Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	2,779	5	9.3007	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41774	The Baptist against the papist, or, The Scripture and Rome in contention about the supream seat of judgment, in controversies of religion together with ten arguments or reasons, discovering the present papal church of Rome to be no true church of Christ : wherein it is also evinced that the present assemblies of baptized believers, are the true church of Jesus Christ / by Tho. Grantham ...	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1663 (1663)	Wing G1527; ESTC R40005	55,798	108

Apostolical Tradition tends to the making null or void any Apostolical Writing But Infant Sprinkling makes null and void all that is written in the Scriptures concerning the subject and manner of Baptism in all that part of the World where the Papists or such as they get the Civil Power on their side yea we see that by this means the sons of men are great enemies to the way of God in this matter How long have many Nations lain destitute of the knowledge of the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins by reason of the interposition of this cloudy Tradition of Pedo-Rantism How have men pretending to be Ministers of Christ never in many Generations preached Peter's Doctrine Repent and be baptized every one of you for the Remission of sins Note this Observation well for although the Baptism of Repentance c. hath not been cryed down in the Nations of Christendom by such as counted themselves the only Preachers of the Gospel yet it was not for that these Nations had no need of the practice of Baptism for they daily have practised something under that notion which is rheir Infant-sprinkling So that it 's plain Infant-Baptism makes void the Apostolical Writings Therefore Infant-Baptism is no Apostolical Tradition Secondly Infant-Baptism is not an Apostolical Tradition because no mention is made of it in the first hundred of years after Christ Although I am not much read yet I have used the utmost of my diligence to know the Truth in this Point and I have attained to sufficient satisfaction that the greatest favourer of Infant-Baptism that yet I have met with durst not say that ever he saw any Record of Antiquity that mentioned such a thing and that the Scriptures do not mention it the Papists grant And because the Papists make such boast of the consent which they have in this matter from Antiquity I will therefore here put in something by way of Evidence to the contrary For it is certain that Infant Baptism as it was not heard of in the first hundred so neither was it generally received till above half a thousand years revolved from Christ as is undeniable for that it is plain that the most famous or at least very famous Christian Parents brought up their Children without having them baptized such were the Parents of Greg. Nazianzen Ambrose Augustine and others yea the Emperour Constantius born of Christian Parents was not baptized till he was about thirty years of age See also these ensuing Testimonies I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves unto God in Baptism After that we are renewed through Christ such as are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them being to live according to the same we admonish to fast and pray and we fast and pray with them then they are brought to the Water and there calling on the Name of the Father c. they are washed in it So saith Erasmus paraphrase on Matth. 28. If they believe that which you teach them and begin to be repentant of their former life then dip them In Water In the Name c. The Lord commanded his Apostles that they should first instruct all Nations and afterward baptise those that were instructed for it cannot be that the body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism unless the soul have received before the true Faith Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all he said teach and then baptize that true Faith might come by teaching and Baptism be perfected by Faith Haimo saith In this place Matth. 28. is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptism for he saith Teach all Nations and then he saith and baptize them for he that is to be baptized must be before instructed that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive For as Faith without Works is dead so Works if they have no Faith are nothing worth Beda saith All they that came to the Apostles to be baptized were instructed of them and when they were instructed concerning the Sacrament of Baptism they received the holy administration thereof Tertullian who lived about the time when Infant-Baptism began to appear did dispute against it as an unnecessary practice for divers causes 1. For that it is not meet to commit heavenly things to those who are not capable of keeping treasure of an earthly nature 2. For that the Sponsors might be endangered 3. For that it became them that were to be baptized to fast pray and confess their sins 4. Because they that receive Christ must ask him let them that is little ones come therefore saith he while they are youths whilst wherein they come they are taught c. Augustine saith We spend much time in exhorting those whom we baptize Ludovicus vives commenting upon this place saith Lest any man should mistake this place of Augustine let him know that in old time it was the custom to baptize NONE except they were of full age and did desire Baptism in their own persons and that several times and did understand what that Mystical Water meant which we see resembled in our baptizing of Infants Lo here your pedo-Pedo-baptism is not the old custom of the Church The Third Reason The present Papal Church of Rome is a National Church Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The third Reason maintained 1. TO make the Gospel-Church National consequently destroyes the Doctrin of Conversion as it is a principle of the Doctrin of Christ appertaining to the beginning of a Christian man For if men can regenerate or beget persons to God in their infancy then the Word of Regeneration or new-birth is needless in order to our admission into the Church of Christ and so the preaching of Faith and Repentance must cease as it is a Principle pertaining to a Christian man in all those Nations which are called Christendom which is a great part of the World And indeed Experience hath long ago proved this Conclusion to be most true for since the Church as they term it was National the Word or Work of Conversion hath been little known in the life and power of it nay verily the very term Conversion is become a reproach among our National-Churchmembers But thus to make the Word of Conversion unnecessary in order to persons admission into the Church of Christ is contrary to the Scripture John 3. 5. Luke 24. 47. Matth. 20. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. Heb. 8. 10 11. Gal. 3. 26 27 28. Matth. 3. 8 9 10. 2. To make the Gospel-Church National puts an end to the Doctrine of Christ touching that Separation and those Divisions which for the Gospel-sake must be in Nations and Families as appears from these Scriptures John 15. 19. and 17. 14 16. Acts 2. 40 47. 1 Cor. 6. Luke 12. 49 to 54. And therefore in vain doth any person think to do

