More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second…

§. 13. Pag. 123. he proveth that the Waldenses did deny Infant-Baptism, from the Decrees of 12. several Princes, and Popes. For proof of that he referreth us to his former book. When I look there I find as cited p. 248, &c. his evidence is as followeth.

1. Dr. Usher out of the Fragments of Aquit. by P. Pithaeus tells us, that in the time of Robert King of France, they of Aquit and Toulouse, (principal places of the Waldenses) did deny Baptism (for so they called denying Baptism to little ones) &c.

1. Dr. Ʋsher out of the Fragments of Aquit. by P. Pithaeus tells us, that in the time of Robert King of France, they of Aquit and Tholouse, (principal places of the Waldenses) did deny Baptism (for so they called denying Baptism to little ones) &c.

Answ. Mark Reader the trustiness of this man. 1. He maketh denying Baptism (to signify) only denying it to Infants, without a word of proof; 2. He leaveth out the denying of our Redeemer, denying Lawful Marriage, and the eating of flesh, &c. though conjoined in the testimony. 3. He feigneth this to be said of the Waldenses, which is expressly said in the history to be spoken of the Manichees? Is not this an excellent Prover? The words of Pithaeus history cited by Usher de succes. p. 229. are these, Emersisse in Gallia Manichaeos, &c. Pith. [Evestigio exorti sunt per Aquitaniam Manichaei seducentes—suadebant negare baptismum, signum crucis, Ecclesiam, & ipsum Redemptorem seculi, honorem Sanctorum, conjugia legitima, esum carnium—simili modo apud Tholesam inventi sunt Manichaei, & ⟨p. 391⟩ipsi igne cremati sunt: & per diversas Occidentis parts Manichaei, exorti—Of the real presence here is nothing.