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

Reply. But it was to them as members of the Jewish visible Church: And if you plead for the extent of the Church to others also, I thank you for it.

When I say [Infant Church-membership was a benefit] He saith [Visible Church-membership simply notes only a state, by which was a benefit.]

Reply. Only, is an exclusive term: Reader, by this thou mayest perceive the mystery of making Church-members by a transeunt fact, without a Law or promise. It is no benefit with these men, but a state by which was a benefit. Either they or I then know not at all what Church-membership is: And are not all our Volumes wisely written to trouble the world, about that Subject that we are not agreed what it is, and about a term which we agree not of the sense of? I take a visible Church-member to be a visible member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his ⟨p. 35⟩Church as visible? To be a Member is to be a Part: It is therefore as the member of a Family, School, Kingdom, a related part! And is it no benefit in it self besides the consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his body? to be relatively a member of the Household of God? Sure were it but for the exclusion of the misery of the contrary state, and for the Honour of it, such a Relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and the Church, is some little benefit: (and great to me.)

Reply. Only, is an exclusive term: Reader, by this thou maist perceive the mystery of making Church-members by a transeunt fact, without a Law or promise. It is no benefit with these men, but a state by which was a benefit. Either they or I then know not at all what Church-membership is: And are not all our Volumes wisely written to trouble the world, about that Subject that we are not agreed what it is, and about a term which we agree not of the sense of? I take a visible Church-member to be a visible member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his