Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	covenant_n	faith_n	work_n	17,852	5	6.8194	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77753	A iustification of two points now in controversie with the Anabaptists concerning baptisme: the first is, that infants of Christians ought to be baptized, with grounds to prove it, and their objections answered. With a briefe answer to Master Tombes twelve doubtfull arguments against it in his exercitation about infants baptisme. Also a briefe answer to Captaine Hobsons five arguments in his falacy of infants baptisme, being (as he saith) that which should have beene disputed by him, and Mr. Knowles, and some others; against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford. The second point is, that the sprinckling the baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then dipping or plunging in or under the water: with grounds to prove it, and a briefe auswer [sic] to what they have to say against it. / By T.B.	Bakewell, Thomas, b. 1618 or 19.	1646 (1646)	Wing B534; Thomason E316_23; ESTC R5282	32,062	32

other and that they onely had the true visible Church of God and so baptisme is one mark of the christian Church whereby it is known from Turks and Infidels Thirdly he faith circumcision signified that Moses Law was to be observed from Gal. 5.3 But how can that be when it was not given till four hundred yeers after fourthly he faith circumcision did signe the promise of the Land of Canaan to them and baptisme signes eternall life by Christ But I say they both signifie and signe the promise of that everlasting covenant made with Christ for the elect yet not to all that have it but to Gods people that are amongst us and for Canaan I say it was but an overplus of those promises which we enjoy as well as the Jewes when as spirituall and eternall mercies were the principall things intended in that everlasting covenant and whereas he said if baptisme succeed circumcision then none but males must be baptized I have answered the command by Christ is now enlarged to all Nations and to females if this man be not faithlesse but faithfull I suppose this may satisfie the doubt from this Scripture why christian infants may not be baptized Thirdly his examination of other Scriptures to encrease his doubtings are these Acts 16.15 32 33.18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 he saith the words to the Jaylor were spoke to all in his house and he rejoyced beleeving God with all his houshold and Crispus beleeved God with all his house and was baptized hence he concludes that the name of the whole house is to be understood that those which beleeved in it onely were baptized But I have answered already that if but one of the Parents become a christian the children are holy which cannot be denied by any Scripture or sound reason And againe he hath said nothing of Liddiahs houshold and besides although the Jaylor had servants which beleeved by hearing and seing the Apostles carriage in the prison yet Liddia was a stranger going to heare Paul preach was converted and he came and baptized her whole houshold immediately and it may be never saw them before neither was it materiall whether children was of age or not it may suffice that they baptized whole housholds of which Infants was a part and I say againe although they were uncleane before if but one of the Parents beleeved and was baptized yet now they are holy and if both Parents professe themselves christians which is our case in England the matter is out of doubt there Infants ought to be baptized Againe when God gave the token of the covenant to Abraham he commanded that the token should be set on all the males in his house and he accordingly obeyed and did so Gen. 17.12.27 and saith the Lord I know that Abraham will teach his children and his houshold after him to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18.10 and saith Joshua as for me and my houshold we will serve the Lord Josh 24.15 Now I have said and proved before that Christ came not to take away the token of the covenant but to change it and to enlarge it but the covenant and the command are both the same and remaine still see my answer to the ninth Objection then it is cleare that if housholds were circumcised and baptized then our Infants may and ought to be baptized I shall answer two Questions Suppose where heathens and christians live in a land together yet at some distance and the heathen should take away a christians Infant before it be baptized and resolve to keep it by violence from them only they will give the christian leave to come with a Minister and baptize it but they will not part with the child now may this man goe and baptize it and engage himselfe to bring it up in the christian Religion I answ No it were sin and folly to promise that which he cannot performe the child being kept out of his hands by Infidels yea it were as bad and sinfull to doe as those did under the Prelats government who did engage themselves