Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	1,991	5	9.3594	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66526	Vindiciæ vindiciarum, or, A vindication of a late treatise, entituled, Infant-baptism asserted and vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to Mr. Hen. D'Anvers his reply : to which is annexed, the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow (now Bishop-elect of Lincoln) his apologetical-letter : also An appeal to the Baptists (so called) against Mr. Danvers, for his strange forgeries, and misrepresentations of divers councils and authors, both antient and modern / by Obed Wills.	Wills, Obed.; Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. Appeal to the Baptists against Henry D'Anvers, Esq.	1675 (1675)	Wing W2868; ESTC R38662	92,093	163

reason to reject the one as the other A strange Assertion For though Infants-Baptism be in his account unlawful yet the Preaching of the Gospel one would think should be lawful and more reason there is to Preach the Gospel than to Baptize either the Adult or Infants But what makes Mr. Danvers judg otherwise as to these Britains It is because he conceives by Preaching here must be understood Authoritatively by being ordained by them and not as a company of Lay-men or Mechanicks It seems than this Gentle-man is for Mechanicks Preaching but that which is remarkable is to see how much he hath overshot himself in the heat of Disputation For the Britains to whom Austin addrest his Speech were not Lay-men or Mechanicks but seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop as Mr. Fox informs us Act. Mon. 1. Book p. 107. Although 't is true they admitted not Romes Supremacy over them which was the main quarrel as Mr. Fox tells us out of Cluniacensi who gives this Reason why they would not comply with Austin because they would not admit of the Bishop of Romes Supremacy over them Ex Pet. Cluniacensi ad Bernardum Reader thou must know that Mr. Danvers gave five other Reasons in his Treatise of Baptism to confirm his former Position and because I said in my Answer they were trifles he tells me in his Reply that that is an excellent way of Answering next to Bellarmin thou lyest But I must tell Mr. Danvers I did not only say they were trifles but proved them such And because he doth so cunningly insinuate the contrary I shall now repeat my Answer to his Reasons adding a little and submit it to judgment 1. His first Argument that the Britains were against Infant-Baptism was Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Scripture Before I speak to this know that he hath altered his note for his first Argument in both his Treatises of Baptism was this Because the Britains received the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches who had no such thing as Baptizing Children Now this being more than he can tell and a Negative Argument as to matter of Fact is not valid as I told him in my Answer and besides I minded him with that of the Magdeburgs who expresly tell us that Infants-Baptism was in use in the Asiatick Churches Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. He is so ingenious as to wave that Argument But to the 1st as it is here in the Reply which is because they kept themselves in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Word This he thinks will effectually do the business that is casheer Infants-Baptism from them To this I answer 1. To say they kept themselves expresly in Discipline and Doctrine to the Word is more than Mr. Danvers can prove and it is more than Jeffery Monmouth speaks from whom he hath his intelligence This therefore that they keep to the express Word is his own Dictate 2. It is not true what he saith nor can I apprehend how Mr. Danvers should believe himself for no Anabaptist believes Episcopal Government to be so expresly set down in the Word and Mr. Fox tells us as before that no less than seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop came out of Wales at Austin's Summons who were also so proud that wanting some ceremonious Observance at their first coming to Austin they took such offence that in disdain and great displeasure they went away And observe Reader the sense of Mr. Fox upon this their carriage I profess saith he I cannot see but both Austin and them were to be blamed who so much neglected their Spiritual Duties in revenging their Temporal injuries that they denied to joyn their helping hand to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation in which respect all private respects ought to give place and be forgotten and for which cause he conceived the stroke of God's Punishment did light upon them afterward The business of Infants-Baptism never entered into this good-mans mind as if they refused to comply with Austin on that account nor is it like that ever the Britains thought of it 2. His next Argument is Because they were zealous Impugners of Tradition But by the story we find no such Zeal unless it was against Austin for not honouring them and besides this Argument of Mr. Danvers is altogether