A religious contest, or A brief account of a disputation holden at Blyton in the county of Lincoln between Mr. William Fort minister of the perochial congregation at Blyton on the one part, and Thomas Grantham, servant to the baptised churches on the other part : whereunto is added Brief animadversions upon Dr. Stilling-fleet his digressions about infant baptism in his book intituled, A rational account of the Protestant religion, &c., in both which are shewed that the generality of the nations now professing Christianity are as yet unbaptised into Christ : 1. Because their sprinkling and crossing the fore-head is not the right way of baptising, 2. Because infants ought not to be baptised. Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. 1674 Approx. 93 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A41787 Wing G1544 ESTC R39430 18410482 ocm 18410482 107507 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A41787) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 107507) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1634:6) A religious contest, or A brief account of a disputation holden at Blyton in the county of Lincoln between Mr. William Fort minister of the perochial congregation at Blyton on the one part, and Thomas Grantham, servant to the baptised churches on the other part : whereunto is added Brief animadversions upon Dr. Stilling-fleet his digressions about infant baptism in his book intituled, A rational account of the Protestant religion, &c., in both which are shewed that the generality of the nations now professing Christianity are as yet unbaptised into Christ : 1. Because their sprinkling and crossing the fore-head is not the right way of baptising, 2. Because infants ought not to be baptised. Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. [6], 34 p. [s.n.], London printed : 1674. Special t.p.: Brief animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's digressions about the baptising of infants / by Thomas Grantham. London : [s.n.], 1674. "Epistle to the reader" signed: Tho. Grantham. Errata: p. 34. Imperfect : slightly faded, with print show-through. Reproduction of original in the British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Fort, William. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. -- Rational account of the grounds of Protestant religion. Baptists -- England. Infant baptism. 2007-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-11 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2008-03 Elspeth Healey Sampled and proofread 2008-03 Elspeth Healey Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A RELIGIOUS CONTEST . OR , A brief account of a disputation holden at Blyton in the County of Lincoln . Between Mr. William Fort Minister of the Perochial Congregation at Blyton on the one part , And Thomas Grantham , Servant to the Baptised Churches on the other part . Whereunto is added Brief Animadversions upon Dr. Stilling-fleet his Digressions about Infant Baptism : IN His Book Intituled , A rational account of the Protestant Religion , &c. In both which are shewed That the generality of the Nations now professing Christianity , are as yet unbaptised into Christ . 1. Because Their Sprinkling and Crossing the Fore-head is not the right way of baptising . 2. Because Infants ought not to be Baptised . Acts 2. 38. Repent and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins , and ye shall receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost . Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is Baptised shall be saved . LONDON , Printed in the Year , 1674. The Epistle Dedicatory , To Mr. VVilliam Fort and the rest of the Brethren and Assistants at the Dispute holden by his appointment at Blyton the 18 day of September , 1673. Reverend Sirs I Do seriously account it a part of my infelicity to see the distractions and divisions among us touching the Worship of Almighty God , and his holy Child Jesus , whom I trust we do all love and fear , and therefore it is the greater pitty that we who differ not about the Godhead , should at all differ about the things which pertain to his blessed Service . May it therefore please God to move upon all our hearts to consider ( laying aside all carnal interest ) where the causes on either side are given . And sith , perhaps we are more quick sighted about each others mistakes then our own , give me leave without offence , to shew briefly what I conceive is really amiss on your part , and I shall as willingly consider what may fairly be objected concerning us against that confideration . First then , when I look upon your reformation from Papall errors , I cannot but heartily congratulate the piety and zeal of your Martyrs , &c. Specially in their being instrumental to bring that sacred institute of the Lords Table from under manifold corruptions wherewith it had been incumbred in the darkness of Popery : But yet withall I must needs condole their shortness in not looking with like diligence to the Pristine Institution of sacred Baptism , by which oversight we which survive them , are the more exposed to our present distractions , and I think I may say in this , as David in another case , because they did it not at the first therefore the Lord made a breach upon us . Secondly , when I consider the articles of the Church of England , I think it very strange that we who agree so firmly in them all save three or four , and differ but in some points touching them neither , should not consider of some expedient to remove what obstructs our intire agreement . May it therefore please your Bishops , with their Brethren , to admit of a friendly conference with our Bishops and Pastors , to try if by any means away may be found to bring us to brotherly concord , for whatsoever hath happened in the heat of disputation , or fallen from the Pens of passionate Writers on eitherside , yet be pleased to know , we are no haters of the pious Protestant , but sincere lovers of them and the truths by them maintain'd , as indeed we ought to be of all who love Christ , though differing from us in many things . And though it is true we hold a separation from you in our Congregations , yet we do this of necessity , because none among your Leaders will treat with us about the removal of those things which do offend . I confess , to reform what is amiss on your part touching sacred Baptism is a difficult undertaking , yet not more difficult then it was to reform what was amiss in the other Sacrament , whether we consider their errors , who for some hundreds of years , gave it to Infants , or theirs who by their transubstantiation changed the very nature of the Sacrament ▪ But if no endeavouts of this kind must be admitted , then am I out of hopes ever to see Christian concord among us , for those coercive ways ( which some incline to ) will but aggravate the breach ( which is too great already ) & render your cause the more suspitious , and consequently more confirm us in our perswasion against your way . Now the Lord himself direct us all to the way of truth and peace in all things ; So prays ; yours to love and serve you in Christ as far as permitted . T. G. THE Epistle to the Reader , Shewing the occasion of this Disputation . Courteous Reader . DIsputation is not more hurtful when needless , then profitable when necessity calls for it . And hereupon our Lord Christ himself was frequent in disputes about his Doctrine . This way went the Apostles to try the matter in Question about Circumcision , Acts 15. And Paul defended Christianity by disputing dayly in the School of one Tyrannus Acts 19. The occasion of the dispute at Blyton ▪ September 18. 1673. was on this wise . A small remnant of baptized Christians meeting in that Town , it pleased Mr. Fort Minister of the Perochial Congregation there , to come to their Meetings , and to hinder their proceedings , so that they could not edifie one another , as their manner was . And this he did many times , and told them he was resolved they should not meet in that Town . And when the Baptists endeavoured to maintain their principles , he slighted them , saying they were foolish Men not fit to discourse of religion because they understood not the rules of Logick , &c. But he bad them find him a Man that had Brains , and understood the Languages , and knew Logick and he would dispute with him . They told him they had few that understood these things . But he not ceasing to disturb them they consented to his motion , and a day was appointed , and because the Baptists had not a convenient place , Mr. Fort provided a large room , and sent for them to come thither , where himself with two other Ministers and divers of the Neighbourhood were met togeth●r . For the account of the dispute it self , take this information that much of it is here reported according to what Memory could serve in upon recogitation , but yet be assured of this that for substance it is not altered by this account , the arguments varying very little , or not at all from the very terms wherein they were expressed in the Dispute , and Mr. Fort 's answers , rendred rather more advantagious , then in their first delivery . If it seem strange that a Person of such Learning and Gravity , should answer and argue with no more advantage to his cause , the Reader may take notice that God hath said , He will confound the Wisdom of the Wise , and bring to nought the understanding of the Prudent And when he doth this , then where is the Scribe , where is the Disputer of this World. Now whereas in this Dispute I have used th● method which the Learned do more affect , then other ways of Disputing , I desire the Reader to take notice , that I do not in any thing that I have said pretend at all to the Parts of a Scholar , being a Person of no education that way , howbeit , having obtained mercy of the Lord , to know somewhat of his blessed Will , according to his word , I am therefore willing to appear in the defence of his Truth when called thereunto . Finally , my hearts desire and prayer to God , is , that though our present differences in Religion , be matter of infelicity , yet sith we all agree , that Christianity is the only true Religion in the world , that we therefore may ●ndeavour to maintain the great engag●ment of Charity , and M●deration , and then we may expect that the God of Truth and Peace , will pitty us under our mistakes , and also lead us into the enjoyment of that gracious promise , Jer. 32. 