Phillip and the Eunuch went down into the Water or to ‖ Act. 8.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Water but 't is not said after what manner he was baptized and a Man may go down into the Water and come up out of it too and not be covered all over with it if he wet but his Feet or Ankles or wade but Knee deep he goes down into the Water and so may come up out of it and our Lord and the Eunuch might do no more and then have their Faces washed or sprinkled only in Baptism and if St. Bernard may be believed this way was Christ baptized and as for the Eunuch if we 'll believe St. Jerome * Serm. de St. Joh. B. p. 1303. and Sir Geo. Sandys * De locis Hebr. in voce Beths p. 500. Trav. l. 3. p. 142. vid Fullers Miscel l. 2. c. 8. p. 220. Fons ad radices Montis ebulliens ab eadem in quâ gignitur sorbetur humo Apostolorum Acta referunt Eunuchum Candacis Reginae in hoc Baptizatum fuisse vid. Zanch. de cultu dei externo l. 1. col 494. Linwood l. 3. de bapt and other learned Men. he could not be dipped because the Fountain in which he was baptized which retains the name of the Aethiopian Fountain to this Day is immediately drunk up by the Earth out of which it Springs and so not likely to be deep enough to dip the Aethiopian Treasurer in it Moreover who can say that he stript himself or that he was dipt in his wearing Cloaths much less that he had any conveniency for shifting for such a purpose for the meeting we find was very accidental and the Eunuch presently as soon as the solemnity was over went on his way nor do we read that he made any stay but went immediately down from his Chariot to the Water Estius on Act. 2.41 judgeth it most rational to conceive that the Apostles did Baptize by washing or Sprinkling for says he 't is altogether incredible that they dipt 3000 in one Day and 5000 at another time and 't is most likely that the 3000 were baptized in the same Place where they heard St. Peter's Sermon which converted them where 't is not likely that such quantities of Water as Bonavent notes ‖ In l. 4. sent dist 3. Artic. 3. q. 2. could be found to serve for the decent dipping of so many Whereas to suppose that after St. Peter had ended his Sermon those thousands took a Progress out of the City in order to the celebration of that Ordinance as if dipping and plunging the whole Body under Water were so essential to Baptism that it could not be rightly performed without it don't so well agree with Christ's Commission For comparing Matt. 28.19 with Mark 16.15 the instruction or order that is given is to this purpose that preaching the Gospel to all Nations they should Disciple and Baptize them not that they should Preach in this or that Place and then take them forth that they may descend to some River to Baptize them for to have the Ordinance of Baptism administred apart from the meeting Place of the Assembly for all other Duties would look somewhat like the Popish Pilgrimage or at least like their going a Processioning especially in some Countries and Places where there is not a River in many Miles compass I may further add the consideration of the danger of plunging and dipping over Head and Ears Our Saviour who prefers Mercy before Sacrifice will have the administration of the Ordinace in such a way as is most consistent with his Peoples lives even of those of the weakest Constitution which must in some Countries especially at some Seasons of the Year be in extream danger by dipping And there is no dispensation in Scripture for procastinating Baptism yea in some short process of time we find the Church expresly against some Mens taking liberty of putting off their Baptism and giving publick Testimony of her dislike insomuch that the Clinicks if any of them recovered were adjudged unworthy to be admitted into any Office of the Ministry not only by the Council of Neocesaria * Can. 12. Caranz giving this for a Reason non enim fides illius voluntaria sed ex necessitate est but by earlier Rules of more ancient Observation which were urged by Cornelius †Apud Euseb l. 6. c. 33. prope finem against Novatus and as Surius remarketh * Tom. 1. pag. 223. declaring Novatus 's Ordination to be contra Canones the Ordination of such Persons to the Priesthood was prohibited by those Ancients not for that they thought them not sufficiently baptized but because they judged it unfit that ever they should be Priests who deferred so long before they would declare themselves to be Christians The truth is notwithstanding this Procastination of Baptism in Novatus and tho' too he had upon his recovery neglected to have the Confirmation of the Bishop according to the custom of the Church which Cornelius †In his Letter to Fabian apud Euseb Harm E. l. 6. c. 43. vid. Niceph. l. 6. c. 3. Chemnit Exam. par 1. p. 84. accounts as another just exception against him yet Fabian finding some relaxation allowable by Law upon some weighty Reasons did by his Mediation and importunity prevail to have him ordained giving assurance that he would ordain no more such which could in no wise be granted him if Novatus's Baptism had been Null and the manner of its Administration unlawful which as Cornelius writes was by sprinkling An unanswerable proof and instance of administring Baptism by way of sprinkling so early in the Church as in the time of Novatus of whom the story is and who no doubt was not the first Man that was so baptized seeing 't was pleaded in Bar to admission into Orders as being against Law Mr. Cradock a great Independant in his Treatise of Gospel liberty says that the practice of dipping is to be restrained by the chief Magistrate for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects And in the Senate of Zurick in Switzerland there was an Act made that if an Anabaptist dipt any of their People he was to be punished with drowning St. Cyprian doth not only allow of pouring on of Water or sprinkling in Baptism but pleads for it in certain Cases and acquaints us that 't was usual in those Days to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds and proves that such Persons were rightly baptized tho' only sprinkled from Ezek. 36.25 and says that sprinkling holds forth the Mystery as well as dipping * See his Discourse on Purpose when the question concerning it was put to him by one Magnus Epist 76. ad Magnum Upon this custom of the Clinicks the learned Vossius makes this remark that those that were thus baptized were not plung'd or dipt under Water but only sprinkled But 't is urged from John 3.23 that John was baptizing in Aenon near
speaking of the Church's Authority in this Case of Paedobaptism that it was without all question delivered by the Lord and his Apostles p l. 1. De peccat merit remiss c. 16. Proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditum The word Tradition the Fathers understood not in the Popish Sense for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age above what is written to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture but for the very written word it self by which they delivered the truth and for their examples and report thereof tending to the explication of their Doctrine and not to the adding any new Doctrine Calvin affirms the baptizing of Infants to be a holy Institution observed in Christ's Church q Instit 4. c. 16. Sect. 6. All the Reformed Churches use it as you may see by the Harmony of their Confessions r Th. à Jesu de Convers omnium Gentium l. 7. pag. 506. The Greek Church who yearly excommunicate the Pope Baptize their Infants s Pagit of Heresies pag. 17. so the Cophti or native Christians of Egypt who have no Communion with the Roman Church And the practice being so general and Primitive Erasmus wondered what evil Devil entered them who denyed the Baptism of Children used in the Catholick Church above 1400 Years and he might the rather for that it hath been the general Consent and almost universal Practice not only of all Christendom but of all the World Jews Gentiles Mahometans Christians of all Sects Protestants Papists Greeks Armenians Muscovites Mengrelians Indians of St. Thomas Abyssines c. as a modern Author observes to use some solemn initiating Ceremony to admit their Children not yet adult into the Society and Communion of their Religion These Authorities with others cited in the Margin * Constit Clementis there 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants l. 6. c. 19. Concil Melevit can 2. apud Magdeb Cent. 5. cap. 9. col 835. Caranz fol. 123. Ambros l. de Ahrah Patriarch Hier. contra Pelag. lib. 3. Ut Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo quidem dum baptismus Circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus Col. 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per baptismum Ecclesiae dei esse inferendos c. Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. c. 4. Magdeb. Cent. 2. 't is said nec usquam legitur Infantes hoc seculo à Baptismo remotos esse We don't read they were then excluded Baptism c. 4. p. 48. de Baptismo nor as 't is said until the 6th Cent. when 't was excepted against by one Adrianus That Terull himself was for Infant Baptism appears in that in his Book De anima cap. 39. He presseth it when the Child is in danger of Death and gives his reason lib. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem Council of Trullo Can. 48. requires that all the Grecian little ones without delay should be baptized One of the 8 Cannons in the Council of Carthage concluding against Pelagius decreed that whosoever denyed Baptism for the remission of sins to a new Born Infant should be anathematiz'd see Craggs Arraigment and Conviction of Anabaptism against Tombs pag. 85. Photius a learned Greek produceth an Imperial Constitution wherein it was decreed that all baptized Samarit and Grecians should be punished who brought not their Children to holy Baptism apud Craggs ibid. I lay down as I might have done many more not to tye the Baptism of Children to the Testimony of Men but as a Martyr for the Protestant Religion did to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word w In a Letter that Mr. Philpot writ whilst he was in Prison and that Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but false and new Imaginations who feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment or any late Invention or Innovation Nor is our manner of administring this sacred Rite by sprinkling or pouring on of Water novel as I said or unjustifiable for the word to Baptize usually signifies as much which as Dr. Featly x Dipper dipt pag. 33. See Wells also in his Answer to Danvers pag. 242. Printed Anno 74. and Walker's Discourse of dipping and sprinkling wherein is shewn the lawfulness of other ways of Baptization besides that of total Immersion Printed Anno 78. says Hesychius Stephanus Scapula and Budaeus those great Masters of the Greek Tongue makes good by many Instances and Allegations out of Classick Writers And in this sense is it used in Scripture So the Fathers were baptized in the Clould not dipt therein for they were under the Cloud * 1 Cor. 10.2 but were wet or sprinkled therewith So Nebuchadnezzar was wet or sprinkled or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuag hath it baptized with the Dew of Heaven Hence we read of diverse washings or Baptisms as the word is And what were those but sprinklings Sometimes Blood was sprinkled †Hebr. 9.10 sometimes Water was poured forth No Person was dipt or plunged in Blood yet those sprinklings were called Baptisms So Mark 7.4 except they wash the Original is except they be baptized and the manner of their washings before Meat was not by dipping but by pouring on of Water ‖ 2 Kings 3.11 We read also of washing or baptizing Tables * Mark 7.4 in the Margin beds vid Lightfoot vol. 2. p. 345. and other things many times a Day which if done by dipping would make the labour of the Jews intolerable besides many other inconveniences And 't is but reasonable that the outward Baptism should have allusion to and an Analogy with the inward We are said to be baptized with the Holy Ghost but not dipt into the Holy Ghost or his Graces but to be sprinkled therewith as with clean †Ezek. 36.25 Water in our Baptism and to have the Holy Spirit poured on us * Isaiah 44.3 And it had been more properly translated baptized in Water if it had been done only by dipping rather than baptized with Water Again if we take a Survey of the several Instances and Examples of Persons baptized in Scripture we shall find that 't was probably done by sprinkling or pouring on of Water rather than by dipping St. Paul was baptized by Ananias when Sick and Weak having fasted three Days and was not strengthened till he received Meat which was after he was baptized †Act. 9.18 19. and according to all Circumstances it was done in his Lodgings So when the Goaler and those that belonged unto him were baptized it was at a time and place that there could be no accommodation for Water and other Conveniences for plunging and dipping as the manner of some is for 't is not likely that the Apostle should carry the Goaler and all his in the dead of the Night to a River or Pond to Baptize them 'T is said
Salim because there was much Water a Reason given by the Holy Ghost himself why he chose that Place for the Country to come in and be baptized because they might go many Miles in those hot Countries and not meet with a drop of Water and it was a great Priviledge to those Places that banked on Jordan that they had much Water but 't is no Argument to prove that John plunged all that he baptized or dipt them over Head and Ears Beside the Original is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters viz. Streams or Rivulets and History informs us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles and so unapt for dipping as their way is †Non interest quanto quisque abluatur quomodo in Eucharistiâ non quantum quisque comedat Chamier l. 5. de bapt c. 1. p. 1404. The Eunuch as has it hath been well observed doth not say here is a River here is a Pool here is Water enough for me to be dipt into the quantity of the Water is not insisted on which fairly intimates to us that where there is Water be it much or little nothing hinders but one may be baptized therewith I had need now to crave Pardon for being so very Prolix on this Head but I hope St. Austin's * Ad Hilar Epist 89. Apology in the like Case may pass for mine Tanto magis pro Infantibus loqui debemus quanto minus pro se loqui possunt THE REPLY To a pretended ANSWER To the foregoing Discourse IT will not be unnecessary to premise that this foregoing Discourse in opposition to the Anabaptists contained at first only eleven Pages in close writing a Copy of which was transcribed and communicated to a particular Friend who shortly after upon their confident Boasting that they would get it answered did by my Permission deliver it into their Hands from whom after almost a Years time and through frequent importunities I received an Answer in Manuscript such as it is consisting of 27 Pages I think it needful also to premise that I have somewhat inlarged my Discourse but not so as to cause the least difference in my ensuing Reply nor shall I make the least advantage upon any Improvement or Addition I have made nor is there in truth any occasion for it For I do solemnly and with all sincerity protest that I don't find I had need to have had any word Syllable or Letter added left out or altered in my Papers by reason of any thing in the pretended Answer My Argument in short is this That as Circumcision was the initiating Sign and Token of the Covenant to the Jews So is Baptism to the Christians and that the Command to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it whatever the Sign be was and is always Obligatory and that the practice from Age to Age answers it In the Prosecution whereof I obviated many Objections now made use of by the Answerer which takes up above half of the aforesaid 11 Pages whereto there is no manner of Reply save only somewhat about the Sabbath or Lord's Day but not to the purpose as will afterwards appear and at that rate too that he dares not condemn the Sabbatarians This with the Preface takes up 3 Pages of the Answer Nevertheless that he may seem to say somewhat he turns Opponent First He endeavours to prove that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was the sign was not the Covenant of Grace as having relation only to temporal Promises taking a Branch for the whole and reckoning that God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham And this takes up 2 Pages more Secondly He labours to prove that Circumcision can give no ground for Infant Baptism nor bear a suitable Parallel with it using Arguments which have been answered over and over and in a great Part obviated by me tho' he takes no notice of it This reacheth to his 10th Page Then he takes notice of my citing Act. 2.39 running out into a large Ramble which will not bear any Test and as introductory thereto he begins thus You say the Promise in the 39. v. is spoken to those in the 36. v. even the House of Israel who had crucified the Lord Jesus Christ and their Children of which I had not said a word And adds that by Children he doth not understand them as they are in a state of Infancy But how doth he illustrate it Why very profoundly and unanswearably with five or six Arguments which to give them their full force amounts to this That there were none such then present as he takes for granted neither could any of them be Children to whom St. Peter Preached and said Repent and be baptized every one of you For were this true would it follow as he would sillily infer that St. Peter neither did nor could speak of or concerning Children to them May it not then be as well argued that the Promise did not belong to those afar off that should hereafter be called Unless we understand thereby such of them as were then present and had been St. Peter's Auditors Which would be a contradiction in terminis Now this with some gross impertinence and senseless Stuff which immediately follows comes home to the 14th Page of the Reply So that there is above half of mine and within a few Lines half of his past over and hitherto it cannot be pretented there is any kind of Answer As to what follows he says himself Pag. 15. that what is written in my 8 9 10 11 Pages and I don't remember there were any more in the Transcript-Copy they had concerning the Covenant and Infants right to Baptism he supposeth to be answered in what he had written aforegoing He means he had framed Arguments which was not his Province Moreover in these Pages he omits several Things which must needs be reckoned very material whereto he answers nothing I 'll instance in some particulars First That in Christ's Dialect to belong to him and to be his Disciple Is all one Secondly That Infants are called Disciples by the Holy Ghost Thirdly That they are made so by God himself vouchsafing graciously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant and so into the state of Disciples Fourthly That the Apostle shews that interest in the Promise is alone of it self a sufficient ground for the application of Baptism Fifthly That the Suffrages and Authorities of the Primitive Fathers are on our side which he overlooks as insignificant tho' they are only produced to shew what was their judgment in the Case and the practice in their time Sixthly That sprinkling or pouring on of Water doth as well express the Mystery as dipping and better alludes to the inward Baptism of the Spirit And that 't is very improbable that the 3000 baptized in one Day and in all likelihood where they heard St. Peter's Sermon were dipped Again he neither denies nor vindicates their concurrence
been unbelievers Had St. Paul taught a contrary Doctrine or any other of the Apostles viz. That the Children of Christian Parents had no more right to Baptismal Initiation than those of Heathen Idolaters it would certainly have offended them more than all they preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Page the 17. He hath these Words The nearer you are to the Truth the further off you are from the Papists and the further off from the Truth the nearer to them Which is so false that 't is not in the least deserving a confutation since they hold most if not all the fundamental Articles of Faith how e're they may endanger the Foundation by their building Hay and Stubble thereon But it signifies nothing it seems to retort upon them for symbolizing with the Papists tho' in points diametrically opposite to the Protestant Religion it don't affect them as he gives us to understand in the Words just before neither will they be concern'd to take notice of any such charge At this rate they themselves may fall into the grossest Principles of Popery and yet be nearer the Truth and it must pass for sound Protestant Doctrine And no reflection must be made as if they had a Prerogative peculiar to their Sect that whatsoever opinion they espouse they are so infallible in their Tenets though it be never so Erroneous and Popish it immediately commenceth Orthodox To my saying and proving that Antiquity is on our side instead of answering the Authorities he says Page 23. that 't is my great Mistake and wonders how I could assert such a thing since they can go back as far as John and Christ and his Apostles Now I must and do acknowledge that no Argument or Antiquity is equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations are not doubtful yet when they are so I appeal to any sober Dissenter of whatsoever Sect or Party whether the harmonious Practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and authentick Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men they thought Infant Baptism lawful and valid and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism And let any modest or moderate Man judge whether it be likely that those famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times should fall into such a delusion as as to conspire in the Doctrine and practice of a Mock-Baptism and of making multitudes of supposititious Christians and Churches Or whether it be not more probable that a little Sect repugnant to all the Ancient as well as modern Churches should be in an Error The very Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet the right Understanding and Interpretation of them in many Points the practice of the Church is as requisite as the practice of the Court is to understand the Book of the Law I may further observe to them that they themselves cannot defend according to their own Postulatum the baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church from the Scripture for that the very Institution there of Baptism hath a special regard to Proselytes who from Judaisme or Gentilisme were coming over to the Christian Faith Neither can they produce a Precedent of such an one baptized in the New Testament but all the baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles of an expiring or false Religion newly converted and therefore according to their own demands if to justifie their own practice they must produce such a particular Distinct Precept or Example they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism nor against the opinion of the Socinians who use this very way of Argumentation for the Non-necessity of Water-Baptism Though they think good in their present Circumstances to practise it * Vid. Johannis Volkelii Misnici de verà Religione Lib. 6. Cap. 14. de Aqua-Baptismo ab Apostolis Usurpato pag. 663. In the same Page he saith 't is strange reasoning to Argue that 't was not likely that St. Paul was dipt when he was baptized seeing he was Sick and Weak having fasted three Days c. Methinks he should rather have said strong reasoning being it would be so unsuitable to the easiness of Christ's Yoak who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Ay but saith this Answerer he being commanded to be baptized closed with the Command and did not consult with Flesh and Blood Very good it would ill become him to dispute God's Commandment but was the manner prescribed That it must be by dipping the whole Body under Water or plunging it as they do with their Cloaths on which would be rather a baptizing of Garments than of Bodies nothing of this appears All Circumstances agree that he was not so baptized Such a penance to St. Paul in his Condition had perhaps been more Unsupportable than Circumcision and more dangerous than whatever the Ceremonial Law required to those therefore who are such stubborn Assertors of the Doctrine of dipping that of St. Peter may be well applyed Why tempt ye God to put such a Yoak on the Necks of Christians that are not able to bear it And let them fear who submit thereto that God say not unto them at last who hath required this at your Hands What he saith to the Instance of the Goaler is in short this If they had not gone forth out of his House how could he say when he had brought them into his House As if the Keeper had not or might not have an Apartment in the Prison peculiar to himself and distinct from that of the Malefactors He is again with my strange reasoning Page 24. about the manner of Philip's baptizing of the Eunuch It seems 't was too difficult for him to Answer to any purpose and therefore he bids me to leave off such Carnal Reasonings But what doth he seem to say to it he endeavours to shew that Philip and the Eunuch's meeting could not be accidental as I had observed for this very Reason Because it was eminently Providential which argues that he is so very Simple and Ignorant that he understands not what accidental Means or that he most erroneously thinks that some things may happen or fall out without the Divine Prescience and in which the Providence of God is not concern'd He hath a mere Figment of his own Invention though he don't apply it which would argue that their Meeting was not altogether accidental but that Philip at least had some previous Knowledge thereof for he says Act. 8.26 The Angel of the Lord bids him arise and go to meet him When as there is no such thing in the Text. And therefore he may justly fear lest that Curse he more than once causelesly alludes to Page 22. as of so tremendous and
dangerous a Consequence should light upon himself for having so palpably and so grosly added to the Word and to the belying of the Angel making him say what he did not But he saith 't is hard for him to believe that I really think that they were baptized so by sprinkling though I so write and appeals to me whether the word Baptize doth not signifie to dip or plunge and not to Sprinkle I have shewn that the Word signifies not only to dip but to wash or pour on Water or to Sprinkle and is often so used in Scripture and gave instances of which he takes no notice Christ no where requires dipping but baptizing And as to the method or manner how it should be done the Scripture is silent nor can there be an Example produced absolutely for dipping I believe that some were baptized in Scripture by pouring on of Water or by Sprinkling others by dipping But I question whether after the manner of our Anabaptists We don't deny dipping as in it self unlawful as they do pouring on of Water or Sprinkling but we say the practice is Schismatical when done in opposition and dangerous in such a cold Climate and in some seasons of the Year And when too the Party is of a