A26959:1006
More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second…
More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for N. Simmons and J. Robinson, 1675
Text 1 › Chapter 3: Mr. D.'s Justification of his slander of the Waldenses, Confuted more largely.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
§. 7. His next proof is [Dr. Prideaux saith in his Lat. Councils, that Peter Bruis and Arnold of Brixia, were in the second Lateran Council censured for the heresy of rejecting Infant-Baptism, &c.]
§. 7. His next proof is [Dr. Prideaux saith in his Lat. Councils, that Peter Bruis and Arnold of Brixia, were in the second Laterane Council censured for the heresie of rejecting Infant-Baptism, &c.]
Answ. I have seldom read an Author whose Proofs are liker one another: 1. Why must we be told what Dr. Prideaux saith of the acts of an old Council, as easily known by us as by him? 2. Reader, there is not the least ⟨p. 386⟩proof of any such matter meddled with in that Council: Peter Crab doth not so much as name that Council: Binius only tells you that the Acts of the Council are not extant, but that Abbas Urspergensis, and Otto Frisingensis give us some account of what they did, whose words have not a syllable about any such subject, but only that they condemned the Schismatics who adhered to Peter Leo, an Antipope. 3. But how came Dr. Prideaux so to mistake? Answ. Those Papers of Dr. Prideaux were posthumous shreds, which whether he would have owned we cannot tell. But that which he saith, is that there were thirty Canons lately published as that Council's, which Bellarmine himself rejecteth as false: And seeing I never saw that forgery I cannot say whether any such thing be in it, which Prideaux's words recite: But it must be from that or from nothing. And is this a good proof for Prideaux to tell you what a forged writing saith, which Crab and Binius and Bellarmine eject or take for false? 4. But what if that Council had so accused Bruis and Arnold, are they to be (believed of them? But there is no such thing proved.
Answ. I have seldom read an Author whose Proofs are liker one another: 1. Why must we be told what Dr. Prideaux saith of the acts of an old Council, as easily known by us as by him? 2. Reader, there is not the least ⟨p. 386⟩