forme of the Church giving Church being to persons therein interested nor is it likely that these children were other then such being either proselytes children joyned to the Jewish Church or children of Jewes either of them formerly circumcised and in facie ecclesiae of the Church the Apostles which used to bee questioning any thing obscure which they understood not or seemed to them strange would in likelihood have inquired after satisfaction therein of Christ as their manner was if it had not been very cleare convincing approved received doctrine which Christ urged as his reason of reproofe of their act in hindring the little ones approach to him hee which himselfe forbad them Matth. 10. to goe into the way of the Gentiles no not into Samaria and when himselfe tooke up the Gentile Canaanite in such sort at first albeit she a beleever Matth. 15. 22. if these had beene other then visible beleeving inchurched persons yea though Gentiles yet inchurched proselytes which brought these children hee would not have so roundly and sharpely taken up his Disciples for assaying to hinder them from him when the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaketh thus to the Church and not to the citie as such which writ to him and to whom hee writ this back againe hee saith else their children as appropriating externall adoption as well as formerly to others of that sort Rom. 9. 1 2 3 4. they were the children of that Spouse of Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. 3. as those were formerly of that Church Ezek. 16. 20 21. she brought forth other children by the ministry Psal 87. 5. albeit not so many as now and hereafter Esa 54. 5. but that way also did the Church beare children to the Lord. And are purer Gentiles Churches wombes in that respect shut up or doth the Lord lesse affect communion with his Church in that expression of his love now then hee did to the Church of old surely no the Corinthian members as a Church body had their Church children and seed also the Apostle taketh order with the women 1 Cor. 14. Let your women keepe silence in the Churches but why your what because they were the members wives onely no verily since some such were Pagans and without the Church and hee protesteth against any Church dealing with such 1 Cor. 5. end what have wee to doe with them from any Church care or respect but rather your women as being of the Church and so here not your children holy scil barely of your members in a common naturall way but yours in a Church relation rather And let the Apostles division bee further attended 1 Cor. 5. placing all persons as either within or without the visible Church For if his division be regular as who will say otherwise of the wisest dictates of the holy Ghost then these membra dividentia take up the whole division and there is no middle or neutrall estate actually of persons And albeit the persons chiefly intended bee adult persons yet it must hold as well of others or else it is not a compleat division So then the little ones which are borne of inchurched persons they are either actually within the Church or actually without at present onely some possibilities as some suppose of their being actuall members afterward at most but at present their actuall estate must bee the one or the other if actually within the Church I have what I seeke if onely potentially such as may come in but yet actually without 1. then the children of the Church in primitive times were such as the Apostles as extraordinary and now Elders as ordinary officers in the Church were not nor are to take any speciall Church care of since the tie of that Church care as such dependeth upon covenant and Church relation either extraordinary as that of the Apostles to all the Churches or ordinary as that of the officers of this or that Church 2. Then Churches and their officers are not to deale with any such children more then with pagans in any Church way of instruction or admonition when growne up 3. Then are such so farre forth to bee left as persons without actually to the more immediate judgement of God what have wee to doe with such God judgeth them and the phrase of Gods judging them how sad a case it noteth see Heb. 3. 4. and 10. 29 30 31. 4. Then such children being actually without they are actually and at present amongst the number of such persons of whom is little hope as Marke 4. 11 12. to them without if hardned persons in parables so Revel 22. without are dogs The persons left out of Church fellowship by the new Jerusalem are of the worst sort â—…vel 22. 15. 5. Then the Jewish Church is supposed to have a larger share in the charitie of God and his people so that their children in relation to Church estate are called and counted God and his Churches children purer Gentile Churches have no such charitie allowed towards the members children which absurdities if any will swallow let them enjoy their conceipts SECT II. ANd thus farre of the dispensing kingdome of God as it seemes to bee included and intended in the first expression Of such is the kingdome of God which may serve to answer the scruples of some as if such an assertion of children of beleevers to bee of Gods kingdome should crosse the course of providence many proving wicked For this hinders not but they belong to the visible Church no more then Christs assertion of all the Jewes to be the children of the kingdome of heaven into which the Gentiles from all parts should come after the rejection of the Jews Matth. 