More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second…

SECT. XLIV, XLV.

R. B. I Come now to the eighth Question, that is to speak to the point which you propounded. You urge me to cite to you the particular Texts that contain this Law, Ordinance, Precept or Covenant. To which I answer thus. 1. There are two sorts of Laws; one which first make a duty; the other which suppose it so made, and ⟨p. 73⟩do only call for obedience, and excite thereto, or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto. If I could show you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty, or granting the privilege of Church-membership, it were not the least disparagement to my cause, as long as I can show you those following Laws which presuppose this. You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of: Where then was Gods will manifested about such things as this, but in tradition and nature? If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition, and find all the Infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit, then what need he make a new Law about it? Or why should God promise it as a new thing? I confess if I should find by any new law or promise that it did begin but in Moses days, I should think it some abatement of the strength of my cause (though yet I think there would enough remain.) 2. There are (yet higher) two sorts of laws: the one for the constitution of the Common-wealth it self, the other for the administration or government of it when it is so constituted. The former are called by some, Fundamental Laws, as laying the frame and form of the Common-wealth, and the quality of the materials, &c. I think indeed, that as constitutive of the form of the Common-wealth, these are scarce properly called Laws; though as they look forward, obliging to duty, and prohibiting alteration, they may. But if they be not laws, they are somewhat higher, and lay the ground of all laws ⟨p. 74⟩