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

Having said thus much for preparation, I shall anon speak more particularly to the two later sorts of right: but first we shall touch briefly the third pretended title, which some insist on, of such Infants proper right to baptism.

The third was upon the account of their Ancestors true faith, though the immediate Parents we notoriously ungodly ⟨p. 262⟩They that plead this title, will not prove it good: 2. I thus disprove it.

The third was upon the account of their Ancestors true faith, though the immediate Parents weee notoriously ungodly ⟨p. 262⟩They that plead this title, will not prove it good: 2. I thus disprove it.

Agrum. 1. If the Promise to the faithful and their Seed to many generations, doth necessarily suppose an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors of that seed, then that promise gives no right to the Infants of notoriously ungodly Parents. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. The Consequent I suppose to be manifested before: the Antecedent I prove by these following Arguments: 1. If the promise suppose not an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors, then by virtue of the Promise to Noah all the world have Right to baptism. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent. If they urge the words of the second Commandment, it is certain that it is not a thousand generations since Noah. This Question is commonly put to our Brethren in this case, [Where shall we stop, and on what grounds shall we stop, if it extend not to all the world?] and they answer variously: One reverend Brother, Mr. Blake on the Covenant, pag. 140. saith [He knows few that say the Predecessor gives right without the immediate Parent. But all concur in a joint way to communicate a Covenant Interest.] This yields the necessity of a non-intercision. Others say, first out of Calvin and Ames, [Ubi non prorsus interciditur Christianismi professio, & ubi praesumuntur esse Christiani.] to which I answer; If it be a profession of Christianity properly so called, then the right may come by the immediate parent, and there is no intercision. But if it be in a profession equivocally so called, that is, such as is not a probable sign of the thing professed, then I suppose I have proved that such a profession is indeed not a profession, gives no title, and such is that of every notorious ungodly parent. 2. It is answered by others, that it must be by some Ancestors alive that will undertake their education. To which I reply; then the Ancestor gives him not a right as an Ancestor, but as an Undertaker (of which more anon;) though he be no fitter to be an Undertaker than another. Others say, that the children of Christians known or presumed to be such, living or dead, may baptized. Repl. Then all the children under the Turks, whose Ancestors were