A26959:699
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.
§. 36. But ask the man whether Asia it self long before the days of Gregory had not Infant-Baptism? And whether they received not the Scriptures and Religion as certainly from the Asiatic Churches, and so from the Apostles, as the Britons did? And whether this will prove that at that time they were against Infant-Baptism? If not, why will it prove the same of the Britons?
§. 36. But ask the man whether Asia it self long before the dayes of Gregory had not Infant-Baptism? And whether they received not the Scriptures and Religion as certainly from the Asiatick Churches, and so from the Apostles, as the Britains did? And whether this will prove that at that time they were against Infant-Baptism? If not, why will it prove the same of the Britains?
§. 37. His second Argument is [Because they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scripture, &c.]
Answ. What will not partiality say? 1. You must believe him that Scripture is against Infant-Baptism: And then the controversy is at an end. 2. You must believe him how closely ⟨p. 260⟩they adhered to Scripture, if you can, when you have read Gildas (who is translated into English) their neighbour, one of them, the only certain historian that knew them, who describeth them as I have said, as most flagitious heinous wicked men. Though I hope they amended after Gildas days, yet that showed you how they held to Apostolic discipline or Scripture. The book is so very small; it is but equal to entreat him to read it before he use this argument again*. 3. You must believe him that all that prize and adhere to Scripture are against Infant-Baptism. Read and try whether there be not greater evidence that Cyprian, Athanasius, Nazianzene, Chrysostom, Augustine, the Egyptian Monks, and other such strict persons in those ages, at least the Novatians, and Donatists (in his own judgement) prized the Scripture than the Britons? And doth it follow (in despite of their own professions and practises) that all these and the rest such, were against Infant-Baptism?