the Chariot wheeles of the Aegyptians sticking in the mire to fall off and hinder their pursuit Psal 77.16 c. After this the Apostle taught by Gods Spirit manifesteth the mysterie which before was kept secret namely how this passage under the cloud which rained and through the sea was a baptisme to the Israelites even as Christian mens washings in rivers or vessels was a baptisme to them And as the Manna which Israel eat and water from the rock which they dranke was the same spirituall meat and drinke which wee have signified by bread and wine in the Lords Supper so their washing in the cloud and sea and our washing in vessels or rivers is spiritually the same baptisme from hence we gather the baptizing of our Infants by two Arguments 1. All our fathers sayth Paul were baptized in the cloud and sea therefore say wee Infants for seeing there was no other baptisme but that in the cloud and sea such of our fathers as then were Infants were at that time baptized or else many of our fathers even all the infants of many thousand families were never baptized which is contrary to the Apostles doctrine And if Infants had baptisme under Moses it cannot be denied them under Christ 2. In that the Apostle teacheth us that the extraordinary and temporary sacraments or seales of salvation which Israel had were the substance and truth which wee now have though Moses doth not so expresse It followeth upon like ground that their ordinary seales namely Circumcision and the Passeover were the same in truth and substance with baptisme and the Lords Supper which wee now have and being the same As Infants had Circumcision then so they are to have baptisme now Secondly Whereas they say that of Moses was called baptisme by comparison as if it were not properly baptisme they swarve from the right way it was as truly and properly baptisme to them as ours is to us though the manner of administration differ even as their Manna and water were as truly and properly the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud to them as bread and wine in the Lords Supper are to us Otherwise the Apostle should not say truly that they were the same 1 Cor. 10.3 4. Thirdly Noahs Arke is not called the figure of baptisme as these corrupters of Scripture tell us but baptisme sayth the Apostle is a like figure or antitype 1 Pet. 3.21 So that the saving by water of eight then in the Arke was a type or figure and the saving of a few now by water in baptisme is an antitype or like figure both of them figuring salvation by the death of Christ Fourthly Neither doe these men set downe the reason fully and rightly why they are sayd to be baptized namely because the cloud and sea was their safetie as Noahs Arke was for though it may in some sense be granted that these were their safetie as baptisme is our safetie for it is said to save us 1 Pet. 3.21 yet properly they are sayd to be baptized in the cloud and sea because they were in them sacramentally washed from their sinnes and planted together in the likenesse of his death buriall and resurrection as wee are now by baptisme Rom. 6.3 4 5. The cloud served them for three uses 1. To protect and keep them safe Isa 4.5.6 2. To guide them in the way that they should goe Numb 9.17 c. Exod. 14.21 And these two were ordinary 3. To baptize them by powring downe water and this was extraordinary and but one time in the red Sea for ought wee finde And in this respect Paul sayth they were baptized in it Fifthly Their last speech of injoyning infants to suffer persecution as well as to baptize them is spoken with a wry mouth for as we injoyne not Infants to be baptized though we baptize them so can wee not enjoyne them to suffer persecution But this wee say and know as Infants are baptized into Christ so oftentimes they suffer persecution for Christ being with their parents afflicted imprisoned banished c. yea and bereaved of life it selfe so that they have even the baptisme of bloud or martyrdome also Thus you may see that there hath been long agoe a large and sufficient Answer made unto this Answer of the Anabaptists of old which is even one and the same with yours Thus much for reply to your Answer to the third objection As touching the fourth fifth objection the charitable construction being set aside I except against them both but especially the fourth that the outward baptisme is not needful to him that hath the * Pag. 17. lin 8. other And so for the fifth objection * Lin. 19. which is that Baptisme is nothing though it may beare a charitable construction yet if any conceive Baptisme is nothing as it is an ordinance of God they erre Neither doe I know any one amongst all the Seperation that holdeth Baptisme to be nothing but they reverence it as an ordinance of God It is true as you have granted in answering hereof * Lin. 26. Christian Reader See Mr. Henry Barow one of the three Martyrs in Q Elizabeths time his discovery of the false Church for there he treateth on this particular poynt at large and reproveth the scholasticall partie who did labour to perswade the Queen that seeing her Majestie had the inward Baptisme and had done many works of mercy and pietâ—e that therfore shee might rest her selfe satisfied whether shee had the outward baptisme or no On the other hand the Romanistâ— said that shee must count the Church of Rome a true Church or else denie her Baptisme But these were deceived and did not consider how that Gods ordinance is his ordinance though in the depth of Apostacie See the Ans to your fiâ—st Treatise That in some sence Baptisme is nothing even no more was Circumcision in former time yet as it was Gods holy ordinance it was to be regarded as a thing of great concernment and was not worne out then though in the middest of Antichristianisme or Apostasie So Baptisme now being no lesse durable though more generall then Circumcision was nor lesse honourable it ought not to be rejected but regarded and the reverent receivers of it respected and the contemners of it reproved and condemned Take notice heer how that in pursuing after these scattering Objections * In Pag. 14 15. 17. you have strangely varied from the poynt concerning Infants and so have shot at rovers Therefore I would have you for order sake to observe what hath been set downe by me to prove the lawfulnesse of the Baptisme of holy Infants against all your objections which you have set downe unto this period all which I leave to the consideration of you and the observation others and so proceed to answer the next which followeth BVt say you * Pag. 18. at lin 2. their fifth and maine Argument is yet behinde from the Covenant which God made with
such as them in age or understanding but of others who are such as them in humilitie and such like qualifications So that you tying your self unto this restriction * In Pag. 13. lin 26 27. 38 39 40 41. have indeed lost the marrow and gnawne upon the bone bitten on the barke in stead of the pith the shell in stead of the kernell And thus you have done not onely in these Texts but in many more as doth evidently appeare in these your Childish Treatises of Baptisme And if your humane Authors have made you childish and brutish be no more so If you have followed them in stead of the Word as it so appeareth by your citing them in your Childish Treatises and building upon their mistakings Repent then and sinne no more Open your eyes see the truth Take hold of the promises if it be possible that you may be saved out of this your quick-sand of delusions As for the objections which you call scattering objections * Pag 14. lin 24 25. which you say you have met withall As they are set downe by you some of them may well be said to be scattering In the first objection in the inference you speak of ordinances * Lin. 29. in generall which must be esteemed the Ordinances of Jesus Christ by whom soever or on whom soever they are administred But heer you have not told us what Ordinances are to be esteemed so But in answering * Lin. 33. it you labour to discover the weaknesse of the Objection which is without distinction and you would inferre as though the objecters meant by ordinances acts meerly for so you say * Pag. 15. lin 9. this objection imports that had but the Idolatrous Corinthians taken bread and wine and broken it and divided it among their dogs and swine yet this should have been the ordinance of Christ if it must remaine his by whom soever or on whom soever it is administred And so you demand * Lin. 15. upon this whether the Apostle received any such ordinance c And at length you deny it to be the minde commandement or ordinance of Christ at all and therefore you conclude That for any to call such actions his ordinances can be no lesse then blasphemie against the Son of God To which I say that if he who framed this objection meaneth that the ordinances of Christ are the ordinances of Christ then we are not to understand that he meaneth heer by ordinances meer naturall acts as giving bread and wine to dogs and swine he hath not so expressed it and therefore though you denied your own inference or swinish insinuation yet you could not justly charge him with blasphemie against the Son of God in this particular But rather those may be charged with blasphemie who denie the ordinances of Christ to be the ordinances of Christ And indeed I thinke reason should teach you that the ordinances of Christ are the ordinances of Christ for as every thing is the same with it selfe so every ordinance of Christ is the same with it selfe But next you say Obj. They will reply that bread and wine received by any in such a manner and water sprinkled in the Name of the Father c. are his ordinances and therefore whosoever hath these hath his ordinance Ans I thinke this your accusation is a meer surmise or groundlesse supposition You say They will thus reply Who are they that will thus reply I thinke you have no opposite in withstanding this except it be such as your selfe This may well be called scattering for it is the nature of chaffe and stubble to be scattered by the winde and indeed I thinke that this objection which you make to be a reply of others is your owne if the truth were knowne And you might have saved your labour in bringing such frivolous toyes For you know that our poynt is not cōcerning eating bread or drinking wine or sprinkling water as they are meerly naturall acts but as they are divine ordinances Now to say that the eating of bread and drinking wine and sprinkling water as they are meerly naturall acts are divine ordinances and that therefore whosoever hath these hath his ordinances is very absurd I never did heare it proceed out of any ones mouth nor read in any book besides your own I conceive then that you might have saved your labour and not made answer where there is no opposition but have kept your Bartholomew-babies for Bartholomew-faire unless you could have proved them to be the Kings Subjects as the children of six moneths old are whom you have familiarly a Pag 16. lin 1. by a Supposition b Lin. 2. equalized c Lin. 15. with them in your answer But herein also you are deceived in your judgement it being a very childish and babish comparison For you might know if you have the use of your senses that Bartholomew-babies of the best sort are unsensible but the meanest children of six moneths old are reasonable creatures and therefore it appeareth that your unsensible comparisons are unseasonable at this time But the next objection being sound you cannot answer but in labouring to turne it away discover how deeply you are drenched in deceivable errours and vaine conceits The objection or position is that It is said 1 Cor. 10.1 2. of the children of Israel that they were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea there being young children as well as men of yeares Your answer unto this is as followeth The Text is that they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud A. R. Pag. 16. li. 23. and in the sea But our question is not of baptizing unto Moses but of baptizing unto Christ by being dipped or buried in water by the similitude of his death according to the institution of Christ Thus were not these Israelites baptized for they were in the cloud and in the sea dry nor was baptisme then instituted Thus then is the sence of the place That no enjoying of any outward priviledge as Baptisme or the Lords Supper without true faith companied with obedience will now save us any more then the many outward priviledges visible signes of Gods presence and the great outward deliverances which the Lord by the hand of Moses afforded and wrought for the Israelites in bringing them through the sea in defending and guiding them in the Wildernesse by the cloud did exempt and save them from Gods Judgements for notwithstanding their enjoying all these outward favours many of them perished in the Wildernesse for their sinnes and disobedience which St Paul sets out as examples unto us and therefore here by way of allusion compareth their outward priviledges to the outward priviledges and ordinances of the New Testament Even as St Peter in like manner figuratively speaketh of the Arke 1 Pet. 3.20 21. When once the long suffering of God waited in the dayes of Noah while the Arke was preparing wherein few
is of force against the infants of beleevers to prove them also not to be in the new Covenant nor to be baptized But this is very weak against such parents Therefore it is of no force against their infants Seeing it is so you may plainly perceive that I have just ground to except against your conclusiō Pag. 4 l. 22 23 that because all the children of beleevers are not saved Therefore the infants of beleevers are not in the Covenant now on foot nor ought to be baptized Such an excuse as this might as well have served informer time for the children of Israel that they might not onely have neglected Circumcision but also all other Ordinances But such arguing bringeth large liberty tending to Athisme destruction and ruination of the foundation of Christian Religion Rom. 3.1 2 3 4. But what saith Paul when he declareth that the Jewes had the Oracles of God committed unto them what if some did not believe shall their unbeliefe make the faith of God of none effect God forbid yea let God be true and every man a lyar c. The Apostasie of Cain could not hurt Adam nor hinder Abel from eternall life For though Cain and his seed perished yet God was still good unto his Church unto Israel to those that were of an upright heart Furthermore for to maintain errour you bring errour false things to prove a falshood like two false witnesses that stand one for another for to prove your own false affirmation that infants are not in the Covenant outwardly nor have that holinesse whereby to be admitted now to the outward ordinance of baptisme as infants were then to Circumcision in the time of the Law and state of the Jews You say That the state or Church of the Jews were under the old Covenant and Law Pag. 4. l. 29. and stood not by faith and circumcision of the heart as this Church of the Gospel doth but stood meerly upon nature and circumcision of the flesh and accordingly had their outward and fiderall holinesse and outward cleansings all which are abolished with that state and no such holinesse or distinction is now between any persons in the world as you say shall be further declared by and by To which I answer That the Church of the Jews were in the old Covenant and Law is true But that they stood not by faith and circumcision of the heart as this Church of the Gospel doth but stood meerly upon nature and circumcision of the flesh is not true for the Church of the Jewes had the new covenant * Mr. Spilsbery granteth the Covenant made with Abraham and the Covenant now to be the same in substance See his treatise pag. 8 line 10. that was confirmed to Abraham * Gen. 17. Gal. 3.16 17. before of God in Christ which covenant the Law which was foure hundred and thirty yeares after could not disanull that it should make the promise of none effect* The Jewes were Gods holy speciall a Deut. 7.6 and peculiar b 26.18.19 people who were not constituted of a visible mixt multitude of prophane persons and holy beleevers and Infidels good and bad together c 29.18 32.9.12 Esay 5.1 2. but were a people called d 41.1 2. 