39. Even to give us one Heart , and one Way . So be it . Tho. Grantham . A Religious Contest , OR , An account of the Dispute held at Blyton the eighteen of September , 1673. The People being come together , Mr. Fort applying himself to Thomas Grantham began after this manner . SIR , I suppose that you are come hither to defend some unlawful Meetings in this place which I have laboured to suppress , now that which I have to charge them with is this : That their Meetings are unlawful . 2. That their way of Anabaptism is sinful , And 3. I will prove that our way of baptizing Infants is lawful . Tho. Grantham . Sir , I came not hither to defend any Mans sayings or doings , but to vindicate the truth of the Gospel ( as much as in me is ) so far as I am concerned , and for Anabaptism I am against it as much as you , nor do I think it needful to dispute about the baptizing of Infants till some body be found to baptise them , for I think that there is no Man in England that baptiseth any Infants . Mr. Fort. Why this is a strange thing ! can any thing be more plain , then that which is de facto , and here the three Priests fell a laughing . T. Grantham . Gentlemen , you have no cause to laugh as yet , for I say ( and shall shew in due place ) that neither you nor any in the world that I can hear of does baptise any Infants . Mr. Fort. I tell you friend we do baptise them and will you deny a thing that is de facto , and here they fell a laughing again . T. Grantham . Gentlemen , this doth not become the gravity of your Persons , did you come hither to make sport ? But because you make this so strange , give me leave to put you in mind of the Apostles saying , 1 Cor. 11. This is not to eat the Lords Supper , and yet the Corinthians did celebrate the Lords Supper as they supposed in the Bread and Wine which they set apart , but going from the Institution of Christ , the Apostle denies it to be the Lords Supper . I therefore say you do not baptise at all , because you have lost the Institution of Christ . Mr. Fort. Well , well , but first let me hear what you have to say for these unlawful Meetings which I have endeavoured to suppress . T. Grantham . I am not so much a stranger to the Meetings you speak of , but I think they may be defended , but yet I suppose it the best way to try our principles , for if they be good , our Meetings to promote good principles need not offend you , and truly till this day , I did not understand that our Meetings should be the subject of our Dispute . Mr. Fort. I perceive those that have informed you have done you some injury , for I did say , that your Meetings were unlawful and therefore I opposed them , and seeing you have not premidated this , I will not surprize you , but will consent to dispute their principles . T. Grantham . Sir I thank you for that , and I desire that the Questions may be fairly stated to contain the points in difference about the Doctrine of Baptism . Mr. Fort. Well , I agree to that , and pray do you state the Questions if you please . T. Grantham . The Questions then may be these , ( viz. ) Qu. 1. Whether your way of baptising , be the right way of baptising ? Qu. 2. Whether Infants ought to be baptised ? Mr. Fort. Well , let these be the Questions , I say our way of baptisi●g i● right , and that Infants ought to be baptised , and do you prove the contrary if you can . T. Grantham . Although you ought to prove what you affirm , yet I will accept your offer , and shall shew , that your pretended way of baptising is not the right way of baptising , and that Infants ought not to be baptised , and first I argue thus . Arg. 1. Holy Scripture doth shew what is the right way of baptising , holy Scripture doth not shew sprinkling or crossing is the right way of baptising , ergo your way of baptising is not the right way of baptising , Mr. Fort We do not say that sprinkling or crossing is baptising , neither did I ever sprinkle any in all my life , T. G. Then you contradict your brethren , whose constant practice is known to be sprinkling and crossing the Fore-head , yea you contradict your own Common Prayer-book , for there your direction is to sprinkle and cross the Infant . Mr. Fort. I confess our old Common Prayer-book did use the word sprinkle , but we have now altered it , and it is only baptise in the new Common Prayer-book . T. Grantham , I confess reformation is no error , it seems then by your own grant your first Book was faulty , and for your practise it is still the same , and I pray , as you are a Schollar tell us plainly , doth the word baptise signifie to sprinkle ? M. Fort. No , I do not say it doth the word that signifies sprinkling is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. G. In that you say well , and now pray answer to my Argument , for it proves sprinkling is not the way of baptising . Mr. Fort. I have told you we do not say that sprinkling is baptising , neither do we make the Cross any part of Baptism . Tho. Grantham . You do certainly make the Cross an appurtenance in your Baptism , for you will excommunicate such as refuse to use it in Baptism , and for sprinkling I appeal to this Assembly , who can witness it 's the common practice of your Ministry to sprinkle the Fore-head , and it is remarkable that you cannot stand by your practice now it is opposed . I desire you to answer the Argument . Mr. Fort. I have answered it for I do not sprinkle , but I always pour water upon those whom I baptise , and for my own part I was dipped , and so according to your own Judgement rightly baptised . T. Grantham . If you were dipped then you had more done to you then your Brethren in that case , and so you are divided in your practice nor is your pouring water on the Fore-head baptising and therefore answer the Argument . Mr. Fort. Here Mr. Fort and the other Ministers spake together disowning sprinkling , and saying they did not make the Cross necessary in Baptism , for ( say they ) in private Baptism it is not used . T. Grantham . You know that the Papists allow of Midwife to pour water out of a Glass upon the Infant , which they account a valid Baptism yet at other times they make their ceremonies necessary , and so do you the Cross , performing in the name of the Father , Son and holy Spirit . Mr. Fort. That is not so , we do not perform it in the name of the Father , Son , and holy Spirit , therefore you wrong us . T. Grantham . This is strange , for either you do it in the name of the Lord , or in your own name , if you do it in your own name pray tell us so , but you answer not the Argument , therefore I proceed . Arg. 2. That which renders the practise of Christ and his Apostles supers●●ous , ●r ridiculous , is not the right way of Baptising . But your pretended way of Baptising renders the practice of Christ and his Disciples superfluous , or ridiculous , Ergo. Your way of Baptising is not the right way of Baptising . Mr. Fort. The minor is denyed our way of Baptising doth not render the practice of Christ or his Disciples superfluous or ridiculous . T. Grantham . The minor I evince by this demonstration , he that considers how Christ and his Disciples were baptised , and did baptise in Rivers or Places of much water and you on the other side take a little water on your finger ends , or in your hand only , must needs conclude that either they did too much , or you do too little ; Now thus it is written , Mat. 3 Jesus when he was baptized came up streight way out of the Water , Mark 1. They were all baptized in the River of Jordan , confessing their sins . John baptised in Enon because there was much water there . Phillip and the Eunuch went both down into the water . Now if your putting a few drops of water on the Fore-head only , be sufficient then the other must needs be superfluous , yea ridiculous . Mr. Fort. This does not prove the minor , for we do not deny dipping , and I pray what do you mean when you say our way renders Christs to be ridiculous . T. Grantham . I mean a thing to be laughed at , and put the case you had occasion to wash your hands only , would it not be ridiculous to see you go into the River to do it ? even does thus your pretended way of baptising , render the way of Christ ridiculous and reflects dishonour on him and his followers , as if they were not so wise as you , to know the best way to be baptized , but we are resolved to follow Christ though we differ from you . Mr. Fort. Yes , the word ridiculous doth signifie so much , but yet I deny that our practise doth reflect upon Christs , for though in these hot Countreys they did dip in Rivers , yet it was not necessary in these colder Countreys to do so , for Christ hath not commanded that . T. Grantham . Then you confess it was the practice of the first christians to dip in Rivers , and I ask you whether they did this by a command or not ? Mr. Fort. Yes , I grant they did it by a command . T. Grantham . Then you have granted sufficient to overthrow your practice , and to confirm ours , unless you can also shew a command for sprinkling . Mr. Fort. I have told you I do not sprinkle . T. Grantham . The contrary is the known practice of your Ministry , and yours is little differing , I proceed to another Argument . Arg. 3. That which brings unavoidable confusion into the Church is not the right way of baptising : But your way of baptising doth bring unavoidable confusion into the Church . Ergo , your way of baptising is not the right way of baptising Mr. Fort. Our practice in baptising as we do , doth not bring confusion into the Church . T. Grantham . I shew the contrary thus , your way of baptising admits of as many several ways , as there are parts in a mans body ; for whether the Fore-head , the Breast , Back , Hand or Foot , or some other part ought to be only sprinkled , or whether any of these may not serve , you can shew no reason , so that you thus bring confusion into the Church : Mr Fort. The Head being the most