Commission And that the Apostles never did baptize any other than adult believers L. Then I hope we may argue from Christs 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 then Infants ought to be baptized But c. Therefore c. 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 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 c. Rus. I deny your Minor L. If we must make good sense of Scripture then it must so signify But c. 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 then 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 c. 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 c. Rus. Is this a good way of arguing If it be then 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 then it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth But it signifys neither of the former Therefore the last 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 Christs 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 then 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 compleat 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 Judgment of that matter well enough But you wilfully misrepresent my sense I do not say that none who dy 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 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 Subjectâ— of Baptism according to Christs Commission you bring a Text for it that hath neither the word Baptism in it nor the Commission of our Lord. 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 Baptiz'd according to the Commission of our Lord. And this was the case of some Infants You denyed any Infants were Members of Christs Kingdom or Church-Militant here on Earth and to prove this they brought that Text. And I suppose the whole company was satisfy'd 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 VVill. If Church Members have been denyed Baptism then Church-Membership is not the ground of Baptism but c. L. I deny the Minor VVil. If Church-Members came to Iohn to be Baptized and were denyed then Church-Membership is is not the Ground of Baptism But c. L. I deny the Minor VVill. 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 c. 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 VVill. 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.
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 deny's 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 prov'd it according to the Judgment of all present Leigh According to the Judgment 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 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 oblig'd to prove the Negative heÌ„ hath asserted Dr. Smith According to the Rules of Disputation Negantis non est probare 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 c. 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 then 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 c. Chan. Here if you mean by Disciples Actual and Compleat Disciples then I deny your Major But if you mean Incompleat Disciples such as are entred 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 then 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 Compleat and Incompleat Disciples Rus. What doth he mean by denying my Major Rob. Mr. Chandler distinguishes between Compleat and Incompleat Disciples If you mean Compleat Disciples he denys the Major If you mean Incompleat Disciples he denys the Minor Rus. Well come Tell me what he means by Compleat and Incompleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men Chand I mean by Compleat Disciples such as are actually capable of Learning by Incompleat such particularly as are enter'd 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 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 hâ—s Disciples and Apostles who were Men to make those Disciples by their Ministry who were to be Baptized then my Consequence is true But our Lord in the Commission hath c. Therefore Chand I deny the Minor He hath not Commanded all that were to be Baptized by the Apostles first to be made Disciples by their Ministry in your sense I think here ought to be a distinction Persons may have a right to publick visible entrance into the Church of God before they are compleat 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 then it is by the Ministry of Men. Leigh That I deny Knowing that you Ground your Assertion upon the position of Teach before Baptize Mat. 28.19 Rus. Our Saviour hath joyn'd Discipling and Baptizing together They are commanded first to make Disciples and then to baptize 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 baptized Chan. Prove that Rus. If Infants have no Knowledge to discern between Good and Evil then they are not capable to be made Disciples by the ministry of men But they have no Knowledge c. Therefore c. Chan. Here you trick all this while I told you by Disciples I meant incompleat 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 baptized 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 baptized 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 baptize them Now if Infants be not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men then they are not capable Subjects of Baptism Now you denied this Consequence of the Major which I proved thus If Infants have no Knowledge to discern between good and evil then they are not capable of being made Disciples by the Ministry of men But c. Rob. By his former distinction he
