'Jl^ 
 
 
 •J >; V 
 
^ PRINCETON, N. J. "^^ 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel kgne^N of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Ag^iczv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 
p 
 
[k f%. '3~2-vo^,'y<>~el 
 
P^DO-BAPTISM: 
 
 O R, A 
 
 D E F E N C E 
 
 O F 
 
 I NF AN T-B A P T I S M, 
 
 In Point of 
 
 ANTIQ^UITY. 
 
 Againfl the 
 
 EXCEPTIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 Dr. JOHN GILL, and Others. 
 
 Baptizandos efle parvulos nemo dubitet ; quando nee illi 
 hinc dubitant, qui ex parte aliqud contradicunt. 
 
 Auguftin. de Verb. ap. Serm. 14, 
 
 - - 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. Wauch at the Turk's. Head in Lombard* 
 
 Street* mdccliii. 
 
P^D O-BAPTISM: 
 
 O R, A 
 
 D E F E N/C 
 
 O F 
 
 INFANT-BAPT iS/M^^cki,'^. 
 
 SECTION L 
 ^ general View of the Argument. 
 
 HEN God gave to u^brahmn the 
 Covenant of Ctrcumcijion [^s], this 
 religious Rite was adminiftred, 
 upon the ground of his own 
 faith \h\ to all the males, i. e, 
 all the capable members of his family, from 
 B 2 eight 
 
 [/z] hQi% vii. 8. [i] Rom. iv. z. 
 
(4) 
 
 eight days old and upwards, according to their 
 feveral and refpedive ages [c] : Abraham him- 
 felf being ninety years old and nine when he 
 was cixQumcikd^J/hmael, his fon, thirteen years 
 old, &c[^]. But, for the future, the ap- 
 pointed time of Circumcifion, in ordinary, 
 was the eighth day from the birth; except- 
 ing the cafe of new Profelytes, e. g. the Se- 
 chemites [e\ and others, whofe families were 
 circumcifed together, as -^^r^/?^w*i had been [/I, 
 In like manner, when the Covenant of Bap- 
 tifm [g\ was given to the Chriftian Church, 
 it feems very natural to fuppofe, that this fa- 
 cred rite alio was adminiftred to perfons of 
 every age both old and young. For, Chrijl- 
 ian baptifm came in the room of Circumci- 
 fion, fo as to fuperfede it \jo\ ; and we find, 
 at the beginning of the Gofpel Difpenfatioq, 
 whole houfeholds baptized together [/*], as A- 
 hraham's houfehold had been circumcifed to- 
 gether, (though there is no exprefs mention 
 of any young children being then admitted to 
 the ordinance, in the one cafe . more than in 
 the other.) But, it is analogous to think, 
 that the ufual time of adminftring baptifm, 
 afterwards^ (excepting here again the Cafe of 
 new Profelytes) was in the flate of Infancy. 
 
 Becaufe, 
 
 [f] Gen. xvii. 23. [^ Gea. xvli. 24, 25. 
 
 \/\ Gen. xxxiv. 24. [/] Gen. xvii. 13. \g\ \ Pet. iii. zr. 
 
 \JS\ By chrijiian haptiffn I mean baptifm, as adminiftrcd 
 in the chrijiian churchy commencing after the death of Chriil, 
 whereby circumcifion &c. was vacated. 
 
 [/] Afls xvi. 15, 33. I Cor. i. 16. 
 
(5) 
 
 Becaufe, there is no particular direction in 
 the Gofpel to defer baptifm ordinarily even to 
 the eighth day from the birth, and much lefs 
 beyond it, and left of all to riper years ; and 
 therefore it might well be judged lawful and 
 expedient before. However, in this light the 
 matter hath always appeared to me, and I be- 
 lieve to moft other men. 
 
 Neverthelefs, as the facred Hiftory often 
 fpeaks of adolt baptifm (which, as every one 
 muft perceive, was a thing unavoidable at the 
 firft inftitution of chriftian baptifm, even 
 fuppofing, not only that children alfo were 
 to be baptized, but that baptifm, as a (land- 
 ing ordinance in the chriftian church, like 
 circumcifion in the y^ic'Z/Z^ church, was chief- 
 ly defigned for children) I fay, becaufe the 
 facred writings of the new Teftament make 
 frequent mention of adult baptifm, without 
 exprefsly naming the baptization of children ; 
 this hath lead fome perfons to conclude, that 
 none, but the adult were, or ought to be bap- 
 tized. Now, this, I iinagine, is to turn an 
 accidental circumftance into a ftandingrule, 
 as the defcendants of Ipmael did, who cir- 
 cumcifed not their children before the 13 th 
 year of their age, becaufe IJhmael'\\\n\^t\i hap- 
 pened to be fo old, when he was circumcifed, 
 at the time of the firft inftitution of the 
 lite of circumcifion [^]. And, if the yhtTia- 
 
 eli'tes 
 
 [i] Jofeph. J. antiq. Ilk U 
 
(6) 
 
 elites could commit fuch a miftake, as to the 
 time of adminittring circumcifion, contrary 
 to an exprefs command, fixing it to the eighth 
 day ; it is poffible that others might fall into a 
 like error about the time of admitting per* 
 fons to baptifm, though the proofs for InJanU 
 baptifm in the chriftian church, were as clear, 
 and ftrong, as the evidence for Infant-cir-- 
 cumcijion in the Jewipj church. It is there- 
 fore no fufiicient ground of prejudice, or 
 objedtion, againft Infant-baptifm, if fome 
 perfons diflike, or difufe it 3 efpecially when 
 it {hall be confidered, how many more^ on 
 the other fide, have declared for it, and how 
 long it hath been pradtifed in the chriftian 
 church. 
 
 The Antiquity of this pradice is the Subjed 
 of our prefent Enquiry. And here again, fo 
 far as I am able to judge, want of attention 
 to the ftate and circumftances of perfons and 
 things, in the Primitive Church, hath proved 
 the caufe of error and deception. For, it 
 was by degrees that the chriftian religion gain- 
 ed ground in the world ; and fo, from time 
 to time, new Converts came over to the chrif- 
 tian church, and, by confequence, adult bap- 
 tifms were very common of courfe in the ear- 
 lier ages. But, to conclude from hence^ as 
 fome perfons would do, that Infant-baptifm 
 was not in ufe at that time, is evidently a 
 wrong conclufion. For, it by no means fol- 
 lows^ that Infants were not ordinarily bapti* 
 
 zed 
 
(7) 
 
 zed in thofe days, only becaiife adult perfons, 
 not born of chriftian parents, were admitted 
 to baptifm. The Antipedo-baptifts them- 
 felves vouchfafe, to grant '' that Infant-baptifm 
 '' began to fpread in the third century, and 
 *' generally prevailed in the fourth [/]." And 
 yet during that period, there are fome remark- 
 able inftances, and examples of adult bap- 
 tifm. 'Tis true 5 thefe cafes have been mif- 
 taken, and mifreprefented. For, the per- 
 fons, fo baptized, were not born of baptized 
 chriftian parents, as fome have fuppofed, and 
 upon that fuppofition denied the general ufe 
 of Infant-baptifm in the firft ages of the 
 chriftian church. The pretence, I own, was 
 very plaufible at the firft, and before the mat- 
 ter of fad came to be critically examined by 
 the light of hiftory. To read, or to hear, 
 that fuch eminent and illuftrious perfonages, 
 as Conjlantine^ ConJlantiuSy Gratiariy Theodo^ 
 fius the firft, &c. were not baptized in their 
 infancy; this^ upon a flight and fuperficial 
 view, might be apt, to raife a ftrong fufpi- 
 cion, that Infant-baptifm was a thing little 
 known, or pradifed, at the time of their na- 
 tivity. But, upon a particular examination of 
 thefe and the like inftances, it aj3pears, that 
 rnoft, if not all of them relate to perfons, 
 
 whofe 
 
 [/] " Infant- Baptifm was moved for in the third Century; 
 ** got footing, and eftabiifhment in the fourth and fifth ; and 
 *' fo prevailed until the time of the Reformation." Dr» 
 Gi/lf The Divine Right of Inf. ^aj>. examine J, &c, f. 24. 
 
(8) 
 
 whofe parents (one, or both) at the time 
 of their birth, were not baptized Chrtjitam 
 themfelves \m\ Confequently, no argu- 
 ment can be drawn, or pertinently urged, from 
 fuch examples, to difprove the conftant ufe 
 of Infant-baptifm, in relation to the children 
 of profeffed chriftians. A fingle exception, 
 or two, if any fuch be found, cannot be 
 thought of fufRcient force, to fet afide a ge- 
 neral rule, or to prove a contrary cuftom ; 
 efpecially conlidering that a delay of baptifm, 
 in fomc cafes, may be otherwife accounted 
 for, without fuppofing Infant-baptifm not to 
 have been generally pradtifed in the fame pe- 
 riod. 
 
 This Point, I prefume, hath been cleared 
 up by other hands, particularly by the ufe- 
 ful labours of Dr. JValh, to the conviction of 
 the moft judicious and learned Antipedo-bap- 
 tifts themfelves ; becaufe, they are now filent 
 upon this head. There is, I confefs, one 
 Nor cot (to fay nothing of others [«]) who 
 hath again made a flourifli with thefe great 
 names in a book called. Believer s Baptifm 
 difplayed [o]. But, he hath difplayed little 
 wifdom, or modefty in fo doing. His leader 
 fccms to have been Colonel Danvers that no- 
 ted 
 
 [w] See Wall's Hiji. of Infant- Baptifm. Part. i. Ch. 3. 
 
 {n] Some of the more illiterate among the Antifaedo-bap- 
 tifts are often haranguing upon the fame fubjed, both in pub- 
 lic, and private. 
 
 [»J See his Poftfcript. 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 ted romancer [/>]. In (hort, al! the infiances^ 
 referred to before, have been fcewed to be 
 nothing to the purpofe, excepting 07ie only^ 
 and that a dubious one at the mod \ viz. the 
 cafe of Gregory Nazianzen\ at the time of 
 whofe birthj that his father, (though after- 
 v^ards a Bifliop) was a chriftian, is far from 
 being certain [5^]. The general ftream of hif- 
 tory would prove the contrary, but for one 
 lingle paffage in his life, writ by himfelf [r] j 
 which therefore hath puzzled all the Critics* 
 So that that the learned Dr. JFall could find 
 no way, to reconcile it with hiftorical truth^ 
 but by fuppofing a corruption of the text, and 
 offering an emendation \s\ But, as I am not 
 fond of fuch expedients, I would humbly 
 propofe another method of rernoving the dif- 
 ficulty, e. g. thus : When Gregory Nazian- 
 
 C zens 
 
 [/>] Dr. U^all hath given his charafter. Hiil. of Inf. Bap* 
 Part 2. ch. 2. 
 
 [9] That Greg. Nazianzen's father was once a HeathcHj 
 appears from what himfelf fays of him. De Vita fua. 
 
 Oaoq ef'liixQB '3-t/{7tfcv «//o/ yjoso<;, i. e. 
 
 Nondum tot anni funt tui, quot jam in facris 
 
 Mihi funt peradi vidimis. 
 
 [j] '* If crr.e were to amend by the fenfe without any 
 ** book, or manufcript, I fhould think that ^t/{r/&>y has crepc 
 
 " in by mi (lake for 'jroKiZvy Sec. Tote are not fa sld, as mj 
 
 ** gray hairs are," 'is to the purpofe of the Father's ar- 
 
 *' gument at that place." Hiil. of Inf. Bap. p. 2. ch. 3. 
 fefl. :;. Edit. 3. It will yield as congruous a fenfe, if,. for 
 -{TvaiZv, we read (pujicoi'T a participle agreeing with g/y;??, 
 which is an eafier corredion. <pv(TiaVj ct^iMumjv, Trnv^.tZif. 
 Hefyqh. Thus, the fenfe will bf, I have been trQuhUd nfjlth 
 ffu aBhma before you I'jas horn. 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 zens father fpeaks of the time cf facrijices, 
 he might refer, not to the time when himfelf 
 was made a Bi{hop, (which probably was at 
 a very advanced age, as he was a heathen in his 
 younger days) but to what was the moft 
 ufual time, in thofe days, of Bifliops enter- 
 ing upon their office ; and this, according to 
 the Conjlitiitions [/], was at fifty years of age, 
 though that rule was not always obferved [^/]. 
 Thus then, the good old Bifhop, urging his 
 fon to afiill; him in his weighty charge, may 
 be conceived, to tell him, among other Ar- 
 guments, ** that he had furvived [the com- 
 *^^mencement of) the Epifcopal age, more 
 ** years than his fon had lived :" and not, 
 that his fon had not lived fo many years, as 
 himfelf had been a Bifhop, according to the 
 Latin tranflation. — 1 fubmit this remark to 
 the judgment of the critical, and candid 
 Reader. And if, after all, it (hall not ap- 
 pear of fufScient weight and force, to ferve 
 the purpofe intended 5 yet, from the fingle 
 inflance of Gregory Nazianzen^ no argu- 
 ment can be drawn (as I hinted before) to 
 difprove the general pradlice of Infant-bap- 
 tifm in that age j for, by the confeflion of 
 Antipedo-baptifls themfelves, it generally pre- 
 vailed in the fourth Century. But, that it 
 
 then 
 
 \i] Conftit. Apoft. lib. 2. cap. i. 
 
 [«] Zee Bingham, Ant iq. of the Chr. Ch. B. 2. Ch. I a. 
 S. I. 
 
< n ) 
 
 then jirft began to prevail^ or received it's ef-^ 
 tabliJJoment^ as is pretended \w\ ^ this is a 
 mere prefumption, without any hiftorical 
 proof, as I hope to fhew in the Sequel, by 
 confidering the pradlice of the primitive 
 churchy with reference to Infant -B apt ifm-, 
 in the time of St. Augnftin^ and from ihence 
 tracing it back to the firft ages of all •f-4-. 
 
 SECTION n. 
 
 A View of Infant-Baptifm in tht- 
 fourth Ce?ttury\ 
 
 IN order to fix the antiquity^ and trace 
 back the original, of Infant-Baptifm, we 
 (hall begin at the time of St. Auguflin^ who 
 C 2 flou' 
 
 f w] ^ee Dr. Gilh uhi fupra . 
 
 f-j- The order of Catechumens in the primitive Church 
 has been alledged as a proof, that Infant-Baptifm was not prac- 
 tifed in thefe days. But this can be no proof at all. For that 
 order fubfifted in the time of St. Jujlin : [Vid. Auguftin de 
 Fide Catechumen, &C.3 when Infant-Baptifm', as its opponents 
 acknowledge, was in common ufe. The ^ruth is, the order 
 pf Catechumens, (properly fo called, viz. thofe who were in- 
 truded in the Chnftian religion to prepare them for baptifm,) 
 were not perfons born of baptized Chriltian Parents, but fuch, 
 (or their children) as relinqui/hed Pagani/m, and came o'ver t» 
 the Chrijitan faith : ?.s Lord King obferves. [Enquiry into 
 theConilicution, &c. of the Primitive Church, p. 2. Ch. 3, 
 S. 3. Compare the learned Beza's note on i Cor. yii. begin* 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 flouriflied about the end of this century, and 
 in v;hofe days the practice of Psdo-baptifm 
 did confefledly prevail. But, when it is pre- 
 tended, that it was chiefly owing to his in^ 
 fluence, and authority, that it did fo gene- 
 rally prevail, either then or afterwards [a;]; this 
 pretence is a contradiction both to hiftory and 
 to common fenfe. For, St. Augufttn him- 
 felf fpeaks of it, as the antient pradice of the 
 unherfal church [^]. And how could he be 
 fo rafli and (lupid, as to affirm fuch a thing, 
 if Infant- Baptifm was generally known in his 
 days, to be a no'vel, or late invention, which 
 owed it's ejlablijhment to himfelf? Let me 
 father obferve, when the Pelagiam were 
 ftrongly prcITed with an argument, in proof 
 of Original Sin, from Infant-baptifm ; they 
 never denied it to beanapoftolical inftitution, 
 or the perpetual practice of the chriftian 
 church ; which, being the (horteft way to 
 get clear of the difficulty, they would un- 
 doubtedly have taken it, if they had any 
 ground for fuch a pretence, as they muft 
 have had according to the modern hypothe- 
 cs of our Antipaedo-baptifts. Their hypothe- 
 fis therefore is groundlefs and abfurd. For 
 any one to fay, that the Pelagians durjl not 
 
 deny 
 
 [,v] See Tomhes Examen. p. I5. 
 
 [y] Ut antiquitus univerfa Ecclefia pertlncret fideles par- 
 vulos originalis peccati remiffionem per Chrifli baptirmum 
 cparecutos. Jttgujlincont. Pelag. lib, 3. 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 deny Infant-Baptifm [z], is an Idle conceit, api 
 plainly faying nothing, for want of fiayirtg 
 fomething to fay. For, what dur/i not ibey 
 do, who had the courage, to deny Original 
 Sin ? which was generally confidered, at that 
 time, and flrenuoufly urged, as the ground, 
 and reafon of Infant-Baptifm ; fo that upon 
 this very fcore they were charged with deny- 
 ing Infant-Baptifm, as a confequence of their 
 denying Original Sin, but they difowned the 
 charge ; and acknowledged the neceflity of 
 Infant-Baptifm, though upon a different 
 ground [^]. It \vas not therefore, for want 
 of courage-, for, they were men of mettle-^ 
 but for want of evidence, that the Pelagiam 
 did not deny Infant-Baptifm. The plain 
 truth of the matter then is, they could not 
 deny it. But, the fad itfelf is enough for 
 our purpofe, viz. that the Pelagians did not 
 deny Infant-Baptifm \b\ when the fairefl: 
 opportunity was offered, and they had the 
 flrongefl temptation to deny it, if they could 
 have done it confiflently with honour and 
 truth. This appears to me an unanfwerable 
 argument, that the pradice of Infant-Bap- 
 tifm was far from being a new thing, or look- 
 ed upon as a human invention, in thofe days, 
 but, on the contrary, was confidered, on all 
 fides, as a divine inflitution, and the imme- 
 morial 
 
 [■s] Tomhes Examert. P. 2. SeSl. 2. 
 
 [/2] Vid. Hieronym. adverf. Pelag. lib. 3. fuh. fin. 
 
 \b] Vid. G. 7. Vojf, Hijl. Pelag. lib. 2. par, 2. Ihef. 4. 
 
( H ) 
 
 morial praSicc of the chriftian church [c], 
 it is an argument which I fufpedt the Anti- 
 paedo-baptifts do not care to look in the face; 
 and, though the celebrated Dr. G/7/hath been 
 lately forced to attack it, or give up the caufe ; 
 we fhall prelently fee, that it flands firm 
 againft all his artillery. 
 
 One method taken to invalidate the force 
 of this argument, is alledging other Ecclefiaf- 
 tical cuftoms, which prevailed as generally in 
 the primitive church, as Infant-Baptifm, un- 
 der the notion of unwritten traditions ; and 
 yet arc not held by us to be apoftolical infti- 
 tutions. But before any great execution can 
 be done this way, it muft be firft fhewn, that 
 the faid Eccleliaftical cuftoms have the fame 
 evidence from the teftimony of the antients for 
 their apoftolical inftitution ; that they were 
 put to the fame teft with Infant-Baptifm, to 
 try their true antiquity and authority ; and 
 that ihty Jiood the trial, as Infant-Baptifm did. 
 For, if thefe things cannot be made to appear, 
 'tis evidently not rights but very wrong, to 
 put them upon the fame foot, as if we were 
 equally obliged to receive the one, as the 
 other, that we may preferve the charafter of 
 hone ft men [/|. But more of this matter 
 hereafter. At prefent 1 (hall apply myfelf to 
 
 a par- 
 
 [f] See this argument well urged. The Baptifm of Infants 
 a Reafonable Service. Arg. 5. 
 y] See Dr. Qiirs Remarks on the Bap. of In/, a Reaf. Serv, 
 
 P' 27. ' 
 
a particular, and diftindt confideration of alt, 
 that Dr. Gill hath advanced, in order to evade 
 the force of our argument, as ftated above. 
 
 I. Says the Docflor, '* Hov/ever embar- 
 *' raffed Pelagius might be with the argu- 
 ^' ment, it did not lead to a controverfy about 
 ** the fubjeB^ but the eiid of baptifm, and 
 *' about the latter, not the former wa^ the 
 " difpute. [f]." Very well ! then both fides 
 were agreed about the fiibjedt of baptifm* 
 However, the difpute with the Pelagians did 
 in faB lead to a controverfy about the fub- 
 jcd: of baptifm, fo far as that they were ac- 
 tually preffed, and even teazed with an argu- 
 ment from Infant-Baptifm ; as the learned 
 Do6lor cannot but know. And how eafy a 
 matter had it been for them, to crufli this ar- 
 gument at once, and get clear of it for ever, 
 without any more adoe, only by denying Infant- 
 Baptifm, if they could have denied it with a 
 fafe confcience r I appeal to the Dodlor him- 
 felf, whether this was not the (horteft way, 
 and the moft effectual method, to filence all 
 his opponents. This may ferve, as a proper 
 anfwer to what follows [/"]. " Nor w^as he 
 " under fo great a temptation, and much lefs 
 ** neceffity, nor did it fo greatly concern him 
 to deny the baptifm of Infants, on account 
 of his tenet ; fince he was able upon his 
 principles to point out other ends of their 
 
 *' baptifm, 
 
 ie-\ ihid, p, 20. [/] nu: 
 
 (( 
 
( 36) 
 
 « baptifm, than that of remiflion of fin ; and 
 " particularly their receiving, and enjoying 
 " the kingdom of heaven, &c." There is 
 nothing in all this, that afxeds our argument, 
 in the leaft. We readily grant, that PeJa- 
 gius was not obliged by his principles to deny 
 Infant- Baptifm. On the contrary, we affirm, 
 and maintain, that he neither did, nor could 
 deny it. But, what we urge is this, that, when 
 he was vehemently preffed with an argument 
 from Infant- Baptifm in proof of original fin. In- 
 fant- Baptifm was con fide red as a medium al- 
 lowed on both fides, and it is what Pelagius 
 never difputed, when he had a fiir occa/ion 
 given him to deny it, if he could have done 
 it with any appearance of niodefty, reafon, 
 and truth. — The Docflor proceeds. 
 
 2. [g\ "" It fliould be known, and obferv- 
 " ed, that we have no writings of Pelagius 
 
 " extant, &c." But, where is the u(e, or 
 
 importance of knoid'cig and ohferving this, in 
 the prefent cafe, when Dr. GUI doth not de- 
 ny '' that he bath been ufed fairly, and is 
 '' willing to allow his (i. e. ^///?/Vj) authori- 
 " ties." Why, it is here, that we join iflTue 
 with him \ for, it is only upon fuch evidence, 
 as we have^ that we can proceed, in deciding 
 any controverted point of this nature. If the 
 DcBor can produce any- better ; wx are ready 
 to attend to it. But he goes on thus, 
 
 3. *' How* 
 
cc 
 
 €i 
 
 (17) 
 
 3. [b] " However acute, learned, and fa* 
 «« gacious Pelagius was, yet falling in with 
 the flream of the thnes^ and not feeing him- 
 felf concerned about the y//^>^j, but the 
 end of baptifm, might give himfelf no 
 *' trouble to enquire into the rife of it; but 
 " take it for granted, as Aujliii did, — that 
 " it had been the conftant ufage of the church, 
 <* and an apoftolic tradition/* — Upon which 
 it is obvious to remark, (i.) We have here 
 a fair conceffion that thejiream of the times ran 
 in favour of Infant -Baptifm, as ihtcGiiJlant ti^ 
 fage of the churchy and an apoftolic tradition^ 
 in the days of Aujtin\ and of Pelagius^ who 
 began in the year 400 to teach his errors at 
 'Rome^ as fays Dupin [i\ (2.) That Pelagius 
 fhould fall in with the ft ream of th-s times], 
 whatever Auftin might do, is highly impro* 
 bable. Nor can it be fuppofed that Aiftin 
 himfelf aded in this manner, without grant- 
 ing at the fame time, that the practice of In- 
 fant-Baptifm was a prevailing cuftom before 
 he came into play, which therefore could not 
 be owing to his influence, and authority \k\ 
 For, though we allow him to be a very acute 
 man ; yet furely he could not be the author 
 of fuch an ingenious contrivance, as firfl: to 
 ratfe the ftream of the times, and then fufFer 
 hitnklf to hQ carried away with it. But, in 
 
 D refped 
 
 [.h-] Ibid.p, 21. [/■] Hiji. Ecck/, [i] See Jfall't 
 
 *4njkv€r to Gale, /. 4 27. 
 
( j8 ) 
 
 rcfpefi: to Pelagius^ I fay, it is highly impro^ 
 bable that he fliould fall in with the ftreara 
 of the times, and take the thing, in queftion, 
 for granted without examination. So that 
 there is no weight, or force in the Dodlor's 
 fuggeflion, viz. " that Pelagius might give 
 ^* himfelf no trouble to enquire into the rife 
 ** of Infant-Baptifm." For, we are not en- 
 quiring into mtxt poJJibilitieSy but probabilities^ 
 and fads. And whatever Auftin was, it is 
 certain that Pelagms was not of that temper, 
 and complexion, as to fall in with the ftream 
 of the times. Witnels his open oppofition 
 to the vulgar dodrine of original fin. In this 
 cafe Pelagius went againft the ftreara of the 
 times, and particularly againft Auftin him- 
 felf, whether at the head, or in the midft of 
 the ftream. (3.) If Pelagius faw himfelf no 
 ways concerned about the fubjeds, but the 
 end of baptifm ; as Dr. Gill faysj this im- 
 plys, that Infant-Baptifm was no point of 
 controverfy between him, and his opponents. 
 It was a point in which both fides were ful- 
 ly agreed > otherwife, when he was urged 
 with an argument from Infant-Baptifm, he 
 might have difpatched it at once, and {truck 
 all his adverfaries dumb, by denying Infant- 
 Baptifm ; as, I am perfuaded, Dr; Gill, or 
 any other fkilfu! difputant, would have done 
 in the lame cafe 3 and Pelagius appears to 
 have been a man of fufficient fagacitv^ I add 
 
 of 
 
( 19 ) ^>;ijo V 
 
 o£ Jpirk too, not to have let flip fuch an ad- 
 vantage. — But let us attend the DoSor. 
 
 4, " Tho' Pelaghis complained, that he 
 ** was defamed, and flandered by fome, who 
 ** charged him with denying Infant-Baptifm ; 
 *' yet this, An/tin obferves, was only a fhift 
 " of his, in order to invert the ftate of the 
 *' queftion, that he might more eafily an- 
 " fwer to what was objected to him, and pre- 
 " ferve his own opinion [/]." — Now, for my 
 part, I cannot conceive, with what view Dr. 
 Gill mentioned this, or with what pertinency 
 it is brought in here, unlefs with a defign to in- 
 finuate, that Pelagius, notwithftanding his 
 pretences to the contrary, did really deny In- 
 fant-Baptifm, For, the Dodor immediately 
 adds ; ** And certain it is, according to Auf" 
 " ti?7y that the Pelagians did deny baptifm to 
 " fome Infants, even to the Infants of Believ- 
 *' ers, &c." — But, I muft leave the Doc- 
 tor, to reconcile this with what he had 
 faid, under the laft article, of Pelagius fal- 
 ling in idth the ftream of the times ^ and not fee- 
 ing hirnfelf concerned about the JubjeBs of bap* 
 tijm ; and fo proceed to examine the truth 
 of his round aiTertion, ** that, according to 
 ** Auftiny the Pelagians did deny baptifm to 
 ** fome Infants, even the Infants of Believ- 
 " ers." A ftrange afiertion indeed! and a 
 very falfe one \ as I fhall (hortly prove, I hope 
 D 2 to 
 
 [/] Ibid. 
 
it 
 
 (20) 
 
 to the Dodor's convidion. At prefent, let 
 us confider, what the complaint of Pelagius 
 really was, and Aujlin's refledions upon it, 
 in order to fet the matter in a true light, that 
 the Reader may not be miflead by the Do^- 
 tor's reprefentation of the cafe. Pelagius then 
 faid [m] '* that he was defamed, and flan- 
 *' dered by feme men, as denying the facra- 
 *' ment cf baptifm to Infants^ and prcmijing 
 the kingdom of heaven to Jome without the 
 redemption of Chriji, But (fays Aujtin) 
 theje things are not fo objedled to them, as 
 '* he hath put them. For, neither do they 
 *' deny the facrarnent of baptifm to Infants^ 
 ^' nor promife the kingdom of heaven to any 
 *' without the redemption of Chrift, There- 
 " fore, what he complains of being defamed 
 
 '' for, 
 
 [;;;] In literis etiam, quas Romam mifit (fc. Pelagius) ad 
 beatae memoriae papam Innocentium (quoniam eum in cbrpore 
 non invenerunt, et fandlo papae Zoziuio datse ibnt, atque ad 
 nos inde diredse) dicity^ ab hominibus infamari, quod negat 
 ■par<vulis baptifmi facramentuniy et abfque redemptione Chrif; 
 ti aliquibus ccelorum regna promittat. Sed non fic illis 
 hsEC cbjiciuntur, ut pofuit. Nam neque pawulis negant bap- 
 i'lfmi facramentum, neque abfque redemptione Chrifli hsec 
 aliquibus ccelorum regna promittunt. Itaque unde fe queritur 
 infamari eo modo propofuit, ut facile poffet crimini objefto, 
 flilvo fuo dogmate, refpondere. Objicitur autem illis, quod 
 iron baptizatos parvulos nolunt damnationi primi hominis ob- 
 noxios confiteri, et in eos tranfiiife originale peccatum regene- 
 ratione purgandura, quoniam propter accipiendum regnujn 
 ccelorum tantummcdo eos baptizandos efle contend.unt, &c. 
 »— Ecce qjod eis objicitur de baptifmo parVulorum ! non quod 
 ipfe ita propofuit^ ut poffit fuse propofitioni, quaft adverfantis 
 olijeclioni, fecundum fua dogmata refpondere. Denique, 
 quomcdo refpondeat'advertite, et videte latebras, &c. An- 
 gujiin. ds Peccat. Qrig. cont, Pelag. et Celeji. lib. 4. 
 
(21 ) 
 
 " for, he hath ftated in fuch a manner, as 
 " that he might eafily anfwer to what was 
 «« objeded to him, and preferve his own opi- 
 " nion. (i. e. as to original fm) Now, that, 
 " which is objeded againft them, is ihisy 
 " that they will not acknowledge unbapti- 
 " zed Infants to be Hable to the condemna- 
 " tion of the firft man, and that original Jin 
 *' hath paffed upon them to be purged by re- 
 *' generation; becaufe they maintain, that 
 *' they are to be baptized only that they may 
 " receive the kingdom of heaven, &c. — Be- 
 *' hold what is objeded to them concerning 
 
 ^' the baptifm of Infants! &c." Thus, 
 
 whatever fhufHing Pelagius might ufe, it was 
 not to difguife any private opinion he enter- 
 tained againft Infant-Baptifm, as Dr. Gill's 
 way of introducing this matter would lead 
 one to fufpedt. For, as Auftin affirms, this 
 was not the thing laid to his charge ; on the 
 contrary, Auftin exprefsly fays, that the P^- 
 lagians did not deny the facrament of baptifm 
 to Infants, but held that they were to be bap- 
 tized, that they might receive the kingdom 
 of heaven. 
 
 Let us now examine the truth of our learn- 
 ed Dodor's affertion, viz. '' and certain it is, 
 ** acccording to Auftin, that the Pelagians 
 " did deny baptifm to fome Infants, even to 
 " the Infants of Believers, and that for this 
 *' reafon, becaufe they were holy." Here, 
 upon a little enquiry, it will appear, that the 
 
 Doftor 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 Doflor was lead into a great miftake, by un- 
 derftanding abfolutely what was only fpoken 
 kypothetically. For, the Pelagians did not 
 abfolutely deny baptifm to the Infants of Be- 
 lievers ; but they only denied the neceffity of 
 it upon the fuppofition of their antagonifts, 
 viz. that the defign of baptifm was to cleanfe 
 from /in : ftill infifting uDon the neceffity of 
 their baptifm on another account, viz. that 
 they might enter into the kifigdom oj heaven. 
 It is a difadvantage in this argument, that we 
 have none of their writings entire, and com- 
 pleat, but are obliged to take up with fmall 
 fcraps, and quotations from them, without 
 the benefit of feeing them in their due order, 
 and connexion. However, by a narrow in- 
 fpedion of the paffage upon which Dr. Gill 
 hath grounded his miftake, we fhall eafily 
 detedt, and expofe his error. St. Auguftin 
 introduceth the difcourfe thus [«] : " But 
 ** what we have faid above, in anfwer to 
 " thofe that fay, If a finner begets a finner, 
 ^* a righteous man (hould beget a righteous 
 ^« man ; the fame we alfo fay in anfwer 
 *' to thofe, who affirm, that one born of a 
 *' baptized perfon (hould be confidered as al- 
 ^' ready baptized, &c." — Now, this argument 
 
 affedb 
 
 \n\ Qnod autem fupra refpondimus adverfus eos, qui di- 
 cunt, fi peccator genuit peccatorem, juiius quoque juftum 
 gignere debuit : hoc etiam his refpondemus, qui dicunt de ho- 
 mine baptiz^to natum, jam veluti baptisatum haberi debU" 
 i/fe, &c. Augujiin, de Peccat, merit, et remis, cont. Pelag* 
 iib. z. 
 
( ^3 ) 
 
 affedls the adult children, as well as the In- 
 fants, of baptized chriftians. But to proceed : 
 a little after we have thefe words [o] ; *' But 
 *^ the apoftle fays, your children would be un- 
 " clean^ but now are they holy : and therefore 
 ** fay they, the children of Believers ought 
 " not now to be baptized." This is the 
 paffage upon which Dr. Gill hath grounded 
 his affertion, that the Pelagians denied baptifm 
 to the Infants of Believers. But (not to in- 
 lift, that the words do not mention Infants, 
 but children at large, and fo may include the 
 adult children of Believers ; and confequently 
 make as much againft adult Baptifm, as In- 
 fant- Baptifm) th^it the Pelagians did not ab- 
 Jblutely deny baptifm to the Infants of Believ- 
 ers, is evident from what follows in anfwer to 
 their argument ; which is only argumentum 
 ad hominem. Says Auftin [^] *^ It is not con- 
 *' trary to our affertion, although holy chil- 
 " dren are born of Believers, that we fay, if 
 " they are not baptized^ they go into condem- 
 ** nation 5 to whom (viz. the unbaptized chiU 
 
 " dren 
 
 [0] At enim ait apollolus, Fiiii veftri immundi efient, nunc 
 autem funt fandi \ et ideo inquiunt fidelium iilii jam baptizari 
 ininimedebuerunt. Augujlin, ibid, 
 
 [ f\ Et contra noftram quidem noti eft alTertionem, etiamfi 
 ex fidelibus fandli propagantur, quod eos dicimus, fi. non bap- 
 tizantur» pergere in damnationem, quibus et ipji regnum cce- 
 lorum intercludunt, quamvis eos dicant ncn habere ullum vel 
 piroprium, vel originale peccatum. Auguftin. ibid. Upon an- 
 other occafion St. Augufiin fays, that the Pelagians never de- 
 nied, that Infants could not enter into the kingdom of heaven 
 ivithout baptifm. De Feccat^ Origin* cont. Pdag, et Ce/ejl. 
 
(24) 
 
 *^ dren of Believers) even they themfelves 
 «^ (viz. the Pelagians) fhut the kingdom of 
 " heaven, though they fay, they have no 
 " fin, pei'fonal, or original." — And now, let 
 any impartial Reader judge, v;hether, as I 
 faid before, the learned DoBor was not lead 
 into a great miftake, by underflanding abfo- 
 lutely, what was only fpoken hypothetically. 
 For, it manifeftly appears, from the very 
 words of Auftin in the place referred to by the 
 DoBor^ that the Pelagians held Baptifm to be 
 neceffary for the Infants of Believers, There- 
 fore, they could not deny Baptifm to fuch In- 
 fants abfolutely^ but only upon the fuppofi- 
 tion of their opponents, viz. that the defign 
 of Baptifm was to cleanfe from Jin, And thus, 
 the diredt contrary of what Dr. Gill afferts is 
 certain according to Auftin, We fliall take 
 him tripping again, under the next article, 
 and in a yet more egregious manner. 
 
 5. *' Pelagius fays no fuch things that he 
 ** never heard, no not even any impious he- 
 *^ retic, who denied Baptifm to Infants [f]:' 
 This is a furprizing ailertion in the Doiior, 
 For, we (liall prefently prove, and out of his 
 own mouth, that Pelagius {^.id ih^ very thing 
 itfelf His words are [r], " that he never 
 '' heard, no not of any impious heretic, who 
 *' would fay this concerning Infants, which 
 
 he 
 
 [q] Ibid. p. 24. 
 
 [r] Nunquam fe vel impium aliquem hjereticum audiiffc 
 qui hoc, quod propo/uit, de parvulis diceret. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 ^* he had propofed, or mentioned.'* — " Ths 
 " fenfe, as the Dodlor rightly obferves^ de- 
 *' pends upon the phrafe, quod propofuit^ what 
 " he had propofed^ or mentioned, of whom, 
 ** and what that is to be underilood*" But 
 the fame or the Hke phrafe is ufed feveral 
 times in the difcourfe, and plainly refers eve*- 
 ry time to the fame perfon, and thing, viz. 
 ** to Pelagius himfelf, and to the ftate of the 
 ** queftion, as he had put it [j]j" to borrow 
 the Doctor's words again. Accordingly, the 
 Dodlor fays, this feems to be the fenje [^]. 
 Well ! thus far we are agreed. Nothing now 
 remains, for clearing up the whole matter, 
 but to confider, how Pelagius had, in faci, 
 flated the queftion. *' Reprefenting (fays the 
 *' Dodtor) that he was charged with promi- 
 *' fing the kingdom of heaven to fomc with- 
 " out the redemption of Chriit [u]. " But oh, 
 good Doctor ! Is this the whole of his reprefen - 
 tMon} {or propo/ition J to ui^St^uJlins phrafe) 
 Have you not (I am loth to fay defignedly) 
 dropt the jirft part of it? the part, which ex- 
 prefsly mentions the Baptifm of Infants ? the 
 very part, in (hort, upon which the prefent 
 quefl:ion depends 1 For, Pelagius bad repre- 
 fented, and complained [w'] *' that he was 
 E " unjuft- 
 
 [/] Ibid, p 23. uc pofuit — eo modo propofuit — ita propo- 
 fuic, ut poflit fucs propolitioni, &c. Vid. fupra not. [ct], - 
 
 [/] Ibid. [//] Ibid. 
 
 [fuS] Dicit fe ao hominibas infamari, quod neget parvulis 
 baptilnii facramentum, et abfqae redempnone Chnlli h:cc aU- 
 quibus coelorura regnapromiuat, Vid. /iipra njt. [m]. 
 
(26) 
 
 *' unjuftly charged with denying the facra^ 
 " ment of baptijm to Infants, and promifing 
 ** the kingdom of heaven to fome without the 
 ** redemption of Chrift ;" as we have feen be- 
 fore. Therefore this is, in part, what Pelagius 
 faid, he never heard, no not of any impious he- 
 retic that would fay concerning Infants, viz. 
 that they were to be denied Baptifmj which 
 w^as one thing falfely laid to his charge, as Pela- 
 gius complained : and the words refer to the 
 fiate of the quejiion, as he had put it^ by Dr. 
 GUI's own confeffion. Confequently, the 
 learned Doctor is miftaken again, or (which 
 I would hope is not the cafe) willing to lead 
 others into a miftake, when he affirms, that 
 Pelagius fays no fuch thing. And to what 
 can we impute the DoBors quoting by halves, 
 and his leaving out the main words of the 
 fentence, upon which the prefent debate 
 wholly turns ? but to his excejjive modefty, 
 which could not bear the mortification of a 
 moft glaring felf- con tradition ? But, upon fe- 
 cond thoughts, he may fee reafon to retradl 
 his following words [x], ^' take the words 
 '* which way you will, they can't be made 
 •' fay, that he never heard, that any heretic 
 *' denied Baptifm to Infants." For, taking 
 the words in his oum wayy they as plainly fay 
 this, as the other thing he mentions -, becaufe 
 both are equally included in the propojition^ 
 
 or 
 
 [^1 Ibid, p. 3.4." 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 or in ih^Jlate of the quejiion^ as Pelagius had 
 put it. And if the Baptifm of Infants was 
 not included in the propofition 5 how comes 
 their Baptijm^ and regeneration in Chriji^ to 
 be mentioned afterwards with reference to 
 it [y] ? whether /w/^/, or vetaty be the right 
 reading. Having fet this matter in a proper 
 light ; let us now follow the Dodtor a ftep 
 farther. 
 
 6. *' Auftin himfelf doth not fay, that 
 *' he had never heard, or read of any catho- 
 " lie, heretic, or fchifmatic, that denied In- 
 *' fant- Baptifm [2;]." — To which I anfwer, 
 it is not material to the purpofe in hand, whe- 
 ther Auftin himfelf fays fo, or not. We 
 have already feen him quote Pelagius ^ faying 
 the ftrongeft thing, that any man could fay, 
 for the perpetual and univerfal pradice of In- 
 fant-Baptifm in the chriftian church from the 
 beginning. But, the Dodor adds; " He 
 " could never fay any fuch thing " and gives 
 feveral reafons for it, which we fhall examine 
 in their order. 
 
 (i.) Says the Do(a:or[j], "Hemuftknow, 
 *' that Tertullian had oppofedii" — Here the 
 DocSor hath changed the terms of the propo- 
 rtion. For, he gives it, as a reafon to prove, 
 E 2 that 
 
 [>•] ** Dum eos baptizari; et in Chriflo renafci putat.— » 
 ** So it is in my edition of Aujiin ; putat, and not vetat, aa 
 « Dr. ?r«// quotes it." Dr. G'///. ibid. p. 23. Vid. WaWs 
 Hift. of Inf. Bap. p. i. ch. 19. fedt. 30. 
 
 [«] Ibid. p. z^. [^] Ihiii. 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 that Aiiftin had heard of fome body, who 
 <5^^wV^ Infant- Baptifm, that he muft: know, 
 that Tertiillian had oppofed it. But, whatever 
 Aiiftin might know of that matter, one thing 
 he certainly knew, viz. how to diftinguifh be- 
 tween perfons denying Infant-Baptifm, and 
 their oppofing^ or contradidiing it, in fome 
 fort \b\ Or" this kind was Tertuiiians oppo- 
 iition to it. For, whatever he faid againft it, 
 he did not properly deny Infant-Baptifm; but, 
 on the contrary, allowed of it in cafes of ne- 
 ceffity ; as will be (hewn in its proper place. 
 Therefore the Dodtor's firft argument falls to 
 the ground. For, Sr. Auftin might know, 
 that TertuUian had fome way oppofed it, and 
 yet have never heard of any one that denied 
 Jnfant-Baptifm. 
 
 (?.) " And he himfelf (fays the Dodor [c']) 
 *' was at the council of Carthage^ and there 
 " prefided, and was at the making of that ca- 
 '' non, which runs thus; alfo it is our plea- 
 " fure^ that whoever denies^ that new-born 
 
 *' Infants are to be baptized -^ let him be 
 
 *' anathema: but to what purpofe was this 
 *' canon made, if he, and his brethren knew 
 of none that denied Infant-Baptifm ? To 
 foy, that this refpeds fome people, who 
 were Hill of the fame opinion with Fidus^ 
 au /Ifrican BiOiop that lived 150 years be- 
 
 •' fore 
 
 ^J>\ See his -ivoraj in our Ti/te pagf. 
 
 << 
 
(29 ) 
 
 fore this time, that Infants were not to be 
 baptized until they were eight days old, is an 
 idle notion of Dodlor IVall [d] : can any 
 man in his fenfes think, that a council, 
 confiding of all the Bifliops in Africa, 
 fhould agree to anatloemize their own bre- 
 thren, who were in the fame opinion, and 
 practice of Infant-Baptifm with themfelves; 
 only they thought it fhould not be admi- 
 niftred to them, as foon as born, but at 
 eight days old? Credat Judceus Jpella^ &c." 
 — Now here let it be obferved (i.) It appears 
 by the inflance o( Fidus (whofe opinion might 
 poffibly furvive himfelf 150 years; there is 
 no ai/urdity in the fuppofition) that fome per- 
 fons might be again ft: the baptizing of new- 
 born Infants; and yet not deny Infant-Bap- 
 tifm, unlefs they could both deny, and prac- 
 tife it at the fame time. For, Fidus himfelf 
 was for having Infants baptized, when they 
 were eight days old ; at which age they furely 
 were Infants ftill. Accordingly (2.) TheCanon 
 before us relates, not to Infants at large, but on- 
 ly to new-born Infants. For, fo it is exprefled, 
 both in the Greek H, and likewife in the 
 old Latin copy, in a Treatife bound up wnth 
 St. Auftins works [yj. Therefore, to ex- 
 tend 
 
 [d] Hill, of Inf. Bap. part i. ch. 19. feft. 37. 
 
 Canon. 1 1 2. Synod. Carthag. Ballamon. 
 
 [/] Quicunque parvulos recentes ah uteris matrum bapd- 
 zandos negat, &c. De Ecclejiaji, Dogmat. 
 
{ 3° ) 
 
 tend the canon farther, than to new-born In- 
 fants, is evidently to pervert it's meaning, and 
 to put a ftnfe upon the canon, which the 
 makers of it never intended. For, if they 
 meant Infants at large ; why did they ufe 
 fuch a reftridtive term, as new-born Infants! 
 It muft then be a wrong conclufion, for any 
 one to infer from hence, either that Aufiin^ 
 or any of his brethren, knew of fome, that 
 denied Infant-Baptifm, For, if any perfons 
 were againft the baptizing oi new-born Infants \ 
 it by no means follows, that they denied In- 
 fant-Baptifm. Becaufe, as appears by the 
 inftance of FiduSy thofe, that were in the fame 
 opinion and pradice of Infant-Baptifm with 
 themfelves, might neverthelefs think, that it 
 (liould not be adminiftred to them, as foon as 
 born. It is obfervable, that St. Auflin him- 
 felf \g\ makes mention of new-born children, 
 by way of contradiftindion from children 
 eight days old, with an eye to the fcruple of 
 Fidus. (3.) It is demonffcrably certain, that 
 this canon was not made againft any perfons, 
 that denied Infant-Baptifm. Becaufe, it was 
 made againft Pelagius, and Celejlius^ as is 
 noted by Photius, who mentions this ca- 
 non [/?]. But, neither of thefe men denied 
 Infant-Baptifm. What then did they deny ? 
 The refolution of this point will lead us into 
 
 the 
 
 [^] De peccator. merit, etrtmis, lib. 3, 
 Ih-] Bibliotbec, Cod. 53. 
 
(30 
 
 the true meaning, and defign of the canon ; 
 and fo furnifli us with a proper anfwer to the 
 Dodtor's queftion, (viz. ** to what purpofe 
 was this canon made?") without receding in 
 the leaft from our hypothefis, that the mak- 
 ers of the canon, even their grand prefident 
 himfelf (tho' the council confifted of all the 
 Bifliops in Africa) knew of none^ that denied 
 Infant'Baptifm, — ^Now, though Pelagius de- 
 nied, Celeftius confeffed that, according to the 
 ufual form of Baptifm, Infants were to be 
 baptized for the re?niJ/ion of fin 5 and both 
 agreed in this, that Infants derived no original 
 Jin from Adam. Let us then confider the 
 canon, which was made againft them jointly, 
 with proper attention ; and it will appear to 
 be judicioufly, and accurately framed, in few 
 words, according to this double occafion. The 
 canon bears this title [/], *' That Infants are, or 
 *' are to be, baptized for the remijfion of fin" 
 And it runs thus [Ji] : " It is alfo our plea- 
 " fure, that whofoever denys that Infants new^ 
 *^ born are to be baptized, (e. g, Pelagius) or 
 " fays that they (hould be baptized, (e. g. 
 *' Celeflim \f\) for the remiffton of Jin ; but 
 •' that they derive no original fin from Adam^ 
 
 - *' which 
 
 [/■] 'Ot/ la.ynK^a. e^ aps<Tiv ufjLotflicov (ixTrlil^di^oit. 
 
 tH. 7UV yccHpeov tZv (/.iijipav {iocult^oiJ.iv<;t rtpu<hTai, » hiyei eiq 
 
 cTii//., &c. — Avi^i^M. tm- 
 
 [/} Vid* Augujlin, cont, Qekji, ^x, lib, a. de peccat* ori^, 
 €aP, 5, 
 
(30 
 
 " which ought to be cleanfed by the laver 
 *'* of regeneration, &c* (e. g. both Pelagius^ 
 " and Celeflius) let him bt; anathemay Thus, 
 according to the title, and to the occojion, and 
 to the conftruBion of this canon, it is fo fram- 
 ed, as that the remijjion of fin ftands in con- 
 nexion with the />//, as well as with the fe- 
 cond claufe; there being a plain contraft be- 
 tween Pelagius's denying, and Celejtiuss con- 
 fejfing, the Baptifm of Infants for the remif- 
 Jion of Jin. Therefore, that part of the canon 
 was not made againft any perfon, that abfo- 
 lutely denied the Baptifm even of new-born 
 Infants; but again fl: him^ who denied, that 
 new-born Infants were to be baptized for the 
 remiffion of fA\ as is well known Pelagius did, 
 tho' he held their baptifm to be neceffary up- 
 on another account, viz. that they might enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven. This difcovers 
 the reafon of the councirs fo particularly fpe- 
 cifying new-born Infants, (or. Infants ?2ew* 
 born from their mother s womb , as the canon 
 expreffes it) Becaufe, as fuch Infants could 
 not be fuppofed guilty of any aBnal, ov per- 
 fonal fin of their own ; this precifion in word- 
 ing the canon was intended to limit the rea- 
 fon of their Baptifm to original fin » \x\ fhort, 
 the whole emphafis lies in this circumflance 
 of Infants being new-born. And no one 
 could rationally pretend, as the council itfelf 
 thought [w], that fuch Infants ftooj in need 
 
 of 
 
 {nT^ For, u;on that fuppofition they fay, [l^iv ylv^at 
 
(33 ) 
 
 of Baptifm In it's then ufual and common form^ 
 that is to fay, /or the remijjion of fin [«] ;. if 
 they derived no original fin from Adam, And 
 this explains the meaning of what the learn- 
 ed Photius fays of the council at Carthage^ who 
 made the canon under coniideration, viz, 
 [o] '' that they anathematized thok, who faid, 
 ** that new-born Infants flood in no need of 
 *' Baptifm, becaufe they derived no original 
 *' fin from Adam!' — Therefore, tho' we have 
 no occafion to fuppofe with Dr. IVall^ *' that 
 *' the canon refpeds fome people, who were 
 " ftill of the fame opinion with Fidus, an 
 *' ^r/V^;'2 Bifhop, that lived 1 50 years before 
 ** this time;" (Dr. Gill rmy call this an idle 
 7iotion^ if he pleafeth ; we want it not) Yet 
 (wonder it, who will) *' a council cohlifting 
 *' of all the Bifnops in Africa^ didy in fact, 
 " agree, to anathematize their own brethren, 
 *' who were in the fame opinion, and pradice 
 *' oi Infant -Baptifm with themlelves;" only 
 they differed about the reafon of the thing. 
 Nay, we fee by an cxprefs claufe in the canon, 
 
 F that 
 
 lJ.(x]oi i-ndhn^iK, ciXXcL TTKocroq voeiTctt) Ibid. 
 
