A Religious Contest, Dialogue – To the reader 2
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 foreign
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 foreign is not the right way of Baptiſing.
But your way agrees not with the native ſignification of the word foreign:
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 foreign:
T. G.
I deſire you to ſhew the place which mentions ſuch a washing as you practice, where the word foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign to be a dipping of the thing denominated baptized, and firſt I urge the Greek Grammer, where the radix is foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign &c.
Now for the explication of the Verb foreign, I refer you to John the 4 1. foreign 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 foreign
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 foreign eſt diſco, to learn or get knowledge and in the Hebrew foreign is foreign & foreign comes of foreign didict and is rendred dicens ab alio, which agrees with the Syriack foreign and the Arab. foreign 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 'tis 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 foreign 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 foreign 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.