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

Mr. T. It seems to me not true, that the nature of the benefit of Infants visible membership consisteth in a right to further benefits.

Reply. Yet he giveth not a word to tell us why he thinketh so. If we are at this pass about Relations and Right in general, no marvel if Infant Baptism go for Antichristian: Doth not the Relative state of a Citizen, or of the member of any privileged society, consist in his state of Right to the Benefits, Privileges and Communion of the Society, and an obligation to the duties of a member, to the end he may have the benefits, and the Society the benefit of his membership ⟨p. 39⟩and duty? A conjunction of Right ([Greek or Hebrew]) and obligation constituteth all such Relations. But what shall we be agreed in that are ignorant and differ here?

Reply. Yet he giveth not a word to tell us why he thinketh so. If we are at this pass about Relations and Right in general, no marvail if Infant Baptism go for Antichristian: Doth not the Relative state of a Citizen, or of the member of any priviledged society, consist in his state of Right to the Benefits, Priviledges and Communion of the Society, and an obligation to the duties of a member, to the end he may have the benefits, and the Society the benefit of his membership ⟨p. 39⟩and duty? A conjunction of Right (〈non-Latin alphabet〉) and obligation constituteth all such Relations. But what shall we be agreed in that are ignorant and differ here?

Next Mr. T. denieth the consequence, [For a man may have a benefit without right.]