 [n\ Infantes autem debere bipcizari in remilTionem pecca- 
 torum fecundum reguJam uni'verfalis ecclef,:s — confiteniur : 
 fays Celeftius. Augultin, de peccat. orig. c. 5. Hence mat 
 queltion. Quid feiiinat innocens 3Etas ad remiflionem pcccato- 
 ram ? Tertullian. de Baptifaio. 
 
 Tl<TlXO(^0ft t^tA To Ui] iXy.eiV AVTcl TpOyOViiCilV AUCCOriAV €^ A- 
 
 ^dtij., dvxQiiAixll^ei' Synodus Carthag. contra Pelagium, & 
 Cdellium. Phot. Biblioth. cod. 53, 
 
(34) 
 
 that the members of this council were not fa- 
 tisfied, if a perfon owned, that Infants were 
 to be baptized for the remljjion of Jin ; unlefs 
 he acknowledged that they were to be bap- 
 tized on the account of original fin alfo. And 
 doth not Dr. Gill himfelf fay, and fay truly, 
 (St. Auftin having teflified the fame thing [/>].) 
 ** that the controverfy with the Pelagians was 
 ** not about the JubjeB^ but the end of Bap- 
 *' tifm, and about the latter, and not the for- 
 •* mer was the difpute [q]y — This, I prefume, 
 any competent, and candid Reader will judge 
 a fufficient anfwer to what the Dodlor hath 
 advanced, both lately, and on a former occa- 
 fion [r], with reference to the Carthaginian 
 council, and their famous canon. For, it is 
 manifeft upon the whole, ** that tho* St. Au- 
 ** y///z prefided .in that council, and was at 
 " the making of this canon ; he might not- 
 •' withftanding, have never heard, or read of 
 *' any catholic, heretic, or fchifmaMc, that de- 
 *' nied Infant-Baptifm." — Let us now confi- 
 der, what farther props, the Dodtor hath, to 
 fupport his tottering hypothefis. 
 
 (sO C"^] *' -/^i^^7^ himfelf makes mention of 
 ** fome, that argued againft it after this man- 
 
 " ner. 
 
 [p] Concedunt parvulos baptizari oporterc. Non ergo 
 qusftio eft inter nos, ct ipfos, utrum parvuli baptlzandi fint, 
 ied ce causa quaericur, quare baptizandi fint. JugujUn. de 'verb, 
 apoji. ferm, 14. 
 
 [y] Ibid, p. 20. 
 
 [rj Divine right of Inf. Bapt. examined , isfc. /»• 35. 
 
 [j] Remarks ou Infan: Bapt. a reafonablc (erv. p. 2$. 
 
(35 ) 
 
 *^ ner [/]." " Men are ufed to afk this queft- 
 «^ ion, fays he, of what profit is the facra- 
 " ment of chriflian-baptifm to Infants, fee- 
 ** ing when they have received it, for the 
 " moft part they die, before they know any 
 ** thing of it." — But neither doth this come 
 up to the point, or prove, what it is al- 
 ledged for, viz. that Auftin had heard of any 
 one (I mean any chriftian, whether catholic^ 
 heretic^ or fcbifmatic) who denied Infant-Bap- 
 tifm. For (i.) men might afk fuch a qued- 
 ion for their own information, without deny- 
 ing Infant-Baptifm, or fo much as arguing 
 againft it. In the fame place St. Auftin makes 
 mention of another queftion, which fome 
 ignorant people were ufed to afk, in reference 
 to the death of Infants, and their bodily pains. 
 "** What occafion was there for one to be born^ 
 ** who departed this life, before he could 
 " merit any thing r'* This queftion he hath 
 no fooner anfwered, but he mentions the 
 other queftion produced by the Dodtor, and 
 mentions it in fuch a manner, as to put it 
 upon the fame foot with the former [w]. 
 Now, if that queftion was afked by any 
 chriftian, it could only be for the fake of in- 
 formation, (and when perfons are ignorant^ 
 it is very commendable in them to defire, to 
 be informed.) For, it is very abfurd to fup- 
 F 2 pofe, 
 
 \j\ Augujlin. de libero arhit.lih. 5. cap. 23. 
 [«] ^^0 loco etiam illud perfcrutari homines folent, facra- 
 mentum baptifmi Chriili quid parvulis prcilt, ^. 
 
C36) 
 
 pofe, that any chriftian would afk the queft- 
 ion, with a defigh to argue againjl the birth 
 of children, dying in Infancy. But, there 
 is the fame reafon to fuppofe this, as the Doc- 
 tor hath to fuppofe, from the like queftion 
 concerning the Baptifm of children, dying in 
 infancy, that the perfons, who afked the 
 quctlion, argued again ft \K» (2.) If they did 
 thus argue againft Infant- Baptifm. ; it is in- 
 cumbent upon the Dodor to prove, that they 
 were chrijlians. For, there is fome reafon 
 to doubt of it, confidering in what manner St. 
 Auftin introduces the Jimilar queftion going 
 before, calling it a calumny [i£;]: And truly, 
 if it was meant as an obje&ion^ it is fuch 
 calumny, or refledl:ion upon divine Provi-r 
 dence, as could proceed from the mouth of 
 none, but men of atheiftical principles. 
 (3.) They might even argue in this manner 
 againfl: Infant- Baptifm ^ and yet not denyxi : 
 nay, be ' fo far from denying it, as to prac^ 
 tife it themfelves, fuppofing them to be chrif-r 
 tians. For, there is fuch a thing, as arguing 
 iov arguing s fake : and this very way I have 
 known the fame queftion afked among, and 
 by thofe, who do pradlife Infant-Baptifm. 
 And I would gravely afk the Dodtor, whe- 
 ther he really thinks, that any of thofe men, 
 who raifed the other difficulty about the birth 
 of Ipt'cuus, would fcruple, upon the ftrength 
 
 of 
 
 [fjc] Huic autem difputationi objici ab imperitls folet quae- 
 <dam cqhmn'ta dc mortuis paryulorum, &c. Augujlin, ihid. 
 
( 37 ) 
 of their own objeiflion, to render due henew-- 
 knee ? The application is eafy, and I hafte 
 to the next thing. 
 
 (4.) " And as before obferved (fays Dr. 
 " G/7/[x]) he brings in the P^/i:7g-/^;^5 faying, 
 " that the Infants of beHevers ought not to 
 ** be baptized [;?]." But, in relation to what 
 he hath before obferved as to this matter ; we 
 have before proved that oui; learned Dodlor is 
 under a grofs miftake. And fo we proceed 
 to his laft argument, (which will prove faulty, 
 like the reft) to prove, *' that Aufttn could 
 *^ not fay, what he is made to fay." 
 
 (5.) *'And fo Jerome [2^], who was a co- 
 " temporary of his, fpeaks of fome chriftians, 
 ^' qui dare noluerint b apt if ma ^ who refufed to 
 *' give baptifm to their children^ fo that tho' In^- 
 ^' fant-Baptifm greatly obtained in thofe times, 
 '^ yet was not fo general as this author re- 
 *' prefents it. Auftin therefore could not 
 ** fiy, what he is made to fay." Thus far 
 the Do6lor \a\ But, as his conclufion is now 
 come to it's laft legs ; fo it will be hard fet, 
 to maintain it's ground. The fmall fcrap of 
 Zi^//>2 words, cited from y^'ro//?^, may feem, 
 perhaps, to make for his purpofe,, detached, 
 as they are, from the reft of the fentence j 
 but, confidered in their due connexion, they 
 will appear with a different afpedt. For, up- 
 on examining the paffage, the Dodlor will bq 
 
 found, 
 
 ^x-[ Bid. 
 
 [j] ^4uguftin. de pec;ator. rierit^ I, z, c, 25. 
 
 [«] Ep, adLatam. [«] Ibid. 
 
( 38 ) 
 found, to have repeated his former miftake, 
 by underftanding here again abfolutely, what 
 was only fpoken by way of fuppofition. Be- 
 caufe, St. Jerome is not relating a Ja5l ; as 
 the Dodor*s manner of quoting him would 
 infinuate ; but only putting a cafe -^ in order 
 to illuftrate, and enforce a point, which he 
 had to manage with La^ta^ about fending her 
 daughter Paula to Bethlehem^ &c. And hav- 
 ing urged that parents are accountable for 
 their children, during their minority^ he 
 adds[<^]; *' unlefs, perhaps, you fuppofe, the 
 *' children of chriftians, if they fhould not 
 " have received Baptifm^ themfelves only to 
 ^^ be guilty of fin, and the fault not to lie 
 " alfo upon thofe, that would not give them 
 " Baptifm!* Thus, it is plain, St. Jerome 
 doth not fay, what Dr. Gill would make him 
 fay; nor is he ftating a matter of fa5l^ but 
 only arguing upon a fuppofition -, and in this 
 manner either he, or any other man, might 
 have argued, if he had never heard of one 
 fingle chriftian, that denied Infant Baptifm. 
 Befides, if we fliould fuppofe, without any 
 neceflity, the cafe, which St. Jerome puts, to 
 h^faci ', this will not prove, that any chrifti- 
 ans denied Infant-Baptifm in thofe days, but 
 only that they neglected it in fome inftan- 
 
 ces. 
 
 \h'\ Nifi forte exiftimas, Chririlanorum iillos, Ji baptifma 
 non teceperinty ipfos tantum reos efTe peccati, et non etiam 
 fcelus referri ad cos, qui dare noluerint, &c. Hieronyni. EpijU 
 ad Latam, 
 
(39) 
 ces [c]. For, it fometimes happens in our 
 days, that children mifs of Baptifm, and die 
 without it, through the negle^ of parents, 
 who are far from denying Infant- Baptifm ne. 
 verthdefs. By the way, it is obvious to re- 
 mark, that the great St. Jerome thought, that 
 chriftian parents could not negledl to get their 
 children baptized, without being guilty of a 
 culpable omiffion. 
 
 We have now gone through all the Doc- 
 tor's proofs, to fupport his aflertion, '* that 
 " Aiijtin could not fay, what he is made to 
 ** fay :" and whether he hath not failed in 
 every one of them, I appeal to all the learned 
 world. Therefore, I will venture to affirm, 
 that for any thing he h^th /aid himfelf to prove 
 the contrary, Aufti?! could fay, what he is 
 made fay ; whether, in fad, he did fay it, or 
 not ; which is not very material. It is fuffi- 
 cient for our purpofe, that St. Auftin could fay, 
 if he had any occafion, " that he had never 
 " heard, or read of any catholic, heretic, or 
 ** fchifmatic, that denied Infant-Baptifm." 
 And I am amazed to think, that, in attempt- 
 ing to prove the contrary, Dr. Gill could fa- 
 tisfy himfelf, or expedl to convince others, 
 with fuch flight, and fuperficial arguments. 
 This to me appears very wonderful in a per- 
 fon of his approved learning, and unfufpedted 
 
 integrity 
 
 [f] ^se Wall's Biji, of hf. Bap. P. 2. ch. z> on Greg. 
 
(40) 
 
 integrity ; nor can I other ways account for if,- 
 than from the power of prejudices or hurry 
 of precipitation. 
 
 What the Dodor next adds, is of little 
 force, fpeaking ftill of Auftin \_d\ *' But 
 *' what then doth he fay, that he never re- 
 <* membered to have read, in any catholic, 
 *' heretic, or fchifmatic writer? why, that 
 " Infants were not to be baptized, that they 
 *' might receive the remiffion of fins, but that 
 " they might be fandified in Chrift, &c. " 
 I think the Dodlor is here in the right j and 
 alfo in what follows [<?], " in the fame fenfe 
 ** are we to underfland him, when he fays, 
 ** and this the church has always had, has 
 ** always held[/]." " What? why, that 
 *' Infants are difeafed thro' Adam\ and ftand 
 " in need of a phyfician ; and are brought to 
 " the church to be healed. It was the doc- 
 " trine of original (in, and the Baptifni of 
 *^ Infants for the remiffion of it, he fpeaks 
 " of in thefe paffages/' — I fay, in my opini- 
 on. Dr. Gill hath here given a true reprefen- 
 tation oi Aujtitis fenfe. But then, I mufl de- 
 fire the favour of him, to refolve me one 
 queftion, (whether Infants were to be bapti- 
 zed for the remt[jion of Jin, or for their fane- 
 tification) viz. How could any chriftian, ca- 
 tholic, heretic, or fchifmatic, believe, that 
 
 the 
 
 [^] Ibid. [f] Ibid, p. 26. 
 
 [/] De 'verb. apoJL ferm. 10. 
 
(41 ) 
 
 the Baptifm of Infants was of any ufe, or 
 efficacy for either purpofe, without fuppofmg, 
 at the fame time, that Infant-Baptifm was of 
 divine authority, or an apoflolica! inditution, 
 and confequently that it had been always prac- 
 tifed in the chriflian church? Accordingly^ 
 thus much feems to be implied in St. Aujiins 
 faying, " This the church has always had, has 
 '' always held. " And though, as the Doc- 
 tor obferves [^], *' it is one thing what Auf- 
 *' tin faySj and another, what 7nay be thought 
 ^* to be the confequence of his fo faying j" 
 yet, where is the difference between what 
 Aiiftin fays, and what is a natural confequence 
 of his faying it ? fuch a confequence as AuJ^ 
 tin himfelf would own, and acknowledge \Jo\ 
 And, " it is true indeed, fays the Dodor [/], 
 ** he took Infant-Baptifm to be an antient, 
 *' and conftant ufe of the church, and ail 
 *' apoftolic tradition." But then the Doc- 
 tor's way of accounting for this notion of 
 Aujiin is very extraordinary, and fuch only as 
 might be expeded from a writer, that is at a 
 lofs what to fay. For, thus he proceeds ; 
 *' which perhaps he had taken up from the 
 *^ Latin tranflations of Origen by Jerome and 
 *' RiiffinuSi &;c."— But, 1 muft tell the learn- 
 
 G ed 
 
 [.] ihid. _ ...... 
 
 [/'] Confuetudo tamen matris Ecclefias in baptizanais p^rra-^ 
 jis nequaquam fpernenda eft, neque ullo modo fuperfiua depa- 
 tanda, nee omnino credenda, nifi apojiolica ejfct traditiv^ 
 A'JguAin. de Genes, ad lit. lib. lo, 
 
 [ij Ibid. 
 
(42) 
 
 ed Do5lor, a perhaps will not do in this cafe. 
 As to the bufinefs of the Latin tranflations of 
 Origen by 'Jerome and Ruffinus ; we fliall fet- 
 tle that account with the Dodlor in due time. 
 At prefent, fince Jerome, and Riiffinits were 
 his cotemporaries, it is natural to afk, how 
 they came by the notion, that Infant- Baptifm 
 was an apojlolic tradition, or infiitiition ? 
 (words of the fame import in the ecclefiadic 
 flile) And, why might not Aujtin come by 
 the notion the fame way, that they did, with- 
 out being beholden to them for it ? But, if 
 St. Aujtin took the notion from any particu- 
 lar writer of the church , he had a much 
 earlier author (an original too) than thefe 
 Latin tranflators of Origen. For, he fays 
 himfelf [i], *' Bleffed Cyprian indeed, not 
 *' making any new decree, but preferving the 
 *' eftablifhed faith of the church, to redify 
 " the miftake of thofe, who thought, that 
 *' a child was not to be baptized before the 
 ** eighth day from the birth, faid not that 
 " thje fieih, but the foul was [not] to be loft j 
 
 " and 
 
 [/^] Beatus quidem Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens 
 novum fed Ecclef]:^ fidtm firmiffimam fervans ad corrigendum 
 eos, qui putabant ante o6lavum diem nativitatis non efie par- 
 vulum baptizandum, non carnem, fedanjmam [non] dixit efle 
 perdendam, et mox-natum rite baptiz.ri pofl'e, cum Tuis qui- 
 bufdam co-epifcopis cenfuit. Sed co-tra Cypriani aliquara 
 opinionem, ubi quod videndiim f'uit fortaffe non vidit, fentiat 
 qu:lque quod iibet : tantum contra apoftoiicam inanifcrtiffimam- 
 lidf.m nemo fennat, qui ex uniu3 delido omnes in condemna. 
 tiouem duel prxdicat, ex qua condemnatione non liberat, nift 
 gratia Dei per Jefum, &c. Augujlin, Hisronymo Ep, 28, 
 
(43 ) 
 
 '^ and judged with his fellow-bifhops, that a 
 *' new-born child might be rightly baptized. 
 " But againftany opinion of Cyprian^ where 
 " he did not fee, perhaps, what fliould be 
 " feen, let any one think, what he pleafeth ; 
 *' only let no man think againft the mamfejl 
 " faith of an Apofiky who declares, that by 
 '* the offence of one^ all were brought into con- 
 " demnation, &c." It is thus, that St. Aujtin 
 writes, in an epiftle to Jerome himfelf. Is it 
 likely then, that he learned his notion of In- 
 fant-Baptifm, as an apofbolical tradition from 
 St. Jero-me^ or Ruffinus ? And was not St. 
 Cyprian^ whom he quotes, a much earlier 
 writer than either of them ? And yet, we fee, 
 he did not confider the Baptifm of Infants, 
 particularly for original fin, as a novel thing 
 in Cyprian's time, nor did he found it merely 
 upon Cyprian's authority, but referred it to a 
 much higher original, even the authority of 
 an apojile. Again : St. Au/tin fays [/] " that 
 *' antiently, the univerfal church held, that 
 ** Infants of Believers obtained the remiffi- 
 '* on of original (in by the Baptifm of Chrift. 
 " Whence not without reafon bleffed Cyprian 
 G 2 - . ^' fuf. 
 
 [/] Ut antiquifjs univerfa eccleiia pertineret fideles parvulos 
 originalis peccati rcmifiionem per Chrifti baptifmum confecu- 
 tos. Unde non immerito beatus C)'/>r/«;/aj (ads ollend^t quarti 
 hoc ab initio creditum, et inteiledum iervet Ecclefia, qai 
 cum parvulos a materno utcro recentilTimos jam idoneos sd per- 
 cipiendum baptifmum aileret ; quoniam confukus fuerat urrum 
 hoc ante odlavam diem fieri deberet. Idem, de pcccat. merit, 
 lib, 3. 
 
(44) 
 *' fufficiently fhews, how the church pre- 
 ^' ferves this, as it was believed, and un- 
 ^* derftood from the begining ; who, when 
 *' children are new-born^ aflerted that they 
 ^' are fit for the Baptifm of Chrift ; becaufe, 
 *' his opinion had been aflced, whether this 
 *' ought to be done before the eighth day/* 
 Once more 5 fpeaking of the fame thing, and 
 referring to the fame epiftle, viz. that to K- 
 dus, he fays again \in'\ ; " Holy Cyprian, what 
 " he thought of the Baptifm of Infants, yea, 
 *^ what he hath fliowed the church always 
 ^* thought, hear in a few words, &c." — And 
 now, what becomes of the Dodor's perhaps ? 
 Or, what force, what truth can there be, in 
 his reafon to fupport it, when he adds, ** fince 
 *' no other ecclefiaftical writer fpeaks of it 
 " as fuch in thofe days." For, St, Aujiln, 
 we fee, without appealing to Origen at all, 
 tranflated, or untranflated, hath found ano- 
 ther ecclefiaftical writer in the fame age, fpeak- 
 ing the fame language, and afligning the fame 
 ^rc/W of Infant -Baptifm, that Origeii is made 
 to do. 
 
 But the Dodor grows more pofitive: for, 
 ftill fpeaking of *' Auftiris taking Infant-Bap- 
 /* tifm to be an antient, and conftant ufage 
 " of the church, and an apoftolic traditon." 
 
 Dr. 
 
 \t}i\ San£tus Cyprianus quid fenferk de baptlfmo par- 
 
 vuloi um, immo quid femper Ecclefiam fenfifle, monftraverit, 
 paululum accipite. Idem, ds 'verb, apofi. ferm. 15. Confer 
 Cyprian Ep. ad Fidum. ' 
 
(45) 
 Dr. Gill fays [«], without a perhaps ^ " but 
 *' in this he was deceived^ and tnijiakeny as h^ 
 " was in other things, which he took for 
 " apoftolic traditions; which ought to be 
 " equally received as this, by thofe, who 
 *' are influenced by his authority."— -Now, 
 this is plainly begging the queftion ; a great 
 fign of an impoverijhed caufe. It is roundly 
 aflerting the very thing, which is to be prov- 
 ed, and which, I am fure, never can be prov- 
 ed by fuch an argument, as the Dodlor hath 
 here advanced. For, in the name of LogiCy 
 where is the confequence ? that, becaufe St. 
 Auftin was deceived^ and mijlaken in other 
 things (fuppofing him to be fo) therefore he 
 was deceived and miftaken in this, *' thatln- 
 *' fant-Baptifm was an antient and conftant 
 ^^ ufage of the church, and an apoftolic tra- 
 *' dition ? " Is not this arguing without a 
 genuSy from one particular to another, con- 
 trary to the rules of the Logicians ? The Doc- 
 tor himfelf is deceived, if he imagines, that 
 we are influenced folely by Auftin' s authority 
 in this queftion. And, perhaps, upon fecond 
 thoughts, he will permit us to join with Au- 
 ftin at lead Jerome and Riiffinus ; and to caft 
 the weight of their authority into the fame 
 fcale; when he remembers, what he hath 
 faid of their Latin tranflations of Origen: 
 However, if Auftin was miftaken in fome 
 
 points 5 
 
 [n] Ibid. /, 26, 27, 
 
(46) 
 
 points ', this proves indeed that he was not tn- 
 fallible', but it doth not prove, that he was 
 always in an error, nor, confequently was his 
 being deceived in other matters any proof, 
 that he was miftaken in his notion of Infant- 
 Baptifm, as an apoftolical inftitution. I hope. 
 Dr. Gill is fometimes in the right, though, I 
 have fhewn, I think, that he is often in the 
 wrong. But, what a ftrange principle doth 
 he reafon upon here ! viz. that we muft be- 
 Heve a fallible man in nothings unlefs we will 
 believe him in every thing! Nay, that an ho- 
 neft man is obliged to it! What! is it come 
 then to this ? that all men muft be knaves^ 
 for uiing a judgment of difcretion ; or foolSy 
 and believe every thing at random ! But furely, 
 eft modus in rebus: there is a medium^ proper 
 to be obferved, between being wholly influ- 
 enced by any man's authority, and paying no 
 regard to it at all. 
 
 But the Doftor infifts [<?], *^ Every honeft 
 *^ man, that receives Infant- Baptifm upon the 
 " foot of tradition, ought to receive every 
 " thing elfe upon the fame foot, of which 
 *' there is equally as full, and as early evi- 
 '' dence of apoftolic tradition^ as of this." — 
 All which we readily grant. But, when he 
 fays afterwards [/>], of feveral other rites, and 
 ufages^ by him fpecified, not only " that they 
 " claim their rife from apoftolic tradition, but 
 
 *^ have 
 
 [o\ Ibid. p. 27.^5* 38. [/] Ibid. p. 37. 
 
(47) 
 « have equal evidence of it, as Infant-Bap- 
 *' tiihi has;" this we utterly deny, and fliall 
 now try the ftrength of his hypothefis, not 
 doubting but, whatever equaUty of evidence 
 may appear in fome refpeds, we (hall difcover 
 a plain inequality of evidence in others-, as the 
 DoSor hath ftated the cafe. For, 
 
 (i.) In rcipcO: to Infant- communion, with 
 which the Dodor begins his detail [q], the 
 evidence, which he hath produced, of it*s be- 
 ing an apoftolic tradition is not equally as full, 
 and as early, as of Infant-Baptifm. In the 
 words alledged by the Dodor from St. Auf- 
 tin [r], he is indeed argiii?ig in his manner for 
 Infant-communion, and urging it from the 
 rezcird which all chriftians owed to the autho- 
 rity of Chrifl, and his apoftles, as the proper 
 ground, and flandard of the catholic faith. 
 But, when St. Auftin only argues for Infant- 
 communion, or delivers his own opinion about 
 it, tho' in the ftrongeft terms; every one muft 
 fee, that this is a very different thing, from his 
 teftifying, and declaring what was the antient^ 
 and univerfal ^r2idi\CQ of the chriftian church j 
 as he doth in the cafe of Infant-Baptifm. But, 
 the Dcdor affirms [5], '' that of the neceffitv 
 
 " of 
 
 M Ihid. p. 27. 
 
 [r] *' If x\ity pay any regard to the apofiolic authority^ or 
 ^* rather to the Lord and Mafler of the apoftles, &c.— — No 
 ** man that remembers that he is a chriftian, and of the ca- 
 *' tholic faith denies, or doubts that Infants, &c," Augufi'm, 
 Ep. 106. 
 
 [i] Ibid. 
 
(48) 
 
 ** of this, as well as of Baptifm to eternal lite, 
 ** Ju/tinkys[t], iht African chriftians took 
 ** to be an ant lent apoftolic tr adit ion ^ Now, 
 here I might borrow the Dodtor's words, and 
 fay point blank, *' Auftin fays no fuch thing, 
 " What then does he fay ? Why, that the 
 <^ chriftians of Carthage very well call Bap- 
 " tifm itfelf nothing elfe but health-, and the fa- 
 <» crament of the body of Chrift, nothing elfe 
 *< but life. From whence ? but, as Ifuppofe^ 
 <« from an antient and apoftolic tradition." 
 
 Thus, what Auftin delivers only as his 
 
 o^^n private opinion, Dr. G///r eprefents him, 
 as declaring it to be the general opinion, not 
 only of the chriftians of Carthage^ but of the 
 African chriftians at large. Is this quite fair 
 dealing ? But, how differently St. Atftin ex- 
 preffeth himfelf, when fpeaking of Infent-Bap- 
 tifm as an apoftolic tradition, is extremely evi- 
 dent from what hath been faid before. To which 
 let me add the following paffage in the fame 
 book, to which the Do6lor hath here referred 
 us [«]. " Moreover, becaufe they grant, that 
 •« Infants are to be baptized, who cannot go 
 
 " againft 
 
 [/] Optime Punici chrifliani baptifmum ipfum nihil aliud 
 quam falutem^ et facramentum corporis Chrifti nihil aliqd 
 quam njitam^ vocant. Unde ? nifi ex antiqua, ut exijiimo, 
 ct apoftolica tradicione. Augujiin. de peccator. merit, 6f re^ 
 mis. lib. I. c. 24. 
 
 [«] Porro quia parvulos baptizandos effe concedont, qui 
 contra authoritatem univerfae Ecclefis proculdubio per Domi-' 
 rum et apoftolos traditam, venire non poiTunt, &c. Au^fiiif^ 
 ibid. cap. 26. 
 
(49 ) 
 
 ^* agalnft the authority of the univerfal churchy 
 *' without all doubt, delivered by the Lord 
 *' and his apoftles, &;c." Thu-s then, of In-^ 
 fant-Baptifm, as the antient and univerfat 
 praftice of the church, and an apoftolic tra- 
 dition St. Auftin fpeaks with the utmoft con- 
 fidence ; but not fo doth he exprefs himfelf 
 concerning Infant- communion under the fame 
 notion. Therefore, upon the foot of his tef- 
 timony, Infant-communion hath not an equal 
 claim to apoftoHc tradition, or the fame evi^ 
 dence of it, as Infant-Baptifm hath. 
 
 The Dodtor adds \w'\ '' Innocent the firft^ his 
 *^ cotemporary, was alfoof the fame mind, " 
 What mind? Was it that Infant-communion 
 was an apoftolic tradition ? Granting this ; 
 doth it therefore follow, that it hath the fame 
 evidence on it's fide, that Infant-Baptifm 
 hath ? Or, doth Innocent the firft, or Cyprian, 
 whom the Do(flor m.entions afterwards, ever 
 teftify of Infant-communion^ what St. Auftin 
 declares of Infant-Baptifm, viz. that it v^-as the 
 antient, conjlant, and tiniverfal pradice of the 
 church ? and confequently an apoftolical infti- 
 tution ? The Doctor vainly fwaggers, when^ 
 fpeaking of the cafe cf a child mentioned by 
 Cyprian, he fays [.v], *^ Now here is a plain 
 *' inftance of Infant-communion in the third 
 *' century 5 and we defy any one to give a 
 H *' mor^ 
 
 [yj] Ibid. p. 2S. 
 
 Ix] Ibid, p, 29. Confsr Cyprian, de hpp. 
 
(5°) 
 
 ** more early inftance, or an inftance fa early, 
 ** of Infant-Baptifm.'* — This is a mere bra- 
 vado j bullying, not arguing. For, if by an 
 inflame he means a particular fad, fo circum- 
 flantially related, as that other -^ what can he 
 infer from it? Is it, that Infant-Baptifm was 
 pot pracftifed, before that cafe happened ? No: 
 this he doth not pretend : for the Dod:or him- 
 felf foppofes, " that this very child was bap- 
 " tized, or otherwafe, fays he, it would not 
 " have been admitted to the Lord's Supper." 
 Very well! then by the Do6tor's confeffion, 
 Infant-Baptifm was pradifcd before Infant- 
 communion : none being admitted to the 
 Lord's Supper before they were baptized [jy]. 
 However, he adds, *' it is reafonable to fup- 
 " pofe, they both began together.'* But he 
 produceth no proof, or evidence of it. — There- 
 fore, if the Dodor's challenge hath any mean- 
 ing at all, it mull be tbh-, that there is no 
 fiifl-cient evidence that Infant-Baptifm was 
 praCtiled before that time. And, if this is 
 what he intended to fuggeft, I accept his chal- 
 lenge, and hope (hortly to give him Jatii- 
 faBion, 
 
 (2.) If thofe other rites, and ufages, menti- 
 oned by St. Baf![z], to whom the Dodtornext 
 refers us[j], are called apojtolical traditions^ in 
 
 commoa 
 
 W] ^^^- Jufiin Martyr. Apol. 2. 
 [s] De Spiritu Sand, C. 27. 
 
 la] Ibid, p, 29. — 35. As for the cuftom of giving a 
 
 mixture 
 
( 50 
 
 common with Infant-Baptifm ; yet there Is 
 this remarkable differejice between it and them^ 
 that St. Bajil fpeaks of tbem^ as unwritten tra- 
 ditions, but he doth not mention Infant-Bap- 
 tifm under that notion, or as one of that 
 number. This, I fay, makes a remarkable 
 difference in the cafe. For, we fee, that In- 
 fant-Baptifm was none of thofe rites, which 
 the primitive church built upon a my/licalkx\k 
 oi fcripture^ or which in St. Baftfs time were 
 only ^r^w^^ to be apoftolical inftitutions, on 
 account of their having early and generally 
 obtained [b'] ; otherwife, they had ranked it 
 alfo among the unwritten traditions. There- 
 fore they confidered Infant-Baptifm, as hav- 
 ing Jironger evide?ice on it's lide, than any of 
 thofe unwritten traditions j and confequently, 
 it's apoftolic authority \% better (upported, than 
 that of thofe other rites, and ufages, even upon 
 the foot of their tejlimony. — If any one Ihould 
 objedt, that by this argument, Injant-commu' 
 nioUy fpoken of before, would be put upon 
 the fame foot with Infant-Baptifm y I freely 
 H 2 grant 
 
 mixture of milk and honey to a perfon juft baptized, men- 
 tioned by Dr. Gill^ p. 36. it Hands uron the fame ground with 
 the reil. And let me obferve, the higher it can be traced ; 
 fo much the earlier proof there is, that Bupnfnn M'as conlide- 
 led under the notion of regeneration. BecHLife milk and honey 
 was the food of Infants. And To, the giving this mixture to 
 a perfon juft baptized, denoted his being ve-iv-born : ad .fn- 
 fantiae fignificationem, fays St. Jerome, adverf. Lucifer ian. 
 
 [^] See Di'vine Oracles, in an/nver to t^ivo Catechi/?ns» 
 
 fia. 3. 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 grant it, and therefore acknowledge that there 
 is more to be faid for it, than for any of the 
 
 unwritten traditionSy as they are called [<:]. 
 But then, what hath been already faid, under 
 the preceding article, and what will be far- 
 ther oblerved heareafter, when we come to 
 St, Cyprian^ plainly fhews a vifible difpa- 
 rity between it, and Infant-Baptifm, 
 
 (3.) Infant^Baptifm, as I can affure the Doc- 
 tor, appears to many perfons, who pafs for men 
 of fepfe and probity among their neighbours, a 
 more rational thing, upon the whole, than any 
 of the unwritten traditions, mentioned by him, 
 and therefore more likely to be an apoftolical in- 
 ftitution. So that, in the judgment of difcre- 
 tion they verily think, that a fiiperior regard 
 is due to the teftimony of the primitive church 
 on it*s behalf. For, the matter of Infant- 
 Eaptifm, whatever may be faid oiih&fubje6t^ 
 is a divine ordinance, as may be proved from 
 fcriptiire ; but none of the unwritten traditi- 
 ons, tho*, perhaps, originally founded upon 
 Jcriptiire^ by one Jort of conftrudion or ano- 
 ther, can be proved from it. Now, doth not 
 this material circumftance make a very wide 
 difference ? Doth it not appear in this view 
 m jre probable that Baptifm, which can be 
 proved to be a divine ordinance, (hould be ap- 
 plied to Infants by an apoftolic tradition, than 
 that any of thofe things (hould be apoftolic tra- 
 ditions, 
 
 [.:] See Mr. James Pierce's treatlfe upon that fuhjeB, 
 
( 53 ) 
 ditlons, which can in no (hape be proved to 
 be divine inftitutions ? In the one cafe, only 
 the fiibjeB is the matter in queftion ^ in the 
 other, the verj thingi themfelves. If any 
 one fliould here renew the former objedlion 
 about Infant-communion j I refer him to my 
 former anfwer. 
 
 (4.) It doth not appear, that the unwritten 
 traditions were ever put to the fame teft of 
 their apoftoHcal authority, as Infant-Baptifm 
 was, as we hinted before, and flood the* trial, 
 as it did, particularly in the Pelagian contro- 
 troverfy. And thus, we are come round to 
 the Pelagians again, where we began. 
 
 Upon the whole then, I imagine, that an 
 honeji man may be an honeft man ftill, and 
 yet think in his confcience, that the teftimony 
 of the primitive church deferves more regard 
 in favour of Infant-Baptifm as an apoftolical 
 inftitution, than in behalf of the unwritten 
 traditions under that notion. The attentive, 
 and judicious Reader mull have obferved in 
 the procefs of this argument, that Dr. Gill 
 hath exprefsly given us up by name fome of the 
 greateft lights of the church in the fourth 
 century, as vouchers for the apoftoFic autho- 
 rity, and antiquity of Infant- Baptil'm: viz. 
 St. Jerome^ Rujinus^ and Augujtin, And he 
 hath in effed, given us ail the reft. For, 
 he hath not been able to produce one 
 lingle author in this period on the other fide 
 of the queftioi^ If anv one fliould fuppofe, 
 
 that 
 
( 54) 
 
 *hat Gregory Nazianzen was an Antipaedo- 
 baptift, bccaufe he advifed the delay of chil- 
 drens Baptifm till they were three years old ; 
 he would be much miftaken : for he approv- 
 ed of their Baptifm at any age in cafe of dan- 
 ger [d]. 
 
 SECTION IIL 
 
 A View of Infant - Baptifm in the 
 third Century. 
 
 HAVING feen how the cafe flood in 
 the fourth^ and in the begining of the 
 fifth century ; let us now carry our enquiries 
 back into the thirds and fo upwards, 'till we 
 come to the times of the apoflleSy and to the 
 Holy Scriptures themfelves, from whence the 
 right of Infant- Baptifm (which we referve, at 
 prefent for the fubjedl of another differtation) 
 muft be derived. (Though as to the y^^^, 
 the matter now in hand, I might leave it to 
 reft upon the evidence already produced, 'till 
 better evidence can be offered on the contrary 
 fide, without giving ourfelves any farther trou- 
 ble 
 
 f4.iv; Travv ysj eitsrip t/j i'aeifof '/dJ'vi'^'. Greg. ^'azia». di 
 baptifm. Or at. I 40. 
 
(55) 
 
 ble about it.) In this century we find a queft- 
 ion, relating to the Baptifm of Infants, unani- 
 moufly refolved by a fynod of fixty-lix Bi- 
 fhops, with the famous St. Cypria?i at the 
 head of ihem, who flouriftied about the mid- 
 dle of it. But, what was this queftion ? Why, 
 not abfolutely concerning Infant^Baptifm it- 
 felf J or, whether Infants were to be baptized 
 at all, (for this point was no matter of doubt, 
 or difpute among them) but, whether new^ 
 born Infants were to be baptized, particu- 
 larly whether it was lawful to baptize a child 
 before the eighth day, according to the time of 
 circumcifion among the Jews, This was 
 what one Fidus fcrupled ; but Cyprian [e'] tells 
 him, " We are all, here affembled in coun- 
 *' cil, of another mind ; and no one of us 
 ** came into your fentiments ; but, on the 
 *« contrary, we all concluded, that the grace, 
 <' and mercies of God were to be denied to 
 " none, who fliould come into the world." 
 Upon which Mr. MarJJ:all makes this perti- 
 nent and juft remark, in his notes upon the 
 place : ^' The unanimity, wherewith this 
 *' queftion was carried, fhews that Infant- 
 " Baptifm was at this time no novel ufage % 
 " there was no manner of difpu-te whether 
 *' Infants (hould be baptized \ but whether 
 ** before the eighth day, or not : To which 
 *' the unanimous refolution was, that the 
 
 *' grace 
 
 \J\ Cypfi^^- ^^ Fidiim, Ep. 64, 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 " grace of God fiotild be denied to none. *^ 
 —And now, what have the Antipccdo-bapti/ls 
 to fay to this ? Why, a defperate cafe requires 
 a defperate cure. Having therefore no other* 
 way left, to deal with the argument, from 
 Cyprian^ for the indifputed. pradice of In- 
 fant- Baptifm in his time ; they, at leaft fome 
 of them [/], will needs queflion ih^ genti^ 
 inefi of his epiftle to Fidus 5 without any fort 
 of proof, or pretence, fit to be oppofed to the 
 teflimony of AujiiUy who, as we have {qzh 
 before, refers to that epiftle, as Cyprian'^ s^ 
 over, and over again. Nor^ have we only 
 his authority for the genuinefs of the epiftle 
 itfelf, but alfo his teftimony for the proper 
 fenfe and meaning of it, fo far as relates to 
 the matter in hand, with this farther declara- 
 tion concerning it, that the refoliition^ therein 
 mentioned, was not any new decree^ intro- 
 ducing a novel cuftom, but agreeable to the 
 conftant opinion, and practice of the chriftian 
 church from the begining ^ as manifeftly ap- 
 pears by his words, already cited in the pre- 
 ceding fedion. Now, if it was an antient cuf- 
 tom in St. Cyprians time to baptize children, 
 particularly before the eighth day, Infant- Bap- 
 tifm could not then be a new thing, or a late 
 invention. 
 
 What becomes now of Dr. Gill's open chaU 
 lenge aiorefaid ? Doth it not already begin, to 
 
 look 
 
 [/] J^^anvers : Treatife of ha^iifm, Blackwood : Storm* 
 ing of Antkhrift. 
 
(57) 
 
 look a little out of countenance ? But fays th^ 
 Do(ftor[p'] " by Fidus, the country Biihop^ 
 *^ applying to the council, to have a doubt 
 ** refolved, whether it was lawful to baptize 
 *' Infants until they were eight days old j 
 *^ it appears to be a novel practice, and that 
 ** as yet it was undetermined by council, 
 ^' or cuftom, when they were to be baptized^ 
 *' whether as foon as born, or on the eighth 
 *^ day, 5cc." — -Now, granting all this, what 
 doth it fignify, in reference to Infant-Bap- 
 tifm at large ? For, the doubt of Fi^Jus had no 
 relation to Infant-Baptirm,^jy?/^i; but only to 
 the particular time of adminiftring it, as the Doc«=^ 
 tor himfelf hath ftated the cafe. Therefore, to 
 invert his argument, fince Fidus, the country 
 JBifl:iop, did not apply to the council, to have 
 any doubt refolved, whether it was lawful to 
 baptize Infants ^f all ; by this Infant-Baptifm 
 appears not to be a novel pradlice, Befides, 
 the particular day, or time, when Infants 
 JJjould be baptized, is a circumftance not yet 
 pofitively determined, but left to every one's 
 liberty. Doth it therefore follow, that In- 
 fant-Baptifm in thefe days is a novel practice ? 
 Perfons now differ about the particular time 
 of adminiftring the Lord's Supper [h\ And 
 doth it from hence follow, that the celebra- 
 tion of this holy ordinance is a novel praBice 
 
 I ia 
 
 {£\ Argtim. from apoft. tradit, ^c. p. i%. 
 [^] ^ee Dr, GiWi anfvisr to a Welch Clergyman, ibid. 
 p. io8. 
 
(58) 
 
 in the prefent age ? Or, would this be a juft 
 inference, 1500 years hence, from the diffe- 
 rent cuftoms, or fcruples, which now obtain 
 amongfl: chriftians, in relation to that mat- 
 ter? — But, the Do(ftor adds ; " it fliould al- 
 *' fo be obferved, that in this age Infant-com- 
 " munion was pradifed, as well as Infant- 
 '' Baptifm ; and very likely both began to- 
 '' gether, as it is but reafonable, that if the one 
 " be admitted, the other fhould." — To which 
 I anfwer -, as to the rea/d?2ai?lenejs of the thing; 
 this is not the fubjedt of our prefent enquiry ; 
 but only the fa5l. And, though Dr. Gill is 
 pleafed to fay, very likely both began together ; 
 yet he offers no proof of it. This matter hath 
 been coniidered before. And to what hath 
 been already faid upon it, I (hall here add 
 the words of Mr. Marjhall [/]. •' Infants 
 *' were admitted, 'tis plain, in our author's 
 *' time and country, to receive the holy Eu- 
 ** charifl: ; which indeed was a juft confe- 
 " quence of interpreting John vi. 53. {except 
 " ye eat the feJJoof the Son of man, and drink 
 " bis blood, ye have no life in you) of the ho- 
 ^* ly Eucharift ; fmce, upon the foot of that 
 " principle, children could with no more 
 *' fafety be deprived of the holy Eucharift, 
 *' than of Baptifm. And, as to the prepa- 
 ** rations neceffary, the fame objedtions might 
 " feem. to lie againft Infant- Baptifm, as againft 
 
 *• Infant- 
 
 [7] Cyprian. P. u p^g^ 1 20, 
 
(c 
 
 « 
 
 (59 ) 
 
 *^ Infant-communion. But, tho* this prac- 
 " tice obtained in our author's time, Tertul- 
 Hans filence in it, where he had a jnft 
 occafion of mentioning it (upon his advi- 
 fing againft Infant-Baptifm) gives fome 
 reafon of fufpeding, that it was not much 
 earlier than our author, nor therefore very 
 general, &c," 
 Proceed we now to Onge?j, who flouriQied 
 about the year A. D. 230. He mentions 
 Infant-Baptifm on fundry occafions [k]^ but 
 never other wife than as a thing in commo?i ufe, 
 and pradice. i^nd, not only fo ; but he 
 fpeaks of it as a tradition^ or (which is the fame 
 thing in the facred, and eccleiiaflical flile [/j, 
 tho' Dr. Gill[m] fays, '' If Infant-Baptifm is 
 " a tradition of the apoftles, then — it is 
 *' not a fcriptural bulinefs") an injiitiitmi^ 
 which the church received from the apoftles; 
 and, confequently, as what had been always 
 
 I 2 prac- 
 
 [i] Quia nemo mundus a forde, nee fi unius diel fit vit^ 
 ejus. Addi his etiam illud poteft, uc requiratur, quid caufa; 
 fit, cum baptifma Ecclefias in remiJJJoftem peccatorum detur, 
 Jecundum Ecclejt^ obfer^antiam etiam pawulis haptifmum 
 
 dariy Sec. Origen in Levit. Horn. 8.- Ec quia per bap- 
 
 tifmi facnmentum nativitatis fordes deponuntur, propterea 
 baptizantur et parvuli. Nifi enim quis reratas tuerit ex 
 aqua, &c. Idem m Levit. Horn. 1 4. Pro hoc et Eccielia ab 
 apojlolis tradittonern fufcepit etiam parnjulis bapttfrniim dare, 
 Sciebant enim illi, quibus myfteriorum fecreta comm^fli funt 
 divinorum, quia eiTent in omnibus geauinae Ibrc.es peccati, 
 quae per aquaniy tX fpiritum abiui dcDe;ent. idt:,i. Commcui, 
 in ■£/». ad P.oman. lib. 5. 
 
 [/] See this point lately difcuiTcd. Divine Oracles. 
 
 [w] Page 40. 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 praaifed from the begining. Thus, we have 
 the clear teftimony of the great Ot^igen, not 
 only for the pradice of Infant-Baptifm in hh 
 own days^ but for the conjlant ufe of it all 
 along from the time of the apoftles. But 
 weak, and tender eyes cannot bear a ftrong 
 light. No wonder then, if all methods are 
 tried, to evade the force of fuch brighl and 
 glaring evidence. 
 
 . Says Dr. Gill [«] ; «' It fhould be obferved 
 ^^ that thefe quotations are not from the Greek 
 *^ of Origeny — True; they are only hatin 
 tranflations from the Greek ; but are they 
 falfe tranflations? This the Doctor doth not 
 venture to affirm. But, he tries another way 
 to get clear of the argument, drawn from 
 thefe paffages. For, fpeaking of Origen he 
 fays \6\'^ *^ His Homilies on Leviticus^ and 
 ■ ^ expofition of the epiftle to the Romans^ out 
 ** of which ^'i^^^ of them are taken, are tran- 
 ■' ^2.itd by Ruffimis ', who with i\\Q former, 
 ^' he himlelf owns, he ufed much freedom, 
 *^ and added much, and took fuch a liberty 
 *^ in both of adding, taking aivay^ and chang- 
 ^* jng, that, as Erafmus fays, whoever reads 
 ** thefe pieces, it is uncertain whether he 
 ^* reads Origen, or RiiffiijusJ" — But, notwiih- 
 ftanding Erafmus s cenfure, if we attend 
 to what Ruffinus himfelf fays ; it will appear, 
 that there is no fuch mighty matter in it, as, 
 
 perhaps, 
 
 U\ Page 1 6, [o\ Page 17, 
 
(6i ) 
 
 perhaps, may be imagined. For, as a learn- 
 ed writer of the laft age hath obferved [/>], 
 ' Ruffiniii acknowledges, in tranflating Ori- 
 ' geiii Homilies on Leviticus^ that he added 
 
 * fome things to what Origen faid, and what 
 ' they were he expreiles, ea qus ab origine 
 ' in auditorio Ecclefias ex tempore, non tarn 
 ' explanationis, quam aedificationis intenfi- 
 ' one perorata funt [^], the things, which were 
 
 * fpoken by Origen to his auditory, he tran- 
 ' flated them by way of explanation, or did 
 ^ more fully lay them forth in a popular way; 
 ' and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly, telling 
 ' us what were the things he added ; in this 
 ' Eraffjius acknowledges his fair dealing, 
 ' But, as for his commentary on the Romans^ 
 ' Ruffinus confeflith [r], fe hoc opus totum 
 ^ ad dimidium traxifle, there was no addition 
 ' of Ruffinus ; Erajmus here blames him for 
 
 * cutting off what Origen delivered more at 
 ' large, but neither doth Ruffinus confefs, 
 ^ nor Erajmus challenge him here for, any 
 ^ addition to what Origen faid." Thus then, 
 
 this great out- cry about additions y and inter- 
 polations in the Latin tranflations of Origen 
 by RuffinuSy comes to nothing ! 
 
 But 
 
 [/)] Mr. Stephen MarJhaU. Anf^wer to Tomhes. p. i6, I7_. 
 
 [5'J Rufini peroratio ir> Ep. ad Rom. Confer Wall's anfwer 
 to Gale, p. 371. 
 
