im

(12)
Mr, Chandler. I mean by Compleat Difciples, fuch as at?
actually capable of Learning ; By Incompleat, fuch as are enttred
in ibch Places in order to be taught. We fend Childrtnto
Scho ol before they know a Letter.
Dr Rufel. My Argument fpeaks not of fuch; but of tho(e
\5i ho have unoerftanding, and are capable to b« made Afiual
Difciples, which Infants are not.
Mr. Chandler. Th&t fuch as are fo capable, are the only
Sub je£ls of Baprifm ;
you are to prove it.
Dr. Riifel. Then you deny the hUjor.
Mf. Chandler. Ves, as to your Hypothetical Argument.
Dr. Rufl. It you had done this before, you had faved your
felf and me much trouble. Then I prove it thus.
If our Lord, in thst Commiflion given ffor Holy Baptifm,
hath commajided his Apoftles, that were Men, to make Difciples
by their Miniflry, and after that, to Baptize them, then
the Coni^quence of rhe Major is true.
But our Lord in tha*- Commiflion given for Holy Baptifm
harh commanded liis Apoftles, that were Men, to make Difciples
by their Miniftry, and after that to Baptize them.
Ergo, The Conffrquence of the Major is true.
Mi-: Leigh I diftinguifli thus. They may be entered into the
Church in Order for Learning, and fo they are Difciples before
Baptifm : Yet in a more vifible Senfe, they are made Dii^
ciples by Baptifm
Dr.RtiJfel. Thea you fuppcfe Infants not capable to be made
Difciples by the Miniflry of Men.
A/a Chandler. Not folemnly inverted.'
Dr. RtiJJei. We are not talking of that ; the Queftion betwixt
us is, Whether they are capable to be made Difciples
by the Miniftry of Men. Will you alTert that ?
Mr. Leigh. We affcrt they are Difciples, as Children of Believers,
before Baprifm.
Dr. Rnffel. This is nothing to the Purpofe, but to fpin out
'
Time. Mr. Chandler or Mr. Leigh ihould haveanfwered to my
Argument, which neither of them have done. For if Infants
are Difciples (imply as being Children of BeJieveing Parents,
before Baprifm, (as Mr Leigh fzhh) then it is done without
any Miniftcrial Inftriiftion. And therefore is fo far from being
an Anfwer to my Argument, that it is a raeer Evafion.
I therefore Argue thus upon them.
If Infants are not the Suojefts of Teaching, according to
Chrift*sGommilTion, then they are not theSubjeQ:s of Baptifm
c>y.that Commiflion.
But
I