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

Reply. Mark Reader, that Gods Law and blessing for the propagation of Adams seed in his Image, would not have made them when born to be visible Church-members, though members? What not so notorious a Law, and Covenant, and Benediction? No wonder if all Christians Infants must be shut out, if Innocent Adams must have been shut out?

He adds, [2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance, yet not such a Law or Ordinance as is in question; which is not a Law or Ordinance de jure, but de eventu, that so it shall be — they being to be actually visible Church-members before admission according to Mr. B's dictates.]

He adds, [2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance, yet not su•h a Law or Ordinance as is in question; which is not a Law or Ordinance de jure, but de eventu, that so it shall be — they being to be actually visible Church-members before admission according to Mr. B's dictates.]

Reply. Alas, poor Readers, that must be thus wearied! I know nothing that this Law or Covenant giveth but a Right to real benefits that must have answerable causes: I know no Right given but it is eventually given, nor received but it's eventually received. Admission is an ambiguous word: My dictates as he calls them, are 1. That Gods Law obligeth persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God, by consenting to his Covenant for themselves and them: 2. And to do this if they have opportunity in the solemn Baptismal Covenanting Ordinance: 3. And in his Covenant or Law of Grace he promiseth to accept them, and signifieth his consent to the mutual Covenant: which is antecedently to their consent, but a conditional consent or Covenant, but consequently actual. 4. That accordingly natural interest only is not the Reason why a Believers Child is a Church-member, merely because he is his: BE God having given him power and obligation also to dispose of his own Child for the ends of his