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

§. 26. Somewhat he would fain say at the second hand out of Albaspinaeus, Observ. 20. I hope he never read the book: Albaspinaeus there purposely decideth the Controversy, what the Novatian Heresy was, in several Chapters, and never mentioneth any such opinion or suspicion of them. The same doth that great Antiquary Jesuit Petavius; (and what these two men knew not of the Fathers and Church-history, few in the world knew, unless I may except Blondel and Usher:) In his notes on Epiphanius of the Novatians, he entereth on the same Controversy as Albaspinaeus did, and never mentioneth any such thing.

§. 26. Somewhat he would fain say at the second hand out of Albaspinaeus, Observ. 20. I hope he never read the book: Albaspinaeus there purposely decideth the Controversie, what the Novatian Heresie was, in several Chapters, and never mentioneth any such opinion or suspicion of them. The same doth that great Antiquary Jesuit Petavius; (and what these two men knew not of the Fathers and Church-history, few in the world knew, unless I may except Blondel and Ʋsher:) In his notes on Epiphanius of the Novatians, he entreth on the same Controversie as Albaspinaeus did, and never mentioneth any such thing.

§. 27. Next he tells us that Ecbertus and Emericus do assert that the Waldenses, the new Cathari, conform to the Doctrine and manners of the old, the Novatians.

Answ. But did they say that the Novatians were against Infant-Baptism? Why did you cite neither words, page nor Book? And if they had, should two railing slanderous Papists near a thousand years after Novatian be taken for witnesses that he was against Infant-baptism, against all the History of the Church that concerneth them to the contrary? Socrates himself (an honest Historian) and Sozomen also are ordinarily by the Papists accused as Novatians, because they speak fairly and