10. Lastly, the Britons were infected with Pelagianism; Pelagius (called Morgan, being a Britain (and Usher saith, some say born the same day with Augustine) and Celestius a Scot or Irish man; And the Pelagians themselves were for Infant-Baptism, (And if any Christians in the world had been against it, they would have been the likeliest, who denied Original sin: Yet even they durst not deny this.) And is it a credible thing that all these Britons who were some of Pelagius's mind, and some of Augustine's, were yet against both in point of Infant-Baptism? Yea and not a word said of this by any writer, when their Pelagianism made so great a stir! Yet this man gathereth that the Churches ⟨p. 266⟩of France were Anabaptists (contrary to all history) because the Waldenses 600 years after were Anabaptists (which is also false:) And the Britons were Anabaptists, because the Churches of France sent two Learned men to dispute against Pelagianism in England, (when the unlearned Britons could not do it). Reader, will not this kind o• arguing make thee an Anabaptist? or else make thee pity the seduced party? O what a temptation to Popery do such men lay before the people! When men see that every such a one that hath ignorance and pride enough to make him wise in his own eyes, shall thus pour out falsehoods to cheat mankind, and the ignorant know not but it may all be true, it tempteth men to think that there must be some Authorized men whom the Ignorant must believe before such seducers, or else confusion and falsehood will take place of truth, and the people will be as children tossed up and down, and carried to and fro with every wind of doctrine. And indeed a concordant Ministry is so to be preferred, though it infer not a Roman infallibility.
10. Lastly, the Britains were infected with Pelagianism; Pelagius (called Morgan, being a Britain (and Ʋsher saith, some say born the same day with Augustine) and Celestius a Scot or Irish man; And the Pelagians themselves were for Infant-Baptism, (And if any Christians in the world had been against it, they would have been the likeliest, who denyed Original sin: Yet even they durst not deny this.) And is it a credible thing that all these Britains who were some of Pelagius's mind, and some of Augustines, were yet against both in point of Infant-Baptism? Yea and not a word said of this by any writer, when their Pelagianism made so great a stir! Yet this man gathereth that the Churches ⟨p. 266⟩of France were Anabaptists (contrary to all history) because the Waldenses 600 years after were Anabaptists (which is also false:) And the Britains were Anabaptists, because the Churches of France sent two Learned men to dispute against Pelagianism in England, (when the unlearned Britains could not do it). Reader, will not this kind o• arguing make thee an Anabaptist? or else make thee pitty the seduced party? O what a temptation to Popery do such men lay before the people! When men see that every such a one that hath ignorance and pride enough to make him wise in his own eyes, shall thus pour out falshoods to cheat mankind, and the ignorant know not but it may all be true, it tempteth men to think that there must be some Authorized men whom the Ignorant must believe before such seducers, or else confusion and falshood will take place of truth, and the people will be as children tossed up and down, and carryed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. And indeed a concordant Ministry is so to be preferred, though it infer not a Roman infallibility.