precarious for we have shewed before that though Austin held Infants-Baptism a Tradition yet withal it was in his opinion grounded on Circumcision and the Papists as Bellarmine affirm the warrantableness of it may be collected from Scripture But to make short work with it I deny that they were such Impugners of Tradition if the Discpline of Arch-Bishops and the observation of Easter be Traditions as Mr. Danvers judgeth them to be for as the difference between Austin and them was not about the Subject of Baptism but the Ceremony so they differed not about keeping Easter but only as to the circumstance of time when it was to be kept That the Britains and Picts kept Easter though not at the same time as the Romish Church did see Mr. Fox Act. Mon. page 111. where mention is made of a Synod in which the controversie about keeping Easter was debated before King Oswie Alfrid's Father and 't is said Coleman then Bishop of Northumberland followed not the custom of Rome nor of the Saxons but the Picts and Britains in celebrating Easter from the 14th day of the first month till the 28th of the same against whom Wilfrid replied The Easter we keep we have seen at Rome the same is used in Italy and France and finally all the World over save only by these here present with their accomplices the Picts and Britains 3. Reason is Because Constantine the son of Christian Parents was not Baptized till aged so in his Treatise of Baptism but in his Reply 't is not baptized in this Island But we have shewn Constantius his Father was no Christian at Constantine's Birth and in all likelyhood lived and dyed a Pagan though he had much respect for Christians and even Constantine himself was a Pagan for sometime after he was Emperor 4. Another of his Reasons is Because the custom of the Britains was to baptize after Confession of Faith being in Union and Communion therein with the French Christians And I told him this was a good Argument to prove they were for infants-Infants-Baptism because the French Christians afterward called Waldenses were for it and had used it so many hundred years witness the Confession at Angrogne Nor will Mr. Danvers his Old Salvo serve his turn which is That the ancient Waldenses were against Infants-baptism though he cannot but grant the more modern were for it For we have met with something of late that must needs convince him and that is that Infants-baptism was practised in the Country where the Waldenses do inhabit near twelve hundred years since For the Famous French Historian John de Serres in his History of France translated into English tells us p. 12. That Anno Christi 500 Clovis the great King of France then an Heathen desired to marry Clotilde Daughter of Chilperic Brother of Gondebault King of the Burgundians whose Seat was then at Arles in Provence Gondebault denyed Clovis because of the difference of Religion Clovis to remove this promised her liberty of Conscience so the marriage was concluded And saith the Author although Clovis were a Pagan yet he was no enemy to the Christians sitting himself to the humour of the Gauloys who generally followed the Christian Religion He suffered his Wife likewise to baptize her Children So it 's plain the Burgundians from whence the Waldenses sprang were for baptizing Infants and belike it was also at that time the universal practice of the Gauls 5. The last of Mr. Danvers's Arguments that the Britains were against Infants-baptism is because Austin himself was so raw and ignorant in the Rite that when he came into Britain and the question was here put to him I know not by whom how long a Child that was in danger of Death might stay unbaptized he was fain to send to Rome for Solution This is so raw an Argument indeed to prove the Britains were against Infants-Baptism that instead of an Answer it deserves to be laught at For at this very day wherein Infants-Baptism is so generally practised some take a liberty to delay longer than others who are for the speedy administration thereof And if this Argument doth import any thing it is that Austin himself was not so well studied as he ought to have been as to the time when Children should be baptized What in the last place he speaks of Hilary that none were baptized in the Western Churches but the Adult is confronted in the beginning where we have shewn that he hath no such saying in lib. de Trinitate the Book referr'd to and how he himself was for Infants-Baptism from his 2d Epistle to Austin As for his other witnesses Munzer and John of Leyden with the rest of that Faction though he doth pertinaciously persist against the clearest evidences in palliating or rather denying the horrid crimes laid to their charge and withal very disingenuously reflects dishonour upon those of the Reformation I shall not be at so much expence of time and Paper as to expose his gross aberrations herein but quietly permit him to injoy the comfort and honour of such witnesses FINIS Preface to the Reply Synodus 4tae Carthaginensis Cent. 4. cap. 9. pag. 873. Laodicens Concilium Cent. 4. cap. 9. p. 833. Common-Prayer Book last Edit Dipt by washing is nonsense * Dr. Richard Allestree the worthy Provost of Eaton-Colledg † In his Book entit More proofs of Infants Church-membership pag. 343. * In his Treatise of Baptism London 1674. pag. 65 66. † Anno. 1656. * Pag. 343. of his Book before cited ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜

before Contra Eunomium In answer to which 1. I deny that any such Sentence is to be found in Bazil for I have perused all that he saith in reference to Baptism in his 3 Tomes nor have the Magdiburgs any such saying of his where they repeat his Doctrine and sayings Contra Eunomium they mention only this against Eunomius That Baptismus est Sigillum fidei Baptism is the Seal of faith Cent. 4. C. 4. p. 234. 2. There is a great absurdity in the words as they are placed by Mr. Danvers For the Interrogation is Must the Faithful be Sealed with Baptism and the Answer is Faith must needs preceed and go before and how absurd is it for it supposeth that the faithful could be without Faith But what can be said to that which is further urged from Bazil That none were to be baptized but the Catechumens and those that were duly instructed in the Faith I answer that those words are not to be found in terminis in any part of his discourse about Baptism But do not the Magdiburgs say thus Bazilius ait non alios quam Catechumenos baptizatos esse Bazil saith none but the Catechumens were to be baptized But when I tell Mr. Danvers that Cyprian held Infants Baptism an Apostolical Tradition as the Magdiburgs inform us he replyes That is just as much as if Mr. Wills should so affirm except some Authentick authority be produced for the same pag. 91. of his Innocency c. And may not I be bold to assume the same freedom and retort that if we cannot find the afore-mentioned words in Bazil though the Magdiburgs tell us so 't is just as much as if Mr. Danvers should so affirm But suppose Bazil had said it what will it amount to surely no convincing Testimony since whether the non alii quam Catechumeni No other than the Catechumens doth exclude the Infants of Believers from Baptism we are yet to seek For that passage may very well be interpreted that no Pagans were baptized till first they were made Catechumens or instructed so that it is left to the Reader to judg whether from that speech of Bazil if it were his it may groundedly be concluded he was against Infants Baptism which that he was not I shall give you Reasons shortly The next is Nazianzen who was very positive and express for Childrens Baptism as shall be demonstrated when we come to discover the weakness of our Antagonists Cavils against it The third man is Ephrim Syrus the Monk whom the Magdiburgs so much blame for ascribing such wonders to the Cross that if you will believe him the Devil flys and is not able to stand before it as the other said of Baptism strange Anabaptists as ever the world heard of This Ephrim termed the Cross Daemonum expultrix et Paradisi reseratrix That which routs Devils and opens Heavens-gate and therefore adviseth all Christians to cross themselves in divers places of their Bodies which will notably fortify and preserve them from the Devil Madg. Cent. 4. C. 4. p. 302. This is a Witness that seems to be spit out of the Popes mouth for he is for praying to the Martyrs and Saints departed and helps us to some pretty little forms As pro nobis miseris peccatoribus interpellate pray for us miserable Sinners And O gloriosissimi martyres Dei me miserum vestris juvate precibus O ye most glorious Martyrs of God help me a miserable Wretch with your prayers But it may be said what of all this he may not withstanding his superstition be an Authentick Witness of what was in his day as to Matter of Fact It may be so What then is his Testmony as to Baptism why this Those who were to be baptized did profess their Faith before many witnesses renounce the Devil and all his works c. as it is in the Church-Catechism And Ambrose that was so much for Infants-Baptism and lived in the same Century with Ephrim speaks his very words as the Magdiburgs inform us from his 3d Book of the Sacraments Chap. 2. Confessos baptizandos scribit c. Ambrose writes there That those who confest were to be baptized where he recites how that the Baptized declared he renounced the Devil and all his works and then withal in the same place tells us that in his 84 Epistle of his 10th book of Epistles he is for Infant-Baptism Cent. 4. p. 239. which clearly makes this quotation of Ephrims very insignificant as to his purpose because he might say that and yet be for Infant-Baptism as Ambrose was But Mr. D. quotes his 3d Orat. of Baptism for this passage which I presume is a Manuscript as not being to be found among his printed Works And if so I hope Mr. D. will discover himself such a friend to the Common-wealth of Learning as to bless the world with its publication But I am afraid at last it will appear that Mr. Danvers is every whit as guilty in mistaking Nazianzens 3 Orations of Baptism for Ephrims book de Paenitentiâ Cap. 5. as I was for mistaking Bazil for Nazianzen And it is as much a making an Authority 3. Mr. Danvers tells us it was the Universal practice of the Western or European Churches as appears from Hilary Ambrose Jerom and Marius-Victorinus to which I reply more generally 1. That in this he doth designedly go about to delude the Reader for these four Ancients were contemporaries and flourished in the 4th Century And they are all put together by the Magdiburgs in one chapter where they give us their saying from their several works One of them speaks of Baptism upon profession and there is no sentence quoted from him in reference to Infants whereas they give the words of all the rest of these Fathers concerning profession before Baptism and withal divers passages of the same men asserting Infants-Baptism which being so Mr. Danvers can never be excused for his Partiality and Falshood in saying as he doth That it was the Universal practice of the Western Churches to baptize the Adult that is only such which is the point prae manibus 2. particularly 1. For Hilary he doth very ill in saying as he doth expresly Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. That all the Western-Churches did only baptize the Adult quoting Hilary lib 2. de Trinitate whereas Hilary hath no such saying there but is for Infants Baptism as appears in his 2d Epistle to Austin Then for Ambrose he is large for it in his 2d Book of Abraham Chap. 12. which the Magdiburgs have amply set down Cent. 4. C. 5 p. 239. and in the same Chapter Nazianzen is mentioned for it whom we shall suddenly vindicate and evince that he was absolutely of our side notwithstanding the frivilous distinction whereby Mr. Danvers would render him otherwise 2. Marius Victorinus speaks nothing about Infants But lastly as for Jerom the Magdiburgs give his Testimony for Infants Baptism in words at length and not in figures Cent. 4. C.

able to make a profession of their Faith will it not follow that the Baptizing of Believers Children in their Infancy was generally owned in that Age especially if we consider upon what suspicious grounds Baptism was retarded in those days sometimes to the very point of dissolution concerning which we have spoken before But I shall not contend with Mr. Danvers about the grounds why the Baptism of all those ten was delayed since neither of us without great presumption can absolutely determine and unless we are instructed by a sure light from the records of Antiquity when all is said that we can say we shall but impose upon the Reader our uncertain guesses But having a good foundation in History for what I have formerly said concerning Constantine and Austine not being baptized till Aged which was their Fathers being Infidels at their Birth and so continuing for ought we can learn to the contrary even to their death I conceive Mr. Danvers cannot clear himself from perverting their Testimonies being unserviceable to his purpose For 1st For Constantine we have told him in our infant-Infant-Baptism from Mr. Marshal that it doth not appear that his Mother Helena was a Christian at his Birth and for his Father Constantius every one knows that is acquainted with History that he was none although he favoured the Christians and grew into a good esteem of their Religion especially towards his latter end Mr. Danvers hath only this to say against it that good Historians are of another mind and that Helena was a Christian before the birth of Constantine quoting Grotius and Dailly for it But if this were so what hath he to say for Constantius his Father Why the Magdeburgs give this account of him from Eusebius that Constantine was Bonus a Bono Pius a Pio a Good Man from a Good Man a Holy Man from a Holy Man To this I reply 1. That Constantius his being denominated a Good Man doth not argue him to be a Christian but only morally good as many other Heathens were nor is Pius always taken for a holy man though Sacer be For Antoninus the Pagan Emperor to whome Justin writ an Apology for the Christians as Mr. Danvers notes Treatise of Baptism p. was called Pius for his Clemency and modest behaviour having raised no persecution against the Christians and putting a stop to the same when moved by sending Edicts into Asia prohibiting all persecution meerly for the profession of Christianity Fox Act. Mon. V. 1. p. 37 38. But if it could be proved that Constantius was at any time a Christian yet that would not serve our Antagonists turn unless it could be made out that he was such at Constantine's Birth which no man will affirm Neither is it likely he was a Christian when Constantine was grown up for then how could he have permitted his Son to be educated in the Court of that Tyrannical Pagan Emperor Dioclesian So that it is no wonder Constantine was not baptized till aged especially if it be considered that he continued a Pagan sometime after the Imperial Crown was put upon his Head For Socrates in his first Book and first Chapter tells us at large Qua ratione Constantinus Imperator ad fidem Christianam se contulerit