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

4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children. But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army, is an allowed or offered benefit to them, Ergo, &c. For the Major, ⟨p. 111⟩these principles in the law of nature do contain it. 1. That the Infant is not sui juris, but is at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good. That the Parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering, that is certainly to their own good: and so may enter them into Covenants accordingly: And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the child. 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own child. As if a Prince would offer Honours, and Lordships, and Immunities to him and his heirs: if he will not accept this for his heirs, but only for himself, it is unnatural. Yea, if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits. For the Minor, that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to Infants is manifested already, and more shall be.

And this leads me up to the second point, which I propounded to consider of; whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that Infants should have the benefit of being Church-members, supposing it first known by supernatural revelation, that Parents are of that society, and how general the promise is, and how gracious God is. And 1. It is certain to us by nature that Infants are capable of this benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the aged. 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Common-wealths in the world (perfecte sed imperfecta membra) being secured from violence by the laws, and capable of honours and right to inheritances, ⟨p. 112⟩and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties, if they survive. And this shows that they are also capable of being Church-members, and that nature revealeth to us, that the Infants case much followeth the case of the Parents, especially in benefits. 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth, so far as I can learn, to repute their Infants in the same Religious society with themselves, as well as in the same civil society. 4. Under the Covenant of works (commonly so called) or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature; the Infants should have been in the Church, and a people holy to God, if the Parents had so continued themselves. And consider, 1. That holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now, and that in the establishing of the way of propagation, God was no more obliged to order it so, that the children of righteous Parents should have been born with all the perfections of their Parents and enjoyed the same privileges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace to grant that Infants should be of the same society with their Parents, and have the immunities of that society. 2. We have no reason when the design of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace, to think that love and grace are so much less under the Gospel to the members of Christ, than under the Law to the members or seed of Adam, as that then all the seed should have partook with the same blessings with the righteous Parents, and now they shall all be turned out of the society, whereof the Parents were