 [r] Idem pr^fat. ad Rom. Confer Era/mi Cenf. de Ho- 
 mil. in Levit. For, traxijfe^ 1. contraxijfe. Confer Wall. 
 hill. P. i.ch. 5. fed. 6, 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 But, let us fuppofe, that both Ruffinus m 
 the Homilies on Leviticus^ and in the Com^ 
 mentary on the Romans made fome additions 
 of his own ; and alfo that St. Jerome did the 
 fame in tranflating the Homilies on Luke^ out of 
 which is the other pajfage, alledged for Infant- 
 Baptifm ; I fay, fuppofing all this, What doth 
 it fignify in the prefent cafe 5 unlefs it could 
 be proved, that the particular paffages under 
 confideration are additions, or interpolations ? 
 Dr. Gilt makes a feeble attempt this way, fay- 
 ing [i], *' it looks very probable^ that thefe 
 *' very paffages are additions, ,or interpola- 
 " tions of thefe men, fince the language agrees 
 " with thofe times, and no other ; for, no 
 *« cotemporary of OrigenSy nor any writer 
 *' before him, or after him, until the times 
 " of RuJinuSy Jerome and Aujtiny fpeak of 
 ** Infant-Baplifm as an ufage of the church, 
 *' or an apojiolical tradition." — But, the weak- 
 nefs, and fallacy of this way of reafoning 
 muft obvioufly appear to any one, that confi- 
 ders, how few writers, cotemporary with O- 
 rigen^ are nov^r remaining ; and yet neither 
 out of thofe /fU', nor out of any -writer before 
 him^ or after him in the primitive times, hath 
 Dr. Gill been able to produce one fingie author 
 that fpeaks a contrary language of Infaiit-Bap- 
 tifm, or plainly denies, what Origen is made fo 
 clearly to affirm, concerning it. BefwJe?, doth it 
 
 not 
 
 W Page 17. 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 not appear with undeniable evidence, from what 
 hath been already remarked on St. Cyprians 
 epiftle to Fidus, that Infant-Baptifm was the 
 commofi lifage of the church in his time? And 
 doth not the fame St. Cyprian in the fame 
 epiftle, fuggeft the fame groimd of Infant- 
 Baptifm, that Origen himfelf is reprefented to 
 do in thefe Latin tranflations ? Saying [/], *' if 
 *' remijfion oi f.ns be granted to thefe moft: 
 *' heinous offenders, who have long ago finned 
 •* againft God ; and if none of them be de- 
 " nied acccfs to the grace of. Baptifm ; how 
 ** much lefs reafon is there for denying it to 
 " Infants ; who, being but newly-born^ can bs 
 *^ guilty of no fin, except that, by being deriv- 
 ** ed from Adam^ according to the flefh, their 
 ** birth hath communicated to them the in- 
 " fedion, and punishment of his offence, &c." 
 — Thus, in effed, Cyprian declares Infant- 
 Baptifm to be an apoftolical tradition ; for, 
 otherwife, neither he, nor any other fenfible 
 man, could fuppofe it to be of any ufe or efH- 
 cacy for the remij/ion of Jin^ or any fignifica- 
 tion of the grace of God, Therefore the lan- 
 guage of Origen ^ in the Latin tranflations, 
 agrees with the language and fentiments of 
 the Cyprianic age, that is to fay, his' own. To 
 all which let me add from Dr. Wall [u\ " In 
 " the Greek remains there are fentences, and 
 *_' cxprefTions fo alike and parallel to thofe — 
 
 and 
 
 [/] Cyprian. Ep. ad Fid urn » 
 [ [*] Anfwer to Gale. Appendix, p. ir. 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 ** and citations of texts of fcripture applied (d 
 " much to the fame purpofe; that they do 
 ** confirm thefe to be genuine tranflati- 
 «^ ons, &c." 
 
 Having now, I think, overthrown Dr* 
 Gilh pretended grounds of probability ; I 
 fhall (hew, in the next place, it is fo far from 
 being probable, that the paffages under confi- 
 deration are additions^ or interpolations \n Ori- 
 gerJ, as that there is not only the higheft prcba^ 
 hilityy but a moral certainty of the contrary. 
 Says Mr. MarJ}jall[w] (fpeaking of the pafTage 
 in the commentary on the epiftle to the i^^- 
 mans. For this reafon the church of Chriji re^ 
 ceived it as a tradition from the apoftles^ to 
 baptize children^ &c.) " Nor could Ruffinus 
 *' eafily be fuppofed to palm this paflage up- 
 " on Origen^ with whom he took, indeed, 
 <* great liberties, where he had occafion to 
 *' defend his favourite author from fome im- 
 *^ imputations; but here, I fay, he had no 
 ** fuch occafion : fince it was never made any 
 ** part of Origens accufations, that he was 
 " tf^^/^Infant-Baptifm, and therefDre i?^^- 
 '^ finus could have no temptation thence, to 
 '' reprefent him as a friend to it, if he were 
 *^ really not fo ; nor to coin any paflages for 
 ** him to that purpofe." — Befides, as to the 
 other pafTage, in the Homilies on Leviticus y 
 Dr. Gill himfelf hath unluckily obferved *' that 
 
 " Foffius 
 
 [fitl Notes on Cyprian. P. i. page 120. 
 
<c 
 
 (65 ) 
 
 VoJJtm [x] thinks that the paffage cit»d was 
 of the greater authority againft tb Pela- 
 gians, becaufe Ruffinus was incined to 
 them." Is it not then abfard tcfuppofe, 
 and ridiculous to fuggeft, that Ruffim would 
 coin any luch paffages for Origen^ asimported 
 that original fin was the ground aid reafon 
 of Infant-Baptifm, diredtly contnry to his 
 own private opinion ? Here Ruffims hath ex- 
 hibited a remarkable proof of hs honefty, 
 which muft give the greater authority to his 
 tranflations of Origen^ and at the fame time 
 confirm the genuinefi of the thi^d paffage in 
 his Homilies on huke^ as tranflatd by Jerome^ 
 efpecially confidering that the.'e two great 
 men, Riiffinus, and Jerome were bitter ene- 
 mies to each another, and yet perfedly agrted 
 in giving the fenfe of Origen, upon the point 
 in queftion, the fame way [y]. 
 
 And now I appeal to all unpreiudiced, and 
 impartial men, whether the teftimonies alledg- 
 ed from Origen do not (land good, as authentic 
 proofs, not only of the pradice of Infant-Bap- 
 tifm in his time, but as pradtifed under the no- 
 tion of an apoftolical tradition. But what proof 
 fo early, or what evidence fo ftrong, can our 
 mighty champion (to remind him again of 
 his noble challenge) produce for Infant-com- 
 munion ? It is in vain to feek for his proofs 
 
 K. againjt 
 
 \_x'\ Hijl. Pelag, P. I. ilh. ;2. Confer ffalL hljl, of Jtf. 
 Bap. P. I. ch. 5. feci. 8. 
 [;■] See Dr. Wall. ib:d. 
 
(66) 
 
 ngmift Infant-Baptifm in this period ; for he 
 hath noie at all. 'Tis true, fpeaking of the 
 Greek 6. Origen Dr. Gill fays [z\ *' many 
 " things may be obferved from thence in 
 ** favourof adult-baptifm:" an aflertion either 
 falfe, or lery impertinent ! It is quite imper- 
 tinenty ani nothing to the purpofe, if he 
 means notadult-baptifm exclu/ive of Infant- 
 Baptifm ; br in that fenfe many things of the 
 fame nature may be obferved from St. Auftiuy 
 and other vriters, who lived in thofe times, 
 when Infart-Baptifm, by the confeffion of 
 it's adverfares themfeives, undoubtedly pre- 
 vailed \a\ But if the Docflor's meaning be, 
 that many things may be obferved, from the 
 Greek of Orige?i in favour of adult-baptifm 
 exclufive of Infant-Baptifm, or in oppofition 
 to it, and againfl it 5 then, what he fays is 
 utterly fal^e^ and, to play the Hero in my 
 turn, I challenge him to make good his af- 
 fertion. — Therefore, as for Bifbop "T^^v/^jr'i [^] 
 obfervation here cited by Dr. G///, concerning 
 Origen (who, by the way, was never accufcd 
 
 of 
 
 WP. 17- 
 
 \_a\ e, g. Wlien they fpeak of the qualifications of ntijn 
 connjerts requifite in order to baptifm. See Wall's anfwer. 
 p. 399, &c. 
 
 [^] Liberty of prophefying. p. 320. This is a book of- 
 ten cued hy the Antipcedo-baptifts, .who afFcdl, upon all oc- 
 cafions to bring in the name of Biftiop Taylor', tho' ** he de- 
 ** dared what he wrote to have been only fome obje£lions ea- 
 " fy to be anfwered ; and which afterward he did anfwer him- 
 " feif." See Wall's hift. of Inf Bapt. p. 2. ch. 2. and De- 
 . fence, p. 433. But it was not for Dr. Gill's pu:pofe, to take 
 TiOtice of thefe things. 
 
(6; ) 
 
 of herefy for holding Infant -Baptifm) it may 
 be ftrongly retorted. For, one plain autho- 
 rity on the one fide is a Juller teflimony than 
 no authority at all on the other fide. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 A View of Infa7tt - Baptifm in the 
 fecond CeJitury. 
 
 WE have feen how the cafe flood in 
 the third century. And if ** out of 
 " the mouth of two, or three witnefl^es every 
 *' word (hall be eftablifhed \' efpecially when 
 they are not confronted by any crofi evidence ; 
 proper proof, I prefume, hath been produced 
 of the practice of Infant- Baptifm in that pe- 
 riod. Let us now rife a flep higher, and 
 look back into ih^ fecond century, the age 
 next to that of the apoftles. At the end of 
 this century we find "tertullian ; whofe tefli- 
 mony for the praBice of Infant-Baptifm in 
 his time is clear enough -, tho', as to the right 
 of the thing, the Antipaedo-baptifts are wont, 
 to alledge his authority on their fide of the. 
 quefl:ion. It is only the fadiy that is the 
 matter of our prefent enquiry. But we (hall 
 here take occafion, to confider, en pafent^ 
 K 2 what 
 
(68) 
 
 what is commonly alledged from this antient 
 writer againfl the right of Infant- Baptifm alfo. 
 There is one thing I would prcmife, which 
 perhaps is not duely attended to in this argu- 
 ment, but deferves confideration, as it may 
 throw fome light upon the queftion before 
 us. It is thisy that, though the ftated time 
 of circumcijion was fixed to a certain day fo 
 precifely, that it was neither to be adminiflred 
 before that day, nor after it ; yet the time of 
 Baptifm was not fo limited to any particular 
 ac^,e. From hence the primitive chriflians 
 might eafily conclude, that Baptifm was law- 
 fid at any age ; and yet differ in their opini- 
 ons about the particular time when Baptifm 
 was neceffary, — -Now, the lawfulnefs of In- 
 fant- Baptifm, or it*s validity y is all that we 
 need contend for in this debate. And this, as 
 will be {hewn, Tertullian himfelf allowed ; 
 and not only fo, but in fome cafes he held it 
 to be necefary^ though in other cafes he thought 
 it lawfiily and expedient to defer the Baptifm 
 of children for a time, Gregory NazianzeUy 
 as we have obferved before, was of the fame 
 opinion: And fo, the Antipsdo-baptifts can 
 claim neither the one, nor the other of them 
 
 to their party. -But fays Dr. Gill [^], *' Ter- 
 
 ** tullian is the firfl man, that ever made 
 *' mention of Infant-Baptifm, that we know 
 " of; and as he was the firft, that fpoke of 
 
 " it, 
 
 [0 -Argum. from appft. tradit. p. 15. 
 
(69) 
 
 ^^ it, he at the fame time fpoke againfl: it, 
 " Sec, " Now, whether Tertullian is the 
 firft man, that ever made mention of Infant- 
 Baptilm, as the Doftor affirms, we fliall con- 
 fider hereafter. At prefcnt, let us enquire 
 how far Tertullian fpoke againfl Infant-Bap- 
 tifm ', and I doubt not, but it will appear, 
 that what he faid of Infant- Baptifm doth not 
 amount to an abfolute denial of the thing, in 
 point either oi faB^ or of rights but the con- 
 trary. Let us examine his words with care, 
 and attention, as we have them already tran- 
 flated to our hands by Dr. Wall\_d\, TertuU 
 lian then fays \e'\ — *' according to every one's 
 " condition, and difpofition, and alfo their 
 ** age, the delaying of Baptifm is more profi- 
 " table ^ efpecially in the cafe of little children. 
 " For what need is there [ ] that the godfa- 
 *^ thers fhoujd be brought into danger ? becaufe 
 " they may either fail of their promifes by 
 death, or they may be miftaken by a 
 child's proving of wicked difpofition. Our 
 
 " Lord 
 
 [^] Hift. of Inf. Bap. p. i.*ch. 4. fea. 5. 
 
 [^] Tertullian de baptifmo. c. 1 8. Says Dr. Wall ibid, 
 feft. 13. *' It is plain, that St. Auftin^ and Pelagius, and 
 ** feveral others, that managed tht Pelagian controverf)', had 
 *' never feen TertuUiaris book of baptifm." But, when 
 Tertullian alks, " Why doth their innocent age make fuch 
 *' halte to th.t forgi'venefs of Jim P'* his queftion implies two 
 things: (i.) That Infants fwere baptized i as Dottor Wall 
 juftly obferves. And (2.) That they were, in faSi, accord- 
 ing to the ufage of the church, baptized for the remijjton of 
 fins. Therefore I can fee no great neceffity for the Dodor's 
 fuppofition ; as thefe two fads remove the difficulties he 
 ijientions as the ground of it, at leall in a good meafure. 
 
 <c 
 
(70) 
 " Lord fays indeed, Do not forbid them to 
 " come to me. Therefore, let them come 
 " when they are grown up : let them come 
 •' when they underftand : when they are in- 
 " ftruded whither it is they come ; let them 
 ** be made chriPdans when they can know 
 " Chrift. What need their giiitlefi age make 
 " Jiich hajte to the forgivenefs of fins ? Men 
 " will proceed more wearily in w^orldly things ; 
 " and he that (hould not have earthly goods 
 " committed to him, yet fhall have heavenly. 
 " Let them know how to defire this falvation, 
 " that you may appear to have given to one 
 " thatafketh. For no lefs reafon unmarried 
 " perfons ought to be kept off, who are likely 
 *' to come into tentation, as well thofe, 
 *^ that never were married, upon account of 
 *' their coming to ripenefs ; as thofe in wi- 
 «' dowhood for the mifs of their partner : un- 
 " til they either marry, or be confirmed in 
 ** continence, &c," 
 
 As I have here copied Dr. JVall-y fo I have 
 left a blank, in the fame manner as he did, 
 at the place where, in the older editions, thefe 
 words come in, / non tarn necejfe [jT ], accord- 
 ing to which reading Tertullians meaning is 
 plainly this [^], " What occafion is there, 
 
 ** except 
 
 [/] Fq*" *^-^ ^ fhould rend tametty fuppofing it was for- 
 merly written with an abbreviation, thus tn, (as the word is 
 fometimes printed. Vid. Ruffini Perorat. in Rom. old Edit.) 
 and the letter n miflaken for an ra by the tranfcriber. 
 
 k] Qil^'^ ^"^"^ neceffe ell, fi non tarn [vel tamen] necefle, 
 
 Iponfores, 
 
(7? ) 
 
 '* except in cafe of necejjity^ that the fponfors, 
 ** &c.'* This being premifed, I proceed to 
 obferve (i.) The words of Tertullian feem fair- 
 ly to imply, that Infant- Baptifm was not only 
 moved for^ but adually pra£lifed in his time. 
 " For when he fays, Why does that innocejit 
 *' age make fuch hafte, &c. His words fhew 
 " the matter of faB to have been fo, together 
 " with his opinion againft it [/?]." But yet 
 (2.) Tertullian doth not abfolutely condemn 
 Infant-Baptifm as unlawful^ or unprofitable ; 
 he only gives his private opinion (wherein, for 
 any thing that appears to the contrary, he 
 was very lingular as he was in fome of his 
 other notions) for the delay of Baptifm, as 
 more profitable^ not only in children, but in 
 the adult alfo. Particularly, he was for hav- 
 ing the Baptifm of young women deferred 'till 
 marriage, as well as of widows^ &c. And 
 will any one infer from hence, that it was a 
 novel ciifiom in thofe days for unmarried per- 
 fons of either fex, men or women, to be baptis- 
 ed ? But, you might as well infer this^ as con- 
 clude from the words of Tertullian that Infant- 
 Baptifm was a novel cuflom in his time. (3.) If 
 (as fome learned writers have fuggefted [/]) 
 the words of Tertullian may reafonably be in- 
 terpreted 
 
 fponfores, &c. The turn of expreffion here is very agreeable 
 10 Tertullian' s ftile, and manner; tho* Dr. Gale is pleafed to 
 cenfureit. Refledions on Wall's hiftory, &c. p. cii. 
 
 M Wall ibid. fea. 9. 
 
 [z] Mr. Stfvm MarJhalU Anfii;tr t6 Mr, Tomhs JExamem 
 p. 36, 37. 
 
(72 ) 
 
 terpreted of the Infants of Infidels; then,' 
 however his reafoning may feem to conclude, 
 his advice about delaying Baptifm can relate 
 only to fuch children. In relation to thofe 
 Infants, whofe parents, one or both, were 
 chriftians, he allows them a prerogative, or 
 priviledge, by bif'th, zvA i nji ituti on m^zhovc 
 the children of heathens, referring to the 
 words of Si» Paul[l]: For the unbelieving 
 hujband is fanBiJied by the wife, &cc. which 
 by the way (hews, that the conftrudtion, 
 which the Antipaedo-baptifts put upon thofe 
 words, is a 720vel interpretation, when they 
 underftand the fanclijication, there fpoken of, 
 as denoting lawful wedlock, or cohabitation, 
 and by the holinefs of the children, fo procre- 
 ated, only their legitimacy [;;;]. For furely 
 Tertullian did not fuppofe all the children of 
 heathens to be baflards. However, he repre- 
 fents the children of idolaters as born with an 
 evil genius ; but the children of chriftians, 
 as holy by birth and ifijlitution : i. e, as candi- 
 dates for holinefs by birth, and as ?nade holy by 
 Baptifm : for fo he afterward explains the 
 matter. Therefore, it doth not certainly ap- 
 pear, that 'Tertullian was for having the Bap- 
 tifm 
 
 [y^] Adeo nulla fere natlvitas munda eft, utiqae Ethnico- 
 rum. Hinc enim et apollolus ex fanflificato alteratro ^c-Xw^ 
 fanftos procreari ait : tarn ex feminis prssrogativa, quam ex 
 inftitutionis difciplina : cocterum, inquit, immandi iiafceientur^ 
 &c. Tertullian. de anima. c. 39, &C. 
 
 [/] I Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 [z7] See Dr. Gill's commentary in Ice, &c. 
 
(75 ) 
 
 tifm of Believers children delayed at all ; and 
 much lefs do his words imply any lach ci/f- 
 torn. But, (4.) Whoever thcic Infants were, 
 he was not abfolutely againfl their Baptifm; 
 but, on the contrary, allowed of it in cafe of 
 nece/Jity, Nay, in this cafe, *' he pronounced 
 *' him guilty of murder, who (hould refufe 
 *^ it to any. He he{d that Baptifm was fo 
 *' neceflary for all, that even laymen fhould 
 *' adminifter it, when a clergyman could not 
 *' be had, rather than any one fliould die 
 '' without it [ny TheixforQTertullian wsls 
 properly no Antipcedo-baptift ; for he allow- 
 ed, and even required Infants to be baptized 
 in cafe of necellity, or danger of death. 
 (5.) To what hath been faid, I (hall add two 
 confiderations to prove, that Tertullian himfelf 
 looked upon Infant-Baptifm, as no human^ or 
 late invention, but a fcripture inftitution ; 
 though left at large, where no urgent necef- 
 fity, or immediate danger appeared, and not 
 limited, as circiimciiion was, to any particu- 
 lar day. (I.) Thofe words of Chriil \o\ Ex- 
 cept a man be born of icater^ and of the fpirit^ 
 &c. .1 fiy, thefe words Tertullian underftood 
 of Baptijm^ and from thence inferred it to be 
 neceffiry to falvation [/>]. Thus, he put that 
 very conftrudioa upon the text, which, as 
 
 L the 
 
 [«] Tertullian. de baptifm. c. 17. \_o\ John 1. 5. 
 
 [/»] Cum vero prsfcribitur nemini fine b.ipcifmo cooipetere 
 falutem, ex ilia maxime pronanciatione Domini, qui aic, nifi 
 natus ex aqua ouis erit, &c. Tertul. ds bait. c. \z. 
 
(74) 
 
 the Antips3do-baptifts pretend [q], gave rife 
 to the pradice of Infant-Baptifm. Therefore, 
 they cannot fairly deny, that it was pradifed 
 in the time of Tertullian, that it was then 
 pradifed as a Jcripture inftitution, and that 
 Tertullian himfelf confidered it under this 
 notion ; at leail:, if they allow, that he be- 
 lieved Infant-faivation. (2.) When he pro- 
 duces fundry inftances of unwritten cujioim 
 in another treatife, and methodically begins 
 with the adminiftration of Baptifm [r] ; Ter- 
 tullicifi makes no mention of Injant-Baptifm^ 
 (tho' he mentions other things of lefs mo- 
 ment) as any of thofe unwritten cuftoms. 
 From whence one of thefe two things naturally 
 follows, either that Infant-Baptifm was not 
 pradifed at that time 5 or that he looked upon 
 it as a written cuftom ; that is to fay, a cuftom 
 founded upon the written rule of God*s word, 
 and confequently a fcripture inflitution. But 
 the former fuppofition hath been proved to 
 be falfefron:i his book of Bapnfm, which was 
 written before [j] 3 and fo the latter mufl be 
 true. 
 
 Having given Dr. G///, I hope, proper fa- 
 tisjaBionn^on this point; we are now at lei- 
 fure to attend to his other ailertion, viz. " that 
 "^ Tertullian is the firft man, that ever made 
 /* mention of Infant-Baptifm, that we know 
 '^ of. " — Upon which 1 obfcrve, that thofe 
 
 words 
 
 f^] Mr. Stennet. Anfwer to Ruffen. p. 77. 
 
 [rj Di corohd militis. [/] Vid. Dupin Wfl, EccJef, 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 words are equivocal^ and muft be underftood 
 with caution 5 for, other writers, before Ter- 
 tulliany fpeak of the fame things though not 
 precifely in the fame terms. And if Dr. Gill 
 will not be fo candid, ss to admit of this dif- 
 tindtlon j I wifti he would be fo kind as to 
 inform us, who was the firft man, that ever 
 made mention of original fin^ e. g. that is, 
 ufed this very term^ or phrafe, peccatiim origin 
 72is : to inftance in no other particulars, as I 
 might in feveral, which the Dodor holds 
 by no better tenure, than what depends up- 
 on the diftindion aforefaid. Have we not 
 already feen, that Origen^ his cotemporary, 
 though fomewhat'younger ih^nTertidlian, fays 
 of Infant- Baptifm, that it was a cuftom^ a tra- 
 dition, or inftitution, which the church de- 
 rived from the apoftles ? And how could Ori^ 
 gen know this, but by the teftimony of other 
 writers? Therefore, whatever ic't' /(v^^^i^ of the 
 matter (and indeed we know very httle of the 
 authors, that lived in thofe days, fo few of 
 them now being extant) we have no room to 
 doubt, that other writers before TertulUan (the 
 facred writers are out of the prefent quefbion) 
 had made mention of Infant -Baptifm as the 
 ifage and pra&ice of the chriftian church de- 
 rived from the apodles, and confequently as 
 what had obtained from the begining. Ac- 
 cordingly, Clemens Alexandrinui^ TertulUans 
 fenior, plainlv refers to Infant- Baptifm under 
 L 2 that 
 
(76) 
 
 that notion, faying [t] *' If any one be by 
 *' trade a fiflier-man, he will do well to think 
 ** of an apoftle, and the children taken out 
 '* of the water." — ''An apoftle's taking, 
 " drawing, or liTting, a child out of the ivafer, 
 " cannot refer to any thing, that I can think 
 '^ of, but the baptizing of it : '* fays Dr. 
 Wall \it']. And fo fay I too ; being the 
 more confirmed in thisfentiment, by a paffage 
 in 'Tertullian[w], where he compares baptized 
 perfons to little fijkes -, and fo points out the 
 apt propriety of the fign, or feal^ which Cle- 
 mem Akxandrima propofes to fi(her-men : 
 and by his mentioning an apoftle in the cafe, 
 it evidently appears, that this antient writer 
 looked upon Infant-Baptifm as an apoftolical 
 praBice, 
 
 Come we now to Irejimis^ who flourifhed 
 about A. D. 167, thirty years or more before 
 Tertullian, The words, ufually cited in this 
 debate from Irencem, will appear to contain a 
 clear teftimony to Infant-Baptifm, if perfons 
 could, and would confider them without 
 prejudice, and prepoffeflion. For he fays of 
 Chrift [.r], *' that he came to fave all by him- 
 *' felfi all I fay, that by h'xmzvQ born again 
 *' unto God, Intants, and little children, youths, 
 *' and older men. " Upon which the learned 
 
 Feu- 
 
 [/] Pas^agog. lib. 3. cap. ii. 
 fa] Wall's Defence, &c. Appendix, p. 9. 
 [cu] Sifd nos pifciculi — ■. — in aqua nalcamur, TerluUiaif. 
 ^e bapt'ijmo. 
 
 \^\ /a^^. lih. Z. cap, 59. 
 
( n ) 
 
 Feuardentius hath this remark ; " that by thfc 
 " name of regeneration, according to the 
 *' phrafe of Chrift, and of his apoftles, he 
 *' underftands Baptifm, clearly confirming 
 *' the apoftolica! tradition concerning the 
 " Baptifm of Infants." Let us now have 
 the patience to hear, what Dr. Gill, after 
 others, hath objected againft this teftimony of 
 Irenaus, ** The paflfage (fays he [)']) is only 
 " a tranflation of Irenceus, and not expreffed 
 " in his own original words." Again [2;] : 
 '* It is only a tranflation, as almoft all his 
 '* works be, and a very foolilh, uncouth, and 
 *' barbarous one." — But yet, the dodtor doth 
 not pretend to fay, and much lefs attempt to 
 prove, that it is a wrong, or falfe tranflation ; 
 which he fhould have done, if he would 
 have faid any thing to the purpofe. It is ob- 
 ferved by a learned and judicious writer [^], 
 " that the old tranflation, which we have of 
 " Irenaus is clofe, and unpolite, and for that 
 " reafon may often difcover to us the origi-- 
 " nal, as might eafily be {hewed in a multi- 
 " tude of places." And thus, the coarfenefs 
 of the tranflation, objedled by Dr. Gill, is 
 really an argument in favour of it's truth, 
 and fidelity. — But, he adds [b'], " and the 
 
 " chapter. 
 
 iy] Divine Right of Inf. Bap. examined, &c. p. 22. 
 [2] Argument from apoft. tradit. p. 14. 
 
 [a] Jortin. Difc. i. on the Chriilian Relig. Compare 
 Wall's Defence, &c. p. 315, 316. 
 
 [b] Ubi fupra. 
 
€( 
 
 (78) 
 
 chapter, from whence it Is taken, is bjr 
 *^ fome learned men judged to be fpurious. " 
 Which words imply, that all learned men do 
 not judge fo -, and the Dodlor muft allow us, 
 to think, that at lead ofie learned man hath 
 faid what is fufficient to prove the contrary, 
 until Dr. fFall's anfwer to Dr. Gale upon this 
 head [c] hath received a proper reply. But 
 this is a common artifice with writers in dif- 
 trefs, when they meet with any thing, which 
 they cannot reconcile with their own dear 
 prejudices, and prepoffefiions, to raife ground- 
 lefs fcruples, and fufpicions about it. Thus, 
 Charles Blackwood, that doughty champion, 
 who bravely undertook the Jtorming of Jinti* 
 chrifty would needs have St. Cyprians epiftle 
 to Fidus, though fo often quoted by St. Auf- 
 ttn^ be fufpeBed to be fpurious [^] ; (becaufe, 
 I fuppofe, it fpeaks too plainly for him of In- 
 fant- Baptifm) but upon the weakeft grounds, 
 that can be. No more folid, or fubftantial 
 is Dr. Gilh following remark upon the paflage 
 under confideration[^]. '* It is but 2i jingle 
 *' paflage out of him (as if Irenceus could 
 ** not mention Infant- Baptifm at all, if he 
 *' fpeaks of it but once) and that depends 
 << upon a fingle word, the fignification of 
 ** which is doubtful at the beft." — So much 
 the better, if there is but one word in the 
 
 fentence 
 
 lc\ Wall's Defence, &c. p. 280, &c. 
 
 Uj Blackwood. Storming of Antichrift. p. 30. 
 
 \e1 Ubi fupra. 
 
(79) . 
 fcntence of doubtful fignification ! But, wor- 
 thy Dodor, why is the fignification even of 
 this word fo very doubtful ? Hath not Dr. 
 Wall [f^ produced abundant evidence, to 
 prove, that the antients commonly fpoke of 
 Baptifm under the notion of regeneration ? 
 Nay, what better evidence can be defired, 
 than the poor evafions, and pitiful fhifts, to 
 which Dr. Gale was reduced in vainly at- 
 tempting to prove the contrary 5 and where- 
 by he juflily merited the charader given of 
 him, viz. an everJaJiing caviller againjl things^ 
 that are plain {g\ ? We have feen before, 
 that TertulUan, cotemporary with Irenceus^ 
 underftood the words of Chrift John iii. 5. 
 of Baptifm. He alfo fays that chrifi:ians are 
 born in water ^ like fifhes ; and to what can 
 this refer, but Baptifm ? Thus, he fpeaks of 
 Baptifm under the notion of regeneration : — 
 Clemens Alexandrinus alfo fpeaks of chrifl:ians 
 being born, or begotten of the womb of water. 
 
 VeyevriTcsv Ik fjtYjT^ocg vdocrog, Genuit ex ma- 
 
 trice aquae. Strof?2. /. 4, And a like no- 
 tion Tertullian mentions, as maintained by 
 the heathens [/?] : no doubt long before the 
 time of Ire?2ceiis, But, we need not have 
 recourfe to the heathens : feveral chriftian 
 writers, who lived with^ or before Irenaus^ 
 fpeak the fame language ^ as will be fhewn 
 
 here- 
 
 [/] Hiftory of Inf. Pap. p. 2. ch. 6. and Defence p. 318, 
 (&c. Appendix, p. 3. &c. 
 
 [g1 Wairs Defence, Sec. p. 339. 
 [/^j Tirtullian de baptifmo, ca^* |. 
 
(8o) 
 
 hereafter. At prefent, I fliall only remind 
 Dr. Gill of what he hath himfelf alledged [/] 
 concerning the antiquity of the '^ cujiom of 
 *' giving a mixture of milk and honey to a per- 
 " fon juft baptized." For, as milk and ho- 
 ney were the food of Infants; fo the giving 
 of this mixture to a perfon juji baptized, was 
 a fignification, or fymbolical fign pf his be- 
 ing new 'born, or born again [k']. Now, the 
 Dodor fays [/], even Barnabas^ a companion 
 of the apoftle Paul, is thought to refer to this 
 practice, in an epiftle of his flill extant [;«]. 
 Let me afk then ; doth Dr. Gill himfeh^ real- 
 ly think fo ; or doth he not ? If he doth not ; 
 Why did he alledge this as a proof of the high 
 antiquity of that cuflom ? On the other hand, 
 if the Dodor is of that opinion ; if he looks 
 upon the epitlle of Barnabas to be genuine, 
 and fuppofes it to refer to the cuflom of giv- 
 ing a mixture of milk, and honey to a perfon 
 juft baptized : then muft he retrad: his own 
 words, when he adds [«], *' nor had it as yet 
 " obtained among the antients, to ufs the 
 " words regenerated^ and regeneration, for 
 
 ^^ baptized, 
 
 [z] Argument from apoft. tradit. p. 37. 
 
 \h\ Hieronym. ad'V. Luc'iferianos. Bochart. Hierozoic. libs 
 4. cap. 12. 
 
 [/] Ibid. [w] C. 5. 
 
 [«] Ibid. p. 14. Dr. Gale alfo fays (Refleaions on Wall's 
 hiltory, &c. p. 489.) *' I do not believe it (i, e. the word re^ 
 *' generatio?i) is ever fo much as once ufed in the antienteft 
 ** times for baptifm, at leaft not till their zeal Jor Infant- 
 ** Baptifm betrayed them into that abfurdity, which was not 
 ** near the time of St. i^-f «.*»i," — But, a zeal for Infant- 
 Baptifm will prove, upon his hypothecs, much earlier than 
 *1ie Doctor pretends. 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 *^ baptized, and baptifmy — Let us now return 
 to Irenceiis ; and by examining another paf- 
 fage, or two in this antient writer, it will ma- 
 nifeftly appear, that he himfelf ufed the 
 words regenerated and regeneration in the 
 fenfe contended for. In one place [c] he 
 fpeaks thus -, " And again, giving the power 
 *' oi regeneration unto God to his difciples, he 
 " faid unto them. Go, and teach all nations ^ 
 " baptizing them in the name of the Father^ 
 '' and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghojir 
 This paflage feems too plain to need any 
 comment, or to be capable of any evafion. 
 In another place [/>], Irenceiis mentions by name, 
 *' the Baptifm oi regeneration to God, " — Tile 
 Dodtor cannot fay of this paffage, that it is 
 only a tranflation of Irenceus i for, we have 
 it exprejjed in his own original u^ords, if that 
 will pleafe him. Well then ! Ire?iceus expYe(S'' 
 ly fpeaks of the Baptifm Ql regeneration unto 
 God, and of Infants being regenerated unto 
 God. From whence it is natural for any 
 man of plain fenfe, to infer that Infants were 
 baptized. — But fays the Dodlor [y] ** the true 
 ** fenfe of Irenaus feems to be this, that 
 
 M . " Chrift 
 
 [o] Et iterum poteftatem regenerationls in Deum demandans 
 dircipalis, dicebat eis : Euntes docete omnes gentes, bapti- 
 ZAntes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sandi. Iren. 
 lib. 3. cap. 19. 
 
 [/)] — TK ^ctislio y.ccloq TJ7? e,", '3-scv Avxyzwn^Eso^y i. e. bap- 
 tifmatis ejus, quae eit in Deum regenerationis. Iren. lib. i. 
 cap. 18. 
 
 [q] Divine right of Inf. Bap, examined, 5fc. p. 23. 
 
(82) 
 
 ^« Chrifl: came to fave all, that afe fegene* 
 *' rated by bis grace and fpirit, and none but 
 " they, according to his own words. John iii. 
 ^ *' 3> S-" Now, this is granting all we de- 
 lire, viz, that the words of Irenaus refer to 
 the words of Chrifl: in thofe texts of fcrip- 
 ture, particularly the lafl;. For, this is plain- 
 ly giving up the point ; as thole words were 
 always [r], and I think rightly [5], underftood 
 cf Baptifm by the antient chriftian writers* 
 - — — But the Do6tor is not yet eafy ; he fays, 
 that " to under (land Irenceus as fpeaking of 
 *' Baptifm, is to make him at leafl; to fuggeft a 
 *' dodlrine, which is abfolutely falfe, as if 
 *' Chrift came to fave all^ and only fuch, who 
 *' are baptized unto God." The like objec- 
 tion is made by another learned writer [/], who 
 (hould have underftood the fentiments and 
 language of the primitive Fathers better. Did 
 not he know, that Tertidiian as well as St. Auf- 
 tiuy &CC, fpoke of Baptifm as neceflary to fal- 
 vation ? How came the ecclefiajlical hiflorian 
 then to forget, that it is agreeable to the eccle- 
 Jiaflical Jlile, to underftand Irenaus alfo as 
 fpeaking of Baptifm under the fame notion ? 
 
 And 
 
 \f\ See Wall's Hiftory, &c. p. 2. ch. 6. 
 
 [i] The words of Chrilt, Except a man be horn cf ^jjater, 
 and of the fpirit. Sec. are parallel to the words of St. Paul, 
 Tit. iii. 5. hy the ^joajhing of regenerntion, and renewing of 
 the Holy Gholl. And thofc, who would confine the words 
 wholly to fpiritual baptifm, put a manifell force upon them, 
 at the expence of a tautology: which is Dr. Gilfs way, Sei? 
 his commentary, &€. Conf. Mar. xvi. i6. 
 
 [/] 7. Ckrk, HtJ}, Eccks. ann. i So. feB. 33. 
 
(83 ) 
 
 And thus, what is urged as an objedion, is 
 really a confirmation of the given fenfe of 
 Irenaus : which cannot be difproved by the 
 confeqiience drawn from it, unlefs the infalli- 
 bility of Irenaus in points of doctrine be firft 
 cftabliflied. Befides, hath not the Oracle of 
 truth himfelf declared [?/] ? " He that believ- 
 ** eth, and is baptized, (hall be faved." And 
 is not this the fame kind of language, that we 
 fuppofe Irenceus to fpeak, fo far as relates to 
 Baptifm ? I hope, Dr. Gill will not here fay, 
 that " to underftand Chriji as fpeaking of 
 " Baptifm, is to make him at leaft to fuggeft 
 *' a dod:rine, which is abfolutely falfe, &c/' 
 But, if the words of Ch?^i/i admit of a quali- 
 fied fenfe 5 fo do the words of Irejiceus, There 
 is nothing therefore in his manner of expref- 
 fion, that argues that he doth not fpeak of 
 Baptifmy when he fpeaks of Infants being re- 
 generated unto God 3 but the contrary. For, 
 his way of fpeaking, thus underftood, is quite 
 agreeable to the ecclejiajtical Jtile^ and io /trip" 
 titre language alfo. So much then for the tef- 
 timony, the plain unexceptionable teftimony, 
 of Irenaus fov the pradice of Infant-Baptifm. 
 And as this antient writer flourifhed about fix- 
 ty feven years after the apoftles, fo that he 
 may well be fuppofed, as he is faid, to have 
 been born fome time before the death of St, 
 John: his teftimony therefore carries up the 
 M 2 evi- 
 
 [»] Mark xvi. i6. 
 
(84) 
 evidence for Infant- Baptifm very near to the 
 apoftolic age. 
 
 But farther to corroborate this evidence, let 
 us proceed to Jujli?! Martyr^ whofe time is 
 fixed only forty years after the apoftles. And 
 the better to connecft our obfervations on him 
 with our remarks on Irencem ; we (hall be- 
 gin with a pailage, where Jnftin Martyr 
 plainly enough fpeaks of Baptifm under the 
 notion of regeneration^ though he is defcrib- 
 ing to the heathens the manner of adult-bap- 
 tifm only, having no occafion to defcend to 
 any farther particulars : nor do we alledge the 
 pafFage as a proof of Infant- Baptifm diredly ; 
 but only to fliew that this antient writer alfo 
 ufed the word regeneration^ fo as to connote 
 Baptifm, and thereby confirms the fenfe al- 
 ready given of the words of Irenceus, Juf" 
 tin Martyr then fays [w], *' We bring them 
 " (viz. the neW'Converts) to fome place, where 
 " there is water ; and they are regenerated by 
 ** the fame way of regeneration by which we 
 *' were regenerated', for they are waflied with 
 *' water in the name of God the Father and 
 *^ Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Je- 
 *' Jus Chrift^ and of the Holy Spirit. For, 
 *' ChriiT:fays[:v], iinlefs you be regefterated, you 
 *' cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven^ &c/' 
 Thus, as Juftin Martyr ufeth the term rege- 
 neration^ {^ he underftands thefe words of our 
 
 Saviour, 
 I 
 
 [iv] Apolog. 2. [^] John iii. 3, $. 
 
( 85) 
 
 Saviour, of Baptifm, Therefore, though he 
 here defcribes the manner of adminiftring 
 Baptiim only to the adidt^ as we are often 
 told ; yet his words cannot be thought to ex- 
 clude the Baptifm of Infants in thofe days : 
 becaufcj we fee, that conftrudion of our Savi- 
 our's words did then obtain, which, as the Anti- 
 paedo-baptilfsthemfelves fay, introduced Infant - 
 Baptifm into the chriftian church. So little rea- 
 fon had Dr. Gill to fay, fpeaking of the time 
 of Irenceus^ near thirty years younger than 
 ^ if tin Martyr y " nor had it as yet obtained 
 *' among the antients to ufe the words rege- 
 " nerated, and regeneration^ for baptized^ 
 *' and Baptifm /" As for Dr. Gales quibbles 
 upon this head, I fcarce need to refer the 
 Reader to Dr. Walts reply \f\ for a proper 
 anfwer ; the plain words of Juftin Martyr^ 
 above cited, being a fufficient anlwer of them- 
 felves. 
 
 The next paffage I fhall mention is in his 
 Dialogue with Jrypho the Jew [z] ; where 
 Juftin Martyr fays that concerning the in- 
 fluence and efFedl of Adam's fin upon man- 
 kind, which the antient writers reprefent as 
 the ground and reafon of Infant-Baptifm. 
 In the fame book he fpeaks of Baptifm being 
 to chriftians in the room of circumcifion ; 
 and fo points out the analogy between thefe 
 two initiatory rites. Dr. tVall hath quoted 
 
 both 
 
 [y] Wall's Defence, &c. p. 177. 
 
 [2] 7. Martyr Dialog, cum Tryphy ^c. 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 both the paffages at large, and made proper 
 refledions upon them [a]. To him there- 
 fore I ihall refer the curious and inquifitive 
 Reader : for I haften to another paffage in 
 yuftin Martyr^ upon v;hich I muft dwell a- 
 while longer. Jtcftin Martyr then fays \b'\. 
 " Several perfons among us, of both fexes, of 
 " fixty, and feventy years of age, d Ik TraiScov 
 ** ll4,u9-7jTeuBf}(ruv rS %p/r^j '^^^ '^^^^ difcipled 
 " to Chrift in their childhood, &c." Dr. Gill 
 renders the words thus [c], " who from their 
 *' childhood were inftruBed in Chrift : for fo 
 " (fays he) the phrafe, on which the whole 
 ** depends, ftiould be rendered, and not dif- 
 ** vipled, or projelyted to Chrift ^ which render- 
 *' ing of the words as it is unjuftifiable, fo it 
 ** would never have been thought of, had it not 
 ** been to ferve a turn." — Now, by expreffing 
 himfelf thus, the Dodlor feems to be aware, 
 that the turn of Infant-Baptifm would be ferv 
 edy if that conftruftion of the word, 6fA.xB7i- 
 T6y3'ij(rav, which he difallows, were admitted : 
 and yet, if he alfo had not a turn to ferve in 
 his way, it is probable that he would never 
 have thought of any other rendering of the 
 word : nor can he juftify his own fenfe of the 
 phrafe, IfjLocBvjrevBvi^oiv rco %p^r^, by any rule 
 of grammar, or parallel example, e. g. *' ^n- 
 *' tiphon, the fon of Sophilus — f^ccBviTsva-oig Si 
 f* Tu TTarpt, was difcipled, or a difcipk to his 
 
 *« father r 
 
 [«] Hift. of Inf. Bap. p. j. ch. 2." [hi Apol 2. 
 
 [f] Argument from ap. trad it. &c. p. 12. 
 
(87) 
 
 ^^ father ;** fays Plutarch [c], Sut accord-* 
 ing to Dr. aWs rule of confl:rud:ion, we 
 {hould fay, Antiphon was inftruBed in his fa^ 
 ther. And would this be good fenfe, or at 
 proper way of fpeaking ? The Doftor himfelf, 
 when perhaps he was off his guard, and had 
 no turn to ferve^ fometimes fuppofed, that in 
 the chriftian fenfe of the word, difciple^ it in- 
 cludes Baptifm. For, fays he [^], '' The apof- 
 *' tie takes it for granted, that they were bap- 
 *^ tized^ fince they were not only believers^ 
 ** but difciplesy And this fenfe of the word, 
 as including the idea of Baptifm, is confirmed 
 by the following paffage [e] j ** When they 
 *' had preached the gofpel to that city, and 
 " fjLaBTjTsya-ocvTsg taught (difcipled) many,&c.^ 
 that is, made many difciples. By this ex- 
 preffion the facred writer muft intend fome- 
 thing more than bare injtruciion ; otherwife 
 it is a m^re tautology. And what can this 
 fomething more be, but baptizing them ? Dr. 
 Gill himfelf being judge. Therefore, fince 
 according to the chriftian fenfe of the word in 
 queftion, it comprehends Baptifm, when 
 Jujlin Martyr fays of certain perfons lyt TTcci- 
 2m BiA^uBTirevBr^trccv rco yj^igta \ his words imply 
 that they were baptized in their infancy, or 
 childhood : for, the Baptifm of any perfons 
 being not a contifiued^ but one fingle tranfi- 
 
 en£ 
 
 [<:] Plutarc. de 'vit. decern Rhet. Op. Vol, z. p. 852. 
 [d-j Dr. Gill's commentary in Adlsxix. i, 5* 
 W Aftsxiv. 21, 
 
(88) 
 
 ent aft, to fpeak of their being baptized front 
 their childhood, would be improper \^f\ 
 We grant, the word, dijciple^ hath a reference 
 to teachings and initrudion. But then, 
 whereas the Antipsdo-baptifts pretend that 
 all perfons muft be jirfi taught before they 
 are baptized ; we, on the contrary maintain, 
 that children rightly may be, and in fadl were^ 
 baptized, and fo far made difciples to Chrift, 
 in order to be taught, as a fcholar is put to 
 fchool, that he may learn. 
 
 With refpedl to the matter, of right in this 
 cafe, it is beyond the compafs of my prefent 
 defign, to difcufs the queftion in that view. 
 However, as it may contribute fomething to- 
 ward fupporting the given fenfe of Jujiin 
 Martyr ; I (hall here anticipate myfelf fo far, 
 as to offer fome conliderations upon the words 
 of the commijjion \g\, " Go ye therefore, and 
 ** teach (difciple) all nations, baptizing them 
 ** in the name of the Father, and of the 
 «« Son, and of the Holy Ghoft ; teaching 
 ** them to obferve all things whatfoever 1 
 " have commanded you, &c." — Here, fay the 
 Antipsedo-baptiils, teaching is fet before bap^ 
 tizing ; and fo, from hence they argue, and 
 would conclude, that all perfons muft be 
 taught, before they are baptized. But, from 
 a ftri6t, and impartial examination of the 
 words of the commiffion, the contrary w^ill 
 
 appear 
 
 [/] See Wairs Defence, c^'C. p. 280. 
 \l\ Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 appear to be true, and that baptizing is really 
 fet before teacbmg^ in the proper order of 
 words ', though I (hall not argue from thence, 
 that all perfons muft be baptized, before they 
 are taught, but only that there is no ground 
 from the words of the commiflion for the 
 contrary fuppofition. For (i.) we have the 
 general matter of the commiffion laid down 
 in thefe words ; Go ye and difciple^ or profe- 
 \yiQ, all nations. For fo, I infift, the original 
 word ought to be rendred, to exprefs its true 
 meaning, and to avoid a tautology ; not teach 
 all nations j as teaching is mentioned after- 
 ward by a more proper, and known term, 
 §iU(T}coPm [/6]. Accordingly, thus it is, that 
 our tranfiators have very properly rendred 
 the word in another place of the fame gof- 
 pel [/]. Nor can Dr. Gill, remembring his 
 own obfcrvation above mentioned, difallow, 
 how much foever he may dijlike^ this inter- 
 pretation ; or confine the fenfe of the word 
 to mere teachings but at the expence of a pal- 
 pable fclf-contradidion. Therefore, dijci^ 
 pling is a general, and comprehenfive term, 
 including both teachings and baptizing. For 
 obferve (2.) the particular method of execu- 
 tino; this commiiiion, appointed in two dire^ti" 
 ons J viz. baptizing^ and teaching : that is to 
 fay, by baptizing, and by teaching: for, the 
 
 N Greek 
 
 [/^] See Wairs Defence, &c. p. 135, 136. 
 [/J Mat. xxvii. 57. 
 
( 90 ) 
 
 Greeks ufe the participles for gerunds [/J]. Oar 
 learned Dodor over-adls the grammar ian^ 
 when he fays [/], *' the antecsedent to the 
 " relative them (after baptizing) cannot be all 
 
 ** nations^" but difciples, &c." The reafon 
 
 he gives for it, is of no force at all, viz. the 
 difagreement of gender. Such inaccuracies., 
 or atticifms \tn\ are not uncommon. The 
 Dodor may find the fame conftrudlion in 
 other places [72], yea, the very fame phrafe [0]. 
 And let me afk him, what is the antecedent to 
 the fecond them ? (after teaching) Will he fay, 
 as before, difciples ? Then, by his own con- 
 feflion, difciples are perfons to be taught I I 
 give the Dodtor free liberty, to chufe his own 
 antecedent. And whether it be all nations^ 
 or difciples -, this is plain, that baptizing is 
 fet before teaching in the exprefs words of the 
 
 commiffion. Therefore, to return to 'Juf- 
 
 tin Martyr^ no fufficient reafon appears, why 
 the aged perfons, mentioned by him, as hav- 
 ing been difcipled to Chriji in^ or from their 
 childhood^ may not be fuppofed, to have been 
 made difciples to Chrifl: in their infancy by 
 Baptifm^ and afterwards taught from their 
 infancy; according to that obfervation of the 
 
 learned 
 
 [i] Vtd, Spanham. Dubia Enjang. in he, 
 
 [/j Divine right of Inf. Bap &c. p. 79. 
 • [w] The conitru£tion of a relative is of the fame nature 
 with that of an adjeBi'vc \ concerning which the rule is: po- 
 ettce, et attice, nee cafu, ntc genere, nee numero confentit. 
 
 [«] 2 Kings ;tvii. 41, 70. Ads xv. 17. 
 
 [c] Mat. XXV, 32. 
 
(91 ) 
 
 learned Dr. Lightfoot [/>], " Baptifm makes 
 *' difciples, and difcipling fets the way to be 
 ** taught." This to me appears to give u/s 
 the full import of Ju/ii?! Martyr s phrafe. 
 And, confidering the time, when he writ, 
 the perfons, of whom he fpeaks, muft have 
 been difcipled to Chriji^ and confequently 
 baptized, in the apoftolic age, and near the 
 middle of it [q], 
 
 I (hall not here infift upon the queftions 
 and anfwers to the Orthodox ; a book which 
 goes under the name of Jufti?z Martyr^ but 
 is the work of a later author, in the fourth 
 century perhaps [r]. However, Infant-Bap- 
 tifm is there fpoken of, as a thing vulgarly 
 known, and pradiifed in thechriftian church, 
 and the right of children to Baptifm on the 
 foot of the faith of thofe, that prefent them, 
 is plainly, and pofitively afferted [i] We 
 may rank this book in the fame clafs with the 
 Apojtolical Conftitutions^ which exprefsly order 
 the Baptifm of Infants [/]. And fo, from 
 both we may conclude, that Infant- Baptifm 
 was pradifed in the Greek church 3 a fadt 
 which the Antipcedo-baptifts have fometimes 
 denied. 
 
 N 2 Perhaps, 
 
 [/>] Sermon on Matth. xxviii. 19. Op. Vol, 2. p. H24. 
 This is according to the rule. Baptize your children^ avd 
 bring thetn up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. A- 
 poft. Conftitut. ubi infra; 
 
 [^] See the Baptifm of Infants, a reafonable fervice. p. 32. 
 
 [r] Vid. %f/?. 74, 126, &c. 
 
 [i] %^y?. ^ Rejhonf. 56. 
 
 [/] Apoji. Conf.itut. lib, 6. cap. 15. 
 
cc 
 
 ( 92 ) 
 
 Perhaps, according to my propofed me- 
 thod, Ifhouldhave mentioned the Recogmti- 
 ens before ynftin Martyr in order. How- 
 ever, fays the learned and laborious Mr. 
 Bingham [^u\ ** It is an antient writing of 
 " the fame age with Juftin Martyr^ men- 
 " tioned by Origen in his Philocalia^ and by 
 *' feme afcribed to Bardefenes Syrus, who 
 *' lived about the middle of thefecond cen- 
 tury. This author fpeaks of the neceffity 
 ^' of Baptifm in the fame ftyle, as Juftin 
 '' Martyr did, &c. -— So that if Infant-Bap- 
 *' tifm was founded, as iS*j//;7^y?//5 pleads, up- 
 *^ on the opinion of the neceffity of Baptifm 
 *^ to falvation ; this author muft be an affertor 
 " of Infant-Baptifm ; becaufe he was unde- 
 " niably an affertor of the general neceffity 
 " of Baptifm to falvation [w]. 
 
 To conclude in the words of the fame 
 author [w], *' The mod antient writer, that 
 '' we have is Clemens Romanus^ who lived in 
 *' the time of the apoftles. And he, though 
 *' he doth not diredly mention Infant- Bap- 
 *' tifm, yet fays a thing, that by confequence 
 *' proves it. For, he make$ Infants liable to 
 ** original fm, which in effedt is to fay, that 
 ^' they have need of Baptifm to purge it 
 *' away, &c [x], — Hermes Pa/tor lived 
 
 ^* about 
 
 {u] Antiquities of the chriflian ch. B. xi. ch. 4. fe6l. 8. 
 [ •tc] Clement, Recognit. lib. 6, 
 r-?t] Bingham antiq. ibid. fed. 6. 
 [vj Clemens 'Roman, Ep, 1. ad Corinth. 
 
(93 ) 
 
 " about the fame time with Clemens^ and hath 
 *' feveral paflages to {hew the general neceffi- 
 *' ty of water ^ that is Baptifm, to fave men, 
 " &cM. — Therefore, they who reprefent 
 *' this dodlrine of the neceffity of Baptifm 
 *' as a novelty, or an error, firft introduced 
 *' into the church in the age of Sr. Auftin 
 ^' againft the Pelagian hereticks ; do mani- 
 ** fed wrong both to the dodrine itfelf, and 
 " to St. Auftin^ and to the antients, who 
 ^^ embraced, and delivered the fame before 
 " him." 
 
 Thus, from the begining of the ffth cen- 
 tury backward, either exprefsly, or in ref- 
 ped: to the common ^roz^//^j of it (thofe very 
 grounds upon which the Antip^do-baptifts 
 themfelves fay, it was founded) we have tra- 
 ced up the pradice of Infant- Baptifm to the 
 time of the apoftles [j;]. (And it is only the 
 fa5l itfelf, as attefted by the antient writers^ 
 not ihti^ reafonings about it, in which we are 
 concerned at prefent) Our teftimonies upon 
 this head might have been expeded to be 
 more full for the Jirft ages, if there had then 
 been any controverfy about InfantrBaptifm, 
 
 and 
 
 [.r] Hermes Paftor lib. i. & 3. See Wall's Hiflory, Sec. 
 p. I. ch. I. and Defence, ch. xi. 
 
 [_>•] Quod autem apud fimplicem vulgum dififeminant. Ion- 
 gam annorum feriem, poft Chrifli refurredionem, prseteriilTe, 
 quibus incognitus erat paedo-baptifmus ; in to fcedijime nienti' 
 untur : fiquidem nullus fcriptor tam vetuftus, qui non ejus 
 originem ad apojiolorum feculum pro certo referat. J. Cal- 
 yin. Inilit. lib. 4. cap. 16. fe<^. 8. 
 
(94) 
 
 and we had now a greater number of primi- 
 tive writers extant. So that what our evi- 
 dence may feem to lofe in one view, it gains 
 in another. The main queflion is, on which 
 fide the preponderating evidence Hes. And 
 to judge of this, I defire the Reader to con- 
 fider, that in all the forementioned period the 
 Antips^do-baptifts cannot produce one fingle 
 author to di [prove the fa6t[jj. For, the 
 firft man, that ever fuggefted any thing of 
 that kind, was Wilfrid Strabo^ a writer in 
 the ninth century j and what he fays is 
 grounded upon a palpable miftake. Becaufe, 
 he builds his opinion, againft the early prac- 
 tice of Infant-Baptifm, upon no hiftorical 
 memoirs, or authentic teftimony ; but only 
 on a paffage in St. Aujiins book of ConfeJJions^ 
 which fpeaks of his being baptized at adult- 
 age. Nothing at all to the purpofe ! For, 
 from the fame book of St. Aujtin we alfo 
 learn, that, when he was born, his father 
 was a heathen \z\ And, if his mother was 
 
 then 
 
 \^y\ " Mr. Gale fays, Had it been the fettled praSiice, Sec. 
 ** it cannot be imagined, that TertuUian Jhould ^venture to 
 ** oppofe it. Why not ? Why might not he have the confi- 
 «* dence, and felf opinion, that Mr. Gale has now, when it 
 <' is undoubtedly the fettled pradlice ? Pie knows well enough 
 *' (though he would conceal it from any ignorant Reader) that, 
 <* That is TertuUian' s character among all men ; to oppofe 
 ** his fingular opinions to the pradtice, and tenets of the 
 ** church ofhi.s time, &c." WnWs Defence p. 361. 
 
 \%\ See Marfhall's Defence of Inf Bap. in anfwer to 
 Tombes. p. 47. and Wall's hillory, &c. p. 2. ch. 3, fedl. ii. 
 and ch. 2. fed. 2. 
 
(95) 
 
 then a chriftian ; his being not baptized m 
 infancy can no more prove, that Infant-Bap- 
 tifm was not the common pradtice of the 
 chriftian church at that time (as we know it 
 was by St. Auftins own teftimony) than Ti- 
 mothfs not being circiimcifed in infancy (whofe 
 father was a Greek, and his mother a Jew- 
 ejs [^]) is any proof that Infant-circumciiion 
 was not then the common pradice of the 
 Jewift^ church. Wherefore to conclude all 
 in the words of St. Auguflin^ in his epiftle to 
 St, Jerome^ contra Ecclefiae fundatiffimiim 
 tnorem nemo fentiat, i. e. " let no body think 
 *' contrary to the vioft firmly eftabliftjed cuftom 
 " of the church." 
 
 [a] Ads xvi. I, 3. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THIS Defence of the Antiquity is 
 defigned to prepare the Way for the 
 Defence of the Authority of Infant-Baptifm, 
 in Anfwer to tlie common Objedions againft 
 it. 
 
BOOKS Printed and Sold by J. Waugh at 
 the Turk^s Head in Lombard- Street. 
 
 I. 'TT^ H E DifTenting Gentleman's three Let- 
 X ters, with a Postscript, in Anfwer to 
 the Reverend Mr. Whitis three Letters; in 
 which a Separation from the Eftablifhment is fully jufti- 
 fied ; the Charge of Schifm is refuted and retorted ; and 
 the Church of England and the Church of Jefus Chriji, 
 are impartially compared, and found to be Conftitu- 
 tions of a quite different Nature. The Letters and 
 Postscript may be had feparate, 
 
 n. The Baptism of Infants, a Reafonable Ser- 
 vice ; founded upon Scripture, and undoubted Apoftolic 
 Tradition : In which its Moral Purpofes and Ufe in Re- 
 ligion are fhewn. 
 
 III. Dipping not the only Scriptural and Primitive 
 Manner of Baptizing: And fuppofmg it were, yet a 
 fl:ri6l Adherence to it not obligatory on us. 
 
 IV. Euroclydon: Or, the Dangers of the Sea 
 confidered and improved, in fome Reflections on St* 
 Paul's Voyage and Shipwreck, J^s xvii. 
 
 V. Liberty and Loyalty: Or, a Defence and 
 Explication of the Subjection to the prefent Govern- 
 ment, upon the Principles of the Revolution. 
 
 VI. Divine Oracles : Or, the Sufficiency of the 
 Holy Scriptures, as a Rule of Religion, aflerted, ac- 
 cording to the fixth Article of the Church of England, 
 And the concurrent I'eftimony of Scripture and the Fa- 
 thers, in Behalf of Tradition, difculTed ; in Anfwer to 
 a Book intitled, a full, true and comprcheniive View of 
 
 Cluiilianity, dsff. during the four firll Centuries laid 
 
 down in two Catechifms. 
 
 VII. Holy Orders: Or, an Eflay on Ordination. 
 
m^M^m^MMm^^ 
 
 PiEDO-BAPTISM 
 
 DEFENDED, &>€, 
 
 mmmmmmmmmmm 
 
P^DO-BAPTISM 
 
 DEFENDED: 
 
 O R, T H E 
 
 A N T I Q^U I T Y 
 
 O F 
 
 INFANT-BAPTISM 
 
 FURTHER MAINTAINED. 
 
 In ANSWER to 
 
 Dr. G I L L's Reply, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 ANTIPiEDO-BAPTISM, &^c. 
 
 Parvulos baptizandos effe, concedunt, qui contra audlori- 
 tatem univerfae Ecclefiae proculdubto per Dominum et 
 Apoftolos traditam, venire non poffunt. 
 Augujiin. de Peccator, Merit, et Remijf. lih,-\. cap. 26. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. Waugh, at the Turk'z-Head in 
 IfOmbard-Street. M . D c c . l i y . 
 
Errata in PiEDO-BAPTISM. 
 
 PAGE 8. line 24, 25. for Believer's 
 Baptifm difplayedy read baptifm dif- 
 covered. Page ^9. in the Notes, line 8. for 
 Levit, read Luc. Page 92. line 8. read Bar-^ 
 defanes. 
 
PiEDO-BAPTISM 
 
 DEFENDED, &c. 
 
 I^F Infant-baptifm fhould paft 
 for an innovation^ or fa ch a 
 late and novel invention, as 
 its oppofers pretend it to be, 
 this might prejudice them^ 
 and others, againfl: any argu- 
 ment that might be offered in fupport of 
 its authority. Therefore, to prepare the 
 way for proving its authority, it was judg- 
 ed a proper ftep, in the firft place, to dif- 
 cufs the point of its antiquity. And fo, 
 this was the defign of the traft, entitled 
 Pado'baptifm, which Dr. Gill has honour- 
 ed with his remarks, beginning where it 
 ends, and inverting the order of the whole 
 
 argument. 
 
 Towards the clofe of Pado-baptifm \a'\ 
 
 are thefe words : '* Thus, from the begin- 
 
 " ing of the fifth century backward, either 
 
 " exprefsly, or in refped: to the common 
 
 B ** grounds 
 
 [«]Page93. 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 *^ grounds of it, (thofe very grounds, upon 
 " which, the Antipcedo-baptifts themfelves 
 " fay, it was founded) we have traced up 
 " the pradlire of Infant-baptirm to the 
 " time of the Apoftles". — Now, thefe 
 grounds were the fuppofed necefftty of bap- 
 tifm to falvation, either as a mean of cleanf- 
 ing from fin^ particularly original fin, or of 
 gaining admittance into the kingdom of God. 
 Thefe are acknowledged to be the common- 
 ly received grounds of Infant-baptifm in 
 the primitive church ; whether right, or 
 wrong, was no queftion with the author, 
 who was only enquiring into the matter of 
 faB : For, as he adds, *Mt is only the fait 
 *' itfelf, as attefted by the antient writers^ 
 *' not their reafonings about it, in which 
 
 *' we are concerned at prefent". -Says 
 
 Mr. Stennety [b"] (one of the moft ingenious 
 and learned writers on that fide) " The opi- 
 " nion of the abfolute neceflity of baptifm 
 *' to falvation, from a mifunderfl:«nding of 
 *' thofe words of Chrift, Except a Man be 
 ** born of water^ &c. Joh. iii. 5. feems to 
 *' have introduced Infant-baptifm into the 
 « Chriftian Church." But, with fubmif- 
 fion, as it does not appear that the antients 
 mifunderftood thofe words of Chrift, by 
 underftanding them oi hautifm-y fo, ir fol- 
 lows not, that Infant-baptifm was introdu- 
 ced into the Chriftian Church upon any 
 
 mijlakey 
 
 \h'\ Anfwer to Kujen^ P- 77- 
 
C 3 ) 
 
 tniflake^ merely becaufe a wrong notion of 
 baptirm was taken up ; fuppofing that to 
 .have been the cafe. For, people might ve- 
 ry eafily take up fbch a nodon, ajter they 
 had received Infant-baptilm, and though 
 they received it as a divine inftitution. 
 When any of the philolophers (e. g. Plato) 
 made ufe of weak arguments to prove the 
 immortality of the foul, it leems to be a juft 
 obfervation, that they muft have received 
 that dodrine before : otherwife they could 
 not have been induced, upon fuch flight, 
 infufficient grou?2cls, to embrace it at all [c]. 
 In like manner, if wrong notions, and weak 
 reafons, of baptifm in general, or of In- 
 fant-baptifm in particular, prevailed in the 
 primitive church, it is eafy to conceive, that 
 the thing itfelf was in ufe, before any fuch 
 infufficient grounds of it were affigned. 
 And thus, according to this view of the 
 cafe, the pradice of Infant-baptifm was not 
 introduced^ (as is imagined) or originally 
 grounded upon thofe reafons ; but thofe 
 reafons were grounded and grafted upon the 
 practice of Infant-baptifm, already received 
 in the Chriftian Church. This being pre- 
 mifed, let us now attend to Dr., Gill's re- 
 marks upon Paedo- baptifm. 
 
 Mr. Bingham (a name of fo much note 
 
 for learning and fkill in ecclefiaftical mat- 
 
 B 2 ters, 
 
 [c] See Haliburtoni InfufRciency of Nat. Relig. ch. 14. 
 p. 45. 2 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 ters, that, If it (hould not fecjre a perfon 
 from error, it might very well fcreen him 
 from contempt with all men of candour) 
 was quoted \d'\ for this remark ^ *' The 
 " mofi: antient writer, that we have, is Cle- 
 " mem Romanus, who lived in the time of 
 *^ the Apoftlesi and he, though he doth 
 ** not exprefsly mention Infant-baptifm, 
 ** yet fays a thing, that by confequence 
 ** proves it : For, he makes Infants liable 
 " to Original Sin, which in effedt is to fay, 
 ** that they have need of baptifm,©'^." [^], 
 The paffage to which Mr. Bingham refers, 
 is a quotation from Job xiv. 4, 5. which, ac- 
 cording to the Greek verfion, Clemens reads 
 thus : No man is free from pollution, no not 
 thd' his life is but of one day. But, Dr. 
 Wall obferves [/], that in the next chap- 
 ter Clefnens brings in, to the fame pur* 
 pofe, the faying of David, Pf li. 5. / 
 wasJJ:apen in iniquity, &c. — Now, Dr. Gill 
 takes notice of the ibrmer paffage, but fays 
 not a word of the latter, paffing over it to 
 another, mentioned by Dr. WalL And all 
 that he has to urge, with reference to the 
 paffage in Job, is, that *' it might be brought 
 *' to prove Original Sin, but is not brought 
 *' by Clemens for any fuch purpofe'* [^]. 
 However, it is as much brought in for fuch 
 
 a purpofe, 
 
 [/j Paedo-bsptifm, p. 92. 
 
 [0 Antiq. of theChr. Ch. B. 11. Ch. 4. S. 6. 
 
 [/] Hilt, of Inf. Bapt. P. i. Ch. i. 
 
 \g'\ Antipaedo-baptifm, p. 5. 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 a purpofe, as the faying of David ; and, as 
 both thefe paiTages are commonly alledged 
 by the primitive writers in proof of Origi- 
 nal Sin, fo, it is prefcmed, Dr. Gill him- 
 felf fuppofes, that Clemens alfo underftood 
 them in the fame light j therefore, he can- 
 not fliirly deny, that in this apojiolical fa- 
 ther we may trace one of the received 
 grounds of Infent-baptifm in the primitive 
 church, when he remembers his own ac- 
 count of Aujiiri^ f^yirig* " ^^^-^ ^^^ church 
 *' has always had, has always held." For, 
 fays he \h\ " it was the dodrine of Ori- 
 *' ginal Sin, and the Baptifm of Infants for 
 " the remiffion of it, he fpeaks of." And 
 indeed, of all men, one cannot but won- 
 der mofl at thofe^ that hold Original Sin, 
 and yet difown Infant-baptifm ; that look 
 upon all infants as lojl in Adam^ and left 
 deftitute, at the fame time, of any appoint- 
 ed Jign^ or token of their concern with 
 Chrift, under the clearefl re'-jelation, and 
 the brightefl difplay, of redeeming love 
 and grace. But, that any fuch perfons 
 exifted in the primitive church, does not 
 appear. It is to no purpofe then, for the 
 Dodor, to alledge any fuch in our days, 
 unlefs he had produced fome inflances of 
 this kind in the earlier ages of the church, 
 and particularly in the time of Clemens Ro- 
 manus. 
 
 The 
 
 ih] Argum. from A p. Trad. p. 26. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 The fame learned Bingham was alfo ci- 
 ted [/] for this obfervation, '* Herman Paf- 
 *' tor lived about the fame time with Cle- 
 •' mens^ and hath feveral paflTages to (hew 
 *' the general fiece/Jity of water, that is, Bap- 
 " tijm, to fave men." Now, fays the Dr. 
 [k] " furely he could not mean real ma- 
 " terial water, £fff ." and yet, he does not 
 pretend to know, what Herman does mean. 
 But, whatever the true meaning be, the 
 words plainly allude^ at leaft, to Baptifm, 
 and that as neceflary to falvatlon : for, 
 there is no accounting for his way offpeak- 
 ing upon any other fuppofition, when that 
 author exprefles himfelf thus [/] : *' Hear 
 *' therefore, why the tower is built upon 
 *' the water : becaufe your life is, and 
 *' fhall be faved by water*. And again, 
 \m] " before a man receives the name of 
 *' the Son of God, he is ordained unto 
 *' death ; but when he receives the feal, 
 " he is freed from death, and delivered un- 
 " to life. Now, that feal is water ^ into 
 *' which men go down under the obliga- 
 *' tion of death, but come up appointed 
 ** unto life" [n\. Therefore, we have here 
 the general ground and foundation of In- 
 fant-baptifm, as received in the primitive 
 church, either clearly exprefied, or plainly 
 
 referred 
 
 '/■] Ibid. [k] Antipaedo, p. 6. 
 
 7] Lib. I. Vlfion 3. Sea. ^, 
 
 'm'] Lib, 3. Simil. g. S. 16. 
 
 '«] '^cQWair^ Defence, p. 237. ^c. 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 referred to, viz, the necejfity of Baptifin 
 to life and falvation. And this is all that 
 Hermas Pajior was cited for. 
 
 Now, fays Dr. Gill [(?], " our author 
 *' upon the above paffages concludes after 
 " this manner; '* Thus — we have traced 
 " up the praBice of Infant-baptifm to the 
 *' time of the Apoftles ;" when thofe wri- 
 " ters give not the leaft hint of Infant- 
 " baptifm, or have any reference to it, or 
 ** the practice of it ;" and then adds, " It 
 ** is amazing what a face fome men have !" 
 which is really very true ; otherwife, how 
 could the dodor deal fo unfairly, as to 
 quote the author's words imperfedly, by 
 leaving out the alternative^ viz. " either ex- 
 " prefsly^ or in refpedi to the common grounds 
 '' of it/' Befides, he has removed the 
 words out of their proper place ; for, they 
 came in as they were cited above, upon a 
 review of the connedied evidence for In- 
 fant-baptifm, from the beginning of the 
 fifth century, backward to the firft ages of 
 all. " In all which period, (as it is added) 
 ** \p\ the Antipsedo-baptifts cannot produce 
 ** one fingle author to difprove the fad." 
 Nor has Dr. Gill himfelf yet produced a- 
 ny fuch author, as will appear by the fe- 
 quel. Therefore, the preponderating evi- 
 dence, whether more or lefs, does flill lie 
 on the fide of Infant-baptifm. It is true, 
 
 the 
 
 W Pag. 7. [f\ Psdo baptifm, p. 94. 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 the teftimonies from Clemens Romanm, and 
 Her mas Pajlor^ are not direct and exprefs 
 proofs, nor are they alledged as fuch, but 
 only as proving Infant-baptifm by confe^ 
 quence ; (even upon the principles of its op- 
 pofers, by pointing out the acknowledged 
 grounds of it in the primitive church). It 
 was thus that the argument was ftated, in 
 the words of the learned Bingham \ and 
 the Dodlor, if he pleafes, may wonder at 
 his face: But, as Dr. Wall obferves [j'J, 
 " Proofs by confequence iov 2iX\y a^r mat ive^ 
 *^ do give that the advantage againfl: a nega- 
 " tive^ of which there are no proofs at all." 
 Dr. Gill fays [r], " nothing out of Bar* 
 *' nabas, Polycarp^ and Ignatius^ in favour 
 ^* of Infant-baptifm, is pretended to." But, 
 if that had been thought neceflary, or con- 
 fiftent with ftudied brevity, the hnit grounds 
 of Infant-baptifm might have been pointed 
 out in thefe writers alfo. Ignatius men- 
 tions Original Sin [i], as the learned Voffius 
 underftands his words [/]. And Barnabas 
 fpeaks more than once of the ufe and effica- 
 cy of Baptifm to cleanfe from fin [ii\ As 
 for Polycarp^ I do not find, upon a curfo- 
 ry review, that he fays any thing of Bap- 
 tifm at all. And this alfo (to note that by 
 the way) is the cafe with fome other antient 
 
 writers, 
 
 [q] Defence, p. 281. [r] Pag. 4, 5. 
 
 [j] Ep. ad Trallian. 
 
 [t] Hift. Pelag. lib. i . P. i. Th. 6. [«j Seft. 1 1 . 
 
(.9 ) 
 
 writers, that are fometimes mentioned, as 
 having nothing in favour of Infant-baptifm : 
 [x] but their fcheme might therefore be as 
 pertinently^ and properly alledged, to dif- 
 
 prove all baptifm in the fame period. 
 
 But, fpeaking of Barnabas and Herman 
 upon another occafion f}'], the Docftor ob- 
 ferves, " the learned Mr, Stennet \z] has 
 " cited fome pafTages out of them, and af- 
 " ter him Mr. David Rees [/^], which are 
 ** manifeft proofs of Adult-baptifm, and 
 " that as performed by immerfion." And 
 what Pcedo'baptiji doubts of either ? The 
 only queftion is, whether Adult-baptifm 
 was the only Baptifm, and immerfion the 
 only mode of baptifm ? As to the latter^ we 
 {hall fay no more of it at prefent : but, in 
 relation to the former^ it is acknowledged, 
 that Adult-baptifms were very frequent and 
 common in the ^firjl^ and fome following 
 ages, by reafon of the great number oinew 
 converts to the Chriftian faith. But this 
 concludes nothing at all againft Infant-bap- 
 tifm ; becaufe, as plain inflances^ and as 
 clear defcriptions, of Adult-baptifm may 
 be produced from thofe very writers who 
 were Paedo-baptifts themfelves, and lived at 
 that time when Paedo-baptifm prevailed, 
 by the confeffion of it's mod fanguine op- 
 C pofers J 
 
 [a-] DivineRight of Inf. Bap. p. 22. 
 . [>]Ibid. p. 20. [2] Anf. loRuffen, p. 142, 1 43, 
 
 [a] Anfwer tp Walker,^, i^j. 
 
( tt ) 
 
 pofers ; as will be (hewn in a proper placed 
 At prefent I muft obferve, that Mr. Ste?i^ 
 nef, and Mr. Rees, as referred to by Dr. 
 Gill himfelf, underftood the words of Bar* 
 nabas, which have been confidered, of Bap- 
 tifmy and confequently as fpoken oi real ma- 
 terial water-, though the Do6tor would 
 now fhufHe them off to fomething elfe, he 
 knows not what. Before^ they were ma~ 
 nifeft proofs of Adult-baptifm, &c, but 
 now the Doftor can properly fee no Baptifm 
 at all in them, no real material water ^ 
 fomething myftical muft furely be defigned j 
 and what it is, he leaves to thofe who bet- 
 ter underftand thefe vifionary things ! Thus 
 Dodlors differ ! And thus can the fame 
 Dodor differ from himfelf! underftand the 
 fame paffages different ways ; or affedi not 
 to underftand them at all, juft as it ferves 
 a prefent turn ; and ftill keep his counte* 
 nance ! Proceed we now with him to 
 
 The fecond century. 
 
 Of the Recognitions, fays Mr. Bifigham, 
 [i] *' it is an antient writing of the fame 
 ** age with Juftin Martyr^ mentioned by 
 *^ Origen in his Philocalia^ and by fome 
 ** afcribed to Bardejanes Syrtis, who lived 
 " about the middle of the fecond century. 
 ** This author fpeaks of the necejjity of 
 
 ** Baptifm^ 
 
 [h] UbI fupra, Seft. 8. 
 
( «I ) 
 
 ** Baptifm, in the fame ftile, as "Jujiin 
 " Martyr did, ^c^ {c\ Dr. Gill here re- 
 plies, with fome warmth, faying [J], 
 " whenever this 'wretched tenet, this falfe 
 " notion of the abfolute neceffity of Bap- 
 *' tifm to falvation is met with, the P<^- 
 *' do'baptijis prefently fmell out Infant- 
 *' baptifm, &c" And why fhould they 
 not? vfhQxuiho, Antipado-baptijis themfelves 
 have lent us their nofes, to fmell it out ? 
 But fome people have a wonderful faculty, 
 and a ftrange command over their fenfes. 
 (happy for them, and others, if they had 
 the fame over their paflions !) They can u^^ 
 derjiandy or not underftand ; fmell, or not 
 fmell, juft as it fuits their prefent occafi- 
 on ; otherwife, what imaginable reafon 
 can be affigned, why thofe, who believed 
 the abfolute neceffity of Baptifm to falva- 
 tion, (hould defer one moment, to admini- 
 fter it to Infants, at leaft in cafe of dan- 
 ger ? — In refpect to the notion itfelf, whe- 
 ther it was true, or falfe, is not the quef- 
 tion ; but whether fuch a notion did really 
 obtain in the mod primitive times: and 
 that it adually did, we have feen before ia 
 Barnabas and Hermas, Therefore this is 
 none of the dotages peculiar to the Recogni- 
 tions J nor was Bardejanes Syrus^ (if he 
 was the author, and the contrary is not 
 proved) ever charged wirh herefy for hold- • 
 C a ing 
 
 lc'\ See P«do-bap. p. cj2. \d\ Antipaedo, p. 9. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 ing this tenet : fo that all, the Dodlor fug-i 
 gefts upon this head, is nothing to the pur- 
 
 pofe.- But, he has one falvo yet ; he 
 
 fays, " the myftery of iniquity worked by 
 ** degrees, Gfc." v/hich is very true, in re- 
 fpeft to the general corruption of reHgion : 
 but, if by the my fiery of miquity he means 
 Infant haptifm^ v/e deny his fuppofition, 
 and defpife the calumny. However, *« true 
 " it is, t^as he fays) that one error leads on 
 *' to another;" and this may account for 
 the introduction of Autipado-baptifm, which 
 upon enquiry Vv ill be found to be a myfiery^ 
 which worked by very foiv degrees. I 
 Ihall only add, Bardefanes Syrus was a wri- 
 ter of great note ; as appears from ferome*^ 
 account [^] : Eifcbius has given us fa large 
 extra(5t fromfome of his writings [f'\', and 
 if he was not wholly free from herejy^ even 
 to the laft, Dr. Gill (hould not bear too 
 hard upon him on that account, for the 
 fake of his favourite author, Tertullian. 
 But, if Antipcedo-baptifm may be upheld ; 
 no matter by what weak arguments it is 
 fupported, 
 
 Pafs we on now to Jujlin Martyr^ from 
 whom a paffage was alledged [^], to con- 
 front the Dodor's affertion [/?], (fpeaking of 
 the time of Irenaus^ junior to fujlin) viz. 
 
 **thac 
 
 >] Catalog, de Script. Ecclef. 
 
 '/] De Praep. Evangel, lib. 6. num. lo. 
 
 j;] Paedo-baptifm, p. 84. 
 
 h\ Argum. from Apoll. Trad. p. 14. 
 
< 13 ) 
 
 •* that it had not as yet obtained among the 
 *^ antients to ufe the words, regenerated^ 
 " and rege?ieration, for baptized^ and Bap- 
 ^* tifm." The paffage is this ; *' We bring 
 " them (/. e. the new converts) to fome place, 
 ^' where there is water, and they are regene* 
 " rated by the fame way of regeneration, by 
 *' which we were regenerated: for they 
 " are , aihed with WMter in the name of 
 *' God, the Father, ^c. becaufe Chrift 
 *' fays [/], unlefs you be regenerated, you 
 ** cannot enter into the kingdom of hea- 
 '' ven, ^cr\k\ Obferve now, (i.) Jujlin 
 fays of the new converts^ {after they were 
 made fuch) " we bring them to fome place, 
 ^* where there is water, and they are rege-^ 
 ^^ nerated, &c." (2.) In proof hereof he 
 adds, ^' for they are waflied with water, 
 *' £^c" Thus he deferibes the way of re- 
 generation. And then, (3.) he affigns the 
 reafon of this pradlice : '* For, or becaufe, 
 " Chrift fays, Unlefs you be regenerated, Gfr ." 
 Can any thing in the world be plainer; than 
 that Jiiftin here ufes the term, regenerati- 
 on, and alfo underftands thofe words of 
 Chrift, of baptifm ? How then could Dr. 
 Gi/l have thQ face to fay [/], ** thar the per- 
 ** fons fujlin fpeaks of are not reprefented 
 *' by him as regenerated by baptifm !" and 
 v/ho can but wonder at the reafon he gives 
 2 for ' 
 
 [z] Joh. iii. 3. 5. \k\ Apol. z. 
 
( H ) 
 
 for it? vtz. " becaufe they are fpoken of 
 " before, as converted perfons, and belie- 
 "vers!" Before what? v^hy, before they 
 are fpoken of as regenerated by Baptifm ; 
 therefore, they were not regenerated by 
 baptifm! excellent logic! This is the /irong^ 
 and riervous reafoning of the Antipado-bap' 
 tift I In vain would the Dodlor avail him- 
 felf here of the modern ufe of the word re- 
 generation, as implying the fame thing 
 with converjion : but that word had no fuch 
 ufe among the antients^ without a refer- 
 ence to Baptifm [?;;]. In vain alfo would 
 he burlefque the fenfe given of Jujii?is 
 words, by pretending, that it makes him 
 fay, *^ they were baptized, becaufe they 
 " were baptized." — For, the prefent ques- 
 tion is not about the thingy but the ufe of 
 the word^ regeneration. And we do not 
 fay, that regeneration, and baptifm, are 
 identically the fame 5 but that the former 
 word is fo ufed, as to connote baptifm, and 
 refer to it, 'diz, as the way^ and mean of 
 regeneration. So fays Jnftin, " we bring 
 " them to the w^ater, and they are rege- 
 " nerated by the fame way of regeneration, 
 " by which we were regenerated ; for 
 *' they are walhed with water, Gf^." — 
 When Dr. Gale had quibbled upon the 
 words of JiijUn Martyr ^ in the fame man- 
 ner, as his brother Doilor now doth ; Dr 
 
 Wall 
 
 [%: XVaWi Hill. P. I. ch. a. 
 
( X5 ) 
 
 TVall faid [;2], '' I muft declare, and I do 
 " it in cold blood, I never met with any 
 '* one of fo finifhed effrontery, to deny 
 ."things, that are plain, and vifible/' — In 
 ftiort : Jupn puts the very fame conftruc- 
 tion upon our Saviour's words, Job, iii. 3. 5. 
 as the author of the Recognitions did [0]: 
 therefore " that then no fuch conftrudti- 
 " on of the words obtained, that baptifm is 
 *^ neceflary to falvation," is a groundlefs pre- 
 cence, and a manifeft error. — Before we 
 difmils this paffage, it is proper to confider, 
 what Dr. Gill has fuggefted from it, (after 
 Dr. Gale) in disfavour of Infant-baptifm. 
 It is very plain, that Jujiin is fpeaking of 
 new converts from heatbenijhry and it is al- 
 lowed, on all fides, that fuch perfons muft 
 be baptized at adult-age. But this makes 
 nothing againfl Infant- baptifm. However, 
 let us hear what is offered upon this head. 
 It is alledged [p], that '* if Infant-baptifm 
 ** had been pradifed in thofe days, it is 
 *' not confiftent with that fincerity, which 
 *' Jujiin fets out with, when he propofed 
 *' to give the Roman Emperor an account of 
 " Chriftian Baptifm, not to make any men- 
 " tion of it, ©c.*' — To which I reply, there 
 was no iniincerity, or unfair dealing in the 
 cafe, if Jujiin faid fo much of baptifm, 
 and the other Chriftian rites, as was fuffici- 
 
 ent. 
 
 [»^ Defence, p. 325. [<?] Lib. 6. num,9. 
 
 Antipsedo, p. lo. 
 
 
{ i6 ) 
 
 cnt, to anfwer the Emperor's expedation, 
 and the proper dclign of writing his apology 5 
 which was to fljew, that the Chriftians 
 were not fuch vile, and feditious perfons, 
 as their enemies reprefented them, but wor- 
 thy men, and good fubjedls, and that there 
 was nothing in their religion, which had a 
 tendency to make them other wife. It was 
 therefore quite impertinent for Jiijiin to fay 
 any thing of infants; who could lie under 
 no fufpicions of that kind [q], Befides, as 
 the Romans had a folemn form of luftration 
 for infants [r], the Roman Emperor, with- 
 out being told of it, might naturally con- 
 clude the fame of the Chriftians. It is 
 
 further urged from the fame quarter, that, 
 ** he had occafion to fpeak of it — had it 
 *' been ufed; fince the Chriftians were 
 <' charged with ufing their infants barbar- 
 " oufly, &cj* But this is a far-fetched 
 imagination \ as Dr. Wall properly enough 
 calls it \s\ : befides, that calumny, among 
 others, Jujlin refutes in another part of his 
 apology ; and fo had no occafion to recur to 
 it again \t\ To which let me add, if, as 
 thefe writers are wont to contend, immer^ 
 Jion was the only 7node of baptifm ; had "Juf- 
 iin told the Emperor, that they plunged their 
 infants, this might rather have confirmed, 
 
 than 
 
 [j] See Cobbet\ Juft Vindication, P. 3. ch. 4. p. i. 
 
 [r] Vid. Macrob. Saturn, lib. i. c. 16. 
 
 [/] Ibid. p. 275. [/] P. 70. E. Colon. 
 
( '7 ) 
 
 than removed the fufpicion of ujtng the?n 
 barbaroujly : and for my part, I cannot con- 
 ceive, how fuch a notion fhould get among 
 the Heathens concerning the Chriftians, if 
 their Infants had nothing to do with their 
 
 facred rites. In reply to what is further 
 
 recited from Jujiin Martyr^ after Dr. Gale-^ 
 it will "be futficient for me, if I tranfcribe 
 Dr. Walls anfwer, (of which Dr. Gill isik^s 
 not the leaft notice ; an endlefs way of writ- 
 ing controverfy !) [u] " what he obferves of 
 " Jujlins faying, that our firfl: generation 
 *' is without our knowledge^ or choice ; but 
 " that a heathen man (for of fuch he there 
 " fpeaks) comes to this Baptifm (which i^ 
 *' his regeneration, or fecond birth) of his 
 ^- o'-ion will and choice ; is no more than he 
 *' would have fdid of any profelytes^ entring 
 *' into God's covenant by circumcifion, 
 *' (which the yews, as I (hewed, did alfo 
 ** call regeneration). The adult profdyte 
 ** did partake of this regeneration by hi* 
 ** own choice. This is no proof, but that 
 *' his Infant-children had the fam.e circum- 
 *' cifion, and regeneration, by their parentis 
 *' dedicating them, and God's gracious ac- 
 ** ceptance." 
 
 In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jev^, it 
 
 was obferved [w] there is a paflage, ** where 
 
 ** Jujiin Martyr fays, that concerning the 
 
 ** influence and efFed: of Adam^s fin upon 
 
 D mankind, 
 
 [a] Defence, p. 276. f«iv] P«do-Bap. p ^5 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 " mankind, which the antient writers re- 
 ** prefent as the ground and reafon of In- 
 " fant-baptifm;' '' Now (lays Dr. Gill) [x] 
 " aiiowing that this is fpoken of Original 
 *' Sin, as it ftems to be, what is this to In- 
 ** fant-baptifm ?" — To which I anfwer, if 
 Original Sin is any thing to Infants ; why 
 fliould not the words of yu/iin make for 
 Infant-baptifm, when the antient writers 
 reprefent the former, as the ground and rea- 
 fon cf the latter? But fays the Doctor, '' I 
 *' have already expofed the folly of arguing 
 " from perfons holding the one, to the prac- 
 *' tice of the other." — Has he fo indeed ! 
 But how ? Why, by telling us of fome mo- 
 derns that hold Original Sin without prac- 
 tifing Infant-baptifm ! And could not I tell 
 him of many others, that both hold the one, 
 and pradife the other? But, what is this to 
 the antients ? And let it be remembered, 
 that it is not the reafon of the thing, much 
 lefs any modern opinions about it^ but the 
 fenfe of the antients concerning the matter 
 in queftion, which is the fubjedt of this pre- 
 fent difquiCtion. — ^Again, in the fame bock 
 another paffage was referred to, as pointing 
 out fome analogy between baptifm, and cir- 
 cumcifion. This the Dodor will not al- 
 low, though Jufiin fpeaks of Chriftians 
 receiving ihtjpiritual circumcifion 1)y bap- 
 tifm 5 but from hence he infers, *' that it 
 
 **muft 
 [x] Antipasdo, p. li. 
 
( ^9 ) 
 ** muft be different from baptifm :'* which 
 is juft fuch another cavil, as he made be- 
 fore in dlflinguifliing between baptifm^ and 
 f^egeneration. But it is plain, that, as ac- 
 cording to Jiijiin^ regeneration was per* 
 formed, or effedted injirumentally by bap- 
 tifm ; fo, when he fays of the fpiritual cir- 
 CLimcifion, '* we have received it by bap- 
 *' tifm," (in whatever way others had re- 
 ceived it) he refers to what was done for 
 Chrijliam in their baptifm. But, for a 
 more particular anfwer lo the Dodor's ex- 
 ceptions, I refer the reader to Dr. WaU\y'\, 
 
 Says Juftin Martyr [2;], (as was alfo ob- 
 ferved [^]) " Several perfons among us of 
 ** both fexes, of fixty or feventy years of 
 " age, 01 iK ttoclScjov 6[/.cc^rjT£uB7j(rciv Tu XP^^?i 
 ** who were difcipled to Chrift /?2, or Jrom^ 
 ** their childhood, £?<;." — Dr. G/7/ contends, 
 it (hould be read inJIruBed in Chrift : but 
 this was (hewn to be an improper way of 
 Ipeaking ; as it would be to fay, that jinti- 
 fhon, the fon of Sophilas^ was inJlruBed in 
 his Father [b]. The phrafe, as the Dodor 
 thinks, might better be rendered, inJiruB- 
 ed by his father ; which is indeed agreeable 
 to the Englijhy if it would fuit the Greek 
 idiom ; but fome good critics are of another 
 opinion [c], and judge it more proper to 
 D 2 fay, 
 
 [y] Defence, p. 267. t^c, [z] Apol. 2. 
 
 [«] Pacdo-bap. p. 86. [b"] See P^do-bap. p. 860 
 
 [c] See Walker^ Modeft Plea, p. 207. 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 fay, Antiphon was a difcipk to his fathep. 
 Difcipled^ or (which is the Doctors phrafe, 
 though of the fame import) profelyted^ tp 
 his father, I think, is not fo well expreffed. 
 However, I could fee no impropriety in it, if 
 Sophilas had fet up for the head of a religi- 
 ous fed: ; and it is only in the facred, or 
 Chriftian fenfe, that we affix the idea of 
 profelyting to the verb in queftion. Now, 
 what we urge is this, that the perfons de- 
 fcribed by yujiin muft have been baptized 
 in their childhood, or Infancy ; becaufe the 
 word, difcipling, in the Chriftiaa notion, 
 includes baptifm: for which an authority 
 was produced, that Dr. Gill cannot well 
 objefl: againft, viz, his own [d']. Nor doth 
 he yet retradl what he faid j only, he tells 
 us, what his meaning was, which was clear 
 enough before, as expreffed in his comment y 
 but, leaving him to enjoy his own fenfe, we 
 accept of his conceffion, that the word, dif 
 cipling, includes baptifm. And tnis notion 
 was confirmed by A^s xiv. 21. But here. 
 the Doctor would have the word, difcipling^ 
 to fignify only an effedl (not an adt) where- 
 in, I fancy, he is very Angular, And yet, 
 if he would honeftly tell us, what that ef- 
 fecfl was, (provided he may enjoy his own 
 fenfe) he would undoubtedly fay, it includ- 
 ed baptifm ; which is the thing we contend 
 for. This conftrudlion of the word was 
 
 further 
 
 [/) His Commentary on J(^sx\x. i. 3. 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 further fupported by Mat. xxviii. 19, 20 [e\ 
 ^' Go ye, therefore, and difciple all nations, 
 ^^ &cy where the word, difciple^ is mani- 
 feftly a general term^ which includes bap» 
 tiz'mgy as well as teaching. But of this, 
 the Dodor takes no notice, nor makes any 
 attempt, to juftify his former criticifms on 
 the text [/]. Admit then the notion, we 
 advance, is juft; the perfons, abovemen- 
 tioned, muft have been baptized in their in- 
 fancy, as they were dlfcipled to Chrift in^ 
 or from, their childhood : for, as was ob- 
 ferved [g\ baptlfm not being a continued^ 
 but a tranjient ad:, to fay they were baptized 
 from their infancy, would be improper; 
 as Dr. Wall had hinted before \h\ Bur, 
 Dr Gill (p. 14.) would turn this off with a 
 -laugh, by faying, this '* reafon — is merry 
 5' indeed ; when Jujiin is not fpeaking of 
 " the baptifm of any perfon at all." How- 
 ever, he mull not think, to efcape thus ; 
 for, if baptifm is included in the notion of 
 difciplingy (which the Dodor cannot deny 
 without contradiding himfclf) when Jujiin 
 /peaks of certain perfons being difcipled to 
 Chrift, he muft confequently fpeak of their 
 baptifm. Therefore he muft give us, or 
 we fhall take leave, to conclude, that *^ in 
 *' the paflages of Jujiin quoted, if there is 
 
 *'no 
 
 [e] Psdo-bap. p. 89. 
 
 [/] Divine Right of Inf-bap. examined, p. 79. 
 
 Irr] P^edo bap. 87, 88. [^] Defence, p. 280. 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 *^ no exprefs mention of Infant-baptifm ; 
 ^* yet there is 2ihint given of it, and fome re- 
 ^^ ference unto it;" contrary to what the 
 Do(ftor afferts. — But he would willingly 
 warp himfelf off, by fuggefting, that ytif- 
 fin ufed the word, difcipling^ in a different 
 fenfe from the fcripture notion of the thing. 
 ** From whom (fays he p. 13.) can we bet- 
 ** ter learn his meaning than from him- 
 '' felf ?" and complains of his opponent^ that 
 he takes no notice of feveral paffages in yuf- 
 tin^ which the Dodior had alledged, to con- 
 firm his 72ew fenfe of the word under con- 
 fideration. Therefore, to eafe him of his 
 complaint, we will now examine all thofe 
 paffages, and ihew, that the Greek word for 
 difcipUng^ admits the fenfe, contended for, 
 there affo. Let us begin with that paffage 
 [i] where Jufiin fpeaks, (as it is cited and 
 exprefled by the Dodor [/^]) '' of Chrift's 
 '* fending his difciples to the Gentiles^ who 
 " by them iiJLOL^'f\ri\j(roLv (it fhouid be, g^a- 
 *' 3-)frgu(7£v) inftrnBed them." — Now, who 
 does not fee, that yu/iin here alludes to the 
 words of the commijfion^ Mat, xxviii. 19, 
 20. where, as has been fliewed, the word, 
 [jLc&^y}Te\j(roiT6j difcip/e, includes baptifm. Thus 
 then, Juftin Ipeaks not any peculiar dialedt 
 of his own, but the language of the New 
 Te/iament 'y and fo from thence we are to 
 2 learn 
 
 [/] Dialog, cum Try ph. p. 272,. Colon. 
 [A-J Argum. from Apoft. Trad. p. 12.J 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 Jearn his meanings which is this, viz. that 
 Chrift by his difcipies, lending to the Gen- 
 tiles, difcipled them. And how did they 
 difciple the Gentiles-, but l^y baptilm, and i^y 
 teaching them ; according to Chrift's di- 
 reftion [/]? — Again, in another paffage a-l- 
 ledged [m], Jii/iin Ipeaks of perlbns ** being 
 *' fyLcc^rjrevofzscvo'jg, i7i[lruBed in the name 
 " (perfon, or dodtrine) of Chrift, and leav- 
 " ing the way of error ;" as the Dodlor gives 
 the words. But here alfo fA^x^i^Tsvof/Avovg slg 
 TO ovo[A,oc Tov x^^^^^ (whichis y^^/?/Vsphrare) 
 aptly fignihes their being dijcipled to Chrift, 
 fo as to be baptized in his name 3 agreeably 
 to thefe words, ABs xix. 5. slSccTTTia-BrjO-otv 
 tig TO ovof^oc Tov Kv^iov Itjcov, /. e, they were bap- 
 tized in (or into) the name of the Lord Jefus. 
 This notion is confirmed by what jujlin 
 adds of their leaving the way of error 5 
 which implies their renouncing the Pagan, 
 and embracing the Chriftian religion : and 
 when they left their old church (into which 
 they, and their children had been initiated 
 before) furely they would carry their chil- 
 dren along with them. Once more -, 
 
 yuftin *' fpeaks [ti] of perfons {jLocByjTBvBr.vui, 
 *' inJlruSed into divine dodrines." ' So the 
 Dodor renders the words; but methinks, 
 injlruSled into divine doBrines, is an harfh 
 expreffion. I {hould rather read it, initiated 
 
 into 
 
 [/] See Psedo-bap. p. 89. \m\ Ibid. p. 258, 
 
 [?/] Apolog. I. p. 43. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 into divine doftrines, /. e. the Chrijlian reli^ 
 giotu And thus, baptifm, the Chriftian 
 rite of initiation, may be referred to in this 
 place, as well as in the two foregoing. — ■ 
 After all ; '* we grant, the word, difciple^ 
 *' has a reference to teachings and inftruc- 
 *' tion :" and that new converts from hea- 
 tbenifm were (and ought to be) inftrudled 
 firft, before their admiffion to baptifm. But, 
 this concludes nothing againft the baptifm of 
 infants, nor difproves the notion that chil- 
 dren were (and {hould bej baptized, ^' and 
 " fo far made difciples to Chrift, in order 
 *' to be taught ; as (Difcipulus) a fcholar is 
 *' put to fchool, that he may learn" [<?]. 
 
 We now attend the Do5lor to the next 
 writer in this century, viz. Irenceiiu 
 
 Irenaus fays [p] of Chrift, '' that he 
 ** came to fave all by himfelf; all, I fay, 
 ** that by him are born again unto God, in- 
 " fants, and little children, young men, and 
 *' old men/' Upon which paflage (it was 
 obferved) [^], ** the learned Fenar dentins has 
 ** this remark, that by the name of re gene- 
 ** ration^ according to the phrafe of Chrift, 
 *^ and of his Apoftles, he underftands bap- 
 '' tifm, ^cr Now here Dr. Gill is out of 
 patience ; he will not allow this monk (as he 
 calls him in contempt, p. 1 5.) to be a man 
 of learning ; though all the proof, he gives 
 
 of 
 
 [0] See Paedo-bap. p. 88. \jf\ Lib, 2. p. 39. 
 
 \j\ Paedo-bap. p. 76. 
 
