You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
.<br />
1<br />
\ 6^ J<br />
Then I Argue thus,<br />
Mr. Leigh.<br />
rf Infants are vifiblc Church- Members, then they we to<br />
be baptized.<br />
But Infants are vifible Church-MembckS.<br />
Ergo, The> are to be baptized.<br />
Dr Rujfel This Argument doth not include the Point in<br />
Queftion, for you ought to put inthefe Words, according to<br />
Chrift's Commiffion.<br />
Mr. Leigh rcfufed fo to do.<br />
XJpn rtfkch Dr, Ruflel a^hd h<strong>im</strong> this ^ep'on.<br />
Are you of Mr. C^^w^/^r's mind in this Matter? He fays<br />
That Baptifm is an Initiating Ordinance.<br />
Mr. L*--^^ anfwered, Yes, lam<br />
Dr. Rnfel. Then make Senfe of your Argument, if you<br />
can: For it will run thus. *»<br />
If Infants are already vifible Members of the Church, then<br />
they are to be baptized that they may be made Co. ^ .<br />
It is as if I fiinuld fay, That becaufe fuch a Man is in this<br />
Houfe already, therefore there' muft fome AS pafs upon h<strong>im</strong><br />
to bring h<strong>im</strong> in, when he is aQually in the Houfe before.<br />
Make Senfe of this ,<br />
;<br />
if you can.<br />
However, I will deny the Minor ; and fay they are not vifible<br />
Church- Members before they are baprized<br />
Mr. Chandler. If there be no Precept or Example in all the<br />
Word of God, to warrant us to make any other Initiating<br />
Ordinance into the Church but Baptifm, then vifible Church-<br />
Members ought to be baptized.<br />
But there is no other Initiating Ordinance into the Clftjrch<br />
befides Baptifm<br />
i'<br />
,<br />
.Ergo, Vifible Church- Members ought to be baprized.<br />
Dr. Rufl. What, doth not Mr. Chandler know the difference<br />
between the Major and Miner ? I deny the M<strong>im</strong>r. and his Ar«<br />
gument is to prove the Sequel of the Major : vybich I had confuted<br />
before.<br />
But if this be true that Mr. Chandkr fays, it is a fall Anfvrer<br />
to Mr. Leigh's M<strong>im</strong>r : For then it runs thus : if there be no<br />
other way to bring Perfons into the vifihle Church but by<br />
Baptifm ;* then they were not vifible Church- Member- beFc^e<br />
they were bapriz-d. Which is direftly oppofite to what<br />
Mr. Leigh hr.th affirmed^<br />
Mr Robmfan. This Argument was brought to prove that<br />
vifible Church- Members are tbbe admiic«id to Baptifm.<br />
Mr. Williams. I deny that Infants are vifible Church Members<br />
in their Infancy,
Change language