A26924:262
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Chapter 10: Point VII. Of the English sort of Godfathers at Baptism.
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.
M. That in personating the Child, they say that they (and so he by them) doth at present Believe, renounce, desire, &c. falsely intimating that Infants are bound at present to do this by another: And yet the same men plead that God doth not accept him for the Faith of his Parents; As if his Godfathers Faith were his, and not his Parents: when as God requireth no Faith, or Repentance of Infants, but only that [They be the Seed of penitent Believers, devoted to Christ.] And in the Catechism it is said that [Repentance and Faith are required of persons to be Baptized.] (And Repentance and Faith have a promise of Life) and that Infants who cannot perform these are Baptized because they promise them by their Sureties, which promise when they come to Age themselves are bound to perform. Where note that the former Book had [They perform them by their Sureties] They perceived that having said Faith and Repentance are requisite: Infants they saw must have at present what is requisite at present: And they knew that they had ⟨p. 66⟩them not themselves; and so were fain to hold that the Sureties Faith and Repentance was theirs, and a performance of that required condition. But our new Bookmakers saw that this would not hold, and so they say, Though Faith and Repentance be required of persons to be baptized, yet Infants are baptized because they promise them by their Sureties to be hereafter performed; amending the former error by a greater, or a double one. 1. Granting that Faith and Repentance are pre-requisite, and yet confessing that Infants have neither, of their own or Sureties imputed to them; and yet are to be baptized: 2. Or making a Promise of future Faith and Repentance to be present Faith and Repentance. 3. Or like the Antinomians that say, all that are Elected to believe hereafter are justified before they believe, so they imitate that; though Faith and Repentance be requisite in baptizandis, yet God at present will justify and save all that have it not in infancy, because they promise it hereafter. All plain contradictions: as if they said, it is requisite in persons to be baptized, and it is not requisite.
M. That in personating the Child, they say that they (and so he by them) doth at present Believe, renounce, desire, &c. falsely intimating that Infants are bound at present to do this by another: And yet the same men plead that God doth not accept him for the Faith of his Parents; As if his Godfathers Faith were his, and not his Parents: when as God requireth no Faith, or Repentance of Infants, but only that [They be the Seed of penitent Believers, devoted to Christ.] And in the Catechism it is said that [Repentance and Faith are required of persons to be Baptized.] (And Repentance and Faith have a promise of Life) and that Infants who cannot perform these are Baptized because they promise them by their Sureties, which promise when they come to Age themselves are bound to perform. Where note that the former Book had [They perform them by their Sureties] They perceived that having said Faith and Repentance are requisite: Infants they saw must have at present what is requisite at present: And they knew that they had