A26886:1049
Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…
Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending them against several sorts of opponents, especially against the second assault of that pious, reverend and dear brother Mr. Thomas Blake / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1658
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.
Answ. I have said so much to Mr. Blake on this, that I need not now to add any more.
Obje. Simon Magus had a faith which gave him right to baptism. But Simon Magus was then a Notorious ungodly man; therefore a Notorious ungodly man may have a faith that may entitle him and his to baptism. Ans. See what is said to this in the place before cited. Further 1. I yield that Simon had a faith of superficial Assent, such as the Devils have in a greater measure: and that he professed more than he had; and that hereupon the Apostle was warranted to baptize him. 2. But I deny the Minor that he was then notoriously ungodly. Consider well of Psalm. 50.16.
Argu. 5. Josiah was lawfully Circumcised upon the Right of Manasseh and Ammon; but Manasseh and Ammon were Notoriously ungodly: Ergo.
Ans Either Josiah was born before his Father Ammon proved Notoriously ungodly, or after. If before, then he received not his right from a Notoriously ungodly Parent. If after, 1. Then was it contrary to Gods Laws, and so could be no true Right. For by Gods Laws Manasseh and Ammon should have been put to death. And if it be said that these Laws were not to be executed on the Sovereign; I answer, the want of a power of execution doth not hinder, but that they notoriously lost their Right, though they kept possession, and therefore could convey no Right. It follows therefore that either Josiah was circumcised without Right (if it be first proved that his father was such at the time of his birth): or else that he had his right some other way, intimated in the General answer to the Jews case. And to them that think the former a hard saying, I shall anon show that the rule holds good in this case that Quod fieri non debet, factum valet.