honourable part of mans body , we therefore chuse the head and think that the best . T. Grantham This is only your imagination , and if I think otherwise , and so chuse the breast , you cannot shew this to be a greater errour then your own , but I proceed . Arg. 4. That which renders all Men uncertain whether they do the will of God or not , is not the right way of baptising , But your way of baptising doth render all Men uncertain whether they do the will of God or not , Ergo , your way of baptising is not the right way of baptising . Mr. Fort I deny that our way renders men uncertain , whether they do the will of God or not . T. G. God hath not assigned any one part of the body to be baptised , and not another , therefore no man that follows your way can tell whether he do the will of God or not , in following your way : Arg. 5. That way which doth not signifie that which ought to be represented in baptism is not the right way of baptising . But your pretended way doth not signifie that which ought to be represented in baptism . Ergo. Your way of Baptising is not the right way of Baptising . Mr Fort. Our way of baptising doth signifie the cleansing of the conscience from Sin which is the thing that ought to be signified in baptism : T. G. No action of mans devising may be said to signifie the cleansing our conscience● from Sin , but my argument refers to the whole signification of baptism , and particularly the burial of Christ and others with him , Rom. 6 we are buried with him in baptism , and the Scripture cannot be broken , therefore baptism must so be performed as to signifie these things : Arg. 6. That which agrees not with the native signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the right way of Baptising . But your way agrees not with the native signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : Ergo , your way is not the right way of baptising . Mr. Fort The minor is denied , our practice agrees with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : T. G. I desire you to shew the place which mentions such a washing as you practice , where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken to express the sacred act of baptism : Mr. Fort. It is said the Pharises did wash their cups and beds ; here the word Baptizo is used , yet they did not dip them . T. Grantham . I call'd for a Text wher the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to express the sacred Act of baptism , and that signifies your manner of washing , and instead of this , you bring me a place which speaks of the Pha. rises washing cups and beds , and yet even this place is against you , for they that wash defiled cups and beds do more then sprinkle them , or poure a little water upon them , as you do on the Infants Fore-head ; and here give me leave to urge some Authorities for the sigsiification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a dipping of the thing denominated baptized , and first I urge the Greek Grammer , where the radix is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendred , mergo , immergo , to dip or plunge . Mr. Fort. I will not regard the Greek Grammar . T. Grantham . This is strange ! will you take upon you to correct the Greek Grammar . Mr. Fort. Yes that I will , I will not believe the Greek Grammar . T. Grantham . I suppose you would correct our Bibles too if you could , but till this be done give us leave to believe the Grammar which we have for I do not expect a better from you ; my next Authority is that of Channer , who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 estingo quod fit immergendo portinctionem , & inundationem . Mr. Fort. I have not seen that Author . T. Grantham . Then I give you another : An brose saith , ergofratres tingi debens 〈◊〉 fonte quo Christus . Therefore brethren we must be dipped in the same Fountain with Christ , that we may be one with Christ , and to this agree the decrees of some Councells . Mr. Fort. Pray Assign those counsells that decreed such a thing if you can . T. Grantham . The forth Toleton counsell ( which is ratified in the Decretalls ) saith proter vitandum schismatis scandulum , & ● . Wherefore to avoid the scandal of schism ▪ let us in baptism dip but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith the counsell of worms ▪ In aquas demersio in infernum est , & rursus ab aquis emersio resurrectio est . Mr. Fort. Well I have told you I was dipped yet I had but my head only dipped , and for my part I do not use sprinkling at all . T. Grantham . Sir , I have shewed how therein you contradict your Brethren and the Church of England , and it 's observable that you cannot stand by your way of baptising , and hereby you give this Assembly just cause to suspect their baptism , but I proceed . Arg. 7. That practice which was innovated long after the institution of baptism is not the right way of baptising . But your way was innovated long after the institution of baptism . Ergo , your way is not the right way of baptising . Mr. Fort. I deny that our way was innovated long after the institution of baptism . T. Grantham . I can prove it was innovated long after the institution of baptism by your own Doctors . For example , Hugo Grotius who confesses so much in his judgement on sundry points controverted , Also the Learned Marquess of Worcester in his conference with His Late Majesty confesses that their Church ( to wit the Papists ) changed baptism from dipping over head and ears to a little sprinkling upon the Forehead , and Wallridus strabo de rebus ecclesiae , that the first Christians were baptized simply in floods and fountains , yea I can prove by our own chronicles that there were about ten thousand baptised in one day in the River Swale in York-shire , from all which it appears your way of sprinkling is an innovation . Mr. W Mr. Wright one of the Ministers that sat by was very angry and stood up , saying ; you speak all , it is not fit you should speak so much . T. Grantham To whom T. G. replyed Sir you ought not to be angry ; I do not interrupt Mr. Fort , and he hath time to speak what he hath to say : therefore blame not me sith I hear as well as speak . Mr. Fort. Pray Mr Wright be not angry ; I promised it should be a peaceable dispute . T. Grantham . Because I would give place that Mr. Fort ●ight have time to prove his practice , I would now proceed to the second Question , ( viz ) Qu. 2. Whether Infants ought to be baptized , I am to prove they ought not , which I thus do , Arg. 1. Holy Scripture doth shew who are to be baptized , Holy Scripture d●th not shew that Infants ought to be baptised . Ergo , Infants ought not to be baptised . Mr. Fort. Holy Scripture doth shew that Infants ought to be baptised . Thomas Grantham . If Holy Scripture doth shew that Infants ought to be baptised , then some body can shew where it may be found , but no body can shew us where such a Scripture may be found . Ergo Holy Scripture doth not shew that Infants ought to be baptised . Mr. Fort. I can shew where it may be found , and I will prove that Infants ought to be baptised , from Mat. 28 19. T. Grantham Sir , you mistake your place , for you are not now to prove , but to answer me , nor doth the text you mention speak of Infant baptism at all . Mr. Fort. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples in all Nations baptising them , but Infants are part of the Nations that are to be baptised . T. Grantham . You do violate the Law of disputing , for being my respondent you ought not to argue . Now for the Text it is read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. Now for the explication of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I refer you to John the 4 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here Disciples are made such by actual teaching : Ergo , Infants cannot be made Disciples according to Mat. 28. 19. Mr. Fort. I deny , that it is necessary to understand an actual teaching by the w●rd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. G. The very reading of the Text gives it against you , for it saith go teach all Nations , ●twas an act to be done by the Apostles . Mr. Fort. I tell you Infants of believers are disciples and need no act to make them so . T. G. That cannot be , they must be made disciples either by God or Man before they can be disciples , however they cannot be disciples according to Mat. 28. Because that is interpreted by your self to make disciples , ( viz ) by the Apostles . Mr. Fort. But there is no necessity to understand an actual teaching of all that are to be made disciples . T. Grantham . It can have no other signification , as I shall shew by your own Criticks , who tell us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est disco , to learn or get knowledge and in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didict and is rendred dicens ab alio , which agrees with the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Arab. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this fully accords with Mark 16. 16. go preach the Gospel to every creature and hence I argue . If those that are to be baptised according to Mat. 28. 19. must first be made by actual teaching or learning from another , then no infant ought to be baptised according to this Text but the first is true : Ergo , so is the latter . Mr. Fort. I will prove that infants ought to be baptised as being disciples from Acts 15. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples ? this is spoken of infants , and therefore they are disciples . T. G. Sir , I marvel you should no better observe the Law of disputing which I must hold you to , and the rather because you were pleas●d to glory so much over your poor Neighbours because of your skill in Logick , and now I will shew your mistake of this Text by the prosecution of my next Argument which is this . Arg 2 None ought to be baptised but such as are Christs Disciples , according to the gospel use of that expression . Infants are not Christs Disciples according to the gospel use of that ●●pression . Ergo infants ought not to be baptized . Mr. Fort. I deny the minor , Infants are Christs Disciples according to the Gospel use of that expression . T. Grantham . None are Christs Disciples according to the gospel use of that expression , but such as take up their cross daily and follow Christ , but Infants do not so . Ergo , to this agree the words of Christ , Luk. 12. Mr. Fort. This place speaks of persons of years , and not of Infants . T. Grantham . I grant it , and so doth every Text that speaks of Christs Disciples according to the gospel use of that expression . Mr. Fort. Not so , for I will shew a place where Infants are called Disciples , Acts 15. Here such as were to be circumcised after the manner of Moses are called Disciples and you know Infants were circumcised after the maaner of Moses . T. Grantham . That Infants were circumcised after the manner of Moses is true , and that the false Apostles would have put the yoke upon all the Disciples is true , but that every one upon whom they would have put that yoke were Disciples is not true ; I will expound this text by another , Acts 4. 32. here we are informed that the multitude of them that believed had all things common ▪ yet it doth not follow that all that had part in these common things were believers , for Infants had part in common things , and yet were no believers , for it 's said the multitude of them that believed were of one heart , and one Soul. Mr. Fort. That text doth not expound the other . T. Grantham . Let them be diligently compared , and you will find that a man may as well prove Infants believers from the one , as you can prove them Disciples from the other , but I proceed . Arg. 3. None ought to be baptized but those whose duty it is to be born again of water and of the spirit . It is not the duty of Infants to be born again of water and the spirit . Ergo , Infants ought not to be baptised . Mr. Fort. I except against the term duty in your Argument . T. Grantham . Why so ? Mr. Fort. There are four terms in your Argument ; T. Grantham . This is but an evasion , and no answer , you cannot shew four terms in it . Mr. Fort. I say Infants ought to be born again of water and of the spirit . T. Grantham . Here you grant that they ought to be born again of water , and of the spirit , and yet deny it to be their duty , this is no good distinction to make the new birth no part of mans duty , but I will prove that whosoever is born again must therein perform duty , i Joh. 5. whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world , and this is the victory even our faith : certainly to believe and overcome the world is something of duty . Mr. Fort , This place speaks not of Infants , but of persons which are Adult , T. Grantham I grant it , but withall I say this Text speaketh of whatsoever is born of God , and saith Christ , every one that is born of the spirit is like the wind that bloweth so as the sound thereof is heard now can you imagine your Infants are born again of the spirit , seeing they give not any demonstration of it ? Mr. Fort. You still insist upon places which speak of adult persons . T. Grantham . I have told you that all the Scriptures which speak of the new birth of water and of the spirit , speaks of adult persons , or if any speak of Infants pray shew us where they are . Arg ▪ 4. No sinners ought to be baptized , but those of whom faith and repentance is first required , Faith and rep●ntance are not required of Infants . E●go , Infants are not such sinners as ought to be baptized . Mr. Fort. This Argument is like the rest , you still insist upon those things wh●●h are the duty of adult persons . T. Grantham Your conscience tells you that I insist upon those things which are the duty of all that are to be baptised ; yea your vulgar Catechism teacheth us that faith and repentance are required of all that are to be baptised , but seeing you answer not , but evade only , I shall proceed . Arg. 5. All that ought to be buried with Christ in Baptism , ought first to be dead with him from the rudiments of the world . Infants ought not to be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world . Ergo , Infants ought not to be Baptised . Mr. Fort. I deny the consequence . T. Grantham . No Sir , you cannot deny the consequence in a Categoricall syllogism , so that you must either distinguish , or deny one of the propositions . Mr. Fort. Well then , I deny your major . T. G. I need but only shew the absurdity of this your denyal , for you say in effect that so●e are to be buried before they be dead , now that all Christians in Rome and Coloss were dead with Christ , before they were buried with him in baptism , is evident , Rom. 6 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , Colos . 2. 10 , 11 , 12. and is as true of all other Churches , by which it is plain that no Infants were then , nor ought now to be baptised . Arg. 6. Such only ought to be baptised as Christ and his Apostles did baptise , or appointed to be baptised , but neither Christ nor his Apostles baptised any Infants , n●r appointed them to be baptised , Ergo. M. Fort. Christ did appoint Infants to be baptised , and said suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not , Mat. 18. T. Grantham , All that can fairly be inferred of this passage is this , that if any desire the Prayers of the Ministers of Christ for their Children &c. they may lawfully pray for such blessings as they have need of ; but if any presume to baptise them , they do more to them then Christ did , or any other by his appointment . Mr. Fort. The Jaylor and all his were baptised , and how can you think there were no Infants in his house . T. Grantham . The very reading of this Text doth shew , that there were no Infants baptised , for first the word was Preached to him and to all that were in his house , secondly he rejoyced believing in God with all his house : I desire no better evidence against your Infant baptism then the place you bring for it . Arg. 7. All that are to be Baptised ought therein to worship God in spirit and truth , as also in other general duties of the n●w Testament . But Infants ought not to worship God in spirit and in truth in Baptism , nor any other general duty of the new Testainent . Ergo , Infants ought not to be Baptised . Mr. Fort. What do you mean by the general duties of the new Testa ent ? T , G. I mean Prayer , hearing the Word , and Communion at the Lords Table according to Acts. 2. 41. 42. Mr. Fort This is spoken of grown Persons , and not of Infants . T. Grantham . This is spoken of all that were baptised in the first Church , whose pattern we ought to sollow rather then the innovations of Men. Mr. Fort. Your way is an innovation not much above two hundred years old . Tho. Grantham . Not so , for our way of baptising began in the days of John the Baptist , and for our opposing Infant baptism 't is very antient , for as soon as we hear it mentioned we find it opposed by Tertullian who lived in the third Century : Mr. Fort. Tertullian is conceived to oppose only the Baptising of the children of unbelievers : T. G. That is a great mistake , his words are indefinite , for he saith , veniant ergo dum adolescunt , veniant dum discunt , dum quo veniant decentur , fiant Christiam cum Christum nosse potuerint . Mr. W Mr. Wright who was one of the other Priests , stood up and said , let the business be put to that issue , for you only have Tertullian for the Antients , and he was a Mantanists . T. Grantham . If he must be lightly looked at because he was in some errour , as that of Montanus , then you must lay aside most of the antient Fathers who also had their errours , but you are mistaken Tertullian was not the only person among the Antients that opposed Infant baptism , for Greg. Nazianzene did likewise disswade from it . Mr. Wright . We have Irenaeus before Tertullian who speaks for Infant baptism for he saith Infantes pueris senis . T. Grantham , You act his words amiss , for it is not senis but seniores . Mr. Wright . It is senis , it is senis . T. Grantham , You mistake it is s●niores , and beside Irenaeus speaks not of baptism , only he useth the words , renascunter in d●um . Mr. Fort The Antients understood by them words to be baptized . T. G. It is inconvenient so to interpret Ir●●eus in this place ; for then it would follow that unless Infants be baptised they cannot be saved , which is absurd , but I desire you to answer to the Argument Mr. Fort seemed not disposed to give any surther answer : then T. Grantham said I have propounded and prosecuted 7 Arguments against your pretended way of baptising ▪ and 7 against your Infant subject , of what weight they are , and how you have answered them , we are no proper Judges ▪ but must leave that to the Auditors ; now because I would not take up the whole time , I desire you to be Opponent , and I will answer you : I conclude with the words of Aug●stine , Nec ego te , nec tu me , sed ambo audiamus Christi in Scrip●●res . Mr. Fort Opponent . I am now to prove our way of baptising to be the right way of baptising , and that Infants ought to be baptised . Arg. 1. If our way of baptising doth signifie that which ought to be signified in baptism then it is the right way of baptising . But our way of baptising doth signifie that which ought to be signified in baptism . Ergo , it is the right way of baprising . T. Grantham . If you mean that your way of baptising doth signifie all that ought to be signified in baptism , then I deny the minor , and we have before shewed how short it comes of the true and full signification of baptism . Mr. Fort. Our way of baptising signifies the washing away of sins , and it agrees with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to wash , therefore it is sufficient . T. Grantham . The contrary to this hath been shewed and I now deny that every kind of washing agrees with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when used to express the sacred act of baptising , and I desire you to shew one text where that word is taken for a washing the Fore-head only when the sacred act of baptising is expressed by it ▪ Mr Fort. The Jaylor was baptised at midnight ; and do you think he had a River in his house ? T. Grantham You are much mistaken the Jaylor went out to be baptised : Mr. Fort. You cannot make that appear . T. Grantham . Yes the reading of the text is plain to that purpose , for it is said he was baptised , he , and all his straightway , and then it follows , and when he had brought them into his house , he set meat before them . Mr. Fort. That may be meant of carrying them out of one room into another T. Grantham . This is contrary to common sence ; you cannot speak your conscience in this . Mr. Fort. I have shewed our way of baptizing is sufficient , I will now prove that Infants ought to be baptised . Arg , 2 ▪ If Infants are within the Covenant of grace then they ought to be sealed with the seal of the Covenant , and by consequence to be baptised . But Infants are within the Covenant of grace and ough to be sealed , &c , Ergo , they ought to be baptized . T. Grantham . Before I answer your argument give me leave to ask you a Question ▪ How many Seals belong to the Covenant of grace , and what be they ? Mr. Fort. There are two Seals of the Covenant , to wit , Baptism , and the Lords Supper : T , G. Then I deny your minor proposition from your own practice , for you deny Infants one of these Seals , to wit , the Lords Supper , though you confess them to be within the Covenant , and we by as good reason deny the other Seal to belong to Infants : Mr. Fort. Yes , we have better reason for the one then you have for the other , for it is said ; let a man examine himself , and so let him eat . T. Grantham . 