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

§. 2. His Catalogue containeth three Columns: The first of the Baptism of the Adult: And what Christian ever denied this? And what meaneth the man in labouring to prove it? The second is of the Instituting and asserting of Infant-Baptism; of which more anon. The third is of his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism. And the first of these mentioned in the Catalogue is Tertullian in the third Century. By which he seemeth to confess that till the third Century he hath no witness against it. But I have said so much elsewhere and others more, to prove, 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism de facto was then in use; 2. That he only telleth his opinion ⟨p. 240⟩of the point of convenience, but concludeth not against Infant-Baptism as unlawful; 3. That it is most probable he speaketh of the Infants of Heathens; 4. That he speaketh from that strict singularity which made him plead also for the Montanists Fanaticism, and against second marriages, and for his inordinate fastings, &c. as a man differing from the Churches and numbered with the Heretics (though I think him a learned Godly man.) And I refer it to the Readers judgement whether in my book of Infant-Baptism I have not proved by many other words in Tertullian that he was not against all Infant-Baptism, but for it among Christians.

§. 2. His Catalogue containeth three Columns: The first of the Baptism of the Adult: And what Christian ever denied this? And what meaneth the man in labouring to prove it? The second is of the Instituting and asserting of Infant-Baptism; of which more anon. The third is of his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism. And the first of these mentioned in the Catalogue is Tertullian in the third Century. By which he seemeth to confess that till the third Century he hath no witness against it. But I have said so much elsewhere and others more, to prove, 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism de facto was then in use; 2. That he only telleth his opinion ⟨p. 240⟩of the point of convenience, but concludeth not against Infant-Baptism as unlawful; 3. That it is most probable he speaketh of the Infants of Heathens; 4. That he speaketh from that strict singularity which made him plead also for the Montanists Fanaticism, and against second marriages, and for his inordinate fastings, &c. as a man differing from the Churches and numbered with the Hereticks (though I think him a learned Godly man.) And I refer it to the Readers judgement whether in my book of Infant-Baptism I have not proved by many other words in Tertullian that he was not against all Infant-Baptism, but for it among Christians.