A23636:237
The principles of the Protestant religion maintained, and churches of New-England, in the profession…
The principles of the Protestant religion maintained, and churches of New-England, in the profession and exercise thereof defended against all the calumnies of one George Keith, a Quaker, in a book lately published at Pennsylvania, to undermine them both / by the ministers of the Gospel in Boston.The principles of the Protestant religion maintained, and churches of New-England, in the profession and exercise thereof defended against all the calumnies of one George Keith, a Quaker, in a book lately published at Pensilvania, to undermine them both / by the ministers of the Gospel in Boston.
printed by Richard Pierce, 1690
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Introduction › Reflections on chapt. 10. of the Sacraments &c.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Sect. 2. Now for Baptism! What need he to combat Infant-Baptism? If there be no Baptism, then none of Infants: only he loves to be wrangling. and what Cavil against Sprinkling, if neither that nor Dipping be of force by Divine Institution? Thus some must be meddling.
As for Sprinkling, we plead not for it; we say Baptism is a Gospel-Ordinance; that Water is the Element to be applied, that it ⟨p. 138⟩may be done either by Dipping into, or Pouring on of water, there being no express Precept for the one more than the other; that, it being a sign, it hath no other Efficacy than by the Blessing upon the Institution, that as a sign. it may signify, by pouring upon one part of the Body; that the Face is most ready and convenient, and why may we not allude to that of Christ to Peter, Joh. 13.10. that we do it on the Forehead particularly, is a slander. When be asks us, Why John baptized Christ by Dipping Him in Water? We think his first Question should have been, Whether he did so or no? and it is certain he cannot prove that he did. Our Consequence from infant Circumcision to infant Baptism is good: for, it was the same Covenant, and the same promises that Abraham and we had, Circumcision was a sign of the Righteousness of Faith; and so is Baptism; and Infants are as capable of the one as of the other: and the promise is still to our Children.
As for Sprinkling, we plead not for it; we say Baptism is a Gospel-Ordinance; that Water is the Element to be applied, that it ⟨p. 138⟩may be done either by Dipping into, or Pouring on of water, there being no express Precept for the one more than the other; that, it being a sign, it hath no other Efficacy than by the Blessing upon the Institution, that as a sign. it may signifie, by pouring upon one part of the Body; that the Face is most ready and convenient, and why may we not allude to that of Christ to Peter,