Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptize_v	child_n	infant_n	1,168	5	9.1746	5	false

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

are to be esteemed fit subjects for Baptism Neither will this Evasion serve Mr. Danvers turn to put by this our Testimony and I wonder he should labour thus to darken Truth and delude the Reader for 't is true those words before-mentioned were spoken of Circumcision but he knows it was by way of introduction to the Baptism of Infants and therefore that he may not impose upon the Reader I will give the whole Sentence of Ambrose from the Magdiburgs Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 240. The Law commands the Males to be circumcised when newly born and as soon as they begin to cry because as Circumcision was from Infancy so was the disease Sin no time ought to be void of a Remedy because no time is void of Sin Neither the old man that is a Proselyte nor the new-born Infant is excepted then comes in those words Because every age is subject to Sin every age is fit for the Sacrament and the very next words are these eadem ratione Baptismum asserit Pervulorum lib. 10. Epistolarum Epistola 84. that is by the same reason he asserts Infants-Baptism in the eighty fourth of his 10th Book of Epistles Whether now Mr. Danvers hath not weakly opposed and dealt sophistically with this Quotation of Ambrose and whether it be not a pitiful shift in him to say the being fit for the Sacrament of which Ambrose speaks must be supposed to be meant of those only who are capable to confess Faith is submitted to the judgment of the impartial Reader As for what he objects that if every age be fit for the Sacrament in regard every age is obnoxious to sin then Infidels are fit subjects of Baptism I answer that the foregoing words of Ambrose viz. Neither the Old man that is a profelyte nor the New-born Infant is excepted shew that he speaks of those who are within the Church The last man that we bring for Infants-Baptism and excepted against by Mr. Danvers is Nazianzen and 't is observable that he confesseth what we urge from him hath most in it It seems then I was mistaken for I thought what we bring from Chrysostom and Ambrose had altogether as much in it as what is re-urg'd from Nazianzen The words quoted from this Father are out of his 40 oration viz. Hast thou a Child let it be early consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its Infancy To which he replyes that I impose a fallacy upon the Reader for translating the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants thereby concluding him absolutely for Infants-Baptism and that because saith he the word signifies a State of Childhood as 2 Tim. 3. 15. And therefore Nazianzen must be understood by his early consecration to mean not in the Cradle but as he explains himself so soon as they are able to understand Mysteries except in case of death and when I pray according to Nazianzen were they capacitated for the understanding Mysteries the Magdiburgs inform us from his 3d Oration it was about the age of three years Extra periculum triennium aut eo plus minusve expectandum esse censet Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 416. that is if there be no danger of Death his judgment was they should stay till they are about 3 years old or something less and so be baptized nevertheless say they in some other place of that Oration Nazianzen declares omni aetati Baptisma convenire That Baptism is fit for every age comporting herein with Ambrose as before But whether I or Mr. Danvers do impose a fallacy let the Reader judg by what follows 1. Nazianzen was for baptizing Children in case of danger though as young as the Children of the Jews that were circumcised the 8th day as appears by the reason which he gives for their Baptism viz. It is better to be Sanctified by which he means baptized without knowledg than to die without it for saith he it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel upon which Vossius hath this note in his Thesis of Baptism Non igitur Nazianzenus c. Nazianzen was not against Infants-Baptism and his judgment will be taken as soon as most mens 2. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for a state of Childhood yet in that place of Nazianzen we mention it is not to be taken so largely that is Children of some understanding as Mr. Danvers doth suggest because of the instance of Circumcision given by the Father 3. Nazianzen being a Greek-Father intends the word according to its proper signification and as it is generally taken in the New-Testament as well as in prophane Authors and that is a state of Infancy for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Infant saith Mr. Leigh Crit. Sac. and is properly spoken de partu recens edito of a Child newly born quoting Beza on Luke 18. 15. who saith the word properly is taken for Infantes teneri nimirum adhuc ab uberibus pendentes parvuli i. e. Sucking Babes such as are carried in arms The same word is given to Christ when the Wise-men found him in swadling-clouts Luke 2. 12. And we have it again for a new-born Babe 1. Pet. 2. 2. As new-borne Babes desire the sincere Milk of the word c. But Mr. Danvers hath not done with Nazianzen yet and therefore frames an Objection for us and answers it himself thus It is not manifest that in case of death he would have an Infant baptized To which he answers It is true but that was not quà Infant but as a dying person We see by this acute distinction that our Antagonist is not only a Critick but that he hath some Logick too in which he saith he owneth little skill but that little I suppose is in that part which they call Sophistry or the abuse of Logick But that the weakness of this distinction may appear consider 1. That it is true Nazianzen would not have an Infant baptized quà Infant 2. It is untrue that Nazianzen would have an Infant baptized quà a dying person for if they were to be baptized under either of these Considerations then had he been for the baptizing all Infants and dying persons promiscuously 3. But Nazianzens judgment was to have them baptized because they were the Children of Christians in iminent danger of death They were such as were capacitated for that Ordinance on the account of God's Covenant else why doth he speak of circumcising Children in the very place which is now under debate Melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non Signatos et initiatos vitâ excedere Nazianz. Orat. 40. It is better saith he they should be consecrated without their knowledg than to die without the Seal and not be initiated idque nobis designat octavum diem circumcisio illa itaque fuit figurale signaculum ac propter irrationales introducta For so it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel But let the account be what it will upon which Nazianzen would have Children