8. 11 12. nor is this any more crosse to Rom. 9. 6 7 8. then that is yea suppose the Kingdome of heaven bee taken for that of glory yet in that covenant and Church estate is theirs so far also is glory theirs scil in foro ecclesiae And wee have before proved that Christ spake this as man not meerely as God as hee said before of the Jewes Matth. 8. 11 12. and after this spake to like purpose Matth. 21. 43. they were as externally adopted Rom. 9. 4. externally inrighted to that promise of glory the promises indefinitely being thus far theirs that promised heritage being thus far theirs If they had not Gods kingdome in respect of this estating of theirs in it and right to it how came they to have it taken from them was not that in respect of any externall Church right actually theirs unto or to the dispensation of the covenant holding the same forth they were all heires albeit under tutors Gal. 4. 1 2 3. but to mee the former sense is rather most unquestionable that of such is the kingdome of God or of heaven scil the visible Church as before was proved and this may also satisfie that which is objected that hee might speake this in reference to the future that is that they were elect ones and should
in the waters when a babe Heb. 11. 23. hence that typicall sprinkling of the houses representing the preservation of the first born from other manner of destruction then meerely bodily yet Moses his faith with other beleeving Israelites as verse 27. 25. compared sheweth had a great stroake therein And the like in that typicall passage of theirs with their children through the red Sea verse 28. As much might bee said of that case of the beleeling Ninivites Jon. 3. and 4. So in that typicall saving of Noahs house by Noahs faith Heb. 11. 7. But to returne to the houses mentioned shall it then be yeelded that such benefit should come as was before spoken of to adult servants of the house c. is here no reference to the poor babes by reason of their tender age hath the mercifull God revealed no ordinary helpe for them They are excluded from that actuall rejoycing and beleeving Jaylours house Acts 16. whence Anabaptists doe therefore exclude them from the baptized house of the Jaylour and why not as well exclude them by reason of want of actuall faith from the saved house of the Jaylour vers 31. which I suppose they will not doe Nay why not rather so since it 's peremptorily said He that beleeveth not shall bee damned and Without faith it is impossible to please God Marke 16. and Heb. 11. when it 's no where said that without faith it 's impossible to bee baptized or hee that beleeveth not shall never bee baptized Surely the Apostle adding that as an incouragement to the troubled Jaylour to beleeve because of the saving of his house in such sort at least as wee mentioned it had beene little incouragement to suppose an outward way and meane of the good of his very servants by occasion thereof and no such meane at all thereby to his owne children For the Apostle speaketh as supposing even that also children being most usually supposed to bee included in that notion of the house and if hee had none yet the Apostles speech reacheth them as if hee had them Some will say the children might bee elected and that might comfort him or they might bee included amongst the redeemed by Christ Yea but these are all secrets here is nothing visibly to comfort him in respect of any instrumentall meanes of their good as was intimated in the case of the servants And they are revealed not secret things which beleevers as such must looke to in respect of their children Deut. 29. Nor is it expresly said that the Jaylours house beleeved before they were baptized but afterwards and suppose they did so before yet it followeth not that what is applicable to the adult persons in the house scil that joy of faith must exclude the children of the house from baptisme whereof they were capable no more then when it 's said Deut. 12. 7. that they and their housholds were to eate before the Lord and to rejoyce in all they put their hands to c. because therefore their little children could not so actually expresse joy in what they put their hand unto therefore they were none of the houshold which did eate before the Lord. Anabaptists would not like this arguing which urge the joynt communion of the Jewish children in all sorts of Church ordinances Suppose a mans houshold men women and children all diseased and cured at the Bath and afterwards the houshold expresseth their joy for it by leaping and dancing for joy and it bee said such a man hee and all his were washed at such a Bath and hee and his whole houshold afterwards even danced for joy None will say that because his little ones could not so leape for joy and are excluded from the notion of the whole houshold in this latter therefore they were not in the account of all his in the former Who will say that Jacob carried not the little children in his family to Bethel from that imminent danger to his house because that the houshold at Bethel are said to bee such which had their strange gods but upon his motion they put them away which is not applicable to little ones Gen. 34. 30. with Chap. 35. 1 2 3 4. Sure I am it's most usuall in Scripture in mentioning this and that as done in or to the house when speaking of such things which are applicable to Infants to intend them therein albeit not expressed as Gen. 30. 30. and 45. 11. 