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.

About this Item

Title
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.
Author
Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.
Publication
London :: Printed for N. Simmons and J. Robinson ...,
1675.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800.
Cite this Item
"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." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A26959.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 3, 2024.

Pages

SECT. LI.

R. B. BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture, I will a little enquire in∣to the light or Law of Nature it self, and see what that saith to the point in hand. And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating Infants to God in Christ, and next of Gods acceptance of them, and entertaining them into that estate. And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of nature it self (at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them;) which I prove thus. 1. The law of Na∣ture bindeth us to give to every one his own due: But Infants are Gods own due; Ergo, the law of Nature bindeth Parents to give them up to God. By [giving] here I mean not an aliena∣tion of propriety, to make that to be Gods that was not so before; but an acknowledgement of his right, with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God, as his own; for his use and ser∣vice, when he is capable thereof. If you say, In∣fants being not capable of doing service, should not be devoted to it till they can do it; I an∣swer, they are capable at present of a legal obli∣gation to future duty, and also of the relation which followeth that obligation, together with the honour of a Church-member (as the child of a Noble

Page 106

man is of his Honours and title to his Inheri∣tance) and many other mercies of the Covenant. And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Medi∣ator or head of the Church in his Infancy, yet for all that he must be head of the Church then, and not (according to this arguing) stay till he were capable of doing those works. And so is it with his members.

Reply. Here is so little said that needs but this remarke, that Mr. T. knoweth not how to deny the duty of dedication handsomly, which being Ac∣cepted of God is to Church-membership as pri∣vate Marriage to publick, where publication is wanting: But he denieth that Parents may dedi∣cate them by Baptism: But if they may and must do it privately by heart consent, it will follow that they must do it publickly in the instituted way. As for my bold attempt in proving so much by the Law of Nature, if he cannot confute it, let him not strive and sin against nature.

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.