that the child should forsake the devill and all his works and all the lusts of the flesh and beleeve the Articles of the christian faith and keepe all Gods Commandements therefore it ought not to be done The second Question is this suppose a child of heathenish Infidels should by some providence of God lawfully come under the government of christians ought the child to be baptized I answ Yes because they have power to bring it up in the christian Religion therefore Abraham was commanded to circumcise al the males in his house some of them being children of Infidels because the Lord knew that Abraham would command his houshold to doe that which is right in the sight of the Lord Gen. 18.19 and christians have the same power to bring up those under their government in the christian Religion and this also may answer Master Tombes when he saith Infants baptisme may be a meanes to baptize them of uncertaine progeny But I say if christians have power to bring them up in the christian Religion and they can bring them up in no other because the whole Kingdome hath embraced it neither need they now to have any sureties to engage themselves to bring them up in it seeing the whole Kingdome hath embraced it and doe professe it Fourthly Master Tombes saith Baptisme is doubtfull because it cannot be proved that it was in use in the next age after the Apostles Fifthly Master Tombes saith Infants baptisme is doubtfull because in the succeeding age afterwards it was held to be a written tradition I answ If it be proved that it was in the Apostles times and that by the command of Christ then the Apostacy of the times cannot make it unlawfull but the first is proved sufficiently yet more shall be said to it in answer to Captaine Hobson's third argument then this doth not justly hinder christians Infants from baptisme Sixthly Master Tombes saith Infants baptisme hath occasioned many humane inventions to underprop it First sureties in baptisme secondly episcopall confirmation thirdly the reformed union by examination before the Communion fourthly the church-Church-covenant as it is in New-England I answ these are all meere scandals cast upon the Presbyteriall government which doth utterly suppresse them all Seventhly Master Tombes saith Infants baptisme hath occasioned or hath been as the birth to foster many errours first that baptisme conferres grace by the work done secondly baptisme is regeneration thirdly that Infants dying are saved by the faith of the Parents fourthly that some regenerate may fall from grace I answ The abuse of Infants baptisme doth not nullifie it neither can it be truly said to be the ground of these errours for we hold that it may be done upon reprobates as well as circumcision was neither is it a personall benefit to those that have it but it is onely given as a benefit to the godly who live amongst them and so the

us who are no better then Vipers both to Church and State but when any was admitted to Baptisme if they did but beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God and his was the true Religion I say although they should become Papists or prophane drunkards or swearers or adulterers and should be excommunicated for such wickednesse yet still they having a right to the Ordinances as a Free-man hath of a Corporation although for the present he be in prison and cannot make use of it till he hath compounded with his adversarice and this man given satisfaction to the Church therefore his children ought to be baptized unlesse the Parents turn Turks and so renounce Christ and christian Religion yet if but one of them should doe this their children are holy and ought to be baptized notwithstanding all other failings whatsoever Twelfthly thee object if none must be baptized and so receive the token of the Covenant but such as have the Covenant then Infants 〈◊〉 not be baptized but they say the first is true because they are uncapable to receive the covenant therefore they ought not to be baptized which is the token of the covenant Here I might answer that christian Infants are as capable both to receive the covenant and the token of it as the Jewish Infants were but it is not true to say they onely that have the covenant must have the signes and tokens of it for the male children of the Jewes all had the token of the covenant both the elect and reprobates without any difference and women which were in the covenant of grace as well as men yet the signe and token of it was set onely on men though reprobates rather then on women though never so faithfull for the token of the covenant is not given as a personall benefit to all that have it but it is given for the good of Gods people who ought to rejoyce and be thankfull for it where-ever they see it God made a covenant with Adam but the token of it was set on trees and God made a covenant with Noah but the token of it was set in the clouds so God might have set the token of the covenant of grace in the clouds or on trees or onely on wicked men if he had