45 2 The Birth -Priviledge and Covenant- holinef Cì.47 a tuall excommunication, and give the like admiffion to Infants. The ftate of Parent and childe reipeäive to the Covenant is ho- mogeneall. If the root be holy, the branch is holy, and fo è contra, yet 'the parent by his mifdemeanour may incur that cenfure ofwhich his Infant is not deferving. But to return to Mafter Firmin, his Argument IBould run thus, If the guilty pa- rent be debarred ofa priviledge, then the innocent childe ought to be debarred likewife : me thinks a difference might be put between a fcandalous parent that is active, and an innocent childe that is pall ve a parent that cannot, will not improve it to his comfort, but to his judgement, and a childe that cannot mif- improve it : My Argument (faith he) runs upon the firfi fuppofition, that the childe brings nothing with it, confidered as ab- firatted from the parent, but it is the parent gives the right. And the Parent conferrs right in Covenant, though he breaks Cove- nant, yet confers not the tranfgreffion of it ; the Argument were as good that the childe muff necelarily be admitted to the Lords Table, becaufe the father did worthily receive it. If it be laid, the father is worthy, fo is not the childe; fo we fap,the father is unworthy of the one; i. e. renders himfelf unworthy, and fo doth not the childe of the other. The fecond Argument. Such Parents as if they themfelves *ere now to be baptized, ought not to be baptized; cannot jufily chal- lengeptifm for their children, neither are we bound to admini- fier it. But fuch parents as the ueflion mentions, if they now Were to be baptized, ought not to be baptized. Ergo. This argu- ment is of the fame (tamp with the former, and needs no other Anfwer, the Parent hath contraeled a great load of guilt, of which the Infant is innocent This Argument well followed borne might unbaptize a great part of thole that are of this judgement, and render all their priviledges in Church -Ordi- nances fruitleffe, for want of a previous Baptifim The third Argument'. If t_ inifiers in baptizing are bound to hold to their Commiffion, then the children of f'uch Parents as the queffion mentions, are not to be baptized. But the Antecedent is true, none Will deny that Nrgo The confequence ïs true. .Mini - flerr by their i mmiffion,Ma`tth.2 8, I9:((.40.0e7t: ox7i a e7 "ríov7S s) are bound to Alp ize `Difciples. But thefe are no Difciples, Ergo. -My 4rgtonent tends to this, If the parent be sot a T ifcipde, the childe is none-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=