18. with 19. Exod. 1. 1. 1 Sam. 27. 3. Prov. 31. 15. Luke 12. 42. It would bee too much to cite the many Scriptures which speake this nay the Scripture oft-times in such things under the notion of house intendeth if not onely yet chiefly the children in it as 1 Sam. 20. 15. and 2 Sam. 9. 9. 1 King 17. 12 13. 15. compared Psal 127. 1. 3. Prov. 12. 7. Esay 31. 2. Hos 1. 4. Hab. 2. 9 10. 1 Tim. 3. 4 5. and 5. 4. 8. compared also verse 14. 2 Tim. 1. 16. And sometimes againe when some parts of the family are expresly instanced in and children not withall mentioned yet they are included and intended as Gen. 14. 16. And there is more reason to conceive the same in cases of this nature since the children are the ordinary instruments as to perpetuate and continue and hold up the house in naturall and civill respects so in religious and Church respects also they are builders of the house both wayes as the Hebrew radix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the word used for sonnes and daughters commeth doth signifie whence also that phrase of Gods building the women houses Exodus 1. 21. Yea the covenant expressions of seed and seed in their generations doe more directly reach them as such then either wives or servants as such Gen. 17. 7. Deut. 30. 6. Esay 59. 20 21. compared with Rom. 11. 26 27. Esay 65. 23. Thus much for further clearing of that so much questioned by some how children are included in that notion of house and families and if so the covenant made Jerem. 31. 1. in reference to these times reacheth them as instated at least externally and Ecclesiastically therein as much appeares too from Ezek. 16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. that live-making covenant and not that killing letter and ministration of condemnation which was againe and againe made to the fathers long before yet was it made with reference to those Jewes in Ezekiels time for in those covenanting fathers of old hee said to that Jerusalem then Live as in the same fathers hee had said to the Israelites of old Live the same mercy and truth ingaged to Abraham and Jacob did God both sweare to other Jew fathers of families and bound himselfe to performe to those of their loines in Micahs dayes long after Mica 7. 20. neither was it other then the covenant of grace thus ingaged even such a covenant wherein pardon of sinnes and subduing iniquities c. was at least externally made over to
when they are to come in they denying the new Testament to bee valid see Acts 18. 26. Seventhly the primitive converts and disciples thought not so touching such was of old testament Scripture proofe Acts 17. 11. by Scriptures meaning those of the old Tastament as those places John 5. 39. and 10. 35. and 7. 38. and 2. 22. Gal. 3. 8. 22. and 4. 30. Rom. 9. 17. and 10 11. and 11. 2. and here let mee not forget what A. R. in his second part of Vanitie of childish baptisme bringeth crosse to what wee have said hee saith that no beleevers are fathers scil in such covenant and Church respects to their children which wee have mentioned but Abraham onely and hee maketh Abraham rather a patterne father in other respects to beleevers quoting Scriptures to that end But doth A. R. indeed thinke that no others were covenant and Church-fathers but Abraham onely the Apostle calleth all those inchurched Jewes of old our fathers fathers to him and to the Gentiles Corinthian members 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. Yea will hee say that Isaac and Jacob c. were not such fathers to their seed also as was Abraham in covenant and Church respects because that was neither said to Isaac or to Jacob I have made thee a father of nations how then are the Jewes said to be beloved for their fathers sakes surely it was not for their sakes as men and naturall fathers but as spirituall and covenant fathers Rom. 11. 16. 28. compared of which more hereafter yea the covenant is expresly made in those termes to Isaac and to his seed to Jacob and to his seed Gen. 26. 3 4 5. and 28. 13. 14. In respect therefore to their seed they are covenant fathers yet in respect to Abraham they themselves were Abrahams covenant and Church seed to whom together with their father the covenant was made even with a Church reference Gen. 17. and so are gentiles inchurched beleevers fathers as such to their children yet seed also in reference to Abraham nor is it more contradiction to say thus that the same persons may bee Abrahams seed and yet fathers in divers respects then to say the same man may bee a sonne and yet a father in divers respects a sonne in respect of his father and a father in relation to his child Nor can I perceive otherwise but that A. R. himselfe layeth in the same place a groundworke crosse to his owne assertion this way the covenant saith he was not made with Abraham and with his seed meerely for his being a faithfull man but for his being such a faithfull man whom the Lord pleased to choose to make a patterne to all beleevers hence to me it seemeth that Abraham is considered in a threefold respect First as a faithfull man having seed Secondly as a faithfull man having the covenant made with him and his seed Thirdly as one with whom and with his seed the covenant is made not meerely as a faithfull man but as a patterne to all beleevers which to me undeniably seemeth to bee an unwilling grant that as Abrahams seed in covenant with him admit a distinct consideration from all actuall beleevers as such whether Jewes or