Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
body_n dead_a soul_n spirit_n 13,984 5 5.8732 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A47605 The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach. Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704. 1692 (1692) Wing K84; ESTC R27451 144,738 231

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

what tho we deny not but that Circumcision was then the in●●lating Ordinance and Baptism is so now in Gospel-times i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church but such who were by the express and positive Command of God to be circumcised who were only Male Infants for the Females were initiated without it even so Baptism tho it be an initiating Ordinance yet none are to be initiated thereby not only those who by the express Command of God are required to be baptized and they are only such who believe or make a Profession of their Faith Sir Precepts that are merely positive greatly differ you know well enough from Precepts that are purely moral in their own nature Laws that are of meer positive Right wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legislator and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution we must venture to do no more nor no less nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded as appears in Nadab and Ab●hu and Vzzah's case the first for offering of strange Fire which thing God commanded them not tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do were cut off Levit. 10. 1 2. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meer sophistical and you do but darken Counsel with words without Knowl●dg You say in Pag. 4. That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded You mean he has no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants no more say I has he forbid Hony Wine Oil Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism the former was used by some of the ancient Fathers and the latter is still in the Romish Church Where are we forbid to baptize Bells and consecrate Water as the Papists do to make it holy Water Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship which you suppose is not forbid and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door for the Pope Miter Popish Vestures Candle and Candlesticks c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law with the Priest's Vestures and other Ceremonies among the Jews Whither will this lead you 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide But to proceed we will come to that grand Proof of yours for Infant Baptism in Pag. 4. which you intimate will put the Matter out of all dispute namely That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision which is Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism You say The Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision He informs them that there was no reason why they should be fond of it because they were compleat without it Christ having substituted new Circumcision in the room of it namely Baptism and accordingly Christians may now be said by Baptism to be spiritually circumcised as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized Answ Your Exposition of this Text there is no ground to admit of the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision His design is to shew we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision or Jewish Ordinances and to shew how we are compleat in Christ and have put him on he mentions Faith as well as Baptism or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred nor the least ground for your bold Conclusion from hence viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision 1. For first the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision but 't is upon another account viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart as Rom. 2. 28 29. Phil. 3.3 and since they had the thing signified thereby the Rite or Sign ceased And as I have lately replied to some of your Brethren in answer to this Text so I must say to you all that can well be asserted from this Scripture where the Apostle brings in Baptism is no more than this viz. That where Baptism is rightly administred upon a proper Subject it represents the spiritual and mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart And as being dead to Sin we are buried with Christ in Baptism both in sign and token of Christ's Burial i. e. covered all over in the Water which is a clear Symbol of his Burial also in Signification i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism so are to rise with him by the Faith of the Operation of God and both these are held forth in true Baptism The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh which Baptism did clearly represent But since this is so strenuously urged by you afresh tho so often answered I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down hath said to this Argument of yours and others before you about Circumcision viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it or that it came in the room thereof The Argument saith he from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some Express to signify such to be their purpose For the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism saith Peter If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision But because there was in the Mandu●ation of the Paschal Lamb ●o Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we conclude from hence the Eucharist is to be administered in one kind To which let me add Because Children Servants and all in the House might eat of the Passeover must our Children and all in our Houses eat of the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord But saith the Doctor and in this very Instance of this Argument suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity for
