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

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.

Mr. T. I deny not that Christ in infancy was head of the Church, nor that he was the Prophet of the Church in Infancy, understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation, nor that he in some respect, to wit, of Rule and protection, was the head of the visible Church, even of that part which is not elect: yet I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body, in the Scripture acceptions which is by his spirit, he is the head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect.