iAhvaxy of t:he theological ^tminary PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY Library of Dr. W. H. Green 1903 BV 813 .W3 1844 V.4 Wall, William -The history of infant -baptism ll^Ji^ww. ^f--^^^ i QAA_i_^CLAxj THE HISTOEY OF INFANT-BAPTISM. WILLIAM WALL, M.A. VICAR OF SHOREHAM, KENT, AND OF MILTON NEXT GRAVESEND. y TOGETHER VilTH MR. GALE'S REFLECTIONS, y AND DR. WALL'S DEFENCE. SECOND EDITION, BY THE REV. HENRY COTTON, D.C.L. LATE STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH. IN FOUR VOLUfllES. VOL. IV. OXFORD: AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. MDCCCXLIV. A DEFENCE OF THE HISTORY OF INFANT-BAPTISM AGAINST THE REFLECTIONS OF MR. GALE AND OTHERS. BY WILLIAM WALL, AUTHOR OF THE SAID HISTORY. WALL, VOL. IV. A DEFENCE HISTORY OF INFANT-BAPTISM. WHEN, after I had for some years made it my business to observe in my reading, and to collect such passages in the ancient Christian writers, as did any way relate to the baptizing of infants ; I published them, with some notes of my own upon them, in the year 1705, being then about sixty years old ; I little thought that the doing of that would bring me under a necessity of writing any more books, which is a fatigue unfit to be borne by one of my age. The Hutory itself, or Collection of Quo- tations, could not, I thought, admit of any excep- tions, provided I recited them true ; which I was careful to do. And for my notes upon them, or any thing that related to the defence of the cause itself of infant-baptism, I thought, that if there arose any necessity of vindicating that, some younger and abler men would undertake it. But the book having had more said and published, by some for, and by some against it, than I could B 2 4 A Defence of the have expected ; these latter who have wrote against it, and especially INIr. Gale's large book of ' Reflec- ' tions,' (so he calls them : he might have entitled them ' Rejiroaches,') have made it needful (in the opinion of some worthy men, to whom I owe a deference) for me, even in this my weak and super- annuated state *\ to write something in vindication, partly of the cause, and partly of myself: some people having, it seems, raised a report or suspicion, as if I myself had altered my opinion about the duty or the ancient practice of baptizing infants. That honour which was publicly done to my book by those learned men of the lower house of convo- cation ^, and by some others of great worth and sta- tion, as I ought ever humbly to acknowledge it to have been greater than I could deserve ; and as it was in itself extraordinary; so it was a means of pro- voking the pen of somebody (I could nfever learn who it was*^) presently to find faults in it. He in a a [This was written in the year 1720, at which time the author was seventy-five years of age.] ^ [See the introduction to vol. iii. for the terms in which this compHment was conveyed.] c [This is now generally understood to have been Dr. White Kennet, (afterwards bishop of Peterborough,) at that time arch- deacon of Huntingdon : who, publishing ' An Account of Pro- ' ceedings in the Convocation, which began Oct. 25, 1705. so ' far as it could be given, by reason of the concealment of the ' acts of the lower house, and the Prolocutor's refiis^al to transmit ' them to the proper office.' 4to. London, (no printer's name,) 1706; — at p. 5S, makes the following remarks: 'Their [the ' lower house] peculiar j)leasure was, to sit judges of books and ' sermons, to approve some and condemn others, as should seem ' meet unto them. ' The book that had the honour of their express approbation, « was the treatise of Infant -baptism by Mr. George (sic) irall. History of Infant-haptism. 5 Pamphlet, called ' An Account of the Proceedings in ' Convocation, 1705,' said ; that T had therein re- flected on a certain bishop, (and he si)oke as if it had been a personal reflection on that bishop,) who, he said, was not a favourite of the lower house ; but was, it seems, a favourite of the writer, and of the enemies of that house. But that beinof written not so much against me (who had only opposed a tenet of that bishop) as in anger and party-quarrel with them ; and I having in the preface to the second edition answered what I thought needful, I have no more to say of that adversary's objections. ' The sermon that was censured by them was that of ]Mr. ' Hoadly, preached before the lord mayor and aldermen of ' London, and published at their desire. ' Without entering into the merit or demerit of either of ' these books, one can hardly forbear thinking, that the reason ' why one was commended, was, because it contains several ' reflections on some of the bishops who are not favourites of ' the lower house : and that the other was censured, because it ' expresses a great zeal for the honour of the revolution, and no ' less concern for the present government, and the succession in 'the Protestant line. As to Mr. Wall's book, whatever com- ' mendation it may deserve, there doth not seem to be any other ' peculiar reason, why it should be singled out among so many ex- ' cellent books as have been published within these few years ; ' amongst which we may justly reckon those that have been pub- ' lished by Mr. Hoadly in defence of the established Church.' It is well remembered, how much of division and of party- spirit appeared in that convocation ; a portion of which may also be traced in the above remarks. Dr. Wall replied to them at length, in the preface to the second edition ; but in that to his third he observes, ' To which (rebuke) I in the preface to the ' second edition gave what answer I thought needful. But that ' pamphlet being now, I suppose, out of print and forgotten, I ' do not think my answer to it worth reprinting.' The passage objected to had occurred in part ii. chap. 5. sect. 9, of t\ie. first edition.] 6 A Defence of the What I would do now is, partly to o^\^l what I myself, before I was attacked by antagonists, had, upon a longer consideration and review, thought to be blaniable in it ; and partly to answer the objec- tions which some writers, and especially Mr. Gale, have made against it. I myself had reflected on some ])assages as blamable, (and happy is that writer, who upon a sedate review of what he has said, has not occasion so to do,) and particularly such, wherein animadverting on some mistakes or misrepresentations of things, made by some authors, I had used a strain of language more censorious or satirical than should have been used toward men, who had been otherwise of great merit and worth. When any one of great learning, judgment, and piety, has by the use of those good qualities, and by great pains and study, done considerable service to religion and the Church of God, (which is the case of the learned Grotius,) such a man is, even in the mention of his faults, (when the defence of any truth makes it necessary to mention them,) and in the con- futation of his mistakes, to be treated with respect. He in his comment on Matt, xxviii. 19, set himself to establish a doctrine which is perfectly new, of the indifferency {lihertas he calls it) of baptizing or not ba])tizing infants. And to that purpose heaped to- gether several reasons and authorities, which, as he uses them, do make for the Antipa^dobaptists' side of the question, that they might balance those which he knew were for the other side. The producing any of these testimonies that were true, and could fairly be ai)plied to the purpose for which he used them, is a thing which I of all men must not have blamed him for : for it was that which I pretended History of Infant-baptism. 7 to do myself. But he brings some, which, I think, I have shewn to be not so. As, not to mention his saying, ' that St. Austin, before he was heated with ' the Pelagian disputes, never wrote any thing of the ' condemnation of unbaptized infants, not even to ' those lesser pains in the world to come ;' which I have shewn from St. Austin's own words to be other- wise, part i. chap. xv. sect. 3 and 5 ; nor his find- ing an argument against infant-baptism in the coun- cil of Neocsesarea, Can. 6, which when duly consi- dered, has nothing pro or contra about it ; nor his quoting some words of Balsamon's comment on that canon, which might represent him as understanding it against infant-baptism, and leaving out other words in the same paragraph, which Avould have plainly discovered the mistake of such a represen- tation ; nor his saying, that in the Greek churches many persons ' from the beginning to this day, have ' the custom of delaying the baptism of infants, till * they are able to make profession of their faith ;' which account of the modern practice is certainly wrong, and of the ancient practice (which is the thing disputed) he brings no tolerable proofs; nor his saying, that ' in the councils one shall find no ' earlier mention of paedobaptism, than in the coun- ' cil of Carthage, anno 418;' whereas the council under St. Cyprian, that speaks of it as absolutely necessary, was nigh two hundred years before ; he makes the most palpable mistake of all, in repre- senting Gregory Nazianzen as speaking of infancy as a state incapable of baptism, in a sentence where Gregory only speaks of the mishap of those infants, who being hia vijTrioTijra, by reason of their iyifancy^ incapable of procuring it to themselves, have no 8 A Defence of ths friends that will procure it for them : which children, as he judges, will by that means miss of heaven. Which is just as good arguing, as if from the his- tory of the impotent man, John v, who for thirty- eight years had been unable himself to get into the pool time enough for cure, and had nobody to help him into it, one should conclude, that impotency is a reason why a man should not, or ought not to be cured. This last mentioned perverting of the plain mean- ing of Gregory's words, to a directly contrary sense, I called a foul imposture 'I What I blame myself for is, that the consideration of the merit of so great a man, shewn in the other places of his com- ments, did not prevail with me to use expressions of more deference and a more modest censure ; though of the incongruity of the argument, my thoughts be as they were then. I had occasion to recite a discourse of St. Chr}'s- ostom's, which I thought, and do think still, to be manifestly inconclusive ; but expressed the censure of it in words which shewed too plainly, that I did not consider who he was, and who I am ^. These words were, upon the admonition of a superior, (who had a large catalogue of such my faults pre- sented to him, by some, who upon application refused to let me see it,) amended in the second edition. Several other learned men, (it would be too long to name all the cases,) upon whose opinions or quo- tations my subject led me to make animadversions, «1 [Part ii. chap. 2. sect. 9, in the first and second editions.] e [Part i. chap. 14. sect, i.] History of Infant-haptism. 9 did deserve to have been treated more respect- fully. The dispute that had of late been raised about the tenets of the Waldenses concerning infant-bap- tism, led me into a short history of those people ; which, I understand since, had been much more distinctly and skilfully handled by others^. I did not sufficiently distinguish between the Waldenses properly so called, and the Albigenses. The Petro- brusians, whom I mentioned ^ (and I think they were so) as the first antipsedobaptists were of the Albigenses. None of the Waldenses, I think, did deny infant-baptism. What I said of St. Ambrose '', affirming that John the Baptist baptized infants, should have been expressed not so positively. The tenor of the quo- tation which I brought from his comment on Luke i. does (I think still) lead to that sense of his words. But it is better for a quoter, where the phrases have any ambiguity, to intimate what he takes to be the most obvious sense of them, and leave the more positive judgment of them to the reader. He that would pass a judgment, would do well to read all that he says there of the parallel between John and Elias. These, and some more such reflections on some particular passages of my own book, I had made, before I was attacked by any adversary; and had drawn up a breviary of them for my own use, and shewed it to some friends, and they to others. One ' [See some account of writers who have treated on the history of these people, in a note at vol. ii. p. 246.] t'' [Part ii. chap. 7. sect. 5.] h [Part i. chap. 13. sect, i.] 10 J Defence of the of which having seen it, said, where I have heard of it again, that he had seen a recantation of my book under my own hand. And this perhaj)S might give occasion to a report, which some have heard, that my opinion concerning pa'dobaj)tism was al- tered. I must not use again any such sharp lan- guage as I am now blaming myself for ; (for this also is a man of worth ;) but I wish him a better use of his faculty of distinguishing between a review^ wherein any one acknowledges the faultiness of some particular expressions, as being too censorious, too positive, &c., and a recantation of a book, a doc- trine, or a history. St. Austin wrote his retracta- tions of the former sort, but not of the latter ; neither did I. Of those who have written against me, I do not take Mr. Bernard", of Holland, to be one. On the contrary, I account it an honour done to me, that he thought my book one of those that it was worth his while to give an abstract of, in his ' Nouvelles ' de la Republique des Lettres' for the year 1708, But yet (as I think it always happens between writers) he thinks it necessary to differ from me in some things, and to give his censure of some pas- sages ; but of none in my first part, as I remember, that are of moment, save that on reading the hard words, which I mentioned just now, on Grotius, he says, ]). 383, ' Possibly (irotius might, without any • design of imposture, cite that passage of Gregory i [See the periodical literary review published by M. Jacques Bernard, under the title of Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres, 1 2mo. Amsterdam, 1699, &c. In October 1708 this contained a review of Dr. Wall's first part, and in Nov. of the same year one of the second part of \\\s Jirst edition, i 705.] History of Infant-haptisni. 1 1 ' Nazianzen, writing in too much haste or heed- ' lessness,' ' avec trop de precipitation.' And I am content it shoukl go so. But he finds more faults in the second part. Upon my giving my opinion, chap. x. that that one example of Gregory, the father of Gregory Na- zianzen, letting his son, born to him after his own baptism, grow up unbaptized, (which is the only instance that can be brought, and that not plainly to be proved,) ought not to be accounted of any great weight, for reasons there given : he, at p. 568, is of another opinion, ' That my reasoning at that ' place is not solid, but warped. That this exam- ' pie shews, that at that time they did not take the ' baptizing of infants to be a law indispensable, ' since a priest was suffered to let his child go ' unbaptized.' Now it seems to me no very solid conclusion, which he would draw from this one instance of a man, who is represented by the writ- ers of his son's life, (who are the only writers that mention him,) to have been of little judgment or capacity, against all the examples and advices of the other ancient Christians, especially when of fourteen instances, which some antipsedobaptists had endeavoured to obtrude, of the children of Christians baptized at their adult age, I had, as he saw, there shewed the other thirteen to be mistakes in history; and indeed I question -whether Mr. Bernard and others, should not rather blame me for too much easiness in yielding this one, viz. that Gregory Nazianzen was born after the year 325, which was the year of his father's conversion from heathenism to Christianity. It was only one sen- tence, and one word in that sentence, (in the writing 12 A Defence of the whereof there may possibly have been an error,) that made me yiehl uj) all those many proofs and reasons in chronology to the contrary. For Suidas '^ makes him to be born twenty-five years before ; and so does Papebrochius ', and so does Mr. Pagi •", and Mr. le Clerc. And Baronius " himself sets his birth three years before. By any of these accounts, the wonder that he was not baptized in infancy will cease. The word that puzzles all is Ova-iwv, in that sentence, where the father says to the son, ' You ' have not lived so many years in all, as are the ' years of my sacrificing;' by which must be meant, (if that word be allowed,) ' of my officiating as a * Christian priest.' Which will make the son (who is often spoken of by himself, by the writers of his life, and by others, as one that lived to a very great age) to have lived no longer than sixty-one or sixty- two. For he died in 389- And there must be some time supposed to have passed between his father's conversion, which was 325, and his ordination. Papebrochius thinks, that instead of SitjXOe Ova-iwv, it was ^t^AO' €T>](Tiwv. Which will make the father say to the son, ' You are not so old as T.' I should rather think (if we may venture to amend) that Ovariwv has been written instead of ttoXiwv, (or for the verse sake ran/ TroXtdn',) which will make him say, ' You are not so old as my grey hairs are ;' or, have •^ [In voce ' Gregorius.'] 1 [See the Acta Sanctorum, volume the second, for May, at the ninth day, page 369, &c. &c.J •'» [In his ' Critica in Annales Card. Baronii, at the year 354, No. xi. torn. i. p. 481. fol. Colon. Allobr. 1705.] n [See ' Baronii Annales,' at the year 340, N". xxxvi ; and 324, No. xxiii, &c.] History/ of Infant-haptism. 