43.1.7 Mat. 12.2.13 and separated e Ps 135.4 148.14 125.2 Deut. 33.29 14.1 2 from other Nations God brought them out of Egypt f Ex. 12.41.42 and baptized them in the cloud and in the sea g 1 Cor. 10.1 2 and went before them by day in a pillar of cloud and by night in a pillar of fire h Ex. 13.21 22 and at the great and victorious deliverance which they had over the Egyptians they beleeved his Words and sang his praise i Ex 15.1 Ps 106.12 then God led them through the wildernesse k Ex. 15.22 and made the bitter waters sweet for them l ver 25. that they might trust in him who healed them m v. 26. and he fed them with Manna which neither they nor their fathers knew to the intent that they might know that man could not live by bread only but by every word of God n Deut. 8.3 and he made the flinty rock a fountain of waters o Ps 114.8 Num. 20.8.11 that they thereby might quench their thirst Yea The Lord came from mount Synay and rose up from Seir unto them he shined forth from mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of his Saints from his right hand went a fiery Law yea he loved the people p Deut 33.2 3 they were therefore to trust stedfastly in God the sword of their excellencie q ver 29. and to look continually for eternall life of him and cleave unto him r 10.20 who was their life and the length of their dayes ſ 30.19 20. whom they were commanded to fear and to love and to serve with all their heart and with all their soule t Deut. 10.12 so the Lord was with them they with him and as he had commanded them so they were still to be a holy people to the Lord their God even as he was holy u Levit. 11.44 19.2 20.7 By all which it appeares that there was a manifest difference put between them and the prophane of the world as is between Christ and Antichrist In brief as their Church was the Church of Christ a See Cant. and the Covenant b Rev. 21.3 which they had c Gal. 3.16 17. the Covenant of Christ so the Commandement d Deut. 30.11.12 13 14. Rom. 10.6 7 8 9 10. or word which was not hid from them was the Gospel which they were not to enquire after as though it were some strange thing afar off or beyond the seas c. for it was nigh unto them in their mouth and in their heart that they might doe it even the Gospel of Christ the same word of faith which Paul preached yea further they had not onely the Gospel of Christ but Christ himselfe his presence in a speciall manner amongst them though he were not then manifested in the flesh Esay 63 9. Wherefore I would have you to consider and revoke those rash speeches that this heavenly society and blessed fraternity stood not by faith but meerly upon nature and circumcision of the flesh It is an infidelious opinion to judge them to be Infidels in the Jewes state whom God did so call and separate which had his Oracles and Ordinances whom he called his holy people his chosen e Deut. 10.15 and peculiar people f Cap. 14.2 his beloved ones g Cap 7.7.8 to whose seed he promised life as to themselves h Cap. 30.19.20 whose hearts he promised to circumcise as also the hearts of their seed i Deut 30.6 as he hath promised to his people in the last dayes which thing
and outward Baptisme to lay hands upon the rest of the holy institutions of God which properly and peculiarly are tyed to the Church And the Proselytes or beleeving Gentiles in the time of the Law before they were circumcised in the flesh they were to be circumcised in their hearts and before they did partake of the Passeover a figure of Christs body they and their holy seed were to be * Exod. 12.48 circumcised in flesh as well as in heart which participation in the Ordinances then was not to be limitted onely to the outward fleshly shadow no more then our partaking of Baptisme or the Lords Supper now ought to be onely limitted to the outward elements of Water Bread and Wine But as for the Infants of beleevers they ought to be judged to have the circumcision of Christ which is of the heart and Spirit as hath been formerly proved and shall be further shewed and therefore it is apparent that they are acceptable and may lawfully have the Ordinance of Baptisme imposed upon them for they being proved to be members of the visible Church of Christ it appeareth that they are to be judged in Christ and new creatures and that therefore the true holinesse accompanieth them And this being so what then will follow but that according to your owne confession they have right to Baptisme Further you say If it be objected that in respect of Justification Pag. 6. lin 3â— it availeth nothing but to Baptisme it may To this you Answer Lin. 37. to Pag. 7. That that which availeth to Justification and salvation doth according to the Rule onely availe to Baptisme for if thou beleevest with all thy heart thou art justified Act. 13.39 and shalt be saved Act. 16.31 and mayest be baptized upon the same and no other grounds Act. 8.37 To which I Answer As is the objection so is your answer without distinction for there is a difference between justification in the sight of God and justification in the sight of men By the Word persons must be justified and by the Word they must be condemned All those persons who are outwardly holy may be justified in the sight and apprehension of men ought to be baptized upon this ground though their heart knowne onely to God be like the heart of Simon Magus not upright in the sight of God But the holy Word of God is our