Gentiles So that Abraham in that consideration of such a faithfull man with whom the covenant was made and with his seed so distinguished from all beleevers whether of Jewes or Gentiles was therein a patterne to all beleevers actually whether of Jews or Gentiles yea that he was especially in such sort a patterne to them all and had the covenant so made with him and with that his seed that hee might bee or because hee should bee therein a patterne to all beleevers whether Jewes or Gentiles and this is the very truth which wee affirme that Abraham in the essentialls of the covenant was a patterne of interest of beleevers and their children in the covenant of grace at least externally and ecclesiastically but this is crosse to A. R. elsewhere yea in the same place as followeth Object All beleevers and onely beleevers are Abrahams seed in that as Rom. 4. 16. it is affirmed that the promise is sure to all the seed and so all the seed are saved Answ But suppose that Abrahams seed intended in the promise were all saved and so no others but they the seed yet will it not follow from what the Apostle saith that the promise is sure to all the seed that therefore all actuall beleevers and onely such are saved wee have before proved from Rom. 9. 6 7 8. that all in whom the force of the covenant tooke so as that they were saved were the choyce intended children of the promise or all elect Israel which came of Abraham Isaac and Jacobs loynes yet did not all those live to become actuall beleevers many such elect ones dying in Infancie But to come to A. R's assertion it selfe I demand whether the members of the visible Church of which A R. is officer or member be all and each of them Abrahams seed for if not I urge his owne plea against us what right have they to the seale of the covenant made to Abrahams seed if they be all Abrahams seed then by A. R's ground they must needs be all each of them saved it is not possible there should bee any reprobates and hypocrites in a particular visible Church which to affirme is ridiculous but let him quit himselfe thereof from his owne principle if hee can the Apostle saith of the Galatian Churches and members thereof to whom hee wrote Gal. 1. 1 2. that they were children of the promise and of the free woman and that Jerusalem above was the mother of him and them all Gal. 4. 26. 28. 31. and that they were Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29. now then I demand whether wee must not conclude of them all that they were in a sure estate and infallibly saved according to A. R's ground comparing Rom. 4. 16. and Heb. 6. 16 17. with Gal. 3. 29. Yea but why then doth Paul feare and question so much the estate of persons so sure and infallible if so it were because called all Abrahams seed for hee feareth lest hee had bestowed his labour in vaine Gal. 4. 11. and that any saving worke in many of them at least was not so much as yet begun that hee must bee faine to travaile againe with them in birth till Christ bee formed in them vers 19. yea why doth he suppose any possibilitie of their suffering in vaine of their ending in the flesh Gal. 3. 3 4 5. of Christs becomming of none effect to them Chap. 5. 4. many of them being of such spirits and way whom he there intended as appeares by Gal. 1. 6 7 8. and 3. 1. and 23. 4 5. and 4. 21 How will A. R. salve it not by saying hee spake thus in a collective sense onely understanding the former of the elect part and the latter of others Yea but why then doth hee mention their being baptized
of his Law it is all applyed to all indefinitely yet sense and reason tells us that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all Gods words no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort as thereby at present to bee stirred up to feare or obey the Lord but some things onely are appliable to the whole assembly wholly other things now mentioned to the whole at present onely in respect of the growne part and to the others no other thâ—n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most so Joel â— 14. â— solemne assembly of all the inhabitants of the land is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting so chap. 2. 1. againe repeated and ver 15 16 17. instance is given in the sucklings as to bee a part of that assembly for that end and the maine dutie vers 13 14 is laid forth as required of them all which are called to this solemne fast scil not meerely to abstaine from food or to expresse sorrow by rending their garments but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow c. all will yeeld that such things are not properly applyable to sucklings but to some of the assembly nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly for such Church use according as they were capable of any thing mentioned albeit not capable of all mentioned Jer. 43. 4. 6 7 disobedience to Gods voyce is applied to all the people yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seene those wonders in Egypt and yet many of them that were then growne it being 40. yeares after their comming out thence vers 5. never saw the same much lesse did the little ones which were a part of that assembly vers 14. yet who will conclude because little ones were not Israel seeing theâ—e wonders that therefore they were not Israel entring into Covenant vers 11 12. and marke the phrase applied to the little ones that they also entred into covenant with God ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them vers 14 15. this was a covenant of grace as hath been proved so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants but they may not bee said to enter into covenant with him that by the way To returne to that in hand nations baptized Matth. 