Why then may not the same be said of an Infidel, that he may have a right for his child, though none for himself? It is objected, that being himself baptized, he once had right to Church-membership for himself and his child; and though he hath lost this by Apostasy himself, yet there is no reason why his child should be a loser by his fall. Answ. 1. According to this objection the children of all Infidels, Jews, Turks, and Heathens should have right for their Parents sake, supposing those Parents to have been once baptized, and now to be Apostates. 2. But those children were either born before their Parents Apostasy, or after. If before, then I grant the Parent loseth not the child's right by Apostasy, because that right was fixed upon the child himself, upon the account of the Parents interest. And we may suppose him baptized thereupon, and so there is no cause for a doubt: For as the case is rare for a man that before was rightfully a Church-member to the outward appearance, to Apostatize between the Birth and Baptism; so I will purposely shun that Controversy, Whether the child by such Apostasy loseth his right, or whether a Baptized Infant be supposed excommunicate in the Fathers excommunication? For my part, I affirm no such thing: But if the child be born after the Parents Apostasy from faith or a godly life, then no man can say the child loseth any right by the Parents sin; for how can he los• that which he never had. If you say the Parent had it for himself and his child; I answer, true, had he been sincere on supposition he had children; but not for those children he had not, though if he continue in the faith till he have them, he then hath •hose Privileges for himself and them; they can be no subjects of right that had no existence; I grant he may have a grant of such right to him and his seed, as a Prince may grant to a faithful subject to him and to his heirs: But 1. This is on supposition that he will have heirs. 2. That he forfeits no• his right before he hath heirs: otherwise as he apparently ••s•th it to himself, so doth he to them: ⟨p. 258⟩if he make an intercision, he stops the conveyance of the benefit by a prevention, so that it never comes to the Heir:
Why then may not the same be said of an Infidel, that he may have a right for his child, though none for himself? It is objected, that being himself baptized, he once had right to Church-membership for himself and his child; and though he hath lost this by Apostacy himself, yet there is no reason why his child should be a loser by his fall. Answ. 1. According to this objection the children of all Infidels, Jews, Turks, and Heathens should have right for their Parents sake, supposing those Parents to have been once baptized, and now to be Apostates. 2. But those children were either born before their Parents Apostacy, or after. If before, then I grant the Parent loseth not the childs right by Apostacy, because that right was fixed upon the child himself, upon the account of the Parents interest. And we may suppose him baptized thereupon, and so there is no cause for a doubt: For as the case is rare for a man that before was rightfully a Church-member to the outward appearance, to Apostatize between the Birth and Baptism; so I will purposely shun that Controversie, Whether the child by such Apostacy loseth his right, or whether a Baptized Infant be supposed excommunicate in the Fathers excommunication? For my part, I affirm no such thing: But if the child be born after the Parents Apostacy from faith or a godly life, then no man can say the childe loseth any right by the Parents sin; for how can he los• that which he never had. If you say the Parent had it for himself and his child; I answer, true, had he been sincere on supposition he had children; but not for those children he had not, though if he continue in the faith till he have them, he then hath •hose Priviledges for himself and them; they can be no subjects of right that had no existence; I grant he may have a grant of such right to him and his seed, as a Prince may grant to a faithful subject to him and to his heirs: But 1. This is on supposition that he will have heirs. 2. That he forfei•s no• his right before he hath heirs: otherwise as he apparen•ly ••s•th it to himself, so doth he to them: ⟨p. 258⟩if he make an intercision, he stops the conveyance of the benefit by a prevention, so that it never comes to the Heir:
