A26959:114
More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second…
More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for N. Simmons and J. Robinson, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
If Infant Church-membership were no benefit, then they that had it, were not (when they came to age or their Parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulness for it. But they were obliged to be thankful for it. Ergo, it was a benefit.
Mr. T. Denieth not the benefit; but denieth [that this is to be Visible members formally or connectively, for they may have all this benefit who are not visible Church-members: viz. some believing Saints that are dumb.
Mr. T. Denyeth not the benefit; but denyeth [that this is to be Visible members formally or connexively, for they may have all this benefit who are not visible Church-members: viz. some believing Saints that are dumb.
Reply. Mark Reader, what an issue our Controversies with these men come to? [Men may be the covenanted people of God, and have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people, and be separated from the common and unclean, from the world, from strangers to the Covenant, &c. and yet be no visible Church-members] with them! Doth a dumb man signify his consent to the Covenant by any signs or not? If he do, that is visible covenanting. If not, how is he one of these covenanting and separated people? And do you think that Mr. T. knew not that I talk to him of visible covenanting and separation, and not only of a secret unexpressed heart-consent: What will make a Church-member then with such men?
Reply. Mark Reader, what an issue our Controversies with these men come to? [Men may be the covenanted people of God, and have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people, and be separated from the common and unclean, from the world, from strangers to the Covenant, &c. and yet be no visible Church-members] with them! Doth a dumb man signifie his consent to the Covenant by any signs or not? If he do, that is visible covenanting. If not, how is he one of these covenanting and separated people? And do you think that Mr. T. knew not that I talk to him of visible covenanting and separation, and not only of a secret unexpressed heart-consent: What will make a Church-member then with such men?