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 baptized But some Infants are visible Church Members Therefore some Infants c. Rus. Adult believers may but not Infants Rob. What 's this to the purpose we are upon Which of Mr. Chandlers propositions do you deny Rus. Let him repeat his Argument Chand Visible Church Members ought to be baptized according to Christ's Commission But some Infants are visible Church Members Therefore c. Rus. I deny the Major Chand That all visible Church Members are to be baptized according to Christs Commission I prove thus If there be no Precept or Example in all the Word of God since Christ ordain'd baptism that makes any other ordinance the visible means of encring a Person into the visible Church then visible Church Members ought to be baptized But there is no c. 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 Recogniz'd as Members Like the Coronation of a King He is a King before he is Crown'◠but he is Crown'd that he might be own'd as King VVill. If baptism be the initiating ordinance into the Church then 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 baptiz'd VVill. I deny that Infants are visible Church Members in their Infancy 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 i 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 then 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 Mustard-seed 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 Gods Kingdom nor the Graces by which we observe those Laws and Embrace those Promises nor the Kingdom of Glory then 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 then 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 c. 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 then the Church doth not in part consist of these But c Therefore c. L. I Answer Now you relinguish my Medium But farther If they are Members of the Church at all then they are Members of the Universal Church visible But they are Members of the Church Therefore c. VVill. 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 VVill. 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 then they are Members of a Particular or the Universa◠Church and if of a Particular then of the Universa◠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 VVill. 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 nonsence But by the way the Kingdom of Glory either is put for the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory If the Happiness then the words must run thus Of such little Children is the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory If the subjects then 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 VVill. 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 Christs Commission And then whether I may not argue from Christs 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
a word of the Consequence which is still deny'd but be goes on upon the Antecedent * He takes no notice at all of the distinction but goes on to prove that Infants can't be compleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men. * Here followed a General Laughter * This is the Consequence that hath been still deny'd and no Proof offer'd * But the Dr. ought to have proved either that there are no Incompleat Disciples or that they are excluded from the Commission for Bapâ—â—â— because they have no Knowledge c. * Here the Dr. neither deny's that Paul did declare the Baptism of Infants in his Sermons nor asserts that all kc Preached is left on record * This Word It 's may either refer to Pauls Declaration or to Baptism And this ambiguity caus'd some confusion afterwards * Here the Dr. was to prove the Consequent and he goes on to prove the Antecedent * The Dr. would ramble and we rathâ—r follow than leave him And gave the Words All Nations supposing by the Word It he meant Baptism * Who doubts this And what is it to the purpose * Remember he doth not mention any here to whom he had declared the Councel c. 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 Councel c. and therefore Infant Baptism but say it 's not necessary to be left on record as Preach't 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 * Here our Scribes were imperfect and I cannot Remember what ought to be inserted But the force of the Argument is not removed * How many times hath the Dr. been told what we mean by Compleat Disciples * And thus to spend time he will have his long Argument over again * An excellent Proof i. e. turning the conclusion into a question * Observe he falls upon the Minor Not a Word of the Major * Here the Dr. waves the distinction that he may wrap up himself and the Auditory in confusion * Here the Dr. seâ—ms willing to turn off the Disputation to Original Sin with those of his Profession dâ—nâ— * Here 's a Fallacy he will now suppose his own conclusion and the sum of what we deny'd before * He was here to prove the Consequence and he brings an Instance to prove the Antecedent and but barely asserts the Consequent * What is a man's Authority in this case but his Iudgment * The people laughed not because Erasmus ' s name was mentioned but because he said Erasmus wrote in English * Mr. Leigh since the Disputation hath acknowledg'd 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 * 2 Thes. 3.10 * Mr. Leigh mistookâ—â— word is would not But it comes to the 〈◊〉 for Infants have Power and will both alike * Reader observe the Argument from Luk. 14. Is â—â— opt And what Mr. Rus. here says farther had been Answered before in the Words All Nations Usque ad Nauseam * The contrary whereof hath not yet been proved * Mat. 19.14 * Here is no notice taken of the Distinction only the old thing asserted * Besides Constantine's father was a Pagan and Constantine had a desire to be Baptiz'd in Jordan because Christ was * The Dr. allow'd it to be the first 600 yâ—â—rs as I