him in Jordan Hence they call John the Baptist John the Dipper In vers 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de Dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea In English thus In those days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderness of Judea Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper and for Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. it would have been read Dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and then the People would not have been deceived but they have not translated the Greek word at all but left it in its Original Language What difference is there between Baptism and the Greek Baptisma Ball in his Catechism doth not only say Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism but also that the Party baptized was washed by Dipping c. Your Church also in the Common-Prayer saith Dipping into the Water is the proper as I conceive signification of the Word To close with this I argue thus viz. Since our Saviour sent his Disciples to Teach and Baptize or Dip in the Name c. into all Nations viz. into Cold Countries as well as Hot and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear Dipping without palpable danger of their Lives it follows clearly that they were none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipt in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit To conclude with this take one Argument viz. If the proper literal and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo is Dipping or to dip then Sprinkling is not Baptizing But the proper literal and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo is Dipping or to dip Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing CHAP. VIII Proving that to baptize is to dip or plunge the Body all over into the Water from the Practice of the Primitive Gospel-Days I Have shewed that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan who was the first that received Commission to baptize And Diodate on Mat. 3. says He plunged them in Water Piscator also saith The ancient manner of Baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nay say I it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face for a quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance there is no reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Aenon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3.23 But you strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place p. 59. Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say you many Streams or Rivolets Answ What difference is there between much Water and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets though not deep yet if they were but a little while stopp'd with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swin in as Experience shews but 't is enough there he baptized saith the Holy Spirit for there was much Water or many Waters there for or be-because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could no● be administred with a little Water but that it required many Waters or much Water a great deal more than a Bason could hold or you hold in your Hand 2. But say you Sandy's Travels tells us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the ●●kles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much or many Waters and he says there was but a little 2. In some shallow Rivolets we daily see that in some Places the Water is deep and might it not be so in that and your Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the Matter 3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then as Dr. Hammond words it and yet but little or shallow Water now or when Sandys was there Time alters Rivers as well as other Things But for your seeking after this manner to contradict the Sacred Text to defend your childish Practice of Rantism you deserve greatly to be blamed Take this Argument If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water Then a little Water will not serve to baptize in But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water therefore a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2. But to proceed Mark 1.9 't is said Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Now saith a Learned Man on the Place it had been nonsense for St. Mark to say that Jesus was baptized in Jordan if it had been sprinkled because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan 't is proper to say he was dipp'd into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else be sure 3. They went down both into the 〈◊〉 both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What 〈◊〉 had there been for them so to have done had Baptism been Sprinkling Sure Phil●● would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a Journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship And thus you and they make void the Command of Christ by your Traditions to the abuse of Christian-Baptism and reproach of us that keep to his Sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is Dipping especially it being not left Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to Dip or Dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of the Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former Days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of
rise not As if he had said If there be no Resurrection why are we baptized In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism if there be no Resurrection The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers saith he Ignatius saith that believing in his Death we may be made partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism Baptism was given in memory of the Death of our Lord we perform the Symbols of his Death Mark not of pouring forth his Blood or Holy Spirit or sprinkling the Spirit on us or the Blood of Christ No no this that Author says is not signified in Baptism but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Sprinkling no manner of ways can represent Justin Martyr saith We know but one saving Baptism in regard there is but one Resurrection from the Dead of which Baptism is an Image And from hence say I we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling for this is none of Christ's true Baptism Christ's Baptism in Water is but one and 't is that of Believers and 't is not Sprinkling but Dipping to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection He goes on and cites other Authors Hear Paul exclaiming they past through the Sea and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea for it was a flight of Death caused by Water To be baptized and so plunged and to return up and rise out of the Water is a Symbol of the descent into the Grave and returning from thence Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial Innumerable are the Testimonies saith Sir Norton which might be added but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion saith he Christ's Deity and Humanity and of all the Faithful who are baptized in his Faith from death in Sin to newness of Life which if they lead in this World they have a most assured Hope that being dead they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul a worthy Knight and of your Church too Mr. Perkins saith The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification or Fellowship with Christ in his Death the staying under the Water signifies the burial of Sin and coming out of the Water the resurrection from Sin to newness of Life In another Treatise of his he saith The ancient Custom of Baptizing was to dip as it were to dive all the Body of the Baptized in Water Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp the present Arch-Bishop of York hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty on Easter-day March 27 1692. And this in antient times was taught every Christian saith he in and by his Baptism When ever a Person was baptized he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection but he was also to look upon himself as obliged in correspondence therewith to mortify his former carnal Affections and to enter upon a new state of Life And the very Form of Baptism saith he did lively represent this Obligation to them For what did their being plunged under Water signify but their undertaking in imitation of Christ's Death and Burial to forsake all their former evil Courses as their ascending out of the Water did their engagement to lead a holy spiritual Life This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us thus Rom. 6. 3 4. We are buried saith he with Christ by Baptism unto Death that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in newness of Life Thus far Dr. Sharp Dr. Fowler now Lord-Bishop of Glocester on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Christians being plunged into the Water signifies their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual sense to die and to be buried with Jesus Christ in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins that so answering to his Resurrection they may live a holy and godly Life Also Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Pauls on Rom. 6. 3 4. saith Our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his warry Grave a new-born Creature And unto these let me add what the Reverend Dr. Tillotson the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote speaking of the same Text Rom. 6.3 4. Anciently saith he those who were baptized put off their Garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signify their entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death c. 1. 'T is a hard case you neither will believe the holy Scripture the Antient Fathers and modern Divines no nor those learned Prelates and Doctors of your own Church who 〈…〉 living but contrary to the nature and tende●●y of holy Baptism plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping and cast reproach upon it and say also that the thing signified thereby is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood or the sprinkling or pouring out of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture and with the Testimony of all these great Men that Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resorrection of Jesus Christ and not any of those things you affirm as your own Concein without the Testimony of any learned or approved Author Therefore Sir that Baptism is any thing else than dipping plunging or washing which is done by dipping we do utterly deny For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh or not the twentieth part round is not Circumcision so sprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptism True you call it Baptism and will do so tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism 't is not the thing nor does it answer in signification I may tell you again that the Jews instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh might have as well presumed to dispense with that and only have paired off the Nails of the Finger● of their Male Infants and have called that Circumcision as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water Baptism But may be you will say in Circumcision they were to draw Blood so say I they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers nay and they might better plead that the things signified in Circumcision might be as well answered in that
Signification thereof we should have read it they were dipped both Men and Women Acts 8.12 and so the Dutch have translated it in their Language Maer do sy Philippo getrofden die Euangeliam van het koninckrycke Godts ende van don name Jesus Christi verkondigh de wier den sy de doopt begde manan endevrouwen In English thus When they heard Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were dipped both Men and Women But you say that which may be lawful and modest in one Country may be sinful and immodest in another c. Answ Did not our Lord Jesus Christ send his Disciples to Teach and Baptize in all Countries not to Rantize in cool Countries and baptize in hot And dare you without blushing say or intimate 't is immodest and a sinful thing to do what he hath commanded in any one Country in the World because it may be possibly censured condemned or accounted so by the Sons of Belial wicked and ungodly Men and Women Besides have you not granted the Case so far that in hot Countries they did dip pray was not that a hot Country was it not in Judea the same Country our Saviour lived when on Earth By what you say here it may appear that you say and unsay the same thing and seem to deny any were baptized in and about the Land of Canaan by dipping or any where else tho you contradict all the Learned both the Greek and Latin Fathers and all th● eminent Divines Bishops and Doctors I have quoted out of their Writings I even am sick of such an impertinent Antagonist As to your sixth and last Argument That God hath blessed and highly honoured the Administration of your way of Babes Rantism to the Comfort and Advantage of Multitudes Answ 'T is wholly without Proof or Demonstration and nothing but a bold presumptive and rash Assertion of your own God has suffered it long 't is true as he hath some other human Rites and Traditions but you cannot prove he has blessed either it or them to any one Soul's profit And when did God ever honour Infant-Baptism for formerly they were baptized i. e. dipped God did honour the Baptism of the Adult highly when our Saviour being ' about thirty Years old was baptized by John for the Heavens were opened and a Voice heard This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and the Holy Ghost came down upon him And so in Acts 8.12 14. those Men and Women who believed and were baptized the holy Spirit was given unto nay and so highly hath God honoured the baptizing of Believers that there is a Promise of Forgiveness of S●● and of the receiving the holy Spirit nay of Salvation made to them that believe and are baptized Acts 2.37 38. Mark 16.16 But there is no Promise made to Infants that are Baptized much less to such who are but only Rantized 1. As to your Objection in Pag. 57. about the Dutch rendering baptizing dipping 't is not their Annotators but 't is their Translators and that too from the literal and proper Signification of the Greek Word therefore you say nothing to weaken what we have said upon that account 2. And as touching what you speak i. e. that in Pag. 57. viz. That Baptism signifies the Death and Burial of Christ we and a Cloud of Witnesses therefore say that 't is Dipping because that is a most lively Representation of his Death Burial and Resurrection But you say Baptism may signify the Death of Christ and be so administred as lively to represent the Death of our Saviour without the exposing those who are baptized to the danger of Death and may signify Christ's Burial too without sending the Person baptized to his Grave even in Sprinkling there is a plain Representation of Christ's Death for the pouring forth of the Water not unfitly represents the pouring forth the Earth upon the dead Body Answ If you did pour Water upon the Child indeed until it was quite buried or covered all over in Water you had said something tho that is not the way of baptizing neither but dipping or plunging yet that would I must confess represent a Burial But is the dead Body buried so soon as a handful of Earth is poured upon him if you should say it no body would believe you the Body must be covered under the Earth before it can be said to be buried and so must the Person baptized be covered under the Water or 't is not baptized for as otherwise there is no actual Burial in the first so there is no Representation of a Burial in the second But say you if you will closely follow the Metaphor of a Burial in all Particulars then as the Person buried is altogether passive and laid in the Grave only by others in like manner the Party baptized say you ought to put neither Foot nor Leg nor Thigh into the Water but the Dipper ought to take him up in his Arms and lay his entire Body into the Water c. Answ Are you not blame-worthy to write after this sort O that you were more wise and dreaded the holy Majesty of God! Is it not said They went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he that is Philip baptized or dipped him this is the Rule not to take the Person up into our Arms yet 't is the Administrator notwithstanding that buries the Person in the VVater his going into it himself doth not baptize him tho he should go in as high as his VVaste but the Administrator does it You know Metaphors do not go as we use to say on all four nor must they be strained further than the design and purport of the holy Spirit but you by sprinkling destroy and utterly make void that sacred Allusion of the Holy Ghost which is not to be born with Baptism is no Representation of a Burial at all if Sprinkling be it And if you have heard that some have been kept so long under the VVater till as you say almost choaked or buried alive I suppose 't is not the first Untruth you have heard In Pag. 58 and 59. about Christ's not being baptized till thirty Years of Age you say Christ was circumcised at eight days old and altho he was not baptized in his Infancy yet he was baptized in the Infancy of Baptism also you intimate that some expound the words for his coming up out of the Water that the Situation of the River Jordan was beneath the place where John was teaching Answ Circumcision was then in force now 't is gone therefore in that Christ could not be an Example for us but in Baptism which is an Ordinance of the New Testament he is our Example and Pattern as his Precept is our Rule in that we should follow his Steps 2. And let me tell you if it was in the Infancy of Baptism you mean the
