p. 398. And the same Learned Author after a very Nice and Critical Enquiry into the various Modes of Washing and Baptizing used among the Jews he concludes concerning the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Baptized namely That it was very frequently and ordinarily made use of to signifie That Washing which was performed by Pouring on Water Quod forsan contra illos qui vim verbi ubi de Baptismi Sacramento disputatur morosius urgent non inutile erit observare And this says he may be observ'd with great Advantage against those who when they dispute of the Mode of Baptizing do with too much Stiffness and Obstinacy urge the Word as if it did always signifie to dip into Water Idem p. 402. And again The Apostle says of the Israelites that came out of Egypt that they were all Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea but they were not Dipt into the Cloud or into the Sea they were only Sprinkled or Dashed upon with the Waters of the Cloud and of the Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 I know 't is said that this is but a Metaphorical Expression but still I hope that 't is a pertinent Metaphor and shews the signification of the Word Baptizing viz. That it does not always signifie Dipping which is all that I am Enquiring after at present Once more Were not the Holy Apostles Baptized with the Holy Ghost But how The Holy Ghost was poured down upon their Heads in streaks of Fire like unto Cloven Tongues The Holy Ghost did not descend like a River of Flame for the Apostles to be Dipt into but was only poured upon their Heads in streaks of Fire and yet 't is said that they were Baptized with the Holy Ghost And tho' the Expression in 1 Cor. 10.2 be but Metaphorical yet I hope that this Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a real Baptism 't is I am sure the Chief and Principal Baptism and of which the Baptism with Water is but the Outward Sign And here give me leave to add That the Primitive Fathers call'd Sprinkling with Water Baptizing with Water as in the Case of Clinic Baptism of which you shall hear more by and by here I shall only tell you of the Clinics that they were Baptized as they lay upon their Beds of Sickness and 't is well known that they were only sprinkled with Water and yet were said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptized upon their Beds And now I hope 't is pretty plain as to the signification of the word That Baptizing does not always signifie Dipping nor consequently does it exclude all other Modes of Baptizing But notwithstanding all this we the Ministers of the Church of England it seems amongst some Folks must be great Dissemblers and Hypocrites And why I pray Why Because when we Baptize by sprinkling we dare not speak as we act we dare not say I sprinkle thee in the Name of the Father c. Alas for us poor Men that we are no such daring Blades as some others are But is it so indeed When they Baptize by Dipping dare they say I Dip thee in the Name of the Father c. I am sure we may with as good Reason and Authority say I sprinkle thee as they say I dip thee Our Saviour's words are Go teach all Nations Baptizing them Our Adversaries ask us Dare you Translate the words Go Teach all Nations Sprinkling them and to be even with them we think it enough to ask them again Dare you Translate the words Go Teach all Nations Dipping them But Sir I 'll endeavour to strike more light into this matter by a parallel Case Suppose then that our Blessed Saviour had said to his Apostles Go Hire all Nations into my Vineyard paying them such a Sum in my Name And suppose further that some of them had paid the Sum in Silver and some in Gold Can it be imagin'd that ever these different ways of paying the same Sum would have proved a matter of Controversie Truly according to the aforesaid way of Contending and Arguing They who paid in Silver might have quarrell'd with the others for paying in Gold and might have disputed their Quarrel after this manner Our Saviour has said Go Hire all Nations into my Vineyard paying them such a Sum in my Name but dare you Translate the Words Paying them so much Gold in my Name How then dare you pay in Gold when you dare not Speak as you Act Now to this Argument might not the others have reply'd and disputed on the other hand against paying in Silver Our Saviour has Commanded us to Hire all Nations into his Vineyard paying them such a Sum in his Name but dare you Translate the words Paying them so much Silver If not How dare you pay in Silver when you dare not Speak as you Act This Case I think sufficiently shews the Folly of our Adversaries in daring us to use the word Sprinkling for Baptizing Nay and further We may suppose our Saviour giving this Command to his Apostles to Hire all Nations into his Vineyard paying them such a Sum in his Name we may farther suppose him I say at the same time to have been in the Indies where Payments for the most pâ—â—â— are made all in Gold And Consequently we may suppose that the Apostles hiring these India Nations into Christ's Vineyard did pay them all in Gold according to the General usage of these Countries Well but then even upon this supposition that none of the Apostles had ever paid the aforesaid Sum in Silver but had paid all in Gold yet their practice in this Case would not have made a general Rule or made it unlawfull to pay the Sum in Silver No but their Successors and other Ministers of Christ notwithstanding this Apostolical Practice of Paying the Indians in Gold might yet