Rule whereby we are to judge both beleevers and their infants now under the Gospel to be in covenant regenerated sanctified and adopted unto God the children of the promise in their infancie as the infants of beleevers were in former time And upon this very ground the Infants of beleevers now may lawfully be baptized as the infants of beleevers who were members of the Church in the time of the Law were lawfully circumcised To the objection * Pag. 7. lin 1 2. That all that were baptized by the Apostles themselves were not saved c. You answer And say * Lin. 3. to lin 15. you doe grant that all baptized by the Apostles were not saved and yet deny the consequence by distinguishing between the rule by which they are to be baptized which is infallible and the judgements of men who are failable and may be deceived in applying this rule but it follows not but that the rule being of God is still as infallible as God himselfe is for all that beleeve shall be saved which is true as God himselfe is true yet all who are judged by beleevers to beleeve doe not beleeve and therefore are not saved This failing then here is not in the rule but in their judgements who are but men and can judge onely in the outward appearance by their f uits yee shall know them Mat. 7.16 And cannot judge as God who onely knoweth the heart 1 Sam. 16.17 Jer 17.10 Ans Though this by construction may be without contradiction yet it may have a little further explanation thus That though the Saints doe judge by the infallible rule concerning persons yet if they alter their judgement according as the persons alter they sinnâ— not in the alteration of their opinion because the infallible rule doth still guide their judgements As for instance The infallible rule doth direct our judgements to looke upon all the members of the visible Church to be in the state of salvation So the Disciples of Christ esteemed highly of Judas as indeed the infallible rule directed them but when once he discovered himselfe not to be that in â—ffâ—ct which before he was in appearance then they were directed by the infallible rule to alter their judgements without faile Further in stead of these words Yet all who are judged by beleevers to beleeve To judge of persons according to the infallible Rule is righteous judgement in which the judgers must lay aside all partialitie doe not beleeve It may be construed thus That all who are rightly judged or ought to be judged by beleevers to beleeve doe not beleeve For there is a difference between what persons do and what they should or ought to doe And persons judging as they ought though their judgement is alterable yet as the Rule is not failable neither is their judgement by it sinfull but righteous holy just and lawfull judgement This being construed thus and so taken I assent thereunto But as for your following inference I abhorre and detest from my very soule Your words are these A. R. * Pag. 7. li. 15. to lin 25. But in the baptizing of infants the case is far otherwise yea quite contrary who will or can faile in judging an infant to be an infant the fayling therefore here is in the Rule it selfe and so the fault and sinne in the appointer of such a deceivable Rule This therefore cannot be of God who is truth it selfe but must be of man For let God be true and every man a lyar And when doth he shew himselfe more vainly to be so then when he goeth about to set his pâ—sts by Gods posts and when he teacheth for doctrines his owne vaine and lying traditions such as this is Ans Groundlesse positions and false inferences there from are frequent with you your words import that in the baptizing of infants because none can faile in judging an infant to be an infant that therefore the layling is in the Rule it selfe and therefore you conclude it cannot be of God but of man a vaine tradition The like might be sayd of the Circumcision of infants in the time of the Law that because they could not faile in their judgements in judging infants to be infants that therefore the circumcision of infants was not of God but of man a vaine tradition and the rule was not infallible But you may know that for beleevers to impose the signe * Gen. 17.11 and seal * Rom. 4.11 of the righteousnesse of faith upon their children in their infanciâ— was good lawfull warrantable *
But they were all baptized sayth Paul therefore I conclude that seeing they had the Administration it was not without an Administrator Ob. 3. Did they want the Element Ans They had water enough in the cloud and if that had been too little there was more in the sea and if the Angel of Gods presence their present companion had seen it good they should have been dipped and should have had as great a quantitie of the Element in Baptisme as the Aegyptians had without it Ob. 4. Did they want subjects Ans They were the subjects themselves and right subjects wee may say for they were such who were in Gods covenant of which Circumcision the seale * Rom. 4.11 of the righteousnesse of faith was a signe * Gen. 17.11 This being rightly minded it may refute your former opinion to wit that the Baptisme of infants cannot be of God but of man a vaine and lying tradition * Pag. 7. lin 18. 19. 