by what means Constantine the Emperour became a Christian and the Story is to this effect viz. That when he heard how Maxentius ruled Tyranically at Rome he was resolved to go against him and as he was marching with his Army thither he considered with himself being not without some fear of Maxentius by reason of his Sorceries and Devilish Arts quem deum sibi adjutorem ad bellum gerendum advocaret what God he should invoke for his assistance in the War and being in doubtful deliberation he saw a Pillar of Light representing the effigies of a Cross. And for the more credit of this Apparition Eusebius in the first Book of the life of Constantine witnesseth that he hath heard Constantine himself oftentimes report it to be true and that not only he but his Soldiers saw it At the sight of which being much astonished and consulting with his Men upon the meaning thereof it so happened that in the night-season in his sleep Christ appeared to him with the sign of the same Cross which he had seen before bidding him to make the figuration of it and to carry it in his Wars before him and he should have the Victory Where by the way let us observe what Mr. Fox saith concerning this Story It is to be noted saith he That this Sign of the Cross and these letters added withal In hoc vince that is In this overcome was given to him of God not to induce any superstitious Worship or opinion of the Cross as though the Cross itself had any such power or strength in it to obtain Victory But only to bear the meaning of another thing that is to be an admonition to him to seek and aspire after the Knowledg and Faith of him who was crucified upon the Cross For the Salvation of him and all the World and so to set forth the Glory of his Name as afterward it came to pass Fox Act. and Mon. lib. 1. p. 77. 2. That Austin had Christian Parents Mr. Danvers cannot prove by any Antiquity but recommends us to Dr. Taylor and Mr. Baxter who have it seems said somthing to that purpose when in the mean-while he makes no reply to what I alledg to the contrary in my Infants-Baptism Asserted c. part 1. p. 21. Where I prove from Austin's own pen that his Father was an Infidel when he was grown up to understanding and he relates how he came afterward to be converted Aug. Confess lib. 2. c. 6. And though Dr. Taylor and Mr. Baxter may be of another mind yet Dr. Owen who is not inferior in learning to either tells us in his late Book of the Spirit p. 294. Sec. 11. that the reason why Austin was not baptized in his Infancy was because his Father was not then a Christian By this time I suppose the Reader may guess how well Mr. Danvers hath purged himself from the charge of prevarication and proved his grand Assertion That Believers Baptism was the only Baptism for the four first Centuries For if he reflects upon the whole that hath been hitherto disputed between us he shall find that as to the first Century the Magdiburgs from whom we have our light in the History of Baptism tells us that Origen and Cyprian affirm that Infants were baptized in the Apostles days In the 2d Century he perverts the words of Justin Martyr by applying that which was spoken of baptizing Pagans against the baptizing of Believers Children as appears by what the Magdiburgs say in that very place In the 3d Century he suggests that no Baptism was owned but that of the Adult when they tell us plainly both persons grown up and Infants of both Sexes were baptized And for the 4th Century Mr. Danvers

about the year 604. did bear their Testimony against Infants-Baptism 1. Because Mr. Fox out of Bede tells us they refused to Baptize after the manner of Rome which Fabian particularly explains to be in the point of Infants-Baptism In answer to this I did in my Infants-Baptism Asserted 1. except against Fabian's Paraphrase upon the words which Bede gives us from Austin and that for these Reasons 1. Because in the Preface to Fabian we there read that what he relates of these matters is taken from Bede's Ecclesiastical History in which there is no mention of the Britains denying to give Christendom to Children for all that he saith is in his second Book and the words are In as much as you do contrary to our custom yea to the custom of the universal Church nevertheless if you will obey me only in these three things soil That you keep your Easter in its proper time administer Baptism whereby we are born again to God after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome and the Apostolical Church and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation we will patiently bear all other things which you do although contrary to our customs But they answered they would do none of these Mr. Fox relates it thus That they would not agree refusing to leave the custom which they so long time had continued without the Assent of them all which used the same Fox Act. Mon. 1. Book p. 107. 