1. It is also said , Repent and be baptised every one of you , Acts 2. ●8 . if thou believest with all thine heart thou maist . 2. I might answer your instance out of your own mouth , by saying this is meant of persons of years , and not of infants , which as it is true so it shews the weakness of your answers to many of my Arguments . Mr. Fort. I say infants being in the Covenant they ought to be sealed with the Seal ▪ and I pray tell me plainly whether you hold them in the Coven●n● or no ? T. G. I say being in the covenant you mean the grace of Eternal Life by the death of Christ , then I say all infants are so in the covenant of say but if by covenant you mean the duties of the covenant , then I 〈◊〉 infants are not so under the covenant . Mr Fort. You cannot prove that all infants dying in infancy shall be saved . T. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it were my business , I could and would prove it , but I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you ▪ Mr. Fort. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove it if you can . T. Grantham . Then I prove it by the testimony of the Apostle , who saith as in Adam all dye , so in Christ shall all be made alive , and again as by the offence of once the Judgement came on all men to condemnation , so by the obedience of one the free gift abounded towards all men to justification of life . Mr. Fort. These places do not prove that all Infants dying in infancy shall be saved ; for he speaks here only of the resurrection of the Dead . T. G. These places do shew that what death and condemnation came on infants by Adam is made void by the death of Christ , and I desire you to answer me this Question , whether you believe that any infants dying in infancy shall be damned ; Mr. Fort. yes I do be●ieve some infants dying in infancy shall be damned , ( here the people gave a general sigh as disliking so harsh a saying . ) T. G. Then you are no friend to infants ; shall the Lord tell us , the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the father , and shall we no● believe him . Mr. Fort. The Lord doth say he will visit the iniquities of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation . T. G. yea Sir , but it is of them that hate him , but yet I grant in respect of temporal punishments the children do often bear the iniquities of their fathers , yea , all infants do bear the sin of their father Adam to this day , but our discourse is of eternal condemnation , in which respect I say infants shall not bear the iniquity of their father , seeing Christ saith of infants indefinitely , of such are the kingdom of God. Mr. Fort Well I have shewed that infants being in the Covenant ought therefore to be baptized , and it is said 1 Cor. 7. that infants are holy and so they are in Covenant with their believing parents . T. G : I have answered your argument by distinguishing betwixt the duty of the covenant , and the mercy of eternal life , in the first I say infants are not in the covenant , but in the other I say they are for they shall be saved by Christ . And for the holiness the 1 Cor. 7. it is expounded by Erasmus , and others of your own Doctors to be only a legi●timate holiness , and indeed being derived from the unbelievers being sanctified , it cannot fairly be understood of any other kind of cleanness then that which is Matrimonial . Mr. Wright Mr. W. interposed saying Diodate doth expound that place of a covenant holiness . T. G. I grant he doth so , yet Augustine far more antient then he saith , that whatsoever that Ho●iness is it is certain it is not of power to make Christians or remit sins . Mr. E. I marvel you ●…ould deny infants the seal seeing you grant them to be in the covenant . T. G. I do not deny them the seal any more then your self , who deny them the Lords Supper , which was allowed them in old time for 600 years together . Mr. F. What Author saies so ? I do not think you can shew that in any good author . T. G. I can shew it from your own Doctors in a learned treatise called a Scholastical discourse about symbolising vvith Anti-Christ in Ceremonies . Mr. Fort. Infants being in the Covenant are in the Church , and therefore cannot be denyed baptism , T. Grantham . I answer by the former distinction if by being in the Covenant and in the Church you mean the whole number of the saved : I grant infants to be in the Covenant and in the Church ; but if you mean those onlie who are in the actual profession of gospel Ordinances , as baptism and the like , I say no Scripture shews them to be so in the Covenant . Mr. Fort repeating what he said before , rose up to go away , then Tho. Grantham said . Gentlemen , though we differ in opinion , yet I desire we may endeavour to maintain the great duty of Charitie towards each other , till God shall rectifie our judgements in these things . Mr. W , Mr. Wright replied , saying it was not meet to place all our Religion in these ●hings , but to walk in love one towards another , or to this effect , and thus in a f●iendlie manner the meeting was dissolved & everie man went away in peace . The next day the baptised Christians met together to preach the Word : Mr. Fort and Mr. Wright came to the meeting and i● a very civil manner assaied to discourse with them about the Authoritie by which they Preach , supposing that they had no ordinarie calling to the ministry , but when it was shewed them that no man was allowed to minister in the baptised Churches in the capacity of a Pastor or other Officer , without due election and ordination by fasting and prayer , with the laying on of hands by the Presbiterie , Bishops , or overseers of the Church ; they then onlie opposed that libertie of Prophecie , which we allow , saying that gifted men in the church , as meer gifted christians might not praie , or expound the Word in publick assemblies , we on the contrarie alledgd that gifted christians as such might lawfullie speak in the church to exhortation , &c. in a modest and humble manner for the improvement of gi●ts and the profit of the church . Quoting to this purpose 1 Pe. 4 , 10 , 11 ▪ 1 Cor. 14. 31. Acts 18. 25 26. We spent about half an hour in friendlie discourse about the meaning of those Scriptures , but not agreeing in our expositions , Mr. Fort took his leave , and we proceeded in our work . FINIS . Brief ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Dr. STILLINGFLEET'S Digressions about the Baptising of Infants , In his Book intituled A Rational account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion . &c. Wherein The insufficiency of his grounds for Infant Baptism is discovered . By Thomas Grantham . Job . 14. 4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean one . Isa . 29. 16. Surely your turning things upside down shall be esteemed as the petters Clay . LONDON , Printed in the Year , 1674. To the Reader . IT is not any conceit of my fitness to contend with Learned Men in the controversies depending about sacred Baptism , which moves me to this present undertaking , but the experience I have of the mistake of some persons , who take the things brought by Dr. Stilling-fleet in favour of Infant Baptism , to be of greater weight then what hath been done by other Men in that question , as also I might by this Paper move some abler hand to reckon morefully and Methodically with his new devices , if upon consideration they find themselves concerned to do it . But chiefly my aim is , to move , if it may be , the learned Authour , to consider how much he injures the Cause he manages against the Papists , with so much Judgement and Learning , whilst he endeavours to support his Traditional Infant Sprinkling ( for Baptism it is not ) which being allowed , other innovations of Popery , or other Sects will certainly be supported together with it , as having the same grounds , and in some respect fairer pretences to obtrude upon the Church of God , from all which errours let her be delivered , by the protection of the Almighty , to whose grace I comit thee . Thine to serve thee in Christ . Tho. Grantham . Brief Animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's Digressions about the Baptising of Infants . SOlomon the wise , hath told us , there are many devices in Mans heart . The truth whereof is verified in the multitude of devices old and new which Men have found out to darken the Counsell of God , teaching the sacred institution of the Baptism of Repentance for the remision of sins . Nevertheless the Counsell of God that shall stand , and therefore neither shall the devices of Dr. Stillingfleet prevail , nor be found ●o much as a rational account of the grounds of Infant Baptism , albeit divers Persons are perswaded that he hath out-done others , that have undertaken to defend that innovation . 