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

I. That it is a sin for any man (supposing Infant Baptism a duty) to offer his child to be Baptized where it will be done with the sign of the Cross, or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use, though he profess his own dissent and disallowance of those ceremonies, and though he cannot lawfully have it done better, but must have that or no Baptism at all?

I. That it is a sin for any man (supposing Infant Baptism a duty) to offer his child to be Baptized where it will be done with the sign of the Cross, or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use, though he profess his own dissent and dissallowance of those ceremonies, and though he cannot lawfully have it done better, but must have that or no Baptism at all?

II. That in the ancient Churches of the second, third, and fourth ages, it had been better to be unbaptized than to use a white Garment in Baptism as they did, or to be anointed as then, or to taste Milk and Honey, though the Person offering his child to such Baptism, had professed his dissent as aforesaid?

III. That all the Churches of Christ in those second, third, and fourth, and following ages, who were Baptized thus (Infant or adult,) had no Baptism but what was worse than none: (Though Church history certify us that this use was so universal, that it's hard to find any one Christian in all those or many after ages that ever was against the lawfulness of it, or refused it.)

III. That all the Churches of Christ in those second, third, and fourth, and following ages, who were Baptized thus (Infant or adult,) had no Baptism but what was worse than none: (Though Church history certifie us that this use was so universal, that it's hard to find any one Christian in all those or many after ages that ever was against the lawfulness of it, or refused it.)