13 not lived so long as I have been grej-headed. The objection against this amendment, which arises from the construction of the verse, is not considerable in this case, because Gregory in that poem does com- monly put an anap^estus for the fourth foot of his iambic. That is certainly the scope of the place. For the father there entreats the son's assistance in his weakness and extreme old age. And the father is by the history known to have been old before the son was born. I have since that time lisfhted on one proof more, that the son must be consider- ably older than sixty-one when he died. For St. Hierome mentioning him, {de Scriptoribiis Eccle- siasticis,) calls him one of his masters, by whom he had in his younger years been instructed in the study of divinity. Whereas by this account St. Hierome was within four years as old as he. For at 389 he was fifty-seven, as is easily computed by the history of his life. Mr. Bernard here adds, that he is ' convinced ' that infants are to be baptized.' But he does not think baptism to be ' of absolute necessity :' nor that it is this sacrament ' which makes us true (or pro- ' per, veritable) Christians.' This is wonderful cau- tious. As to the necessity ; we should, methinks, account all our Saviour's commands to be necessary. And I had quoted to him Calvin's acknowledgment ; ' We do confess the use of baptism to be necessary ; ' that it is not lawful to omit it by negligence or ' contempt. We do not count it free, (or indif- ^ ferent,) and we do not only strictly oblige Chris- ' tians to the use of it, but do affirm it to be the ' ordinary instrument of God, to wash and renew •' us, and to communicate to us salvation. This 14) A Defence of the * only we except ; that God's hand is not so tied to ' the instrument, but that it can of itself effect our ' salvation. For where there is no possibility of * baptism, God's promise alone is abundantly suffi- * cient.' Antidot. ad Synod. Trident. Sess. 7. de Baptismo. Here it is owned to be necessary, not only necessitate pnEceptif but also necessitate me- dii, in God's ordinary way. But they will not have it said, that we are * made * Christians' by it ; yet Calvin here says, it is ' the * ordinary instrument of God to communicate to us * salvation.' And it may, one would think, be as well owned to be the ordinary instrument of God to ' make us Christians :' and that this is a fitter theological expression, than that which I quoted of a new-fashioned English divine ; ' We are born * members of the Christian church :' which is the direct contrary to the maxim of the ancient Chris- tians; 'Christian! non nascimur, sed fimus.' Cal- vin says, Tnstit. lib. iv. c. 15 : ' The children of the ' faithful are not baptized for that reason, that they * may then first be made children of God, &c. But ' rather they are therefore received by that solemn ' sign into the church, because they did before be- * long to the body of Christ, by virtue of the pro- * mise.' The church of England, in the Catechism, makes the catechumen say, ' In my baptism, where- ' in I was made a member of Christ, a child of * God,' &c. A like dispute might be raised about the eflficacy of sealing a deed of land. One may say, it is the sealing that conveys the right to the land ; another, it is not that, but the will of the donor. T5oth will agree, that it is not the parch- ment, wax, &c., but the will of the donor solemnly History of Infant-baptism. 15 signified by those tokens. Bishop Stillingfleet does well observe, in the place I there quoted, (Unrea- sonableness of Separation, part iii. sect. 36.) that the Church of England by requiring sponsors, ' does ' not exclude any title to baptism, which the child ' has by the right of the parents.' But he shews at the same place, that if the parents be supposed to have no right, yet upon the sponsion of god- fathers, the church has right to administer baptism to infants (which Mr. Bernard, as we shall see pre- sently, owns to be the sense of other protestant churches); and that those who think themselves bound to baptize children only by virtue of their parents' right, will run into many perplexing scru- ples, of which Mr. Bernard will give me occasion to speak by and by. As for the assurance which they express, that where baptism cannot be had, God will in mercy make up the defect, and take the sincere will of the parent for the deed ; no protestant, that I know of, will dispute against them, but have hopes of the same. But this is by extraordinary mercy, and should have no effect to alter the offices of the church visible ; which cannot properly (in an office for burial, or any other occasion) call a person one of her members, till he has been regularly received as such, by the ordinary way of God's appoint- ment. At p. 572, where I had said, that all the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Saviour, John iii. 5, to mean baptism ; and that I believed Calvin to be the first man that ever denied it so to be meant : Mr. Bernard not willing to let Calvin's name pass, with- 1() A Defence of the out i)leading something for hini, makes this reflec- tion; 'It must nevertheless be owned, that there ' are considerable difficulties in this explication of ' that passage given by the ancients, and which our ' author takes to be the true one. It is hard for * any one to think, that none of all this discourse of ' Jesus Christ to Nicodemus is to be understood of ' the true (or proper, veritable) regeneration : which ' baptism cannot confer of itself, at least, unless one ' would say, that all infants that are baptized, are ' actually regenerate.' j\Ir. Bernard seems here not to have a right con- ception of the meaning of these ancient Christians. They did not think, that the outward part of bap- tism was all that Jesus Christ understood or meant by this discourse; but that he comprehended in these words, born of ivater, and of the Spirit^ both the outward part, the water, &c., and also the in- ward part, that operation of the Holy Spirit, by w'hich the baptized person is, by God's mercy, and his gracious covenant, received into a new spiritual state, translated out of the state of nature (to which a curse is due) into the state of grace and mercy in Jesus Christ : or (as Calvin's words are) renewed and brouo'ht to a state of salvation. St. Austin, in the words which I cited, part i. chap. xv. sect. 5. §. 9. shews how he and the ancients understood the regeneration or new birth of an infant in baptism, as meant by our Saviour, in the plainest words possible : ' Aqua exhibens forinsecus sacramentum ' gratia?, et Spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium ' gratia^, solvens vinculum culpae,' &c. These taken together, he means, do regenerate the infant. And is not this a happy and desirable regeneration for History of Infant-haptism. 1 7 the infant? Is not the spiritual state of the child by this merciful method of God's appointment, so altered for the better, that he may well be said to be born anew, and entered into a new state ? When he was by nature born in sin, in a state of spiritual pollution, subject to God's wrath, &c., are not the pardon of that sin or pollution, the release of the old bond, the admittance into a new covenant, the adoption into God's family, to be partaker of Christ's purchase, &c., sufficient to denominate a veritable regeneration ? But Mr. Bernard says, * Baptism cannot confer * this of itself Not the water of itself, for certain. But the water, and the grace or mercy of God, ap- plied to the person by the Holy Spirit (whose good offices Christ has promised shall accompany his ordinances) can. But then it will follow, he says, that ' all baptized * infants are actually regenerate.' In this sense of the word {entered into a new spiritual state, which is the old sense of it) they are ; and they have consigned to them the promises of such assistances of God's Spirit, as they shall from time to time be capable of. And in that state they continue for ever, if they themselves do not by actual wickedness break, forfeit, and disannul the gracious covenant into which they are then entered, Mr. Bernard argues, that if our Saviour had meant no more than this, * that would have been to no * purpose, which he speaks of the action of the Spirit * upon the heart of those who are regenerated, and * which he compares to the wind,'' &c. That grace of the Spirit, which we have men- WALL, VOL. IV. C 18 A Defence of the tioned, is given both in the case of the adult, and also of infants. There are some other graces of the same Sj>irit, M'hich are given peculiarly to the adult in their baptism ; as a present converting the heart, enlightening the mind, comforting the soul, &c. When we maintain, that this discourse of our Sa- viour concerning baptism, and the rcgeperation of the person, is applicable to infants, we do not think that it relates to them only. On the contrary, in this and most other texts, where our Saviour or the Apostles do speak of bajitism, though their words do comprehend and reach to the case of infants, yet they seem to have a more especial eye to the case of the adult persons of that time. Inasmuch as (though both were to be done) the baptizing of the adult, and the converting and fitting them for it, was the first and chief thing which the Apostles had at that time to do. Now our Saviour's general words (born of water and of the Spirit) do comprehend both these gracious effects of God's Spirit, adapted to the several subjects according to their respective capacities. And whereas Mr. Bernard brings in, as an objec- tion against this, those other words of our Saviour there; That which is horn of the flesh is flesh; and that ivhich is born of the Spirit is spirit : St. Austin's explication of that place which I recited, is natural and plain ; as it is applied by him to infants (as well as adult persons) baptized : for infants are born in a state of corruption and guilt, (which is called born of the flesh,) but in baptism born again by the Spirit to a state of grace, and favour, and blessing. Unless INIr. Bernard will deny, that the Spirit of God, beside his office of converting the History of Infant-haptism . 1 9 heart in the adult, does also in the case of baptized infants, apply to them the pardon of original sin, the favour of being received into the Christian cove- nant, consigning to them such grace as shall assist them as they come to years, &c. Which I shewed (in this very chapter on which we are treating) that the antipaedobaptists themselves do allow to be done in the case of all infants, baptized or not, which, dying in infancy, are saved. And no Christian, I think, will venture to say, that any infant can go to heaven without this ajiplication of the merits of Christ to him. Therefore that which Mr. Bernard says next, ' The authority of the Fathers of the Church is of ' no force against an explication founded upon what ' goes before, and what follows, in the context, and ' upon the rules of the best critics,' raises no objec- tion against this explication of the Fathers, which is agreeable to the words, both of the text and context. On the contrary, I am glad to hear him say this; for if no such privilege be to be allowed to the Fathers, it will follow a fortiori^ that much less is the authority of one man, Calvin, (though he be for the general, a good expositor,) of force against an explication of this text, which is both natural in itself, and was ever accounted so by all Christians, without exception, for fourteen or fifteen hundred years, and is accounted so still by most Christians. And I think, the disdain with which all Christians do receive that explication of the Quakers, whereby they evade the force of such texts as concern the other sacrament, and do by the words, bread, wine, eating, drinking, &c., force themselves to mean some other mystical thing, — should make one have the c 2! «{) J Defence of the less regard to Calvin's way of interpreting this text, which is so very like it, who will have no material icafer to be meant in this text ; as they, no material dread in the other. For the Ajjostle's words. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ, Sfc., do not more plainly express the external, as well as internal part of that sacrament, than our Saviour's words, horn of icater and of the Spirit, do of this. Especially if they be compared with other like texts, as Tit. iii. .5, The washing of regeneration, and renewifig of the Holy Spirit, &c. To say, that these do not mean baptism, is as great a paradox, as to say, that the other do not mean the Lord's Supjjer. And at this rate of altering words, or expounding away the plain sense of them, any texts of Scripture whatever may be eluded. JNIr. Bernard grants, however, that ' our Saviour ' does in these words make an allusion to baptism ; * to that baptism with water, which had been in use ' among the Jews, and which John Baptist admiuis- ' tered to the Jews themselves.' But surely, our Saviour's affirming in so solemn a manner. Verily, verily, &ic., that without it, none shall enter into the kingdom of God; should be taken for more than an allusion. He adds, that ' Jesus Christ did mean neverthe- * less, the proper regeneration, which consists in the ' conversion of the heart.' The (juestion here between him and us is, whe- ther no regeneration, which is not accompanied with present actual conversion of the heart, can be called proper regeneration ? I think it may be solved thus : As the command of circumcision, which was given in general, (both to infants, and to such adult persons History of Infant-haptism. 21 as had not yet received it,) carried with it an injunc- tion of present actual circumcision of the heart to the adult receiver of it, but not to the infant re- ceiver, and yet was proper circumcision to both of them ; so baptism carries along with it a present actual conversion of heart in the adult receiver, but not in the infant receiver; and yet is proper regene- ration to both of them. If Calvin and some late writers will give the name of proper, or veritable, only to that to which they (without the consent of antiquity or the greatest part of Christians) have appropriated the word, it is but a dispute of words. At p. 575, he asks, ' Whether I, who would have ' men have so great respect for the Fathers, can shew * any plain place of Scripture which may support * that opinion, concerning a middle state, (in which * unbaptized infants will be,) which I had shewn to ' be held by some of them ?' Now I never pretended to that, nor to give any determination at all to that question ; but shewed it to be a thing in which half the Church was of one opinion, {viz. the Greek church,) and half of the other. Only I gave a reason from what our Saviour says, Luke xii. 48, that if they do miss of heaven, and be under some degree of condemnation ; it is to be hoped, that it will be (as St. Austin says) a very gentle one. At p. 580, Mr. Bernard is more angry with me. I had said, part ii. chap. 6. sect 10, that some modern Calvinists would establish a rule (which I there shewed to be contrary to the practice of the Christians) in the baptizing of children ; that none are to be baptized but the children of parents actu- ally godly and religious : and that Bishop Stillingfleet 22 A Defence of the had fully shewn the absurrlity and inconsistency of this opinion ; and how they can never, in many cases that may be put, come to a resolution, what children they may baptize, and what not. For which I quoted his 'Unreasonableness of Separation,' part iii. sect. 36. ]\Ir. Bernard says, ' He will not stand to recite ' that part of the chapter, because it Avill be diffi- ' cult to do it without angering (choking^) me, who ' do set out as absurd the doctrine of some whom ' I call Calvinists : and that he would not be ex- ' posed to the tcntation of returning injury for * injury (or reproach). That he believes I do not * understand their tenet. That they do not refuse * baptism to all the children even of infidels. They * give it to all such as the parents do abandon, or * whose education they will leave to Christians. ' That in Holland they baptize infants found in the * streets, though there may be among them some ' born of Jewish or JMahometan parents.' If JNIr. Bernard had read the discourse of Bishop Stillingfleet which I there cite, he would have seen that the Bishop there speaks only of some sepa- ratists in our nation, who do make that one part of their quarrel with our church, the giving baptism to the children of ungodly i)arents, (which yet our church does not without sufficient sponsions,) and that he does not meddle with the practice of any foreign churches. Neither did I mean any thing of what I said there in reference to them ; but only to those who trouble our j)eople here by their unchristian schisms and cavils; seeking about for any handle to draw the people from our communion, o [Sans choquer, peut-Ctre, I'autcur.] History of Infant-baptism. 23 and using this for one : for which, as it seems, the foreign churches give them no occasion or encouragement. For if those churches which Mr. Bernard speaks of, do as he says, I do not see but that they do as the ancients did, and as the church of England does. For neither they nor we would baptize any children of infidels, but such as some Christian had the power or possession of, and did promise for their Christian education or instruction. So that, things being rightly understood, here was no occasion of choking either him or me or the Bishop, if living. P. 585. Whereas I had noted (or rather had cited Mr. Russen as noting) the way of the English antipgedobaptists receiving the sacrament (which he affirms to be) sitting at a common table, and handing the elements one to another, as shewing (outwardly at least) less devotion than most other Christians shew ; Mr. Bernard says, ' It is certain ' this is the most ancient manner of receivinsr that * sacrament ; for it was so, that Jesus Christ cele- * brated it with his apostles.' He should have taken notice, that it was not at a common table, but in an virepwov, such as learned men have proved that the Jews and ancient Christians did set apart for holy uses. Nor did the apostles hand it to one another, but Christ gave it to them. He says, ' As this way of receiving is generally ' enough used in Holland, Mr. Wall certainly will ' not blame me for my reflection.' I am easy ; pro- vided he will not blame me for applying the words of Christ, John iii. 5, to baptism ; which the church of England (as well as the ancient church) does in her oflice for baptism so apply ; noi- for saying, that ^4 A Defence of the an infant, when baptized, is regenerate, which she says in the same office. Nor for my reflection on his saying, that ' it is not tlie sacrament of baptism ' which makes us Christians.' For she does in the Catechism (besides what I cited before) say; that ' we being by nature born in sin, and the children of ' wrath, are hereby (by baptism) made the chiklren ♦ of grace.' And one of the Thirty-nine Articles of our church is, that ' by it, as by an instrument, they ' that receive it rightly, are grafted into the church.