A26886:853
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.
The second pretended Title of such Infants to Baptism, is upon the account of the Interest of their immediate Parents; and because this is both the proper subject of our question, and also the great difficulty, and most insisted on, I shall say somewhat more to it: And I prove the Negative thus.
The second pretended Title of such Infants to Baptism, is upon the account of the Interest of their immediate Parents; and because this is both the proper subject of our question, and also the great difficuly, and most insisted on, I shall say somewhat more to it: And I prove the Negative thus.
1. If notoriously ungodly Parents have no right themselves to the Benefits of the Covenant, nor to be Baptized if it were now to do: then cannot their children have a right upon the account of any interest of theirs. But the Antecedent is true: Therefore the validity of the consequence is evident; in that no man can give that he hath none to give, nor can we derive any Interest from him that hath none himself. If any say, he may have an Interest for his child that hath none for himself; ⟨p. 257⟩I Reply. 1. Then the child hath not his interest in and with the Parent, nor as reputed a member of him. 2. That Interest must be produced and proved. I have not yet heard what it should be save what the next Objection intimates.
1. If notoriously ungodly Parents have no right themselves to the Benefits of the Covenant, nor to be Baptized if it were now to do: then cannot their children have a right upon the account of any interest of theirs. But the Antecedent is true: Therefore the validity of the consequence is evident; in that no man can give that he hath none to give, nor can we derive any Interest from him that hath none himself. If any say, he may have an Interest for his child that hath none for himself; ⟨p. 257⟩I Reply. 1. Then the childe hath not his interest in and with the Parent, nor as reputed a member of him. 2. That Interest must be produced and proved. I have not yet heard what it should be save what the next Objection intimates.