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

Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expressly be showed in writing, it were no diminution of the authority of it, seeing among men Fundamentals are seldom written; and when they are, it is only as Laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution. As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively Infants should be Church-members, it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not show the original constitution in writing. Yet somewhat we shall attempt. 3. We have full proof of Infants Church-membership by Laws and Covenants concerning it, ever since the time that there was a written word of God: and that is sufficient, if we could fetch it no higher. Having premised this, I come nearer to the Question.

Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expresly be shewed in writing, it were no diminution of the authority of it, seeing among men Fundamentals are seldom written; and when they are, it is only as Laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution. As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively Infants should be Church-members, it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not shew the original constitution in writing. Yet somewhat we shall attempt. 3. We have full proof of Infants Church-membership by Laws and Covenants concerning it, ever since the time that there was a written word of God: and that is sufficient, if we could fetch it no higher. Having premised this, I come nearer to the Question.

The first institution of Infants Church-membership de jure upon supposition of their existence, was in Gods first constitution of the Republic of the world, when he became mans Governor, and determined of his subjects, and members of the Common-wealth: Which Republic being sacred, and devoted to Gods worship and service, was truly a Church of which God was head. This ⟨p. 75⟩was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation. That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man, almost all Divines agree: But because it is rather implied than expressed in Moses brief History, some few cavillers do therefore contradict us. But, 1. The threatening of death for sin, seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not. 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it, which to you I need not recite. But whether this promise of life were natural (as the threatening of death was,) or only positive and more arbitrary, Divines are not agreed among themselves. Those that say it was free and positive, give this reason, That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature, nor any creature merit of God. Those that think it natural as the threatening was, say, it's true that God could not be properly obliged, because he is under no Law, no more is he obliged to punish, but only man obliged to suffer if he inflict it: And it's true that man cannot strictly merit of God. But yet, say they, as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity, so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject, and his works do oblige him (improperly) in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word. So that their reasons are these following. 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good, as to do evil to the evil, that is, to reward as to punishment, as his name proclaimed to Moses,