( ^s ) 
 
 of it, IS, that he was a great bigot to a party * 
 a 77tafi of large ajfurance^ and uncommon bold-- 
 nefs, &c. But, if this is the peculiar cha- 
 rad:er of a tnonk^ and the fign of an unlearn- 
 ed man j one might perhaps, find more 
 monks, and fewer fcholars, in the world, 
 than is imagined ; yea, fome famous Doc- 
 tors themfelves might be in danger of being 
 undubbed, and put on the hood. 'Tis pre- 
 fumed, however, that Dr. Grabe will be 
 allowed, to be a man of learning, and mo- 
 deration: and yet, he thought the obferva- 
 tion of Fenardentim aforefaid, worth retain- 
 ing in his edition of Irencem [r]. Nor is 
 it, I think, a falfe glofsy as Dr. Gill pre- 
 tends, but much truer than his own affer-* 
 tion, " that Chrift and his Apoftles no where 
 *' call baptifm by the name of the new 
 ^' birth j" if his meaning be, that they no 
 where have reference to baptifm, when 
 they fpeak of regeneration. The words of 
 Chrift, Joh/\u, 3.5. moft plainly, and //- 
 terally, refer to baptifm. Accordingly, y5, 
 we have proved, beyond all rational contra- 
 didion, Jujiin Martyr underflood them : 
 and he muft be a man of monkijij aflurance, 
 that can fay, without fome equivocation, 
 " the paffage in Jujiin before-mentioned, 
 " falls fliort of proving, — that in Irenaits's 
 E ** time, 
 
 [r] P. 161. wher6 Dr. Grahe not only efpoufes the 
 opinion oi FeuardentiuSt but confirms it, by fome remarks 
 
 of his own. 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 ** time, it had obtained among the antienfs, 
 *' to ufe the words regenerate d^ or re genera^ 
 " tion, for baptized^ or baptifmr [i]— Tis 
 pretended (ibid) " the paffages in TtrtuUian, 
 ** and Clemens of Alexandria^ concerning 
 *' being ^or;2 in wafer, and begotten of the 
 ** -z^j^zw^ ^ w^/^r [/], are too late*" Bat 
 how can they be too late ; when both thefe 
 writers, though younger men, Hved at the 
 fame time with Irenceus? — The Do^or 
 goes on ; *' befide, the one is to be interpret- 
 *' ed of the grace of God compared to vva- 
 " ter; this is clearly Tert ulli an ^itnit -, for, 
 ** he adds, " nor ai'fe we otherwife fafe, or 
 ** faved, than by remaining in water, which 
 " furely can never be underftood Hterally of 
 " the water of baptifm." But if he had 
 not been in too much hade, to confider the 
 fenfe, and defign of the words, the Dodlor 
 might have clearly perceived his own mif- 
 take. For, Tertullian is there exprefsly 
 treating oi water- baptifm, which fome per- 
 fons, as he fays, were for laying afide [u]. 
 This was the cafe of one ^jntilla, who, as 
 he tells UF, ** deftroyed baptifm according 
 *^ to her nature y for he calls her a venomous 
 *' viper ; and obferves, that fuch kind of 
 *' creatures frequent dry imwatery places." 
 Then follow the words before us j ""^ But 
 
 " we 
 
 [i] Antipsedo, p. iij, [/] See Psedo-bap. p. 79, 
 
 [«] Tertul. de baptifmo, which book begins thus, Felix 
 iacramentum aquae, ^c. 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 " we are horn in the water like little Jijhes, 
 " after the example of Jefus Chrift, &cJ' 
 Therefore, by remaining in the v/ater, is 
 plainly meant retaining the falutary ufe of 
 water baptifm in the church. Accordingly 
 Pamelius obferves, " that thefe words are 
 ** to be chiefly remarked againft thofe, who 
 ** deny iho^neceffify of water in baptifm," [le;] 
 To the fame purpoie fays De la Cerda \x\ 
 *' Obferve the neceffity of water in baptifm 
 " againft the Panliciansy This laft writer 
 refers to a parallel place \^y\ where 'TertuU 
 lian fays, *' There is one kind of flefh of 
 *' birds, that is, the martyrs^ who foar to 
 " the higher regions; another o{ fijhes^ that 
 ** is, thofe, whom the water of baptifm 
 " fuffices." But there are other paflages, 
 which plainly flievv, that Tertidlian confi- 
 dered baptifm as a kind, or mean, of rege- 
 neration ; and fo made ufe of this word to 
 exprefs baptifm. Says he [z]^ '* the law 
 *' of baptizing is enjoined, and the form 
 ** prefcribed. Go (fays he) teach all nati-- 
 ** ons^ baptizing them in the name of the Fa- 
 ^^ ther, and of the Son ^ and of the Holy Ghoji. 
 ** Parallel to this law is that definition, Ex- 
 ** cept a man be born of water ^ and o/' the 
 ** Spirit^ he Jhall not enter into the kingdom 
 *' of heaven!' And again \a\ ** Blefled 
 E 2 ** are 
 
 [w] Pamel. Not. inloc. [*•] Not. ibid, 
 
 [j'] De Refurreft. Carnis, Cap, 52. 
 [«] De Baptifmo. [^] I bid. fub f«n. 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 ** are ye whom the favour of God attends, 
 *' when you afcend out of the moft holy 
 
 " laver of the new birth, [novi natalisY • 
 
 Dr. Gill is as far wide of the truth, in fay- 
 ing, (p. i6.) "as for Ch/iem [b'], he is 
 " fpeaking not of regeneration, but of the 
 ** natural generation of man, as he comes 
 ^' out of his mother's womb, G?c." For, 
 Clemem h allegorizing^ in his way, upon the 
 words of ^ob \c\ Naked came I out of 7ny 
 mother s womb -, and naked JJjall I return, 
 '* Not naked (fays he) of poffefTions, for 
 '* that is a fmall and common thing ; but, 
 ** as a juft man, he returns naked of vice, 
 *' and wickednefs, &c. For this is what is 
 '* faid, Unlefs ye be co?iverted as little chil" 
 *• dren^ pure in bodj^ and holy in foul, by 
 ** abftaining from evil works j (hewing that 
 ^* he would have us to be fuch, as he begot 
 ^^^ us of the womb of water. For, generation 
 *^fucceeding to generation^ will advance us 
 *' to immortality." Now, in this allegcri- 
 cal difcourfe, the womb of wat^r phinly an- 
 fwers to the mother s womb ; and fo, thefe 
 cannot fignify one, and the fame thing, 
 without deftroying the allegory^ and loiing 
 the yshoh fpirit of the difcourfe. There- 
 fore, when Clemens fpeaks of Chriftians be- 
 ing begotten^ or born, of the womb of wa-- 
 ter-^ he muft intend fomething elfe, thaa 
 the natural generation of man \ and what 
 
 caa 
 
 [^] Strom, lib. 4. [<:] Job. i. 21. 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 can that be, but baptifm ? that generation 
 Jpirifual^ which fucceeded the generation 
 naturaL And what muft that generation 
 be, which fucceeded another ; but a regene- 
 ration ? — Befides, there are other paflages 
 in Clemens^ which may be feen in Dr. Wall^ 
 \d\ where he fpeaks ot baptifm under the no- 
 tion of regeneration. Thus, e,g, he fpeaks 
 of Chrifl: himfelf being regenerated^ in dif- 
 couriing of his baptifm [e\ This may per- 
 haps feem a very odd notion ; bat Cyprian 
 alfo fays[yi, " the mafter himlelf fubmit- 
 ** ted to be baptized by his fervant; and 
 " he, who was to confer upon us the re- 
 " miffion of fins, vouchfafed to be waflied 
 " in the laver of regeneration,'* All which 
 agrees v/ith Tertidlians faying before, ** IVe 
 *' are born in the water like little fiihes, af- 
 *' ter the example of, or conformably unto, 
 *' Jefus Chrift." [g'] And in what other 
 kn^Q could Chrift be faid to be born in the 
 watery or regenerated 3 but with a reference 
 to his baptifm? 
 
 It was obferved [/:?], " a like notion Ter- 
 " tulUan mentions [/], as maintained by the 
 *' heathens^ no doubt long before the time of 
 " IrencFusr Upon this, fays the IkBor, p. 
 16. '* To have recourfe to heathens^ to af- 
 ^^ certain the name of chriftian baptifm, is 
 
 *' monftrous.'* 
 
 \^d'] Defence. Appendix, p. 7. 
 
 [4 Psdagog. lib. i . c. 6 [f] De Bono Patiently. 
 
 [^] Secundum 'I'/piv noitrum Jdum C.'iriilum. 
 
 Ih] P«do-bap. p". 79. \i] De baptifmo. 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 " monftrous/' But, where is the wonder,^ 
 if perfons, juft converted from Faganifm^ 
 did not immediately change their language 
 with their reh'gion, but ftill retained fome 
 of their old terms, (if not their tenets) and 
 applied them to the Chriftian myjieries? 
 Priejis^ facrtfices^ altars^ Sec, are words ve- 
 ry familiar with the antient writers, when 
 they fpeak e.g. of the other Sacrament of 
 the Lord*s Supper. — If the Doctor had as 
 much of a diffojition^ as he had reafon to 
 retrad, what he faid about the cuftom men- 
 tioned by BarnabaSy of giving milk and ho- 
 ney to perfons juft baptized > he would at 
 leaft have dropped that matter. For, as 
 this ceremony was ufed by the antients in 
 token of fuch perfons being new-born-, [ki] 
 it is plain, they confidered baptifm as a 
 new-birth, and a kind, or way of regenera- 
 tion. It is therefore perfed trifling, to in- 
 fert, " that the words regeneration, and re^ 
 ct generated, are neither of them mentioned 
 " by Barnabas ','' nor can it anfwer any 
 other end, but to difcover, how well fome 
 perfons are Ikilled in the ingenious art of 
 equivocation or evafion. The queftion is 
 not, whether Barnabas ufeth thofe words -, 
 but, whether in Irenaus's time it had ob- 
 tained among the antients to ufe them for 
 baptized, and baptifm. Now, if fo much 
 earlier than Ireiiceus, as the time of Bar- 
 nabas^ 
 
 [k] See Paedobap. p. 80. 
 
( 3t ) 
 
 nabas, the notion of baptifmal regeneration 
 obtained among the antients ; does not this 
 over-throw the foundation of the Doctor's 
 hypothefis ? He had better fuppofe with 
 Voffius [/], that the words oi Barnabas hsLWQ 
 no reference to the antient cuftom aforefaid : 
 and fo withdraw his former plea for the 
 high antiquity of that cuftom [m] ; if he 
 can prevail Vv'ith himfelf to retra6i any 
 thing. But even this will not help him 
 much J fince the faid cuftom of giving milk 
 and honey to new-baptized perfons, is men- 
 tioned by feme of Irenceus's cotemporaries, 
 particularly, Tertullian [72], and Clemens A- 
 kxandrinus \o\ 
 
 Irenaus was alfo cited for this paffage [^], 
 ** giving the power of rege?2eration unto God, 
 *' to his difciples, he faid unto them, G(?, 
 " and teach alt nations, baptizing them in the 
 *' name of the Father, &c." [f], '' By which 
 " power or commiflion (fays the Dcdtor^ p. 
 " 16.) is meant not the commiflion of bap- 
 " tizing, ^c." Aftoniftiing ! he might as 
 well fay, with equal modefty and truth, 
 that baptizing is not in their commiffion 
 at all. But fmce it is 2^part of their com- 
 miffion, it muft be one branch -of their 
 power of regenerating perfons unto God, ac- 
 cording to Irenaus. — It was alfo obferved, [r] 
 
 '' that 
 
 [/] Not. in B^rnab. 
 
 [«] Argum. from ap. irad. p. 57. 
 
 [»] De Corona milit. [0] Paedagog. lib. r. 
 
 (/] Lib. 3, c. 19. [qr'] F^dobap. p. 81. 
 
C '32 ) 
 
 *' that Irenam mentions by name the 
 *' bapiifm of regeneration unto God'' [i] 
 Here the Dodor only repeats (p. 17.) Dr. 
 Gale's quibbles \t], which have been fuffici- 
 ently obviated before, by obferving, that we 
 do not take baptifm and regeneration to be 
 identically the fame thing $ but that, ac- 
 cording to the fenfe of the antients, the latter 
 has a reference to the former, as the way 
 and mean of regeneration, it is evidently 
 thus, that 7r^;7(^^/i explains himfelf [u]^ when 
 he exprefles the fame thing by the (aver of 
 regeneration^ and regeneration by the laver. 
 Says Dr. Wall [w], '* Mr. Gale comes here 
 *' again with his quiddity ; and fays, rege- 
 " neration, which is by the laver, is different 
 ^"^ from the laver ; not minding that the force 
 *' of his objedlion is equally taken off by 
 *' it's fo accompanying the laver, as never 
 " to be without it in the fenfe of the an- 
 " tients/' — And yet this is one of the two 
 places, to which Dr. Gill refers, as where 
 " Irenceus ufes the word regeneration in a 
 " different fenfe from baptifm :'* he fliould 
 have faid, without any reference to baptifm ; 
 if he would have fpoke to the purpofe. In 
 the other paffage \x\ (where the fenfe is 
 obferved to be imperfed. [y]) Irenceus hints, 
 *^ that a man cannot leave the generation of 
 
 " death, 
 
 [j] Lib. I. c. 18. f/] Refleaions, p. 487. 
 
 [u] Lib. 5. cap. 15. [nv] Defence, 34.3. 
 
 Ix] Lib. 4, cap. 51. , [7] Vid. Grabe in loc. 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 *' death, but by a new generation^ Now, 
 this is fo far from contradidting the fenfe of 
 the word, regeneration^ for which we con- 
 tend, as that it really confirms it. For, 
 we have here generation fucceeding generati- 
 en, as Clemens Alexandrinus fpeaks, with 
 an eye to Chriftians being begotten of the 
 womb of water : which, as we have {hewed 
 before, fignifies baptifm. And Tertullian 
 [z] calls baptifm " the blefled facrament of 
 *' water, becaufe, the fins of our former 
 ** blindnefs being waftied away, we are de- 
 *' iivered unto life eternal^ Here then we 
 have the new generation, whereby a man 
 is delivered from the generation of death ; 
 as mentioned by Jrenaus. 'Tis true; he 
 reprefents the thing as effed:ed by the povv- 
 er of God : but ftitl his account is confident 
 with the notion of baptifm, as being refer- 
 red to by him. For (to mention that ones 
 for all) the antients diftinguilhed between 
 the injirumental and efficient caufe of rege- 
 neration ; and fo, betwixt the material and 
 the Jpi ritual p2iTt of baptifm [a], '* Rege- 
 *' neration is by the water, and the fpirit, 
 *' even as all generation. For the fpirit of 
 *^ God ?noved upon the face of the deep \b'\, 
 ** And for this reafon our Saviour was bap- 
 ** tized, not that he needed baptifm, but 
 F ' ** that 
 
 [«] De baptifmo. 
 
 [^] Gem. Alex. Epitom, p. 802. Edit. Paris. 
 
 mGen.i. A. 
 
C 34 ) 
 *' that he might fandify all water to the 
 " regenerated. Hereby we are purified not 
 " only in bod\\ but in foul, &c. — For, bap' 
 *' tifm is by watery and by thefpirit^ Agree- 
 ably to this account, Clemens Alexandrinus 
 reprefents Chriftians as pure in body, and 
 holy in foul, when he fpeaks of Go.d!% beget- 
 ting them of the womb of water: as we 
 have ktn before. Now, all this confirms 
 the notion, that in the time of Irenceus, it 
 did obtain among the antients, to ufe the 
 words regenerated, and regeneration^ for 
 baptized, and baptifm. 
 
 But to return to the firft quotation from 
 Jrenceus, upon which the chief ftrefs is laid 
 in the prefent controverfy. Says Dr. G/7/, 
 (who is as capable of faying very furpriz- 
 ing things, as moft men) \c'\ ** Irencem — 
 " moft clearly ufes it (viz. the word, regene- 
 *' ration) in another fenfe in this very paf- 
 ** fage ; fince he fays, Chrift came to lave 
 *' all, who by him are born again unto God, 
 *' who are regenerated by Chrift, and not 
 " by baptifm ; and which is explained both 
 ** before and after by \\\%fanBifying all forts 
 *' of perfons, infants, little ones, young men, 
 "and old men j which cannot be under- 
 " ftood of his baptizing them, for he bap- 
 " tized none, ©'r.'* Moft admirable rea- 
 foning ! as if Chrift might not be properly 
 faid to do that^ which is done by the virtue 
 
 and 
 . [f ] Antipzdp, p. 1 7. * 
 
C 35 ) 
 and influence of his ordinances, and ap- 
 pointments! y] Thus, what is done by 
 baptifm, may be faid to be done by Chriii 
 himfelf. As for his falsifying all forts of 
 perfons, &c, this aUo (if, as the Dodor 
 fuppofes, it relates to the fame thing,) cor- 
 refponds with the nature, and defign of bap- 
 tifm, as a facred rite of dedicatiofi^ or con- 
 fecration, to the fervice of God; which is 
 a proper notion of fandifying perfons^ and 
 things. Accordingly, the Apoftle makes 
 mention of Chrifl's fanBifying his church 
 by the waflnng of water^ &c. [e]. And 
 the antient chriftian writers often fpeak of 
 baptifm by the name oi fan5lification\f'\ 
 But, it is the Dodor's misfortune to con- 
 found the antient, eccleJiaflicaU with the 
 
 modern, fyjiematical fenfe of words. . 
 
 He goes on in his own way thus: " And I 
 " fay it again, to underftand Irenceus as 
 " fpeaking of baptifm, is to make him 
 " fpeak what is abfolutely falfe ; that Chrift 
 " came to fave all^ and only fuch, who are 
 '' baptized unto God, £fc." Well ! and 
 what if Ircnceus was not more infallible in 
 points of dodrine than the reft of his bre-^ 
 threuy called Fathers ? Here the good Doc- 
 tor breaks forth into declamation, and ex- 
 preffes an extraordinary concern for the re- 
 
 F 2 putatipu 
 
 [rf] Joh. iv. I, 2. 
 
 [^] Eph. V. 26. 
 
 [/] See Walker'^ Modeft Plea, ch. 28, 29. 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 putation of this good old Father [^]. But ife 
 is no breach of charity to fay, it is all gri- 
 mace. For, why (hould he be fo very fo- 
 licitous to advance the charader of IrencJdm 
 fo much above many other of the good old 
 Fathers^ who held the necejjtty^ and efficacy 
 of baptifm to falvation as ftiongly, as lrence_^ 
 m can be fuppofed to do upon our hypothe- 
 fiS ? No, no ; take my word for it, it is a 
 zeal, a flaming, though difguifed zeal for 
 his ov^n fyftem^ fo nearly interefted in the 
 cafe, that has infpired him upon this occafi- 
 on with fuch a mighty regard for the rules 
 of honour^ j^fiice^ truth ^ 2ind^^^harity, (tho* 
 taken out of that fphere of attradlion^ I 
 make no queftion, but the Dodor is a very 
 worthy Gentleman). However, he feems 
 to have taken a falfe alarm, from his own 
 miftaking the fenfe oi Irenceus, He fays, 
 ** to underftand Irenaus as fpeaking of bap- 
 ** tim, is to make him fpeak what is abfo- 
 *' lutely falfe ; that Chrift came to fave ally 
 " and only fuch, £fr." Now, it happens, 
 that the exclufive w^ord, only^ is an addition 
 of the Dodor's 5 who would call this, ma^ 
 nagemcnt^ in another. And then, as for 
 the word, all, it does not ftridly refer to 
 individuals^ but to all forts of ferjom^ (to ufe 
 the Doctor's phrafe, p. 1 7.) that is, perfons 
 of all ages, infant Sy little ones, young men^ 
 and old men 5 as Irenaus himfelf explains 
 
 it. 
 
 [£] Antlpaedo, p. i8, 19. 
 
( 37 ) 
 it.. — It was obferved [/6], that Chrlft fpeaks 
 the fame kind of language, that we fuppofe 
 Irencem to fpeak, fo far as relates to bap- 
 tifm [/]. And his words plainly include 
 this propofition, *' He^ that is baptized^ 
 ^^ Jhallbe favedy But this /'^r^/W difpleafes 
 the Dodtor : he calls it mean and Jlupid\ a 
 plain fign it pricked him : but, he (hould 
 have (hewed, wherein it fails ; inftead of 
 which, he has only involved himfelf in 
 frefh difficulties. He fays of Chrift's words, 
 " they need no qualifying fenfe ; the mean- 
 *' ing is plain and eafy; that every bap- 
 " tized believer jQiall be faved, and leave 
 '* no room to fuggeft, that unbaptized be- 
 *' lievers (hall not." But do not the words 
 of Chrift as much fugged this, as the words 
 of Irenceus, according to the fenfe, we put 
 upon them? Let the Do6lor lend us his 
 hand, to flip in the exclufive word, (only) 
 here, as he did in the other cafe ; and the 
 thing is plain to be feen by every body. 
 Eefides, his affertion, that every baptized 
 believer Jhall be faved ^ (which he lays down, 
 as the plain and eafy meaning of our Sa- 
 viour's words) mufl be underflood with 
 fome re/iriBion, by his own accou'nt. For, 
 Simon Magus he gives up for loft. And 
 yet was he a baptized believer ; for the fa- 
 cred hiftory fays exprefsly [^], that *' Si- 
 
 [h'] Paedobap. p. 83. [/] Mark. xvi. 16, 
 
 [ij Aas viii, *J3. 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 ** mon himfelf alfo believed, and was bap" 
 *^ tizedr Such inconfiftencies will men 
 fall into, when their prejudices, and paf- 
 lions, get the better of their reafon 1 Here 
 one might return the Docflor fome of his 
 fine rhetoric^ and fay, *' what a wretched 
 ** caufe muft the caufe of Antipcedo-bap- 
 " tijm be, which requires fuch managing 
 " (I add fuch blundering too) as this, to 
 " maintain it ?" I fay, what a wretched 
 caufe muft this be, which is attended with 
 fuch a complication of ignorance, fraud, 
 and diffimulation ? 
 
 The paflage cited from Clemens Alexan-^ 
 drinus [/], where he makes mention of an 
 Apoftle drawing children out of the water \rn\ 
 yet flicks in the Dolor's teeth \ he chews it, 
 and criticifes upon it, but can make nothing 
 of it, after all, without ahering the text up- 
 on his own authority. '* However, (fays 
 " he, p. 2iOif thisinftance is continued to 
 *^ be urged, I hope it will be allowed, that 
 " baptifm in thofe early times (he might 
 ** have added in thofe warm climates) was 
 " performed by immerfion." Thus, what 
 he lofes one way, he hopes to gain in an- 
 other; nor ought vy^e to grudge him fo fmall 
 an advantage after his other loffes. Let us 
 then compromife the matter with him, and 
 allow, that Infants were not the only jubr 
 jecls of baptifm i provided he will grant, 
 
 that 
 
 [/] Psedobap. p. 76. [w] Psdagog. lib. 3. cap. \ u 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 that immerfion was not the only mode of 
 baptifm, in thofe early tinges. For neither 
 fide can pretend to more from this particu- 
 lar inftance. But, the Dodtor feems to have 
 forgot one thing, viz, that Chrift made 
 his Apoftles fijhers of nien {p^ ; and why 
 not of children ? particularly thofe under 
 their parent's command ; unlefs, when the 
 parents were received into the chriftian 
 church, their children were to be of ano- 
 ther^ or of no church. Befides, it mult 
 not be forgot, that Tertullian compares bap- 
 tized perfons to little Jifies ; which confirms 
 the notion that Clemem alludes to the bap- 
 tifm of children. This may fatisfy the 
 Dodtor without his infijlirtg upon any fur- 
 ther account of the matter. But, ** that be 
 '* fhould believe, that Infant- baptifm is here 
 " referred to ;" this, to be fure, is more 
 than can be expedkd from a man of his 
 temperate brain, cool imagination, and un- 
 prepojfejfed mind ! However, to infer fi-om 
 fuch lame premiffes, as he has laid down 
 for the two firfi: centuries, that Infant-bap- 
 tifm muft be an innovation 5 (p. 21.) is ve- 
 ry extraordinary. It is amazing to think, 
 that any man of charadter could propofe fuch 
 forced, and unfair confirudtions, as he has 
 put upon many paflages, that have occurred 
 in the courfe of this debate. But, that he 
 fliould lay anyy?rg/i on them, and pertend . 
 
 to 
 
 [»] Mat, iv« 19. 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 to draw a conclufion, fuch a conclufion from 
 them : this furpaffes all wonder! On the 
 other hand, let the impartial reader review 
 the inconteftable evidence, that has been 
 produced, that in Irenceuss time, the an- 
 cients ufed the word regeneratiojz^ fo as tO 
 connote baptifm thereby 3 and his teftimony 
 alone is a fufficient proof of Infant- baptifm 
 in that age. Befides, the remarkable tefti- 
 mony that was bore to the univerfal, and 
 immemorial pradice of Infant-baptifm, in 
 the Pelagian controverfy, when a much 
 greater number of primitive writers were 
 extant ; is fach a corroborating circumftance 
 as furniflies us with an unanfwerable argu- 
 ment for it's antiquity. But if, notwith- 
 ftanding this, any one will conclude that 
 Infant' baptifm is an inncoation j becaufe 
 there is no more faid of it in this period : 
 we may fay with Dr. V/all\o'\\ "what 
 " then will become of Antipcedo^baptifm^ 
 *' which does not appear to have been prac- 
 " tifed 'till after the middle of the eleventh 
 '^ century ?" Proceed we now to 
 
 The third century, 
 
 " At the beginning of which Tertidlian 
 
 '' lived 'f according to the Dodlor, p. 22. 
 
 And if, as he pretends, Tertullian is the 
 
 firft perfoHj that ever mentioned Infant-bap- 
 
 2 tifm > 
 
 {pi Defence, 281, 
 
( 4t ) 
 
 tifm ; he muft alfo be the firft perfon, that 
 ever fpoke againft it. Therefore, by the 
 Doftor'sconfeffion, there is no evidence for 
 Antipcedo-baptifm in the two firft centuries. 
 Thus, his own argument turns againft hioi. 
 But, it does not appear, that Tertullia?i did 
 fo fpeak againft Infant-baptifm, as abfolufe^ 
 ly to oppofe it ; on the contrary, he allowed 
 of it in cafes of neceffity \p\. And though the 
 Dodtor would make nonfenfe (p. 23.) of that 
 exceptive claufe ; *' what neceffity is there, 
 if it be not however necejfary :'* the turn of 
 expreffion is very agreeable to Terfullians 
 ftile and manner. For, the like exception 
 he makes about haj-meii^ adminiftring bap- 
 tifm, which he allows of only in cafes of 
 neceffity [^]. He fays [r], " If thou haft 
 *' the right of priefthood in thyfelf; thou 
 " mayft have it when (or where) it is ne- 
 *' ceffary," But then he alfo obferves [j], 
 *« No neceffity may be excufed, which may 
 *' be no neceffity." Is there not as much 
 nonfenfe in this^ as in the other claufe? and 
 does it not imply the fame fentiment that is 
 there expreffed, viz. that it is not neceflary, 
 except in cafes of fr^^// neceffity. — Befides, 
 
 G - this 
 
 f^] See Psedobap. p. 73. 
 q] SufRciat fcilicet in necejjitatihus, ut utarls. De bap- 
 tifmo* 
 
 [r] Si habes jus facerdotis in temet ipfo, uhi necejfe eft 
 habeas. Exhort, ad Caftitatem. 
 
 [j] Nulla neceffitas excufetur, quse poteft non €0e necef- 
 ficas. Ibidem, 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 this IS the olde/i reading we know of ; and 
 Rigaltius^ who fir ft dropt it, is not always 
 the happieft critic \t'] : but fometimes alter- 
 ed the reading for the worfe. And though 
 the Antip^do'haptijis catch at his needlefs 
 corredion here, (for, I hope we fliall now 
 hear no more of the pretended nonfenfe^ 
 and impertinence of the reading) Rigaltius is 
 deferted, and the older reading of Gaig?iaus 
 is preferred, not only by Pameiius, but others. 
 [u] It is a further confirniation of the ge- 
 nuinenefs of this reading, that Tertullian \w'\ 
 afferts the necejjity of baptifm to falvation, 
 from thofe words of Chiift, Except any one 
 he born of water ^ Izq.[w\ And though be 
 fays, " true faith is fecure of falvation," as 
 the Do6lor obferves; (p. 24.) this does not 
 deftroy his other aflertion : however diffi- 
 cult it may feem to reconcile them [.r] ; 
 nor can the difficulty reach the cafe of In- 
 fants, unlefs the Do(ftor will fuppofe them 
 to have true faith. — It was obferved [^j, 
 that the words of ^Tertidlian^ in what he lays 
 of Infant- baptifm, imply, that it was adu- 
 ally praciifed in his time. But this the Doc- 
 tor denies; (p. 23.) and fays, " Tertullian 
 ** might fay all that he does^ though as yet 
 ** not one Infant had ever been baptized, 
 
 M See WalPs Hift. P. i. "ch. 4. S. 8. 
 [«] Vid. De la Cerda in loc. 
 [ti;] De baptlfmo. 
 Cat] See Wa!l\ Hift. ibid. Sed. 7. 
 [y] Psedobap, p. 71. 
 
C 43 ) 
 *' £fr/' Now, what a ftrong imagination 
 may poflibly do in this cafe, I cannot fay. 
 One may indeed, by the help of a lively 
 fancy, fuppofe, that Tertitllian was prefent 
 upon the fpot, when the firft child, (as well 
 as the firft Virgin^ and the firft Widow^ was 
 converted from Paganifm ; for he advifes 
 the delay of baptifm in all thefe ; and, as 
 himfelf fays, for equal reafon [2;],) came to 
 be baptized \ and that he delivered his dif- 
 courfe about baptifm on that occafion. This 
 is the imaginary fenfe, which the Dodlor 
 paints before his reader's eyes, by the cafe 
 he fuppofes. But, can any man of cool 
 thought and reflexion conceive, that T^er- 
 tullian (as mad a Montanifl as he became af- 
 terwards) would fit him down to inTite a 
 hook^ or in a book deliver a grave dilcourfe 
 about a jion-entits ? a thing that was not ! 
 — Befides, there is fome reafon to inter- 
 pret his words of Infants of Injideh, though 
 he makes no diftindlion -, becaufe, he is dif- 
 cou^rfing of new converts from heathenilm. 
 And he not only fays, that the children of 
 believers are holy, as they are defighed for 
 holinefs ; but that holinefs he explains of 
 baptifm [^]. Now, if fuch children could 
 not be admitted to baptilm without previ- 
 ous inftrudiion 3 where was their preroga- 
 tive^ T^er tullian fpeaks of, above the chil- 
 dren of Heathens ? Nor is this contradided 
 G 2 by 
 
 [^] Non minor! de caufa. ]/] De anima. 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 by his faying, " Men are not bortty but 
 '' made chriftians :*' [i] bccaufe baptifm is d, 
 mean of making chriftians 5 a mean of their 
 regeneration, according to Tertullian : and 
 thus, they are not born, but born again, or 
 made, Chriftians. So, when he fays, fiant 
 ChrijUani, cum Chriftum nojfe potuerint, &c. 
 let them be made Chrijiiam.^ &c. his mean-^ 
 ing plainly is, let them be baptized. 
 
 It was obferved [^], that Tertullian does 
 not mention Infant-baptifm among the un^ 
 written cuftoms in a book, which was 
 wrote after his book of baptifm, where we 
 have difcovered plain evidence of the praCf' 
 tice of baptizing Infants. From whence it 
 is is inferred, tijat he looked upon Infant- 
 baptifm as a written ciifom, &c. But the 
 Dodor*s account of the matter is, (p. 24.) 
 that " as yet no fuch cuftom had obtained, 
 " (£?^." agreeably enough to his own hypo- 
 thefis, but contrary to fad, in our humblq 
 opinion. And perhaps his bretdren will 
 not thank him, for making the Antipcedo- 
 baptifs or Non-psdo-baptifts, the authors of 
 all thofe innovations in religion, mentioned 
 by Tertullian there {dl, as they muft be up- 
 on the Doctor's fuppofition : tho* at ether 
 times [^], thefe confiftent writers can re- 
 prefent Infant-baptifm as the leading mif-. 
 
 chievous 
 
 [h] Apolog. [t] P^dobap. p. 74. 
 
 [^3 De Corona milit. 
 
 [^] D*Anvers's Treatife of Bapt. p. 1 1 1. 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 ciiievous caufe of thefe very corruptions, 
 and what introduced them into the Church. 
 Concerning Origen j the Dodior takes a 
 great deal of pains, (p. 25, Gf^.) to prove 
 what no-body denies, viz, that his works 
 ^re interpolated in the Latin tranflations; 
 though the charge feems to be too much ex- 
 aggerated [/] : and what is quoted from 
 Ruffinus'% peroration, at the end of his tranf- 
 lation of Origen on the epiftle to the Ro^ 
 manSy '' was not meant by him for any fe- 
 " rious account of what he had done in that 
 *' work ; but for a jeer on St. "Jerome,^ &c" 
 as Dr. Wall obferves \g\. So that " the 
 " quotation from Marjhall \h\ is ftill good 
 ^^for fomething'* But the Dodlor having 
 made the moft of thefe interpolations, (and 
 perhaps more^ than the matter will well 
 bear) very gravely asks, (p. 27.) *^ and 
 ** now, where's his probability^ and moral 
 ** certainty^ that there are no additions, and 
 " interpolations in Origen ?" No additions, 
 and interpolations! But who faid fo ? This 
 is grofs mifreprefentation. The words, here 
 referred to, were fpoken of the particular 
 paiTages in queftion. And that they could 
 be no interpolations of Rufinus's, was 
 proved by feveral arguments [/]. (i.) " Ruf- 
 '''' Jinus could have no temptation, or occafi- 
 
 "on, 
 
 [/] See Walls Defence, p. ^74. 
 
 \g\ Ibid. p. 379. {hi Psgdgbap. p. 62. 
 
 [/■] Psdobap. p. $4, 65. 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 " on, to coin any paffages for him to that 
 *' purpofe, fince it was never made any part 
 " of Origens accufations, that he was a- 
 *^ gainil: Infant baptifm." [k] (2.) It is ab- 
 fard to fiippofe, and ridiculous to fuggeft, 
 that Rujinus would coin any fuch paflages 
 for Origen, as imported that original Jin was 
 the ground and reafon of Infant-baptifm, di^ 
 redly contrary to his own private opinion ; 
 as Ruffinus was inclined to the Pelagians, ac- 
 cording to the doctor's quotation from Vof- 
 Jms [/]. If then it was not unlucky for his 
 hypothcfis, that he ftarted fuch a notion in 
 his reiidci *s way ; he muft: be one of the 
 luckieft men alive. But, fays he, '' it is 
 " luclij on my fide, that Voffius a Padohap^ 
 *' tift ihould fuggeft, that this palTage is in- 
 " terpolated, &c" Now here, I fufpedl, 
 the Dodor*s good fortune fails him : for, 
 VcJJius feems not to fuggeft any fuch thing. 
 The words, referred to (as I fuppofe) are 
 tbefe [w] ; (fpeaking of Original Sin as the 
 ground of Infant- baptifm) " Origen truly 
 '' has mentioned it, in his eighth Homily 
 ** on Leviticus^ and he, whofe authority 
 ** fhould be of greater weight in this parf^ 
 '* becaufe of Origens books being interpo- 
 ** lated by Rujimis.'" Now, if VoJJius fup- 
 
 pofed, 
 
 \k'] S-e MarJ^airsCyprhn, P. i. p. 120. Notes. 
 
 [/] Hift. Pelag. lib. 2. P. I. Thef. 5. 
 
 [m\ Meminere fane ejus Origines Homil 8. in Levit. ^t 
 is, cujds, o\t interpolatos a Rufino Origenis libros, major 
 eciam iiac pajte effe debetautoritas, p. 155. 4to. 
 
( 47 ) 
 pofed, that the paffage itfelf was an inter- 
 polation ; how could he refer to it as Ori^ 
 gens ? But it is not worth one's while to 
 contend about this point ; as the private opi- 
 nion of a particular perfon is of little con- 
 fequence either way. (3.) Jerome -dnd Rt/f- 
 Jinus^ though at great difference among them- 
 felves, perfedly agreed in giving the fame 
 fenfe of Origen upon the point, in their La^ 
 tin tranflations. The Dodor fays, (p. 26.) 
 " the paflage in Jerome's tranflation of Ori- 
 ** gens homilies on Ltike^ fpeaks indeed of 
 *' the baptifm of Infants, and the neceflity 
 '* of it, (he (hould have added, for cleanfing 
 ^^ from original fm) but not a word of it's 
 *' being a cuilom of the church, and an 
 " apoitolical tradition/' — However, it fpeaks 
 of Infant- baptifm as the praBice of the 
 church ; and founds it upon the words of 
 Chrift, Except any one be born of water ^ &cc, 
 which is, in effedl, the fame as making 
 it an apoftolical tradition, or inftitution. 
 Therefore, thefe parts of the Latin tranfla- 
 tions of Origen may well pafs for genuine ^ 
 and confequently be admitted an evidence in 
 any courts fit to wy fuch a caufe, and where 
 queftions oi fadl are determined by fuch 
 moral proof, as the nature of the cafe ad- 
 mits. But, if the Dodlor is for proceeding 
 by the civil forms of judicature in deciding 
 the point of Infant-baptifm ; this rule will 
 do him little fervice upon the whole 3 when 
 
 it 
 
C 48 ) 
 
 It fiiall be remembered, that parents cari 
 contraB for their children in civil affairs. 
 — Cyprian^ a cotemporary of Origen^ fpeaks 
 the fame language with thefe Latin tranf- 
 lations of his books, fo as to fuggeft, that 
 Original Sin is a ground of Infant-baptifm ; 
 and if he does not exprefsly fay, that it was 
 a cujiom of the churchy or an apoftolical tra- 
 dition^ the nature of his difcourfe implies^ 
 and fuppofes it \n\ Nor had he any occa- 
 fion to refer to Origen^ 2& faying thefe things ; 
 becaufe they were no matter of debate in 
 his time ; a plain fign that Origen, as bis 
 fenfe is given by his Latin tranflators, fpeaks 
 the common fentiments of that age. As 
 little neceffity was there for Aujlin^ if ^^he 
 *' made a blufter about Infant baptifm being 
 *^ an apoftolical tradition^' (though it was 
 not the thing itfelf, but the reafon of it, 
 that came intoqueftion [(?]) to appeal to Ori- 
 gens teftimony of it ; and for the fame reafon 
 alfo. But, how does the Dodor's injinu- 
 ationy (p. 28.) that there was no fuch 
 teftimony in Auftin^ time, agree with his 
 former fuggeft ion [^], that Auftin might 
 take up his notion [viz. " that Infant- bap- 
 *' tifm wa& an antient and conftant ufage of 
 ** the church, and an apoftolical tradition) 
 *' from the Latin tranflations of Origen by 
 *^ Jerome and Ruffinus ?" 
 
 2 Dr. 
 
 [«] See Pasdobap. p. 63. 
 
 [0] Argum. from Ap. trad. p. 20. [^] Ibid, p. 26* 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 Dr. Gill having faid [y], (fpeaking of the 
 Greek of OrigenJ '' that many things may 
 *' be obferved from thence in favour of 
 «* adult- baptifm :" fomebody had the cou- 
 rage to tell him [r], the affertion was either 
 fil/e^ or impertinent: the latter, if it was 
 not meant ey:cliifively of Infant-baptifm ; 
 and the former, if this %vai the Dodtor's 
 meaning; and he was challenged to make 
 good his affertion. This was a bold ftroke ; 
 and if it was a With Jmart upon the Dodlor, 
 he fhould make fome allowance to the au- 
 thor, as a junior, (fuch as the Dodtor takes 
 him to be, p. 15.) confidering the manners 
 bi youth [s]: efpecially as it becomes them 
 to imitate their feniors ; and the Do(flor 
 (who by his way of fpeaking feems to have an 
 indifputable claim to that charader) mud 
 know, who is the perfon, that firfl: heSlored 
 moft manfully upon this occafion, by giving 
 out words of defiance \t\ But, the good 
 Dodtor is highly affronted, (though, as 
 Plato fays \ii\ No man jloould be offended at 
 the truth) and, as revenge is fweet, he gra- 
 tifies his fpleen in fo mean a manner, as 
 himfelf thought flood in need of an apolo- 
 gy, (p. 28.) He knows well enough, fo 
 much has been faid in this argument on 
 H both 
 
 \q'\ Ibid. p. 17. [>•] P^dobap. p. 66. 
 
 [j] ^iKoTifAQi fy.iv UiTif y.uWo') J'i ^i\QViKoi. Arift. Rh* 
 lib. 2. cap. 12. [/] See PaedolDap. p 49. 
 
 [«] T^ ^rtp fiiA;7-3-S ;/a.\€T;4lvs/{' 5v-3-4^/§. Plato de Re- 
 pub, lib. 5. 
 
c so J 
 
 both fides the queftion, that no one, fetllot 
 or junior, can now write upon the fubjedt 
 with any propriety, without recurring to 
 many te/iimomes, already alledged by Dr. 
 Wall, and ethers. But, if by taking quota-* 
 iions at fecond hand^ (which he imputes to 
 the writer, he is oppofing, and abujing) the 
 Doftor means, taking them upon trufl alto- 
 gether, without having recourfe to the ori- 
 ginal authors ; I can affure him upon very 
 good grounds, that he unhappily trefpafles 
 at once upon the laws of candour and truth. 
 Befides, what is all this to the purpofe of the 
 argument 5 if the paffages produced from 
 the antients are truly and properly alledg- 
 ed ? But to be fure, the Dodlor cannot be 
 impertinent ! However, he cannot but be 
 confcious to himfeJf oi one thing, viz. that he 
 has repeated many things, that were faid 
 before by Dr. Gale, and others. What then ? 
 fhall we fuppofe, or injinuate, that he has 
 not examined with his own eyes both Greek 
 originals, and Latin tranflations ? By no 
 means ; on the contrary, we will allow that 
 he has read them all j and from hence he 
 will permit us to conclude, that he has 
 picked, and culled out the ftrongeft />^7^^^j, 
 he thought to his purpofe. Now, if upon 
 enquiry, thefe very paffages (hall prove no- 
 thing to his purpofe j how fimple muft the 
 grave Dodlor look, after all thefe big words, 
 (p. 28.) " to (top the mouth of this fwag- 
 
 goring 
 
( S^ ) 
 
 ^^ gering blade^ whoever he is, Til give him 
 ^' an inftance or two out of the Greek of 
 *• Origetty in favour of adult-baptifm, to the 
 " ^a:^/;^^« of Infant- baptifm, and as mani- 
 " feftly againft it." — This is doing fome- 
 thing : and if the Doftor is as good as his 
 word ; he will be the braveft man that ever 
 appeared upon the ftage of this controverfy. 
 But, though he fays it with champion-like 
 aiTurance 5 it will prove a mere flourifli 
 after all. He did well *' not to infift upon 
 ■' Origens interpretation of Mat. xix. 14, 
 " as not of Infants literally, but metapho- 
 " rically." For, he muft have read Origen 
 to very little purpofe, if he does not know, 
 that in his allegorizing way Origen put a 
 double fenfe upon the fcripturej and fo, by 
 the allegorical^ he did not deftroy the lite^ 
 ral fenfe. Therefore ;his metaphorical fenfe 
 of that text does not dejiroy the argument 
 of the Pcedo'baptijis from thence, (as is pre- 
 tended) becaufe it does not deftroy the li- 
 teral fenfe, upon which their argument is 
 founded {w)» Befides, it were eafy to make 
 reprifals upon the Dodlor, by reminding 
 him, that the author, on whom he would 
 lay fo much ftrefs, 172;. Tertulliany under- 
 flands St. Patih words, (i Cor. vii. 14.) 
 elfe "were your children unclean^ but now are , 
 they holy : in a different fenfe from what the 
 H 2 Anti" 
 
 [w] See Divine Oracles, p. 60. and 80. 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 Anttpado'baptljis put upon it \x\ — -The 
 Dodtor proceeds thus: '' It is to be obferved, 
 *' fays Origen, that the four Evangelifts 
 *^ faying, that yohn cciifefied he came to 
 ^^ baptize in (it might be read, as ulual, 
 *' with) water, only Mathew adds, unto re- 
 ^^ pentance\ teaching that he has the profit 
 "of baptifm^ who is baptized of his own 
 ** will and choice J' [v] Now here, it is ac- 
 knowledged, we have a defcription of adult- 
 baptifm, and an account of the proper qua- 
 lifications for it : but not a fingle word ex* 
 clujive of Infant- baptifm, or manifeftly a^ 
 gainjl it (which is the point the Dodtor had 
 to prove). For, in like terms the Apoftle 
 teaches us \^z\ who has the profit of cir- 
 cumcifion ; and will the Do6tor pretend that 
 the profit of circumcifion is fo tied there- 
 by to the adult, as to exclude Infant-cvL" 
 cumcifion ? But he goes on, (p. 29.) " and 
 " a little after he fays, '' the laver by the 
 " water is a fymbol of the purification of 
 ** the foul, waihed from all the filth of wick- 
 *' ednefs; neverthelefs, alfo of itfelf it is 
 ** the beginning and fountain of divine gifts, 
 *' becaufe of the power of the invocation 
 ** of the adorable Trinity, to him that given 
 ** up hi mf elf to God " which lad clauie ex- 
 *' eludes Infants, c:fj-."~Does it fo indeed! 
 
 but 
 
 [x] See Psdobap. p. 72. 
 
 [y] Orig. Comment, in Joan. p. 124. Edit. Amil. 
 
 [it] Rom. ii. 25. 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 but how ? juft as the other paffage exclud- 
 ed Infants ; when neither there, nor here^ 
 is the leafl: fyllable, nor fo much as the 
 little word, only^ to exclude them, without 
 fome of the Doftor's legerdemain to flip it 
 in here alfo, as he did upon a former occa- 
 fion. 
 
 If the honeft reader is not yet convinced 
 how much Dr. Gill has trifled with him, in 
 putting him off with^fuch pafTages as thefe, 
 after fuch large promifes ; let him attend to 
 the following obfervations already made by 
 Dr. Wall [a\ *' It is ufual with the Anti- 
 " paedo-baptift writers, to colled: a number 
 " of thefe fayings, concerning the neceffity 
 " of faith^ &c. as there are thoulands of 
 *' them. Thofe of the faid writers, who 
 *' are cautious not to difcover the weaknefs 
 " of their plea, pick them out of fuch Fa- 
 '' thers, in whole books there is not any 
 ** mention of the cafe of Infants ; and they 
 " would have an unlearned man conclude 
 ** from them, that thofe Fathers muft have 
 '^ thought the baptifm of Infants impradi- 
 ^* cable, becaufe they do in thofe geiieral feii- 
 ** tences fpeak oi faith, and repentance^ as re- 
 *' quifite to baptifm. Now, all fi^hrarguings 
 *' are fhewed to be inconclufive by this one 
 " obfervation, viz. That thofe Fith^is, who 
 " were unconteftedly Fcedo-bavttjls^ and in 
 ^'' whofe time the praditce is notorioufly 
 
 '* known, 
 [«] Defence, p. 399. &c. 
 
( 54 ) 
 ^* known, do, when they fpeak of baptiim 
 ^^ in general, fpeak in the fame language^ 
 " and irifift upon the fame qualijicatiomr — .. 
 " St. Cypriatiy who lived in the 150th year 
 ** after the Apoftles, is now well known to 
 *'' the Antipaedo-baptifts, as one maintaining 
 *^ the do(flrine of Paedo-baptifm ; and yet 
 ^' he, when he is difcourfing of baptifm in 
 ^* general, has fentences concerning the ne- 
 ^^ ceffity of faith ^ repentance^ &c. to bap- 
 ** tifm, as pofitive as can be found in any 
 ^* father whatfoever. As for example, £r 
 
 " Qui cum Noem. Sc. They, who were 
 " with Noah in the ark, obtained no pur- 
 *' gation or cleanfing by the water, but even 
 ** periflied by that flood. So alfo, whoever 
 *' they are, that are not with Chrift in the 
 " church, will perifli as men out of it ; un- 
 " lefs they come with repentance to that 
 " only falutary facrament of the church, ^c. 
 
 " Gregory Nyffen lived in thofe times and 
 ^^ places, when and where the Antipasdo- 
 ** baptifts themfelves now do not deny, 
 " that Infint-baptifm was in ufe, viz> more 
 *' than an hundred years after St. Cyprian. 
 *' He mentions faith and prayer among the 
 " things, that compleat the facrament of 
 *' baptifm. Or at. Catechet, c 33. 
 
 " Evxvi TTpoV Tov Beov, &c. /. e. Prayer to 
 *' God^ and the imploring of the heavenly 
 " ^race^ and the, water ^ and faith, are the,. 
 
 ^* things^ 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 ^' things, that make up the facrnment of re^ 
 ** generation, St. Cyril^ St. Chryfojlom, St. 
 ** Auftin himfelf, when they fpeak of bap- 
 •' tifm in general, ufe fayings like to thefe. 
 *' Yet we are fure from other places in their 
 *' books, that they underftood the cafe of 
 *' Infants to be a particular, and excepted 
 *' cafe 5 and that they were to be baptized, 
 *^ though they had not at prefent thofe qua- 
 ntifications 5 but that they were by bap- 
 *' tifm dedicated to that religion, which 
 *' would teach them, and which did require 
 ^^ of them, thefe things, as they grew up, 
 \' &cr [a]. 
 
