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

The fourth part of this Question is, Whether the Infants of notorious ungodly parents may not have right to Baptism, on the account of some Undertakers? Answ. If this be so, its nothing against our Negative determination of the main Question, viz. Whether they have right for their Parents sake? 2. We distinguish of Undertakers; some are such as will undertake that another man shall bring up his child well: 2. Some will undertake to do it themselves, yet not to educate it as their own, but as another mans, and at his disposal: neither of these undertakings can give any right. 3. But if the child do either by the total resignation of the Parent, or by adoption or the death of the Parents, or by purchase, or any other just means, become his Own that undertakes for him: so that the child is ejus juris, as his own children are, and at his dispose, then the Question is much harder. And for my part, I incline to judge that such a child hath Right upon that mans account: 1. Because that in a Law-sense this man is his Father. 2. Because all that God requireth in the free universal Covenant of Grace, to our participation ⟨p. 265⟩of his Benefits, is our consent: and children do consent bo those whose they are: For they that owe them, or whose they are, have the disposal of them, and so of their Wills interpretatively; and may among men make any Covenant for them which is for their good (at least,) and oblige them to the performance of conditions. 3. Because God so determined it with Abraham, when he called him so solemnly to renew his Covenant, and so to the Israelites after. Of which for brevity, see what I have said in my book of Baptism, chap. 29. pag. 101, 102. which I need not here recite. Let every man see with his own eyes: but for my part, I resolve (till I see better reasons for the contrary) to admit no child to baptism, upon the undertaking of any other susceptors, such as our Godfathers and Godmothers were, without a better Title then their susception: but if any will say, This child is mine, and at my disposal, though not mine by natural generation, I will not dare to refuse to Baptize it, if the person that presenteth it and devoteth it to God, be capable of so doing, as being himself a Believer.

The fourth part of this Question is, Whether the Infants of notorious ungodly parents may not have right to Baptism, on the account of some Vndertakers? Answ. If this be so, its nothing against our Negative determination of the main Question, viz. Whether they have right for their Parents sake? 2. We distinguish of Undertakers; some are such as will undertake that another man shall bring up his child well: 2. Some will undertake to do it themselves, yet not to educate it as their own, but as another mans, and at his disposal: neither of these undertakings can give any right. 3. But if the child do either by the total resignation of the Parent, or by adoption or the death of the Parents, or by purchase, or any other just means, become his Own that undertakes for him: so that the child is ejus juris, as his own children are, and at his dispose, then the Question is much harder. And for my part, I encline to judge that such a child hath Right upon that mans account: 1. Because that in a Law-sense this man is his Father. 2. Because all that God requireth in the free universal Covenant of Grace, to our participation