rantized who are baptized afterwards when they believe are not rebaptized as you affirm nor do they renounce their Baptism though they do renounce the Practice and humane Tradition of Sprinkling 2. All you pious Parents bless God for Christ and the Gospel and for all those Priviledges he hath bestowed upon you and be sure make God's Word your Rule and tremble to do any thing in his Worship without lawful Authority from him I mean Precept or Example from his Word and do not adventure to baptize much less to rantize your Children whatever Mr. Burkit or any Man on Earth says unless you can find it written in your Bibles God hath not commanded you to bring them into a Baptismal Covenant not made any Promise of Blessing to assist them to perform it If you do so consider what I have said in this Treatise about that devised and unwarrantable Covenant by which you may heap up Guilt upon your selves and lay such a Load and Burden on your Children that you are not aware of and frighten them with the Thoughts of Perjury c. sufficient to drive them into Despair when indeed God never will charge them with Perjury since he never commanded them to enter into any such Covenant Can any Body think when your Children are grown up and they by Light received from God's Word should be convinced they were never baptized at all and so renounce their Infants Rantism that they thereby become guilty of Perjury and must be damned Do not these Men teach such a kind of Doctrine as that is 2 dly Train up your Children in the Fear of God and set them a good Example and pray for them and over them and give them good Instruction or godly Counsel and Admonitions but dread to sprinkle them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost because 't is not done by his Authority nor Appointment Know 't is not in the Power of Man by any external Rite to make your Children Members of Christ or visible Members of his Body Baptism is not Bread for Infants but for Christ's new-born Babes not for your Children as such but such who are the Children of God who are born of his Spirit 3 dly Don't deceive your poor Children and make them believe they are in a good Condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and baptized as these Men call it and so look out for no further Work of Grace nor Regeneration but think they by that pretended Baptism were made Christians even Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when in Truth 't is no such thing Nor have you any Cause to doubt but that your Infants who die though not baptized are happy as it appears from what we have said Neither be ye so ignorant to believe Baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as Mr. Burkit intimates they may do in pag. 62. Take a Taste of his strange Doctrine thus he says Before your Children are born 1. Make sure as much as in you lieth that they may be born within the Covenant and under the Promise by your being in Covenant with God your selves See that the Lord be your God ● God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed in their Generations Answ This is a way to bring poor Souls into Covenant that God speaks nothing of in his Word You may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of the Covenant as doubtless many godly People● Children do Nor hath God made such a Covenant with every Christian Man and their Seed as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that Believe but so are not you nor I though we are in Covenant with God and walk in Abraham's steps Those who are in the Election of Grace of your Seed never fear God will interest in his due time with all Covenant-Blessings and Privileges but if any of them are not comprehended in that Election of Grace they being born of your Loins will not cannot bring them into Covenant with God Your Business and your Childrens too is to make your and their Election sure by special and effectual Calling 'T is not the first Birth but the Second that brings either you or your Children into the Gospel Covenant that God may be your God and their God But mark Mr. Burkit's next words p. 62. O! were but Infants capable of Knowledg how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents Make it your Endeavour before your Children are born to sanctify your Children this is done by Prayer c. Answ 1. This is enough to set Children against their ungodly Parents nay to 〈◊〉 them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be i● as good a Condition as the Children of Believers for doubtless God will not destroy poor children for the F●●●t and Sins of their Parents 〈◊〉 by your begetting them though gracious you cannot live them so you by begetting them though wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Child in things pertaining to Eternal Life 2. But if it be a● you say that when you are in Covenant your Children are in Covenant doubtless they are in a safe Condition and Baptism to them is 〈…〉 cannot bring them into the Covenant beca●●● they were in it be●●●e and therefore 〈◊〉 enough 3. But may not th●● Doctrine pu●● just Rebuke ●●on Unbelievers or Ungodly Persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Children that are in such a sad Condition by reason their Pare●●s were not ●n Covenant w●●● God! Ought 〈◊〉 nay may they lawfully M●rry this being considered and such drea●●ul 〈◊〉 following ●●●sider how far doth th● Covenant Blessing ex●end If my Grand father in Cov●●●nt ●ho my Fathe● 〈…〉 b● very wic●ed and ungodly Persons am I not still in Coven●●t and are not my Children i● Covenant too Nay if 〈◊〉 was by my Great-Grandfather will not that do as well as if my mo●● 〈◊〉 Father was in Covenant with God Sir The Opposers of Pedo-●●ptism do not creep out of Darkness and 〈…〉 as you scandalously affirm but God hath graciously brought us out of the Darkness you are in and hath given us blessed be his Name the Knowledg and Light of his Word and what his Good-will and Pleasure is in this Matter and mercifully vouchsafed to us a gracious Freedom and Liberty to worship him ●●cording to our Light and Consciences which ●ou seem troubled at and we are not ashamed to shew our Heads on the House-top nor do we scandalously dip our deluded Proselytes as you with Envy and Prejudice enough say but do at Noon-day to the Honour of God a●● in justification of his Wisdom