A27035:936
A second true defence of the mere nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…
A second true defence of the mere nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and history of Dr. Edward Stillingfleet ... clearly proving that it is (not sin but) duty 1. not wilfully to commit the many sins of conformity, 2. not sacrilegiously to forsake the preaching of the Gospel, 3. not to cease public worshipping of God, 4. to use needful pastoral helps for salvation ... / written by Richard Baxter ... ; with some notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and impartial Protestant, and Dr. L. Moulins character.A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and history of Dr. Edward Stillingfleet ... clearly proving that it is (not sin but) duty 1. not wilfully to commit the many sins of conformity, 2. not sacrilegiously to forsake the preaching of the Gospel, 3. not to cease publick worshipping of God, 4. to use needful pastoral helps for salvation ... / written by Richard Baxter ... ; with some notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and impartial Protestant, and Dr. L. Moulins character.
London: printed for Nevil Simons, 1681
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.
2. If they were, then when the Parents both are Atheists, Infidels, Hobbists, scorners at Godliness, Heretics, the Godfathers can represent them but as they are, and their own faith entitleth not the Child, because they stand in the persons of Atheists, Infidels, &c. your Church doth not like this doctrine.
2. If they were, then when the Parents both are Atheists, Infidels, Hobbists, scorners at Godliness, Hereticks, the Godfathers can represent them but as they are, and their own faith entitleth not the Child, because they stand in the persons of Atheists, Infidels, &c. your Church doth not like this doctrine.
3. And as to their representing the Child, quo jure is the doubt. It cannot be done without some representing power given them. And who gave it them?
4. And as to the third Person (in this multiform thing) the doubt is, whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful, while he is bound to do it himself? 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings, which I never knew one perform, nor seem to mean it, save such as take poor mens, kinsmen's or dead mens children to keep as their own. 3. And if it be done without serious intention, Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness, and profane ⟨p. 169⟩taking God's name in vain, to be the way of Christening and Covenanting with Christ in order to salvation?
4. And as to the third Person (in this multiform thing) the doubt is, whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful, while he is bound to do it himself? 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings, which I never knew one perform, nor seem to mean it, save such as take poor mens, kinsmens or dead mens children to keep as their own. 3. And if it be done without serious intention, Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness, and prophane