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

The Question is [Whether it be Gods command, that Ministers should baptize Children of notoriously ungodly men?] Or [Whether it be their duty?] Or [Whether such Children be the Objects of our Just, and Justifiable Action of Baptizing?]

And I conclude the Question Negatively, supposing that we speak both of Parents natural and civil, and so that they come in upon no better account than the Title of such Parents, as is before explained. Here 1. I grant, that if the natural Parents be ungodly, we may baptize on the the Title of their civil Parents, or Pro-parents; I mean any that truly Own them as Theirs. 2. Much more if any one of the Parents be godly, though the other be ungodly. 3. Also, If there be a probable profession of Godliness, though indeed there be not Sincerity, it is our duty to baptize the children of such. Because 1. we have no natural capacity of judging but according to evidence, and we have no evidence for a certain judgement concerning the estate of another mans heart. 2. I have elsewhere made it appear (and more abundantly might easily do) that when God mentioneth any person qualified with such a Qualification which to us is uncertain to be the object of our Act, his meaning is that we should rationally and charitably judge of men according to evidence whether they are such or no, and so take them, and use them accordingly, the Apparere being here as the Esse to us. So when he bids us, if a Brother wrong us oft, and oft say It repenteth me, forgive him: it is all one with that other [If he repent, forgive him.] We know not certainly whether he repent or not; but we must take him probably to repent, that giveth us the evidence of a probable profession. So if we are to baptize those that repent and believe, or their children, how can we judge of them but by a ⟨p. 270⟩probable profession. 4. It is therefore granted, that though such a degree of Ungodliness as is consistent with sincere Godliness, be Notorious, yet that's not the subject of our Question: for that doth not denominate a man (ungodly) seeing it is from the predominant part that he must be denominated. The Doubt remaineth therefore abou• Ungodliness in the proper sense Notorious, as is before explained. And I shall now defend the Negative as followeth.