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

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.

Reply. 1. And will not the Reader be satisfied with these concessions? Mark Reader, that he granteth that Christ an Infant was the Churches head, and thus far as he mentioneth of the Church visible, and that he was the Prophet of the Church, because he was so habitually and by designation: Why, even so it is that we say an Infant may be a Member, a Disciple, a Christian habitually and by designation, (though I would use a fitter word here than habitually:) If this much be a reason for the denomination in one, why not in the other? Yield Sir, or be not angry with Mr. Gataker.

2. And then what brought in your denial of spiritual membership to the non-elect? Would you have made your Reader believe that it was any thing to the question? And when will you prove that neither 1 Cor. 12. nor any other Scripture calleth those members that have but such common gifts of the spirit, as tongues, miracles, prophecy, &c. rejected Matth. 7.23. And that Christ never talked in John 15. of branches in him not bearing fruit, and some cut off from him and withered. I am sure it was a whole Church visible that had carnal contentious wranglers against the Apostles in it, and men that were drunk at the Lords supper, &c. of whom Paul saith