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

§. 14. 2. But what need we ask Cassander what Guitmund said? What childish play is this? His own book is as common as Cassanders in Bibl. Patr. To. 6. p. 215. And Guitmund's words are these [Berengarius opened those things by which he might please worldly men, that love always (if they may do it unpunished) to sin: to wit, destroying as much as in him lay Lawful Marriages, and overturning Infants baptism: So that in one the Devil by his mouth persuaded the worst men that it was lawful to abuse all women; and in the other [Cassato baptismate Infantiae in profundum omnium malorum, utpote postmodum baptizandis, impune ruere: Lege Epist. Leodiensis Episcopi contra Berengar. ad Henr. Reg. Franc. & eisdem pene verbis eadem ipsa ibi scripta reperies] that is, [making void the baptism of Infancy, they might rush unpunished into the depth of all evils, as being afterward to be baptized. Read the Epistle of the Bishop of Liege to H. R. of France against Berengarius, and there you shall find these same things written, almost in the same words.]

§. 14. 2. But what need we ask Cassander what Guitmund said? What childish play is this? His own book is as common as Cassanders in Bibl. Patr. To. 6. p. 215. And Guitmunds words are these [Berengarius opened those things by which he might please worldly men, that love always (if they may do it unpunished) to sin: to wit, destroying as much as in him lay Lawful Marriages, and overturning Infants baptism: So that in one the Devil by his mouth perswaded the worst men that it was lawful to abuse all women; and in the other [Cassato baptismate Infantiae in profundum omnium malorum, utpote postmodum baptizandis, impune ruere: Lege Epist. Leodiensis Episcopi contra Berengar. ad Henr. Reg. Franc. & eisdem pene verbis eadem ipsa ibi scripta reperies] that is, [making void the baptism of Infancie, they might rush unpunished into the depth of all evils, as being afterward to be baptized. Read the Epistle of the Bishop of Liege to H. R. of France against Berengarius, and there you shall find these same things written, almost in the same words.]

And now, Reader, judge further, 1. Whether this Papist who never knew the matter himself, and whose book showeth him a silly bitter fellow professing to transcribe or take his words from the Bishop of Liege who took it from fame, be to he believed in his accusations of such a man, when Lanfranc that disputed with him before the Pope, nor the Pope himself, nor any of the many Synods that examined him, and constrained him to recant, ever mention such a thing? Were these Persecutors think you blind or merciful herein? 2. If he be to be believed in this, why not in the first article, of the lawfulness of abusing all women commonly? 3. Do not the very words [quantum in se, and everterit] and [cassato baptismate] open the case, that malice gathered this as a forced consequence only of some words of Berengarius? It is like because he defined a Sacrament to their dislike, which Lanfranc reproveth him for.