* And so say all the ancient Christians whom I cited. Particularly St. Chrysostom : Oi^^e)? ^e vlo^ ^aTrria-- fxaro^ av KXrjOeitj ^Wjo/fl'. He says farther, that ' he does not know what ♦ the churches of Holland have done to me. But ' it appears by some places of my book, that I am ' not very much their friend.' This is said with respect to a ])assage a little before in the same chapter, viz. part ii. chap. 8. sect. 5. And forasmuch as others, beside JMr. Bernard, have animadverted on that passage, I will set it down here at large, as it was in the first edition, which Mr. Bernard had, (for in the second it is someM'hat shortened,) that I may know the senti- ments of the rest of my friends, how far I was blamable in it. I had spoke of the jNIennonites, or JNIinnists in Holland, how apt they are to divide from one another. And then added : ' The worst is, that not only the Minnists, but ♦ the Holland people generally, have the humour ' to run into divisions and schisms in religion upon ' almost any difference of opinion. There is not the ' like of them again in the world for this temper. P [Homil. i. de Pcciiitentici, (juotcd above at vol. i. p. 230.] History of Infant-baptism. 25 * Whereas the great aim and interest of religion ' is, unity and communion in the worship of God, ' notwithstanding different sentiments in points not ' fundamental ; and schisms and parties are forbid- * den, as courses that will certainly ruin it ; there is ' no sin that these people think to be a less sin ' than schism is. They are generally of a temper ' that is commendable in many other qualities ; ' but for this matter they are the subject of the * mockery of the papists, and the grief and shame * of the protestants. How far the ministers there do * their duty, in shewing the people the sinfulness * of schism, I know not. Some do think, that a ' country so disposed as that, let what stranger ' will come thither, and bring with him any odd * and singular opinion whatsoever, he shall find * there a church perfectly fitted to his humour ; ' has thereby a great advantage for alluring a * concourse of men, and promoting trade. If this * be allowed, I am afraid it is to little purpose to * preach there against the sin of schism. And ' perhaps the ministers dare not do it.' And in another chapter, chap. 11. sect. 2. speak- ing of the same thing, viz. of the temper of some Christians to set up a several church for every several opinion, I subjoined, ' This one may call the Holland way of Chris- ' tianity. Not that the States of that country do, ' I suppose, approve of this as best, or would have * it so. But many people there fell into that way. * And they have been imitated by another nation, ' and, as some do now say, outdone in it. How- ' ever that be, it is the most contrary to the nature ' and design of Christianity, of any thing that 26 A Defence of the * could be devised. For Christ, as he is but one * head, never designed to have any more but one ' body,' &c. The late Archbishop of Canterbury told me, that a statesman of England had said to him concerning these passages of mine, * How comes a minister to * meddle with the aifairs of our allies?' He did not tell me who it was. And though I could guess, yet I will not. Meddling in state-matters, I know, is dangerous ; but preaching against schism is preaching a Christian doctrine. Against such a manifest wickedness, and so condemned by God's word, as divisions in religion are, I humbly hope a minister may preach or write ; and that, whether it be our own country, or a neighbour nation, in which they are rife. Especially if the example of that neighbour-nation does, as I said, infect and spread among our people ; and the state of religion among us be the worse for our imitating them in matters of religion. ^^'^hat ]\rr. Bernard remarks on these passages is at his 592nd page. To shew, that they do denounce to the people the sinfulness of schism, he says, that ' in the liturgy of the Lord's Supper, which is in use ' in the Walloon churches, and is the same with that ' of the French church, they do excommunicate by ' name all that make sects, and break the unity of ' the church.' I hope then that the people will mind this, and that the ministers there will apply their warnings to those whom they think in the fault, that they do not live and die in a state of soul subject to excommunication. If it will be any satisfaction to Mi. Bernard to have us be as free and ready to acknowledge our own History of Infant-baptism. 27 blemishes, faults, and misfortunes, as we are to speak of those of other churches and nations ; we must, I think, with sorrow and shame confess, that since this time of his, and my writing, there have been l^ublished in England more rank principles of schism than ever Avere in Holland; and that, not in any conventicle, but openly, avowedly, in the face of the world ; and in such circumstances, as that our main hope left under God is, that the people them- selves, even those that were otherwise inclined to separations, will see and consider the mischievous and destructive consequences of them ; (destructive not only of that general unity which should be in the universal church, or any national church ; but even of the unity, society, order, government, or authority of any church or Christian society at all ;) and will start back from such an unskilful proposal as would dissipate the members, and dissolve the communion, not only of any established church, but of any congregation of ten or fewer Christians. Upon the whole, I take Mr. Bernard's remarks on my book to be such as become a learned, and also a civil and friendly writer. As for the difference of opinion concerning some points of less moment in religion, it will always happen. And as a part of my book was to shew, that they ought not to break communion ; so neither ought they to hinder friend- ship ; especially when each does labour to defend and maintain the tenets and customs of that part of the church, or of that nation, whereof he is by Providence a member. A moderate degree of zeal in such a case is commendable, and a little excess of it pardonable : much more pardonable than in the case of those, who spend their zeal in opposing and 528 A Defence of the quarrelling M'ith the usages, tenets, and ceremonies of their own church and nation. In the year 1709 came out a pamphlet with a mock-title : ' Mr. Wall's History of Infant-Baptism ' Imi)rovedi.' The author, Mr. Emlyn, thought that from one ])aragrapli in my introduction (wherein I observed, that the Jews, who gave baptism to prose- lytes and their infants, did not use it for themselves, nor for their own children) he might gain some ad- vantage to that which is his, and some other Soci- uians' opinion ; that Christians might do likewise, i. e. give baptism to such as are newly converted from heathenism, and their infant children ; but not use it themselves in a nation where Christianity has been for some time settled. He observes in his first page, that many others before me have spoken of this use of baptism among the Jews : which observation renders the page be- fore (viz. the titlepage) very impertinent. For if the Jews' custom was such, and many others before me have si)oke of it, the pretended consequence (or improvement as he calls it) drawn from thence should be called an improvement of that custom, or of the books of those that spoke of it first, rather than of q [I have not been able to meet with ]\Ir. Emlyn's pamphlet, in this '\\.'i, first shape, as described by Dr. Wall. It appears that the author remodelled his piece, which was afterwards published in the ' Collection of Tracts by Thomas Emlyn,' 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1731, under the title of 'The previous Question to tlie ' several questions about valid and invalid Baptism, Lay Baptism, ' &c., considered.' vol. ii. p. 315 — 345. It was reprinted, with the addition of some few notes, and a letter in answer to objec- tions, in Emlyn's works, 3 vols. 8vo. 1746; vol. i. p. 391 — 428. The passages quoted by Dr. Wall do not occur in the tract as j^iven in those volumes.] History of Infant-haptism. 29 liiine, which spoke of it last : so that he acts unkindly to say, that my book gave him the just occasion he speaks of. And T had rather it should be taken from any body than from me : since I judge it such an improvement as all other errors are ; a false and heretical consequence pretended to be drawn from premises which are true. His main and only argument is, that since our Saviour gave his commission to his Apostles (of carrying baptism, together with the preaching of the Gospel, among all nations) in such short words; they must do with baptism, as had been always done in their nation, except such circumstances wherein he has given any particular order for alteration. And therefore that as the Jews baptized any new converted proselyte, and such children as he brought with him, but none of the posterity of them ; and as the nation itself of the Jews was at first all bap- tized in Moses' time, men, women, and children, but none of their posterity afterward, so the Apo- stles, and succeeding Christians, should give the Christian baptism to all new converts, and to their infants. But in succeeding generations, a family or a nation, wherein the Christian religion has been for some time owned and professed, need not baptize their children at all, neither in infancy nor after- ward. But the Christian baptism may wholly cease in such a nation, (as the Mosaical baptism did among the Jews, till there was set up a new baptism in the name of Christ,) except when any heathen convert comes over to Christianity. And he is positive, that Christ in his Gospel has not given any rule for alteration in this matter, or any command which can oblige the posterity of 30 A Defence of the baptized parents to receive baptism ; but says, page 8, ' They are accounted as already baptized or cleansed, ' in their ])arcnts' ba])tism.' And in the next page he hugs that odd saying of ]\Ir. Locke, ' They are born * members of the Christian church.' Which whe- ther it were meant to promote this tenet, 1 know not. He has brought nothing new to confirm this im- provement unknown to Christians, till vented by Socinus about one hundred and fifty years ago : nor has said in effect any thing more than I in my introduction, sect. 3, mentioned as pleaded by the Socinians. So I need only refer to what I briefly said there to obviate their plea. I observed there, after having set forth the Jews' way of managing baptism, that ' it was our Saviour * who first ordered by himself and by his forerunner, ' that every particular person, Jew or Gentile, or of ' what parents soever born, must be born again of ' water,' John iii. 3, 5. He says, page 10, ' These ' words of our Saviour can only relate to such as * were converted from infidelity. Nor could Nico- * demus be supposed to have understood them other- ' wise ; since with the Jews only such were sub- * jects of baptism.' Such a skill in expounding Scripture is to be pitied. Our Saviour's words are. All that do enter into the kingdom of heaven must be so born again. Is this only those that are converted from infidelity? But Nicodemus knew of no other that were to be bajitized. Then IMr. Emlyn would have Nicodemus understand our Saviour's words thus ; ' All that you ' know are to bo bajitized must be baptized.' ^^llereas our Saviour informs Nicodenms of what he knew History of Infant-baptism. 31 not before, that all must be baptized. And he adds, V. 7, Ye must be born again. Which ye being spoken to a Jew, includes those of that nation, as well as the heathens, who Nicodemus knew must be so born. Our Saviour's next words (which I also cited a little after on the same occasion, Introduct. ^. 5.) make it yet plainer : That wJiich is born of the jiesh (which I there paraphrased ; whether of a Jewish or Gentile, baptized or unbaptized parent) is jiesh', and must be born again. Mr. Emlyn takes no notice of this. How he and the Socinians understood the point of original sin, or our natural generation in a cor- rupt state, I know not. But the catholic church has always understood this natural corruption to attend all that are born, not only of unbaptized or impious, but also of baptized and godly parents. I do, part i. chap. 19- §-18, cite St. Austin urging the Pelagians with this absurdity, following from their doctrine ; ' You that do affirm that of " parents * cleansed from the stain of sin, such children should ' be born as are without sin," how is it that you * do not mind, that at the same rate you might say, * that of Christian parents there should be born * Christian children? And then why do you deter- * mine that they are to be baptized V St. Austin thought this latter to be too absurd for a Pelagian or any other heretic to say. But he did not think of our Socinians. Mr. Emlyn, p. 4, that he may enforce the neces- sity of Christians imitating the Jews in the point of baptism, says, ' He can see no argument for in- * fant-baptism so forcible as this, taken from the 52 A Defence of tU ' practice of baptizing Jewish proselytes.' And adds, ' Nor does Mr. Wall seem to me to rely on ' any other imtliout tJiis.^ I guess he had wrote hut this, (for that his argument required,) but see- ing that would be too palpable, he altered it for ivithotit this. If a man use twenty arguments, none of the nineteen are icithout the twentieth. The fourth, fifth, and sixth pages are spent in sheM'ing the sufficiency of the proofs given by me and others of that custom of the Jews to baptize proselytes and their infants. ' There being,' he says, ' so many testimonies of the Jewish writers ' who affirm the fact, and the nature of the fact ' being to be open and visible, he takes the ])roof * to be of very great force, and not to be slighted * by such as cannot say half a quarter so much, ' indeed can say nothing at all, for proof of the * negative. That the Jews saying to John the * Baptist, Why dost thou baptize f (meaning, thou ' who hast no authority,) shews that they well * understood the nature of baptism, but questioned * his authority. That no writer denies this custom, * while so many affirm it ; nor any of them who * affirm it, do ever deny that it extends to infants. * That all this taken together, ties the argument so * hard, that the antipocdobaptists cannot solve it. * That sir Norton KnatchbuU's exception against ' it is of no force. That though the books that * speak of it be written since Christ's time, yet inas- ' much as they shew it to be the custom of their * time, and speak of it as a thing that had always * been the custom of their ancestors, he cannot ' think, that if it had not been really before Christ's ' time, it would ever have become a custom among History of' I }if ant-baptism. 83 ' the Jews afterward.' For, says he, ' Would they ' begin to proselyte persons to their religion by ' baptism in imitation of Jesus of Nazareth, whom ' they held accursed ? They would never so far ' own him, as to bring in a new institution in con- " formity to his command,' he. Now all this I would have him dispute with Mr. Gale ; for though I think his reasons here are con- cluding, yet I must be no judge of ray own argu- ments. And besides, had rather no use at all should be made of them, than that ill one which he makes. But I will say, as St. Austin did, of two opponents which attacked him on two contrary sides, ' Let ' each of them yield to the other so much, as there ' is of truth in that other's argument ; and they will • both come to confess the whole truth.' The use that he makes is, that these arguments from the Jewish baptism, do as strongly conclude, that none of the posterity of Christians are bound by Christ's commission to be baptized, as they do, that new converts, and the infants which they bring with them, are to be baptized. And so both paedo- baptists and antipaedobaptists will, he says, be ' si- *lenced at one blow :' and, as he expresses it a little after, must ' yield the cause to the Socinians.' A perfect Goliath, this. He sets forth our argument thus : our Lord Jesus left his apostles to apply baptism to all the same subjects as the Jews v/ere wont to do, and therefore to infants as well as others. And his own thus : by the same reason the Christian bap- tism was to have no other subjects than the Jewish baptism had, viz. none of the offspring of believers (' born of the church,' as he calls it). AVALL, VOL. IV. D 34 A Defence of the Whereas he shoiiUI have laid down his general ]H)sitioii thus : our Lord left his apostles to apply bajitism, as the Jews were wont to do, except where he gave his oAvn jiarticular directions. But that he did in several things. He altered the form, making it to be, In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the extent of it, ordering it to be the religion of all nations. And among other things, that no person whatever should be exempted from the use of it, eav fxrt Ti]iJ.€von\ w? ov 44 A Defence of the KuOapm' (Wo djULapTia?. Where cipTi yeyevvriixevwv is SO exactly the same phrase with Rufinus' nuper editus parvulus, that there is little doubt but that it was the same word which is so translated in that Homily on the Jlomans. And when the blessed Virgin at her purification made this olFering, Luke ii. 24, it is expressed v. 27, that Simeon came in when the parents hromjht in the child Jesus to do for him after the custom of the law. From M'hich (and perhaps other proofs) learned men do conceive the offering to have been for the child then born ; or jiartly for the woman and partly for the child. And though this was a child that could need no sin-offer- ing ; yet it pleased God, that in this, and in circum- cision and baptism, there should be in his case ful- filled all the righteousness of the law. And though this was the case of a male-child, the law, Levit. xii. makes this obligation equal on the birth of a male or female child. INIr. Emlyn, if he meet with a thing which he does not understand, should not pre- sently conclude ; ' It is not true,' or, that nobody can prove it. He says, p. 12, that there is as plain tes- timony from St. Cy|)rian, that it was ' customary to ' give the Eucharist to infants' (and he speaks as one that means mere infiiuts, or the youngest infiints) ' as there is for baptizing them.' And, that he does not see ' any better authority from antiquity for one ' than the other.' Now though 1 think this is not true, and that he cannot j)rove it ; I will not be po- sitive, till I see whether he can or not. There is the more need he should, if he can ; because two that have written since him, Mr. Gale and INIr. Whiston, have followed him in that affirmation. And what he has sjjoken doubtfully, they have said ])ositively. History of Infant-baptism. 