Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
christian_n christian_a church_n society_n 2,901 5 9.2764 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45068 The humble petition of the Protestants of France to the French-King, to recall his declaration for taking their children from them at the age of seven years 1681 (1681) Wing H3576; ESTC R659 5,012 4

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

to make Vows or to pass any Act of the free consent of their wills Sir your Parliaments which complying with those Maxims have never made Children liable to Capital Punishments will find themselves obliged to abolish this Custom and Usage of all Nations and all Ages for the Children of 7 years old being rendred capable of changing their Religion are at the same time rendred capable of falling into the Crime of those they call Relapsers and made liable to the capital Punishments of it ordained by your Laws foreign Nations and even those that are Infidels will believe themselves authoriz'd by this example against those who profess a Religion contrary to theirs To conclude the Roman Catholick Religion will not be honour'd by it when it shall be said that it is the Issue of Conversions at 7 years old that is to say in an Age wherein Reason hath no force nor Judgment no Rule and by consequence the change of Religion cannot proceed from a legitimate choice It may be added that this Law breaks off from the practice of the whole Christian Church for suppose the Supplicants Hereticks it is a constant Truth that the Church never took away Children under Age from those that were regarded as Infidels living with them in the same Civil Society It was untill now never known among Christians and other Nations of the World that the paternal power of Parents over their children hath been limited to seven years of Age principally in the point of their Religion One of the greatest Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church decides the Case that the Children of the Jews ought not to be baptiz'd against the will of their Parents for two Reasons One that the practice of the Church never gave any countenance to it The other that natural Righteousness opposes it In effect when some Kings of Spain or Portugal as Sizibuts and Emmanuel the second have attempted it the 4th Councel of Tolledo oppos'd the action of the first and all the World condemn'd the other And Osorius a Famous Bishop who relates the Ordinance of Emmanuel appointing the Male-children of the Jews to be taken away under the age of 14. Years says that it was an Action that had no foundation either in Law or Religion tho it seem'd to proceed from a good Intention and had an appearance of Piety because that God requires of men a voluntary Sacrifice and will not that Consciences be forc'd to which he adds the horrible circumstances that accompanied this Law wen those unhappy Fathers who fear'd to have their Children ravisht from them fell into such excess of Raging grief that they cast their Children into wells and themselves with them The Supplicants fear nothing like that by the Grace of God and the Justice of your Majesty But yet they are perswaded the Declaration cannot be executed against them but with most deplorable consequences Let it not be said that it commands not to force the children out of the bosom of their Parents but only puts them into a freedom of chusing the Catholick Religion for in the first place the force is not to be considered as acted upon the Children but on their Fathers to whom Nature gave them The same forecited Doctor makes the same judgment and argument in the Case Injustice sayes he would be done to the Jews if their Children should be baptiz'd against their consent for the paternal power which they have over their children would be injuriously forc'd from them He adds It is that which the Church never did even when it had Catholick Princes as Constantine and Theodosius who had no doubt permitted it if it had not been a practice contrary to Right Reason Also the Edict of Nants in the 18. Article equally forbids Force and Perswasion and gives the name of Violence to both And all the Ordinances have as severely provided for the the punishment of the Rape of Perswasion as that of Force But in the second place it is an act of Force and Violence to take children at seven years old out of the hands of their parents as well as if they were still hanging on the breast For if Natural and Civil Right puts Children under the power of their Fathers till their ripe age it is the same thing to take them out of it seven years old as if they were forc'd from them out of the Cradle for the paternal power is equally violated in both If it be said that Children at seven years old are capable of mortal sin and that being so they may make choice of a Religion besides that to speak generally this Principle is very uncertain and that it would be a strange course to judge the Supplicants according to Principles which they acknowledge not Who sees not Sir that the Consequence is not just and that there is great difference between the first Ideas of Good and Ill which children may have in the Actions of their life and the Capacity of Judging in matters of Religion or rather determining whether they should forget the Faith wherein they have been educated to embrace another which is unknown to them and thus to make a Choyce which is the greatest Effort of the understanding of a Man when he wholly applies himself to seek after his Salvation Your Petitioners will not here insist on the sad and mischievous Consequences of the execution of this Law which appears so terrible to them The despair into which Fathers and Mothers will be driven the unavoidable disagreement between them and their children the perverting the Order intended by Nature for their education who begin by a submission to the will of their Parents to be formed into subjection to Magistrates and Princes and rendred good Commonwealths-men The forced flight of many Families out of the Realm The Libertinism of Children who will no more fear Correction and who will always have a pretence to withdraw themselves from it whereby even the Fruitfulness of Marriages which is the support of Commonwealths will come to be apprehended and a multitude of Quarrels will every day arise amongst all sorts of people Which together with a thousand other Inconveniences will ensue to the disturbance of Civil Society Your Petitioners are with the rest of the World convinced that Your Majesty can execute whatsoever you do resolve but they also know that you are pleased to temper your Authority and Power with your Bounty and Justice according to the example of God himself who never displays his infinite Power over his Creatures but that at the same time he regards them with eyes of Compassion Thus Sir it is your Justice that the Supplicants in the excess of their Sorrows implore To it they address their Cries and Teares And without Failing in the duty they owe to your Majesties Orders it is to it they presume to say that they shall chase all manner of Sufferings and even death it self rather than to endure a separation from their Children in so tender an age and to be made uncapable of rendring that account to God of them which their Consciences layes an obligation upon them to enddeavour For these Reasons may it please your Majesty by Revoking the new Declaration of the 17th of June last past to Ordain that the Declaration in the Month of February 1669 may be executed according to its Form and Tenor. And your Petitioners will continue their Vowes and Prayers for your Majesties Health and Prosperity and the Glory of your Reign LONDON Printed by N.T. for Andrew Forrester in King's-street Westminster 1681.