28. are to bee taught to observe Christs commandements but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to bee baptized so here Infants beleeve not actually c. non sequitur ergo not to bee added to the Church in a solemne way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by externall baptisme Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptisme in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actuall beleeving To like purpose C. B. argueth weakely in his sixth argument that the whole citie was baptized men and women mentioned not their children too as if therefore excluded I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11 12. That those Kings tooke all the goods of Sodome and Lot ergo they tooke no people besides contrary to vers 16. or if they did take people and women yet not children too And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others yet not ergo his children or daughters or if then under the notion of women yet not a word of children wherefore either they were left behind in the Citie without their Parents when they were taken or if taken with the Cities and persons yet not brought backe againe which would bee absurd to affirme Secondly suppose the beleeving Jewes children were not just at that time baptized when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards When members are solemnly admitted to compleat and fixed membership in our Churches wee baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance yet doe it afterwards as occasion is offered and their desire thereof signified SECT VIII YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned that any children of any beleeving Jewes were baptized A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized Many things of great weight were done by Christ and so by his Apostles which were not recorded yet not therefore never acted by them John 20. 30 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture But doe our opposites indeed conclude that none of the beleeving Jewes children were ever baptized by Apostolicall approbation Is it imaginable that among so many thousand beleeving Jewes at least ecclesiastically such which are so moved and touched in the case of their childrens being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practise as to deny them to bee sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all as neither by circumcision so not by baptisme Are they so ready to move contentions in that point Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed deniall of it and are they no way moved so much as to put the case state the question to be satisfied from the old Testament for no other Scripture was then extant why their Infants which were ever used to bee reckoned in Abrahams covenants so sealed thereto by the seale then only in use but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually or if owned yet as such yet why denied of that which is now the initiatory seale of such interest in the covenant Yea doth Peter expresly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise wishing them therefore to be baptized and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized other contentions about other things are mentioned and other differences in points controvertible in those times as Acts 11. 2 3. and 15. 1. 2. c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1 2. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the beleeving Jewes which when worse men had that priviledge of their childrens covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seale the case is so soone altered with them that they thinke it no matter of scruple to call the deniall and omission of it into question or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgement and practise in the case or if starting it why is not so great a controversie mentioned as started by some at least that could not so wholly forget their childrens good when solicitous about their owne and when so
eate of that spirituall meat and drinke of the rock c. Answ The least male childe of a day old or two or three houres old at that instant of which there were many scores its likely in that numerous Church were in respect of succeeding Churches fathers yet none will imagine the word all to take them in in the latter as if they gave them water out of the rock to drink or Manna cakes to eate so young but a Synecdoche must needs bee yeelded therein So I say all in the former is taken for all the fathers simply but in the latter for all Synecdochically or for all such which were capable of making a spirituall use thereof SECT XVI TO draw to a Conclusion one argument more used by A. R. and which is Mr. B. his first argument against Paedobaptisme would bee cleared it stands thus the Baptisme of Christ is dipping the Baptisme of Infants is not dipping ergo the Baptisme of Infants is not the Baptisme of Christ Now what hee meaneth by dipping hee sheweth in his answer to that of washing of cups c. which saith hee is not by sprinkling but dipping yea not onely dipping but totall dipping washing all over The weaknesse of the Minor we shall consider in the latter end and beginning with his Major The Major of this Syllogisme is fallacious for baptisme of Christ is washing Ephes 5. 