A26959:449
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.
Mr. T. 1. I Argue thus: If no Infants were part of the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times, then whatever Ordinance there were of their visible membership before, must needs be repealed: But the antecedent is true, ergo, the consequent — The Antecedent I prove thus. If in all the days of Christ on earth, and the Apostles, no Infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian, then not in the primitive times: But, &c. Ergo, &c. The Minor proved — 1. All visible members of the Church-Christian were to be baptized: But no Infants were to be baptized: Therefore no Infants were visible members of the Christian Church.
Answ. 1. To the Major; they were to be baptised after Christs baptism was instituted, Mat. 28.19. but not before, when yet the Christian Church was existent in Christ and his Disciples: Therefore Christ was not baptized in his Infancy.
Answ. 1. To the Major; they were to be baptised after Christs baptism was instituted, Mat. 28.19. but not before, when yet the Christian Church was existent in Christ and his Disciples: Therefore Christ was not baptized in his Infancie.
2. To the Minor, If his bare affirmation would prove that Infants were not to be baptized, what need he write his books?
Mr. T. 2. They were not visible members of the Church-Christian who were not of the body of Christ: But no Infant was of the visible body of Christ, proved from 1 Cor. 12.13. All that were of the body of Christ were made to drink into one spirit in the Cup of the Lords Supper: But no Infant was made to drink into one spirit; for none of them did drink that Cup, &c.
Answ. Denying the Minor, I answer to the proof: 1. To the Major: 1. Mr. T. elsewhere pleadeth that 1 Cor. 12. speaketh of the Church-invisible only, and yet now he maketh it to be the visible. 2 [All] is oft put for the Generality and not a proper universality: And it seemeth hard to prove that every visible member hath the spirit, which is expressly there said of all the members, though whether Baptism and the Lords Supper be included, Mr. T. elsewhere maketh disputable. But I grant that it is spoken of the Church as visible, and that all the members ordinarily having Spiritus Sacramentum, are in judgement of charity said to have the Spirit. 3. But if Sacraments be indeed here included as he asserteth, then Baptism is first included: and so if we prove Infants Church-members, this Text will prove them to be baptizable, according to Mr. T. Remember that. 4. But that Mr. T.'s exposition is not true, that every member drinketh of the Cup in the Lords Supper, he may be turned about to confess himself: For, 1. Doubtless he thinks that this Chapter speaketh of the Church not only as visible (if at all) but as invisible also; and he oft saith that many real members of Christs body ⟨p. 163⟩have not the Sacrament. 2. By this his exposition, his adult Baptizing should not make or prove any to be visible Church-members till they drink of the Cup; though it were a year or many years. 3. And no one that liveth without the Lords Supper through scruples (about Church-orders, or their own fitness, which are the cases of multitudes) should be visible members: Nor those that live where they cannot have the Sacrament: Nor any Lay-man in all the Popish Church, where the Cup is denied the Laity.
Answ. Denying the Minor, I answer to the proof: 1. To the Major: 1. Mr. T. elsewhere pleadeth that 1 Cor. 12. speaketh of the Church-invisible only, and yet now he maketh it to be the visible. 2 [All] is oft put for the Generality and not a proper universality: And it seemeth hard to prove that every visible member hath the spirit, which is expresly there said of all the members, though whether Baptism and the Lords Supper be included, Mr. T. elsewhere maketh disputable. But I grant that it is spoken of the Church as visible, and that all the members ordinarily having Spiritus Sacramentum, are in judgement of charity said to have the Spirit. 3. But if Sacraments be indeed here included as he asserteth, then Baptism is first included: and so if we prove Infants Church-members, this Text will prove them to be baptizable, according to Mr. T. Remember that. 4. But that Mr. T.'s exposition is not true, that every member drinketh of the Cup in the Lords Supper, he may be turned about to confess himself: For, 1. Doubtless he thinks that this Chapter speaketh of the Church not only as visible (if at all) but as invisible also; and he oft saith that many real members of Christs body
2. To the Minor, Infants might be baptized into one spirit by the initiating Sacrament, in order to the rest to be partook of in due time: And as not every Church-suspension, so Natural-suspension of further privileges, nullifieth not membership.
2. To the Minor, Infants might be baptized into one spirit by the initiating Sacrament, in order to the rest to be partaked of in due time: And as not every Church-suspension, so Natural-suspension of further priviledges, nullifieth not membership.
Mr. T. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17. All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken: But no Infant did partake —
Answ. 1. Christ and his Disciples did not partake of it before the institution: 2. No baptized persons partake of it in the interspace between the two Sacraments: which with some is a long time: 3. A baptized person may die before he drinketh that Cup; or may live where it is not lawfully to be had. 4. Church-members may be suspended from the Lords Table. Therefore the text speaketh not of every member, but of the ordinary communion of capable persons.
Answ. 1. It is spoken of the generality of the noblest and capable members, denominating the Church: The Apostle saith not that every member hath all these, but [There is one Lord, one faith, &c.] Christ had not one Lord (being Lord himself as here understood) and yet was a member: Christ in the womb cannot be proved to have actually h•d that one faith; and he was long the chief member before he was baptized: And whether ever the twelve Apostles were, is uncertain.
2. The Text seemeth chiefly to speak of the Doctrine of faith, called objective faith; one Creed: And this the Church might have, and yet not each member actually believe. For, 3. The Parent in faith devoting himself and his Infant to God, his Faith and Consent is reputatively the Child's, who is used as a member of the Parent.
2. The Text seemeth chiefly to speak of the Doctrine of faith, called objective faith; one Creed: And this the Church might have, and yet not each member actually believe. For, 3. The Parent in faith devoting himself and his Infant to God, his Faith and Consent is reputatively the Childs, who is used as a member of the Parent.
Mr. T. 3. They were no members of the visible Church, who were left out of the number of the whole Church, all the Believers, the multitude of the Disciples, &c. But Infants are left out of the number in all places in the New Testament, Ergo: —
Answ. 1. Many texts speak of all that were present only; and many speak only of such as the present matter did concern: And it is most usual to denominate All or the Body from the Noblest and Greatest part. If you were to describe a Kingdom, would you not say that it is a Civil Society of rational creatures (or men) consenting to the mutual Relations of King and Subjects ⟨p. 165⟩and the duties of each for the common welfare? You would so define it as that Reason, Consent and Intention should be in the definition. Infants have none of these in act, and yet who doubteth but Infants are members of the Kingdom (of every Kingdom under Heaven that I have read of?) So you know that we take Infants to be members of our Churches now: And yet is it not usual with us to say that all the Church met to hear, or to do this or that? When yet the Infants and many others might be absent.
Answ. Though I take not the Church then to be so numerous as some do, yet reason is reason: Can we think that when Christ was seen after his resurrection of more than 500 Brethren at once, that only 120 of them were Christians? And can we think that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and many more, were not timorous fainthearted Christians? It's like that the text meaneth that this 120 was the number of those bold confirmed Christians who so quickly after Christs death appeared in open profession and conjunction with the Apostles, and had opportunity to assemble at that time and place.
Answ. Though I take not the Church then to be so numerous as some do, yet reason is reason: Can we think that when Christ was seen after his resurrection of more than 500 Brethren at once, that only 120 of them were Christians? And can we think that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and many more, were not timerous fainthearted Christians? It's like that the text meaneth that this 120 was the number of those bold confirmed Christians who so quickly after Christs death appeared in open profession and conjunction with the Apostles, and had opportunity to assemble at that time and place.
The next is Act. 2.1. They were all with one accord in one place.
