A26959:204
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.
The first institution of Infants Church-membership de jure upon supposition of their existence, was in Gods first constitution of the Republic of the world, when he became mans Governor, and determined of his subjects, and members of the Common-wealth: Which Republic being sacred, and devoted to Gods worship and service, was truly a Church of which God was head. This ⟨p. 75⟩was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation. That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man, almost all Divines agree: But because it is rather implied than expressed in Moses brief History, some few cavillers do therefore contradict us. But, 1. The threatening of death for sin, seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not. 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it, which to you I need not recite. But whether this promise of life were natural (as the threatening of death was,) or only positive and more arbitrary, Divines are not agreed among themselves. Those that say it was free and positive, give this reason, That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature, nor any creature merit of God. Those that think it natural as the threatening was, say, it's true that God could not be properly obliged, because he is under no Law, no more is he obliged to punish, but only man obliged to suffer if he inflict it: And it's true that man cannot strictly merit of God. But yet, say they, as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity, so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject, and his works do oblige him (improperly) in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word. So that their reasons are these following. 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good, as to do evil to the evil, that is, to reward as to punishment, as his name proclaimed to Moses, ⟨p. 76⟩Exod. 34. shows. 2. Because God making man capable of a higher felicity, and principling him with inclinations thereto, and giving him desires, love, and other affections for that blessed end, even the everlasting fruition of God, therefore they say, God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect such a felicity; if he sinned not. For else all these inclinations and affection should have been in vain: