belongs to all the Children of the same a Parent But it may be some may say this Houshold were all Servants but if they were yet here is not a Word of their Faith or Profession And then I conclude that if Lydia's Servants were Baptized by Vertue of that Relation to Lydia much more should her Children be Baptized standing in a nearer Relation to her Thus I have shown you there are some Texts that afford us good ground to think some Infants or little Children were Baptized but yet if there were not any such therein contained yet the same Scriptures do afford undeniable Consequences that some Infants have a Right to Baptism as I have proved at large But suppose no Instance in Scripture could be given of an Infant Baptized or any thing like it yet if I prove from Scripture they ought to be it is a sufficient Warrant for us so to do and I conceive I shall extort a Consent to this from my Brethren from this following Consideration That there was a time when no Instance could be produced of any Adult that had been Baptized I mean in its first Institution as Abraham could produce no Instance of any that had been Circumcised Now then according to this Rule none must be Circumcised or Baptized because no Instance could then be produced of any that had but you must say Tho' no Instance could be given of any Adult that had been Baptized yet when God made it known to be his Will that so it should be it was sufficient to justifie their Practice in so doing So say I as to Infants tho' no Instance could be given of any Infant that had been Baptized yet if God hath made it known to us in his Word such ought to be it is a sufficient Warrant to us so to do and whether I have proved some Infants Right to Baptism from Scripture I leave it unto any Understanding Impartial and Unprejudiced Reader to judge and I must tell you if I have proved their Right to this Ordinance it is far more than if I could produce an Instance or many Instances of such as had for Right will be Right but 't is possible the best of Men being imperfect may fail as to some particular Fact Hence we say a facto ad jus non valet Argumentum that is we cannot from the Fact conclude the Right of the thing We are not to imitate David in his Adultery nor Peter in his denying Christ tho' the one was a Prophet and the other an Apostle For tho' it cannot be denied that they did so yet the Scripture proves they ought not to have done so and if the Apostles in Baptizing of Adult and not Baptizing Infants suppose it to be so did not do the former and omit doing the latter upon the Account of the Right the one had and want of a Right to the other tho' you could produce a Thousand Instances we are no more bound to imitate them than to imitate David in his Adultery or Peter in Cursing and Swearing because we are not to live by Examples but Laws nay as notwithstanding such sad Instances in Scripture we have Liberty and are bound not only not to imitate them but to act contrary thereunto so could you prove that the Apostles never Baptized one Infant yet if I can prove from Scripture as I hope I have they ought to be Baptized we ought in this to act contrary to their Practice and not make one Sin an Inlet into another since the Right of the thing is more than if you could produce as many Instances as there are Stars in the Firmament without this Right Let not any think I do this to reflect on the Practice of the Blessed Apostles God forbid for I am confident they were not wanting in the due Administration of any Ordinance in God's House but I do it to shew that the Right of this Ordinance is more than barely the Action and that you may see how unreasonable it seems in the Anabaptists to make such a noise about one Infant Baptized when we can produce that which is more than a Thousand Instances simply considered the Apostles did first consider their Right before they Baptized any Obj. 6. But we find no Command in Scripture to Baptize such and so have good ground to believe it is not the Mind of God such should be Baptized A. There is no need of a Positive Command or an Express Scripture in so many plain Words to affirm a thing in order to the proving a Duty or Truth We have a Matter of as great Concern as the Baptism of Old or Young proved by Christ himself by a bare Consequence and that is the Resurrection Mat. 22.31,32 But as touching the Resurrection of the Dead have ye not read that which was spoken to you of God saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living This Scripture he cites from Ex. 3.6 to prove the Resurrection and yet not one Word of the Resurrection mentioned in it but proves it by Consequence thus That because God is the God of Abraham but not the God of the Dead therefore Abraham must live not only in his Soul but the Body they both making up but the whole of Abraham And if nothing must be received as a Truth but what we have a plain Scripture for in so many Words how will my Friends the Anabaptists prove That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to any of us since tho' we have Scriptures that will prove it as to the Substance of it yet I know no Scripture which in so many plain Words doth affirm it but perhaps some of the Anabaptists will rather reject this as a Truth than admit of Infant Baptism and as to Doctrines so in Point of Duty There is no Necessity of an express Command to make it a Duty to illustrate this if God command us to be Charitable to poor Saints tho' the Command makes no mention of any expresly by Name yet when we see such in Wants we are bound to relieve them and cannot omit it if able without Sin it will not excuse us to say I am not commanded to relieve such by Name so tho' Sinners are not called by Name to come to Christ 't is their Duty to come so when God commands us to Baptize all such as we have good ground to hope are Believers if some Infants are found in that number we are as much bound to Baptize them as any others as if mentioned by Name God once commanded Circumcision to the Jews and their Infant Seed but if in the New Testament he hath declared as I have shown that we come in the Jews room and that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision that Command of Circumcising Infants doth as much enjoin the Baptizing of Infants And no wonder Infants are not mentioned expresly in the New Testament as the Subjects
State and Condition the Soul is in when by Faith it receives Christ Say some in an unrenewed State without any Principle of Grace miserably forgetting that this coming is it self a Grace and under the Power and Dominion of Sin then saith the Text So walk ye in him Minor but none that receive Christ can or ought to continue in Sin 2 Cor. 5.17 Therefore if any Man is in Christ he is a new Creature So Rom. 8.10 If Christ be in you the Body is dead because of Sin c. So that of necessity the Opinion I am confuting must be false or the Word of God not true But for the more full Satisfaction of the weaker sort who can easier raise Objections against the Truth than understand what it is I shall come now to answer some Questions Quest 1. Must not Sinners be invited to come to Christ Is not the Gospel sent to Sinners Ans Tho' the Gospel is sent to Sinners yet not to encourage them in Sin and tho' Sinners must be invited to come which Work of inviting I hope while I live I shall be employed in yet sure I am tho' Sinners must be invited to come yet not to come in their Sins as aforesaid and such as do so invite them I am sure have no Commission in God's Word so to do I know a Text which invites such as labour and are heavy laden to come Matth. 11.28 which certainly implies a Change I know a Text that invites the Thirsty to come which still implies a Change I know a Text which saith Wash ye make ye clean come now Isa 1.17,18 denoting such a Work must be wrought in us before we come tho' not by our Power I know a Text which saith Let the Wicked forsake his Way and the Unrighteous Man his Thoughts and let him return Isa 55.7 denoting a Necessity of a Change in Heart and Life when we return but I know no Text that either invites or commands Sinners to come to Christ in their Sins and let the Patrons of that Opinion produce but one such Text and I shall acknowledge my Ignorance and do promise for ever to be silent and vindicate this Point no more Quest 2. But must not Sinners come to Christ as Sinners I answer If by these Words as Sinners you mean such as are utterly devoid of any Principle of Grace for that is the Enquiry then I hope I have sufficiently proved such cannot so come But if you mean such as only have the Remainders of Sin in them so such may come or none must come but I have shown you how the Remainder of Sin in the Regenerate doth not properly denominate them Sinners nor is this any thing to the Point in Hand for I am discoursing of the Power of Sin in an unregenerate Soul he that is Born of God sinneth not that is not with Delight and Approbation therefore it savours of most gross Ignorance thus to stile Saints Sinners because not perfectly free from Sins when God himself makes such a vast Difference between them So that these things being laid down my Answer is We are not to come as Sinners in the Sence aforesaid Quest 3. But must not we bring our Sins and lay them on Christ If not where must we lay them Ans Forasmuch as this is judged an unanswerable Plea by some I shall labour the more clearly to answer it and the rather because it is such weighty Concern we all come into the World in Sin and have multiplied our Transgressions as the Sands which lye as a heavy Burden upon us ready to sink us into Hell and it highly concerns us to know how to have this Burden removed nor is any thing more dangerous than to make a Mistake in this Case Now I grant God the Father did once in a way of Soveraignty lay all the Sins of all the Elect on Christ imputing the Guilt of all those Sins to Christ the Scripture is clear to prove this Isa 53.6 And the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all He came to finish Transgression and to make an end of Sin He stood in our Room and Stead and bore the Curse due to the Elect that they might not for ever lye under Condemnation and to this dying Sacrifice we must look for Comfort as appointed thereto of the Father under the Sence of Sin for without shedding of Blood there is no Remission This is that Scape Goat that must bear our Sins into the Wilderness nor is there any other Way for our Sins to be pardoned But tho' God imputed the Guilt of Sin to Christ to the end that he might make Satisfaction to Justice yet God himself did not lay the Filth and Dominion of Sin upon Christ and that is the Point in Hand Hence he is said to be without Spot Heb. 9.14 and 1 Pet. 1.19 He was a Sin-Offering indeed but not a Sinful Offering If Christ had no Spot then no Filth for that will make Spots where it is or else it would not be Filth But tho' God did once lay Sin on Christ in the Sence aforesaid yet now 't is impossible Sin should be laid upon him by us and those who presume to pretend such a thing do evidently declare they look upon him not to have compleated his Work and tho' the Scripture affirms that by one Offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yet those Persons are for laying Sin upon him again and that in such a manner as God himself never did and so do what in them lyes to crucifie the Lord afresh and to put him to open Shame and to render all he hath done as imperfect and so virtually overthrow the very Foundation of our Salvation since if Sin be laid upon him again he must suffer for it again since Sin was never laid upon Christ to any other end than to satisfie the Justice of God for it and as this was the end so either Christ hath fully satisfied Justice or not if he hath then no more Sin can be laid upon him unless he must pay the Debt twice which is not consistent with Justice but if they say Christ hath not then they declare their cursed Heresie And as for those who are so confident that their filthy Lusts must of Necessity lye on Christ or them I would ask them this Question where will those Sins lye at Judgment For 't is expresly said Heb. 9.28 He shall appear the second time without Sin unto Salvation then since he will not then bear them they are like to return to them again 'T is a most gross Mistake to think Christ cannot come to us and by his Spirit wash us in the Laver of Regeneration but the Filth which he washes off from us must defile him as if a Physician could not cure another but the Disease must return upon himself Christ by his Spirit destroys the Power of Sin in us but we can in no Propriety of Speech
say Brethren that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither doth Corruption inherit Incorruption VVhere we must not understand the VVord Flesh Physically or in Point of Being for so we believe Christ is now in our Humane Nature in Heaven VVe believe also the Resurrection of the Body when the Saints shall in their Flesh see God Job 19.26 But Flesh here must be understood morally as corrupted as Gal. 1.16 Immediately I conferred not with Flesh and Blood in which Place he means he did not hearken to the corrupt Reasonings of the Flesh That this is the meaning seems clear for in the foregoing Verse he had been mentioning our Earthly Image which consists in the Depravity of our Nature and then concludes That Flesh and Blood that is such as retain that Earthly Image cannot inherit the Kingdom of God so Heb. 12.14 Without Holiness no Man shall see God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no one no Body as it signifies Nor is it to be understood of actual Holiness in our Conversation only for should a Man die the same Moment that he closes with Christ he shall as surely see God to his Comfort as if he had liv'd a holy Life never so long our Title to Heaven arising from our Union to Christ and not from our Holiness tho' never so great nor do his good VVorks so properly render him meet for Heaven as that Holy Principle from whence they proceeded A clear Instance we have in the Thief on the Cross that was converted and in Heaven in a few Hours By his embracing of Christ he came to have a Title to Heaven and his inward Change of Heart rendred him meet for Heaven notwithstanding he had no time to spend in a Holy Conversation From all which it doth appear that as we are corrupt by Nature so this Nature till renewed can never enter into Heaven nor do I see what the Anabaptists can say to this unless they deny the Corruption of our Nature and I perceive some of them have fled thither for Refuge But this is so confuted by the former Scriptures that I judge it needless to add any more and I cannot but wonder how such as pretend so high an Esteem for plain Scripture dare cast such Contempt on those many plain Texts I have cited and more that I might cite to prove the Corruption of our Natures as we come into the VVold This gives us sad ground to Fear that whatever high esteem such may pretend to plain Scripture when it seems to make for them yet they prefer their own Fancies before it when it really makes against them Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved a necessity for Infants to have Grace if ever they get to Glory I come now to the close of my Argument Minor Proposition But some Infants do get to Heaven Now I need not spend much time to prove his for I hope the Anabaptists will not be so uncharitable as to Sentence all Infants to Eternal Destruction rather than receive the Truth of the Gospel And indeed I find some of them so far from denying that some Infants get to Heaven that they rather believe that none miss of Heaven But if any of the rest of the Anabaptists should so far differ from their Brethren as to deny it yet 't is our comfort the Scripture doth in most express words affirm it Mat. 19.14 Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven not that the Kingdom of Heaven consists only of such but that some such are of that Kingdom By the Kingdom of Heaven saith Marlorate we must understand the Eternal Felicity of the Elect. Some indeed understand it of the visible Kingdom of Christ on Earth But such do not understand it so in opposition to their Eternal Felicity and indeed if some of such as are in Christ's Visible Kingdom here on Earth do not get to Heaven I know not who shall come there Visible not being opposed to Invisible but only distinguished from it So that since some such do get to Heaven as I have proved but none get to Heaven without Renovation hence it unavoidably follows some such are renewed which Renovation takes in the Seeds or Habit of Faith and all other Graces And thus have I confirmed my Argument which I am confident stands so firm on Scripture ground that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it All I shall add shall be to Answer some Objections that may be made by some against it though indeed the truth is so clear that Objections are not worthy to be heard much less to to be answered But to the End that things may be made plain to the meanest capacity and nothing wanting for satisfaction to such as desire it I proceed Object 1. We see no such Ground to hope such have Grace Do not we see that oft-times the Children of Godly Parents prove wicked which they would not have done if they had Grace in Infancy unless they fall from Grace which we may suppose you do not Believe To which I answer That some Children of Believing Parents do prove Graceless and Wicked by too sad experience we find true Nor can we from hence infer that such fall from Grace for I know none that hold that all such have Grace I mean of Unbaptized Infants for as to Baptized Infants the Papists and Church of England both hold That all such have Grace though for my own part tho' I hope well of all such as are Baptized de jure of right yet to affirm that all such have Grace I dare not neither do I think any from Scripture have good ground so to do Should none have Grace among the Seed of Believers but such as Die in Infancy or who do in time appear Gracious but know not so exactly the time of their Conversion who may be supposed to be wrought upon in Infancy they would amount to a vast number And perhaps as many by the Rule of Proportion as may be found to have Grace in the great Day when all must be weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary in our particular Churches But if we must not hope of any because some prove wicked what shall we say of Adult Professors who are Members in Churches Do not many of them prove Hypocrites Must the Eleven therefore be condemned for Hypocrites because a Judas was among them Would not this be to Judge before the time Sure I am at this rate we must hope of none Adult or Infants But if you say notwithstanding some professors prove Wicked yet we are to hope well of others till such time as their Wickedness discovers it self So say I as to Infants though some prove wicked yet till others appear so we ought to hope well of them if we see nothing that doth cut off our hope and not so to do must be judged the greatest uncharitableness Oject 2. But Adult Persons make a Profession of Christ so do not Infants Answ All their Profession is but
Circumcision was first instituted to Believing Abraham I think it would have been unanswerable because there is nothing of Christ appears in such Parents no not so much as a Profession and how such Infants can be supposed to stand in the Place or partake of the Priviledges of Abraham unless one of their Parents stood in Abraham's room I see not But since the Objection is made against such as only Baptize such as have Believing Parents I must further Answer The forecited Scripture seems not in the least to oppose the Truth I have laid down as will appear if we consider the Apostle is there speaking to Adult Gentiles and doth assure them that though they were not the Natural Seed of Abraham and so could not on that account lay claim to the Promise either to themselves or Children as they might have done had they been so and their Conversations had been becoming the the Gospel of Christ yet by Virtue of their Relation to Christ or their believing in Christ though not of Abraham's Natural Seed they shall partake of Abraham's Priviledges And as at the first the Promise was made to Abraham and his Seed so when the Gentiles came to initiate the Faith of Abraham the Promise should be to them and their Seed as it was to Abraham Now the Promise at first reached unto Abraham's Natural Seed as is clear from Gen. 17.7,8,9,10 Now we cannot suppose the Seal to be applied to any but such as the Promise was made to But such as were Eight Days Old were Circumcised therefore to such the Promise was made For though I grant that all in Abraham's House were Circumcised both Old and Young the Adult being such as we may suppose were at least Professors For 't is said of Abraham he would teach his House yet it is evident none were excepted if but Eight Days old So that this Text strongly confirms my Argument for if upon our Believing we come to be Abraham's Seed and to partake of his Blessedness as in Gal. 3.9 then it follows by an undeniable consequence that as the Promise at first was made to Believing Abraham and his Natural Seed so it must he continued to us Believers and our Seed or else we are not Blessed as Abraham for it was no small part of his Blessedness that the Promise extended to his Seed But to put all out of doubt if the Promise was made to a Spiritual Seed then it must be to such as we are sure are Spiritual or to such as we have good ground to hope are so If you say the former then we must Baptize none either Old or Young because as I have proved we can-never infallibly tell who are Spiritual it being only proper to God who is the Father of Spirits to know that But if you say the latter that is such as we have good ground to hope are Spiritual then the Infant Seed of Believers must come in since I hope I have sufficiently proved we have good ground to hope such are inwardly renewed and if such as are renewed and born again by the Spirit and have the Image of God Engraven on their Hearts may not be reckoned for a Spiritual Seed I know not who must So that till my former Argument is overthrown concerning the necessity for Infants to be Regenerated and the good ground we have to hope some are so on the account of the Promises made to them I say till then all that is here added is of no Force Object 5. But we have no Instance in Scripture of any Infants ever Baptized therefore we have ground to think such ought not to be Baptized for we cannot suppose the Apostles were wanting in their Duty in that Case To which I answer Tho' we have no express Instance of any Infants Baptized yet we have some Texts that will I conceive infallibly prove either that some then were Baptized or at least now ought to be Baptized 'T is said of the Jaylor Acts 16.33 He was Baptized he and all his straightway Now we have good Ground to believe that all his takes in Children and that some of these all were little Children or at least so small as not to be able to make a Profession of their Faith but suppose they were able yet there is no express mention made that they did so before they were Baptized 'T is said indeed he spake to them the Word of the Lord but we cannot from thence conclude they that heard believed 't is said indeed after that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House but this was after he and all his were Baptized But there is one Text more that will be as a sharp two-edged Sword which will wound the Anabaptists let them defend themselves with all the Subtilty they can Acts 16.15 of Lydia And when she was Baptized and her Houshold c. Now the Enquiry is who this Houshold were But let them be who they will yet the Anabaptist will not reckon little Children among them because none such are mention'd but if so then because neither Husband Servant nor Kindred are mentioned therefore there was none And thus the Anabaptists have by an Art never before heard of reduced this Houshold to just no Body but Lydia and her self but I will suppose and I can do no other that in this Houshold there were more than Lydia And First I will suppose some of them Children as I have good ground to do from the use of the Word in Scripture and I find some of the Anabaptists do not deny this only say Lydia was too old to have young Children Now if there was any young Children in this Houshold as we have ground to suppose then here we have an Instance of such Baptized but I will suppose those Children of Lydia's as the Anabaptists affirm to be grown up then I ask by what Claim they were Baptized Now that her Houshold were Baptized the Word expresly affirms if they say as they were Professors I deny that and it lyes on them to prove it there is not one Word of their believing or any of them either before or after they were Baptized and had they made any Profession we have ground to think some mention would have been made of it but since the Scripture is silent tho' the Anabaptists should never so boldly affirm it yet I am confident scarce any but those of their own Perswasion will in the least regard what they say If they were Baptized as being related to Lydia tho' they made no Profession themselves then this overthrows the Practice of the Anabaptists since here are some Baptized that made no Profession of their Faith and also it gives us the Cause by an undeniable Conclusion for if such Children as are Adult but no Professors yet have a Right to Baptism on the Account of their Relation to a Parent that did believe then it follows that what belongs to any Child meerly as the Child of such a Parent
of Baptism for since Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision the Subjects of that Ordinance were so well known they needed not to be again mentioned if an express Command is so necessary I would know what Command the Anabaptists can produce or instance either for to Baptize by Dipping I am certain they can produce no such Command in Scripture but they will reply Tho' they have neither Precept or President yet because the Word signifies so therefore they do it so say I to say nothing now how variously that Word is used as to Baptizing Infants Tho' we have no express Precept in so many Words or President yet because we have many Words and great part of some Chapters too in Scripture that signifie to us that some Infants have been and ought to be Baptized therefore I do it and why Significations and Meanings in Scripture may not be allowed to us as well as them I see not And thus having produced plain Scripture for Infant Baptism since nothing less will do or at least I conceive as plain as can be produced to Baptize Adult I shall conclude this Point touching the Subject with a reasonable Request to my