1. First , Therefore we shall consider the two Texts , John 3. 5. Act. 2. 38 , 39. which he says , according to the interpretation of the Fathers and the antient Church and the Papists themselves do evidently assert Infant Baptism ▪ It were answer sufficient to tell h●m , that what ever was the interpretation of the Fathers , &c. yet , according to the interpretation of the Protestants , the grounds of whose Religion he presents to give an account off , these Texts , doth not hold forth such a necessity of Infant Baptism , as by some of the Antients was imagined , seeing the Protestants do not say , as the Papists and some before them , no Baptism no salvation ; but they more truly teach , that this place is to be understood ( even as some of the Fathers also expounded it ) of such as refuse or contemn Baptism , and yet saying withall to your confutation , that it is not necessary by water , John , 3. 5. To understand the external rite of Baptism . See Fulk . Ans . to the Rhemists Annot. John 3. so Dr. Willit Synops . Papis . However , it is evident to them that will not shut their eyes that in John 3. 5. Christ is shewing the way of Life , and the duties of regeneration to such as came to him for instruction , and spea●● nothing there , of the case of Infants , who ( as one well observes ) cannot overcome the World , by reason of their natural incapacity to know either good or evil , and therefore are not obliged to the duties of the new birth , to wit , repentance , faith and Baptism , for whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world , and this is the victory that overcometh the world even our faith . And hence it is evident that John 3. 5. cannot be understood of Infants , who are wholly uncapable of the duties of regeneration . And as eviden● it is , that Acts ● 38. 39. intends not Infants seeing the persons there to be baptised , even every one of them , are required first to repent ; a duty of which Infants are wholly uncapable ; and the promise there mentioned is clearly meant of the gi●ts of the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of promise in a special manner , according to the Prophesie of Jo●l , the extent of which promise is only to the called of the Lord , v●rse 39 ▪ and this interpretation also is avouched by learned Protestants , See Diodate on the Text , and Erasmus on the same ; Dr Jer. Taylor in his book of confirmation doth fully expound this place , of the promise of the Spirit both to the Parents , and to the Children , as they are the called of the Lord , and not to infants in that capacity . Lib. Proph●cy . So then the pretended evidence of Infant Baptism from this place is taken away , because this tr●th is hence very evident , that calling by the word of the Gospel regeneration ●y Faith and repentance are the true antecedents to the Baptism of every sinner . 2. Secondly , Dr St●lling-fleet states the Q●estion between the Baptists and the Paed●-Baptists after this manner . Wh●ther our bless●d Savio●r hath by a positive precept so determined the subject of baptism , viz. Adult persons professing the faith , that the a●teration of the subject , in baptising Infants be not a deviation from , a●d a p●rversion off the institution of Christ in a substantial part of it ? 〈…〉 short , whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of bapt●sm as to exclude infants . This done he tells us that taking in only the help of Scripture and reason , it were no difficult matter to ●rove directly that infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the institution of Christ , that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature , to prove that the baptising 〈◊〉 is ●uita●le to the institution of ●hrist , and agreeable to the 〈◊〉 of the Church under the Gospel . So then , Scripture and rea●on ●nly must now deside the controversie , Let us hear therefore 〈…〉 St●ll●ng fleet brings from thence , and th●s he speaks . If there were any ground to exclude them it must be either the incapacity of the subject or some express precept and institution of our Saviour , but neither of them can be supposed to do it . But I answer , for both these cau●es Infants are not to be bapti●ed , and sith their incapacity depends upon the nature of the institution these two reasons are resolved into one ; Now the institution of baptism , whether we consider it as delivered by God to his Servant John , and by him to us ; or as it is established by precept from Christ , for a perpetual Ministry in his Church to the end of the world ▪ we shall find it delivered by both in such sort , as it is exclusive of infants ; for , in the first place it is deli●ered as the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins ; Mark 1. 4. and every sinner who is said to be baptised by him , is said to be baptised confessing their sins , verse 5. which we know is not to be expected of Infants . The precept of our Saviour for the perpetuity of Baptism so expresly requires the making every subject a Disciple in order thereunto , and that by actual teaching , or preaching the Gospel to them , Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16 15 ▪ according to Christs own example , who so made Disciples before they were baptised , that no Infant with any shew of Scripture or reason can possibly be brought within the reach of baptism according to it's institution ; In a word Dr. St●ll●ng-fl●et seems , in so many words , to grant in his first state of the Question that to bring Infants to Baptism , is an alteration of the subject , and therefore not agreeable to the institution of Christ , in which to admit of alterations is very dangerous . But saith Dr. S. The rule and measure as to the capacity of divine Institutions must be fetched from the end of them , for this was the ground ef the Circumcision of Proselites under the Law. Answer , That the ground of the circumcision of Proselites was fetched from the end of the institution , is not true . And indeed had it been left to that , Mens various conceits about the ends of such institutions might have made as ill work , as we see yours do now ▪ wherefore the wisdom of God to prevent those dangers , gave express order in that case as appears , Gen 17. 13. compared with Exod. 12. 44. 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee , and will keep the Passeover , let all his Males be circumcised , and verse 49 , One Law shall be to him that is home born , and unto the strager that sojourneth among you . Thus we see the Law is as express for the circumcising Proselites and their males , as for Israel themselves Diodate also expounds the first place by the second ( The servant that is born ) meaning ( saith he ) the Proselite who of his own free will shall add himself to the Church by the profession of Gods true worship . But now , if we admit Dr. S. his rule , that the measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions , must be fetched from the ends thereof , yet will he be so farr from gaining , that he will quite lose his cause . For , if by the ends of Baptism he means the things signified in Baptism ( as that he does , for he said they who are capable of the thing signified ought not to be denyed the sign ) then we shall certainly gain one thing out of two and either of them will serve our turn to shew his mistake , viz. either Infants are not capable of Baptism , becau●e not capable of all things signified thereby , or else that the Protestants do violate their own rule in denying Infants some other holy signs , as general as Baptism , when yet they are capable of some of the things signified thereby , and this shall evidently appear ●y running the parralell between us , as to the grounds upon which you deny Infants the priviledge of the Lords Table , and we deny them Baptism . And first . 1 The things signified by the Lords Table ( as the ends of that Institution ) is Christ Crucified for us , and to c●me again to receive us to him●elf , of these mercies Infants are capable , because they shall be saved by the death and comming of the Lord Jesus , thus they have the thing signified ▪ yet you deny them the sign because they understand not the thing represented by the sign . Answerable to this we say , by Baptism is signified the death and resurection of Christ and our salvation thereby , of this mercy signified in Baptism Infants are capable but yet the sign is not given to them because they understand not the thing signified thereby . 2. The ends , or things signified by the Lords Table , on our part are , the profession of our fa●th , the manifestation of our union with the Church , &c. of these ends Infants are not capable , therefore then do not admit them to the Lords Ta●le . Answerable to this we say , the things signified in baptism on our ●●rt , are the profession of o●r faith , and manifestation of our union 〈◊〉 the Saints , &c. of these ends ●nfants are not capable , therefore 〈…〉 them not to baptism . 3. Our coming to the Lords Table holds forth abstainence f●om the Levened bread of malice and wickedness , and our feeding upon the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth ; of these ends ( as they are duties ) Infants are not capable , therefore you admit them not to the Lords Table . Answerable to this we say , baptism holds forth our death to sin , and the newness of life from our baptism to the end , of these ends of baptism Infants are not capable , and therefore we admit them not to baptism , for the rule and measure as to the capacity of divine Institutions is to be fetched from the ends of them . The same might be said concerning the imposition of hands with prayer for the Spirit of Promise , seeing it was practised by the Apostles upon the newly baptised indifferently yet you admit no Infants to this Divine Institution , though you suppose them to be baptised , although according to Protestant Doctrine they are capable of the promise Act. 2. 