A26959:483
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.
Mr. T. 4. I argue: They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible ⟨p. 171⟩Church-member, are not visible Church-members. But. Ergo. Profession of faith is the form constituting, &c.
Answ. 1. Covenant Consent is the form constituting ex parte Recipientis, and this they have reputatively in their Parents, whose will is as theirs.
2. The Jews Infants had the form constituting a visible member as you confess. And that was not circumcision; For the uncircumcised females, and males too in the wilderness were visible members: Nor was it to be born of Jews; For apostate Jews forfeited it, and Proselytes of other Nations obtained it: But it was by consent to Gods Covenant.
3. And Christ was a visible member by Divine Revelation. His arguings would make against Christs Righteousness Imputed to believers, and Adams or the Parents sins imputed to them.