45 Since they all three have written against my book, they ought in all reason to have refuted the in- stances that I there, part ii, chap. 9- §• 15, 16, 17, give of the great difference between the evidence from antiquity which is brought for infants' bap- tism, and which is brought for their receiving the other sacrament, before they had so securely affirm- ed it to be alike. And it happens well, that I did there put in a caveat against allowing any evidence for the latter from Clement's Constitutions : and also that I shewed the mistake of those who have said (as Mr. Emlyn does here) that St. Austin pre- tended that the latter (the doctrine of giving the communion to infants) is an apostolic tradition as well as the former. As to the consequence for baptizing Christians' children to enter them into covenant, taken from' the circumcising of the children of the Jews, which was for the same purpose ; Mr. Emlyn allows that St. Paul does speak of baptism as being to Chris- tians instead of circumcision ; and that St. Paul's words, Col. ii. 11, 1% are so to be understood (being a fairer disputant than Mr. Gale, who will not own that sense of the words, though it be very plain); but yet Mr. Emlyn says, ' It does not follow that the ' subjects of each must be the same ;' and instances in the females. I answer, it does follow that they should be the same, except where the gospel rules do direct an alteration. But St. Paul, dis- coursing of baptism, Gal. iii. 27, 28, says, that in respect of it there is neither Jew 7ior Greek; there is neither male nor female, &c. ; i. e. there is no difference between them. As for the rest of his remarks, that I have given 46 A Defence of the too disrespectful a censure on Grotius, I have spoke my mind before ; and do here add, that that is nothing to hiui, nor to his cause. That T have used ex]>ressions too sharp against the Socinians, (wliich, I fancy, gave occasion to his writing against me,) it is, because I take that oj)inion to be, not like theirs wlio differ from us in smaller matters, but so directly contrary to an infinite number of plain declarations of scripture concerning our bless- ed Saviour, that it deserves abhorrence, and has been in all ages abhorred by all Christians, not only Catholics, but Arians, and even Eunomians. I shall not stand to answer any of his weak argu- ments for it, save that he takes more advantage than there is any good ground for, from the words of the Latin and English translations of Col. i. 15, where Christ is in those lanofuafjes stvled ' Primo- ' genitus omnis creaturae ;' The first-born of every creature; or, as he chooses to render it, 'The first ' bes'otten of the creation.' The sense of which words, and consequence from them, he slily in- sinuates to be, that Christ has no other nature than a created one. The Greek words themselves do not give any such occasion. For irpwTOTOKO'i Trda-tji; KTia-ea)? was always understood by the Cireeks (who best knew the emjihasis of their own language) even by the Arians, to signify, not ' First-born of the crea- * tures,' so as to include him among them; but ' Genitus ante omnem crcaturam ;' Begotten before all the creation. And it was this very phrase of the apostle, Col. i. 15, which they in almost all their creeds para])hrased by those w ords, ' Begotten ' before all worlds.' Eusebius at the council of Nice recites the creed of his church, which gives Hhtory of Infant-haptism. 47 first the apostle's own words, irpwroTOKov iracni^ ktI- (Te(t)9 ; and immediately subjoins by way of explica- tion, TTpo iravTcov aiMvoov e/c tov Qeov 11 aTjOO? yeyevvrnxevov, ' Begotten of God the Father before all worlds' [or ages]. And so it is in the Constantinopolitan creed, the Arian creed at Antioch, and in Arius' own creed : which is much more unexceptionable than to say, 'First-born of every creature.' Mr. Emlyn seems at the end of his book to be solicitous, where, or in what church, he and his partners in this opinion shall be admitted to receive the communion, without believing the divinity of Christ, and without being baptized. He says, p. 16, that 1, no question, take care ' to have no Socinian ' communicants in my parish.' I am glad he has that opinion of me. And p. 18, he is angry with me for saying, as 1 do at the end of chap. 9 of the second part ; ' Among all the absurdities that ever ' were held, none ever maintained that any person ' should partake of the communion before he was ' baptized.' 1 quoted just now Justin Martyr say- ing the same. But if the church of England will not, he should not, methinks, despair of finding some that will re- ceive them. For we have of late in England great store of churches ; and in the shops of religion, great store of new suits, that a man must have very ill luck, whom none of them will fit. As the course of trade for religions now goes, if he cannot fit himself in England, I question whether he can be fitted in Holland with any church ; as the word church is taken for a society or body, consisting of pastors and people. But there is lately set up in England another notion, fitter for this purpose than 48 A Defence of fhc any that has yet been broaclicd in IToUand itself; — Tliat the church of Christ is not a society, or a body that requires any union, or coherence, or go- vernment. It is only the number ^'nm^W or great, dispersed or united, of j^'rsons that adhere to king Jesus. And the less regard they have to any spi- ritual governors, ministers, rule or order, and the more close and immediate this adhesion is to Christ, the better. So that our author, if he can find no minister of Christ that will give him the commu- nion, nor any one that will receive it with him, may take it himself alone, by virtue of that dose and immediate dependence upon Christ. This answers the wishes of all heterodox and self-opinionated men by one jiosition. And as the flatterers of the Persian king, though they could not find any law for this or that lustful course which he followed, yet found one that was worth them all ; that a king of Persia might do what he pleased ; so, though there be no encouragement in Scrij)ture for Socinianism, omission of baptism, &c., this lays open a gap for all at once, that every man may be of wliat religion he pleases, and interj)ret Scripture as he thinks fit, without any control from any church, or any governors, any articles, canons, or censures thereof ; or from the received doctrines and interpretation of any ancient Christians or Fathers, those ' weak men in several ' ages.' This position, I confess, seems a desperate one for a man to venture his soul upon ; because though according to it Christ has not any kingdom, nor does interpose in this world, yet the kingdom of tlio other world to ^^lli(•h wo must come, is all his; History of Infant-baptism. 49 and he has declared, that we shall be judged there at the last day by the word which he has given us here ; and a great part of that word is, that we should in this world ' hear the church,' and obey them that have by his appointment the rule over us. Mr. Whiston'' was not the next that wrote against my book. Mr. Gale wrote before him. But be- cause I have a mind to despatch at once, what I have to answer to all such of my antagonists as have written in the way of civility, candour, modesty, and argument, before I enter on answering Mr. Gale's Reflections, which are made up of declama- tion, insulting reproaches, and untruths ; I shall next take a short view of what Mr. Whiston has observed concerning it. And it need be but a short one, for it is little that he has said. The account that he has given of the reasons of the change of his o])inion about infant-baptism, seems to have been written in as much haste, as the change itself was made. I am concerned only in that part of it where he pretends to shew, that in the passages of the Fathers, which I produced concerning the bap- tism of infants, the word infants may be understood of children old enough to have been catechised, and capable of baptism upon their own profession, and faith of the Christian religion. And first, as to the passage of Irenaeus, lib. ii. c. 39, where infants are reckoned among those of the several ages [' infants and little ones, and ^ [In a piece called ' Primitive Infant- baptism revived : or an ' account of the doctrine and practice of the two first centuries ' concerning the baptism of infants.' 8vo. London, 17 12. (pp. 48.)] WALL, VOL. IV. E 50 A Defence of the ' cliildreii, and youths, and elder persons'] which are by Christ regenerated unto God : he had before, p. 7, granted it to be undeniable ' that the word * Tcqcncration is generally, if not constantly, used * with relation to hnpthmal rcijcneration' And it is indeed, as he says, a thing undeniable by any modest arguer. Neither does he, like Mr. Gale, fly to that ])itiful subterfuge, of denying the passage to be genuine. He grants the place to si)eak of the baptism of infants. But says, [page 35,] ' IrenoBUS does so soon after this passage expressly ' reckon thirty years of age the beginning of youths * and forty of elder «(/e, and by consequence must ' allow infancy to reach till ten ; that this testimony ' only shews that such children as he calls infants * were then commonly by ten years old regenerated * in baptism.' Now supposing that in Irenaeus' use of those words, a person were continued to be called an in- fant till he was ten, and a little one till twenty, and a child till thirty, and a youth till forty (as he does indeed toward the end of that chapter make the in- terval between youth and elder age to be ten). But to call them infants till ten, and parvulos till twenty, and pueros till thirty, is something more contrary to the common sense of words than the other. And I think to discourse that matter with ]Mr. Gale, the first inventor of that salvo. But supposing it were so, the word infant does still include all the time from birth to ten years. And there is no reason to take it here for only those of ten years, with an ex- clusion of mere infants. Especially when Irenaeus' argument at that i)lace runs upon a supposal of taking in every period of man's age, and every step History of Infant-baptism. 51 of that period. He says, ' Christ sanctified every * several age by the likeness that it has to him. For * he came to save all persons by himself. All, I mean, ' who by him are regenerated unto God ; infants, and ' little ones, and children, and youths and elder per- * sons ; therefore he went through the several ages ; ' for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants : ' to little ones he was made a little one, sanctifying ' those of that age,' &c. [page 34.] Now does Mr. Whiston think that Trenaeus meant that Christ, by going through the several steps of human life, did sanctify infants only in the last step of their infancy ? He uses the terms of Christ's * going through, saving and sanctifying' the ages and the persons, and of the persons being by him regenerated, in the same latitude and extent : every age by the likeness it has to the several ages which he for our sakes took upon him to go through. Was Christ made an infant only in that sense of the word, whereby it signifies one of ten years ? Was he not also made an infant in the common acceptation of it, so as to go through all the steps of infancy ? Did he come to save and sanctify only the tenth year of infancy, that that only should be by him regenerated unto God ? And whereas Mr. Whiston here grants, that this testimony of Irenaeus shews, ' that children were * then commonly by ten years old regenerated in * baptism ;' but thinks that this was upon their own profession and faith : and to that purpose extols the care of Christian parents in those days to give their children early instruction ; so that great part of the children might be baptized at that age upon their own faith. The experience of the whole world shews E 2 52 J Defence of the the contrary of this, in respect to the generality, or any considerable number of children : for though children do in these late ages arrive to a maturity of sense and capacities, rather sooner than they did in former ages ; yet there are none, or no considerable number of children, that Ayould be fit at that age to receive adult baptism. We find it to be so in the examining, preparing, and catechisinof of children in order to their beino: confirmed by the bishop. That office is, God be thanked, used with more care and frequency than formerly. But the bishops find a necessity of giving directions that none be admitted under eleven, (as some do order, or tAvelve or thirteen as others,) except some particular children of extraordinary forwardness. And (as I shewed in the Introduc- tion) the rule of the Jews in receiving the children of any proselyte to baptism, was, if they were males, and under the age of thirteen years and a day, or females under twelve years and a day, to ba])tize them as infants ; because such an one was not yet * the son of assent,' i. e. not capable to give assent for himself. And indeed we find few that are capable to be confirmed so soon as eleven or twelve. They may be able to repeat the words of a cate- chism, or summary of the faith ; and to make the answers to questions put to them, with a ready and pregnant forwardness. And fond jmrents that are conceited of their children's capacities, are sometimes importunate, and proud of the credit, to have them admitted to the ordinance. But they really do their children a j)rejudice, in making them receive it so a'ouuu:, when it has little effect on tlieir consciences; and thereby disabling them from History of Infant-haptism. 53 ever receiving it afterward ; which might else have been done to great spiritual benefit, being received with a due degree of serious consideration. A child of that age may have memory and words ready : but seldom can have due sense and conscience of the weight and concern of the thing to his soul. It must be noted, that Irenseus does not here speak of the case of some particular child, who by some extraordinary forwardness was baptized in in- fancy ; but mentioning infants generally and indefi- nitely, speaks of them as ordinarily regenerated or baptized ; so that Mr. Whiston is forced by the tenour of the argument to grant, that at that time children were commonly by ten years old baptized ; which tenour of the argument Mr. Gale not per- ceiving, brings in at his page 528, 529, a story of * some that he has known admitted to baptism at ' about fourteen : and heard of some much younger.' Which is impertinent and to no purpose here, to explain the sense of Irenaeus, who speaks of the general case of infants baptized. But I hope to make it appear in my answer to Mr. Gale, that we have no reason to suppose, that Irenaeus used the w^ords in any other sense than all people do. Mr. Gale had invented this notion of infant-boys of ten years, to evade this place in Irenaeus. He was not so absurd as to pretend that the sayings of Tertullian, Origen, &c., could be so evaded. Be- cause they (beside the word infants) do express such circumstances as do denote mere infants in the common sense of the word. But Mr. Whiston, having this hint given, fell so in love with it, as to venture (against common sense) to api)ly it to the 54 A Defence of the passages of other Fathers which I had cited ; who do as plainly describe the infants tliey speak of, to be children newly born, or not yet come to the use of reason, as it is possible in words to describe then). The quotations out of Tertullian he recites just as I had done, at p. 36, 37, 38. Now the infants that Tertullian speaks of, (whom there was then a custom to baptize ; but he would have had it omitted, except in danger of death,) were infants in our sense of the word. For he speaks of them as such, as when they were brought to baptism, ' did ' not understand whither it was that they came ; * did not know Christ ; whose guiltless age had no * need, as be thought, of the forgiveness of sins.' But the foulest work which he makes with my quotations, is at his thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth pages, with those out of Origen. He pretends that Origen s words, as well as Irenaius', are capable of being taken for infants of ten years. But see how he defends this pretence. I had cited the Horn. 8. in Lcvitic. cap. 12. Of that he takes a part out of my translation ; but leaves out the other i)art, where Origen cites, as a reason for bajitizing infants, the Septuagint Job xiv. 4, 5, None is clean from pollution, though his life be hut of the length of one day. Which shews what sort of infants he meant ; but Mas not for JNIr. Whiston's turn to set down. He deals yet worse with the passage cited from the Comment, in Epist. ad Romanos, lib. v. lie recites the latter ])art of this out of my translation ; but leaves out the beginning. Which (to shew History of Infant-haptism. 55 Mr. Whiston s readers how he deals with them and with me) I must here recite ^. ' In the Law it is commanded, that a sacrifice be * offered for every child that is born : a pair of * turtle doves, or two young pigeons ; of which one * is for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering. ■ For what sin is this one pigeon offered ? Can the ' child newborn [nuper editus parvulus] have com- * mitted any sin ?' He answers, ' It has even then * sin,' &c. After which follows, that which Mr. Whiston sets down, of the apostle's ordering bap- tism even to infants ; as knowing that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and the Spirit. I would willingly (if the reader will consent to it) impute this way of quoting, not to insincerity, but to the haste in which Mr. Whiston wrote this little piece. If he will have patience to read it over again, he will see that the infants Origen speaks of are infants new-born. I gave an instance before, in answering Mr. Em- lyn*, that in other books of Origen the Greek words which are there preserved, have the same argument, and the same phrase \_apTi yeyepvij/uei^oil which St. Hierome and Rufinus do here translate, ' nuper editi parvuli,' concerning new-born infants not being clean from sin. And indeed Mr. Whiston does not insist on the exception, that these books are but translations by the two said men. He gives his judgment concerning them, that though they are of less authority than those that remain in Greek, yet he thinks ' we may allow them in the main to s [See vol. i. p. 105, 106.] ' [See above, p. 43.] 