so pleased then shall we quarrell with God and say we will have the token of the covenant set onely on such as have the covenant as if the rain-bow should be set on all men since Noahs flood no let us do as faithfull women did in the Church of the Jewes who could rejoyce and be thankfull for the token of the covenant of grace although it was not set on them but on men onely and many of them reprobates you we doe not find that ever they murmured against God because they had not the token of the covenant upon them as well as men then I conclude notwithstanding these objections that christian Infants ought to be baptized But Master Tombes hath some more places of Scripture to examine the first is Gen. 17.7 from which we prove that God did establish his everlasting Covenant to Abraham and verse 21. he established that everlasting covenant also with Isaac and being established thus to Abraham and Isaac then it was also confirmed unto Jacob for an everlasting covenant Psal 105 10. But this covenant was made with Christ from all eternity so Prov. 8.23 1 Pet. 1.20 Titus 1.2 now circumcision was a token of that everlasting covenant Gen. 17.10 11. and not a token that they should enjoy the land of Canaan and so it sutes with baptisme which is also a token of that everlasting covenant which God the Father made with God the Son from all eternity but Master Tombes saith that Covenant to which circumcision had relation being established to Abraham that he saith was a mixed covenant and therfore not the same with ours I answ All temporall promises both to Abrahams posterity and also to us are but the over-flowing of those promises contained in that eversting covenant for godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 seek the righteousnesse of Christ and all these things shall be added unto you Matth. 6.33 so then we have as many promises of outward things as the Jewes had but then to encrease his doubting he saith Abraham's seed is many wayes to be taken I answ The seed to whom the covenant was made was but one and that was Christ Gal. 3.16 and to all the elect when they are grafted into Christ by faith as we enter into the first Adams covenant when we come to have his image of nature so we come into the second Adams covenant when we come to have his image of grace now circumcision was the token of this covenant to the Jewes as baptisme is to Christians but I shall speak more fully of this in answer to Captaine Hobsons first argument Secondly Master Tombes saith to encrease his doubtings that if baptism succeed circumcision then none but males ought to be baptized because none but males were circumcised and John Baptist did baptize before circumcision of right ceased therefore it doth not succeed circumcision although they both signifie the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11.6.3 1 Pet. 3.21 and the same sanctification of the heart Col. 2.11 12. But saith he they differ in some things first circumcision did signifie that Christ should come of Isaac Gen. 17.21 but baptisme doth signifie his death and resurrection I answ although they are both tokens of the same covenant yet they may in some things differ in their signification and yet agree well together thus circumcision more lively signified mortification and the death of sinne in the crucifying and death of Christ and of justifying the sinner by the blood of Christ and baptisme more cleerly signifies the buriall of sinne in the buriall of Christ and rising from the death of sinne to the life of grace by the resurrection of Christ and washing away our sinnes by the spirit of Christ he being under water and arose out of the water and as water washeth away the filth of our bodies so the blood of Christ washeth away our sinnes but to say circumcision was a token that Christ should come of Isaac Master Tombes contradicts it himselfe saying John baptized before circumcision should of right cease and yet Christ was borne thirty yeeres before which hangs together like harpe and harrow and Paul circumcised Timothy after Christs assention see Acts 16.3 and after he had preached of his resurrection many times but this had been notoriously wicked if circumcision had signified that Christ was yet for to come of Isaac secondly he saith circumcision signified that the Israelites were seperated from all Nations but I say no for if any would turne to the Jewes Religion they should be circumcized let them be of what Nation they would so then it was onely a note of distinction of their Religion from all