weak and sickly Constitution And troubled with Catarrhs Consumptions and the like Page the 26. He pleads for dipping from the significancy of the Ceremony referring to Colos 2.12 I do not in the least deny but that it seems to follow from thence that there was such a Custom in those Days as to Baptize by immersion which carryed a very sensible shew of a Burial and a Resurrection but the Negative cannot be thence concluded that there was no other way of baptizing but that nor is it probable there was no other way because there are other Texts of Scripture which allude to sprinkling in Baptism as this doth to dipping And the like Collection must be allowed to be made from the one that is made from the other and farther because there may be and is a Baptismal representation made of a Burial and of a Resurrection in aspersion and affusion of Water as well as in dipping * Vossius cites several Authors who deny any such Representation to be required the thing being as they say but accidental and not essential to Baptism and in case there ought to be at least some similitude of that Nature this he tells us is exprest in aspersione etiam vel perfusione quia cujus caput as he adds aspergitur vel perfunditur is aquis istis quasi sepelitur Theses Theologicae pag. 360. He that hath Water poured on him as well as he that is dipt is put under Water And the Water falling on him that is sprinkled fairly represents the Earth falling upon him that is Buried and speaks the similitude of a Burial And by the one as well as by the other we may be said to be buried with Christ by Baptism into Death The Representation then is made both ways tho' in the one 't is more lively and sensible than in the other and the appearing again after and from under that affusion represents also a Resurrection so that the Symbol is not spoiled here Accordingly in the Provincial Council of Colen * Sub Hermanno Celebrato Anno 1530. sprinkling as well as dipping is indifferently spoken of as expressive of a Type of Christ's three Days Burial and our conformity to him in that and his Resurrection Moreover Christ's bodily Actions and Passions must be imitated and represented by us after a spiritual way and 't is a vain thing to imagine that every Metaphorical Expression used in the Scripture signifying our Communion with Christ and conformity to him should punctually express the Mystery in the Sacrament both as to the Letter and Spirit The Metaphorical Expressions are various Putting him on buried with him sprinkling with his Blood And what hinders but that the Symbolical Ceremonies and the Sacramental Signs may be so too or at least variously used or accompanied with various circumstantial Ceremonies One Sign after one and the same way administred cannot express our Communion with Christ and our conformity to him in his Death and Resurrrection as to all the foregoing Metaphors Our Communion with Christ in his Death and Resurrection and our conformity to him therein is the sacramental Grace and that being represented as well by sprinkling or pouring on of Water as by dipping it follows that Water in either way of application is Sacramental Again our washing and cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ and the raising up our Souls to a spiritual Life being the principal effects of Christ's Death and Resurrection represented and sealed in the Sacrament is truly set out as hath been shewed by sprinkling as well as by dipping Hence under the Law the sacrificial cleansing was done by sprinkling in some Cases and by dipping in others * Numb 19.18 19. Heb. 9.13 and the purifying by Christ's Blood is equally represented by both called therefore the Blood of sprinkling and sprinkling of Blood †Heb. 12.24 1 Pet. 1.2 In his Conclusion not to spare me but to tell me my own he reminds me of his old Item formerly given that we have neither Precept nor Example for Infant-Baptism So say the Papists as well as the Anabaptists tho' in other Words That 't is a mere Ecclesiastical Constitution no Divine Apostolical Ordinance In this they are not unlike Sampson's Foxes joyned together by the Tails whilst their Heads look several ways both asserting the same Position tho' to different Ends the one to establish human Tradition the other to undermine a Divine Ordinance But I reply nothing is more certain than that the Ordinance of Baptism is instituted and appointed us in the Gospel But there is no distinct Precept that particularly determines us to administer it to those of such or such an Age or more to Persons of one Age than another but 't is left to us to apply the Ordinance to those we find qualified according to the rules and directions given us in the Word of God without any respect to the Age. Neither do I know the particular Age of any one baptized in Scripture Unless that our Saviour was then about thirty Years old * Luke 3.21 22 23. Answering therein the legal Type of the Priests and Levites who ordinarily entered not their Function till at that Age. Num. 4.3 23 30. but who will say that we are bound precisely to observe that Time in our reception of Baptism If you say in general Terms it must be when we are come to the Age of Maturity or Discretion let it be proved that the Scripture either by Precept or Example hath limitted it to that only or that the adult or grown Persons are declared in Scripture to be the only qualified Persons or that those in the state of Infancy are declared not be qualified or capable and you have gained the