§. 21. In his Reply, p. 125. he adds Reinerius; which giveth me occasion to tell the Reader, that if he will peruse this one Author, he will better understand the truth of the whole business, than by reading many confounders that speak upon fame they know not what. This Rhei•herus tells us, that he was one of the Arch-heretics, and among them seventeen years; that is the Catharists: He tells us upon his own knowledge, not only how many sorts of them there were, whom (being then an Inquisitor) he calleth heretics, but also how many Churches the Catharists had, and what number each Church had, and where they were, and what every Sect held, as different from the rest. Whereas many ignorant writers of those times confound them. From him we have distinct notice that the Manichees and Catharists then held the horrid heresies charged on the Waldenses, and that the Leonists or Pauperes de Lugduno (the true Waldenses and Albigenses) were indeed free from them; and about Worship and Church Government, they differed from the Pontificians as the Protestants do: But for doctrinals (about Predestination, ⟨p. 396⟩Free-will, Mans Power, Venial sin, Justification, Merit, &c.) there is no regardable difference charged on them. Cap. 5. he giveth you a Catalogue of the Leonists opinions, of which twenty are against the Papal Government: Then he saith, they damn the Sacraments of the Church: And here come in the words cited by Mr. D. Where note, 1. That he maketh them say that [Catechism is nothing] 2. Item quod ablutio, quae datur Infantibus nihil profit.] That the washing which is given to Infants, profits not. [3. That the Godfathers understand not what they should answer to the Priest.] 4. That they reject exorcisms, and the benedictions of Baptism — that a Priest in mortal sin may not consecrate the Sacrament, &c.] And let the Reader note that the Popish doctrine then was, that all Baptized Infants were certainly saved, because Baptized, how wicked soever the Parents, Priest, and Godfathers were: And that all these (Priests, Parents, and Godfathers) were then so often grossly ignorant and wicked, as became the scandal of all good people. And note that here Reinherus saith not that they rejected Baptism of Infants, nor held it unlawful, but that, 1. Ablutio, the outward washing. 2. Quae datur, which de facto was then given Infants, 3.
§. 21. In his Reply, p. 125. he adds Reinerius; which giveth me occasion to tell the Reader, that if he will peruse this one Author, he will better understand the truth of the whole business, than by reading many confounders that speak upon fame they know not what. This Rhei•herus tells us, that he was one of the Arch-hereticks, and among them seventeen years; that is the Catharists: He tells us upon his own knowledge, not only how many sorts of them there were, whom (being then an Inquisitor) he calleth hereticks, but also how many Churches the Catharists had, and what number each Church had, and where they were, and what every Sect held, as different from the rest. Whereas many ignorant writers of those times confound them. From him we have distinct notice that the Manichees and Catharists then held the horrid heresies charged on the Waldenses, and that the Leonists or Pauperes de Lugduno (the true Waldenses and Albigenses) were indeed free from them; and about Worship and Church Government, they differed from the Pontificians as the Protestants do: But for doctrinals (about Predestination, ⟨p. 396⟩Free-will, Mans Power, Venial sin, Justification, Merit, &c.) there is no regardable difference charged on them. Cap. 5. he giveth you a Catalogue of the Leonists opinions, of which twenty are against the Papal Government: Then he saith, they damn the Sacraments of the Church: And here come in the words cited by Mr. D. Where note, 1. That he maketh them say that [Catechism is nothing] 2. Item quod ablutio, quae datur Infantibus nihil profit.] That the washing which is given to Infants, profits not. [3. That the Godfathers understand not what they should answer to the Priest.] 4. That they reject exorcismes, and the benedictions of Baptism — that a Priest in mortal sin may not consecrate the Sacrament, &c.] And let the Reader note that the Popish doctrine then was, that all Baptized Infants were certainly saved, because Baptized, how wicked soever the Parents, Priest, and Godfathers were: And that all these (Priests, Parents, and Godfathers) were then so often grosly ignorant and wicked, as became the scandal of all good people. And note that here Reinherus saith not that they rejected Baptism of Infants, nor held it unlawful, but that, 1. Ablutio, the outward washing. 2. Quae datur, which de facto was then given Infants, 3.