Plural Number then there is more Baptismes then one but Paul speaks of Baptismes in the plural number Hebr. 6.2 therefore there is more then one I answer It is like Paul speaks of the outward and inward Baptisme and the gift of miracles and cals them altogether Baptismes in the plural number or it may be he puts the sufferings of Christians and washing their corps after death which are called Baptismes because the very next thing Paul speaketh of is the resurection howsoever if Paul here speaks of divers kinds of baptismes which it is most likely he doth then this Text will not warrant a second baptisme with water but Paul here speakes of the Doctrine of Baptisme and not of the forme therefore it makes nothing for the outward forme to re-baptize them againe with water Now as I was desired I shall give a brief Answer to Captaine Hobsons five Arguments First saies he the Baptisme of Infants doth directly deny Christ to be come in the flesh because it keepes on foot that which was before Christ and ended by Christ as come in the flesh That is saith he the Covenant God made with Abraham which ran in the flesh and was intailed to Generation Gen. 17.7 12. to this Covenant saith he Circumcision had reference now those naturall branches are cut off Rom. 11.20 21. and now there are no Seed or Sonnes of Abraham but beleevers Gal. 3.9.14.22.28.29 now the Promise is not a carnall but a spirituall John 3.5 I answ To say the Covenant which Circumcision had reverence to was a Carnall Covenant shewes but a carnall understanding of it for it is called an everlasting Covenant many times in that Chapter Gen. 17. neither was this Covenant of Grace made with Abraham but saith the Lord I will establish my Covenant with thee and thy seed every man childe shall be circumcised and this shall be a token of the Covenant and this token shall be in your flesh for that everlasting Covenant and my Covenant shall be established with Isaac Then the Covenant was no more made with Abraham then it was with Isaac but established to both by that token of Circumcision so then that circumcision was not a token of a carnall covenant but a token of that eternall Covenant made between God the Father and Christ his Sonne in our nature from all eternity For saith Christ I was set up from everlasting before the world was Pro. 8.23 he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1.20 God made promises to Christ before the world began Titus 1.2 so then this eternall Covenant was not manifested by a token of it from the beginning of the world till Abraham had it because till then no whole Nation was called into the visible Church but if Abraham and his posterity had onely a token that they should enjoy the Land of Canaan it had been but Esaus blessing Againe to say that eternall Covenant was made to Abraham is to make him our Redeemer for then he must performe the conditions of it for all the Elect but poore man he had failings as well as other men and not able to satisfie for his owne sinnes much lesse for the sinnes of all the Elect so then that covenant was made with his seed and saith Paul that seed was Christ Gal. 3.16 Againe marke the conclusion of Master Hobson who said Abraham received a token but of a carnall covenant but if that were true Abraham is damned and then by and by he saith the Seed and Sons of Abraham must be beleevers Gal. 3.7.9.14.22.28.29 then sure he received the token of that everlasting Covenant But how are we Gentiles the Seed and Sons of Abraham I answer By receiving the signe and token of that everlasting covenant as a seale to our faith as he did Rom. 4.11 and we are his children by receiving the same faith in Christ as he had but we are not Abrahams children as Christ is our everlasting Father who stood as a generall Person representing all the Elect and receiving a covenant for them and able to fulfill the conditions of it and to satisfie Gods Justice for the breach of Adams covenant and able to worke faith in us to enter into his covenant But when Abraham is named we must understand him as an Embassadour representing Christ the King of his Church with whom alone the new covenant was made as the first was made with Adam and all we come under it when we take upon us his naturall Image so the second covenant was made with Christ and the Elect come under it when they receive his spirituall Image so then the tokens of the covenant were before Christ came in the Flesh and Christ did not come to take away the token of the covenant but to change them from Circumcision to Baptisme and to enlarge them to all Nations and to Females as well as Males Acts 8.12 then the keeping on foot this token of the covenant which Christ instituted after his comming in the flesh doth not deny his comming in the flesh neither is this to hold circumcision which was the token before his comming in the flesh then this Argument falls to nothing whereby he would prove Infants Baptisme to deny the comming of Christ in the flesh But then he saith the Pharisees and Saduces pleading that they were Abrahams Seed and would be Baptized and yet John would not till they repent and beleeve Mat. 3.7.8.9 I answer If they had repented of their Sects and Schismes he would have Baptized them for no ignorant Person was refused by him although they had not heard whether there was any Holy Ghost yet John baptized them unto repentance and bid them beleeve and such were made Disciples Acts 19.12 34. but John knew that such Sectaries