in other places have paid the Sum in Silver Yea and woud have been constrain'd and oblig'd so to do had they come to hire such Nations into Christ's Vineyard where Silver is the Current Coyn and they could not have paid in Gold without great and manifold Difficulties and Inconveniencies And thus when Christ Commanded his Apostles to Baptize all Nations in his Name he was then in those Eastern-Countries where by reason of Excessive heat Washings and Bathings were very frequent and a Customary practice and therefore when the Apostles Baptiz'd in these hot Nations tho' we suppose them to have Baptiz'd there by Dipping yet their Practice in those hot Countries cannot reasonably be urg'd as generally obliging us to the same way of Baptizing or making it unlawful to Baptize any otherwise no but their Successors and other Ministers of Christ may yet in other places Baptize by Sprinkling yea and are even Constrain'd and Oblig'd so to do when they Baptize in Cold Countries where they cannot Baptize by Dipping without great and manifest dangers and inconveniencies In short as in the aforesaid Case had our Saviour Commanded such a Sum to be
paid it might certainly have been rightly and well paid in Silver notwithstanding the Apostles had paid all the Indians in Gold so considering the various significations of the Word Baptize Baptism may well and rightly be Administred by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water in Cold Countries tho' it be suppos'd and if it may please our Adversaries even granted that the Apostles in Hot Nations Baptiz'd all by Dipping And indeed I must here observe that our Blessed Saviour using this Word Baptize in an illimited signification has thereby discover'd to us not only his great Wisdom but his great Love and Tenderness to Mankind for thus he has Accommodated the Ordinance of Baptism to all Ages to all Sexes to all Dispositions and to all Climates And truly the Apostles were to teach all Nations Baptizing them as well the Coldest as the Hottest Countries But now shou'd an Apostle have Travell'd into the most Northern parts of the World where the Climate is extreamly Cold and should have Preach'd the Gospel and Exhorted them all to take Christ's Yoke upon them and should have told them for their Encouragement That his Yoke is easie and his Burden light And in Answer to their asking him how That Yoke was to be put on shou'd have reply'd Why you must all be Dipp'd or Plung'd in some Pond or River Certainly such a piece of hardship in the extremity of their Cold Regions cou'd not have been well thought on nor wou'd they readily have believ'd that Yoke to be easie which was not to be put on without endangering their Limbs and their Lives with Cold. And so again Shou'd a Turk upon his Death-bed be converted to Christianity and earnestly desire Baptism How cou'd it be safely done if there was no other way of Baptizing but by Dipping Nay but the aforesaid Clinic-Baptism which we hear so much of in the Primitive Writers was most certainly receiv'd by Aspersion or Sprinkling The Clinici were they who receiv'd Baptism upon their Sick-beds and their Baptism by Sprinkling is sufficiently Vindicated by St. Cyprian Ep. ad Mag. 76. I know what some are bold to say that God in such Cases is oblig'd to preserve us and to look to 't whatever the danger of Dipping may seem to be that no real harm shall come on 't But I Answer That I never look'd upon Baptism as a Charm either against Colds or Diseases nor wou'd I dare to Baptize a very sick Man by Dipping him in a Pond or River upon this Presumption that God will save him from all harm by it by a Miracle 'T is not safe to trust to Miracles or to tempt God out of the ordinary ways of his Preservation I Love not harsh Expressions but Mr. Baxter says This was the Devil's Trick who wou'd have drawn Christ to have cast himself into danger of Death by encouraging of him to trust to a Miraculous preservation Well but then say some if a state of Infirmity or a cold Season may make it a little dangerous to Baptize by Dipping may not a more Convenient and less dangerous Opportunity be waited for And this indeed speaks the general practice of our Adversaries you seldom hear of a sick Man Dipt or of any Dipt by them in the Frost and Snow time of Winter But to such delay of Baptism upon any account whatsoever you may be pleas'd to hear what is said by the aforesaid Mr. Baxter 'T is he says quite contrary to the constant Rule and Example of Scripture and so he proves that the 3000 were Baptized without delay Act. 2. and the people of Samaria Act. 8. and that the Eunuch was Baptized in his very Journey Act. 8. That Cornelius and his Friends were presently Baptized Act. 11. and that so were they in Act. 19.5 and the Jaylor Act. 16. and that so were the Corinthians Act. 18. And said Ananias to Paul why tarriest thou Arise and be Baptized Act. 22.16 But Sir If Baptism was not delay'd upon any account whatsoever no not tho' 3000 were Baptized at once what think you of those who when they have a few Persons to be Baptized after their way by Dipping will one wou'd be tempted to say out of Vain Glory or Ostentation make as long work of it as they can and will hardly Dip above One or Two at a time that by their more frequent Dippings they may make a greater Noise and Bustle in the World You Sir know what I mean and therefore I will not rub any harder upon this Sore place but will leave you at present to consider awhile of what I have said to your first and great Objection rais'd from the signification of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizing You shall not be long without an Answer to your other Objections from Sir Your very hearty and humble Servant T. H. June 13. 