56 A Defence of the * be genuine,' (which is fairer than Mr. Gale, who shuffles off the argument, as if so many several ])laces in several books, by several translators could all be interpolated). But he adds, that this account of Origen, where he s])eaks of such infants bap- tized, as did not ' want it for the pardon of actual ' sins done at years of discretion,' is near to his own account, or his sense of the word. If so, if a new- born intant, such as is spoken of in Levit. xii. be near in the same case as one that is to be baptized upon his own faith ; or if a youth that is not of years of discretion to have actual sins imputed to him, be of discretion to be baptized upon his own repentance, ]\Ir. Whiston need never fear the re- conciling of any thing to any thing. Therefore in the next words, being conscious, I supjiose, that this would appear inconsistent, he adds further, ' Though if it implies more, (i. e. if * Origen must be understood of mere infants,) it will ' only shew how early this corruption of Christian ' baptism began to creep into the church of Alex- * andria, as well as we have seen [from Tcrtullian, I ' sujipose, he means] it began to creep into that of ' Africa; and no more.' He here yields up the times of Tertullian and Cyprian for the churches of Africa. And in a manner yields the time of Origen for the church of Alexandria. And at page 42, having owned infant- ba]>tism used at Alexandria in the time of Didynuis, he adds, ' Possibly even in the days of Origen, ' as we have already observed.' It were better for the antipaidobaptists at once to yield, that it began in the apostles' time; and help all by styling it, as Mr. Whiston here does, ' a History of Infant-baptism. 57 ' corruption creeping in.' This would save a great deal of vain struggle. And it seems probable that they must at last come to this. Mr. Whiston (who is much more conversant in the books of those times than any of them) gives up the times of Ter- tullian and Origen, (within one hundred years of the apostles,) as using this ' corrupt practice' (as he calls it) of baptizing mere, or new-born infants ; and cannot deny that Irenaeus himself (born in, or very near, the apostles' times) speaks of infaiits baptized ; saving himself only upon Mr. Gale's de- vice of another sense of the word infant as used by Irenseus ; which I think by and by to evince to Mr. Gale, or at least to any impartial reader, to be a groundless notion. And yet this same Mr. Whiston, who not long ago in his ' Essay on the Revelations "' had spoken of the times, not only of St. Cyprian, but two hun- dred years lower down, as continuing in Christian purity, and being above the date of Antichristian corruptions ; so that what doctrines and practices of the church we find to have been then generally re- ceived, we may depend upon, as sound, (among which he reckons by name the dimnity of Christ, and the baptism of infants,) having since fallen first from the belief of one of these, and now of the other, tells us, page 45, that the baptism of infants [meaning infants in the common sense of the word] is one of those ' practices, doctrines, and customs, ' which appear to have begun in the West, near ' Rome, and particularly in Africa; and are to be ' looked upon as part of the Roman, Western, or 11 [Published at Cambridge in 1706. 4".] 58 A Defence of the • Antichristian corruptions : and to be accordingly ' rejected by every Christian.' As on the one side by yielding the times of Ter- tullian and Cyprian, (for those he means by the evi- dence of the African churches' corruj)tion,) and in a manner giving up Origen and the church of Alex- andria, (as I shewed before,) he leaves but a very small space after the apostles for the antipjcdobap- tists to pretend any claim to : so on the other side by calling these doctrines and practices of the church (and some other from which he has revolted) Romish and Antichristian corruptions, and yet owning them to have taken place so early; he gives a scandalous encouragement to the Deists and enemies of Chris- tianity. By confessing if to have been generally corrupted in its doctrines so far up, he gives them a handle to say, it was never otherwise. These do ap- l)arently hug and value him and other heterodox men, for such sayings as these. Whatever serves to weaken the credit or the authority of Christ's church, helps forward the designs which they are now carrying on. But to make Origen an evidence only for the church of Alexandria, is a great oversight in the history of his life. He was indeed born there; and if his father held the same doctrine, (as we have not the least reason to question,) baptized there, eighty- five years after the apostles. But of the time of his mature age and writing, the least part was spent there. He conversed at times in almost all the noted churches in the world ; and his testimony is an evidence for them all. The censure of the churches of Africa, as holding Antichristian corruptions, for their being in the History of Infant-baptism. 59 West, and near Rome, is yet more absurd and un- historical. It is a known thing, and observed by almost every body, that no church in the world did more vigorously oppose the first encroachments of the bishops of Rome, than that of Carthage, and the rest of Africa. But the times we are now upon, were long before those encroachments and corrup- tions. Several of the bishops of Rome about the time of St. Cyprian patiently and humbly suffered death for their religion, as he himself also did. And as to the points he here calls corruptions, the Roman and African, and all other churches in the world, were then unanimous. As for the following quotations alleged by me, which he says, at p. 41, he will ' run over,' and shew, that even the fourth century was not unani- mous for baptizing infants in the common sense of the word; he runs so hastily and heedlessly, that it is not worth the while to follow him. The council of Neo-Caesarea affords, he says, no argument for infant-baptism. All that I j)retended was, that it affords none for or against it ; and to shew that Grotius perverted the true sense and meaning of the words of it, when he pretended an argument from them against it. Mr. Whiston only recites the words, takes no notice of what I had said to clear the sense of them ; and though he does not offer to affirm, yet he poorly insinuates to the ignorant reader that conclusion from them against infant-baptism, which ought to be taken for a mis- taken one, till somebody has pretended to defend it. He observes, that I own that Gregory Nazianzen seems not to have been baptized in infancy, though his father was a bishop ; which is very carelessly 60 A Defence of the expressed. That he was not baptized in infancy, does not seeni^ but is certain ; neither in our sense of tlie word, nor in his. Whether his father was a Christian (for there is no jirctencc that he was a bishop) at the time of his birth, is a greater ques- tion than I at first thought ; the reasons that make it doubtful, I gave above to Mr. Bernard. It is liowever but a single man's fact, differing from a custom and jiractice of the church, which is fully and plainly proved for those times. This catching at twigs one would bear with in Mr. AVhiston. But as for that passage in this Gre- gory's sermon, where he sets the several degrees of punishment to those that have died unbaptized ; which he makes to be thus ; some wholly scorned it, whose punishment will be the greatest ; some miss of it by procrastination ; who deserve not quite so bad ; some ' have it not in their power to receive ' it, (ou/c eiaiv ev Swd/nei tov Se^acrOai,) either because of ' their infancy perhaps, or by reason of some acci- ' dent utterly involuntary.' Which last sort will neither be glorified nor punished ; as being without the seal, but not through their own fault, (or wick- edness). For this passage, I say, after Grotius had picked out those words by themselves, (' have it not ' in their power to receive it because of their in- * fancy,') and had set them among the arguments against infant-ba])tism ; and after that I had, by reciting the whole place, plainly shewn that dealing of Grotius to be either foul and imposturous, or at least, a gross mistake or heedlessness either in taking the quotation at second hand, or in not read- ing the whole j)lace ; or, as Mr. Bernard guesses, writing in too nuich haste. After all this, for Mr. History of Infant-baptism. 61 Whiston to put this again upon his reader, (whom he must think a very ignorant one,) as if it were meant by St. Gregory against infant-baptism, (when he plainly uses it as a reason for the parents to give it, lest the child lose all reward,) and to set it down just as Grotius had done; ('yet he speaks of some ' that have it not in their power (or are not capable) ' to receive baptism on account of their infancy ;') thus to quote a scrap of a sentence to a purpose directly contrary to the import that it carries in the sentence, and which it had been plainly shevv^n to carry, is, I cannot help saying, in him (whatever it might be in Grotius) a prevarication which I thought no writer, pretending to sincerity, would have been guilty of. And whereas Gregory at one place delivers, as his particular opinion, that if a child be in no dan- ger of death, it may be fit to defer his baptism till three years, but otherwise to give it presently : he having observed that three years is the time of catechising in the Constitutions, ridiculously infers ; ' So that we have here a witness against infant-bap- ' tism in the modern sense, excepting the case of ' danger of death.' What? does he think that the three years of catechising was the first three years of the child's life? Or would Gregorv's child of three years be baptized by adult-baptism ? As for the other passages of the fourth century which I had quoted, of which he, instead of taking them in order, picks out here and there one, where he thinks the words may possibly be wrested to signify, not infants properly, but children fit to go to school, or to be catechised ; I think the reading of the passages, and comparing what I have said. 62 A Defence of the witli what he has said, will satisfy any one tliat thinks his labour worth liis while, of the impro- priety of the exjjlication he puts upon them ; and therefore shall not repeat them. The sense and meaning of the word infant was (for certain in that age, whatever may be questioned of the former) limited and known by common use, as will appear to those that read the passages. There was indeed a custom of calling converts newly baptized (though they were middle aged, or old) infants, by way of allusion ; and a sermon made to a congregation of such was called, Scrmo ad Infantes^. But it is always evident at first sight, when the word is taken properly, and when in this borrowed sense, wdiicli it obtained only in allusion to those infants, ])roperly speaking, who had ever been the subject of baptism. This I had noted in the cha[)ter concerning Paulinus, part i. chap. 18. §. 1. And T believe it is to that note that I owe the greatest trouble that we have had from Mr. Gale, and all that we have had from j\Ir. Winston. For INIr. Gale took occasion to evade the force of Ire- nseus's testimony by this distinction, (which I had noted, might take place in those verses of Paulinus,) and ]Mr. Whiston confesses, [p. ^5,"] that he took the hint from Mr. Gale, and he has ventured to apply it in the case of other passages, where the sense shews that it can have no place. The passage wherein he thought this a])plication to be of most use, is that taken out of that spurious book called ' Clement's Constitutions,' which he values above all the genuine i)ieces of the ancient Christian writers, * [Sec, for example, several of St. Augustin's so denomi- nated.] History of Infant-baptism. 63 or any book of Scripture. There happens to be in that book no other mention of infant-baptism, than in those few words, ' Baptize your infants, and ' bring them up in the nurture and admonition of ' God, For he says, Suffer little ckildreu to come ' to me^ &c. This, which I and all others have thrust down among the evidences out of spurious books, of little credit and value, he at p. 45 calls, ' the only original law ' for infant-baptism.' And finding that he could interpret this his own way, because there is in so few words no circumstance ascertaining their age, (though he should have noted that it first says, ' Baptize your infants ;' and then ' bring them up * in the nurture,' &c.,) he has endeavoured to sacri- fice all the genuine testimonies of antiquity to his own improbable interpretation of a passage in a book, set out about the latter end. of the fourth century, by somebody who forged the names of the apostles to it ; containing indeed some good rules and sayings, and exhortations, such as might pro- bably be remembered by tradition to have been delivered by some apostle or apostolical man ; but some other things utterly inconsistent with history and with Scripture. And has the vanity to think, that the church of Christ will (now after it has been rejected as spurious for thirteen hundred years) take it on his recommendation as one, nay, as the chief, of their canonical books. And as to baptism, says, p. 46, (what one cannot read without pity,) ' All * modera ways of baptizing' (he means, both of paedobaptists, and, as he had said in the same para- graph, antipsedobaptists) ' are very imperfect, and 64 A Defence of the ' ought to be reduced to tlie original standard in the ' Constitutions immediately.' lie is in great haste, and would have us change our religion, church, and canon of Scripture, as fast as ho has done. At the time of his Avriting this little i)iece, 1712, he was a convert to antipccdobaptism, but of a very small standing; and yet was even then become as great a proficient in his zeal against the doctrine of infant-baptism, as those of Munster ; so as to im- pute it to the Devil. For at page 44, he concludes thus : ' In short, this corrupt practice came in, &c., ' till at last, &c., it came to be applied to babes of ' three months or three days, &c., so successful was * the Devil and his agents in corrupting,' &c. Does he consider whom he gives up (I mean, of such as he himself owns to have practised infant-baptism ; not to say any thing now of the apostles ; but St. Cyprian, St. Austin, &c., and the church of their times) as * agents for the Devil V Those, that I have hitherto been speaking to, have concerned themselves with my book but briefly and occasionally. But Mr. Gale in 1711, wrote pro- fessedly against it. And though the greatest part of bis book be either of personal matters, some about my life, temper, actions, &c., not relating to the cause, and some about my way of writing when it is too long, or too short, or too censorious ; or catching at here and there a passage of my book, which he thought might be represented so as to put me out of favour with the antipanlobaptists, (as are his first two chapters, which lie calls ' My C'liaracter,') or else on another subject, viz. not the age or time of receiving baptism, but the umy of administering it ; History of Infant-baptism. 6Sl with which T liad meddled very little (as are his three next) ; yet he gave to the whole the title of ' Reflections' on my book. And though he go no farther in any methodical way of answering, than to the Introduction, and first five chapters of my book, (not nigh one tenth part of it,) which answer begins at his ninth chapter, (and he has but thirteen in all,) yet it has gone among the men of his party as an answer to it y. He deals not much with argument, (which the others have chiefly aimed at,) but writes in a way of declaiming and flourish, and much addicted to re- proaching, taking a pride in shewing how easily and how naturally he can express a contempt of his ad- versary, or of any reason or argument. He writes in a style indeed sufficiently fluent, and with a good stock of philological learning ; but does not keep very close to the rules of candour, modesty, or truth ; but delights in vaunting, insulting, slighting, and laying odious and false imputations, not on me only, but on the clergy of England in general, and indeed our whole church ; as that was a time in which some people found their advantage by raising "such slanders. His talent in rhetoric (which is not inconsider- able) he uses to false colouring, and ' gaining his * point,' (as he calls it,) by wrested representations of things and passages. Of his impertinencies, (to name but one sort of them,) an unparalleled instance is, his picking up stories of things said or done by me before he was y [See, for instance, Crosby's History of the English Baptists, vol. iv. p. 367. — The Life of Joseph Stennet, prefixed to his works. — Ivimey's History of the Baptists, vol. iv. p. 214, &c.] WALL, VOL. IV. p 6Q A Defence of the 1)0111^; and naming the people*, (whose names oile would never have thought to have seen in print.) Nothing, thanks be to God, of which one need be ashamed. But it is a great shame to see such impertinent stuff brought into a controversy of religion. Of his untruths^ I would beforehand instance in one flagrant and manifest one, (which, as I shall shew, he has affirmed above twenty times over,) his saying, that I have in my book yielded and ovA'ned, that there is no Scripture-proof iov in- fant-baptism ; though near half his book be spent in refuting (as well as he can) those jiroofs which I brought from scripture. The j)rovince which I had undertaken, w^as the history of the times near following ; but I did not altogether omit those of scripture. If I had followed my own inclinations, or the advice of some of my friends, in drawing up an answer to him ; I should have made it shorter by half than it is, and taken notice only of those few reflections of his, that seemed to be of moment to the main point. The tyranny of custom ol)liges me, 'not only to take more pains than I needed, by the dry work of following him Kara tto'^u?, and an- swering to many things that are impertinent to the cause, or of small weight in it : but also, when I have done it, to make an excuse to any judicious reader why I did it. Such an one will pardon me, if he consider, that some captious and litigious men would otherwise 2 [It apj)ears that Dr. Wall