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

Answ. I grow ashamed that I have meddled with such a Collector: A baculo ad angulum. Doth it not rather imply that there was no controversy ⟨p. 267⟩between him and the Britons about Infant-Baptism, seeing he never mentioned any such thing?

Answ. I grow ashamed that I have medled with such a Collector: A baculo ad angulum. Doth it not rather imply that there was no controversie ⟨p. 267⟩between him and the Britains about Infant-Baptism, seeing he never mentioned any such thing?

§. 43. His next witnesses against Infant-Baptism are in the fourth Century, called by him Dadoes, Sabas, Adulphus, and Simonis who (saith he in his catalogue) oppose it. And p. 229. he saith to prove it, but that they were charged to have an ill opinion of the Sacrament of the Altar and of Infants Baptism. And he citeth Histor. Tripartita li. 7. c. 11. (and some fellow an hundred years ago.)

Answ. And have we here any honester dealing than before? Read and judge. That which the Tripartite History cited by him saith is this, that [There was then a Sect called Messalians or Euchetes (known in the Catalogues of Heretics) and called The Praying Heretics) who expected the operation of some Devil thinking him to be the Spirit of God, refusing to work and giving themselves to lie and sleep to expect Revelations; Indeed their opinion was that Prayer was all, and Baptism and the Lords Supper were nothing, dicentes Divinum cibum nihil nec prodesse nec laedere; that the Sacred or Sacramental food, did neither profit nor hurt: These men were led by one Dadoes, Sabbos, Adelphius, Hermas and Simeon: And Adelphus when old (for they hid their opinion) bewrayed his error in a speech to Flavian of Antioch; that Baptism doth the Baptized person no good, but prayer only expelleth the Devil. And 1. These men were no more against Infant-Baptism than