1698. LETTER III. SIR YOUR First and great Objection against the Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling was Answer'd in my last and this comes to assure you that I have not been forgetful of your other Objections but have thought on 'em again and again and considering the Men's Principles who have taught you the Objections I find that they 'll be Answer'd in a Few Words For the Objectors you know are upon all occasions very Loud and Clamorous for plain and positive Texts of Scripture Deductions and Consequences will by no means down with them and therefore their Objections will be sufficiently answer'd to them if I shew that the Scripture which they ground them upon will not maintain them after their own positive manner And Good Sir Let it be remember'd that I do in this Letter argue upon our Adversaries own Principles and in their own way For thus I need not tell you that their great Objection against Infant-Baptism is this Where do you read in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized or Commanded to be Baptized Which Objection in its due time and place shall have its full Answer but here Sir you must pardon me if I make use of this their own Weapon against themselves and ask them Where did you read in Scripture of any that were Baptized by being Dipt or Commanded to be only so Baptiz'd and not otherwise 'T is true you once indeed reply'd to this that whether the Scripture was so or no yet that Antiquity was clear for Dipping and I shou'd be glad to hear the same kind word drop from the Mouths or Pens of our Learned Adversaries I shou'd be glad I mean to hear them appealing to true Antiquity in any case whatsoever and willing to submit to such good Authority for then I shou'd hope that they wou'd have some regard to it in the Case of Infant-Baptism yes certainly if they will plead Antiquity for Dipping they must allow the Plea to be good when it is made for Infant-Baptism likewise And therefore to bring the Controversie before Antiquity I wou'd have them to know that they do not read in Scripture of any that were Dipt
Signified when he speaks of baptizing with the Holy Ghost or baptizing with the Spirit for so says the Apostle again By one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12.13 I add That it is no new thing for the Holy Spirit to be figur'd or represented by Water for thus in the Prophet of Old when God had said I will pour Water on him that is Thirsty He interprets himself immediately I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed Isai 44.3 and again when he had said in Ezekiel I will Sprinkle Clean Water upon you he adds as the meaning of it I will put my Spirit within you Ezek. 36.25 27. And again with allusion to Water is the promise of the Spirit express'd by pouring out I will pour out my Spirit upon all Flesh Joel 2.28 and to clear this matter from all doubt St. John quoting these Words of our Saviour He that Believeth in me out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of Living Water This he spake says that Evangelist of the Spirit which they that believe in him should receive John 7.38 39. Sir If you would see more and larger proofs of this you may read Mr. Mede's Discourse upon Titus 3.5 Indeed I cou'd hardly have thought that there cou'd have been any difference among Catechetical Writers as to this matter only I find in that same discourse of Mr. Mede that some would have the Blood of Christ to be the thing signified by the Water in Baptism as it is by the Wine in the other Sacrament To which he replies That the Blood of Christ is not once mention'd by the Fathers of the Primitive Church as the inward part of this Sacrament of Baptism no more than it is in our Liturgy and he further adds That the Opinion is Novel and That the Lutheran Divines make it peculiar and proper to the Followers of Calvin But now Sir give me leave to observe to you That Calvin himself seems not to have been always of this Opinion nay but he plainly asserts That the Holy Spirit is the Thing signify'd by the Baptismal Water For complaining of the Church of Rome for feigning Confirmation to be a Sacrament by which the Spirit of Regeneration is conferr'd he adds That they transferr'd to Confirmation what was proper to Baptism meaning that they made the Spirit of Regeneration which is the Inward part of Baptism to be the Thing signifi'd by the laying on of hands in Confirmation Calv. in Heb. 6.1 2. And here Sir if I was minded to enlarge I could confirm this Matter with abundance of Testimonies out of the best Writers and Fathers of the Primitive Church but I forbear being pretty confident that there is no great need of their Evidence in so plain a Case And now my good Friend are not your Eyes open Don't you clearly see from what I have said of the Inward part of Baptism how rightly the Outward part may be administred by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water The Gift of the Holy Spirit the thing signified in Baptism is exprest by Sprinkling or Pouring on And is there or can there be any Reason given why the Thing Signifi'd should be exceeded by the Sign God himself thought it not necessary but makes Sprinkling or Pouring on Water sufficient to represent and signifie his giving or pouring on the Spirit for when He I say