A26886:882
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.
At least this is nothing to almost all the world, where the Rulers claim no such absolute Dominion and Propriety. 4. God in Scripture requireth Parents and not Rulers to circumcise their children, and to educate them: And Joshua would promise for no more but himself & his household to serve the Lord, and bids the people choose whom they would serve. Yet I will not deny but that a Ruler may use some ⟨p. 267⟩sharp means to procure the consent of Parents, in some cases. And I also confess that this Argument, though least insisted on, hath (in my opinion) much more plausible appearance of strength, and better deserves a further consideration, than the great and common Argument of the Parents. Right by such a Profession as consisteth with Notorious Ungodliness, upon which most build almost all their Cause. •astly, I conceive that as a Governors Right is in the Common-wealth and main body of the Nation, enabling him to Rule them in the fear of God, so I will not deny but that he may call together the chief part of them, or a Representative body, and urging and procuring their consent, he may devote them by a National Covenant to G•d and promise himself to rule them in his fear. And I would this duty and the Scripture Patterns for it were better laid to heart. But still this leaves the Parent that nearer Natural Interest in his Individual children, on which God hath pleased rather to ground his Promises and Threatenings to Infants.
At least this is nothing to almost all the world, where the Rulers claim no such absolute Dominion and Propriety. 4. God in Scripture requireth Parents and not Rulers to circumcise their children, and to educate them: And Joshua would promise for no more but himself & his houshould to serve the Lord, and bids the people choose whom they would serve. Yet I will not deny but that a Ruler may use some ⟨p. 267⟩sharp means to procure the consent of Parents, in some cases. And I also confess that this Argument, though least insisted on, hath (in my opinion) much more plausible appearance of strength, and better deserves a further consideration, than the great and common Argument of the Parents. Right by such a Profession as consisteth with Notorious Ungodliness, upon which most build almost all t•eir Cause. astly, I conceive that as a Governors Right is in the Common-wealth and main body of the Nation, enabling him to Rule them in the fear of God, so I will not deny but that he may call together the chief part of them, or a Representative body, and urging and procuring their consent, he may devote them by a National Covenant to Gd and promise himself to rule them in his fear. And I would this duty and the Scripture Patterns for it were better laid to heart. But still this leaves the Parent that nearer Natural Interest in his Individual children, on which God hath pleased rather to ground his Promises and Threatenings to Infants.