38 , 39. And the benediction signified , and obtained thereby by which your inconsistancy with your own rule is further manifested and hence I infer ( according to your own words ) by a parity of reason built on equal grounds , you ought not to baptise Infants because the rule and measure , as to Divine Institutions , or the capacity of the subjects ther●of are to be fetched from the ends thereof . Not from some ends only ( and those too only which we please ) as Dr. S doth unadvisedly teach , for so there would be no Man , or but very few , but might be brought to Baptism , or other ordinances , seeing they are capable of several things signified therein , as the death of Christ for the sins of the world and his Resurection , by which all shall rise again ; and whether they believe it or no , yet he is the Lord that bought them , and a mediator between God and them , that his long-suffering might lead them to repentance Wherefore your instance of our Saviours being baptised without repentance avails you nothing , unless you were a le to prove a special case to be a general rule for the practise of ordinances , which yet you cannot but know is pernicious many ways , nor can you rationally believe that because Christ who was no sinner was baptized without repentance , that therefore you must baptise sinners without repentance also ; if otherwise , then why may not Persons be admitted to the Lords Table without self examination , seeing Christ did partake of it without self examination , having no need to do so ? certainly though Christ did this it shall never be demonstrated that the Members of his Church may do it without self examination , and yet thus went the matter in old time for hundreds of years together , so true is the maxim admit one absurdity and more will follow . But to make an end of this , its evident : Christ in being baptised did his duty to God , and had he not been baptised he had not fulfilled all righteousness ; Let it now be shewed that it●s the duty of infants to be baptised , or that they or any body else commits sin in refusing infant baptism , and then we shall stand upon no further capacity on their part nor oppose this instance as to the end for which it is brought but till this be done we justly reject such Argumentation . Neither is it true , that what we say of the incapacity of infants &c. reflects upon the wisdom of God in appointing circumcision for infants , for Gods command made them fit subjects for it , together with the nature of the covenant which he made with Abraham , and his , according to the flesh , which covenant he also ordained to be in their Flesh by circumcision , Gen. 17. 13. Now therefore when it shall appear , that the covenant of the Gospel , ( I mean it , as established by Christ in his Church ) is made with any Man and his seed according to the Flesh , and that God hath required the Gospel covenant should be in their Flesh by baptism , and so every infant born of them , or servant bought with Money to be baptised we shall then grant that to insist on the incapacity of infants would reflect upon the wisdom of God , but sith this neither is , nor can be done , all these pretended reflections falls really upon Dr. S. for denying infants the Lords Supper , because of their incapacity , who yet were admitted to the Passeover , of which they were as uncapable as of the Lords Table . What the Dr. says further of the ends of baptism to represent and exhibit the nature of the grace of the Gospel and to confirm the truth of the covenant on Gods part : We have considered before , and to what you here add , saying , It instates the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God , I answer , That though the Dr. speaks right according to the right administration of baptism , yet according to his way of infant baptism it is not so , seeing we all know , infants ( while such ) though sprinkled have no more priviledge in your Church then those who are not sprinkled , for the priviledges next following baptism , is to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded , and to continue in fellowship with the Church in breaking of Bread and prayer , Acts 2 42. Ma. 28. 20. Now to tell us that infants are instated in these things , and yet whilst infants have nothing at all to do with them is too gross a vanity . For , If you say they are instated in these priviledges upon future contingences , viz. Repentance , Faith and newness of Life according to the Gospel , I answer when this comes to pass they are no infants , nor as infants partake of these priviledges , but as those that are now the Sons of God by faith , and thus truly all infants are instated in Church priviledges as soon as born , seeing by the death of Christ they have a right upon the conditions of the Gospel when capable to perform them , thus you mislead the world with a specious pretence of instating their infants in Church priviledges , when 't is only an empty sound of words . But the Jews Infants as they were instated in the priviledges of their Church , by circumision , so they entred upon the enjoyment of their priviledges in infancy , appearing by Gods commandment three times a year in the Temple with the offerings accustomed and to partake of the Passeover , with the congregation or family where it was eaten . The Dr. saith , nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism ( in respect of Infants ) but that which seems most cerimonial which is the personal restipulation , which yet may reasonably be supplyed by Sponsors , &c. That there is much wanting beside this restipulation in your infant baptism is shewed before , and it is unadvisedly said that the restipulation of the person baptised is the most ceremonial thing in baptism , seeing it is the moral and substantial part being indeed our covenanting with God and in truth the external washing is far more ceremonial as appears 1 Pet. 3. 21. And for your saying that the personal restipulation in baptism may be reasonably supplyed by Godf●thers , is very much below the reason of any Christian to affirm ; But is it so ? that Sponsors may supply the personal restipulation , which is the greater , then let them also supply the lesser , to wit sprinkling with water , which they can better perform , then the covenant they make for the infant , and then the whole business will appear to have the same reasonableness in every part ▪ viz , wholly unreasonable . Thus much touching the capacity of infants ▪ &c. Next the Dr tells us , That in the Institution of Baptism there is neither direct nor consequential prohibition of Infants to be baptized , and that there is nothing of that nature pretended before the 〈◊〉 comission , Mat. 28. 19. But here is a mistake , and its strange he never observed that it hath often been demonstrated that , as when Circumcision first appeared in the world , it clearly took in the Infants of those to whom it was first given , so , accordingly it was propagated ; But when Baptism first appeared in the world , it as clearly left out the Infants of those to whom it was first ministred , and accordingly was propagated by the holy Apostles ▪ insomuch that of the many thousands , and famous Churches , that were baptised , all the world is not able to shew so much as one Infant to have been baptised in any one of them , nor one word of precept for so doing , and if this be not so much as a consequential prohibition of Infant baptism , I shall never believe that the Dr. or any else can shew me so much as a consequential prohibition , of Infants receiving the Lords Supper , the imposition of hands &c. And though the Dr. consider never so much what apprehensions the Apostles had concerning the Church state of such as were in external Covenant with God , yet he cannot rationally imagine that they should measure the state of the Gospel Churches by the reason of the Covenant which God made with the Jews and their Seed according to the flesh . Seeing it is expresly said from henceforth , to wit from the vanishing of the old Covenant , know we no Man after the flesh — But now if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature . And now Men are not to be accounted of the Church because they are Abraham ▪ s Seed , but they are accounted Abraham ▪ s Seed by being in the Church of Christ , Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are you Abraham 's Seed , and Heirs according to promise . Neither is it true that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather whole Nations into Churbes , as the Dr. affirms , neither did the Apostles gather any one whole Nation , or City into a Church S●ate that we read of , therefore Churches consisting of whole Nations , Men , Women and Infants , are not Apostollical But this the Apostles did they taught many Nations , 1. v. their sound went through many Nations , not that they taught all manner of Persons in the Nations , for they taught no Infants , and the persons by them gathered into the Church , were only such as received their Doctrine , as appears by those Families where their Gospel was received , the Husband sometimes opposite to the Wife , and otherwhiles the Wife to the Husband Servants and Masters likewise differing in the same Family about christianity , 1. Cor. 7. If then the Apostles did not gather whole Families into a church state unless they did wholly believe , Act. 16. how-should any Man imagine , they gathered whole Nations ? the greatest part whereof by all experience are wicked persons yea in those very Nations , which Men pretend to have made into churches of Christ of which would God England were not so full an evidence as it is this day . The Dr. grants that the order of words Mat. 28 , 19. ( Teach all Nations baptising them ) was necessary for those who were then to be proselited to Christianity . And we say they are as necessary for the generations following , who have as much need of true Faith and Repentance ▪ or the first principles of Christianity in order to their being Christians , as them that went before , and it is a pernitious alteration of the order of Christs commission , to out-run it●s direction so , as to make persons to be Christians , before they do or can know the least title of Christianity . The case which the Dr. puts , about going to Disciple the Indians Baptising them , is not at all rational , but upon the pre-supposition , that the person so doing , to have seen or known them , that gives him his authority to Baptise infants , and then indeed it 's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words , Disciple the Indians Baptising them , would exclude infants . But yet I must also say , that his ground to believe so could not arise from the words themselves but from the practice presupposed . Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations Baptising them , without the least knowledge of any Infants Baptized by any Baptists which were before them , or from whom they received their authority , here is no place for the Drs. suppositions at all . As little cause hath he to think that had any one said to Abraham he that believeth and is circumcised shall be saved , it ought so to have been interpreted , as that infants ought to be circumcized . For if this had been all the rule given for circumcision , it must of necessity have been limited to such as believe only , and unless the Dr. know how from good ground to satisfie his conscience , that Infants are believers of that which is taught or Preached according to Mark 16. ( which place he aludes unto ) he must so limit the diversion for baptising . But if indeed he take Infants to be such believers , then he is answered by Dr. Hammond in his Let. of Resol . p. 297. who saith , as for the Question whether Infants have faith ? I profess my self to be none of those who are concerned in it . I freely confess to believe , Faith to be so necessarily founded in understanding , that they that have not understandisg cannot have faith , whethe actual or habitual . The conclusion therefore is , sith in the case you put , the word ( believe ) cannot concern infants , and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation , though they believe not , it is every way safe to think them unconcern●d in the other duty , that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding . Finally the Dr. proposes five considerations about the suitableness of In●ant baptism to the administration of things under the Gospel , and first he saith . 1. That if it had been Christs intention to exclude Infants , there had been far greater reason for an express prohibition then for an express command , if his intention were to admit them , because this was suitable to the general grounds of Gods dispensation among them before . Answer , Here is little said but what hath been answered before , and may be answered by saying , had it been Christs intention that infants should not be admitted to the Lords Table there had been more need of an express prohibition , &c. then of an express command , &c. because suitable to Gods dispensations among them before . Thus Argumentum ad hominem . But I answer further , it is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments , from Gods dispensations among the Jews , seeing the state of the Church , and the di●pensation is so much altered as that the former was but carnal , in respect of the Spirituality of the other . 2. The Dr. saith , it is very hard to conceive that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ , when after Christs ascention they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customes , even when they had baptized many thousands , Answer , It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customes because of any suitableness between them and things under the Gospel ( which is the mark you ought to hit or you say nothing ) but the reason why they did observe such Customes for a time , was the weakness of the Jews , and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customes as they could Acts 15. 24. to 32. Acts 1645. which clearly shews Jewish Customes was not suitable to things under the Gospel , and here circumcision one of the chief of Jewish rites , is clearly abolished among the rest , so that a man would think infant baptism should never have been built upon it . 3. The Dr saith If admission of infants to Baptism were a meer relique of judaism , it seems strange that none of the judaizing Christians should be charged with it ; who yet are charged with the observation of other judaical r●tes .. Answer , I find no man saying that Infant baptism was a relique of judaism , save Dr. Hammond , and some from him , and he indeed would make believers baptism also a jewish relique whiles he teaches that the jews baptising Proselites , and their Children was the Original , and the baptism ●f the Christian Church but the Coppy , by which device he hath opened a gap to our late N●tionists to deprive the Church of sacred baptism altogether , and hath done more to weaken the cause of infant baptism then any other of its favourites , in laying its foundation in jewish ceremonies , for which they had no clear command from God. But great is this truth of believers baptism , and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond , for it was no jewish rite , the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was from Heaven , Mat. 21. 25. and the Pharisees who ●ere ●ealous enough for jewish rites , rejcted holy baptism , which Christ asfi●ms to be the counsel of God Lu. 7. 30. and testifies out of the consciences of his enemies , that he that t●aches otherwise denyes John to be a Prophet . This then is the thing that truly seems strange , that no mention is made of infant baptism , if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church either as a jewish rite or otherwise , but not str●●●e at all that none is charged with it , seeing none can be named that held it . 4. Since theie wish Christians were so much offended saith the Dr. at the neglect of circumcision , Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their children being wholly thrown out of the church , as they would have been , if neither admitted by circumcision nor baptism . Answer , Since the false Apostles was so earnest to have the christians circumcise their children , it 's strange that none of the true Apostles could or would quiet them by saying instead of infant circumcision you have infant baptism if indeed there had been any such thing practiced , For , this way went the Apostle Paul to still them , vvhen they would have brought the believers themselves under circumsion , Col. two . Telling the chriffians they vvere circumcised vvith the circumcision made vvithout hands , in putting off the body of the sins of the ▪ Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ , buried vvith him in baptism , vvherein ye also are ●isen with him through the Faith , &c. And why might not the jews as qui●tly take the non-admission of infants to baptism , as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lords Supper seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passeover , nor i● it necessary to say , that though they were not admitted to either of these , that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church ; For , If by church be meant the whole number of the saved , then are infants of the churchs for Christ hath told us the kingdom of God belongs to infants , and thus were infants of the church before circumcision was for some thousands of years : But if by church be meant those only vvho are concerned in the actual profession of the gospel , in this respect I grant infants are not of the church , God having no vvhere required this of infants in his gospel . Infants are novv as vvell as before the Flood , vvithin the covenant of the gospel in respect of the grace of eternal Life , but are not under the duties of the Covenant , to vvit , Repentance , Faith baptism perseverance , &c. Nor can my calling the whole number of the saved the church , and thus making infants a part thereof offend a Protestant who is acquainted with Protestant doctrines , seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine p. 73. upon Art. 19. of the Church of England , do●h affirm , there is an invisible Church , and takes all within the compass of ●his Church who are elect , tryumphing or that shall tryumph in Heaven Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church all the Elect , of Men or Angels , caled , or not yet called . l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these defi●itions of the churc● , infants are not thrown out of the Church though not of the number of the called , and consequently not that cause for the jews to complain , nor any other which the Dr. doth imagine ; unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the covenant of Gods grace in Christ Iesus our Lord. Five , The doctor lastly tells us , That had it been contrary to Christs institution ( to baptise infants ) we should not have had such evidence of it's early Practice in t●e Church , and here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition to manifest this to us . Answer , This is altogether unlike a Protestant : What are the Sacraments so darkly laid down in the Scripture that vve knovv not vvhen and to vvhom they belong vvithout Tradition ? but vvhen shall vve see this Tradition Apostolical , I think doctor Ta●lor expresly denies there is any Tradit apostolical . lib. proph●si . p. 117. 120. But the doctor cannot but knovv there be errou●s ●vhich crept into the Church even in the apostles days , vvhich also continued in some of them , notvvithstanding all endeavours to purge them , such vvere circumcision and keeping the Lavv. Or if we list to reckon vvith records of antiquity , 't is easi● o show some things held by Papists and opposed by the doctor are better proved by tradi●ion then infant baptism , for example the Lent Fast ond prayer for the dead , this is not denyed by Mr. Perkins demonst . prob . What then shall be gained to the protestant Religion by such Traditional arguments . It is a notable saying of Irenae●s ( according to Dr. Fulk ) Wsen the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures they ●all to accusing the Scriptures as if all is not well in them — and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition . And saith Tertul , ( according to Dr. Fulk ) Take away those things from the Hereticks , which they hold with Ethnicks , that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only . FINIS . ERRATA . P. 3. l. 5. r. is right , p. 4. l. 25. r. of a Midwife p. 5. l. 34. for these r. those p. 7. l. 27. for others r. overs .