Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

According to the second sense, all those have Right to Gods blessing that have them in Possession, through a mere natural collation of Providence, without their sinful seizure. As if you see a man by the way lie naked, and cast your cloak over him, and say nothing to him: Though you may take it away again at your pleasure, and assure him not of the use of it for a moment, yet he hath right to possess it while you permit him. Thus every Pagan hath Right to his Life and Time, and Food and Raiment, while God doth providentially vouchsafe them to him.

According to the second sense, all those have Right to Gods blessing that have them in Possession, through a meer natural collation of Providence, without their sinful seizure. As if you see a man by the way lie naked, and cast your cloak over him, and say nothing to him: Though you may take it away again at your pleasure, and assure him not of the use of it for a moment, yet he hath right to possess it while you permit him. Thus every Pagan hath Right to his Life and Time, and Food and Raiment, while God doth providentially vouchsafe them to him.

According to the third sense, All those have a Right to Gods mercies, to whom we are bound as Instruments to conser them, though it be but by accident that we are so obliged, and though God be in no Covenant-engagement to the persons, nor give them any proper right or claim to the thing: So if God bid me Give to him that needeth: and because I know not all that need, he bids me judge upon probable appearances: Hereupon if a rich man go in rags and pretend necessity, ⟨p. 253⟩it is my Duty to give to him; and so far this Rich man hath a Right to my Alms, as that he is a rightful Object of it, as to the righteousness of my action. So if God bid me forgive him that wrongeth me, if he Repent: and then direct me to judge whether he repent by the Evidences (there being no other way:) and these Evidences being only probable, and not demonstrastive: here it is my duty to forgive him that repenteth not, if he seem to repent, and so he may have such an improper right to my forgiveness. So if a Heathen seem to be a true Christian, and yet dissemble, I am bound to use him as a Christian; and and so far he may improperly be said to have right to any Christian Ordinance, which I am bound to dispense to him, If he claims this Ordinance of me, he sins against God, and requireth that which properly, and before God, he hath no right to, and which he ought not to claim: but yet he clams nothing but what I am bound to give him upon such a claim. You may see then that here may be three distinct questions according to this three-fold sense [of Right] For the fourth I will pass, as not concerning our present business.) 1. Whether such subjects have any Right to Baptism by any gift or grant of God to themselves! 2. Whether they have right from Gods providence putting them into possession of it. 3. Whether it be a Ministers duty to baptize them? And I think it necessary to handle all these, or at least the first and last distinctly, because that one dependeth on the other, and we know not which is ordinarily meant when this question is put. Only to the Explication of the last term, we must speak a word: viz. what is meant by that Baptism, the Right whereto we are now enquiring after? It is one question whether they have Right to the thing signified, viz. Christ and his Benefits; the pardon of sin, and Adoption, &c.