2. Because Fabian is not lookt upon as a Faithful Historian and therefore Mr. Fox in the aforesaid Book suspecteth him of divers mistakes and follows not his relation of giving Christendom to Children in this story as it is set down by him for he gives us it in the words of Bede viz. That they refused to baptize after the manner of Rome 3. None of the other Ancient Historians as Cretensis in Polychron Huntington c. mention their refusing to give Christendom to Children they only speak generally of refusing to baptize after the manner of Rome Some other reasons were given which I let pass having already said enough to shew on what a sandy foundation Mr. Danvers builds this his peculiar Assertion that the Ancient Britains denyed infants-Infants-baptism he having nothing for it but Fabians conjecture wherein he differs from all other Historians in the World But saith Mr. Danvers Fabian hath fully hit Bede's meaning why 1. Because Austin tells the Brittish Christians that among many things wherein they were contrary to the custom of Rome and to the Universal Church one was in this particular of Baptism and this he conceives must needs be in their refusing to Baptize Children and his Reasons are 1. Because as to the Baptizing the Adult they were not contrary to the Church of Rome I answer though they were not contrary to them as to the Subject of Baptism viz. the Adult yet they might be and were so if so pure as Mr. Danvers represents them in regard of the Adjuncts which the Church of Rome annext to Baptism viz. those Superstitious additions of Chrysm Oyl c. They both baptized the Adult but not after the same manner and this was that which Austin stood upon he would have had them Baptize after their manner But Mr. Danvers objects 2. It could not respect the Mode of Baptism that 's strange for doth he not tell us just before p. 38. of his Reply from Mr. Fox who takes it from Bede That they refused to baptize after the manner of Rome and can he tell wherein the difference lies between Mode and Manner But let us weigh his Reasons which are as light as a Feather why it could not respect the Mode of Baptism His first is Because the custom of the Church of Rome was not Universal but opposed by the Greeks and Eastern Churches not at all to be made out to be Apostolical He says true indeed though it be not ad Rhombum and though the Church of Rome was not so universal neither could be made out to be Apostolical yet they are so proud as to term it so and say what we can to the contrary they do still arrogate as much to this day 3. Therefore saith he it must needs respect Infants-baptism whether this be intended as an Argument or a Conclusion who can tell it is brought in as a third Argument and then it is idem per idem It must needs respect Infants-baptism because it must needs But he wheels about again after a confused manner and comes in with five other Arguments 1. Because the Church of Rome had particularly enjoyned and imposed it to beget Infants to Regeneration and therefore must intend the substance and not the Ceremony To which I reply 1. It is very strange that Mr. Danvers's mind should thus run altogether upon Childrens Baptism when the work which Austin would have had them gone upon was to Baptize the Adult Pagans such as the Saxons then were and to Preach the Gospel to them and we reade not unless I mistake of any Children that he baptized at all nor any of his company although he sent to Gregory to know how long the baptizing of a Child might be deferr'd there being no danger of Death 2. How came the Canon of the Church of Rome into Mr. Danvers's mind of Childrens being born of God by Regeneration for Austin spake not of this but only exhorts the Britains to administer Baptism whereby saith he we are born again as holding that grown Persons are born again to God as well as Children according to the Judgment of the Church of Rome as well as the ancient Fathers Doth not Just in Martyr say the same speaking of the manner how the Christians were baptized they go saith he to the Water and are regenerated as we our selves were regenerated c. So that these are but childish Cavils against Childrens-Baptism 2. He urge● another and that is Because Infants-Baptism was universally received in this seventh Age in other parts of the World for this end This is such an Argument that I know not well what to say to it unless it be that since Infants-Baptism was so universally received in other parts of the World it 's altogether improbable it should be shut out of Wales The third and fourth Arguments make but one which is because Infant-Baptism was received and enjoyned as an Apostolical practice and it had been childish and ridiculous to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical Mr. Danvers says true It had been indeed ridiculous for Austin to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical and therefore he speaks of the manner of Baptizing which he would have the Britains observe as they did that is to do it in that superstitious way with Chrysm Oyl c. which is held by the Church of Rome to be Apostolical And whereas I say the Britains did no more reject Infants-Baptism than they did Preaching to the Saxons He thus replys True having as much