A26959:91
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.
SECT. XII.
R. B. Concerning the matter of the third question. I assert that [it was not only of the Jews Common-wealth that Infants wer• members, but of the Church distinct from it. This is proved sufficiently in what is said before.
R. B. COncerning the matter of the third question. I assert that [it was not only of the Jews Common-wealth that Infants wer• members, but of the Church distinct from it. This is proved sufficiently in what is said before.
Mr. T's Answer. As yet I find it not prove that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Common-wealth, or that there was not any member of the Church who was not of th• Common-wealth.
Reply. 1. It is only a formal and not a material distinction that I meddled with: The formal reason of a Church-member and a Civil-member differ, at least after the choice of Kings, when the Republic was constituted by a humane head: Of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Galuspie's Aaron's Rod; If the Jews Common-wealth be specified as a Theocracy from God the Sovereign, the Sichemites were of it, and other nations might. 2. But many say that some were of the Common-wealth that were not of the Church, though not contrarily: And be they distinct or not, it sufficeth me that Infants were of the Church.