22. thrust upon the world under colour foysted in like Antichristian devices Now sure if it were not of God but of man you will tell us what man invented it Seeing you have presumed to be so bold to goe thus far I pray you if you can goe a little further and tell us who invented it you cited divers humane Authors * Pag. 7.8 9. which were since Christ but sure they were not the inventers thereof for heer you may see it was administred long before they were borne many hundreds of yeares and so your new account commeth too short to prove the Baptisme of infants to be invented since Christ for as much as this of Moses undermineth that your sandie conception Who invented it then I pray you tell me for sure you can tell at least you thinke so otherwise you would not have termed it as you doe Moses did not invent it he was faithfull over his Masters house as a servant bringing nothing into the worship and service of God but what was appointed by God neither would he or God suffer such a thing to be acted and to goe unreproved except it were according to Gods appointment Neither would the Apostle have called it Baptisme as he doth in 1 Cor. 10.1 2. had it been an invention of man and not an institution or an action of Gods But you your selfe have granted it to be a priviledge unto them then sure you must by this confesse it was no invention of man but the Lords doings though it be marvellous in your eyes and therefore seeing that the children of Israel in the cloud and in the sea had baptisme conferred upon them by divine right it was not a humane invention nor diabolicall institution according to your former affirmation but an Evangelicall Administration Next you take upon you to give the sense of the place but you varie from it you tell us that no enjoyning of any outward priviledge as Baptisme or the Lords Supper will now save us without true faith accompanied with obedience and I tell you that I also affirme the same But when you should declare that our Baptisme cannot save us without faith no more then their Baptisme could save them you varie from the poynt in particular and speake in generall of their many outward priviledges and when you come to particulars you mind their bringing through the sea for one their defence and guidance in the Wildernesse by the cloud for another but you omit their Baptisme the maine thing which you should keepe to at this time and so you run on and would turne Pauls particular testimonie into a generall whereas Paul doth speake in particular and telleth us that they were baptized And at length you come to Peter and take upon you to tell us the manner of his speech how he compareth the Baptisme of the Arke with the Baptisme now and sayth the like figure Baptisme doth now also save us and so you tell us that these being onely figures and allusions can prove nothing to the poynt in hand Thus now you have cast off both the Baptismes of the New and Old Testament for the Apostle Peter speaketh of the Baptisme of Noah and of the Baptisme now and sayth this is a like figure to that and you tell us they are figures and allusions but I thinke you mean delusions for you say they serve not at all to prove the poynt in hand But as for this Answer of yours it is one and the same with that in the Anabaptists Dialog For there they tell us 1. That Moses did not at all wash them with water in the cloud and sea 2. That this of Moses is called Baptisme by comparison as Noahs Arke is called the figure of the Baptisme that saveth us for as the Arke saved those in it from drowning so the Israelites were all under the cloud and in the sea and therein baptized or safegarded from destruction of their enemies 3. That it pleased the Holy Ghost to say they were baptized in the sea and cloud because the sea and cloud was their safetie as Noahs Arke was And as Christ sayth they are baptized that suffer for his sake So there is as much warrant to enjoyne Infants to suffer persecution because it is called Baptisme as to baptisme them because the cloud and sea is called Baptisme To this Mr. Ainsworth sayth * In his booke called A censure upon the Anabaptists Dialog pa. 99. Let them consider Exod. 14.24.25 compared with Psal 77.16 17. c. And they may see there was water enough in the cloud and they will not say I thinke that there was no water in the sea All outward baptizing or washing must be with water or some other liquor If they were not baptized with water what other liquor were they baptized in Not with bloud as in the baptisme of suffering death for Christs sake which they impertinently mention Not with wine or strong drinke for they found none such in the Wildernesse If they can shew nothing but water to baptize them in lâ—t them deny no more for shame that they were baptized with water God spake to our fathers by the Prophets at sundry times or in * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sundry parts as it were by peice-meale as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 1.1 By Moses he shewed how the cloud removed from before Israel and stood behinde them as they passed through the Sea and gave them light but was darknesse to the Aegyptians and from the fiery cloudy pillar the Lord looking troubled the Aegyptians and took off their Chariot wheeles that they drave them heavily Exod. 14.19 20.24 25. This being briefly and obscurely told by Moses God after by Asaph another Prophet sheweth the manner of it how not onely the waters of the Sea saw the Lord when they fled and parted but the clouds also from above powred out water when they rained the skies sent out a sound by thunder c. Thus the ground being softned with the raine occasioned