was about thirty-five years older than Mr. Gale.] a [As Mr. Brown, and Mrs. Hall, brought forward in Mr. Gale's second letter, vol. iii. p. 90.] History of Infant-haptism. &1 have been apt to say, that I had passed over the most material objection. To spare the time of those who are choice of it, (though I had not liberty to spare my own,) I must advertise them, that there is hardly any thing in Mr. Gale's first six chapters, or in my answer to them, that is very material to the point of infant- baptism. And it will be no great loss to step over them. A vein of boasting and magnifying his own per- formance runs through all his book. With that he continues his work, and with that he ends ; and contrary to Horace's rule, (who says of a vaunting prefacer, ' Quid dignum tanto feret hie promissor * hiatu?') with that he begins. For in an advertisement prefixed to his book, having taken notice that several great and worthy men (whom he names too) had given a favourable character of my book, he says, that he published these his Reflections, ' to inform the public, &c. * and to let those learned gentlemen know, that ' they had been much too hasty in their judgments ; ' and that this history is not by far what they take * it to be.' Is not this youth a likely man, think you, to be able to inform their judgment of any consi- derable thing ? I set down this as a specimen of the arrogance you are to expect all through the book. In the same advertisement he says that these Reflections (though published in 1711) were written in 1705 and 1706^. Suppose that. But when he saw ^ [But see a note to the introduction to vol. iii. p. v. where some reason is adduced for believing that at all events they were not written before 1707.] F 2 68 A Defence of the ill 1707 my second edition witli some alterations, should he not have left out his needless remarks on those places of my first edition, which I myself had altered in the second ? Ho there adds, that he had hoped, that ' a more ' learned advocate would have been cntraged,' If INFr. Stennet were once desired or jiitched on to an- swer my book, and it was devolved ujjon this man ; it was an unhappy change both for the antijia^do- baptists and for me. For if he had answered at all, he would have said more to the purpose, would have used a more rational, modest, and candid way of seeking the truth ; and I should have had far more Christian treatment. His note, that I did not rejjly to * JNIr. Stennet's Answer to Mr.Russen' is frivolous ; since I was not at all concerned to do it, nor ever thought of doing it. He mistakes the matter, when he says, I was convinced by him of my mistake in charging him M'ith a misrepresentation of the opinion of the followers of Gundulphus. We read Dr. Allix's book (out of which the quotation was taken) toge- ther. The words were as I had said. All that I was convinced of was, that I should have spoken more respectfully of ^Ir. Stennet, (which I did in the contents of the second edition,) for that treatment his candour and ingenuous temper did deserve. The other ' inadvertencies' of mine, which he says Mr. Stennet rectified, were only some accounts of the present state, opinions, and usages of the English antipaidobaptists, which must be had from themselves, and I desired him to give me. He gave me a truer and more skilful account of them, than I could have from the antipa^dobaptists ray History of Infant-baptism. 69 neighbours, which I accordingly rectified in my second edition'^. Of his book the first pages, to p. 7, are a piece of his sermon on charity, moderation, candour, &c., which might pass well enough in the reading, pro- vided one were not at the same time to read the rest of the book. But he that goes forward to read the next page, and so along, can hardly forbear calling to mind the amazement expressed by some people coming out of a church, where they had heard a good discourse, enforcing a certain virtue from a man who it seems was notoriously guilty of the contrary vice, * How can this man speak these ' things, and do as he does !' For his first reflection on my book is at p. 8, where he reaches at a passage near the end thereof, (such a methodical answerer I have met with,) and having first observed that * a great many do traduce the antipnedobaptists, as * dangerous enemies to the state,' he adds, concern- ing me, that * he has reason to fear that I am of the * same mind too ; though I endeavour to conceal it.' What is his reason for this suspicion of me ? ' By * my inserting among other things the scandalous * story of Mr. Hicks, M'hich I myself can scarce * forbear confessincr to be false.' I had said at the place he refers to^, ' The pre- ' sent state of the English anti|)3edobaptists is this ; ' they that are now, are as commendable as any other * sort of men are, for a sober and grave, quiet and ' peaceable way of living : they profess obedience * to magistrates, and tliey will commonly express c [See that edition, p. 430, &c., 453, &c., or the present, vol. ii. p. 323, &c., 367, &c.] d [See vol. ii. p. 323 to 325, of this edition.] 70 A Defence of the * a dislike and abhorrence of those plunderings and ' other violences committed by some of their party, ' as well as by the rest of the army of that usurper ' aforesaid.' T knew that there stood as an objection against this in the face of the world, the Depositions against many of their party, and the Confessions of some of them, as having been concerned in the Monmouth consj)iracy. It was impossible (if one would speak to the purpose) not to take notice of this. If it liad been some obscure story, he might have blamed me for mentioning it at all. But it was largely set forth in one of the most noted histories that was then (or is now) extant in the English tongue. I did however ]uit in so many ifs, (as whether West swore true concerning what Roe told him ; or if so, whether Hicks did ever say what Roe said he did, concerning the body of this people ; or if so, whether Hicks himself did not give a reproachful account of them in liis mentioning twenty thousand of them inclined to such a wickedness,) that I did in the main exi)ress my hopes that most of them were of another sentiment ; which Mr. Gale expresses by this unhandsome turn, ' he can scarce forbear con- ' fessing it to be false.' I observed, moreover, that but two men of the twenty thousand apjieared to have been guilty, and that they were of the forwardest to make a free confession. And besides, in my second edition, (which i\Ir.(iale must needs have seen before he i)rinted,) having in the meanwhile understood from Mr. Stennet, that king Charles himself had, upon a hearing of Hicks' case in council, discharged him ; T ])ut in that also. Yet still here ho fc^nrs T am of the same mind as History of Infant-baptism. 71 others that have an ill opinion of them. Who can help that ? I know no cure for a man that will think I take him for a villain, when I declare the contrary. There must be an ill conscience, or ill nature in such a fear. That which I guess is, that he does not think this of me; but would so represent me to the anti- psedobaptists as their enemy, to hinder them from regarding what I have written. So much difference there is between the temper of this man and of Mr. Stennet, who owned to me, that I had treated the antipsedobaptists with more civility than most had done. And I remember my answer was, that it was indeed my aim so to do. His next reflection, in the same page, is a great deal worse : not an ill-natured insinuation, but a downright untruth. I said, in the place he refers to, only this : ' that the way of setting up different ' churches for different opinions in lesser matters, *• (which way many peojjle in Holland fell into, and * has been imitated in another nation, and as some * say, outdone in it,) is the most contrary to the * nature and design of Christianity of any thing * that could be devised.' He alters the thing spoken of, and says, I assert ' that the forbearance the ' States of Holland allow, &c., is the most con- * trary,' &c. It is one thing to say schism is a great sin, another to determine, that forbearing to punish it is always so. This is the man that had just ended his sermon about candour, truth, charity, &c. I must not continue the course I have taken with these first two instances of his way of quoting, to set down my own words, and then his ; but the reader (if he thinks his book or mine worth the 72 A Defence of the reading) must make the comparison l)y looking in each himself. He will find many of a like nature with these two, which do not differ from Dan vers' way. The very next is such, [page 8,] where he says, ' I cite in one paragra])h Dr. Featlcy three ' times for setting forth the mischief of a toleration * in any state :' if the reader turn to the place, he will see this to be folse, as to the first two, (which are only historical, of antipaidobaptism then begin- ning to spread, 1645,) and frivolous as to the third. For what hurt is there in saying, that ' in times of a general toleration' (he leaves out of my words, general) ' abundance of sects are a})t to arise ;' espe- cially when I add, (which he likewise leaves out,) ' how necessary soever it might be in other re- ' spects.' Here he talks as if I justified the French king's persecutions. Page 9. His next quarrel with me comes to this in effect ; that I lived where I do before the toleration, and in king Charles' time. Who knows not that in those times the law was (and the courts and magistrates enforced it) that we sliould i)resent, i. e. give an account to the church-court, of those that came not to cliurch and communion ? This I or the churchwardens did, not only in resjiect to the anti- pa?dol)a[)tists or other dividers, but to such of our own church as were gross absenters. This he calls, ' taking so much care to perform his part with ' those who were endeavouring to plunder and root ' out the antipfrdobaptists in his neighbourhood.' And at other places'' he names a man or a woman or two of Shorehani, who, about forty years ago, continuing obstinate in their schism, and contempt * [See vol. iii. p. 90.] History of Infant-baptism. 78 of all the authority of the church, were excommu- nicated. As if that were an ill thing. It looks as if he had at the time of his writing some prog- nostic of what doctrines, in derogation of all church authority, and discipline of human excommunica- tion, would come quickly to be preached in some of our puljiits, or as if he, and some such late preachers had conferred notes. And it shews what pitiful stories he has been picking up ; such and such a person were forty years ago excommuni- cated ; they were, as far as I can remember the cases, such as sufficiently deserved it; and one of them (who is yet living, and, I believe, is he that furnisheth him with stories) upon other accounts besides his schism. Here he mightily commends the present toleration, but considers not that it was never intended to embolden such as he, to fly in the face of the established church, as he does l^resently, at p. 10, where he has done with me for a while, and falls to railing at the clergy in general, or many of them, in such reproachful words as I shall not rejjeat. Page 13. ' You may expect a complete answer to ' Mr. Wall by a very learned hand'] I do earnestly entreat and beseech the body of the antipcedobap- tists to take care that he be also a man of modesty and truth. Pao^e 15. ' That he has not suffered a single instance ' to escape his diligence'] By the very words of mine that he cites, it appears that I was not guilty of so much arrogance. Page 15, 16. Here JVIr. Gale is got out of his way, and into a talk of infant-baptism ; which he seems not to have thought of before, since the titlepage. He 74 A Defence of the blames nie for not producing all the passages that make ngninst it; and instances in a passage of Justin Martyr, which yet I did produce. But he complains that I said, ' It did not make directly /o^' ' it, nor a()(dnst it.' If he think otherwise, there he has it. I said, the Martyr ' had no occasion there ' to speak of the case of infants.' lie thinks he had ; and gives for a reason this far-fetched one ; tliat if Christians had then baptized infants, an apologist would have mentioned that to the emperor, in order to obviate a slander which then lay on them, as if they did use to murder and cat children. Now this is an argument for the apologists to have used, which I confess I should never have thought of: and I cannot wonder that they did not, seeing there are so many more forcible ones, which they did constantly use. As namely, the severe law of God and of our Lord Christ against all murder and bloodshed what- soever. Insomuch as many of them doubted whe- ther it were lawful to kill an enemy in war. And they nmst be far from eating human blood, that held it unlawful to eat any blood at all. These arguments they do produce in their apologies ; which are much more obvious and to the ])ur- |)0se, than that which jNIr. Cale would furnish them with. Page 17 — 19. He complains that I have been disingenuous in my citing a passage in St. Cyprian. Let the reader see if he can find where the fault is ; f cannot. I owned it did not name ' infants parti- ' cularly ; jind therefore I Mould but just mention ' it,' (having given before plain and direct ])assages out of St. Cyprian, to Avhich he thinks fit to say nothing.) I owned also that St. Cyjn-ian does at History of Infant-haptism. 75 another place speak of communicating children of four or five years old. I said, it was plain that he here understands John iii. 5, to speak of baptism. And so it is by comparing the heads or contents with the chapter itself. Pages 20, 21, are the seeking a quarrel where no handle was given. I cite Clemens' Constitu- tions ; he cries out they are spurious, and proves it ; and though I had put them no otherwise than in a chapter of spurious pieces by themselves, declared in the title to be spurious, and had there proved the spuriousness of them before him : yet, because I mentioned these spurious pieces at all, he calls it ' acting: with the same artifice.' And observe his words, p. 20, * They, like all the other boasted clear * proofs, happen to be spurious.' Has not this man a good forehead ? Page 21 — 23. Having for a little while confined himself to cite passages picked up here and there Out of my book, where he could not impute (that is, he should not have imputed) to me more than my words would bear ; ho here runs out into a freer way of giving the character of my temper in writ- ing, without referring to any particular place, and tells the men of his opinion that I ' industriously ' take all advantages to blacken them,' and many more such malicious and false expressions he uses, for which I think to call him to account by and by. He sets himself here to give a character of a slan- derous writer, and (whether he had a glass before him I know not) he describes it very lively ; and then says, that ' if he can form any judgment, I ' have too near approached this method.' Then he says, his reader will be surprised at so severe a 76 A Defence of the charge from him, ' wlio has always so much talked * of charity.' If he have any reader that formerly liad any opinion of his charity, or justice, or truth either, this sur})rise must indeed be ex])ected. How does he take it off? he assures the reader once again in words, that he is a man whom ' you must ' not ujjbraid with violating even the strictest rules ' of charity.' Page 24 — 28. He takes upon him to censure my way of writing, that I often run out into too large digressions ; what is that to him, or to the cause ? that may be an unskilfulness in writing ; but his business w^as to prove what he had said last, ' that T ' industriously took all advantages to blacken the ' antipsedobaptists.' He says, 1 thought by those digressions to * serve ostentation, to display my ' reading, to shew abilities,' and such prattle. That, sir, is the temper of boys and young men ; people under the infirmities of age are seldom inclined to that vanity. If I had aimed at that, I will tell you, INIr. Gale, what I would have done : I would have put at the end of my book a catalogue of the au- thors cited, &c. And if I had mentioned any of the school-books, Horace, Juvenal, Ovid, Terence, &:c., I would set down pompously the editions of them. And if I had cited such a book, for exam- ple, as Dr. Grabe's Irentcus, it should have been set down four times over; once under J, twice un- der G, once under F ; and so Le Clerc's Patres Apostolic} nine or ten times ^ Page 28. What he says here of my reflecting on Mr. Stennet, looks as if he could not ap))rehend the f [Sec the table of aiithors subjoined to Mr. Gale's Reflec- tions, at the end ot vol. iii.j History of Infant-baptism. 77 sense of what lie reads. I did not speak of his citing so largely Mr. Bossuet, (now Bishop of Meanx,) as a digression from the subject, but as giving too much regard to what a papist says in a cause wherein they do generally speak for their interest against their conscience. And for what I say of ' the vein of fine language,' Mr. Gale is the first reader that could, and will be the last that can, mis- take my words so far as to say, I impute to Mr. Stennet the vanity of shewing that. All that I said was, that harangue of Mr. Bossuet had a vein of fine language, for which perhaps he might prize it, and count it worth a recital. Page 29 — 46. Here he brings a long charge against me for my style, that it has been too cen- sorious and sharp against some learned and great men that are psedobaptists ; concerning which, hav- ing already said what I thought needful, and taken to myself the blame due to me from them, I need add here no more than to ask him again, what is this to him or to the cause ? If I, being but a mean person, have been too presuming and arrogant to- ward greater men, forgetting the respect due to their character, I have been served just in my kind ; for I also have lived to have a youths, without any respect to my age, or to the office that I bear in the church, (though unworthy,) or to the church in which it is borne, or to the opinion of great men therein, (who have taken my mean endeavours in good part '',) treat me very dirtily. But is this the best service he can do to his cause ? If he has been % [See a note, containing the relative ages of Dr. Wall and Mr. Gale, at page 54, above.] ^ [See this alluded to above, at p. 2.] 