A26959:739
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.
Answ. The book is Bib. Pat. Suppl. To. 2. containing 55. Chapters: And if I must read every word of such long books to try his Citations, I must spend many months to be able to tell you that a man told you so many untruths: All that I can find by a cursory perusal is but this, about a Village in the other Pari•h, whom it should pay Tithes to, [habebas imbreviatos quot Infants sine baptismate, & quot homines sine Communion inde obierunt, quae mihi in publicum objicere nolles, ne postea tibi improperarem; at si alia mala de me scires, illa etiam de me diceres.] Reader, is here a syllable against Infant-baptism? Who was the accuser here? What is in ⟨p. 274⟩the accusation but as in Adrians to Greg. which plainly proveth the contrary, that he was for Infant-baptism and ordinarily used it, when the intimation was but that he had let some Infants die without baptism and some men without Communion? Hath not many a Minister among us been so accused? And are we therefore against Infant-baptism? Or was Hinomarus against adult Communion because envy said he let some die without it?
Answ. The book is Bib. Pat. Suppl. To. 2. containing 55. Chapters: And if I must read every word of such long books to try his Citations, I must spend many months to be able to tell you that a man told you so many untruths: All that I can find by a cursory perusal is but this, about a Village in the other Pari•h, whom it should pay Tythes to, [habebas imbreviatos quot Infantes sine baptismate, & quot homines sine Communione inde obierunt, quae mihi in publicum objicere nolles, ne postea tibi improperarem; at si alia mala de me scires, illa etiam de me diceres.] Reader, is here a syllable against Infant-baptism? Who was the accuser here? What is in ⟨p. 274⟩the accusation but as in Adrians to Greg. which plainly proveth the contrary, that he was for Infant-baptism and ordinarily used it, when the intimation was but that he had let some Infants die without baptism and some men without Communion? Hath not many a Minister among us been so accused? And are we therefore against Infant-baptism? Or was Hinomarus against adult Communion because envy said he let some die without it?