Christian Friend the Anabaptists which is that either they would receive the Doctrine laid down or give some plain Scripture to prove something of what I have laid down to be falfe and if they will not comply with my Request that which I have often feared will too evidently appear to be a Truth that it is Love to a Party more than to the Truth that hath made them so earnestly contend I have often observed 't is no easie Matter to convince some Men of Truth when they have been accustomed to Error they scorn to be informed by others the Pride of their Hearts makes them shut their Eyes that they will not see and we say none are so blind as they that will not see and if this Spirit or Ignorance do not prevail with my Reader I hope he and I shall be both of one Mind for the time to come which will be the Joy of my Heart yet not so much that I have gained the Cause I have been contending for as that this unhappy Controversie is like to be ended and my Friends the Anabaptists brought to the Acknowledgment of the Truth as it is in Jesus Having finished my Discourse as to the Subject of Baptism I designed at first to proceed no further but to the end that nothing may be wanting for the full Satisfaction of such as desire it about the whole of Baptism I shall make some brief Enquiry as to the manner how this Ordinance ought to be Administred whether by Dipping only or otherwise for I never expect that the Anabaptists should resignup their beloved Errors so long as they have any thing which looks like a Strong Hold to shelter them And therefore knowing how earnestly they contend about the Manner how as well as the Subject who I shall a little insist on that also And though perhaps my Reader may cry Victory before he read any further yet I would desire him to forbear Boasting at least till he put off the Harness lest all that hear him in the end Laugh at him Now the Grand Plea of the Anabaptists for Dipping is the word in the Original signifies so But what if the only Reply to them in this Case should be the same they give to us in other Cases Give me a plain Scripture since Significations and doubtful Meanings are of no force with them But referring my Reader to the late Portsmouth Disputation about the Signification of the word by Mr. Chandler c. not being willing to trouble my Reader with any thing of this Nature in my Book which he may read in another I shall keep to plain Scripture since that is most like to convince the common sort of Readers and shall consider if the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is used by Christ and his Apostles whom we must suppose well knew how to use proper words to express their meaning can with any shew of reason always signifies Dipping under Water but to prevent all mistakes and that the difference may not be by any supposed to be greater than it is if it be enquired whether it may not in some case be lawful to Baptize by Dipping I grant it may but the Question is whether we may not as lawfully Baptize some other way This the Anabaptists deny and I affirm and hope I shall prove by these following Texts Acts 1.5 John Baptized with Water Now while 't is said with Water not in Water it seems to imply he did not Dip them only made use of Water in that Ordinance for how improper would it be to say I Dipped such a thing with Water But not at all to say I wash'd such a thing with Water when we only sprinkle it or throw Water upon it See another Text Mark 7.4 And when they come from the Market unless they wash they Eat not Those words unless they wash are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless they Baptize and the Words of Tables in the end of the Verse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Beds Now it is scarce consistent with Reason to suppose that they should so frequently dip their Beds If they did we may suppose them very unfit to lye on for some time The Pharisees had such a proud conceit of themselves that they thought if they did but deal with others they are defiled by so doing and therefore after they came from the Market they were to wash their Hands with which they had delivered any thing to or received any thing from others but that they should on all such occasions Dip themselves wholly under Water seems to be both incredible and ridiculous and yet this is in the Original called a Baptizing as you have heard All I have found answered to this is that in washing they Dipped their Hands and so it was Dipping still though not the whole Body To which I answer In washing our Hands we are not wont to Dip them unless some part of them So that all they can from hence inferr is that some little part of the Body ought to be Dipped in Baptism as much as the Hands or Fingers end why then do the Anabaptists impose Dipping the whole Body and hazard the Life by so doing when it might as well be some little Part of the Body only If they love Peace why do they not shew themselves willing to comply with us as far as they can with a good Conscience since they are forced from this Scripture to own there is no necessity from the signification of the Word to Dip or Plung the whole Body under Water Another Text to be considered is 1 Cor. 10.2 And where all Baptized into Moses in the Clouds and in the Sea But can we suppose they were dipped in the Cloud On the other hand doth not the falling of the Rain from