'i8 A Defence of the cmi)loyecl by the antip?cdobaj)tists in the defence of their opinions; may they not say to him, 'You de- * fend Grotius, Mr. le Clere, Chrysostom, and this or ' tliat father, or bishop, who are no friends of ours; ' but when will you remember us V Among the poets he quotes to no ]iurj)ose, he should have thought of that scrap of Martial, ' De tribus capellis.' He talks of another man that is to answer my book ; I hope that other will keep close to the main subject of it ; for this man has meddled with every thing else, and has often reached for cavils where no occasion was given. I mentioned the name of Archbishop Tillotson twice in my book''. In one of them it is written Archbishop, as it should be, in the other, Bishop Tillotson. This our author calls quarrelling with that prelate ; and sets it so in his table of contents. Does not any man in hasty writing or speaking, say often, ' Bishop Usher ' ;' ' Bishop Laud,' &:c., without any intention of disre- spect ? Are these things matter for a book ? Concerning some of the others, he makes my words worse than they are. I said that Gregory Nazianzcn probably gave his opinion of deferring a child's baptism (if he were well) till three years, in some compliance with his father's practice. He makes me represent the son, ' persuading men against ' his conscience,' &c., he makes me call 8t. Chrys- ostom, ' a leaden-headed logician.' I only said of one argument of his, that it was (though golden-mouthed oratory) but leaden-headed logic. There is a great difference between these two sayings. Antism but what was given in infancy and ' by affusion, are no Christians ; — I hope there are ' not many such. And ]Mr. Stennet reckons it a ' slander on the antipai'dobaptists,' &c. And such I there advise to read what T had written before, sect. 6, to prove that the point in debate between the panlobaptists and antipaxlobaptists is not a fun- damental article. And there I had owned, that if it be, they must indeed separate in their communion ; and the guilt will lie on those that are in the error. But had shewn that the far greater part of them are of the other sort, or of the other opinion, viz. that it is not a fundamental difference; but though they think their way of baptizing the more regular and fitting, do yet allow that men baptized in infancy are Christians. And I pleaded, that these, sup- posing that they were in the right in that opinion, that their way of baj)tizing were the fittest, and though they continued in that opinion, and did not baptize their children in infancy, yet ought to " [Vol. ii. p. 569.] History of Infant-haptism, 99 hold communion with other Christians in other things. Now Mr. Gale here owns plainly, of which of the said two sorts he himself is, (of the worst for cer- tain, if one be worse than another,) viz. that his opinion (or ' notion,' as he calls it) is, that none are Christians (he calls it, ' true members of the Chris- ' tian church') but themselves ; (the very thing which Mr. Stennet disclaims with abhorrence ;) and speaks as if I had put the case that those of * his notion' were in the right, and yet ought to come to the communion of the church. If he had not minded what I said, he takes me for an idiot. And if he had, he does wilfully pervert my words, [p. 81.] ' Our author,' says he, ' supposes us in the right in * all this. He argues on a supposition that we are * in the right.' Whom does he mean by us and we ? I meant only the charitable sort, (who take us to be Christians, and we them,) that they should commu- nicate in prayers and the other sacrament, even put- ting the case they were in the right in refusing to bring their own children to baptism in infancy. As for the other uncharitable sort, I question whether they are fit to communicate any where. For what- ever becomes of the question, whether he that is not dipped be no Christian ; it is out of question, that he that in his debates about dipping or pouring has lost charity, is none. But as I said before, I hope there are not many of them such. This poor blunder or fallacy he brings, I think, ten times in his book, and builds his demonstrations upon it, and desires his friend ' always to remember it.' [p. 84, 86.] * All that I say is to proceed on that supposition ; * none are baptized but believers dipped, (which you H 2 100 A Defence of the * remember, sir, Mr. Wall always supposes).' I never supposed any such thing. Nor could any understand me so, but some gross or malicious perverter of words. Some other sophistical turns he gives to the phrases as he goes along in this argument ; which every one that is exercised in arguing sees as soon as he reads them. For the sake of the unskilful they may be briefly noted. Page 82. ' Not of the essence, but wholly indif- ' ferent'] It does not follow that a circumstance, which is not of the essence, is therefore wholly indifferent. Dipping may be more fitting than pouring, and yet not absolutely necessary, or of the essence. Page 84. ' Alterations change the thing'] Altera- tions in circumstances do not change the essence. Ibid. ' A subject and a mode is necessary ; therefore ' the true subject, a believer^ and the true mode, * dippinf), is necessary to trtie baptism'] There is a distinction known to every body that studies logic, between true metaphysically, and essentially, and true morally. An honest man is the only true man mo- rally ; but every man is a true man metaphysically, i. e. he is truly a man. So for churches ; one may be much better ordered, or truer; another faulty, and yet, if not corrupted in fundamentals, is a true church, or truly a church. So for the modes of bap- tism, or of receiving the other sacrament ; one may be fitter, and yet the other does not cease to be true ; and the ba])tism or Lord's Suj)per so given or taken, to be true baptism or communion. This other poor fallacy also runs through all his book. As at p. 68, ' true church,' &c. History of Infant-haptism. 101 Page 85. He brings the definition of a church from our nineteenth article; ' Wherein the sacra- * ments are duly administered.' And though he re- cite, yet does not sufficiently mind the last words ; * In all things that of necessity are requisite to the ' same.' Else, any difference of mode in administer- ing either of the sacraments, in any two churches, would make one of them to be no true church. And so in the next words, ' baptism duly performed.' That which is performed in a way, which is not the most decent or fitting of all, may yet be duly performed ' in all things that of necessity are ' requisite.' Ibid. He quotes Tertullian, de Baptismo, cap. 15. ' Baptismum, cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non * habent.' ' They who are not duly baptized, are ' certainly not baptized.' No man of tolerable sin- cerity, or reputation for it, would have brought that saying of Tertullian to the purpose that he here does. Tertullian is there speaking of the baptism of such heretics, as do not baptize in the name of the Trinity, nor believe it. His words are, ' Non ' idem Deus est nobis et illis ; nee unus Christus, id * est, idem ; ideoque nee baptism us unus, quia non * idem ; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non ' habent.' ' They and we have neither the same ' God, nor the same Christ, and so not the same ' baptism ; which since they have not aright, they * have it not at all.' To quote a scrap of this, and apply it to those that do, both of them, use the Christian baptism, differing only in mode or time, is the property of one who aims, not to inform his readers, but to blind them. Page 87. ' Baptism in general, without some 102 A Defence of the * particular modes or other, cannot be conceived or * administered.'] True. But some modes or cir- cumstances are absolutely determined and expressly enjoined by our Saviour; as that it should be with watevy and in the form appointed. And yet some other circumstances, as of the age, and of the wash- ing cither of the whole body, or part, may be not absolutely limited. Page 88. ' If only that form is true, which our * Saviour prescribes ; then only those subjects and ' that mode are lawful which he specifies.'] If our Saviour had so specified the subject and mode of baptism, as to have said expressly, ' baptize only the * adult, and only by dipping,' in like manner as he specifies the form in which we are to baptize : the one had been as necessary as the other. Ibid. ' In short, we refuse to communicate with ' the church of England, for the same reason that ' she refuses to communicate with persons she can- ' not esteem baptized.'] This is indeed short, full, and open. But then it is a desperate uncharitable tenet : like to that of the Donatists and papists ; none saved, no Christians but themselves. What a poor price of our Saviour's blood does this man set forth ! None baptized in his name for many hun- dred years, but a few of the Albigenses at the year 1100, and a few straggling people in Holland and England since 1522. Even those in Holland are most, or many of them cut oti'. For they do com- monly use affusion. He in this point forsakes most of those of his own communion. For they own it pot to be a fundamental, as I shewed *. The go- X [See vol. ii. cliap. ii. sect. 5. I)-547— 55^ ] History of Infant-baptism. 103 vernors when they tolerated these men, little thought they should come to be censured, as unbaptized. Page 89, 90. ' The church has no power over ' those that withdraw from her communion.'] She has power to declare them excommunicated, and so leave them under the consequences of that sentence, when they do in effect excommunicate themselves by withdrawing from her communion. Or else all those canons for excommunicating schismatics that would not return to the unity of the church, (whereof there are many in general councils,) were made to no purpose. Here he would make me a criminal, (for he is now returned to his vein of personal reproaches,) because I insinuated, he says, [p. 90,] that ' the act ' of toleration does not (he makes it cannot) tie up * the church's hands from any proceedings of that * nature,' viz. of presenting to the spiritual court, and excommunicating those that are obstinate ; but does only set aside temporal punishments. The common lawyers are the best judges of the sense of the act. As for my opinion, it is the same as it w^as. And as I there cited Bishop Stillingfleet, that * it is a fundamental right of any church to exclude ' out of itself, such as by the laws of a Christian * society are fit to be shut out :' so I do here cite a greater author, who, Rom. xvi. 17, commands that tJiose that cause divisions he marked and avoided : which the church may now command to be done. He does not indeed say any thing of their loss of money, or goods, &c., neither did I. Page 90. He repeats again what he had said, p. 9, that thirty or forty years ago, I or the church- wardens did present one Katherine Hall and one Joseph Brown, antipaedobaptists, who continuing 104 A Defence of the obstinate, were excommunicated. Does he think that in forty years' time there has not been occasion to present several ? some for schism, some for forni- cation, &c. ; some of whom were exconmiunicated, some did penance, &c. Why has he not picked up all their names, and published their excommunica- tions to the world ? He says, I afterward asked pardon of the latter of these two. I remember something of it : one part of the presentment was, that he refused to repair a chancel that belonged to the house he lived in ; and I questioned afterward, whether the repairs should lie on him or his land- lord, and in that doubt asked his pardon. Are not these memorable things to be printed in a book of controversy on a question of religion ? and for which he should write in the contents of his book, * Mr. Wall a friend to persecutions for religion,' and should run on to the end of the chapter with an im- pertinent harangue about the British government, French dragoons, Judas and Pilate ; and how * close it touches him [poor man !] to see one whose ' function is to serve at the altar, &c., of a complex- ' ion so repugnant to meekness,' &c. ? Whereas I meddled not with any of the temporal punishments which any of them suffered, (as the law then was,) by fines, forfeitures, &c., and presented dissenters no otherwise than those of our own persuasion, who scandalously absented themselves from prayers and sacraments ; that they might be required either to join duly in them, or else be authoritatively cut off from them, and avoided : which is a thing that all w^ho read the Scrij)ture do know ought to be done in any well-onlered church ; and which the anti- paidobaj)tists themselves, not regarding the act of History of Infant-baptism. 1 05 toleration, do towards such as are (as they call it) disorderly. But all this personal blackening, which has run through these two chapters, seems plainly to be only for fear lest those of that persuasion should read what I have written for their use, without prejudice. Which if they will do, I am not unwill- ing they should read his book after it ; and see in which of the two are the signs of that sly malice and hypocrisy which he would affix on me. CHAP. III. AS the first two chapters have had very little in them about the cause, but a great deal about me, which concerns not the reader ; they being as he calls them my ' character' (a pretty subject for a book of controversy, and he a fitting person to write men's characters) ; so this third concerns neither me nor the cause or matter of my book. What I had written was on the question whether infants are to be baptized, or have been in Christ's church usually baptized. He brings in here three large chapters (or ' letters' as he calls them) about another matter, viz. about the way of baptizing, whether by dipping or pouring ; with which I have meddled as little as possible. I had indeed toward the latter end of my work (where I mention the several tenets of the English antipsedobaptistsy) put in obiter a few words (not two pages in all) of the answers which they that use perfusion do give to the arguments y [See vol. ii. chap. 9. p. 396, &c.] 106 A Defence of the which the others do bring for an absolute necessity of immersion ; granting at the same time, that that, * where it may be safely used, is the most fitting * manner;' and pleading at another place, as well as I could, for the retrieving of the use of it according to the rubric of the church. Here he, though he calls his book ' Reflections on * mine,' j)ostponing what he had to say about infant- baptism, which was the subject of mine, to nigh the middle of his l)Ook, falls into a long discourse about dippiiiq in baptism. I make no doubt but that he, or somebody else, had before collected tlieso observations and criticisms in some adversaria or commonplace-book. But what makes him call them ' Reflections' on my History? Or what makes him crowd in my name here and there into them? AA'as that dealing honestly with those of his party, to whom he had, I suppose, promised to write against my book ? Yet all, that do content themselves with pouring or sprinkling in baptism, have reason to thank him for his long digression about dijiping and pouring. Because he has in it said (and according to his way of proving, proved) such things, as being laid to- gether, do fully yield up to them the cause for whicli he contends; as I shall shew presently. He begins, Page 95, with a sort of syllogism, in whicli he trium|)hs, indeed a very transparent paralogism. The substance of it, this : ' Adult ba])tism, and that by dipping, is delivcr- ' ed in Scripture plainJi/ and clearlij. Infant-bap- ' tism, and by aflusion, but obscurehj, if at all. ' Therefore wr do wXvAi tlic Scriptures cupressly History of Infant-haptism. 1 07 * teach ; while thei/ do, at best, but what is very * obscurely taught. So our case is secure, and far the ' most eligible.' This argument runs upon a supposition that is not true in fact, viz. as if the paedobaptists did discard or disallow of the baptizing of adult per- sons, or of dipping in baptism ; and did set up affu- sion in opposition to dipping ; and did count an adult person superannuated for baptism. And at this rate Mr. Gale talks in many places, as at p. 255, ' boldly substituting it [infant-baptism] in the ])lace * of what our Lord did ordain,' [viz. adult baptism.] But the pfedobaptists do own and practise the baptizing of adult persons, whenever they meet with any that have not been already baptized ; and the dipping of them if they be able to bear it ; and do see the examples of this clearly and frequently de- livered in Scripture. They practise therefore that which he calls ' clear * from Scripture.' But they practise the other too, as being sufficiently shewn from Scripture to be God's will ; though in words not so clear and express. So that his argument runs just as this would do ; Giving the Lord's supper to men is commanded in Scripture ^plainly and expressly : giving it to women but obscurely. Therefore they that should give it only to men, and refuse it to women, would act most securely. Whereas the consequence is, they that give it to men are certainly in the right, so far as they go ; but yet they would do ill in refusing it to women. And so, they that give baptism to adult persons 108 A Defence of the not already baptized, and diji them, if they are able to bear it, do well (provided they that give it be persons lawfully called and ordained to the office of ba|>tizing ; which I do not see how any among the present antipa?dobai)tists are): but they do ill in refusing it to infants also, and that by affusion, if they are not able to bear dipping. A servant employed in his master's business must do his master's will in all things which he under- stands to be really meant and intended by him ; though some of the things be more plainly ex- pressed than others of them, which he knows by the nature of the thing, and by good consequence from his master's words, to be his true meaning. Any one sees this author's argument to be of no force, unless we, who give baptism to infants, did refuse it to adult persons. And indeed arguing is not his talent. He tries at critical learning. Tie pretends to wonder at me for offering to give to the Mord baptizing the signification of umshing ; and for saying that it does not necessarily include dipping in its signification, but is in Scripture taken for washing in general ; such as may be done either by dipping, or pouring, or rubbing water on the thing washed. And he so speaks as if I were singular in, or the first broacher of, this notion of the word ; which would be a just reason to like it the less. But all pa}dobaptists that I know of, say the same. It were frivolous to quote many. Chem- nitius, Examen Concilii Trid. part. ii. can. 3, brings in some papists, in their plea for the Romi>>li altera- tions, arguing that the church has ]>()wer to alter even the sacraments in the substantial parts ; that Christ commanded absolutely to dip ; and that the History of I?