A26959:214
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.
Reply. You are hard put to it. I do by this first instance show you where and when the Ordinance, Law or Grant of Infant Church-membership was first made. And I leave it to any impartial Christian whether I prove it not certain, that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an [Increase and Multiply] signify not that Infants should have been Holy to him, if Adam had not sinned: and so have been members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God. Alas, many go so much further, as to assert as truth, that had Adam stood (nay but in that one temptation; yea say some, had he but once loved God) all his posterity had not been only born Holy, but confirmed as the Angels: I cannot prove that: but I can prove that they had been born holy had not Adam sinned, and so had been visible members. And if so that God did found Infant membership in Nature, let awakened reason think, whether Parents yet have not as much interest in children, and children in Parents, and then whether God have ever reversed this natural ⟨p. 80⟩order? Yea whether he hath not all along confirmed it? It seemeth out of doubt to me.
Reply. You are hard put to it. I do by this first instance shew you where and when the Ordinance, Law or Grant of Infant Church-membership was first made. And I leave it to any impartial Christian whether I prove it not certain, that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an [Increase and Multiply] signifie not that Infants should have been Holy to him, if Adam had not sinned: and so have been members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God. Alas, many go so much further, as to assert as truth, that had Adam stood (nay but in that one temptation; yea say some, had he but once loved God) all his posterity had not been only born Holy, but confirmed as the Angels: I cannot prove that: but I can prove that they had been born holy had not Adam sinned, and so had been visible members. And if so that God did found Infant membership in Nature, let awakened reason think, whether Parents yet have not as much interest in children, and children in Parents, and then whether God have ever reverst this natural ⟨p. 80⟩order? Yea whether he hath not all along confirmed it? It seemeth out of doubt to me.