promises his Holy Spirit he does not no not so much as once in the whole Bible say I will dip or plunge into Water but I will sprinkle or pour on Water Isa 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25 Dr. Towerson who had once said something which was a little too harsh as himself confesses against this way of Baptizing by Sprinkling whose very words our Adversaries have catch'd hold of and have boasted of him as a brave Man on their side yet when he came to enquire more narrowly into the Matter he industriously defends it and amongst other Arguments uses this very Text Ezek. 36.25 and proves from Maimonides That the Words were spoken with reference to the Times of the Messiah and affirms That they cannot be better interpreted than of the Water of Baptism applying them as I have here done as very well expressing the Outward Sign of that Sacrament And shall Men be wiser than God Or think it any Wit to mock at and deride his Words And be at the pains of making a Greek word English to make their mockery the plainer Sprinkling forsooth out of Sport and Rallery must be call'd Rantizing and Baptism when administer'd by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water must be nicknam'd Rantism But let me tell you Sir and you may tell the Author of your little * A little Book call'd The Reason why not Infant-Sprinkling but Believers Baptism ought to be approv'd c. Book you boast of That when he so merrily calls our way of Baptizing Rantizing and our Baptism Rantism He makes a mock of the very Words of God himself and according to his reproachful way of Speaking when God promises to Sprinkle clean Water upon his People he must not then promise to Baptize but only to Rantize This puts me in mind how I had once the misfortune to hear a wild Wretch call the Lord's Supper He seem'd to quarrel with my Friend for calling that Sacrament the Supper of our Lord A Supper said he A Bite and a Sip you mean And he had as much to say for the Profane expression as any one can have for calling our Baptism Rantism Why Sir He urg'd that a Supper ought to be a full Meal that to Signifie our receiving the Body and Blood of Christ we ought to eat a piece of Bread as big as his Body and to drink as much Wine as he shed Blood And is it not at a like Rate that some plead against Baptizing by Sprinkling You have heard the reason why That profane Wretch call'd our way of Receiving the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper a Bite and a Sip and is it not for a very like reason that our way of Baptizing is by some call'd Rantizing I will not here say with the Psalmist What shall be done to the false Tongue but rather with our most charitable Lord Father forgive them for surely they know not what they say or do But this 't is to be so Zealous for Externals when Men think that they can never have enough of the outward Signs of the Sacraments when yet perhaps the thing Signified which is the main and principal thing is as much neglected But Sir When we receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper if we Spiritually eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which is the inward part of this Sacrament as to the outward part it will not matter much how little Bread we eat or how little Wine we drink So when any are baptized if their Souls are purifi'd and cleans'd with the Holy Spirit which is the Inward part of this Sacrament as to the outward part it will not matter much how little Water
what I can find in Scripture to have been done in the Case of Baptizing by our Lord's Apostles after his Ascension into Heaven Now the first that we read of to have been Baptiz'd by them were the Three thousand Converts Acts 2.41 But that none of these were Children is most confidently affirm'd because 't is there said of them that they gladly receiv'd the Word c. which indeed is a very plausible way of Arguing but yet 't is a very ill way and not to be allow'd of in our Interpretations of such Scripture-Passages For there is nothing more common than for the Scripture to speak of Children together with adult Persons and yet to add such things as the Children will not be thought capable of As for Example St. Paul speaks of Infants as well as of Men and Women when he assures us that We must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and every one of us receive for the good or evil done in our bodies I say St. Paul speaks of Infants among the rest tho' one half of what he there speaks cannot be understood of them namely That they shall receive for the good or evil done in their bodies who never liv'd in their Bodies to do either Good or Evil. Sir you argue that none of the Three thousand baptiz'd Acts 2. were Children because 't is said of them That they gladly received the word and continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine which are things that Children could not do And just at the same rate it may be argu'd That no Infants shall appear at the last Day before the Judgment-Seat of Christ because 't is said of them that shall then and there appear that they must receive for the good or evil done in their bodies which are things that Infants could not do And again I have not the least doubt but there will be Children and Infants at the Last Day placed among the Blessed Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge and yet I know what the Judge will then say to those on his Right-hand I was an hungred and ye gave me meat c. But now as you are pleas'd to reason the Case That there