25 26. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 3. 21. and washing is as well by sprinkling or powring on of water yea Christs Baptisme is such a washing as is in way of powring out or sprinkling Hence Tit. 3. 5. washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which hee hath powred out on us Vers 6. Greeke and in urging their proofe from the difference of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth sprinkling properly Heb. 9. 13. 19 21. they forget how the holy Ghost termeth all those divers sprinklings Vers 10. namely divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are after named in the followings Ver. scil sprinkling the blood of Bulls c. Vers 10. 13. 19. 21. compared So then by the interpretation of the holy Ghost which is more then a thousand Authors baptismes are sprinklings and sprinklings are baptismes Hence speaking to the inchurched Hebrews as alluding to their legall sprinklings hee calleth baptisme baptismes Heb. 6. in the plurall number yet Ephes 4. there is but one baptisme it 's observable how the Author to the Hebrews in speaking of baptisme alludeth and relateth to their legall baptismes or sprinklings and therefore calleth them baptismes Now who knoweth not that children were sprinkled with that typicall blood as well as others to note the necessitie of the sprinklings of them also with that blood Yea since the Hebrews in Church estate for such they were witnesse that Heb. 10. 24 25. and 13. 17. had such baptisme amongst them of persons suitable to the legall baptismes with blood why should not we conclude baptizing of their children too as well as of growne persons to bee in use with them according to the type of that ceremoniall sprinkling A. R. his reason makes rather against him too if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with baptisme signifie in and never with then baptizing saith hee must bee dipping and not sprinkling To which I reply if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with baptizing signifie with and not in then by way of contrary baptizing is sprinkling and not dipping now in the very places quoted by A. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth with and not in Matth. 3. 11. Hee shall baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the holy Ghost and with fire and not in it which is expounded by Acts 11. 16 17. the holy Ghost fell on them and Acts 1. 5. compared with 2. 17. it is expounded by powring out of the Spirit nay Luke in mentioning the very signe leaveth out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 3. 16. and Acts 11. 16. I baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if grammatically rendred is not in but with water Besides it 's most suitable to Sacramentall actions which are signes to hold proportion to the thing signified wherefore also it is so rendered in mentioning the signatum hence mention is made of sprinkling the Nations by Christ Esay 52. 15. and of the blood of sprinkling Heb. 12. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 2. See more Ezek 35. 25 26. Esay 43. 3 4. Joel 2. with Acts 2. Sprinkling or powring of water most fitly expresseth the maine thing properly signified and sealed visibly 〈◊〉 baptisme scil first grace wherein the Spirit applyeth not us to the Word or to Christ as in dipping the party is applied to the water and not the water to him but the Word and Christ to us as first in order of nature 1 Cor. 12. 13. Object But baptizing is burying with Christ Answ It is not necessary the resemblance should hold fully unlesse as none is buried before they are dead so wee should bee first dead with Christ in baptisme and then afterwards buried which if in baptisme too and so to be twice baptized but if the allusion bee urged it is for us rather wee use not to bury men by throwing them downe with their faces downeward as when persons are dived with their faces under water but by laying them in with their faces upwards nor doe wee plunge them into the dust and earth but powre and sprinkle dust and broken earth upon them When Christ was baptized of John in Jordan it 's said hee went downe c. but was hee therefore by John dived into the water Yes say you what in his clothes then his clothes too were baptized with him as I may say but how then is it said he came straightway out of the water Marke 1. 10. and vers 1 2. immediatly the spirit drives him into the Wildernesse what in that dung wet case as wee say is that probable Luke saith Chap. 3. 21. when all the people were baptized hee also was baptized women also then were baptized openly for it was a Church action and if they were dived were they not stript how improbable is it that they were ducked in all their clothes if they were stripped in whole or in part would Christ be present at such immodest spectacles That women were baptized by John see Matth. 21. 31. 32. compared with Luke 7. 39. and Matth. 3. 4 5 6. Nicephorus his story lib. 13. chap. 19. of the flying of the women naked being beset with armed men as they were to bee baptized and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a woman when to bee baptized besides the sad plunges which they were of old put to when they tooke up this course of diving baptized persons in such sort witnesse that order of the fourth Carthage councell Can. 4. touching widowes baptizing of women and other like acts mentioned in Justinian besides the