acts 2. 39 a Disciple, therefore he ought to be Baptised. Is not this Arguement as convincing as the other?  
Pray, how would you clear up your Right to future Happiness?  Antip. 
I would endeavour to prove myself a Believer an Holy Person. And finding Eternal Life made over to such, and not finding upon the most strict enquiry, one word in all the Book of God, to exclude such from it, I should conclude my right to future Happiness, unquestionable.  P. Bapt. 
Well then, I have proved the Infants of Believers, Holy Persons, Church-Members, Disciples, and this in a Scripture sense; such I have proved entitled to Baptism. And not finding upon the most strict enquiry, one word in all the Book of God, to exclude them from it, I conclude their right to Baptism unquestionable.  
Arguments for the Baptism of an Unbaptized Professing Christian, nay, for the true Christian's Salvation, are Consequential, and yet most Convincing. Why then should Arguments for the baptism of Believers Infants be slighted, because Consequential, when they are so many, and so clear from Scripture?   

POSTSCRIPT.  
Reader,  
TO Prevent unjust Reflections, our design in this Dialogue, was not strictly to confine ourselves to the words of the Disputation, but to present thee with the Strength thereof; therefore something then omitted on both sides, are here Inserted, others more intelligibly expressed; and we think nothing of Weight then delivered, is here Concealed. And whereas other Arguments here totally passed by, might be urged to good Purpose; particularly from Rom. 11. (some Hints of which, are given in our Impartial Account, Page 4. Second Edit.) We hope, necessary confinement to Brevity, will be a sufficient Excuse to the Ingenious.   

BOOKS Printed for Abr. Chandler.  
AN Impartial Account of the Portsmouth Disputation; with some Just Reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended Narrative. By Samuel Chandler, William Leigh, and Benjamin Robinson. With an Abridgement of those Discourses that were the Innocent occasion of that Disputation; and an Healing Preface to the Sober Anabaptists: The Second Edition; with a Postscript. Price 1 s.  
The Young Scholar's Guide through the English to the Latin or Writing-School: Wherein the Nature and Use of Vowels, Consonants, Diphthongs, etc. are demonstrated by plain Tables; and the Rules for Dividing long Words into Syllables, made useful to Children, by suitable Examples to each Rule; by which, a Child, that hath learned his Letters, may be speedily taught to Read English Exactly, etc. With some useful Observations in Orthography. Price Stitched, 3 d.  
Sacramental Discourses on several Texts, before and after the Lord's-Supper. By Mr. john Shewer.  
Of the Duty of Grace: Or a Discourse concerning the Possibility and fear of its being past before Death: Showing the groundless Doubts and mistaken Apprehensions of some, as to their being finally Forsaken and Left of God: With the dangerous Symptoms and Approaches of others to such a sad State: In Four Sermons; from Psalm 81. 11, 12. By Mr. john Shewer.