were no Children among the Three thousand baptized Acts 2. because such things are immediately added to have been done by them as no Children could possibly do viz. That they continu'd stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine c. just after the same manner it may be reason'd That there shall be no Infants among the Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge at the Last Day because such things will immediately be added to have been done by them as no Infants could possibly do viz. I was an hungred and ye gave me meat c. But good Sir Infants will certainly make up a great part of the Blessed Train at the Right-hand of the Judge though the Judge cannot say to them I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat And so there might be many Infants among the Three thousand that were baptized tho' it cannot be said of them that they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine For so you plainly see that Infants may be spoken of together with adult Persons though some things may be added which the Infant-part of the Company are no ways capable of And accordingly that there were Infants or Children among the Three thousand baptized as aforesaid we have yet this further Reason to convince us because when they were there perswaded to be baptized with this Promise of having the Holy Ghost given them 't is expresly added The promise is to you and to your Children Acts 2.38 39. But of this more largely before I have done I proceed therefore to the next that we read of to have been baptized and They were the Samaritans baptized by St. Philip Acts 8.12 and there indeed it is said that They were baptized both Men and Women and therefore surely say you had any Children been then baptized it would have been added That they were baptized Men Women and Children No Dear Sir there was no need of any such Addition for consider I beseech you the Scripture-way of speaking Even all Ages of both Sexes Children and Infants together with the Elder Sort are express'd in Scripture by Men and Women as Mr. Horn has particularly noted in Joshua 8.25 26. and Judges 9.49 51. which Texts you may consult at your Leisure and I will take leave to go on The next we meet with in the Acts of the Apostles to have been baptized was the Eunuch baptized by St. Philip Acts 8.38 and from their going down to the Water is there a great Objection rais'd against our Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water but this I have already answer'd In the next Chapter was St. Paul baptized by Ananias and I think he was baptized in the House of Judas and you will not I hope from hence conclude that he also was Dipt In the next Chapter again we find St. Peter commanding Cornelius and them that were with him to be baptized but pray Sir Observe the Reason Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Acts 10.47 48. And may it not as well be argu'd Can any man forbid Water that Children shou'd not be Baptized who receive the Holy Ghost as well as we But of this more hereafter In the next place we read that Lydia was Baptized and her Houshold Acts 16.14 15. Where I observe that whatever qualifications are mention'd to have given Lydia a right to Baptism yet we read not any thing of any of her Houshold but that they were Baptized Nay and after their Baptism says Lydia to the Apostles If ye have Judged Me faithful to the Lord c. She says not if ye have Judged Us faithfull but only ME which implies according to our Adversaries best way of reasoning That only Lydia and that none of the rest were Believers So that thus far I am sure here is nothing against Infants being a part of her Family But Sir I must admire the Author of your little Book and the profound discoveries he has made in his Notes upon this Text to convince us that Lydia had no Husband and Consequently no Children But this wou'd not follow unless he cou'd prove her to have been no Widow neither and therefore by dint of mighty Argument he 'll make us farther know that she was no Widow And I must not conceal his All-convincing Reason which is this She cou'd be no Widow because she is called a Woman whereas Widows in Scripture are called Widows as the Widow of Sarepta c. A most wonderful Argument indeed But Sir When I think on 't again The wonder ceases because I find the very Widow of Sarepta call'd a Woman 1 King 17.17 24. Yea I find in Scripture one call'd a Woman who had been seven times a Widow for after she had Buried no fewer than Seven Husbands 't
be receiv'd and therefore as their Children were to receive it as well as themselves it follows that their Children as well as themselves were to be Baptiz'd that they might receive it And so says the Apostle Be baptiz'd every one of you and ye shall receive c. But here perhaps you may be ready to ask whether Baptism be necessary to our Receiving the Holy Ghost or whether none else do receive it but they who are Baptiz'd To which I answer that Baptism is as necessary to our receiving the Holy Ghost as a diligent Hand is necessary to make one Rich. The Diligent hand maketh Rich says Solomon And therefore as Riches do sometimes indeed by God's over-ruling Providence fall to the share even of the Lazy and the Slothful So by God's extraordinary Mercy is the Holy Ghost sometimes indeed given even to the Vnbaptiz'd But what then shall a Man hope to be Rich without Diligence because the Lazy are sometimes so In like manner shall any one hope for the Spirit without Baptism because the Unbaptiz'd do sometimes