 Where now are the inflames^ which Dr. 
 Gill promifed from the Greek of Origen, 
 in favour of adult-baptifm, to the excliijion 
 of Infant-baptifm ZSc. ? Or, what has he 
 yet done, to Jlop the mouth of the fwagger- 
 ing blade, (as he called his antagonift) and 
 to take down his mettle ? Here a fair op- 
 portunity offers, to rally the Doctor up- 
 on his fuperior acquaintance with originals, 
 and tranflations. But, as he feems to think 
 himfelf too roughly handled already, it 
 jfhall fufHce for the prefent to mention Dr. 
 Walh anfwer to Dr. Gale upon a like occa- 
 fion [b\ " I have read fo much of them, 
 *' that I am fure of one of thefe things j 
 ** that either he has not read them any other 
 [^ way than by indexes ; or elfe does not tm- 
 
 " derjiand 
 
 [a] Defence, p. 399. &c. [^] Ibid. p. 335. 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 " derfland them ; or elfe againft his con- 
 ** fcience faces but a fenfe contrary to what 
 ** i6^/<?^j in them."— But I muft advertiie 
 the reader of a certain fallacy, which lies iti 
 this phrafe, the Greek of Origen, and in ap- 
 pealing to it in oppofition to the Latin tranf- 
 lations of his works. If we had iiow thofe 
 Commejits of Ongen in Greei ; the Latin 
 trandations whereof, by yerome dnd Ruffinm^ 
 are alledged in favour of Infant baptifm ^ 
 (viz, on Leviticus^ Luke^ and the Romans) 
 and found, that the paffages, cited from the 
 latter, were not in the fornier ; this would 
 be a ftrong proof of their being interpolations. 
 But this is not the cafe ! Therefore, the 
 Dodlor's way of arguing from the Greek of 
 Origen, againft the faid Latin tranflations, 
 proceeds upon this principle, that if Origen 
 did not make mention of Infant baptifm as 
 an apoftolical tradition,^. ^. in his Com- 
 ments on Maihew and John ; he could not 
 mention it in his Comments on Leviticus^ 
 hiike^ and the Romans, A plain inconfe- 
 quence! as \i Origen muft: always fay the 
 lame things in every Comment, or book, 
 he wrote. However, Dr. Wall has refer- 
 red [c], to fome paffages in the Greek of 
 Origen, very agreeable to what is cited froni 
 the Latin tranflations 5 and though the bap- 
 tifm of Infants is not there particularly and 
 exprefsly mentioned, there feems to be a re- 
 I ferenee 
 
 [<:] Ibid. Appendix, p. 11. — 13. 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 ference to it, as a thing necejfary for theai j 
 if Ori^en fuppofed they had an equal con- 
 cern with others in Original Si?t ; and a re- 
 furre6tion j for, he reprefents baptifm^ as 
 ftanding in connexion with thefe things. 
 I fliall only add one thing more, viz. that 
 in fonie of the Latin tranflations of Origen^ 
 there are as flrong defcriptions of adu!t-bap- 
 tifm, as thofe produced by Dr. Gill from 
 the Greek of Origen [^d]. From whence it 
 appears, that his tranjlators did not confi- 
 der fuch paffages as exclujive of Infant-bap- 
 tifm 5 fince they alfo mention the latter as 
 an apoftolical inftitution. Therefore, for 
 any thing the Dodor has faid to prove the 
 contrary, *' we have the clear teftimony of 
 *' the great Origen for Infant-baptifm, as 
 " pradtifed in his time, and that too under 
 ** the notion of an apoftolical tradition, 
 
 *' Of Cyprian the Dodlor fays, (p. 29.) 
 '* that he is the firfl: pleader for it (i. e. In^ 
 ^^ fant'baptifm) that we know of." But he 
 widely miftakes, or grofsly reprefents the 
 cafe. For, Cyprian was no pleader for In- 
 fant-baptifm, a^ fuch \ nor had he any oc- 
 cafion to plead for it ; becaufe no body had 
 any doubt about it, and much lefs' oppofed 
 it : the onlv queftion in debate being, (oc- 
 cafioned by the doubt of Fidus^ an African 
 bifhop) Whether Infants fhould be baptized 
 before the eighth day, according to the time 
 
 I of 
 
 \d'\ Vid. Origen. Homil S. in Exod. Homil 21. in Luc. 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 of cii'cumcifion [e]. As for the Doftor's 
 pretence, (p. 30.) '' that though Infant-bap- 
 ** tifm now iegan to be pradlifed, it appears 
 ** to be a novel -bu fin efs (a?2d novel- bujinefs 
 *' it quejiionlefs was, if it then began to be 
 ** pradiifed) from the time of it's adminiftra- 
 " tion being undetermined :'* the weaknefs 
 of this argument was fo fully expofed \ that 
 he is in danger to expofe himfelf by repeat- 
 ing it [/']. The Dodor further urges, that 
 *' the exceeding weaknefs of the arguments 
 ** then made ufe of for baptizing new-born 
 ** Infants, of which the prefent Paedo-bap- 
 *' ti/ls muft be afhamed, {hew that Pado- 
 ** baptifm was then in it's infant Jl ate J' By 
 this fort of reafoning one would be lead to 
 fufped: that thofe, who ufe it, are not far 
 from iheirfecond infancy. Why are not the 
 u4?itip^do-baptiJis afhamed, to confound two 
 fuch different, and diftincS queftions, as. 
 Whether new-born infants were to be bap- 
 tized ? and, Whether Infants (hould be bap- 
 tized at all ? If Cyprian argued weakly for 
 the former 5 in the name of good fenfe, 
 what has this to do with the latter ? There- 
 fore, the long citation from Cyprian, (p. 30. 
 — 32.) is mere parade, and nothing to the 
 purpofe, but only as it ferved to introduce a 
 iiiofl: curious remark of the Doctor's, viz. 
 " Every one that compares what Cyprian 
 ** and his collegues fay for Infant- baptifm, 
 
 (here 
 
 [^] Pxdobap. p. 57. [/] See Paedobap. ibid. 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 (here he falls again into an ignoratio eknchi; 
 he fliould have faid, for baptizing Infants 
 at any time under eight days old) *^ and 
 " what TertuUian faid againft it as before 
 *' related, will eafily fee a difference between 
 '' them, between Tertullian^ the Antipce- 
 ^^ do'baptijl^ 2inA Cyprian^ th^ Pado-baptijl y 
 *' how manly and nervous the one ! how 
 *' mean, and weak the other!" — A very 
 good jeft ! When Cyprian neither argued 
 for, nor TertulUa?i argued againjl Infant- 
 baptifm, abfolutely, and as fuch ! Here I 
 cannot but congratulate the Dodor upon 
 the felicity of \\\% genius , and the dexterity 
 of his addrefs. Infant-baptifm, according 
 to him, muft be a novelty in Cyprian^ time, 
 becaufe he is the firjl pleader for it, that 
 we know of 1 And it muft be a novelty, or 
 nori' entity y in Tertidlian^ time, becaufe he 
 is the firft, that was ever known to fpeak 
 againjl it 1 However, the Dodor doth not 
 deny, (p. 24.) that ^\^ flrong and fieriwin 
 reafoner " might have feme odd notions, 
 *' and Angular opinions 5 about which he 
 '' talked wrong, and weakly :" and it is 
 pretty plain, that he had fomeodd, and fuper- 
 ititious notions of baptifm itfelf. — ^The Doc- 
 tor owns at laft, *' that no doubt was raifed 
 ** about Infant-baptifm at this time :" which 
 utterly fpoils all, he had faid before, of Cypri^ 
 an\ pleading for it. And this is a clear evi-, 
 dence, that the pradice of baptizing Infants 
 1 2 was. 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 was, at leaft, a thing of fome (landing in 
 the church, and fo did not then firft begin^ 
 as is pretended. But this, fays the Dodor, 
 " does not prove it then to be an antient 
 " cuftom ; fince the fame obfervation, which 
 " may be made, would prove Infant com' 
 *^ miinion to be equally the fame/' — Well : 
 fuppofing that ; what follows from it ? 
 (though, perhaps, there may not be the 
 fame ground, to make the obfervation of 
 Infant-communion, if nothing relating to it 
 was not upon the carpet) The higher it can 
 be traced ; fo much the more it makes for 
 the antiquity of Infant-baptifm \ none being 
 admitted to that ordinance, but thofe that 
 were baptized j as we learn from Jujiin Mar-^ 
 tyr [g] : (who fays not, however, that ally 
 who were baptized, had admittance to it). 
 The incidental way of mentioning a particu- 
 lar inftance of Infant-communion, in Cy^ 
 prian [Z^], is an argument that it was not 
 xhtjirft of the kind. And if Infant- com- 
 munion itfelf was at that time a thing of 
 fome (landing; Infant-baptifm could not 
 then bs a novcltv : as it mult be the older 
 of the two. 
 
 Tlhe fourth Century, 
 
 Here the Doftor makes the Pasdo-bap- 
 tifts welcome to the greateft lights of the 
 
 church 
 \£\ -Apol. 2. \h'\ Cyprian, De Lapfis. 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 church in this century, as vouchers for In- 
 fant-baptifm ; (he fhould have added, as 
 pracflifed not only in their- time, but under 
 the notion of an apojiolical tradition [/']) for, 
 fays he, (p. 33.) *' they have need of them 
 " to enlighten them in this dark affair, G?r." 
 Nov^, this is a mere flafh of fancy, where 
 we have a little wit, but no argument. Be- 
 fides ; he was told [^], (and be does not 
 now gainfay it) that " he has in effedt given 
 " us all the reft : for, he has not been able, 
 " to produce one fmgle author in this peri- 
 *^ od on the other Tide of the queftion." 
 Whata^jr^ a fair then muft that be, which 
 has no light at all on it's fide ? but clouds 
 injiead, and e^ver during dark. In relation 
 to the teftimony of Pelagius, that he never 
 heard of any Chriftian whatfoever, that 
 denied Infant-baptifm [/] : nothing farther 
 needs be faid upon that head, iince about 
 this the Dodlor will not contend \ which is 
 fairly giving up the point. But he would 
 impute it to the ignorance of Pelagius^ 
 without any (hadow of proof ; nor has the 
 Dodlor proved himfelf a more knowing man, 
 by producing any fuch inftances ; which ic 
 was his bufinefs to have done ;' and not 
 content himfelf with calling Pelagius an arch 
 heretic ; as if giving him a nick-name were 
 fufiicient to deiiroy the weight of his tefti- 
 mony : 
 
 [t] See Paedobap, p. <3. 
 
 Wibid. [/] Ibid. p. 24, ef.. 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 mony : an artifice unworthy of a dignified 
 Proteftant Divine. Says Dr. Wall [pi\ «* if 
 " there had ever been any church in any 
 '' time, or any part of the v^orld, that de- 
 " nied Infant-baptifm ; he (i. e. Pelagim) 
 *' muft have heard of them. For he was a 
 " learned man ^ and had lived in the mofl: 
 *' noted churches oi Europe^ jifia^ and A^ 
 ^^ fricaficzr — What a wild imagination then 
 muft it be, to fuppofe, that Infant-baptifm 
 was an invention of the third century ! — 
 The Dodtor does what he can, (p. 34, ^c) 
 to fupport the reafons he had alledged [«], 
 to prove, that Aiiftin muft have heard of 
 fome that denied Infant-baptifm. But, how 
 poorly he acquits himfelf upon this head, 
 any judicious reader will eafily perceive, by 
 comparing the critical examination of thofe 
 reafons [0], with his lame defence of them. 
 Therefore, to avoid prolixity, we fhall 
 only make here a few curfory remarks. 
 (i.) TertuUian did not contradict or op- 
 pofe Infant-baptifm in the fame feitfey as 
 Dr. Gill and his friends oppofe it : fo that 
 there is no arguing from the one cafe, to the 
 other. And whatever Dr, Wall thought ; 
 the author, Dr. Gill had to do with, did 
 not fubfcribe to his opinion, viz, that nei- 
 ther Aujlin^ nor Pelagim^ had kzw Tertul^ 
 2 liati^ 
 
 [;;/] Defence, p. 395. 
 
 [n'] Argum. from Ap. trad. p. 24, 7^- 
 
 [0] Paedobap. p. 27. — 38. 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 //Ws book of baptifm [p]. And indeed, 
 they might both have feen it, and yet have 
 faid what they did : the latter^ that he had 
 never heard of any Chriftian that denied In- 
 fant-baptifm -, for Terfidlian did not abfo- 
 lutely deny it ; and ih^ former^ that Infant- 
 baptifm v^as always adniiniftered in the 
 church, for original Jin: for Tertullian^ 
 phrafe, innocem cetas^ as Dr. Gill himfelf 
 underftands it, (p. 22.) imports no more 
 than the comparatively innocent age of in- 
 fants. (2.) In refpedt to the controverted 
 canon^ made in the council of Carthage-, 
 the Dodlor had here another convincing 
 proof, that his antagonift w^as not a mere 
 copier of Dr. IVall -, but, following the di- 
 rection of Photiiis, pointed out a different 
 fenfe of the faid canon. And, after all his 
 (huffling, he cannot obfcure, much lefs ex- 
 punge, this felf-evident truth, that the ca- 
 non relates not to infants at large, but to 
 new-born Infants alone. Therefore, he at- 
 tempts to put a fallacy upon his readers, by 
 flipping into his conclujion another term^ and 
 faying, that Aujiin muft know of fome per- 
 fons that denied baptifm to babes. This is 
 pure equivocation. For, if Aujiin knew of 
 fome, that denied baptifm to new born In- 
 fants, does it therefore follow, that he knew 
 of any, that denied baptifm to babes indeji- 
 nitely ? that is, denied Infant- baptifm -, whicb 
 
 is 
 
 [/>] Ibid. p. 69. 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 is the point the Doftor v/as to prove. (3.) 
 It was only for argument's fake, that his ^.m-- 
 thor fuppojid, that the perfons, who afl^ed the 
 queftion, about the reafon of baptizing In- 
 fants (becaufe many of them die youngs &c.) 
 were Chrfllam : and it was the Doctor's 
 bufinefs to h^vc proved them to be Chriflians, 
 in order to make the inftance pertinent to 
 his purpofe. But even this would not an- 
 fwer his end ; for, after all, thefe perfons 
 might be as good friends to Infant -baptifm^ 
 as tiiofe were good friends to Infant-propa- 
 gation^ who afked the other queftion, men- 
 tioned by St. Auftin in the fame place, for 
 their own information, concerning the rea- 
 fon of thofe Infants being born^ that die 
 young. (4.) The Doftor is here put to his 
 gueffeSy and he gueffes wrong. For, his fup- 
 pofition of the Pelagians faying, " that the 
 " infants of believers unbaptized enter the 
 ** kingdom,'* is a flat contradiction to what 
 St. Aifiin fays of the Pelagians in the very 
 paflage referred to [q\. But the Dodor is 
 loth to own himfelf in an errour ; however, 
 if he is miftaken, he is not ajlmmed of it, 
 becaufe it is in good com.pany ; a pretty ex- 
 cufe for being /^j<^ ^r^^. (5.) Sparing, as 
 he. is, of his conceffions, he is forced to 
 acknowledge, that the words quoted by hirn 
 out of Jerome^ are fpoken by way oifuppo^ 
 fttion. *' But then (fays he) they fuppofe a 
 
 *^ cafe 
 
 [^] SeePaedobap. p. 23, 24. 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 *^ cafe that had been^ &c." Well ; but how 
 does that appear ? not merely from yeromes 
 fiippoling it : and the Dodlor offers no other 
 proof of this conteCted fadl, but a critic 
 upon the word miner int ; which, after all, 
 may import no more than a wilfiill ovcnGion 
 in refiifing to get their children baptized in 
 due time ; without implying that they de- 
 nied infant- baptifm. But, let the meaning 
 be as the Dodtor would have it ; yet ftill, 
 as mentioned by Jerome^ it is not a matter 
 oifaBy but a bare fuppofition. Neverthe- 
 lefs, the Dodor fettles his countenance, arid 
 gravely fays, (p. 38.) '* from all thefe in^ 
 ^^ Jtances put together, we cannot but con- 
 " elude, that there were fome perfons, that 
 " did oppofe, and rejeSf infant- baptifm in 
 " thofe times !*' But, if any one of his pre- 
 tended inftances proves any fuch thing, I 
 am much miftaken. The appeal lies before 
 the learned world [r], and let them judge. 
 
 ' As to what he lubjoins from Mr. Mar-- 
 
 Jhall^ concerning fome in thofe times that 
 queftioned it; Mr. Marfkall does not fay, 
 that there were any in thofe times that de^ 
 nied and difufed it; for, he tells us, [i] 
 " that the firjl, that ever made head againft 
 *' it, or a divifion in the church about it, 
 " lived in a much later age." Nor do the 
 words of St, Auftin referred to, imply, that 
 any perfons in his time denied InfanU 
 
 K bap- 
 
 [r] Ibid. p. 39. \/\ Sermon on Inf. bap. p. 5. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 bapiifm^ or fo much as doubted of it, but 
 the contrary : for he fays, that even thofe^ 
 who contradiBed it in fome fort, did not 
 doubt of it. 'Tis true, in that difcourfe [^], 
 he fets up 2ifiBitious perfon to argue with 
 the Pelagians in their own way ; and then 
 afks them, how they would anfwer fuch a 
 Difputant, but from the Scripture : and fp 
 he exhorts them alfo to fubmit to Scripture 
 authority, and not truft to their own fubtile 
 reafonings upon the point in queftion. But 
 therefore his faying, " Let no one doubt ^ 
 *' whether Infants are to be baptized, &c" 
 does not imply, that any one did really doubt 
 of it ; this was only a wife precaution, 
 which Aufiin thought proper to ufe in a po- 
 pular difcourfe concerniJig baptifm of Infants 
 again/i the Pelagians ; in order to avoid the 
 raifing of unneceflary fcruples in the minds 
 of the people, and to prevent \k\t\x fufpecling 
 that any body did doubt of it. This is the 
 plain and obvious fenfe of his words 5 nor 
 can we put any other conftrudion upon 
 them, without making Auflin contradiB 
 himfelf in the fame breath. 
 
 '' Aufliuy we allow, (fays the Dodor) 
 *' frequently fpeaks of infant- baptifm as an 
 ** antient ufage of the church, and as an 
 " apoftolical tradition." Why did he not 
 add here, (what he urged upon a former oc- 
 
 cafion 
 
 \t'\ De Verb. ap. Serm. 14. Nefcio quis, &c. 
 
[ (>7 ) 
 
 cafion \u\) for original fin ? — To the Doc- 
 tors queftion then, *' What proof does he 
 *' give of it ?" I anfwer ; he appeals to the 
 authority and pradice of the univerfal 
 church in all pad ages. But, he had no 
 occafion to produce teflimoiiies for Infant -bap- 
 tifm itfelf : becaufe no one ever denied it ; 
 no, not the Pelagians themfelves, with 
 whom he was deeply engaged, not about 
 the fubjedls^ but the end of baptifm, by 
 the Dodor'sown confeflion [ic;]. The Doc- 
 tor afks again, (p. 39.) "Does he produce 
 *' any higher teftimony than Cyprian T' I 
 anfwer; for what? For infant-baptifm it- 
 felf, he does not produce the teftimony of 
 Cyprian at all ; having no occafion to do ir, 
 as was hinted before : but for the 7^eafon of 
 it. So that all, which the Dodor can con- 
 clude from hence, is this^ that the dodrine 
 of original Jin was a novelty in Cyprians 
 time : and if this dodrine gave rife to Li- 
 f ant baptifm \n Cyprians time, as the Dodor 
 fuggefts, (though we have deplumed him 
 of his infallibility) why was not the one as 
 much a novelty as ihz other? But, he all a- 
 long confounds two different and diftindt 
 queftions : for, it is one thing to- argue^ir 
 Infant-baptifm from original /in ; which is 
 the cafe, w^hich the Dodlor here fuppofes, 
 contrary to fa6i \ and another thing to ar- 
 
 K 2 ^ gue 
 
 [«3 Argum. from Ap, trad. 6'r» p. 26, 
 \^m\ Ibid. p. 20. 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 gue for original Jin from Infant -b apt ifm : 
 which was really the flare of the qaeftioa 
 between St. Auftin^ and his opponents. 
 Thus Infant- baptifoi was a common data^ 
 
 a thing agreed on by both fides. The 
 
 fame obfervation may be made of Cyprian 
 and his collegues : and therefore he had no 
 occafion to urge it, as an apofiolical traditi- 
 on: hov/ever, what he fays about it, im^ 
 plies fo much ; as has been remarked be- 
 fore. — In (hort : Auflin appeals to Cyprian^ 
 and St. Paid, Rom, v. i8. for one, and the 
 fame thing, viz, original fin^ as the reafon 
 of Infant-baptifm : for, as he undeiflands 
 that text of orio^inal fin, fo he refers to it as 
 exhibiting the ground and reafon of Infant- 
 baptifm ; for, according to him, it is by 
 haptifm, that Infants are made partakers of 
 the grace of Chriji M. But, obferve ! nei- 
 ther was Infant-baptifm, the thing itfelf 
 nor original fin, as the reajon of it, any 
 matter of doubt, or debate in Cyprians 
 time. Tloii is the very thing, that St. Au- 
 Jiin hinges upon; and from hence he draws 
 his obfervation, '' That bltfled Cyprian did 
 " not make any 7iew decree ; but only pre- 
 " ferved the e/labliffoedhlih of fne church :" 
 [^'] that is, with reipedl to the reafon of 
 baptizing hifants, which foppofes the tiiing 
 
 itfelf. 
 
 [A:]Ep. adHieronyni: Ep. i8. DeVerb. A port, Serm. 14. 
 
 [j'j See P£edobap. p. 42. Nam de originc pecc^n nulla 
 erat quasitio ; et ideo, ex ea re, unde nulla erat c^u^Itio, 
 &c. Augullin ibid. 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 itfelf. ■ Our worthy Dodor feems not to 
 be aware, that his way of arguing will con- 
 clude too far ; unkfs he is turned as arch a 
 heretic as Pelaghis. For, if the main de- 
 fign of St. Auflin is to fupport the dodrine 
 of original fin by i\\teflabiiJJ:ed faith of the 
 church 'y and yet '' he produces i'/^i^r tefti- 
 " niony than Cyprian:'' let the Dodlor look 
 to the confequtnce, if there is any force 
 in his way of reafoning upon the head of 
 appeals. And here the difficulty, he ftarts 
 about Aufiin\ not appealing to Grigen^ and 
 the argument he v/ould draw from this 
 circumftance, to prove that Origen muft 
 have been unfairly dealt with, — returns 
 home upon himfelf. For, if any one (hould 
 argue, that, becaufe Auftin never appeals to 
 Origen^ nor to any other antient writer be- 
 fore Cyprian in proof of original Jin 5 there- 
 fore thofe writers mujl have been unfairly 
 dealt with^ and the paffages interpolated^ 
 where they fpeak of original fin : What an- 
 fwer would the Doctor (hape to this argu- 
 ment ? Perhaps he would think it fufficient 
 to (ay, Cyprians authority alone, at the head 
 of a whole council of bilhops, was of weight 
 enough, to decide a quefliion of this nature, 
 witboui any other teftimonies. And as for 
 Origen, he lay under fome reproach for his 
 hete-cdox opinions, on which account he 
 is cenfured by St. Auftin himfelf [2;] : and 
 
 there- 
 [i:j] i)e Civitate Dei. lib. 2. cap. 23. lib. zt.cap. 17. &c. 
 
( yo ) 
 
 therefore this good bifhop of Hippo might 
 judge it improper to appeal to his obnoxious 
 books for any thing at all. Now, the lame 
 anfwer will ferve our turn ; without fur- 
 ther animadverting upon the Doctor's incofi- 
 Jijlencyy \n formerly fuppofing, that Aufiin 
 might take up his notion that Infant-baptifm 
 was an apoftolical tradition, from the Latin 
 tranflations of Jerome and Rufinm\ and 
 now fuggefting, that the pafTiges in Origen 
 relating to this point are interpolated fince 
 the time of St. Aufiin, Thus the Dodtor 
 founders himfelf, and his argument at once. 
 
 The pretence, " that there is equally as 
 "/^//, and as early evidence of apoiiolic 
 " tradition for Infant-communion^ &c." was 
 {hewn to be without foundation \a'\ : a little 
 further wants to be faid upon that point, 
 as the Dodor has ytijiated the cafe; and 
 it was only to the ftate of the cafe, as he 
 had put it, that the reply v^as made. 
 
 (i.) As to infant-communion : " it was, 
 *' (as the Doctor fays p. 4o.)inufe beyond 
 " all contradiction, " in Cyprians time ; but 
 fuch clear evidence has been produced, that 
 Infant-baptifm was pradtifed before Cyprians 
 time, as that none can rejedt it, but thofe, 
 who have a peculiar faculty of denying 
 things plain and vifible, — If St. Auftin ar- 
 gues for Infant-communion from the Scrip- 
 ture, as the rule and ftandard of the Chrif 
 
 tian^ 
 
 [/?] Pacdobap. p. 47.-53. 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 tian^ and cathoUck faith j he does not teftl- 
 fy of itj as he does of infant-baptifm, that 
 it was the antient and iiniverfal practice of 
 the Chriftian church. Whether the Funi- 
 ci Chriftiani be the chriftlans of Carthage^ or 
 6f Africa ; Auftin fays not (as he was re- 
 prefented by the Doftor) that they took it to 
 be an antient apoftohc tradition : nor does 
 he pofitively fay, that Infant-communion (if 
 that was the thing intended, and not the 
 particular ;^;?^i^ oi fpeech ufed concerning the 
 Eiicbariji) was fuch a tradition 3 but only 
 fuppofed it ; which, as every one muft per- 
 ceive, is a more cautiow^ and referved way 
 of fpeaking, than he ufes, when he fpeaks 
 of infant-baptifm under that notion [b\ 
 
 (2.) The other particulars were taken no- 
 tice of in the grofs, as mentioned by St. 
 Bajil^ under the notion of unwritten tra- 
 ditions. But it was obferved [c], that In- 
 fant-baptifm is not ranked in that number; 
 and confequently, the antients looked upon 
 it as having a better foundation in the Scrips 
 ture, than any of thofe other Rites, Now 
 here the Dod:or rejoyns, (p. 41.) *' neither 
 " are infant^communion, fponfors at bap- 
 ** tifm, exorcifm in it, and giving' milk and 
 ** honey at that time, mentioned by Baftl 
 ** among them, &c'' — To which the reply 
 is, {!,) K^io Infant'Communiony the objedti- 
 
 on' 
 
 [b'] Paedobap. p. 47.-49, 
 [^ Ibid. p. 51. 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 on was allowed, and confidered [d], (2.) 
 Spo?ifors at baptifm, in one (bape or other, 
 being a natural circumjlance of Infant- bap- 
 tifm, are prefumed to be an apoftolical ap- 
 pointment, conformably to the pradlice of 
 the Jewifh church in the like cafe \e\ 
 Thefe fponfors, among other things, gave 
 names to children \f^ ; a cuftom transferred 
 from the Jewifh to the Chriftian church. 
 (3.) Forms oi exorcifm are as antient as the 
 Apoftles time ; but exorcifm in baptifm is 
 not called an apojlolic tradition^ nor an un- 
 written tradition by Aiiflin, to whom the 
 DocStor refers \g\. He fpeaks of it indeed, 
 as an antient tradition \ and might properly 
 enough appeal to it for the general fenfe of 
 the church 3 but he does not urge , it as of 
 apoftolical authority-, fo far as yet appears. 
 The fame remark may be made on the paf- 
 fages cited from the other antient writers, 
 mentioned by the Dodor. (4.) If Bafil 
 does not, yet (which is the fame thing in 
 this argument) Tertullian does mention the 
 
 [^j Pasdobap. p. 52. 
 
 \e] — Minorum vero nomine idem ipfum profitebatur 
 pvaefedura ipfa, uti m Chn[\i?im{mo fufcepiores minorenni- 
 um, feuparvulorum, &c. Seldeu de Synedriity i^c. lib. i. 
 cap. 3. 
 
 [/] Luk. i, 59. Sec. u. z\. a like cuftom obtained a- 
 m.ong the antient Perfians, of giving names to their chil- 
 dren at baptifm. Hyde Relig, Vet. i'erf. cap. 18. Other 
 nations alio made a ceremony of impofmg names. Vid. 
 Ariftoph. Aves. Polyaen. Stratagem, lib. 6. cap. i. S. 6. 
 Lucian. Contemplantes, &c. 
 
 U] Argument from Apoil. trad. p. 32. 
 
C 73 ) 
 givi77g milk aJid honey to the baptized per- 
 fons among the unwritten cuftoms ar.d tra- 
 ditions \h\ 
 
 (3.) It was obferved [/], that, *' it does 
 *' not appear, that the unwritten traditions 
 " were ever put to the fame teji of iheir 
 *^ Apoftolical authority, as Infant- be: ptifrn 
 '* was, and flood the trial as it did." By 
 which was obvioufiy meant, it's obtaining 
 the jlrongeji and mod exprefs teftimony of it's 
 immemorial, and univerfal ufe in the Chriiii- 
 an church, even from thofe very perfons, 
 that were urged with an argument from ir* 
 Therefore, there is htile force in the cbfer- 
 vation, that the Pelagians were a!fo preffed 
 with an argument from the exorcifms, and 
 exfuffiatiom ufed in baptifm. For, as thefe 
 are not called apojloiical tradiiiom, (v^hich 
 was not noted before) fo there is no evidence 
 produced, that the Pelagians bore the fame 
 teftimony in favour of them, as they did of 
 Infant-baptifm. What the Dcdtor fays 
 there about any particular rite, (landing the 
 left of all ages, in refpedl of continued ufe^ 
 is not to the purpofe ; unlefs it were attend- 
 ed with a declaration of it's apojhlic autbo^ 
 rity \ which is not the cafe. 
 
 '* Upon the whole then it is clear, there 
 
 ** is no exprefs mention of Antipado-baptijm in 
 
 '' the two Jirji centuries, no nor any plain 
 
 '^ hint of it, nor any manifefl reference to 
 
 ' L " it J 
 
 xJtI De Corona M litis, [r] Psedcbsp. p. H- 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 *^ it ; and that there is no evidence of it*s 
 ** being praBifed in the third, or in the 
 ^^ fourth centnrvj C?^/* On the other fide, 
 we have traced 'jp the acknowledged grounds; 
 oi Pcedo-bjptijm to the times of the Apoftles. 
 In the next age we read of Infants (con- 
 flrucaively) made difciples to Chrift, and re- 
 generated, that is by baptifm. In the third 
 century that Infant-baptifm was praBifed^ 
 and prevailed in the fourth, is confeffed by 
 it*s greareft oppofers. And Jo rejls the fate 
 of the controverfy. 
 
 The Public will now judge, what ground 
 Dr. Gill h^d for his candid infin nation, (p. 3.) 
 that the namelefs author, or anonymous writer, 
 with whom he is engaged, was a(han::ked of 
 his caule, or Name, becaufe he appeared un- 
 der that charader; as fome Writers on his 
 own fide have had the modefiy, or pru- 
 dence to do, without blame or cenfure. 
 And perhaps it may occafion fome fpecula- 
 tion, that the Dod:or likewife was not an 
 anonymous Writer upon this fubjedl, either 
 on his own account, or for the fake of his 
 friends ; many of whom may be fo much 
 influenced by the authority of his name, as 
 imphcitly to believe any thing he fays, how 
 remote foever from truth, and fadt. It 
 fliould feem, that he himfelf hath no great 
 confidence in his argument, though he en- 
 deavours to put a good face on't 3 fince he 
 
 hints 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 hints fo often at the uncertaifity of tradition : 
 as if he wanted to fecure his retreat^ in cafe 
 of any difafter. But the inftance he refers 
 to, mz, the obfervation of Eajler^ is not 
 parallel. For, if two contrary traditions were 
 pleaded in that cafe, (which might affedt 
 the credit of both) no fuch thing can be pre- 
 tended in this cafe ; as one uniform tradition 
 carries it for Pado-baptifm^y and not a fingle 
 teftimony can be produced from the antient 
 writers in favour of a tradition for An- 
 tipcedo-baptifm^ Originals^ or tranjlatiom. 
 Therefore, upon a fair fumming up of the 
 hijlorical evidence, it appears, that not Pae- 
 do-baptifm, but Antipasdo-baptifm is an 
 innovation. 
 
 Haec Hadenus. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BOOKS Printed for J. WATJG It, 
 
 at the Tu rk's-He AD, in Lombard- Street. 
 
 ADifTent from the Church of England 
 fully juilified: And proved the genu- 
 ine and juft Conlequence of the Allegiance 
 due to Chrift, the only Lawgiver in the 
 Church. Being the diflenting Gentleman's 
 three Letters and Poftfcript, in Anfwer to 
 Mr. John Whites on that Subject. Pr. 2s. 6d* 
 
 The Baptifm of Infants, a reafonable Ser^ 
 vice ; founded upon Scripture, and undoubt- 
 ed Apoftolic Tradition : In which its mo- 
 ral Purpofes and Ufe in Religion are fhewn* 
 Price 8d. 
 
 Dipping not the only Scriptural and Pri- 
 mitive Manner of Baptizing. And fuppo* 
 fing it were, yet a ftridl Adherence not ob- 
 ligatory on us. Price 6 d. 
 
 Paedo-baptifm : Or, a Defence of Infant- 
 baptifm in Point of Antiquity. Againft 
 the Exceptions of Dr. John Gilly and others. 
 Price I s. 
 
P^DO-BAPTISM: 
 
 THE 
 
 Second PART. 
 
 O R, A 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Authority of Infant -Baptifm. 
 
 In ANSWER to the 
 
 Common Objections againft it. 
 
 Suffer little Children to come unto mc, and forbid them 
 not: for of fuch is the Kingdom of God. Luke xviii. i6. 
 
 Nam Deus ut perfonam non accipit, fic nee atatem^ cum fe 
 omnibus ad coeleftis gratias confecutionem aequalitate li- 
 brata praebeat Patrem, Cyprian, Ep. adFidum, 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed and fold by J. Waugh and W. Fenner, at the 
 
 Turk'i Heady in Lombard-Street, 
 
 M. D C C. LV. 
 
./ 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 LTHOUGH the authority of 
 Infant-baptifm doth not formally 
 depend upon it's antiquity \ yet 
 a due conlideration of the latter 
 may be fubfervient to the former, fo far as 
 to difpofe an enquirer after truth, to examine 
 the Queftion with more freedom and candor, 
 than could be expedted from any perfons al- 
 ready prepoffeffed with a groundlefs notion 
 of the novelty of the thing. Such a notion, 
 built upon a few miflaken paffages in fome 
 of the antient writers, feems to have laid the 
 foundation of this whole controverfy at the 
 iirft, and ever fince determined fome con- 
 fcientious people, who had a laudable zeal 
 for tliC Bible, as the rule oH faith and prac- 
 tice^ to difpute every inch of ground with 
 fo much pertinacity, and to try all the 
 methods of evafion to elude the force of e- 
 
 very 
 
( iv ) 
 
 very Jcnpfure-^iYgumcnt. Therefore a former 
 attempt having been made to remove this 
 unhappy prejudice by maintaining the anti- 
 qiiity of Infant- baptifm \ji\ -, we fhall now 
 endeavor to defend it's authority againft the 
 
 chief and common objeBions, By the 
 
 authority of Infant-baptifm every Protejiant 
 reader will under (land fuch ground and 
 reafon for it in the Scriptures ^ as is fufEcient 
 to jullify the thing, and fo render any 
 further baptifm unneceffary and fuperfiuous, 
 in a regular adminiftration of gofpel-ordi- 
 nances, to thofe, who were baptized in their 
 Infancy. The point, then, which we now 
 propofe to maintain, is this^ viz. the law- 
 fidnefs, or validity of Infant- baptifm. For, 
 though baptifm, in the generaly is a pofi- 
 tive and plain inftitution of Chrift 5 yet, as 
 the particular time of adminiftring it is no 
 where precifely fixed : ^hen therefore, or at 
 what age perfons ordinarily fhall be bap- 
 tized, thiS:, we prefume, is a circumftance 
 left undetermined. Confequently, they may 
 be rightly baptized at any age, even in their 
 earlieft infancy, and the children, fo bapti- 
 zed, 
 
 \ci\ See Paedo-baptifm, and Pado- baptifm defended in 
 anfwex to Dr. Gill's Reply, 
 
( V ) 
 
 xed, have lawful and ^alid baptifm : Ee- 
 caufe they are admitted to baptifm accord- 
 ing to the liberty and latitude allowed in the 
 
 Gofpel. As this appears to have been 
 
 the general fenfe of antiquity [^] ^ fo, this 
 view^ of the Queftion eafily accounts for the 
 different opinions, that occafionally arofe in 
 the primitive church, about the moft pro- 
 per and convenient time of adminiftring 
 baptifm : Some fuppofing, that children 
 ought not to be baptized before the eighth 
 day, e, g. Fidus^ an African bifhop (though 
 he had no doubt whether they fhould be 
 baptized at all) [r]; others, that they might 
 be baptized on any day after their birth, e,g. 
 Cyprian^ and a whole council of bifhops [^J ; 
 and others, that their baptifm might be 
 more conveniently deferred till they were 
 three years old, e, g, Gregory Nazianzen [^], 
 and perhaps Tertullian [/]. However, it 
 was the prevailing opinion, that baptifm 
 was fo neceffary for all, as that none (hould 
 be fuffered to die without it. And upon 
 this ground it is no difficult taik, to recon- 
 cile the two laft named writers with them- 
 
 felves, 
 
 [h] See Blake, anfwer to Tombes. Sec. 2. 
 [c] Cyprian. Ep. ad Fidum. [^J Ibid. 
 
 CO Oi-at. 40. [/] Lib. de Baptifmo, 
 
( vi ) 
 
 felves, when they advife the delay of chil- 
 dren's baptifm, and yet allow, yea required, 
 them to be baptized in cafe oi danger [^]* 
 Thus, it appears, they fuppofed, that a dif- 
 cretlonary power was left with chriftians, to 
 order and determine the time of baptifm, as 
 they faw occafion. So that, if they did not 
 look upon the baptifm of children in their 
 carlieft infancy to be necefjary^ or expedient^ 
 in ordinary cafes ; yet they held it lawful, 
 and valid', nor, N. B. did they ever per- 
 fuade any perfons to be re baptized^ who, 
 ( or becaufe they ) had been baptized in 
 their infancy. Tertidlian himfelf fays, that 
 baptifm is to be but once adminiftred [^j. 
 
 It 
 
 [g] Uhifupra. This plainly is the meaning of that ex- 
 ceptive claufe in Tertullii'M, li non tani (or tamen) necefle. 
 The not obferving with a critical exaclnefs how the word, 
 itecejje, varies it's fignification in this part of the fentence, 
 hath led fome perfons to make mnjenfe of the paffage. 
 But, to fay, " what neceflity is there, except in cafe of 
 ** danger," (z, e. of death) is very intelligible. 
 
 \h'\ Denuo ablui non licet. Tertnlhan de Pudecitia. In 
 the fame book, he difcovers it to be his opinion, that fins, 
 committed after baptifm, are unpardonable. Which, by 
 the v/ay, eafily accounts for his advifmg the delay of 
 baptifm, not only in children, but in ^virgins, and ^idonxjs^ 
 without fuppoling the baptifm of any fuch perfons to be 
 a no'velty in his days : and indeed there is as much reafon 
 to fuppofe it of the one as the other. 
 
( vii ) 
 
 — ^It may poffibly be alledged that, if In- 
 fant baptifni is commanded^ it muft be riecef- 
 fary ; and if it is not commanded, it muft be 
 unlawful. But this dilemma can give us no 
 pain ; for it is a mere fophifm. And the 
 argument would prove too much, if any 
 thing at all, viz. that every thing, every 
 circumjiance in religion muft be either necef- 
 fary, or unlawful. For a foiution, we judge 
 it fufficient to fay, That the particular and 
 precife Wne of baptifm is not the matter of 
 any divine precept or appointment, (though 
 baptifm itfelf is fo) but a circumjiance left 
 undetermined in the chriftian code. Should 
 any one apply this reafoning to the ordi- 
 nance of the Lord's Supper y the confequencc 
 will not afFecl our argument, 'till the reafons 
 for Infant-communion are difproved [/']. But 
 the two cafes do not feem to us exaftly 
 parallel : Becaufe the nature of the folem- 
 nities is different. For in the adminiftra- 
 tion of baptifm the baptizer is the agent, 
 and the party baptized is pajjroe. But, in 
 the celebration of the Lord's Supper, not 
 only the adminiftrator, but the recipient alfo 
 
 is 
 
 JO See Mr. James Peirce's Effay on this fubjed. 
 
( vlii ) 
 
 is aBlve, For, as he eats and drinks, what 
 Infants cannot digeft ; fo, according tp 
 the very nature and defign of that comme- 
 morative Rite, he is to exercife his under- 
 ftanding, and memory, in dijcerning the 
 Lords body, &c. \k'\ aftions, which Infants 
 cannot perform. As to the Jewifli faffbver^ 
 which was alfo a memorial of another kind, 
 if Infants partook of it (though this is mat- 
 ter of difpute) no argument can be urged 
 from thence in favour of Infant -communion^ 
 but what will conclude more flrongly for 
 Infant- baptiffn. 
 
 [^] 1 Cor. xi. 29. See Mr, Baxter. Plain Scripture- 
 jproof. ^c. P. 2. ch. 4. • 
 
 Section 
 
P^DO-BAP TISM 
 
 THE 
 
 SECOND PART, 
 
 SECTION I, 
 
 The previous ^eftion, concerning the perpetui- 
 ty of Chrijiian-baptifm^ conjidered, 
 
 HOUGH Pcedobaptip and 
 Antipado-bapiifts . both are 
 generally agreed, that bap- 
 tifni is 2i Jianding ordinance 
 of Chrift ; yet^ becaufe feme 
 
 ^. perfons have raifed a fcruple 
 
 upon this head, it is not foreign to the fub- 
 jedt in hand, to take that matter into confi- 
 deration. " For, if baptifm, that is to fay, 
 \\ water-baptifm be ceafed^ then furely bap- 
 B " tizing 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 «' tizing of Infants is unwarrantable ;** fays 
 Mr. Barclay [/]. 
 
 It is the opinion of thefe people, called 
 fakers, that water- bapfifm only typified the 
 baptifm of the Spirit ^ apd fo, as they will 
 have it, was fuperfeded by it. But accord- 
 ing to this notion (for which there is not the 
 leaft foundation, in fcripture, reafon, or fad) 
 water-baptifm^ which is plainly intended in 
 XhQ commifficn [;;?], ceafed in the Chriftian 
 church before it began^ which is very abfurd. 
 For, as the Chriftian church did not com- 
 mence till after the death &c. of Chrift [«] ; 
 fo his Apoftles were not to execute their com- 
 miffion, before they had received the Holy 
 Ghojl, which was the baptifm of the Spirit [o]. 
 Nor could they with any propriety baptize 
 perfons in the name of — the Holy Ghofly be- 
 fore the Holy Ghoft was adtually given. For, 
 this form of baptifm was a plain and public 
 acknowledgment of that divine donation [p]. 
 Hence that queftion, which St. Paul put to 
 certain perfons, who faid " they had not 
 " heard that there was a Holy Ghoft : " \c[\ 
 ** unto what then were ye baptized V \r'\ Im- 
 plying, 
 
 [/] Apology. Prop. 12. fub fin. 
 
 [wj Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. This muft fignify baptizing 
 with nvater^ not with the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 ;;/] Vid. Pearfon. Led. i. in Aft Apoft. Op. Pofthum. 
 0] See Luk.xxiv. 49. Afts i. 8. Mat. iii. 11. Adls i. ^. 
 
 P\ in quern enim tingeret ? infpiritum fanclum ? 
 
 <^ui nondum a Patre defcenderat in ecclefiam. 'Teriullian de 
 bapti ''mo. 
 
 tf] Aftsxix. 2. [r] ibid. ver. 3. 
 
( II ) 
 
 plying, that they muft have heard, that 
 there was a Holy Ghoft^ (viz. " poured forth 
 '• in his extraordinary gifts,'') [j] if they had 
 received Chrijtian baptifm : becaufe in the 
 very form of this baptifm the gift of the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft was recognized by the naming of Him. 
 When therefore it is afterwards faid of the 
 fame perfons, " that they were baptized in the 
 " name of the Lord Jefm 5" [r] the plain 
 meaning is, that they received Chrift's bap- 
 tifm, as contradiftinguifhed from Johns bap- 
 tifm, which they had received before [«]. 
 But, it feems reafonable to fuppofe, that 
 they were baptized according to the folemn 
 form of baptifm, prefcribed by Our Saviour, 
 and referred to in the Apoftle's qiieftion a- 
 forefaid ; the fame form of baptifm, that 
 Juftin Martyr alfo defcribes in his account of 
 the primitive worfhip [w"]. However, 'tis 
 very evident, that the baptifm of the Spirit 
 was adually received, before water-baptifm 
 really began in the Chriftian church: and 
 therefore the former could not fuperfede the 
 latter, as is pretended. — Befides, did not St. 
 Peter exprefsly order and dired: thofe very 
 perfons themfelves to be baptized with water, 
 B 2 ' who 
 
 [j] Vid. Dr. J. Owen. Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 6. Rees. 
 anfwerto Walker, p. 104. 
 
 [/] A£lsxix. 5. 
 
 [«] Of the difFerence betwixt John's baptifm, and' the 
 baptifm of Chrift, fee Bp- Burnet on article 27. 
 
 \jw] i'j ivofASiTo^ yoo TQVTTc^lfoi KTK* J, Martyr. Apol. 2. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 who had received the Holy Ghoft already [^]? 
 Nay, did he not openly appeal to the com- 
 mon fenfe and reafon of all men for the juft- 
 nefs and propriety of the thing? ** Can any 
 ** man (fays he [^],) Jorbidwater^ that thefe 
 ** Jhould not be baptized^ who have received 
 *' the Holy Ghoi\, as well as weT' Thus 
 then, the having received the baptifm of the 
 Spirity was fo far from being thought any ob- 
 jedlion againd: the ufe or application of water- 
 baptifm^ that, on the contrary, it is urged 
 as an unanfwerable argument for it, particu- 
 larly in the cafe of certain gentiles^ and fo (to 
 obviate that pretence) not in compliance with 
 any yewijh prejudices. Therefore, watcr- 
 baptifm v/as not fuperfeded by the baptifm 
 of the Spirit, in the courfe and order of gof- 
 pel miniftrations. For, we fee, the Apoftle 
 Peter, (who had the honour to receive the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven [z], or of the 
 Gofpel ftate of the church, that he might 
 firft open the door of faith, both to Jevi's and 
 Gentiles) admitted fome perfons to baptifm, 
 who were already baptized with the Holy 
 Ghoft ; as upon a former occafion alfo he 
 had directed others to be baptized^ in order 
 that they might receive the Holy Ghoft [^z]. 
 All which things are fo clear and convincing 
 to men of candor and fenfe, that it is need- 
 
 lefa 
 
 [^] Acl. X. 44.48. [)'] ibid. ver. 47. 
 
 [»J Mat.xvi. 19. Confer. Luk.xi. 52.. Mat. xxlii. ij. 
 A^. xiv. 27. [«] A^. ii, 38, 
 
( '3 ) 
 
 lefs to trouble the Reader with a particular 
 confutation of the (hallow and fuperficial 
 reafons, with which Mr. Barclay vainly en- 
 deavours to fupport his groundlefs hypo- 
 thefis. 
 
 This herefy of the Antiwater-baptifts ap- 
 pears to be more antient, than the Apohgift 
 himfelf fuppofed. For, befides the perfons, 
 '* who (as he fays [^]) teflified againft wa- 
 *' ter-baptifm in the darkeft times of popery j'* 
 Tertullian mentions [r] one ^intillay who 
 declared againft it in his time. — But, there is 
 another hypothefis, of a much later date and 
 ftanding, fet up by Socinus, and efpoufed by 
 fome others, that feem fond of novelties, 
 (though novelties in religion are the word 
 kind of rarities, and feldom attended with 
 the be ft confequences.) Thefe men fuppofe, 
 that Chrift took the rite of baptifm from the 
 yews, who are faid to have had a cuftom of 
 baptizing ProfelyteSy with their children aU 
 ready born, at their admiffion into the Jew- 
 iOi church, as being unclean Gentiles : but 
 their childpen, born afterwards, were not 
 baptized ^ becaufe they were looked upon as 
 holy, like native Jews themfelyes. Now, 
 upon this ground it is concluded, that though 
 Chrift inftituted baptifm, as the rite of /«/- 
 tiation into his church for all Chrijtian Pro- 
 felytes and their children at the beginning; yec 
 he did not intend it for the ufe of their pofte- 
 
 rity, 
 
 [^] Barclay Apol. Prop, i2» Seft. lo. M Debaptifma. 
 
( H ) 
 
 rity, ^s a {landing ordinance. — To which it 
 may be replied, (i) In relation to Projelyte- 
 baptifm among the Jews ; this is a point a- 
 bout which the learned are not agreed, at 
 leaft as to the antiquity of it. Not only P<^- 
 do-baptifls^ but Antipado-baptijis differ a- 
 mongft themfelves, and are divided in their 
 opinions upon this head [J], It feems there- 
 fore improper and imprudent, to lay fo much 
 flrefs, as to build an hypothefis upon fo un- 
 certain a foundation. (2.) Granting, there 
 was fuch a pradice among the Jews ; it does 
 not certainly follow, that Chrift took the 
 Rite of baptifm from them. For, the Gen- 
 tiles alfo had their initiatory Rites, and forms 
 of Luftration^ both for children and others [e']. 
 And, as the Chriftian religion was framed and 
 calculated for all nations^ in it*s original con- 
 ftitution and defign ; It feems a more ration- 
 al prefumption, that he would adopt his 
 inftitutions to the rites and ufages of the bulk 
 of mankind, than to fuppofe that he fuited 
 them to the cuftoms of the one, fmall, and 
 defpifed nation of the Jews alone. But (3.) 
 fuppofe, Chrift did take the rite of baptifm 
 from the Jews ; it follows not, that he ex- 
 
 aaiy 
 
 [</J Mr. Tombes, z learned Antipasdo baptift, contended 
 for it. Examen. p 89. But others on the fame fide of the 
 queftion have ftrongly oppofed it. See Gale's Relleftions, 
 &c. Let. 9. 
 
 [^] Vid. Clem. Alexand. Strom. 5. Tertullian. de bap- 
 tifmo. Macrob. Saturnal. Jib. i, cap. 16. Alex, ab Alex. 
 Genial. Dier. lib. 2. cap. 25. 
 
( ^5 ) 
 
 aftly conformed to their ufe of baptifm in all 
 points [f]» On the contrary, it is manifeft, 
 that he varied from it in one material circum- 
 ftance, viz, by ordering native yews them- 
 felves, as well as Gentiles, to be baptized at 
 their admiffion into the Chriftian church [g]. 
 Thus, Chrift clearly took av/ay the ground 
 of that partial diftindion, which the Jews 
 made in their manner of adminiftring bap- 
 tifm ; as mentioned before. And is it rati- 
 onal to think, that what he difcountenanced 
 in thefjjy he would make a pattern, or prece- 
 dent to his own church in the adminiftration 
 of baptifm ? Were not the Jews formerly an 
 holy people, and the true church of God, as 
 well as the Chriftlans are now, under a diffe- 
 rent difpenfation ? If then no prerogative of 
 birth, or defcent, exempted t\\Q former from 
 Ghriftian baptifm j what ground can there be to 
 pi ead fuch an exemption for the pofterity of the 
 latter ; Chrift having plainly fixed this ordi- 
 nance upon fuch a footing as is common to per- 
 fons of all pedigrees and defcents, even all the 
 children oi Adam ? (4.)Though the after-born 
 children of Jewijh profelytes were not baptiz- 
 ed, they were circumcifed after the manner 
 of the Jews'y conformably whereunto the 
 children of Chriftian parents are to be baptiz- 
 
 . ed 
 
 [/] See Dr. Benfon's Anfwer to Mr. Emlyn. Eflay on 
 the public worfhipof Chrillians, chap. 5. feft. 2. edit. 2d. 
 [g] See Wall's hiltory of Infant-baptifm, Introduftion, 
 
( i6 ) 
 
 ed through all generations. For, in the or- 
 der of the divine ceconomy, where the Jew- 
 ifli circumcifion ended, Chriftian baptifm 
 began as the facred rite of initiation into God's 
 {reformed) [h'] Church : but with this Diffe- 
 rence in the SiibjeSis^ that baptifm is of a lar- 
 ger extent in its ufe and application : For^ 
 *^ in Chrift Jefus there is neither male norfe^ 
 ** male [/]." (5.) There is not the lead: inti- 
 mation given, that baptifm was only a tempo- 
 rary inftitution ; nor is there any ground to 
 fuppofe it from the nature and reafon of the 
 thing, fince the moral ends of baptifm ftill 
 remain [k\ no lefs than thofe of the Lorcfs 
 Supper^ v/hich is acknowledged to be a {land- 
 ing ordinance in the church of Chrift [/]. 
 The pretencCj that baptifm was only a tem^ 
 porary inftitution, becaufe the commiffion to 
 baptize was given by Chrift to his Apoftles, 
 at the firft dtfcipling of the nations^ is without 
 any foundation. For the fame Commiffion 
 had been given to them, who were to be em- 
 ployed in firft planting the Chriftian church, 
 even fuppofing that baptizing as well as teach- 
 ings was to be a ftanding ordinance. And 
 indeed there is the fame reafon to pretend, 
 that teaching alfo was a temporary inftitution; 
 becaufe it is included in the fame commiffi- 
 on 
 
 [h'^ Heb. ix. 10. [/] Gal. iii. 28. 
 
 \k'] Vid. Limborch. Theolog. Chrift. lib. 5, cap. 6^.. 
 
 Sta. 5. 
 
