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

For the second Member, it is thus argued by some: God requireth nothing but Consent on our parts, to our entrance into Covenant with him, seeing it is a Covenant of free Grace: but all Infants must by us be supposed to Consent: therefore all must be supposed to have Right to Baptism.] The Major we grant. The Minor they would thus prove: It is a Rule in the Civil Law, That it is supposed that a man will be willing of his own Good; And another Rule there is, That the Law supposeth a man to be what he ought to be, till the contrary appear; therefore Infants, who make not the contrary appear, are by us to be judged virtual Consenters or Accepters of the Covenant; and consequently to be Baptized. Answ. These Rules may hold in dealings between man and man, about such things as Nature may both discern to be Good, and desire; but they cannot hold in the Case in hand; ⟨p. 256⟩1. Because Nature cannot sufficiently discern the Desirableness of the Blessings of the Covenant, compared with those things that must be renounced. 2. Nor can it truly desire them without Grace. 3. And the common Experience of the world telleth us, that the most of men, by far, do not truly consent, when they hear the terms of the Covenant. This therefore may not be supposed: For Natures Inclination to our own Good, is no sufficient ground of the supposition: Nor yet any Obligation that can lie on us to charitable thoughts of Infant's Inclinations. For it is one of the Principles of our Religion, that Nature is so depraved, as that every man is the great Enemy of himself consequentially, as being inclined to the way of his own ruin; till Christ the Physician of Nature do work a Cure. 4. And if this Argument would hold, it would prove that all the Infants of the world have right to Baptism; which is not to be supposed. 5. Yea it wou•d prove that they have equal right with Christians, which is yet more evidently false. 6. Infants in such Covenants are reputed to be as their Pa••nt, who choose for them that cannot choose for themselves. If therefore the Parents consent not, it is supposed that the Child consents not; and no parent can truly consent for his child that reuseth for himself. 7. The Covenant hath not only benefits on Gods part to be conferred, but also duties on our part required; and it cannot be supposed that all will faithfully perform such duties. So much for the first pretended Title.

For the second Member, it is thus argued by some: God requireth nothing but Consent on our parts, to our enterance into Covenant with him, seeing it is a Covenant of free Grace: but all Infants must by us be supposed to Consent: therefore all must be supposed to have Right to Baptism.] The Major we grant. The Minor they would thus prove: It is a Rule in the Civil Law, That it is suppsed that a man will be willing of his own Good; And another Rule there is, That the Law supposeth a man to be what he ought to be, till the contrary appear; therefore Infants, who make not the contrary appear, are by us to be judged virtual Consenters or Accepters of the Covenant; and consequently to be Baptized. Answ. These Rules may hold in dealings between man and man, about such things as Nature may both discern to be Good, and desire; but they cannot hold in the Case in hand;