A26886:856
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.
But because it is the antecedent that requires all the proof [that notoriously ungodly Parents have no Interest themselves to be Church-members, and to be baptized, if it were to be done again] I shall prove it as followeth.
1. Argu. They that have not that faith which is the condition of the Covenant, and notoriously show that they have it not, have no right to Baptism. But such are all they who are notoriously ungodly. Ergo. &c.
1. Argu. They that have not that faith which is the condition of the Covenant, and notoriously shew that they have it not, have no right to Baptism. But such are all they who are notoriously ungodly. Ergo. &c.
Or they that notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant, have no right to Baptism. But, &c. Ergo.
The Major is proved hence. 1. What else is there to hinder any Heathen from the like Right? 2. Because that the probable Profession of such a further consent is necessary to justify baptizing of them. 3. Because mutual consent is necessary to a mutual Covenant; and the Covenant must be mutual: no man hath right to Gods part that refuseth his own. This is all so far past question, that I pass it over the more lightly. All the doubt then is of the Minor, [Whether no man have the necessary condition of the baptismal Covenant on Gods part that is notoriously ungodly] or [Whether all such ungodly men do notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant] I speak not here of any subsequent condition which God imposeth upon the Covenanter only for the future; but only of the condition which God imposeth upon us that he may be in Covenant with us, and that it may be a bargain; and that this is a true inconsistent with notorious ungodliness, I was going about at large to prove it; But I remember that I have done it already in 26. Arguments, against Mr. Blake's, and therefore I think it better for you & me that I refer you thither, than to write them here over again, or needlessly to add any more to the same purpose: If any say that though God require as a duty such a Faith as is inconsistent with notorious ungodliness, yet not as Absolutely necessary that he may be engaged to us in Covenant, or that we may have proper right to Baptism; I answer, God hath but one Covenant