 [/] I Cor. xj. 23.-26. 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 on [///] : But the Apoftles, who received this 
 commiflion, did not underftand, that the full 
 and final execution of it was confined to them- 
 felves. For, as in the clofe of it Chrift pro- 
 mi fed to be with them alway\ even to the end 
 of the world \n\ ; (a promife v/hicb could 
 not be verified in their own perfons abftradt- 
 ly) foj they provided for a fucceflion of gof- 
 pel-minifters, by fixing flated paftors in every 
 church {p\ (6.) Xw^^vno^ primitive times 
 none were admitted to the Lord's Supper^ but 
 thofe that wxre baptized [/]. But, furely, 
 the defcendents of Chriflians were admitted 
 to the Lord's Supper, aud confequently were 
 baptized [jr], (7.) The novelty of this noti- 
 on is no fmail prejudice againft it in a juft and 
 reafonable account. For, fo far as we can 
 learn, it was never heard of in the Chriftiaa 
 world before the time of SocinuSy that is, above 
 1500 years after Chrid, and appears to be a 
 fond invention of his own. Whatever it wa?, 
 that fwayed him into this ?7ew opinion, and 
 fome others after him ; whether it was a de- 
 fire of aboHfljing the dodrine of the Trinity^ 
 as Dr. PFall guelTed [r] : or, fome diflike to 
 the dodrine of original Sin, as others may 
 fufped ', we (liall not take upon us to dettr- 
 C mine^ 
 
 C»z] Mat. xxviii. 1 9, 70. [«] Ibid. 
 
 [0] A61. xiv. 23. [/»] Vid. J. Martyr, apol. 2. 
 
 [q] See Wall's Anfvver to Einl)n, Defence, &c. p. 34. and 
 Penfon, ubi fupra. 
 [r] Hift. of Infant-taptifm, Introduftion, fe£l. ^. 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 mine. But this we pre fume to fay, that fof 
 any perfons to be prejudiced again (1 the conti- 
 nuance of baptifm on any fuch accounts is 
 very abfurd 5 whether baptifm, which is ac*- 
 knowledged an inftitution of Chrlfl:, hath, or 
 hath not, any real connexion with the faid 
 doctrines. For, in the latter cafe, they be- 
 tray great weaknefs 5 and in the former, they 
 convid: themfelves of herefy. — Upon the 
 whole then, the authority of baptifm, and 
 confequently of Infant- baptifm (fuppofing it 
 was pradifed at the beginning, which thefe 
 writers allow according to their own hypo- 
 thefis) as a perpetual and {landing rite in the 
 Chriftian church, apparently refts upon a fuf- 
 ficiently firm and folid foundation- 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 No jufl objeBion againft Infant -baptfm from 
 the nature of the thing, but the contrary. 
 
 BY the contemptuous names and epithetSy 
 which are fometimes given to Infant- 
 baptifm, (^^ g. baby-baptifra^ childijh baptifm^ 
 cbildijh bufinfs, &c,) it(hould feem that cer- 
 tain perfons fuppofe, and would infinuate, 
 that the thing is too ridiculous^ and abfurd in 
 itfelfto have any place in a religious inftituti- 
 on. But why Infant'baptifm fliould be more 
 unworthy of this honour than Infant- circum^ 
 
 cifm^ 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 cifton, we cannot imagine. And yet the lat- 
 ter muft be allowed to be a divine ordi- 
 nance [i]. Will they fay, (as they have fome- 
 times unadviledly done [^], that Infant- 
 C 2 church- 
 
 [j] Gen. xvii. lo, &c. A<^. vii. 8. Isl. B. It does not ap- 
 pear, th^t God appointed circumcifion in cotnpliance with any 
 fuch cikOp. amongft the nations. 'Tis true; the P^y^^;/ writ- 
 ers pretend that iat f e~MS dtnved.\iiYcmt\iQ Egyptians. (Vid. 
 Herodot. lib. z. Diodor. Sicul. lib. i. Strabo, Hb. 17. Celfus, 
 in Origen, lib, i ) And this notion is fo far fc^voured by fomc 
 mcdern authors, as that they fuppofr^ Circumcifion wasprac- 
 tifed in Ecypt before it was ufed in Jbraham's family. (Vid. 
 Mariham, Canon, chronic, p. 72, 207 Edit Lipf. J Cleric, 
 comment, in Gen. xvii. Bp. Cumberland Sanchoniatho, 
 p. 150,) But other learned men think with more reafon that 
 Abraham was the firft pcrfon in the world that was circumcifed. 
 (Vid Eufeb, de Prsp. evangelic, lib. 7. cap. 8 G. J. VoiT. 
 Hilt, idolat. lib. 1. cap. 30. Huet Quseu. Ainetan. lib. i. 
 cap. 12.. fed. 17. Bp. Patrick's Comment, m Gen. xvii. 11, 
 <&c.) For, it is eafy to conceive that the Egyptians themfelves 
 might derive circumcifion from one branch or other of his fa- 
 mily. (See Revelation examined witn candour) Nor is it hard 
 toguefs from what branch it was fo derived, if the Egyptians 
 circumcifed their children at 1 4 years of ag.-, according to the 
 teftimony of St. Amhrofe, (de Abrahamo, lib 2.) alledged by 
 fundry authors, and not controverted by any, fo far as wc have 
 feen. (Vid.Marlham. can. chronic, p. 175, &c. Bochart op. 
 vol.111, eol. 1(22. Spencer de legib. Hebr. p. 59 edit, fol.) 
 For this was near the Age, that the poilerity of 2/^wW cir- 
 cumcifed their children. (Vid. Jofeph. J. Antiq. lib. i. Ori- 
 gen. Philocilia, cap. 23.) And as they fettled upon the borders 
 of Egypt t Gen. xxv. 18. this might give them an opportunity 
 to introduce circumcifion amonglt the Egyptians, efpeciaily if 
 they were the famous Shepherds that invaded them : (Vid. 
 Jofeph. cont, Apion, lib. i.) and fometook them ior Arabians, 
 This hint may be of fome ufe in chronology. But the chief de- 
 fign of this note is to fupport the dignity of circumcifion, as 
 originally from heaven ; which will excufe the length of it 
 with every curious and candid reader. 
 
 [/] See Keach.anfwer to Owen, p. 84. Burroughs's tWQ 
 difcourfes relating to pofitive iniiitations, p. 42. 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 church- member/hip^ and confequently Infant- 
 baptifm, is too carnal a thing, to fuit thtfpi^ 
 ritual nature of the Chriftian church ? Then, 
 according to their principles, either the church 
 of Chrift upon earth is more fpiritual, pure, 
 and perfed:, in its frame and conftitution, 
 than the church in heaven ; or infants are no 
 members of the latter! — Circumcifion indeed 
 left a mark in the flefh of an infant, which 
 baptifm does not j and good reafon there is 
 why it fhould not. For, '' as circumcifion 
 ** w^as a mark in the fefi, it appears to have 
 ** been of a political nature, and defigned as 
 *' a token to mark and diftinguifli the yews 
 " from all other nations. But under the 
 " gofpel fuch a national diftindion is remov- 
 *^ ed, and therefore it is neither neceffary, 
 nor proper that there (hould be any lading 
 mark in the flefh to diftinguifh a peculiar 
 people, when the gofpel is to be preached 
 ** unto all nations, &c,'' Accordingly, nei- 
 ther doth Adult -baptifm leave any mark in the 
 flefh ; and yet who will cenfure or revile it on 
 this account? — Befides, when the Ifraelites 
 grew up J that the mark of circumcifion was 
 not 72atural but artificial, and applied as 
 a religious rite, how did they know ? By the 
 information of others only, confirmed by 
 their own obfervation in feeing infants circum- 
 cifed every day. Now, the fame fatisfadion 
 may any Chrifl:ian-man have of his own bap- 
 tifm, 
 
 <c 
 
 ct 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 tifm, though adminiftred in his infancy [v^. — 
 Moreover, is baptifm a figmficant rite ? So 
 was circumcifion \w\ And yet a Jewi(h in- 
 fant knew no more of its fignification, than 
 any Chriftian infant underflands of his baptifm. 
 — Further yet ; is baptifm a profejjioit of the 
 Chrtjiian rehgion, or a rite of initiation into 
 it ? So was circumcifion a rite of initiation 
 into the Jewifh reHgion : and yet it was ad- 
 miniftred not only to the adult, but to infants 
 by divine appointment. If baptifm be, as 
 fome reprefent it, an engaging iign ; there 
 can be no abfurdity in applying it to infants: 
 for fuch a fign alfo was circumcifion [x]. 
 Therefore the baptifm of Infants, confidered 
 abllractly in itielf, appears noway? unworthy 
 to have a place in a religious inftitution. — If 
 it be faid, the fame thing may be urged in 
 behalf of Chrifm^ &c. the aniwer is, that it 
 is not fair to put thefe things upon a levehy 
 for the cafes are not parallel, *' In the one 
 " cafe, only ih^fubjedi is the matter in quef- 
 " tion ; in the other the very things chem- 
 '* felvesf^']." The ufe of baptifm is allowed 
 to be a divine appointment. And when it 
 ihall be proved that the ufe of -Cbrijm^ &c. 
 alfo is appointed, u g, for the adult, as the 
 
 Anti- 
 
 \fv\ See Holling worth, Catechifl catechized, p. 43. Wills, 
 Anfwer to Danverfe, chap. 3 p. 240. 
 [w] Rom. ii. z8, 29 iv. if. 
 [^] Gal. V. 3. See Keach, ubi fupra, p. 831 %^, 
 \y\ See Faedo baptifm, p. S^f 5i' 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 Antipsedo-baptills acknowledge baptlfm to 
 be ; then, and not before, may they argue 
 from the one to the other. 
 
 Thus far we have reafoned the cafe from 
 the nature of the two religious rites, circum- 
 cifton and baptijm^ compared together j with- 
 out infixing at prefent, that^ or enquiring 
 boWy the one fucceeded in the room of the 
 other. But, laying afide this comparifon, let 
 us now take a view of Chriftian- baptlfm by 
 itfelf ; and fee whether there is any thing in 
 its true and proper notion, which can render 
 it unapplicable to infants. What then is bap- 
 tifm as to (h^fulje^ but an ordinance o^ de- 
 dication ? as Mr. David Rees, an eminent an- 
 ti-psedo-bapti(l, acknowledges [2:]. This 
 notion oi ChriJiiaJi-hz^ixim (which is the mat- 
 ter under confideration) naturally arifes from 
 the manner of St. Pauh putting that queftion 
 to the fad;ious Corinthians^ fplit into different 
 parties [a] Were ye baptized in the name of 
 Paul? The fame notion is confirmed by his 
 faying [i], / thank God that I baptized none oj 
 youy but Crifpus, ^WGaius, left any Jhouldfay 
 that I had baptized in my own name. This 
 he faid, not in difparagement of baptifm, but 
 becaufethey had accidentally made fuch an ill 
 life of it i and fome amongft them had fet him 
 up for the head of a party. Since therefore 
 things had fallen out fo perverfely ; St. Paul 
 
 was 
 
 [s] Anfwer to Walker, &c. p. 226. 
 
 [fi] I Cor. i. 12, 13. [^3 Ibid. ver. 15. 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 was very glad, and thankful, that he had 
 given his enemies fo little handle to accufe him 
 oi making a party to himfelf^ and devoted to 
 his ov/n intereft. This he calls baptizing in 
 bis own name. And thus his v^ords plainly 
 reprefent baptifm, as an ordinance of dedica- 
 tion. This notion of Chriftlan- baptifm he 
 fuggefts alfo upon another occafion [c] ; vv^hen 
 he fpeaks of Chrift ^' fandifying his church 
 '* by the wajhijig cf 'water ^ &c." ¥ or y fane- 
 tification commonly fignifies, in fcripture, a 
 dedication, or con fecration of perfons or things 
 to a facred ufe. Thus, v, g. the altar is faid 
 to fanBify the gift [c/] : Becaufe the gift, by- 
 being laid upon the altar, became a facred 
 oblation, and fo v/as a thing dedicated to God. 
 In like manner baptized perfons are properly 
 faid to be (andtified by the water of baptifm, 
 in as much as they are dedicated to God by this 
 facred and folemn rite. Now, according to 
 this notion of baptifm, and confidering it as 
 an ordinance of dedication [^], there is nothing 
 in the nature of the thing to render the baptifm 
 of infants an unreafonable fervice^ much lefs 
 ridiculous and ablurd ; if infants are capable 
 of being dedicated to God, which, we pre- 
 fume, none will deny. And in truth, -what 
 is the proper meaning and import of that fo- 
 lemn 
 
 [f] Eph. V. 26. [^/] Mat. xxiii. 19. 
 
 [^] This notion of baptifm is £xed on, as being not only 
 fcriptural, but applicable to all forts of perfons, whether the 
 cefcendents of Chrifaans, or new convert?. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 Itmnform of baptiCm prefcribed byChrift [y ], 
 (and pradtifed in the primitive church, as was 
 noted before) viz. " Baptizing them in the 
 " name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 ** of the Holy Ghoft?" What doth this 
 mean or fignify, according to St. Paul's no- 
 tion of being baptized in the name of any one ? 
 but a folemn dedication of the party baptized 
 to the fervice of God, under that religious in- 
 iiitution, which God the Father publifhed to 
 the world by Chrift his Son^ and which was 
 divinely confirmed by the Holy Ghoji. There- 
 fore, as baptifm is a facred rite oi dedication y 
 and infants are capable of being dedicated to 
 God, there is nothing in the nature of the 
 thing to render it improper for infants 5 efpe- 
 cially if Infant baptifm hath an apt tendency 
 to anfwer any valuable ends and purpofes of 
 religion. 
 
 It is taken for granted, that in the nature 
 and reafon of things there is juft ground for di- 
 ftingui(l:iing httwixt pofitive and ;;;^r^/ duties. 
 For, even thofe, that \vould refolve^// moral 
 obligation into the will of God, add this re- 
 ftridion, as determined by his moral ferfedli-- 
 ons^^g]. Thus, they iwyp^^ok. moral perfect - 
 ons^ and moral properties, difiiiiB from the 
 will of God, independent on it; what deter- 
 mine it, and fo are not determined by it. 
 
 But 
 
 [/] Mat. xxviii. 19. 
 
 \g) See Dr. Gill's refleaions on Mr. S. Chandler's Refor^ 
 mation Sermon, 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 But then, as all divine inftitutions are the ap- 
 pointments of divine wifdom; it is moft ra- 
 tional to think, that they are well chofen, and 
 wifely calculated, to anfwer feme excellent 
 and ufeful ends. Therefore Chriftian-baptifm 
 itfelf, though a pofitive rite, muft be fuppof- 
 ed to have its moral ends and ufes. Let us 
 then modeftly enquire whether baptifm, as 
 applied to infants, hath not an apparent fit- 
 nefs, aptitude and tendency to ferve fome 
 worthy purpofes of religion. Now, that it 
 hath fo, feems very eafy to conceive in the 
 following viewSj without indulging an extra- 
 vagant fancy. 
 
 (i.) With refped to G^^ himfelf ;. as aa 
 aptly expreffive fign and token^ not only of his 
 claim ^ but of K\s favour to infants. And con- 
 fidering the human race, as related to a firjly 
 and a fecond Adam, according to St. PauN 
 account [Id], which we cannot but prefer to 
 any modern hypothefes ; fuch a token and 
 fignification of the divine regards to poor in- 
 fants, and of their concern with a Redeemer, 
 appears very worthy the Father of mercies ^ 
 v/ho hath made the moft ample difcoveries 
 of his love and grace to the children of men 
 under the Chriftian difpenfation* 
 
 (2.) With relation to Chriftian parents* 
 Doth it not minifter great comfort to them, 
 when they fee fo much notice taken of their 
 dear infants, living or dying, in a difpenfa* 
 
 D tion 
 
 [b1 Rom.v. 12—19. I Cor.xv.2i5 2«, 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 tion of mercy to a lapfed world ? Befides, by 
 confenting to their children's baptifm, and con- 
 curring in it, they make that folemn profef- 
 ,iion of Chriftianity, and lay themfelves un- 
 der thofe voluntary engagements, which have 
 a happy tendency to imprefs their own fouls 
 with a more lively fenfe of religion, and there- 
 by excite them to adt a part worthy of the 
 Chriftian name and charadler, particularly 
 towards their children. 
 
 (3.) In reference to their children^ who 
 may be benefited by their baptifm. That 
 Chrift hath a blejjing for infants, we may af- 
 furedly conclude from his taking them up in 
 his arms, and blefjing them^ upon a certain 
 occafion [/]. And if it is rational to recom- 
 mend infants to God by prayer; why is it im- 
 proper, in the nature of the thing, to dedi- 
 cate them to God by baptifm ? And why may 
 not a divine bleffing be as likely to attend the 
 one adion, as the other; though the infants 
 themfelves are equally ignorant of both ; and 
 can no more join in the pious recommendation, 
 than concur in the baptifmal dedication ? Be- 
 fides, the part, which the parents are fup- 
 pofed to adt in this affair, hath a tenden- 
 cy to fecure their bed affediions and regards 
 to their children, ftrongly prompting them to 
 bring them up in the nurture and admonition cj 
 the Lord, For after fuch a folemn tran fac- 
 tion, they muft look upon the young crea- 
 tures, 
 
 [0 Markx. I5f i6r Luke xviii. 15.' 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 tiires, as devoted things, as confecrated things, 
 whom they themfelves, by defiring their 
 baptifm, have given up to God And there- 
 fore^ (not to mention here the particular en- 
 gagements which the fponfors enter into up- 
 on the occafion,) they can no more negled: 
 the religious education of their children, 
 than a perfon could alienate a facrcd ob- 
 lation from God, without being guilty of 
 facriledge. — To which add, as children grow 
 up, the frequent y?^/;?^ of other Infants bap- 
 tized, hath an apt tendency to afFed their 
 tender minds, in the refledion, with the 
 folemnity of their own baptifmal dedication 
 to Goil, and fo infpire them with an early 
 (<d\\k of religion, and a proper concern ,to 
 a6l fuitably to the divine deftination in cart- 
 ing their lot under the facred miniftrations 
 of the Gofpel. 
 
 (4.) With regard to the honour and credit 
 of chrijlianity. It is the glory of the Gof- 
 pel, that it is a full and final revelation of 
 the grace of God. If then the grace of 
 God at all extends to Infants ; it feems very 
 congruous and agreeable to the nature and 
 genius of this falutary difpenfation, that there 
 Ihould be fome appointed ftgn and token of 
 it in the chriflian church. And what fo 
 proper as baptifm ? Befides, as other re- 
 ligions had their facred rites for Infants j 
 would not the chriftian religion, without 
 fqme thing of that kind, have appeared in 
 D 2 the 
 
(C 
 
 ( 28) 
 
 the eyes of the world an imperfect inftltu- 
 tion r Nay, would not chriflianity have 
 been thought an unnatural religion, if it had 
 caufed fo great a feparation betwixt parents 
 and children, as only to admit the former 
 into^ and excommunicate the latter from, 
 the vifible church of God ? '' Nature, (fays 
 '" Mr. Baxter [/^] ) hath adually taught moft 
 people on earth, fo far as I can learn, to 
 repute their Infants in the fame religous 
 " fociety with themfelves, as well as in the 
 " fame cixtl fociety." — There is one circum- 
 fiance which may defer ve fome little notice, 
 iHz. That as the Jews named their children 
 at the time of their circumcijion [/j ; fo the 
 Heathens gave n;.mes to their children at 
 the time of their lufiration [w] ; in hke 
 manner as it is ufual with chriftians to men- 
 tion the names of their children at the time 
 of baptifm. This conformity of cuftoms is 
 fomewhat remarkable, and feems to have a 
 language, that fpeaks in favour of the com- 
 mon 
 
 l^k] More proofs of Infants church -niemberfhip, &c. 
 P. 112. 
 
 [/] See Luk. i. 59, — 63. ii. 21. 
 
 l^m] Eft autem dies lujiricusy qua infantes luftrantur, et 
 jwmen accipiunt. Macrob. Satumal, lib. i. cap. 16. Mari- 
 bus qui nono die poftquam in lucejn editi fuiifent, feminis 
 vero odavo, nomina imponerent, nonnunquam feptimo, qui 
 dies lujirkus nomen habet. — Ab Athenienfihus vero, et omni 
 fere Gracia, decimo a natali die infanti nomen imponere fer- 
 vatum eft. JJlex ah. Jlex. Genial. Dier. lib. 2. cap. 25. 
 In prime infantum baptifmate imponitur nomen. Hyde, 
 Rtlig, Vet, Perjarum. Cap. zS. Confer, iv?/', 34. 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 mon pradice in baptizing Infants, as a thing 
 agreeable to the common notions and appre- 
 henfions of mankind ; fince there is fuch 
 a general agreement in a circum fiance fo 
 minute. 
 
 Upon the whole then it is manifeft, that 
 no reafonable objecftion lieth againft Infant- 
 baptifm from the iiatiire of the thing itfelf ^ 
 hut the contrary. For, it plainly is fuch a 
 Rite as Hcbreivs^ Greeks^ aiid Komans^ even 
 all the world, would naturally approve, as 
 a proper religious ceremony. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 The Objeclion from ivant of an Example 
 confidered, 
 
 TH I S is one popular plea of the Anti- 
 paedo-baptifts, ^72;. '* That there is 
 " no ijiftancCy or example^ in Scripture, of 
 '^ baptizing Infants ; but frequent mention 
 ^* is made of baptizing Believers, or the 
 *' Adult." To which the anfvver is as 
 follows. 
 
 (i.) Believers, or Adult perfons were of 
 courfe to be baptized at the lirft adminiftra- 
 tion of baptifm, as a rite of the chrijiian 
 church ; fuppoling, that Infants alfo were 
 to be, and actually were admitted to bap- 
 tifm. For, as circumcifion was introduced 
 into Abrahafn'% family upon the ground of 
 
 his 
 
(30) 
 
 K\s faith [;;] : (o chriftian-baptifm could not 
 be regularly introduced into any families 
 without being firfl: adminiftred to their be- 
 lieving heads and governors ; at the time of 
 the firft inftitution and admSniftration of 
 thefe different rites refpedively. Therefore 
 how numerous foever the examples of Be- 
 lievers, or Adult- baptifm, are in the hiftory 
 of the firji planting of the chrifiian church, 
 when chriftian-baptifm was a 72ew thing ; 
 this is no difproof at all of Infant-baptifm 
 in thofe days, (though it may look very 
 plaufible in the eyes of the vulgar, and is 
 apt enough to impofe upon their weak un- 
 derflandings from a partial view of things, 
 ^nd not attending to all the circumftances of 
 the cafe). For, thofe examples of Adult- 
 baptifm had been as numerous, as they are, 
 for the reafon aforefaid, even upon the fup- 
 polition, that Infants alfo were baptized at 
 that time ; and fo can be no proof of the 
 contrary. And though fome people would 
 lay fo much ftrefs upon that circumftance, 
 as if it was little lefs than demonftration j it 
 fhould be confidered, that not one of all thofe 
 indances relates to perfons, whofe parents 
 were chriJiianSy or - members of the chriftian 
 church, at the time of their birth. Con- 
 fequently their being baptized at Adult age 
 is no argument, that the Infants of baptized 
 chriftians were not baptized thernfelves. But 
 
 of 
 
 [«] See Paedo-baptifm, p. i . 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 of all the examples of Adult-baptifm reeord- 
 ed in the New Teftament, none is common- 
 ly produced with greater pomp, nor yet any 
 one urged with more impertinency, than 
 that of the Eunuch [c]. As if the baptizing 
 not only of a newy but a childlefs convert, an 
 Eunuch, was any proof that the Infants of 
 chriftian converts and believers vt'ere not 
 baptized in thofe days ! 
 
 (2.) The Scripture fpeaks oi whole houfe- 
 holds being baptized together [/>]. Therefore 
 the children, Infants and others, were bap- 
 tized along with the reft, if any fuch vi^ere 
 in thofe families ^ and the contrary cannot 
 be proved. But, we are told by a dignified 
 writer [5^], " They ought not to put it upon 
 *' us to prove the negative y to prove that 
 *' there were none, this is unfair." Well, 
 we will then be fo fair, as only to put it up- 
 on them to prove, if they can, this affinna^ 
 iivey viz. That all the members of thofe 
 baptized houfeholds were Adult -perfons. 
 And this we may demand, without any un- 
 fairnefs, from them, who lay the whole 
 flrefs of their argument upon it; and there- 
 fore ought not to take the thing for granted 
 without proof; fuch /)Az/;; proof, as they arc 
 wont to infift upon themfelves. In thefe 
 baptized houfeholds it is pojjibky there might 
 
 be 
 
 [b] A61. viii. 27 — 39. 
 
 [^] Aft. xvi. 15, 34. xviii, 8, i^c. 
 
 \q\ Dr. Giil. Divine Right of Infant baptifm examined, 
 d'r. p. 83. 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 be feme Infants, or young children 5 and 
 therefore no man can be certain of the con- 
 trary. Nay, more ; it feems highly probable^ 
 as to fome of thefe families ; as well as in 
 the families of the Shechemites^ when all 
 their males were circumcifed [r], and con- 
 fequently their male-:nfants 5 although In- 
 fants are exprefsly named in neither cafe. 
 For it is obfervable, that in fome of the in- 
 ftances referred to, the whole houfe is faid 
 to believe [s]. But in others, nothing is faid, 
 or hinted, that the whole houfe believed, 
 but that the head of the family believing, 
 they were all baptized [/]. This diftindtion 
 deferves fome attention in an argument^ 
 formed upon plain fcripture language. For, 
 as it is very fuppofable, that there might be 
 young children and minors in fome families, 
 and none but grcw7i perfons in others , fo, if 
 there was not this difference in thofe bap- 
 tized houfeholds ; let them, that fay fo, ac- 
 count for the different manner of expreffion, 
 ufed by the facred Fliftorian in fpeaking of 
 them. Will they affirm, that all the mem- 
 bers, e, g. of Lydias family were Adult- 
 perfons, and believers ^ though the hillory 
 is Jilent about it ? Let them judge then of" 
 the force of their own argument from the 
 Jilence of Scripture concerning the baptifm 
 
 of 
 
 [r] Gen. xxxiv. 22«— 24. 
 [j] A<a. xvi. 34. xviii. 8. 
 \t'\ Adt. xvi. 15. 
 
( 33 ) 
 of Infants, particularly in the inftaaces un- 
 der confideration. Have not we as much 
 right to affert this facSl, as they can have to 
 maintain the other, without any exprefs 
 mention of it in Scripture [i;] ? But, it is 
 urged [w]j '^ As for Lydia^ it is not certain, 
 " in what flate of life fhe was, &cJ* Now, 
 if fo, (to join iiTue here) then fhe might be 
 a wije^ or a widow, and (he might have 
 children, yea little children. Nor is it rational 
 to think, that fhe would have kept hgufe, as 
 fhe did, at Philippi [x\ where flie had her 
 family with her [^j 5 and leave her childrea 
 at Thyatira, from whence fhe came 5 but 
 not as a travelling pedlar to fell her purple 
 at the fair, which is ail fidtion ; for, could' 
 fhe not be a feller of purple y and yet a fhop" 
 keeper, as fhe plainly was an houfe- keeper ? 
 It is faid indeed, that fhe was a woman of 
 Thyatira, But, to argue and conclude from 
 hence, *^ that this city, and not Philippic 
 *' was now the place of her ufual refidence, 
 *' and ftated abode ;" This wtiy of reafon- 
 ing, which many have ufed \z], is falfe 
 criticifin. For, perfons are faid in Scripture 
 to be oi fuch, ov fuch a place, to- denote the 
 place where they were born, or brought up 
 
 [fu\ See Walker's modeftPlea, ^c ch. 30, §. 27. 
 
 [w] Dr, Gill, ubi fupra. 
 
 [;r] Aa. xvi. 15. [j] Ibid. 
 
 [%\ See Keach, anfwer to Burkit, p. 125. Stennet, 
 anfwer to RuiTen, p. 31. Rees, aufwer to Walker, p. 
 35, ^c, 
 
 E the 
 
( 34) 
 the place from whence they came, and to 
 which they originally belonged ; though 
 they had removed their habitation from 
 thence, and fettled in fome other town or 
 country. Thus e. g, Mijafon^ an old Dif- 
 ciple, is faid to be of Cyprus -, and yet he 
 lived, and kept houfe at yernjalem [a]. And 
 thus again (to mention a moft illuftrious 
 inftance) our bleffed Saviour himfelf is com- 
 monly called Jefus of Nazareth -, (the very 
 infcription upon his crofs [I?] !) though, leav- 
 ing Nazareth, where he had been brought up 
 \c]y he ca?ne and dwelt at Capenmum [^}. 
 Therefore, laying all circumftances together^ 
 there is not the leaft ground to conclude any 
 other, but that Philippi was the place of 
 her fettled habitation, at the time oi Lydids. 
 embracing the Chriftian faith in that city ; 
 in confequence of which not only (he her- 
 felf, but her houfehold alfo was baptized, 
 though not a fyllable is faid of her houfehold 
 believing. As {he is called a worfiipper oj 
 God \_e']y (he appears to have been a devout 
 Gentik ; and, knowing it to be the cuftom 
 of the Jewifli church to receive Profelytes 
 together with their children, this eafily ac- 
 counts for it, that (he defired her houfehold 
 might be baptized with herfelf, and had her 
 defire grar^ted. After all> though we infift 
 
 upon 
 
 {a'\ A£l. xxi. 1 6. Vid, Knatchbull. in loc. 
 {b\ Joh. xix. 19. [<:] Luk. iv. 16. 
 
 \d\ Mat, iv, 15, \t\ A(^»xvi. 14. 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 upon It, that there is no evidence, and juftly 
 demand a proof, that all the members of 
 her family were Adult-perfons, or believers; 
 yet, that there vs^ere none fuch befides herfelf, 
 we neither prefume to fay, nor are obliged 
 by our argument to maintain. 
 
 (3.) There are fome texts of Scripture, 
 that feem to prove, diredtly or confequential- 
 ly, that Infants were baptized in the Apoiiles 
 days. St. Paul was blamed for *' teaching 
 * ' the jfewsy which were among the Gentiles^ 
 ** that they ought not to circumcife their chil- 
 " dren*' [/]. And would he not have been 
 blamed ftili more, if he had not ordered their 
 children to be baptized^ but left them entire- 
 ly detlimte of any thing to fupply the room 
 of circumcifion ? As *' circumclfion ceafed to 
 *' be an ordinance of God at the death of 
 *' Chrift," according to Mr. Rees\g\\ So, 
 Chrijiian baptifm (that is, baptifm as admi- 
 niftered in the Chriftian church, which com- 
 menced ajtcr the death of Chrift) fucceeded 
 the Jewijh circumcifion in the order of the 
 divine oeconomy. And it is matter of fpecial 
 obfervation, ihzt one main ground of St. Paul's 
 oppofing the continuaJice of circumcifion was 
 the fufficiency of baptifm without it. For, 
 fpeaking of Chrift, he tells the ColoJJiam \h\ 
 *' And ye are complete in hinty which is the 
 " head of all frijicipality and power. In 
 E 2 ** niohom 
 
 [/] Aft. xxi. 21. [^] Anfwer to Walker, p. 70. 
 
 \]}\ Coloff. 14. xo,— 12. 
 
(36 ) 
 
 ^^ whom alfoye are circcmcifed mth the citr 
 " cumcijion made without hands ^ in putting off 
 *' the body of thejins rf the Jlefij by the circum- 
 *' cifion of Chrift: Buried with him in ba-p- 
 '* tifm, &c/' In thefe words. He is the 
 head of all principality and power ^ there is a 
 plain allufion, or at leaft an apt correfponden- 
 cy to that declaration of Chrift, which he 
 made at the very time, when he inftituted the 
 ordinance of Chriftian-baptifm [/]: ** AUpow- 
 ** er is given unto me in heaven^ and in earthy 
 And thus, the Apoftle's difcourfe implies, that 
 fince Chrift by the fulnefs of his authority did 
 not appoint circumcifion, but baptijm to be ufed 
 in his church ; therefore, by having the lat-- 
 ter Chriftians were complete^ without theyir- 
 mer. It is plain then, that St, Paul oppofed 
 the continuance of circumcifion upon this 
 ground and foundation, viz. That baptifm 
 Mvz.^ fufficiefit without it, as was hinted before; 
 and fo rendered itunneceffary for the difciples 
 of Chrift to be circumcifed after the manner 
 of Mofes [k\ Therefore thofe, whom St. 
 Paul was not for having circumcifed^ were 
 baptized. But, it is faid, he was not for hav- 
 ing the children of the convert fews among 
 the Gentiles circumcifed : Therefore fuch 
 children (and by parity of reafon others alfo) 
 were baptized ; and baptized in their infancy : 
 Otherwife, they had nothing to fupply the 
 want of circumcifion, nothing to render if 
 
 fuperflijious 
 
 [?] Mat. xxviii. i8. [hi] Afts xv. i. 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 faperfluous to them, or to make them complete 
 Without it, according to his own argument, 
 r — Again. In order to perfuade Ch'ijlian men 
 and women to cohabit with their unbelieving 
 husbands and wives, the Apoftle makes ufe of 
 this argument [/] ; *' For^ the unbelieving 
 ** husband is fan5iijied by the wife^ and the unbe^ 
 *' lieving wife is fanBtfied by the husband ; elfe 
 *' loere your children unclean, but now are they 
 " hohr " An invincible argument (fays 
 " a worthy man [wj, for Pcedo-boptifmy 
 And fuch probably it would appear ^/j^/^y^fo 
 tQ any one, that viewed it with an unprejudiced 
 eye. For, what can be more namral, thaa 
 the learned KnatcbbuWs account of this paf- 
 fage? " Elfe, unlefs one of the parents were 
 '* a believer, your children vvcre unclean, 
 " that is, remain heathen, as the children of 
 " that parent, that v/as KXviTog uytog, called a 
 *' faint y or reputed a believer, were reputed 
 *' faints, and holy alfo, and confequently 
 *' admitted to the participation of baptifm, as 
 ** the fon of a profelyte was capable of cir- 
 ** cumcifion, ^c. [n'].' Thus, their children 
 were holy not merely in a civil , but in an ec- 
 clefiaftical icnk ; and if by this term the Apo- 
 i!le had meant the fame with legitimate ^ he 
 might have ufed a more proper word to ex- 
 
 prefs 
 
 [/] I Cor. vii. i^. 
 
 [m] Increafe Mather. Difcourfe concerning the fubjed of 
 baptifm. p. 18. 
 
 [«] Sir N. Knatchbull in loc. confer. Dr. Hammond. 
 Quxre4.fec. 3! 37. 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 prefs that Idea [o]. Indeed by underftanding 
 this holinels of believers children to denote 
 their legitimacy, the Antipcedo baptijls involve 
 themfelves in inextricable difficulties; as fun- 
 dry writers have {hewed [/>]. As for that 
 Rabbinical phrafe of a woman ^fanEl if ying her- 
 felf to a marly to fignify her becoming hi% 
 wife [q\ ; this is not parallel to the Apoftle's 
 expreffion, when he fpeaks of an unbeliever 
 being fandtified by (or in) the believer. For, 
 he plainly intends fuch a fandification, as doth 
 not refult from the relation betwixt husband 
 and wife as fuch-, but only as the one is a be- 
 liever, and fo the injlrument oi i:a.n(X\iy\ngt\\Q 
 other, to the end of producing an holy feed, 
 Befides, if the word, fajiBifiedy here fignifies 
 the being ejpoufed or married j St. Paul told 
 them nothing, but what they knew before. 
 For, this is the very cafe fuppofed in calling 
 them husband 2ind wife ',a.nd fo they could have 
 no doubt about it, nor therefore could they quef- 
 tion the legitimacy of their iffue. On the other 
 hand, if they were fatisfied of the legitimacy of 
 their children(as the form of the Apoftle's argu- 
 ment would imply, according to this conltruc- 
 tion of his words) how could they doubt, or 
 want to be refolved about (the rm/jlawfulnefs 
 of thdrown marriage or cohabitation? In fiiort; 
 
 if 
 
 [o] See Whitby in loc. 
 
 ^] SeeMarfhalPs AnfwertoTombes, p. 14^, «fC. Blake's 
 ditto, chap. 7. Wills. Anfwer to Danverfc, P. 2, 162, &c. 
 Dr. Fcatlcy's Dippers dipped, p. 36, 57. 
 
 [^] See Dr. Gill, comment, in loc. 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 if the marriage-union, vjhcxthy twain became 
 one feJJoy be fuppofed the remote ground of 
 th\s faiiBification, the Apoftle fpeaks of; yet 
 the proximate caufe, and the formal reafon of 
 it manifeftly is, one of the parcies being a 
 chrijlian believtr. For, \i lawful wedlock were 
 all that is intended by it; xh^ believer might 
 as well have been faid to be fandified by the 
 unbeliever y as vice verjdx as hath been often 
 alledged, but to no purpofe, for the convidti- 
 on of thofe good men, who having once im- 
 bibed a falfe notion of the novelty of Infant- 
 baptifm, think themfelves obliged (as they 
 certainly are, fo long as that is their notion) 
 to ftrain any text to any fenfe, and to embrace 
 ^ny interpretation, however forced and unna- 
 tural, rather than admit fuch a conftrudion, 
 as militates with thpir own preconceived opi- 
 nion. But to us, who labour under no fuch 
 prejudice, and can with an unbiafled mind 
 attend to the current fenfe, and the native 
 force of fcripture-langu^ige, the words of St. 
 Paul before us appear to imply the church- 
 fnemberjhip, and confequently the baptifm of 
 believers children fo ilrongly, as that we are 
 entirely fatisfied with this proof of xh^ fadt^ 
 without further enquiry [r], 
 
 (4.) The 
 
 [r] By the holinefs of believer's children fome think the 
 ApoUle meant their baptifm itfelf. ^ertullian gloffing upon 
 his words underflands, a holinefs by the prerogativi oi birth, 
 and by the difciplim of injUtutiQn, He reprefents the children 
 
 of 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 (4.) The moft fanguine oppofers of Infant- 
 baptifm are called upon to produce an example 
 from Scripture oithoxi'own pradice in waving 
 the baptilni of believers children^ 'till they are 
 of age ; or a fmgle inftance of any fuch children 
 being baptised at riper years upon a perfonai 
 profeffion of their own faith. If they can 
 produce fuch an example j why have they ne- 
 ver yet done it? And if they cannot; then 
 they muft be obliged either to grant them- 
 felves, that the children of believers were not 
 baptized at all, and fo yield the point to the 
 Socima?2Sy or take it for granted that they were 
 baptized feme time, though the Scripture is 
 Jiknt about it. Now, if they fuppofe the 
 filence of fcripture to be no difproof of their 
 own way ; with what confiftency can they ar- 
 gue from the filence of Scripture againft our 
 way? And with what prudence can they infift 
 upon an argument, which, if ic had a better 
 foundation than it really hath, maybefoea- 
 fily retorted upon them ? Poffibly, lome 
 
 injudicious 
 
 of helu^vers as candidates for holrnefs hy birth ; and JTiade holy 
 hy bapti/jn^ ?.s he explains himfelfai'terwards, faying, *' He 
 •* (viz. St, Paul) remembered our Lord's definition,. Except 
 •* a man be born of 'water and of the Spirit i he Jh all not enter 
 '* into the kingdom of God ; that is, he (hall not ht holy.'*'' 
 This baptifmal holinefs plainly is what he refers to by the dif- 
 cipllne ofinjiitution, which he oppofes to itiQ fuperjiitious rites 
 ufed about the children of heathens y in like manner as he 
 m2ik&i>i\iQ cWAdixtnoibeli elvers candidates for holinefs by birth, 
 hy way of contrail to the children of Infidels, whom he ftiles 
 candidates of demons^ to which they were early dedicattd, lib. 
 de anima, cap. 39, 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 injudicious people may imagine, that the adult- 
 perfons, baptized by the Apoftles, were ^^w/- 
 ed baptifm in their infancy ; otherwife they 
 had been baptized before. But, they widely 
 miftake the cafes : for, in the ifjfancy of thofe 
 perfons, their parents were not Chri/lians, that 
 is, members of the Chrijlian church 5 but Jews 
 or heathens. The Chriftian church was not 
 then in being, nor confequently was baptifm, 
 as a Chrijlian ordinance, adminiftred at that 
 time. — Here, by the way, one may juftly 
 Vvonder what a certain anonymous writer (for 
 fome fuch have appeared on the other fide of 
 the queftion, it is likely without being ap^med 
 of their name or caufe) had in his head, when 
 he asked that wife queftion 5 *' If any might 
 *' be baptized in infancy, why not Chriji him- 
 " felf, whofe example was to be a pattern to 
 ** his followers, even to tlie end of the 
 " world [5] ?" Alas ! when Chrift was born, 
 yohn Baptiji^ his immediate forerunner, and 
 the perfon appointed to adminifter baptifm to 
 the Jews (not to Chriftians) was himfelf but 
 Jix months old [/]. How then could Chrift^ 
 according to that difpenfation, have been bap- 
 tized in his infancy ; unlefs an infant was to 
 be his baptizer ? But it is certain, that (as he 
 was baptized without a confeffiony fo) he was 
 drcumcifed in his infancy ["jjj and in this 
 
 F view, 
 
 [j] Platn account of the facred ordinance of baptifm, p. 52. 
 confer. Keach Anfwer to Owen, p. 2 3 2. 
 [/] Lukei. 56. M Lukeii. 21, 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 view, mutatis mutandis ; his example may be 
 confidcred as a pattern to his followers. Be- 
 fides, John's baptil'm was only preparatory^ 
 not initiatory : for, if Chrift himfelf *' did 
 ** not fet up in his own days on earth a vi- 
 •' fible church, difcipline, and worship di- 
 *' jflina from the Jewifh" as Mr. Tombes 
 corJefeth [w] ; much lefs did John enter per- 
 ions into any new church-relation. And tho' 
 ** he was the greateft of prophets ; yet he, 
 *' that is the kaft in the kingdom of heaven 
 " is greater than he [x]^ Therefore, if it 
 fhould be allowed that John baptized none 
 but aduk perfons ; this is nothing to the pre- 
 fent purpofe, nor any way afFeds our argu- 
 ment; efpecially, when the oppofers of In- 
 fant-baptifm reafon in fuch a manner from 
 his adminiftration, as would equally exclude 
 infants frcm haptifm ^nA fahation. An ab- 
 furdity, that flicks fo clofe to their hypothefig, 
 as that they can fcare avoid faUing into it almofl 
 upon all occafions [y\ — But to proceed. It 
 is faid of the Samaritans [^], *^ When they 
 ** believed Philips preaching the things con- 
 *^ cerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 ** of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized both 
 " ?nen and women'' Now, as this was the 
 Jirjt planting of the Chriftian church \n Sama- 
 ria, that believerSy both men and women^ were 
 
 baptized, 
 
 [iv] Examen. p. 88. \_x] Mat. xi. 1 1, 
 
 \_y'] See Dr. Giirs comment, in Mat. iii. g. 
 [«] A^. viiju 12. 
 
< 43 ) 
 baptizec^, was a thing of courfe, and what 
 muft have happened, even fuppofing that 
 their children alio were baptized. But there- 
 fore neither this, nor any other inftance of the 
 like nature, can be any difproof of Infant- 
 baptifoi; as is cooin^only pretended by its 
 oppofers. For, as thefe men and women 
 were not bornofC/^r/"/?/^;? parents themfelves; 
 fo, nothing at all being faid of their children, 
 whether they were, or were not then, or ever 
 after baptized ; no conclufion can be drawn 
 from the hiflory to prove the negative '^ be- 
 caufe, it fays not, that none but men and wo- 
 men, or that men and women ofily^ were 
 baptized. Befides, thefe terms, men and 
 women^ may chiefly denote here males^ and 
 females^ without refped: of age \_a\, ^' And 
 " there was a more fpecial reafon for men- 
 '' tioning the baptifm of females, than of 
 " children y as circumcijion had been limited 
 *^ to the males under th^ former difpenfati- 
 " on [by In fhort ; neither this, nor any 
 other paffage of Scripture, exhibits any inftance 
 or example of the pradlice followed by thofe, 
 who deny baptifm to believers children 'till 
 they are of age, and capable to make a pro- 
 feffion of their faith. Thus, their own objec- 
 tion returns home upon themfelves, 
 
 F 2 S E a 
 
 f/2] Vid. Levit. xili. 29— 38. Nam. v. 2, 3. 
 [^i See Blake, anfwer to Blackwood, p. 28. Hufle/. ai>- 
 fwer to Torabes, p. 5. 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Tbe Obje5lio7i from the want of a Com- 
 mand C07tftdered, 
 
 IT is further objcded againft Infant-bap- 
 tifm that. There is no command for it 
 in Scripture. Now, to this it is replied, 
 
 (i.) There was no occafion for a particular 
 and exprefs command to baptize Infants, 
 even fuppofing, that they alfo, as well as 
 others, were to be baptized ; but a general 
 command to baptize was a fufBcient rule of 
 direction, to introduce and authorife this 
 practice. For, the Apoftles of Chrift, to 
 whom the great commiflion oi difcipling, or 
 profelyting, all nations by baptizing them, 
 &c. was immediately given, were members 
 of the Jewifli church and nation, and fo 
 muft have been well acquainted with the 
 Jewifli rites and cuftoms. Now (not to in- 
 iift upon what many learned men have faid 
 of a cuftom among the Jews to baptize the 
 children of Gentile profelytes together with 
 their parents) it is certain that the profelytes, 
 of right ecufnefs, and their children were cir- 
 cumcifed after the manner of the yews [^]; 
 a cuflom, which the judaizing chriftians 
 were for maintaining iii the chriftian church 
 [d]* This matter, perhaps, is not confidered 
 
 with 
 
 H Vid. Corn. Tacit, hift. lib. 5. [^ Aft. xv. i. 
 
{ 45 ) 
 with proper attention. Thofe that ^vould 
 dijiinguijh away the right and title of be- 
 lievers children to the Abraham c^ or Gof- 
 pel-covenant \e\ both fign and things al- 
 ledge, that they are in no fenfe the feed of 
 Jlbraham-y not his natural feed ; becaufe not 
 lineally defcended from him : nor his fpiri- 
 fualfted', becaufe they want /^/Vi?, though 
 their believing parents, like Abraham^ have 
 it. But, in what ^/^i, w^ill they rank the 
 yewijh profelytes ? Jf in either, doubtlefs, 
 in that of K\% fpiritual feed ; to whom there- 
 fore the fpiritual part of the covenant be- 
 longed. And yet circumcifion was applied 
 to the children of thofe believers, as well as 
 to themfelves. And thus, the Apoftles had 
 a plain rule of diredion to proceed by in 
 admin iftring baptifm to chrtjiian profelytes 
 and their children, when this ordinance, as 
 the rite of initiation, came in the room of 
 circumcifion. For, had Chrift commanded 
 his Apoftles ta go and profelyte all nations 
 hy circumcifing them, £f^. What could they 
 have underftood by fuch a command, with- 
 out any other explication ; but that parents 
 and their children were both a like t(jlbe 
 Teceived into the chriftian church by cir- 
 cumcifion, according to the ufage of the 
 Jewifh church ? In like manner, when 
 circumcifion was laid afide, and that wall of 
 partition removed [y], as, the very order to 
 
 difciple 
 
 H See Gd. Hi. 17. ['/] F^h. ii. 14, 15. 
 
C 46 ) 
 
 iUfcipk all nations [g\ implied ^ when, upon 
 the abolition of this initiatory rite, baptifm 
 was appointed as the rite of initiation in the 
 chriftian church ; the Apoflles would na- 
 turally, and even necejffarily conclude, that 
 parents and their children were to be equally 
 received into the chriftian church by bap- 
 tifm; efpecially having been told before 
 with refpeft to Infants themfelves, that of 
 fuch is the kingdom of heaven \}j\ Therefore, 
 z general command to baptize, which is not 
 denied, was fufEcient to dired;, and authorife 
 the pra^^ice of baptizing Infants. Confe- 
 quently, there was no accafion for a parti- 
 cular and exprefs command to baptize themy 
 even fuppofing that Infants, as well as others, 
 were to be baptized. So that the want of 
 fuch a command is weakly urged as an ob- 
 jedion againft Infant-baptifm : efpecially, if 
 it be confidered on the other hand \ 
 
 (2.) There was a real neceflity for o^plain^ 
 and exprefs prohibition of Infant-baptifm^ at 
 the repeal of Infant -circumcif on, if Infants 
 were not to be baptized : but no fuch prohi- 
 bition appears, nor can be produced. This 
 is a matter of the utmoft confequence in the 
 prefent debate; and, as our writers think, is 
 the very hinge,, on which the controverfy 
 
 turns. 
 
 [g] Mat, xxviii. 19. 
 
 \h'] Mat. xix. 14. Luk. xvili. 15,16. " —The literal 
 " m(^^.nmg of thefenvords\s, that little children may be ad- 
 " mitted into the difpenfation of the Meffiah, and by con- 
 « fequence may be baptized." Bp, Burnet, on Artie. ?;. 
 
( 47 ) 
 tarns. For why ? Children, hifants and 
 others, had been admitted to the initiatory 
 rite before, at the reception of profelytes in- 
 to the church of God under the yewijh dif- 
 penfation ; as hath been already obferved. 
 If then, at the time of reformation [/] under 
 the Gofpel, when the church of God was- 
 new modelled, fo great an alteration was 
 intended in it's conftitution, as that Infants 
 fliould be wholly excommunicated, like aliens- 
 zndijir angers, without any facrament or fgn 
 of falvation ; had this been the cafe, there 
 was a plain neceffity for a pofitive and ex- 
 ^xzk prohibition of their baptifm. But, we 
 fay it again, no fuch prohibition can be 
 found. Here the Scripture is profoundly 
 filent, where one might rationally have ex- 
 ped:ed it to fpeak clearly outj if Infant- 
 baptifm had not been agreeable to the mind 
 of Chrijl, and as fuitable to the nature of the 
 Chriftian-inffitution, as Infant-circumcifion 
 was to the Jewifh difpenfation ! Says the 
 great Stilling feet [/^], *' It is an evidence, 
 <' that Infants are not to be excluded from 
 *^ baptifm, becaufe there is no divine law, 
 " which doth prohibit their adfniflion into 
 ** the church by it; for, this is the negative 
 " of a law ; and if it had been ChrilVs in- 
 " tention to have excluded any from ad- 
 *' miffion into the church, who v/ere ad- 
 
 «' mitted 
 
 [/] Heb. ix. lo. 
 
 £i] Irenicum, p. 7, 8. Edit. 2d. 
 