remember * Observe by Believers was before understood a Christian Believer by themselves wherever they spake of believing as necessary to Baptism Neither was the word when in any other sense Besides it was granted before that Iew and Pagans ought not to be baptiz'd till adult and both Christ and his â—â—â—â—â—r were Iews at the time of his birth * Indeed the people laughed both ways * Mark that The Dr. denies that visible Church Members ought to be baptized * The Major is dropt and he denies the Minor after a while you will find the Major silently taken up again * He Answers not my Argument by makâ—â—â—â—ood sense of the 〈◊〉 â—ny other way 〈◊〉 now breaâ—'s rule 〈◊〉 â—â—ns Opponent * Here he takes no notice of the second part which is the main of my Question * Here the Dr. could not tell what to say and therefore will have all over again * Reader to repeat all this is Nauseous but because the Dr. could do nothing else be would force us to it * And thus to no purpose but to spenâ— time Mr. Russel would have the same over again * This poor dry evasion you see he hath before and iâ— beholden to his old Friend Danvers for * Here he shifts the Respondency and turns Opponent which we give way to because they could do nothing else * Here he drops his Argument to prove that Church Membership is not the ground of baptism * Observe how he leaves his Argument and runs to what had been worn thredbare before * The poor Man runs again from consequence â—o express words tho consequence was allowed before * Remember this refers to the Subjects only not the mâ—inâ—â—â— * 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 * A wise Answer from a silly Doctor is it not * This was fully Answer before therefore it was tedious for Scribes to write it * Here is a vacancy in the Notes of our Scribes * Here observe again Dr. Russel would shift the Opponency on us * Reader Observe That the Dr. grounds his practice upon two Arguments link'd 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 * Excellent Greek †Good Greek still * Here we were going to read but they gave no room * The Text Ac. 8 38. hath not a word of putting him under the water * So the Greek Prepositions often signify * Where is dipping to be found in this Text * This whole passage hath been attested by the Person that spake the words * We have good Intelligence that the Dr. puzzl'd thus on the same Word at a Publick Disputation sometime before
I say they were not Church Members De jure VVill. Were they denied any priviledges Rob. According to what you said just now they were deny'd baptism was that no Church priviledge VVill. Such as are visible Members of the Universal Church are qualify'd with a work of Grace c. L. I deny it viz. That they are always so VVill. It is in the Judgment of Charity so L. Such as were a Generation of Vipers were not qualify'd 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 VVill. If our Lord Jesus did Disciple such as were Church Members before they were baptiz'd then Church Membership is not the ground of baptism But c. 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 apostacy ought to be Excommunicated when were any admitted into Church Membership in their Infancy Excommunicated upon their apostacy 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 Vniversal 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 â—â— 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 VVil. Ministers are to Baptize none but those that are discipled by the words of the Commission Chand Here 's the Consequence of it VVil. 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 Rus. It doth appear by all that hath been said that our practice is allow'd Rob. Not your practice L. We do not allow your practice unless to such as have not been baptized VVill. We agree that those that are not baptized ought to be baptized You are bound to baptize none but such as you are bound to Preach to L. I deny it Rus. Have Infants the use of reason Chand No. 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 c. 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 c. Rus. I wonder you will maintain â—heâ—hing upon such silly foundations L. Pray Answer the last Argument Rus. There is nothing of Christs 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 but I see c. Rob. If you be of Mr. Russel's mind then 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 nonpluss't Mr. Leigh apply'd himself to the Mayor and Governour in this manner You see they are not able to answer our first Argument but are entirely gravell'd 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 Undenyable Consequence obliges us to it tho' there be not in express words a requirement that we Baptize Infants One would have thought Mr. Russel should have allowed tho' they are not capable of Dutys yet they are capable of the Priviledges Here an Answer to our last Argument was again and again call'd 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 Baptized But some Infants are Disciples Therefore c. 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 Infants 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 call'd Disciples Rus. I deny that Text proves it Chan. If this Yoke were laid upon the neck of the Disciples then Infants are Disciples But c. Therefore c. Rus. â— deny that there is any such thing in the Text either 〈◊〉 or intended Chand The dispute was occasion'd by some false Teachers that had said except Christians were Circumcised aâ—â—â—â—pâ— the Law of Moses they could not be saved Now says the Apostle Why do you lay a Yoke upon the neck oâ— 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