Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	water_n	8,987	5	7.3168	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41787	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 (1674)	Wing G1544; ESTC R39430	28,329	42

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

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

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

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