6thly,His sixth Proposition. That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements, but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended; in Circum∣cision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it, &c.Answ. In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 'tis not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed, if so be it be admini∣stred in that order and manner Christ hath or∣dained, viz. to represent his Body broken, and his Blood poured forth. The like we will say also in Baptism, we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize, or dip the Person all over, so that it may repre∣sent the Burial and Resurection of Christ, which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth, or represent when administred.2. Should the People of Israel (as I have shewed) in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh, and not round, or quite off, or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it, would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite? or they have been born with, in pleading, it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification? The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected. But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping.Say you,Mr. Bur∣kit's first Argument against Dip∣ping. such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism, as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing, is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism.But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping, is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing.Therefore it is lawful and sufficient, and Dipping is not necessary.0