that a Heathen may by the Law of Conscience judge their Church to be more holy than ANY other Congregation of Christians Were they ever Heathens to know this But alas what holiness can a Heathen judge of Surely not that which is an infallible mark of the true Church for this Spiritual matter is foolishness to the Natural man nor can he know it because 't is spiritually discerned It is true there is a Holiness discernable by the Law of our Consciences But this only is not an infallible mark that any Society is the Church of Christ nor did ever any man I am perswaded hold forth such a Doctrine that was a faithful Minister of the New Testament or Spirit Again What of this kind of Holiness whereof a Heathen as such can judge is there found among the Papists which may not be found among the Baptists yea among those that are opposite to both as the Quakers and others yea among the very Jews and Turks may be found as much of this kind of Holiness as among the Papists if any credit may be given to Histories Sometimes the Papists do object the Creed as sufficient to demonstrate a man to be a Member of the Church though he know not whether there be any Scripture But I Answer How shall this be proved to be the Creed it must not be its own evidence for then the Scripture may as well speak for it self which the Papists will not allow nor can the Church of Rome confer any authority upon the Creed till they be found to be the Church So then this is the Conclusion Rome must be found to be the Church before there be a Creed I do therefore humbly desire these few Observations may be seriously thought upon by all sober men but especially the Papists that so men may give to the holy Scriptures that which is proper to them that is That they may speak without controul both for themselves and every thing else of a Religious consideration or else all Volumns of the Antients and Societies of men pretending to Christianity as things stand in our dayes must depart into utter silence The Second Reason The present Papal Church of Rome hath no Baptism Therefore she is not the Church of Christ The Second Reason maintained BY the word Baptism in the Argument I mean only the Baptism of Water in the Name of the Father c. or which is all one the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins Now that the present Papal Church of Rome hath not this Baptism is evident by this Argument taken from their own Confession viz. The Baptism of the true Church is found in the Scripture But the Baptism of the present Papal Church of Rome is not grounded upon nor mentioned in the Scripture Therefore the present Papal Church of Rome hath no Baptism The first Proposition is most clear from Matth. 28. 19 20. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 9. Act. 16. Act. 18. Act. 19. Act. 22. 16. Rom. 6. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 11 12. Heb. 6. 1 2. 1 Pet. 3. 21. And that the Papists Baptism is not found in the Scripture I prove thus Because they themselves do confess that Infant Baptism is not mentioned in the Scripture nor grounded upon the Scripture nor any Scripture for it See to this purpose the Works of Bellarmine and a Book entituled An Antidote written by S. N. a Popish Doctor as also T. B. his End to Controversie In which Books you will find the very words which I have repeated Adde hereunto the Answer which I received from the Author of the Seven Queries when I asked him what Controversies in Religion he could resolve without the written Word of God he assigned Infant Baptism as one that was so to be resolved So then we have it pro confesso from the Papists own mouths That their Baptism which is Infant Baptism is a Scriptureless-Baptism Therefore say I it is no Baptism No Baptism I say because the Church hath but one Baptism of Water and it is mentioned in the Scripture and grounded upon it and much Scripture found for it so is not Infant Baptism which is the Baptism of the present Papal Church Therefore the Papal Baptism is no Baptism How can they defend themselves Will they say the Church hath a Scripture-Baptism and an unwritten Baptism This they must say and prove or else deny their Infant Baptism But secondly The present Papal Church is so adulterated in the manner of the Administration of Baptism as that had they a true subject for Baptism yet they would be found to have no Baptism This will appear as clear as the Light from the Papists own confession for they grant that the antient and primitive way of baptizing was by dipping the party baptized over the head and ears in Water and that it was their Church which changed this way to a little sprinkling upon the forehead This is plainly to be seen in a Book entituled Certamen Religiosum This bold Change which men without any allowance from God have made in this Ministration of Baptism is directly against the Scripture Mat. 3. 16. Mark 15. 9. John 3. 23. Act. 8. 38 39. Rom. 6. In all which places it's evident that our Lord Jesus John Baptist and the other Baptists of those times did so understand the mind of God in respect of the manner of the Administration of Baptism as that they thought it could not be done without so much Water as they might go into both the Person baptizing and the Person to be baptized And now do not all that will presume to satisfie themselves in this thing with a few drops of Water put on the face only from a Man's fingers ends or out of a Glass in the Midwifes pocket lay great folly and ignorance to the charge of Christ and his primitive followers doubtless such as is not less than the folly of that man that hath occasion only for one Gill of Water and he may take it up at the side of the Brook and yet will needs wade into the middle of a River to take it up or a man that hath occasion to wash his hands only which he may perform very commodiously without wetting his foot and yet is so simple that he will needs go into the middle of the River to that purpose especially such a River where there is much Water I say the practice of Sprinkling which the Papists and others use if that answer the mind of God in the case of Baptism doth even thus reflect upon Christ and the Christians in those dayes But let our Saviours practice herein be justified and all such practices as tend to the rendring it ridiculous condemned The Papists only Reserve for the defence of Infant Baptism is this They say it is an Apostolical Tradition that is a Precept delivered by the Apostles Word but not mentioned in their Writings This I shall shew to be utterly false for divers important Reasons First No