A26959:688
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
Chapter 4: Of Mr. Danvers's his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism.
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.
§. 29. Next he citeth as Cassanders reason against him that the Donatists were for Infant-baptism, the sixth Council of Carthage, saying that [All that returned from the Donatists should be received into the Catholic Church without rebaptization though baptized in Infancy,] and saith, [It is but a supposition at best that they might be baptized in Infancy or they might not, and can signify nothing against all the former evidence.] And is it not shame and pity that so public matters of fact must be handled at this rate? What is his former evidence but such as humane nature may blush at, to find that one called a man and a Christian, and too good for the communion of such as we, should be guilty of? And why talketh he of this one reason against him in so public a matter of History? as if he knew not what abundance more may easily be ⟨p. 255⟩produced, if it were of any need? And how shamefully are these plain words of a Council put off, as if all the Bishops that lived in the same time and Country with them knew not what the Donatists hold, so well as he and such as he?
§. 29. Next he citeth as Cassanders reason against him that the Donatists were for Infant-baptism, the sixth Council of Carthage, saying that [All that returned from the Donatists should be received into the Catholick Church without rebaptization though baptized in Infancy,] and saith, [It is but a supposition at best that they might be baptized in Infancy or they might not, and can signifie nothing against all the former evidence.] And is it not shame and pity that so publick matters of fact must be handled at this rate? What is his former evidence but such as humane nature may blush at, to find that one called a man and a Christian, and too good for the communion of such as we, should be guilty of? And why talketh he of this one reason against him in so publick a matter of History? as if he knew not what abundance more may easily be ⟨p. 255⟩produced, if it were of any need? And how shamefully are these plain words of a Council put off, as if all the Bishops that lived in the same time and Countrey with them knew not what the Donatists hold, so well as he and such as he?