would be but as Vipers to the true Religion therefore he would not baptize them unlesse they would leave their Heresie and Schisme Then it was not because they were of the Seed of Abraham that he refused it but because they would not leave their Heresies and Schismes this cannot keepe Infants from Baptisme which have no Sects nor Schismes to repent of But he hath another Argument to prove that the baptizing of Infants directly denies the comming of Christ in the flesh and that is this He saith it takes from Christ his Propheticall and Kingly Offices which the Holy Ghost gave him as come in the Flesh I answ Christ had those Offices before he came in the flesh he was King and Priest to the Church of the Jewes although not so manifest as to the christian Church but how the baptizing of infants should rob Christ of those Offices is a Paradox to all wise men But he saith because it makes the Old Testament to expound the New but what of this Christ eates with sinners and some were offended at it and he sends them to the Old Testament saying Learne what that meaneth 〈◊〉 will have mercy and not sacrifice Mat. 9.13 but did Christ

upon them to baptize them that they may be known from Turks and Heathens Now if parents had not this power then no Kingdom could ever receive the Gospel and be a holy Nation as the Jew 's was and so their priviledge would exceed the priviledge of all Christian Kingdoms for there will be children to the end of the world for till then they will marry and be given in marriage till the last day Then as Abraham and the Jews received their Religion for themselves and their children so must Christians and set the token of the Covenant upon them as they did But then for the other conversion which makes them fit for the other Sacrament the Lords Supper it is not in the power of the parents although they can bring them up in the Christian Religion yet they cannot convert them from the state of corruption to the state of grace and although they be able to discern when they conform to the true Religion yet they cannot see into their souls whether there be true Faith in them that new name written none knows but he that hath it then although it be said Teach and baptize all Nations yet it is not said Teach and give the Lords Supper to all Nations for it is not in the power of man to teach effectually the heart of another nor to know when they are so taught none but himself knows whether he discern the Lords Body or whether he seed by Faith or remember the Death of Christ or whether he have truely examined himself therefore the worthinesse or unworthinesse lies upon himself and the charge also Let every man examine himself and so let him eat Neither must any baptized Christian be kept from the Lords Supper unlesse he by the leaven of errour seek to undermine the truth of Christian Religion or by prophanesse trample the Christian profession underfoot Matth. 16.12 1 Cor. 5.12 13. 2 Cor. 2.5 6. Gal. 5.9 10. and then it must be done in a legall way not by the Minister alone nor by the Congregation alone but by the Eldership the offence being scandalous So then the first conversion being in the power of the parents and potentially in the children already they may and ought to be baptized But then he saith The Baptism of infants cannot be a Baptism of Faith and Repentance and therefore it is not the Baptism of Christ. But in regard he hath no proof for it I refer him to my answer to the second and third Objection and conclude that Baptism of infants is not excluded from the Commission of Christ and it is a Baptism unto Faith and Repentance and therefore they ought to be baptized His fourth Argument He saith Baptism of infants doth cause inconveniences in the Church first because we make them Members of the Church before they be called of God which is contrary to these Scriptures 1 Cor. 1.1 and 2 Cor. 1.1 I answer Though the Corinthians were sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be Saints yet all in the Church were not such for there was heresies and prophanesse the incestuous person was not cast out and the Lords Supper was prophaned and more carnall men then spirituall and many divisions some of Paul and some of Apollo Then Were these all Saints No. He writes in the judgement of charity and directs his Epistle chiefly to such as were Saints indeed so then in the judgement of charity we should think the best of those in the Church that use the means to attain salvation and so you may judge of infants who are brought up in the true Religion And although Heathens must have a call to Christianity yet when Christians are called their children need not to tarry for such a call because they have no false Religion to be called from Neither was it any inconvenience to the Jews that their infants had the token of the Covenant upon them before their calling but rather a grace and glory to their Church and a benefit to those infants to engage them to obedience of that Covenant when they came to age of which they