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

Reply. Yes, in the same sense as Christ in the womb was the Churches head: not by the solemn Investiture of Baptism, but by Consent: For believing Parents do dedicate their children to God intentionally when they are in the womb: But a man would think that you your self should acknowledge that this dedication and so the visibility of membership, hath its gradations to perfection: Are not your proselytes visible members in ⟨p. 85⟩one degree, when they openly profess Christianity (as Constantine did) and in a further degree when baptised? The interest of your opinion puts frivolous reasons into your mind which a child might see through.

Mr. T. addeth, [Then an old man should not be a member.]—

Reply. Could you think now that you did not cheat your poor Reader, if partiality had not shut one of your eyes? It will follow, from the affirmative, that such a state of life which Christ undertook is lawful, such words which he spoke, such deeds which he did are lawful, because he did them (being not proper to the Mediator:) But will it thence follow from the negative, that no calling, no thoughts, no words, no deeds are lawful which Christ used not? A single man that hath no Wife or Children may be proved capable of Church-membership, because Christ that was such was the chief Church-member, that is, the head: But will it follow that a married man therefore may be none? Christs example will prove that a child of God may seem forsaken, may be crucified as a Malefactor: but not that no other are Gods children.