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

And to the question of an old woman Baptizing children in necessity, he saith, [Credimus tamen quod quaecunque Vetula vel abjecta persona rite lavante hominem cum verbis sacramentalibus Baptismum flaminis Deus complet.] The Reader must pardon the Latin to the Author or Printer, which may thus be Englished. [But we believe that what old woman soever or abject person rightly washeth one with the Sacramental words, God fulfilleth the Baptism of the spirit.]

And to the question of an old woman Baptizing children in necessity, he saith, [Credimus tamen quod quaecunque Vetula vel abjecta persona rite lavante hominem cum verbis sacramentalibus Baptismum flaminis Deus complet.] The Reader must pardon the Latine to the Author or Printer, which may thus be Englished. [But we believe that what old woman soever or abject person rightly washeth one with the Sacramental words, God fulfilleth the Baptism of the spirit.]

It seemeth that whereas Tertullian (Mr. D.'s first witness) was for Lay-mens Baptizing in case of necessity, but not for women's, that Wycliffe was for women's also.

It seemeth that whereas Tertullian (Mr. D.'s first witness) was for Lay-mens Baptizing in case of necessity, but not for womens, that Wickliffe was for womens also.

And to the next question, Whether Infants unbaptized when Baptism could not be had, be all damned? he answereth (Et per haec respondeo ad &c.) that is [And by this I answer your third objection, granting, that God if he will, may damn such an Infant, and do him no wrong, and if he will he can save him: And I dare not define either part: nor am I careful about reputation, or getting evidence in the case; but as a dumb man am silent, humbly confessing my ignorance, using conditional words