Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	particular_a	universal_a	4,571	5	9.4486	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

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-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

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 ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