(4S) 
 «* mitted before, as Infants vvere, there rniift 
 " have been fome toHtrce law, whereby 
 " fuch an intenlion of Chrift fhould have 
 " been expreffed : For, nothing can make 
 «* that unlawful, Vv^hich was a duty before, 
 '^ but a diredt and exprefs prohibition from 
 ** the legiflator himfeif, who alone hath 
 ** power to refcind, as well as eo make 
 ** laws. And therefore Antipedo bapitiils 
 *^ muft, inftead of requiring a poiitive com^ 
 *^ mand for baptizing Infants, themfelves 
 *^ produce an exprefs prohibition exluding 
 " them, &;c. [/]"' To all which add ; when 
 Chrift, upon a certain occafion, fpakc fo 
 favourably of Infants, and children in arms^ 
 as to declare publickly, that of fuch is the 
 kingdom of God {m\ ; it had been highly pro- 
 per, in order to prevent any miftake upon 
 this head, to forbid the baptifm of Infants, 
 if Infants were not to have been baptized in 
 his church. Therefore, the remark, which 
 hath been made upon that cafe by fome 
 noted writers on the other fide [/z], may 
 be ftrongly retorted thiis\ *' Chrift*s intire 
 *^ filcnce about the txclnfon of Infants from 
 " baptifm at this time, when he had fuch 
 ** an. opportunity of fpeaking of it to his 
 
 " difciples, 
 
 [/] See this point well argued by Mr. Baxter. Plam 
 Scripture-proof of Infants church -memberfhip, ^c. P. i, 
 ch. 5, esfr. 
 
 [m] Mark x. Luk. xviii. ubi fupra. 
 
 [»] Dr. Gill. Comment in Mai xix. 1 4. Rees, an- 
 fwer to Walker, p. ^6. • 
 
(49) 
 
 ^^ difciples, had it been his will, hath no 
 *^ favourable afpcd: on fuch a practice/' 
 But, if the filence of Chrift upon that oc- 
 cafion difcountenances fuch a practice ; how 
 much more \i\sfpcech? when he faid, " Siif- 
 '^ fer little children to come unto me \o\ and 
 *' forbid them not : for of fuch is the kingdom 
 " of heaven : " * that kingdom, which q, d. 
 
 * you are all expeding under the Meffah^ 
 
 * purfuant to the antient prophecies [/>], and 
 ' into which kingdom baptifm is to be the 
 
 * folemn rite of admiffion [y]/ 
 
 (3.) After all J we feem to have a plain 
 command for baptizing children^ without any 
 limitation of age. And this command oc- 
 curs, where one might naturally exped: it, 
 i;/2;. at ihQ frf openi?ig of the Chrifian dif- 
 penfation on the day of Pentecoft by St. 
 Peter -, who upon that great and folemn oc- 
 cafion delivered, in the^ audience of a vaft 
 aflembly, the following words, amongft 
 others [r], '^ Repent, and be baptized, every 
 " one of you ^ in the name oiyefus Chrijl, for 
 " the remiffion of Sins, and ye fliall receive 
 *' the Holy Ghoji, For, the promije is unto 
 '* you, and to your children, and to all that 
 " are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 *' our God fhall call." "- It is obfervable 
 
 \p\ 'EA-^fTy 'TT^Q^ fjLZi i. e. is to be p-^felyted to me. See 
 Joh. iii. 26. And Walker's modeft plea, p. 13,-15. 
 [/>] Paniel ii. 44. vii. 13, 14, (ffc. 
 [^J Joh. iii. 3, 5. [r] Aa. ii. 38, 39. 
 
 G (fays 
 
(50) 
 ^^ (fays a karned, and judicious friend) that 
 ** when God made his covenant, or grant of 
 ** bleffings, v/ith Abraham ^ he made him, 
 ^' with refped: to that covenant, the father 
 *' of many nations \s\ even of us, and of as 
 *' many among the nations, who fl:iould be- 
 *' Heve in Chrift, who were to be juftified, 
 *' or interefted in the bleffings of the cove- 
 " nant 3 in the fame manner as Abraham 
 " was, namely by faith. Thus, the blef- 
 " fing of Abraham came on us Gentiles 
 «' through fefus Chrift [/], in whom that 
 *' Covenant, or Deed of gift was eilablifli- 
 *' ed, when made with ^/^r^^^/;^ [1;] . And 
 *' it is certain from St. FaiiH reafoning in 
 *' the third chapter to the Galatiam^ that the 
 " Gofpel-covenant, which our Lord came 
 " into the world to publith and explain in 
 *' it's extenfive grace, was no other than 
 " the Covenant with Abraham^ which was 
 " originally eftablifhed in Chrift. Therefore 
 ** our Lord, when he gave his full and final 
 " commiffion to his Apoftles ['zo], Go ye 
 *' and teach, or dijciple^ all nations, bap- 
 *^ tizing them, &c. plainly commands them 
 *' to publifh the Abrahamic Covenant, which 
 " alone included all nations y and to baptize 
 *' according to the tenor, rule and conftitu- 
 " tion of thaty which exprefsly takes in 
 
 " Abraham 
 
 [j] Gen, xvii. 4. Rom. iv. 16, 17. 
 [/] Gal. iii. 14. \y\ Ibid. ver. 17. 
 
 ;[w] Mat. xxviii, 19, 
 
f >50 
 
 ^^ Abraham and his children in the line of 
 *^ eledian; or which defcended from him 
 ** by his fon IJaac^ or under the Gofpel be- 
 " came his children by faith in Chrift [x]. 
 ^* And that our Lord intended baptifrii 
 *' fhould be adminiilred according to this 
 " particular conftitution of the Covenant, 
 ^' / will be a God to ilj€e^ and to thy feed after 
 ** thee, (which certainly included the chil^ 
 *' dren of thofe who (hould be taken into the 
 " Covenant,) appears from what the Holy 
 '' Gljofl in St. Peter faith, at the admini- 
 ** ftration of the ordinance to the frjl chri- 
 '* ftian converts [^]. Repent^ and be baptized 
 <c every one of you, &c. For the promife is 
 * ' tmto you, and to your children^ and to all 
 ** that are afar off] even as many as the Lord 
 ** our God f jail c2l\\,'" How narrow anc^ im- 
 ** perfed: foever St. Peters notions might be 
 *' (at prefent) concerning the calling of the 
 ** Gentiles, or nations, it is certain, that 
 *' according to the fenfe of the Spirit, who 
 ** fpake by him, by thofe that are afar off^ 
 *' is meant the nations or Gentiles^ whom 
 ** God fhould call into his church or king- 
 *^ dom under the Mefjiah. Therefore the 
 " promife^ both here, and in yoel referred 
 ** to by St. Peter \%\ is plainly by this cha- 
 *' radter afcertalned to be the Abrahamic 
 '^ covenant, or promife, and the Apoftle in 
 G 2 " the 
 
 M Gal. iii. 29. [j^] Aa. ii. 38, 39. 
 
 [«] Joel. ii. 28,-32. Aa. ii. 16, &c. 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 ^^ the Spirit, with the greateft juftnefs and 
 '' propriety, exhorts every one of themy even 
 " thetn and their children^ to be baptized, ac- 
 ^^ cording to the conflitution of that promife 
 '^ or covenant. And thus it appears, that 
 *' our Lord did commiffion his difciples, 
 " both to preach and baptize according to 
 *^ the conflitution of the Ahrahamic cove- 
 " nant; becaufe at the firft folemn open- 
 *' ing of the church of God to the firfl: 
 *' Chrijlian converts, the Holy Gho/i did dl- 
 *^ red: them fo to preach, and fo to bap- 
 [' tize." 
 
 Now, if we view the matter in this hght ; 
 one may clearly difcern the meaning and 
 connexion of St. Peter ^ words, when he 
 faith, " Te fiall receive the Holy Ghoji : For 
 " the promife is unto you ^ and to your children^ 
 '' &c." For, the gift of the HolyGhoJi was 
 a feal of their adoption into God's church 
 and family under the chriftian difpenfation 
 \a\ and fo a plain fign or token, that the 
 promife of Gofpel-bleffings belonged to them. 
 And thus, becaufe the promife was to them 
 and to their children ; therefore, as an evi~ 
 dence thereof, they fhould receive the Holy 
 GhoJi, — But this text will bear a more criti- 
 cal examination. Let it then be obferved. 
 (i.) In this claufe, " Repent and be baptized 
 *' eve7y one of you" There is a remarkable 
 
 change 
 
 [a] Rom. viii. 15. Eph. i. 13, 14. 
 
( 53 ) 
 cliange of number and perfon in the 07''iginal 
 [b\ which literally runs thus, *' Repent 
 '^ ye^ and let every one of (or among) you be 
 ** baptized,'' So that this command con- 
 cerning baptifm agrees in form with the 
 command that was given about circum- 
 cifion. 7here the command was [c], Every 
 male among you Jhall be circumcijed. And 
 here the commmand is, Let every one of or 
 among, you (/. e, you and all your's with* 
 out diiliindion oi fex, or age) be baptized. 
 This conftrudion of the Apoftle^s words 
 agrees to vvhat follows. " For the promife 
 " is unto you^ and to your children^ &c." For, 
 where was the pertinency or propriety of 
 naming their children in the reafon of the 
 command, if the command itfelf had no im- 
 mediaie reference to their children ? (though 
 * the command was not direded to the 
 children, but to the parents in relation to 
 
 their 
 
 [f] Gen. xvii. lo. TlipiTfjM'd-iK/iTa.i vfj.Zv 'Trav dpffivuov. 
 N. B. The difference of the two phrafes. v[acov 'ttuv, and 
 tKz^cg CiJ.Zv, is not material, as -rai? and l/.x^og are feveral 
 times joined together, vid. 2 Chron. xxiii. 10. 
 
 * Note : There is no impropriety in the notion of chil- 
 dren being fubjecls of a pofitive rite, without being fubjefls 
 of a pofitive command enjoining it, as we fee in the cafe of 
 circumcifion. And if it l)eca7?:e the Jews, who praftifed In- 
 fant-circumcifion, to fulfil all rightcufnefs i the like obligation 
 upon Chriftians may very well comport with the pra^lice 
 of Infant-baptifm. Nor can that obligation be urged, as 
 an argument to the contrary, without taking the thing for 
 granted, which ought to be proved, -viz, that Chriftian- 
 
 baptifm 
 
( 54 ) ' 
 
 their children, as well as to themrelves ; in 
 anrwer to that queftion [ti]. What fkall we 
 do? Which, by the way, naturally accounts 
 for the varied manner of the Apoftk's ex- 
 preflion taken notice of before). (2.) Thefe 
 words, *' And to all that are afar ^, even as 
 *' many as the Lord our God Jhall cally " evi- 
 dently refer to the Gentiles, or Heathens [e] ; 
 without excluding their children : for, it is 
 agreeable to the fcripture itile to fpeak of 
 children as called, when the call is diredly 
 given to their parents, to thofe that bring 
 them, or have the command over them[y]. 
 But then, St. Peter himfelf can hardly be 
 fuppofed to have any reference here to the 
 general calling of the Gentiles : for it feems, 
 that this myftery had not yet been revealed 
 to him [^] : though the words of the pro- 
 phet, 
 
 baptifm is deligned only for the Adult-, a point, which can- 
 not be proved from the nature, or peculiar Jig72iJication of 
 baptifm, as a fymbolical rite. For, circumcifion had a 
 peculiar fignification, as it was a token of the co^^euant : and 
 yet the Jewifh infants knew nothing of the matter, much 
 lefs could they profefs any knowledge, ox faiths about it; 
 though others did in applying that rite to. them. In fhort, 
 if any primary ends of baptifm are not anfwered in the 
 baptifm of infants ; even this is no valid objection againft 
 it. For fome primary ends of John's baptifm were not 
 anfwered in the baptifm of Chrift : and yet baptifm was 
 rightly adminiilred to him. By this the reader may jndge 
 of the weight of Mr. Burroughs's jjrgument. See Tivo DiJ- 
 coifrfes relating to pofiti've InJiituticnSy and the J)ef£>ice. 
 
 {d^ A£l, ii. 37. [^] Eph. ii. 13, 17. 
 
 [/] Mat. ii. 13,-15, Luk. xviii. 16. Vid. Beza. 
 in loc. 
 
 [gl See Aft. Chap. ip. Pearfon. lefliones in A6t. 
 Apoft. p. 33. 
 
( 55) 
 
 phetj Joely to which he alludes, are thought 
 to look that way. Therefore, it is humbly 
 offered to confideration, whether, in this 
 laft claufe, the Apoftle had not a direft 
 view to thofe Gentile fervants, wdiich were 
 incorporated into Jewifh families according 
 to the law [/:?]. This notion feems to be 
 favoured by his manner of quoting the 
 words of yoel^ where, together with So?is 
 and Daughters^ mention is made of Servants 
 and hand-maidens [/j : And if allowed, we 
 have here a plain command, given at the 
 firft foundation of the chriftian-church, to 
 believing parents and heads of families, to 
 get all the members of their houfe without 
 diftindion baptized^ in like manner as Abra- 
 ham v/as commanded to have all the males 
 of his houfe, of a certain age, circumctfed at 
 once [/^]. Thus, the words of St. Peter be- 
 fore us, will admit of this eafy paraphrafe, 
 *' Repent ye, and let every one among you 
 *' be baptized without delay, &c. For, the 
 '' promife is unto you, therefore be ye bap- 
 '' tized ^ and to your children, therefore let 
 '' them be baptized along with you \ and ta 
 " all that are afar off, even as many as the 
 *' Lord our God {hall call amongft the 
 '* Heathens, therefore let your Gentile fer- 
 *' vants alfo be baptized." The words view- 
 ed in this light appear with the greateft pro- 
 priety, 
 
 [>i I^yit. XXV. 44. [/] Aa. ii. ij^ 18. 
 
 \k'\ Gen. xvii. 12, 27, 
 
(56) 
 
 priety and force ; and at the fame time 
 difcover the ground of the fubfequenC 
 pradtice of the Apoftles in baptizing whok 
 houfeholds. 
 
 But, as fome writers fuppofe, that the' 
 fromife mentioned by St. Feter is the pro- 
 mife of the Holy Ghojl himfelf ; which, they 
 think, invahdates the argument for Infant- 
 baptifm from this text : we will therefore 
 argue the point with them upon their own 
 
 fuppofition. Now, *' When it is faid, 
 
 " y oil Jhall receive the Holy Ghoft^ 'lis not in- 
 ^' tended, that every one of them, upon their 
 *' baptifm, ihould be endued with the ex- 
 ** traordinary gifts of tongues and prophecy. 
 " — But the meaning of St. Veter is, that 
 " he fhould fall upon fome of ail ranks of 
 " them, according to the true purport of 
 " the words of "Joel:'" fays Dr. Whitby, 
 And if he had attended to the force of his 
 own obfervation, the following note might 
 have been fpared, viz, '' That thefe words 
 " will not prove the right of Infants to re- 
 ** ceive baptifm I /]. For, it follows from 
 ^his own remark, that fome perfons might 
 have a right to receive baptifm, and yet not 
 receive the extraordinary gifts. If Infants 
 therefore did not receive the faid gifts, which 
 is the ground of the objedion, they might 
 neverthelefs have a right to receive baptifm. 
 And, as thofe divine gifts were not ordinarily 
 
 conferred 
 
 [/] See Whitby, Comment, in loc, ■ 
 
( 57 } 
 conferred l^efore baptifm ; as they were a 
 Jree donation, given to fomCy and not to 
 others ; fe. g. fome parents, fome children, 
 &c.) and as the command for baptifm is 
 univerfaly *' Let every one of you be bap- 
 ** tized ;" fo the reafon given to enforce this 
 command, " for the promife is unto you, and 
 *' to your children^ &c/' feems plainly to 
 prove the right of children indefiiitely^ that 
 is, children of any age, and confequently 
 Infants, to receive baptifm. For, where 
 none are excluded, all muft be included, 
 and fo vice verjd. And, as the parents could 
 not tell, which of them, or of their children, 
 fhould receive the Holy Ghojl -, or in what 
 degree they fhould receive it ; or at what 
 particular time, whether immediately, upon 
 their baptifm, or fome time after it : So, 
 they had here an exprefs order and diredlion 
 to lay t he mf elves and all theirs in the way of 
 the promifed bleffing, by being baptized 
 with the baptifm of Chrijt. Had it not 
 been high prefumption in them to limit 
 the moft High by making any diftindion 
 in their children on account oiage? efpecially 
 confidering the promife that was -given with 
 relation to John Baptijl, viz, that he jl:oidd 
 befJled "u^ith the Holy Ghoji from his mother s 
 'womb\m'\. Language, which, doubtlefs, his 
 father, ZachariaSy to whom it was fpcken, 
 very well underilood. Seeing then the Jews 
 H had 
 
 [;»] Luk. i, 15, 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 had a notion of perfons being fxUed with the. 
 Holy Ghojiy even from their mother's womb, 
 they could have no ground to queflion their 
 Infants right to baptifm, from any fufpicion, 
 that the promife of the Holy Ghoji did in no 
 wife extend unto them, becaufe they were 
 Infants. Beiidcs, though the promife of the 
 Holy Ghojl in it's full extent comprehended 
 the extraordinary gifts ; what neceflity is 
 there for confining that promife to thefe gifts, 
 the Antipcedo'baptifis themfelves being judges. 
 For, when any of them pray over the bap- 
 tized perfon, that he may receive the Holy 
 Ghoft^ as fome of them are fuppofed to do 
 upon the foot of this very promife, furely 
 they do not expedl him to receive the extra- 
 ordinary gifts of tongues and prophecy I 
 
 After all ; it may poffibly remain a diffi- 
 culty with fome perfons, how the words of 
 St. Peter, " Let every one of you be bap- 
 *' tized in the name of Jefus Chrift for the 
 *^ rcmiffion of fins ^ can be applicable to the 
 '^ cafe of Infants." It may be faid upon this 
 occafion, "why fmdd the innocent age make 
 fuch hafle to the remifjion of fins f In anfwer 
 to which let it be obferved. {i.) As the 
 baptifm of water is a fymbolical reprefenta- 
 tion of wafiing away fin [;z] \ io^ that im- 
 precation of the Jews [/?], his Bloud be on usy 
 and on our children (meaning, no doubt, all 
 tlieir children, old and young) difcovers a 
 
 fignificant 
 [«] A£t. xxii. 1 6, [o] Mat. xxvii. 25. 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 ficrnlficant propriety in the Apoffle's exhort- 
 ing thefe Crucijiers of Chrill: \p], to repent 
 themfeheSy and to get both them and their 
 children baptized for the remijjhn of fins. 
 Accordingly, Mr. Tombes, that learned and 
 zealous Antipsedo-baptift, fuppofed (q)^ that 
 St. Peter might have an eye, in this place, 
 to that horrid imprecation. (2.) Befides this 
 confideration peculiar to the Jews, there is 
 another ground and reafon of the thing, 
 common both to Jews and Gentiles. For, 
 if all mankind, as defcended from Adam by 
 ordinary generation, are reputed Sinners^ at 
 leait as being fubjed: to death, th^ penalty of 
 fin (r)^ (and as "Job fays (s)^ who can bring 
 a clean thing out of an unclean) then muft 
 Infants alfo be confidered under this charac- 
 ter. Therefore, fince Chrift is the fecond 
 ^danZy and the Redeemer of a loft world ; 
 it feems no ways improper, but rather very 
 fit and congruous, that Infants 'fliould be 
 baptized with Chriji\ baptifm for the re- 
 miffion of fin : in token that, ** as by one 
 '^ man's difobedience many were made fin- 
 " ners \ fo by the obedience of one fhould 
 " many be made righteous (t) : and that, 
 '^ as in Adam all die ; fo in Chrift fhall all 
 ^^ be made alive (^1; J" Hence that remark 
 of Cyprian (w)^ ^' If remiflion of fins be 
 
 " granted 
 
 [/>] Aft. ii. 36, 37. [^] Examen p. 60. [r] Rom. v. 
 i^,(3^(r. [/] Job. xiv 4. [/J Rom, v. 19. [<u] I Corinth. 
 XV, 22. Vid. Limborch. Theol. Ch. lib. ^5. cap. 68. 
 Sec. 23. [w] Ep. ad Fidum. 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 ^ granted to thefe moft heinous ofTenders, 
 
 ' who have long ago finned againfl God ; 
 
 ' and if none of them be denied accefs to 
 
 * the grace of baptifm ; how much lefs 
 
 * reafon is there for denying it to Infants ? 
 ' who being but newly born can be guilty 
 ' of no fin, except that being derived from 
 ' Adam J according to the flcili, their birth 
 ' hath communicated to them the infedion 
 
 and punilliment of his offence 5 who 
 therefore are the more eafily 'admitted 
 to the pardon of their fin, becaufe it is 
 not fo properly their oumy as another s'' 
 Upon the whole then, it feems very plain 
 to us, that the words of St. Peter under 
 confideration, exhibit a proper command to 
 chriftian believers to get all the members of 
 their refpedive families,and particularly, moft 
 exprefsly their children, together with them- 
 felves, baptized. And the true meaning of 
 this command, like that of any other law, 
 muft be fixed by the proper fignification of 
 the tennSy in which it is conceived and ex- 
 prefled, without any dependence upon what 
 follows in the facred hiftory. For, if not a 
 fingle perfon had been baptized on that oc- 
 cafion, this would not have altered the fen fe^ 
 or deftroyed the authority .of the command, 
 tjowever, there is' nothing in the context, 
 that in the leaft militates with the given 
 {^nio. of the Apoftle's words. For, as this 
 was the Jirji opening of the Chrijiian dif- 
 
 penfation^ 
 
( 6. ) 
 
 penfation, and fo the firft adminiftration of 
 Chriftian baptifm ; it was of coiirfe to be ad- 
 miniflred firft of all to Chriftian believers. 
 But this could be no impediment, it was in- 
 deed a neceffary leading (iep, to the baptizing 
 oi thek houfekoUs 'y becaufe, no perfons could 
 regularly have their families baptized, with- 
 out being firft baptized themfelves, in confe- 
 quence of their receiving the word gladly : ac- 
 cording to what is faid of the firft converts [;^], 
 When we read that fuch and fuch perfons 
 believed^ and- were added to the church [j]. 
 This language is by no means exclufive of 
 their children : for^ it is no more than what 
 might be faid of any Jewifh Profelytes, when 
 they were received into the Jewlfh church, 
 without the excludon of their children from 
 the rite of initiation. Thus, e, g, it is faid of 
 Achior^ ** He believed in God greatly, and 
 ** circumcifed the fkfli of his foreskin, and 
 *' ^2.% joined to the houfe of Ifrael [2;] ;" that 
 is, to the church of the Jews. We conclude 
 therefore, that St.Peter hath laid down a plain 
 command for baptizing children without limi- 
 tation of age. And though, as Mr. Stenne't 
 remarks [^], " there feems no^ neceffity to 
 ** rejlrain t.hQ term [children] to infants- 1** 
 there appears to be no r:afon for limiting it fo^ 
 as to exclude infants ; which is all we contendV 
 for [b], S E C 
 
 [x"] Adl. li. 41. [jv] TT^o^iii^MCAV. ibid. 
 
 [z] 'TrpaiTi^n eU rov otxov I^fa»l^. Judith xiv. lo, 
 \a] Anfwer to RufTen. p. 33. 
 [^] See Cragge's reply to Tombes. p. 208. 
 
( 6a y 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 The pretence of a virtual Prohibition examined. 
 
 THIS examination we fhall begin with 
 that text which perhaps is th^frjt^ 
 that was ever diredlly alledged again ft the 
 pradice of baptizing infants by certain per- 
 jbns, who hved above a thoufand years after 
 Chrlft [<:] ; " He that believeth, and is bap- 
 " tized^pallbefavedyl>cc,\_d'y* From hence 
 it is inferred, that all perfons muft believe 
 before they are baptized ; and therefore in- 
 fants are not to be baptized, becaufe they do 
 not believe. In anfwer to which argument 
 it is replied (i.) Thefe words were fpoken by 
 Cbrift to his Apoftles with an immediate view 
 to the firft planting of the Chriftian church, 
 and confequently to the firft adminiftration 
 of Chriftian baptifm to convert Jews and 
 Heathens, For thus the words are introdu- 
 ced ; " Go ye unto all the world ^ and preach 
 *' the Gofpel to every creature. He that be- 
 *' lieveth and is baptized^fiall be faved, &c." 
 Now, in this cafe it is plain, that adult per- 
 fons of either fort (at leaft thofe, that were 
 fui juris) were to be firft inftruded in the 
 
 Chriftian 
 
 [r] See Pr, Allix. on the Piedmont churches, p. 143. and 
 Wall on the Waldenfes. 
 [0 Markxvi. 16. 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 Chriflian faith, before they were by baptlfm 
 received into the Chriftian church. Accord- 
 ingly (2.) we grant that all perfons in the fame 
 circumftances with thofe firfl: converts ought 
 to believe before they are baptized. Thus, 
 e, g. if a Jew, a Mahommedan, or an Indian 
 fhould now embrace the Chriftian religion, 
 we are not againft his being inftrudled in it, 
 before he is baptized. For, as the thing ap- 
 pears to be rational in itfelf ; fo it is conform- 
 able to the pradtice of the Jewifli church in 
 making Profdytes [e]. But (3.) the confe- 
 quence is denied with refpedt to infants. For, 
 though the Jews inftrudted new Profelytes in 
 the principles of their religion, before they 
 were admitted to circumcifion, (not to men- 
 tion the baptifm of Profelytes amongft them) 
 yet their children alfo were circumcifed toge- 
 ther with themfelves. In like manner, if 
 new converts to Chriftianity were firft in- 
 flrufled in it before their admiffion to bap- 
 tifm 5 yet, for all that, their children might 
 be baptized along with them : and certain it 
 is, the contrary can never be proved by fuch 
 an argument, as is here alledged. For (4.) 
 the text fays not, all perfons whatever mufl 
 believe before they are baptized. On the 
 contrary^ if one might argue from the order 
 of words^ (which is the way the Antipasdo- 
 baptifts take here) it would follow even from 
 this paffage of Scripture, that infants ought 
 
 by 
 
 [0 See Bilhop Patilck. comment, in Levit. xix. lO* 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 by all mea^^ to be baptized ; as hath been 
 frequently urged by the writers on our 
 fide [yj. For, if from this circumftance, 
 that beheveth is fet before baptized in the or- 
 der of words, it follows, that all perfons muft 
 believe before they are baptized ; by the fame 
 rule all perfons muft be baptized before they 
 can be faved : becaufe baptized is fet before 
 faved in the fame order of words. Again ; 
 in the latter claufe of the text it is added, 
 ** He, that beheveth not^ jJmll be damned'* 
 And thus, by the words of Cbriji, believing 
 is made as necefiary at leaft to falvation, as 
 it is to baptifm. Therefore, the argument, 
 from this text againfl the baptifm of infants, 
 concludes as ftrongly againfl: their falvation; 
 which is reducing it to a plain and (liocking 
 abfurdity, Mr, Rees would evade all this, by 
 asking [^], *' Why they (/. e. infants) may 
 *' not be faved without baptifm ?" A quef- 
 tion little to the purpofe. For, if infants may 
 be faved at all ; why will he and his friends 
 infifl upon fuch an argument againfl their 
 baptifm, as v/ou!d equally conclude again ft 
 their falvation ? 
 
 Again ; it is pretended [/)] that the words of 
 the commifjion [/], " Go ye^ and teach all na* 
 
 " tiom^ 
 
 [/] Marlhall, Serm. on baptizing Inf. p. 45. Wills. 
 , anfwer to Danverf. p. 10. Walker. Modell Pica, &c. chap, 
 xxiii. fee. 14. 
 
 Cjs-] Anfwer to Walker, p. 36. 
 
 \h\ See Gale. Reflexions, &c, Let. 7,' 
 
 \t\ Mat. xxviii. 19, ao. 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 *' tions^ baptizing tbem, Sec" contain a vir- 
 tual prohibition of Infant-baptlfm. For, fay 
 they, teaching is fet before baptizing, ergo, 
 &c. And fo indeed it may feem to an Eiig- 
 li/h reader ; but baptizing is fet before teach- 
 ing in the exprefs order of the words accord- 
 ing to the original^ which ought to be render- 
 ed thus, " Go ye, and dijciple all nations, 
 " baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 V* &c. teaching them, &c/* Obferve here 
 (i.) The ge?2eral matter of the commiffion is 
 exprefled by difcipling\ which is a compre- 
 henfive term, including both teaching and 
 baptizing, by the confeflion of fome of our 
 moft learned oppofers [/^], (2.) Then foU 
 lows the particular method of executing this 
 commiffion laid down in two diredlons, ^72;. 
 by baptizi?7g^ and by teaching, agreeably to 
 the Greek idiom of fpeech [/]. It is plain 
 therefore, that in the exprefs order and feries 
 of the words in the commiffion, teaching is 
 not fet before, but after baptizing. But, 
 fuppofe the contrary were true -, this would 
 prove no more againfl: Infant- bap tifm, than 
 the text in St. Mark, already confidered ; and 
 how much that proves again ft it, is left to the 
 judgment of common fenfe. 
 
 Again ; St. P^/// makes mention oi one bap^ 
 iifm \m\ Now, by this one baptifm Mr.^ 
 
 I Barclay 
 
 [^] Dr. Gill, comment, in A61. ix. i, 2. 
 
 [/] See Psdo-baptifm, p. ^(), &c. 
 
 [«] Eph. iv. 5. confer, i Cor. i. 12—15. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 Barclay under Hands the haptifm of the Spirit^ 
 in oppoiition to water-baptifm [?z]. On the 
 other hand Mr. Keach underilandj it n^ {ihlt'- 
 baptifm in exclufion of lnfai:t-bapt:fm[ ]. But 
 both accounts are ivide erouah oi the pof- 
 tle*s meaning. St. PW is there recommend- 
 ing unity^ peace and love t ) fcllow-ciTifti- 
 ans. And fo, by one baptifm, he p!ai' Jy in- 
 tends one moral end a d deilgn of baptif'n, 
 as it is a facred rite of dedicaticn to oise and 
 the fame religicus fervice, the fervice of one 
 common Lord, v/ho is the head of one fpiri- 
 tual fociety . ** One Lord, one faith ^ one baptfm^ 
 ** one God and Father of all, one body, one Spirit^ 
 *' one hope, one heaven:' And what! are infants 
 excluded from all thefe? God fcrbid. — Be- 
 lides ; Chriflian baptifm may be ofie baptifm, 
 and yet of a complex natare in relation to tl>e 
 fubje^s of it. For, was net circumcifon un- 
 der the law one circumcifion, as a rite of dedi- 
 cation, or engagement to the fervice of God 
 [/)]? And yet it was adminiftred to different 
 iubjedts, particularly to adult-profelytes and 
 their children. 
 
 Again ; St. Paul fays [j], " Henceforth 
 ** know ive no man after the fifi^ &c." q. d. 
 •' I have no regard to any one, accordifig to 
 " the flefb, &c. for being circumcifed, or a 
 *' Jew [r]." The dilliridion , of Jew and 
 
 Gentile 
 
 [»] Apology, prop, i 2. 
 [0] Anfwer to Owen. p. 241, &c. 
 [p] Gal. V. 3. ' [f] i Cor. v. 16. 
 
 [r] Mr. Locke in loc. 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 Gentile was fet afide under the Gofpel, by 
 the i^all of partition being removed, and 
 broken down [j]. Surely thofe perfons are at 
 alcfd for arguments, who alledge this text as 
 a difproof of Infant- baptifm [/] . Tacitus fays 
 a muc!\ llronger thing of the Jewip Profe- 
 lytcd \y'\y viz. '' That they were taught to 
 *' dejjyife their parents, children, brethren." 
 And would any one conclude from hence,that 
 no infants of Profelytes were circumcifed ? It 
 is abufing the reader's patience to take notice 
 of fuch fimple and trifling cavils ; we (hall 
 therefore only mention one text more, which 
 may feem to be urged with a little better 
 grace. 
 
 St. Peter fays [«:£;], " The like figure where^ 
 *' unto baptifm doth alfo fave us^ (not the put- 
 ** tifig away the fdth of the fieJJj, but the an- 
 * ' fiver of a good confcience towards God) by 
 " the refurreBion of ChriftT — But infants 
 cannot make this anfwer of a good confcience, 
 Ergo^ iSc, To which argument it will be. 
 fufficient to reply in the words of Dr. Whit- 
 by [at], viz, " That St. Paul alfo fays, that 
 ** the true circumcifion before God is not the 
 ** outward circumcifion of the fiefJo^ but the 
 " internal circumcifion of the heart and fpi- 
 ** rit [y]. But will any one here ar^ue, 
 I 2 ** That 
 
 'j] Rom.x. 12. Eph. ii. 14. Col. iii. 11. 
 
 7] See Keach. ubi fupra, p. 208, 
 
 'jv] Corn. Tacit, hift. lib 5. [to] i Pet. iii. 21. 
 
 >] Comment, in loc. {j"] Rom, ii. 29. 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 That the Jewifli infants for want of this 
 were not to be admitted into covenant with 
 God by circumcifion ? And yet the argu- 
 ment is plainly parallel: The anfwer of a 
 good confcience is required, that the bap- 
 tifm may be falutary ; therefore they only 
 are to be baptized, who can make this an- 
 fwer : and the inward circumcifion of the 
 heart is required, as the only acceptable 
 circumcifion in the fight of God : therefore 
 they only are to be circumcifed, who have 
 this inward circumcifion of the heart. The 
 Jews did not admit profelytes to circumci- 
 fion without the anfwer of a good confci- 
 ePiCe j but they admitted their infants with- 
 out any fuch thing. Why therefore may 
 we not allow the Chriftian church in the 
 adminiflration of baptifm, to obferve the 
 fame cuftom, in admitting the children of 
 theirPr^/)'^^i to baptifm; as they admitted 
 them to circumcifion and baptifm." — It is 
 plain then, that there is nothing in what St. 
 Peter fays oi baptifm, which can amount to 
 a prohibition, or exclufion of baptizing infants 
 in the Chriftian church. For, St. Faul fays 
 the fame thing in eflfeft of circumcifion ; 
 and yet, it is undeniably certain, that infants 
 were circumcifed in the Jewifli church. 
 
 In relation to what Dr. Wkitby fays of the 
 Jews admitting the children of profelytes to 
 circumcifion and baptifm \ he proceeds upon 
 the notion of Profelyte- baptifm obtaining 
 
 amongft 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 amongft them. But, as learned men are not 
 agreed in this pointy we have laid litde or no 
 ftrefs upon it ; the argument from Profelyte- 
 circumcijion being clear and ftrong enough 
 without it. However, it is pleafant enough 
 to obferve, that fome authors, who very much 
 depreciate the authority of the Jewifh writers 
 upon this head, fcruple not to make ufe of 
 their authority in deciding any point in their 
 own favour, e,g, about the antient mode of 
 baptifm ; concerning which we (hall offer a 
 few remarks, and fo conclude this argument. 
 Now — that the word, baptize^ doth not al- 
 ways^ or neceffarily lignify, dipping the body 
 all ever ; even Dr. Gale^ after all his pains to 
 prove the contrary, was forced to acknow- 
 ledge in as plain terms as he durft. This 
 point hath been fet in a good light by Mr. 
 Perronet [_z]. And Dr. Wall brought the 
 matter to a fair ifltie in a fhort dialogue be- 
 tween an AntipaedO'baptift, and a church- 
 man [^]. The truth is, much of the time and 
 labour might have besn fpared, which hath 
 been fpent in rummaging authors, to fix the 
 ; original fenfe of the Greek words, l3cc7f]co, and 
 (iocTTrl^o). For the learned Critics know, that 
 ih^firji and primitive, is not always the true 
 and proper fenfe of words. Becaufe in the 
 flux of language the fignification of words al- 
 ters at different times and places, and amongtl 
 
 different 
 
 [«] Defence of Infant-baptifm, fee. 2. 
 [«] Defence, &c. p. 96. 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 difFerent people. And as words are but ar- 
 bitrary figns of ideas, or thoughts j cuftom is 
 the rule to fix their current fenfe. Suppofe 
 then, that the words in queflion primarily, 
 and originally fignified to dipy or immerfe a 
 body all over ; it follows not, that this is their 
 real and precife meaning in the New Tefta- 
 ment. Fcr, in the time of Cbrift and his 
 Apoftles, thefe vords, as beinq tlicn parts of 
 a living lai^guage, might have acquired a 
 more lax and genera! lignification amongfl: the 
 Hellenijisy importing to njuajlj^ not only by 
 dippin;^', but other ways. And that this was 
 the ca(^: in fadf, appears pretty plain from fun- 
 dry paffages in the Greek writers among the 
 Je-jos, E. g. It is faid oi Nebuchadnezzar [^], 
 " that his body was wet [c] v/ith the dew of 
 *' heaven." Now, can this mean, that his 
 body was dipped in the dew of heaven ; and 
 not rather that his body was wet with the 
 dew, falling or fprinkled upon it ? — Again : 
 it is related of Judith [^], " that flie went 
 *' out in the night into the valley of Bet hu/ia^ 
 ** and w^^^herfelf [^] in {or at [/]) a foun- 
 *' tain, by (or in [g]) the camp." But the 
 circumdances of the cafe render it very im- 
 probable, that (he ftripped herfelf, and im- 
 merfed her whole body in the water.— 
 
 Again, 
 
 [^] Dan. iv. 33. [f] 'E^rf'(pM from ^a.'Trla. 
 
 [d] Judith xii. 7. W 'E/Sa-arT/^STo, literally baptized. 
 
 [/] 'E'3r/ T«? 'srw^'Wj. See Walker. Dodrine of baptifms, 
 chap. 3. ^ 
 
 [g1 'E^ T/> '3rtffJS/>i^Ay. 
 
( 70 
 
 Again, when the Apoftles were baptized with 
 the Holy Gkojl according to Chrift's pro- 
 mife [h] ; this was not by immerfion, but ef- 
 fufion. For, upon that occafion, St. Peter 
 told the multitude [/], " Chrift being by the 
 " right hand of God exalted^ and having re^ 
 " ceivedof the Father the promife of the Holy 
 " Ghojiy hath flied forth this [k], 'which 
 ** ye no\'o fee and hear'* This ex'preflion, 
 hath ped forth ^ or poured out ^ this (meaning 
 the Holy Ghoft i;i ito extraordi^^iary gifts) is of 
 more force than Caufabonz criticifm in Ad:, i. 
 5. upon wbic!.* more iirefs is hid than it will 
 bear, to make cut fom^.t^ ing like a proper 
 immerfion in the prefcnt cafj. Fc r (i.) it is 
 not (aid, as ^^e mider^lnnd: it, tV-at the houfe 
 WAS filed -jitb the Holy Ghofl (^ hich w^uld 
 make the houfe i:fpircd) but tb^t iho, found ^ 
 which came from heaven, a.i of a rufiiing 
 mJghty wind, filled the houfe [/]. (2.) This 
 found, or ;;<?//}, filled all the honfs, and not 
 only the particular room where they v/ere 
 fitting. But, were all the people in the 
 houfe baptized with the Holy Ghoft, as 
 well ai the Apofcle. r (3-) ^^ fi ^^1^^ 
 all i\\z houfe, as to be heard by all that 
 were in it; and fo great was the alarm, as 
 that it occafioned the multitude to come to- 
 gether [?;;]. Thub then, tlie Apoftles were 
 
 baptized 
 
 [^'] Aa.i. 5. [/•] Aft ii. 33. 
 
 [*] 't:J4'/«;. [/] Ad. ii. 2. 
 
 [w] Ver. 6. Vid. Dan. Heinfius. Sacr. Exercit. in loc. 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 baptized with the Holy Ghoft^ not in the way 
 of immerfwn^ but of effufwn. For, they were 
 not dipped into the Holy Ghoft, but the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft was poured out upon them. — Once 
 more ;' we read \n], that a certain Pharifee, 
 wI>o invited Chrift to dine with him, " mar-- 
 *^ veiled that he hadnot firjt walbed [r?] before 
 ** dinner y Surely, /i?/j v/afhing cannot mean 
 immerfing his body all over; as there is no 
 room here to pretend, '* that Chrijt was now 
 " come from market^ or any court of judi- 
 " cature^ which might render it neceffary 
 ** to immerfe himfelf in water according to 
 ** the fuperftition of the Phari fees [/>]." And 
 yet in the original it is the very fame word for 
 wajhed, thdX is ufed in fpeaking of Chrift be- 
 ing baptized by fohn. How then doth it ap- 
 pear, that Chrift himfelf was dipped ? Why, 
 we are told [^], " Chrift, w^hen he was bap- 
 *' tized by John in the river Jordan, went 
 '^ M^ ftraitway out of the water, £:?6\" From 
 whence it is inferred [r], " that fince it is 
 ** faid, that he came out of the water, he 
 " muft firft have gone down into it; muft 
 ** have been in it, and was baptized in it; a 
 ** circumftance ftrongly in favour of baptifm 
 ** by immerfion, 6V.'* Doth not this look 
 wonderful plain and clear? And yet, it is all 
 grounded upon a miftake, and the inaccuracy 
 
 of 
 
 [«] Luk. ii. 38. [0] *F./3i'Zs-7''&»> literally, baptized, 
 
 [/.] See Dr. Gill. Divine Right of Infant-baptifm exa- 
 mined, &c, p. 96. 
 
 [q] Mat. iii. 16. [/-] Dr. Gill, comment, in loc. 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 of our EfigUpo verfion. Let us only hear 
 what Mr. Henry fays upon the place; '* Chrift 
 ** having no fins to confefs wentup immedi- 
 " ately out of the water ; fo we render it, but 
 ** not right ; for, it is aVo roZ uSxrog, i. e.from 
 ** the water, from the brink of the river, to 
 *^ which he went down to be wafhed with wa- 
 " ter, /. e. to have his head, ox face waflied ; 
 " {John xiii. 9 ) for, here is no mention of 
 ** the putting off, or putting on his cloaths, 
 ** which circumftance would not have been 
 *' omitted, if he had been baptized naked [j]." 
 If this remark on the Greek phrafe is not quite 
 new^ it was worth repeating ; for it feems to 
 be a fair Critic fm, and not any wretched 
 fhifty as Mr. Rees is pleafed to call it. But 
 it is really a wretched conftru^ion^ which 
 he and others \t'\ put upon the words of St. 
 
 Mark, 
 
 [j] Mr. Henry *s Expofition on Mat. iii. 16. 
 
 [^] Rees. anfwer to Walker, p. 127. Keach. anfwer to 
 Owen, p. 23, 320. Plain account of the facred ordin. of bap- 
 tifm, p. 31. Burroughs's two difcourfes on p:fitive inftituti- 
 ons, p. 28. This laft named author fays (Defence of two 
 difcourfes, &c. p. 31.) *• If «/? tcv lo^i'a.mv does not meani«- 
 
 ** t9 yordartf what is the meaning of Si^ to u/iyf, when 
 
 ** applied to Philip, and the Eunuch ?" Why, if it mean /«/# 
 the ivater, this will neither determine the meaning of that 
 other phrafe, nor neceffarily conclude for dipping. Bat, fays 
 he (ib, p. 26.) " There is no acco.jnting for fuch words as 
 *' thefe, {^oittg do'vun both into the nvtitertbaptizinc there ^ and 
 ** then coming up out of the ivaterV Afts viii 38, 39. ] that is, 
 upon any other fuppofition, either of fprinkling or r;oi]ring. 
 And yet, qnlefs the word baptizi, of itfeif necelTurily means 
 
 IQ dipping. 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 Mark [v\ when they make him fay, that 
 John baptized Chrift into Jordan [w]. For, 
 in the ftile of Scripture, this would fignify, 
 that John made him a difciple of Jordan [a:]; 
 The proper meaning of the Greek phrafe is at 
 Jordan-, expreffing the place, where John was 
 baptizing [;'], by way of diftindion from the 
 place, whence Chrifl: came to be baptized of 
 him. It is the very fame phrafe, that is ufed 
 by the Greek interpreters, where Z)^i;/V tells 
 Solomon [%\y that Sbimei came down to meet 
 
 him 
 
 dipping, (which is denied} thefe mere circumllances of going 
 down into the water, and coming up out of the water, will not 
 prove a dipping in that cafe : for, was Solomon dipped, when 
 they went down with him, \tc ih Ticcf, to (or be it into) Gihon, 
 and after anointing him in Gihon, came up from thence, iKLings, 
 i. 38, 45. Nor will thofe circumllances, confidered in con- 
 nexion with the aft of baptizing, fo certainly fix it for immer- 
 fion, as is conceived. For one may eafily conceive, that for 
 want of other conveniences, in that defart place, Pkilip might 
 go down with the Eunuch into the water to a certain depth, 
 that fo he might the more commodioufly take up vv^ater with 
 the hand, and pour it on the Eunuch's head. ** But why did 
 *• pkilip go donvn into the Kvater himfelf, and take the Eunuch 
 ** along with him ? Why did he not fetch a little water, to 
 ** fpr inkle f or to pour upon him ?" To whichitis anfwered. 
 Where could Philip have in fuch a place any 'vejfel ^ro^ev for 
 thepurpofe ? Befides, if the Eunuch was dipped, it muft either 
 be naked, or with V\^ clothes on-, neither of which feems pro- 
 bable in his prefent circumllances. After all, how will it prove, 
 that dipping was pradlifed in all cafes, and particularly, that 
 '^ohn in baptizing him, dipped Jefi2s,even fuppofing thatPi'j- 
 lip dipped the Eunuch ? A fuppofition fo precarious, as that up- 
 on a diftind view of the cafe, Mr. Walker fays, (Doclrine of 
 baptifms, chap. 14. fee. 1 2.) '* What's all the noKeofPhilip^s 
 •* dipping the Eunuch come to? To nothing elfe but mere 
 ** noife." 
 
 [1;] Mark i. 9. [.xy] gj? to// lofdTotW. 
 
 [x] See I Cor. x. 2. Gal. iii. 27. 
 
 \j) Joh.i. 28. [z] I Kings ii. 8. 
 
( n ) 
 
 him at Jordanla], — As It is only by the by 
 that we here take notice of the ?72oJe of bap- 
 tifm ; we (hall not examine all the texts, that 
 are commonly alledged in favour of immer- 
 /ion ; but refer the reader to thofe treatifes, 
 which have been profeffedly writ upon that 
 fubjedl [6], Let it fuffice for the prefent to 
 obferve, that there is hardly a ftronger paflage 
 to be found, than thofe words of St Pau/lc]^ 
 " We are buried with him by haptifm into 
 *' deaths &c." And yet fays an ingenious 
 writer, " I queftion whether we can certain- 
 *' ly from this paffage infer the outward mode 
 ** of adminiftring baptifm. For, in the next 
 ** verfe, our beiijg incorporated into Chrijl 
 *' by baptifm is alfo denoted by our being 
 planted, or rather grafted together in the 
 likenefs of his deatis : and Noah^s ark, float- 
 ing upon the water, is a figure correfpond- 
 ** ing to baptifm, i. Pet. iii. 20, 21. But 
 *' neither of thefe give us the fame idea of 
 *^ the outward form, as buryi?7g [^d]" But, 
 fuppofe it were proper to preferve fome ana- 
 logy between the mode of baptifm^ and that 
 of a burial \ it (hould be confidered, that the 
 K 2 ' modes 
 
 [«] y-dLti^'A — s},' Th lopJ^av'iiv. By this expreflion we fee, 
 that Chrift migbf go doi'jn to Jordan, and fo come up from Jor- 
 dan afcer he was baptized by John at Jordan ; and yet never 
 have been fo much as in Jordan. 
 
 [^3 See Phmging, a fubjeft of bigotry, when made effential, 
 &c. Dipping not the only Scripture and primitive mode, &c. 
 
 [fjRom. vi. 4, [^] Taylor in loc. 
 
 c< 
 
 cc 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 modes of burial differ in different countries 5 
 and fo would require different modes of bap- 
 tifm to reprefent and exprefs them truly. 
 Confequently, no one particular mode could 
 be proper in all cafes. And thus the very 
 argument, which is commonly urged for the 
 univerfal propriety and even neceffity of im- 
 merfmt, proves quite the contrary »-*-In fliort, 
 from the examples already produced, (to 
 which more might be added [e'], the word 
 baptifm appears to have acquired in common 
 ufe among the Hellenijlsy fo large and gene- 
 ral a kv)iQ^ as to comprehend other modes 
 and ways of wa(hing, befides that of immer- 
 fion. Hence Origen calls pouring water upon 
 the ivood^ baptizing it \_J ]. Therefore the 
 command to baptize fcems to be only a com- 
 mand to wajh^ without prefcribing the parti- 
 cular mode [^^]. And therefore, as no one 
 particular mode can be neceflary, exclufive of 
 another ; fo, different modes of baptifm 
 might be ufed from the beginning. We are 
 not pleafed to find any grave authors fpeak 
 lightly of baptifm by immerlion : for this 
 might be one mode of baptizing amongft the 
 ancients. But yet, fuppofing it to be fo, this 
 
 is 
 
 \/\ See Walker. Do<51rine of b^.ptifms, chap. 4 6. 
 
 [/] See I King, xviii. 33. Wall's Defence, Appendix, 
 p. 19. 
 
 \g\ The Hebrew word, 'Tahal, and the Syriac, Amad^ 
 are obferved to admit the fame large conflru^ion. See Wal- 
 ker, ubi fupra, cJi. 7. 
 
{ 77 ) 
 
 is no proof, that it was anciently the only 
 mode. Let immerfion then be allowed, but 
 not abfolutely required : it fliould neither be 
 defpifed nor idolized^ in our humble opini- 
 on. Since baptifm doth not fave by the 
 wafhing, ox putting away the filth oftheflejh 
 [A], is there not danger of owr-^o/;2fg" here, 
 by laying fo much ftrefs upon the external 
 mode of adminiftration, as borders too near 
 upon fuoerftition? In a word, if the falutary 
 nature of baptifm confifts not in the out- 
 ward rite itfelf, how much lefs in the par- 
 ticular mode ! 
 
 [y] I Pet. iii. 21. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BOOKS 
 
 PRINTED FOR 
 
 J. WAUGH and W. F E N N E R, 
 At the Turk's-Head, in Lombard- Street, 
 
 THE 
 
 BAPTISM of INFANTS 
 
 A Reasonable Service; 
 Founded upon So ripture, and undoubted 
 
 Apostolic Tradition? 
 
 In which its moral Purpofes and Ufe in Religion afe Ihevvn, 
 
 Price Eight Pence. 
 
 DIPPING: 
 
 Not the only Scriptural and Primitive 
 
 Manner of Baptizing, 
 
 And fuppofing it were, yet a flridl Adherence. 
 
 not obligatory on us. 
 
 Price Six-pence, 
 
 P iE D O . B A P T I S M : 
 
 Or, A Defence of Infant- baptifm in Point 
 
 of Antiquity. 
 
 Againft the Exceptions of Dr. John Gill, 
 
 and others. 
 
 Price One Shilling. 
 
 PiEDO-BAPTISM DEFENDED: 
 
 Or, The Antiquity of Infant-baptifm further 
 
 maintained. 
 
 In Anfwer to Dr. Gill's Reply, entitled, Antipasdo- 
 
 baptifm, (Jc. 
 
 Price One Shilling. 
 
/ '■'