receive it It would not be wisely argued should a Man thus dispute Solomon tells us indeed that a Diligent hand maketh Rich well and it may be so but let them be ty'd up to his Rule that will for my part I shall hold my self excus'd hoping that Riches may be had in an easier way even as I sometimes see the Slothful have them And yet just such is his Argument who thus disputes 'T is the Apostles rule indeed Be baptiz'd and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost well and it may be so but let them be ty'd up to his Rule that will for my part I shall hold my self excus'd hoping for the Holy Spirit without any such Condition even as I sometimes see that the Unbaptized receive it But still further 'T is objected on the other hand that if the promise of the Holy Ghost was so annext to Baptism methinks we should see more and better Fruits of it in those that are Baptiz'd To which I answer That tho' it be very true that a diligent Hand maketh Rich yet it is not every diligent Man that becomes Rich for want of a good Use and wise Improvement of what his diligent hand acquires and gives him a just Title to So tho' Baptism has the promise of the Holy Ghost made to it yet the Baptiz'd do not all bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit for want of a good Use of that Spiritual grace and Influence which their Baptism acquires and gives them a Right and Title to But tho' the Diligent do not all become Rich for the aforesaid Reason yet Diligence is still to be Exhorted to as a great and necessary means of becoming Rich and so tho' the Baptized do not all bring forth the fruits of the Spirit for the like Reason aforesaid yet Baptism is still to be Exhorted to as a great and necessary means of receiving the Spirit Be baptized says St. Peter and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit And this indeed seems to have been the great and standing Argument of this Apostle It was his usual way to Argue from the Inward part of this Sacrament to the Outward For When the Holy Ghost fell upon Cornelius and them that were with him Can any Man forbid Water said our Apostle that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Act. 10.47 So here in this Text The promise of the Holy Ghost says he is to you and to your Children and therefore be Baptized every one of you that you may receive it But Sir Here is one Difficulty more to be Encounter'd still for here it is that our Adversaries have started an Objection to which they Boastingly say that we can give them no Answer but truly Sir the Reason is because they will receive no Answer and we cannot help that And therefore to deal fairly both with you and them you shall first hear their Objection in its full force and then our Answer and you shall Judge between us Their Objection is this That Children are not capable of Receiving the Holy Ghost and that therefore 't is all folly to Baptize them upon that account And farther St. Peter's saying to that great Assembly Act. 2.38 Be baptized every one of you and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost makes it very plain that he Exhorted none to be Baptized but such as were capable of receiving the Holy Ghost but of this the little Children were not Capable and therefore were not to be Baptized This Sir is their mighty Objection and I am pretty Confident they will acknowledge that I have not minc'd the matter but have set it before you with all its strength And now then to give a satisfactory Answer to it I shall make it my business to prove to you that even Infants and Children are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost and this I shall endeavour to do with all the plainness and brevity and closeness that I can And therefore First we hear it very often from our Adversaries in a Challenging and Triumphant way that if we could but shew in all the New Testament any one Infant to have been Baptized they would no longer dispute that Case with us But Sir we can shew them an Infant in the Old Testament yea and an Infant in the New Testament too that receiv'd the Holy Ghost And why then will they dispute this any longer We know that it is the Holy Ghost that Sanctifies us and yet we read in the Old Testament that the Prophet Jeremy was Sanctified even before he came out of the Womb Jer. 1.5 And if we will take an Angel's word for it we are assur'd in the New Testament that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his Mother's Womb Luke 1.15 And here I will add what I before observ'd of the little Children who were brought unto Christ and whom he took up in his Arms viz. That he blessed them with Spiritual Blessings and therefore 't is evident that even these little Children did then receive the Holy Spirit for we must mean nothing else by receiving the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit but receiving the Graces and Blessings of the Holy Spirit Secondly The Holy Job has most truly taught us That a Clean thing is not to be brought out of an Vnclean Job 14.4 No but all are conceived and born in Sin as well as he who said Behold I was shapen in Iniquity and in Sin did my Mother conceive me Psal 51.5 But then if all our Children are so conceived and born and cannot be brought clean out of an unclean thing I am ready to tremble at the thought what would become of them if they were not capable of some Spiritual Cleansing certainly Dear Sir they are or else 't is most certain that no unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of God Again Our