had received a token So all the people and the Publicans justified Christ when they heard him being baptized of John when as the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him Luke 7.29 30. Then as we would have them justifie Christ and not to reject his Counsell let them be baptized But he saith Another inconvenience it is to have our infants baptized because it will intaile priviledges to us in reference to generation But to these priviledges he saith They must be sanctified quoting that place I answered already 2 Cor. 1.1 Yet I say they are sanctified or set apart from Turks and Heathens for the Christian Church else were they unclean but now they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 then they ought to be baptized But he hath a third inconvenience and that is If infants be baptized it will make a separation and distraction in Christs conjunction and that is to baptize such as they will not give the Lords Supper nor admit them nor others to break Bread Christ would have them to do both and they will admit such as cannot do both But he hath no reason why some may not do some duties when they are disabled to do others and therefore I refer him to my answer to the tenth Objection and hither too for all his inconveniences I see no good Argument to keep infants of Christians from Baptism Fifthly He saith The baptizing of infants doth directly crosse the proceedings both in the time of the Law and in the time of the Gospel and therefore it ought not to be done for they did all both under the Law and in the time of the Gospel by a rule else Lot might have pleaded the same priviledge with Abraham being a Beleever as well as he and Ishmael who was no Beleever in God yet he was circumcised I answer The promise to Abraham was that his seed in Isaac should be the visible Church who onely should have the token of the Covenant and this excludes Lot from this priviledge and for Ishmael he being one of his Family by vertue of another command was circumcised when the Lord would have Abraham to make his own house an example or a patern for all his posterity to circumcise in his house Gen. 17.12 13. But saith the Lord I will establish my Covenant with Isaac ver 21. Onely Strangers had this benefit by living amongst them So then by the like reason our children although as bad as Ishmael may be baptized when as some true Beleevers amongst the Turks may not be baptized except they come to us and make an open profession of the Christian Religion then they may have this benefit amongst us But have not we a rule for what we do when as the command of Christ is our direction who commands all Nations to be taught and baptized and if he command it he will

baptize half their body without their help and without any word of Institution from them and then they come afterwards and baptize the other half in the name of the Trinity But if this be their manner they contradict their own Tenet and condemn themselves in so doing And what shameful thing it is for them to report that they plunge the baptized into the Water when as they wade in themselves And so while they judge us for baptizing one part for all they condemn themselves for doing the same thing Rom. 2.1 From these grounds we may safely conclude That sprinkling the baptized is more agreeing to the minde of Christ then to plunge the baptized into the water But to these Arguments Master Patience said some thing although to small purpose First saith he I take dipping to be the command of Christ because Master Daniel Rogers doth say That the Greek word doth signifie washing by plunging and he saith Sprinkling is rinsing and not to baptize as Master Blackwood doth prove from Greek Authors but I then replyed saying Are you a Teacher in Israel and know not these things John 3.10 Have you the care of souls committed unto you and do you feel them by hearsay because you are not able to interpret the Word your self What is this But the blinde leads the blinds till both fall into the ditch And what comfort will it be to you at the day of Judgement having seduced many souls in giving them poyson instead of wholesome food for you to say then that men told you it was good for them when as Christ never told you so And if we should go by hearsay we might bring multitudes of Orthodox Divines and Churches that well understand the Language in which Christ spake unto his Church to witnesse That the word Baptize signifies as well Sprinkling as Plunging Secondly But then he said Baptism signified Burial and putting on whole Christ on whole man But this I grant For in sprinkling the baptized are under water as well as in plunging for the Minister holds the water over the baptized and so the baptized is wholly under it when as in plunging them into the water it may be some part of them was not wholly under it And besides when the Minister holds the water over them it is all one as to put them under it when as it may be the Anabaptists wade in and put themselves half under flat against their own Tenet And then they grant that the putting the other half into the water is a putting on whole Christ Then by the same Argument by sprinkling one part Christ may be wholly put on as well as by their practise and the Jews by circumcising one part they were circumcised all over and so put on whole Christ Again although it be said Baptism saves it is not by the outward washing because every part of the body was washed but rather by the answer of a good conscience But this is not done by Burial but rather by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Peter 3.21 Thirdly Then he said that John Dipped in Jordan but I may as well say he Sprinkled in Jordan for he saith I indeed baptize with water Matth. 