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-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 ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜

is so bold as to say that the Magdiburgs tell us it was the Universal Practice to Baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. p. 64. when they say otherwise namely That persons of all ages were baptized in the Temples and cite Nazianzen for baptizing of Infants in the Churches of Asia to which also we have added the Testimonies of Hillary Ambrose Jerom Chrisostom Austin all of the 4th Century and for Infants Baptism lastly he brings the Canons of the 3 Councils of Carthage Laodicea and Neocaesaria which have not a word in them against Infants Baptism and what is decreed about Confession before Baptism relates to Strangers as I presume I have made it appear beyond all doubt in the two last of them if that of Neocaesaria ever had a being But I must proceed on and follow Mr. Danvers for he tells us he is not alone in his Opinion and therefore brings in divers Authorities to confirm it that only the Adult upon confession of Faith were the subjects of Baptism in the first times p. 14 15. He begins with Strabo that saith In the first times Baptism was wont to be given to them only that could know and understand what profit was to be gotten by it But it seems by the story that Strabo his first-times go no higher than Austins Days for he instanceth in his being baptized at Age when-as we have Testimony that Childrens Baptism was in use in the Church above a hundred years before Austin was born And Austin that lived about four hundred years nearer the primitive times than Strabo affirms that the Church always had it and always held it Besides the Testimony of Strabo is not to be valued being condemned by Vossius and others for a false Historian We have formerly in our answer given instances thereof and particularly we noted that gross mistake of his That Sureties called God-Fathers and God-Mothers were first invented in Austin's days when Tertullian speaks of them above a hundred years before Next follows Beatus Rhenanus Rupertus Boemus Dr. Hammond and Mr. Baxter the eldest of whom lived but in the 12th Cent. according to Mr. Danvers and had no other way of knowing what was don in the first times than we and therefore let them affirm what they please unless they can prove it by the records of those times it signifies no more than if Mr. Danvers told us so And the contrary to what he asserts is apparent from Antiquity But because Mr. Danvers shall not say I slight his Authorities I shall particularly examine them And as for B. Rhenanus who lived in 15. Cent. what Mr. Danvers makes him say is very impertinent to his purpose For his business is to prove that only the Adult were then baptized which his quotation affirms not and what then doth it signifie but to help to swell his Book But I shall make it appear that Mr. D. hath shamefully mistaken Rhenanus's sense and thereby exceedingly abused him For B. Rhenanus in his Annot. upon Tertullian's Corona militis on those words Aquam adituri saith thus p. 500. Baptizandi ritum ostendit qui in usu Veterum fuit de quo Consuetudo quaedam mutavit Nam tum Adulti regenerationis lavacro tingebantur quotidie externis e Paganismo ad nostram Religionem confluentibus Siquidem id temporis ubique reperire erat Ethnicos Christianis admixtos Postea statis temporibus nempe bis in anno celebrari baptismus caeptus ejus enim rei nullam hic facit mentionem alioqui non omissurus Qui mos antiquus etiam per tempora Caroli Magni et Ludovici Augusti servatus est Judicant hoc Leges ab illis sancitae quibus cavetur ne quemquam sacerdotes baptizent excepto mortis articulo praeterquam in Paschate Pentacoste That is He Tertullian shews the Rite of baptising that was in use among the Ancients from which a certain custom hath made a change For then for the most part the Adult were baptized strangers daily flocking from Paganism to our Religion because at that time Heathens were every-where to be found mixed among the Christians Afterwards Baptism began to be celebrated at stated times to wit twice in the year for of this thing the two stated times of Baptism He Tertullian makes no mention here otherwise had it been in use he would not have omitted the mention of it Which ancient custom to wit of celebrating Baptism at two stated times of the year was also observed in the days of Charles the Great and Ludovick the Emperor as appears by the Laws made by them whereby care is taken that the Priests Baptize none except those at the point of death but at Easter and Whitsontide By this it is apparent 1st that by the Adult he means only Heathens newly converted and 2. By the ancient custom Baptizing at the two stated times of Easter and Whisontide and not the baptizing those that were come to their full growth as Mr. D. saith And to assure him Infants are not hereby excluded Rhenanus presently adds Hoc sic accipiendum ut sciamus Infantes post Pascha natos ad baptismum Pentacostes reservatos et natos post Pentacostem ad Paschatem festum diem Bapismo offerri solitos excepta seu dixi necessitate una cum adultis Catechumenis qui de externis nationibus Danorum c. similium populorum Christianae Religioni initiabantur That is this is so to be understood that we may know that these Infants that were born after Easter were reserved to the Baptism of Whitsontide and those that were born after Whitsontide to the Easter following except in case of necessity c. And now I perswade my self Mr. D. for very shame will take no more notice of this Quotation unless it be to acknowledg his Inadvertency in producing it His next Author is Rupertus in his 4th Book of Divine Offices c. 18. Here Mr. D. is guilty of most notorious forgery For in his second edition p. 73. he hath the same quotation and there he tells us Rupertus saith that in former times the custom was that they administred not the Sacrament of Regeneration but only at the Feast of Easter and Pentecost And here in his Reply p. 15. he alters the words and makes him say that they administred but only to the Catechumens c. If Mr. D. must have the liberty thus to deal with Authors I confess there is no standing against him But I hope the Reader will hereby be satisfied that this signifies no more as to his purpose than the former but deservedly renders him unworthy of belief in his Quotation of Authors Boemus follows who lived in the 16 Cent. though M. D. brings him into the 12th 2. Ed. p. 73. And he tells us there that he saith That in times past the custom was to administer Baptism only to those that were instructed in the Faith and seven times in the week before Easter and