3.11 But the word with is not always in there there was with the Angel a multitude Luke 1.13 I hope you will not say they were in the Angel and if I were with you I hope you would not say that I were in you So then to baptize with water may be by sprinkling the baptized and not by plunging them into the water and to put in for with is as bad a mistake as that of the Prelates who would bow at the Name of Jesus instead of In the Name of Jesus from that place Phil. 2.10 So you will baptize with the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost instead of in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Because to baptize with water you will have it all one as to be baptized in the water by plunging the baptized under or into the water Fourthly Then he said If Christ command to dip then sprinkling is but a gresse invention of man but then he did not prove that Christ did onely command to dip and not to sprinkle but to baptize which signifies both Then we may sprinkle the baptized with as good if not better warrant then they may plunge them into the water Fifthly Suppose they say Christ came out of the water Matth. 3 16. And it is said Philip and the Eunuch went both into the water Acts 8 3● Hence they conclude That the Baptized ought to be plunged into the water I answer If they waded into the water then they were not plunged into it Neither is it said that either Christ or the Eunuch were plunged into the water neither doth their going into the water hinder but they may be sprinkled for in those hot Countreys they went bare-foot and it is likely they went in some distance from the side that they might come at clear water and then both John and Philip might sprinkle them In the Name of the Trinity And I think the Anabaptists have nothing to say from Scripture or Reason against it I shall here conclude with one Quere which is this If our Ministers be lawfully sent and authorized from Christ and the Presbytery to Preach and Baptize and they do administer this Ordinance of Baptism in the right Form In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and with the right Matter being Water and on the right Parties being either men of yeers when they are converted to the Christian Religion or to Infants born of Christians and to the right end which is to distinguish them from Turks and Infidels and as an engagement to us all to go on in obedience of the true Christian Religion And lastly That Christ should ratifie that outward Form of Baptism according as John the Baptist foretold and baptized them with the Holy Ghost I would know this of the Anabaptists how they dare to renounce this outward Form of Baptism thus rightly administred in our Church and ratified by the Holy Ghost and all because it was done upon them when they were Infants therefore the very Baptism of the Holy Ghost despised or it may be because they were not plunged into the water Therefore the outward Form and the inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost is despised of them when as they may see the vanity of plunging by 〈◊〉 forementioned Arguments against it But will they cast away 〈◊〉 outward and inward Seal and Token of the Covenant when 〈◊〉 by persons lawfully called to do it who do it in the right Form on the right Parties with the right Matter and to the right end and all 〈◊〉 confirmed by the Holy Ghost as by a faithful witnesse that cannot ●e But will they dispise the Baptism of the Holy Ghost because it was do●● upon Infants or because they were sprinkled and not plunged into the water And so like Witches renounce the Covenant of Grace and 〈◊〉 away both the outward and inward Seals of it when they enter into Covenant with the Divel so these people it is to be feared many of them do commit that unpardonable sin when they turn Anabaptists despising and trampling under feet the Spirit of God whereby they should be S●●led to the day of Redemption For commonly they go on in a final 〈◊〉 and not one of Ten thousand ever returns yea many of them in these days are ran so far from God that they do not beleeve that there is either God or Devil Heaven or Hell Church of Grace or Glory Thus they are now faln to notorious Atheism calling themselves Seckers of the forementioned things which for the present they have lost FINIS