} fant-haptism. 109 word baptize does absolutely signify so. He an- swers, ' If the word ^aTcri^eiv did signify {simpli- ' citer, absolutely, or necessarily) to dip, no man * might or could have changed the custom. But ' Paul, an interpreter most certainly to be depended ' on, tells us, that to baptize, is to cleanse by the * washing of water, Eph. v. Tit. iii. Acts ii. which * is done by any sort of washing.' Page 98. Mr. Gale undertakes to make it appear plainly, that the word does necessarily include dip- ping in its signification, and never denotes any thing less. To this purpose he makes a tedious recital of sixty or seventy places ; most of them out of the Greek poets that never heard of any sa- crament. And at last, to one's great amazement, there is not one quarter of the places that have the word (BaTTTi^co, or any derivative of it, in them. In- stead of that, they have the word ^airru), a word never used in Scripture with any relation to baptism, and so nothing to this purpose. Of the rest, which have the word ^airTi'Cco, it is in some of them used for such washing as is by dipping, or putting the thing spoken of, all over into the water ; and in some of them, not. Which comes up to all that I had said, that the word to baptize has, beside the signification immergo, that of lavo in general. For his disappointing the reader by bringing citations of ^cnrra) instead of ^airrl^o), he makes an apology one hundred pages afterwards, [p. 230.] that they are synonymous ; and having no proof of it, (as it is impossible he should,) he says that ' I do * seem to allow them to be so, because I argue pro- * miscuously from both of them.' I had in my first edition just mentioned, in six 110 A Defence of the or seven lines, two places out of the Old Testament, Dan. iv, 33, and Levit. xiv. 6, in which the Seventy have used /SaTrrw in the sense (as 1 then took it) not of dipi>ing, but only of icetfing. Not taking how- ever ^diTTco and /Suttt/^o) to be synonymous, but mean- ing thus; that if (Suttto) itself did sometimes signify only wetting, or a partial washing, much more might ^a-KTiXw (which is but a diminutive of it) be so used. But I was quickly informed of my mis- take in the sensa of the latter of those texts ; and in my second edition left them both out ; and in a paper which I published for the use of those that had bought the first edition, owned my reason for so doing. And all this several years before INIr. Gale published his ; and there can be little doubt but he had seen it. Men that are any thing versed in the ingenuous way of writing controversies, will judge how poor a thing it is in him to spend several pages (as he does in the next chapter, p. 144) in an operose proof of a thing which I had, so long before he or any adversary appeared, owned in a few lines. That these two m ords are synonymous, he must have some better proof; for I never took them to be so, nor ever heard of any one that did. His friend, whom he there persuades ' to take no ' exccj)tion at his using them so,' had need to be a very good-natured man. It is needless to spend time in making such ex- ceptions as might be made to the particular quota- tions that compose the rest of this chapter. I shall only make these three observations about them in general. 1. First, that he being stiff in maintaining that ^airrl'Cu) does always necessarily contain in its History of Infant-baptism. Ill signification dipping ; and being oftentimes troubled how to adapt the notion of dipping to some even of these passages here produced by himself, is forced to enlarge the sense of that word to as great a latitude as the paedobaptists ordinarily do give to the word washing; and does lay down rules by which the pouring of a small quantity of water on the face (or indeed any other part) of the bap- tized person is justified, as true baptism, and proved by his principles to be dipping the person. And so he has (as I said) yielded up the cause (for which he contends in this and the following chapters) to those who administer baptism by pouring. For here in this chapter, at Page 122, Having cited a relation of Aristotle concerning a certain sea coast, which at low water is not baptized, (that is Aristotle's word,) but when the tide comes in, is under water; and having ob- served, as an objection against himself, that jSaTrrl- ^ea-Oai is here used to signify the land's being under water, by the water's coming in upon it, and not by its being put into the water, he solves it thus ; * Besides, the word ^airTi^w perhaps does not so ne- ' cessarily express the action of putting under water, ' as in general, a thing's being in that condition, no ' matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the * water, or the water comes over it.' And he speaks much to the same purpose in the next chapter, p. 150, about the dew in which Nebuchadnezzar was (as he would have it called) dipped. And though in the case of Aristotle's use of the word, he puts in here the word perhaps, the thing is certainly true, if jSaTTTi^ft) does always signify to dip : for there 112 J Defence of the is notliing surer, than tliat the shoal-coast was not put every tide into the water, but the water came over it. Now add to this what he says, p. 145. where to an argument of mine he answers thus ; ' The most ' he can infer from it, is only that it does not al- * ways necessarily mean to dip all over.' And a little after, * We readily grant that there may be * such circumstances in some cases, which necessa- ' rily and manifestly shew, the thing spoken of is ' not said to be dipi)ed all over, but it does not * therefore follow, that the word in that place does * not signify to dip. And I believe INIr. Wall will * allow his pen is dipped in the ink, though it is ' not daubed all over, or total!?/ immersed. So that ' after all he says, it still remains that the word * does signify to dip.'' And after some further talk in the next page, p. 147, 'the utmost, I say, that ' could be inferred from this passage, is only that * the word does not always necessarily imply a total * immersioji, or dipping the whole thing spoken of ' all over, which I readily allow.' (INIark that.) And a little after, ' Thus, to use the familiar instance I ' mentioned before, we say, " Dip the pen," meaning ' only the nib of it, which we really dip into ink. ' Though the whole pen is not dipped all over, yet * the part particularly referred to is. And the pen ' may be truly said to be dipped, according to that ' known rule ; " What is true of any one i)art, may ' be said of the whole complexly, though not of * every ]>art of the whole separately." ' (There is a learned maxim of the ])rivate academies.) He maintains the same thing, p. 153, concerning History of Infant-laptism. 113 the hyssop that was to be dipped. ' The word here ' is j8a\//et, and plainly signifies to dip, though it was * not dipped all over,' Sic. Now to apply this to the question between the antipaedobaptists on the one side, and the church of England, or other protestant church, on the other side, about the manner of baptizing. Antip<^d. We must not hold communion with you, because you are not truly baptized, in that you do not dip the person whom you pretend to give baptism to. Whereas baptism is dippitiff, and to baptize signifies to dip. Churchman. We dip all such as do owli them- selves, or are by their parents owned, to have strength to bear it. On others we pour water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and that is baptizing, or (if you will have the word,) dipping. For your own Mr. Gale teaches that a thing or person is baptized, or dipped, if it be ' under water ; no matter how it comes so, wlie- * ther it be put into the water, or the water comes * over it,' p. 122, 150. Antipced. This might be granted, if you did pour on water enough to cover the person's body. But a man or a child cannot be said to be baptized, covered or dipped, with a handful of water poured on the face. Churchman. Yes he may. For the same Mr. Gale does readily allow, and readily grant to us, and does teach you, that the word baptize, or dip, ' does ' not always necessarily imply a total immersion, ' or dipping the whole thing spoken of, all over.' And he exemplifies this by a pen dipped in the ink. If only the nib of it be put in the ink, ' the pen,' WALL, VOL. IV, 1 114 A Defence of the he says, ' may be truly said to be dipped.' And gives a general rule for it, ' What is tnie of any ' part; &c.,p. 145, 146, 147- Antipced. Well, but still Mr. Gale stands steady to that, that to baptize is to dip; and by a vast number of quotations, with his explanations of them, maintains his point for the word dij) ; and says, p. 178, ' If the word does but signify to dip, I ask ' no more. Let it relate to the whole body, or a * part of it only ; either way I gain my point.' The like he says, p. 183, ' It is all we ask.' Churchman. True, but he could not apply the word dip to his own quotations, without yielding up the thing itself, which you and all men have been used to mean by dipping. He has kept the word, but has granted away the thing. If that which he allows be dipping, the controversy is at an end. Indeed these principles of INIr. Gale will serve to justify, not only those that observe the rules of the church of England, and do pour water on such as cannot bear putting into it ; but even the most disorderly bajitizers of all, whom I confess I know not how to justify by any other. Those, I mean, who aifccting to use as little water as possible, do purposely throw no more than a sprinkle or drop of water on the face of a child. The Scripture will never justify these, nor the ancient church, nor the nibric of the church of England, (for that requires pouring in the weakest child's case,) nothing but either the Directory, or JNIr. Gale's criticisms. For even by a si)rinklc or drop some part is under water, and then the whole man is under water by his • known rule,' ' what is true of any one part,' &c. History of Infant-haptism. 115 And if the tij3 of a finger, or a nib of a pen be dipped, the man or the pen is dipped. Whereas a truer notion is, that (SaTrri^w may be used wherever the English word wash may be used ; but a person can hardly be said to be washed by a sprinkle or drop, or by dipping a tip of a finger ; or a pen by its nib dipped. 2. Secondly, I cannot but observe the preposterous way, which the antipaedobaptists take in filling seve- ral pages with quotations out of secular authors, where the word (BaTTTi^w is taken for such washing as is by dipping the thing washed into water (which is the only aim of this long chapter, and part of the following). There are none of the paedobaptists but what do grant and own at the first word, that it is often used in that sense. And I think most of us do own that it is oftener found used so, than in any other sense of washing ; that way of washing being used in the case of most things that happen to be .spoke of. Now when a debate stands so, that both sides do agree, that in secular books a word is often used for washing hy dipping ; and there is no ques- tion made of that : but the only question between them is this, that one side affirms (but the other denies) that it is sometimes used for other ways of washing, as pouring or rubbing water, &c., (to lump the matter by guess ; say, three thousand times it be found used for this way, and one thousand times for the other ways ;) what an idle thing it is, for these deniers to bring instances of that which is confessed by both sides, instead of overthrowing or confuting the instances brought by the others for those other ways. Thus they do in the case of the word tJ-aQnTeiKa^ to I 2 116 A Defence of the disciple, or make^ or enter disciples. No mortal denies, but that word comes in use oftcner in the case of such disciples as are actually taught, or do begin to learn, at the very time of their entering, or first being called, or made disciples. The only ques- tion is, whether that word may not })roperly be used, or be not sometimes used, for such entering, or calling persons into discipleship as is in order to their being taught hereafter. And yet Mr. Gale in the following chapters spends fifty ])ages in giving instances whore it includes present teaching ; which any one would have granted him. And so here he has brought about fourteen instances of the word /SaTTTt'^w, (beside near half a hundred of another word nothing to the puri)ose,) in most of which (but not all) it is used for such washing as must have been performed by dipping. None ever denied that it is often so used ; nor would I deny to any disputant that it h for the most part so used. His task had been to shew that it is never used for washing in those other senses. Not that 1 would put it upon him to prove a negative absolutely. But he should have confuted or answered those instances to which I there referred the reader, viz. in INIr. Walker's ' Doctrine of Bai)tism.' He, at p. 136, recites my words, where I say, * JNIr. ^^^alker has largely shewn ' from the Greek authors, and lexicographers, and ' critics, that besides the signification inintcrgo, they ' give it that of lavo in general.' And subjoins in his own next words ; ' Whereas you see, sir, I have ' fully baffled all that is alleged from any passages in * the Grecian writers.' Tf he mean this baffling only of the j)laces here alleged by himself, it is a mock fight. But if he mean it of those in Mr. Walker's History of Infant-haptism. 117 book, I declare in good earnest, I think this the most shameless saying that ever I read in the book of any man of tolerable repute. I verily believe that he never read (or perhaps never saw) the book : and that any one that reads it will guess the same. And if he have, it is so much the worse. One thing indeed this chapter is good for. It has helped him to more authors to fill up his ' Table ' of Authors,' than perhaps any three other. So many Greek and Latin poets, with their editions, ' London, 1700,' as if they were not common in every schoolboy's hand. And so for Milton^ Dry den, (but Hudibras is by some chance missing.) as if they also could teach us any thing about baptism or religion. 3. Thirdly, there is one thing in this chapter which I cannot observe without some disdain. The whole rhapsody of quotations in it is nothing to me, nor to my book. It must probably have been some collection made before. And to make it look as somewhat relating to me, he has in many places of it crowded in my name. But he has in most of them engaged me in such boyish disputes, that I am ashamed to have my name seen in them. To give an instance. At p. 117, he recites out of Aristophanes in his play called, ' The Parliament of ' Women,' a talk about washing of wool, ^a-Trroua-i : where first he makes the argument run on my side, and says, ' No doubt if Mr. Wall knows of this ' place, he thinks it mightily for his purpose ; and ' especially if he has but found,' &c., and so goes on for half a page. ' This will please Mr. Wall.' ' Ho ' will insist upon this.' But when he has at last learned out of Homer^, Suidas, Phavoriiius, and two 118 A Defence of the or three more, (what any okl woman couhl have told him,) that wool is commonly put into the water to be washed ; then he triumj)lis over me again, and says, ' This can be of no service to Mr. Wall, unless ' to convince him,' &c. Whereas the whole criticism, and indeed the whole chapter, do convince me of nothing but of this, that the author of it has mis- pent a groat deal of time ; the whole being of no other use than to shew, that the word does sometimes signify such washing as is by dippmg ; which nobody ever doubted of. 4. Fourthly, I will make one observation, a better natured one ; tending to the commendation of him and of the antipaedobaptists : of them, for their generosity, and being easily pleased ; and of him, for his abundant justice. It is to be noted, that this chapter was published a good while before the rest, as a specimen of what the book should be. They seemed very well ])leased, and much taken with it, and encouraged him to go forward. Which was an instance of very good nature ; since it is so little to the purpose, that if one were to expose him among judicious men, one would desire them to read this cliaj)ter. But he is to be commended for doing them more than justice, and making the goods delivered to be delivered better than the sample. For the following chapters are really something more to the pur])ose, and of a better strain. Always exce])t the sixth and the ninth. In one of which he brings against some ])assages in my l)ook an accusation so ])ali)ably false, that every reader must crv shame on him. Tn the other he brings (not triHing arguments out of i)oets and plays, but) the most loathsome and execrable blasphemies out ol History of Infant-baptism. 119 some Jewish libels, without any relation to the question, without any occasion given, without any advantage to his argument, without any cause that can compensate for the mischief of publishing such scandals, except a pride which he may have in giving his admirers to understand that he is master of that sort of reading. CHAP. IV. WHAT I have already said of the signification of the word ^aTTTi^co, makes it needless to say any thing to what he produces here from two lexicons, and from Vossius, Casaubon, Grotius, Petavius, and Stennet. He would prove from them that its proper and gemiine sense is immergo. At p. 149 he styles it, the 'primary and general sense. If he mean by these epithets only that it is the most usual and ordinary sense in which it is taken, I grant it ; and his authors prove no more. Constantino, he says, ' almost always renders it so.' It is but almost. Stephens never fails, &c., ' till in another period,' &c. The rest, who are psedobaptists, confess no more than that it is the most usual sense ; and Mr. Stennet has done what he himself has here done, given several instances where it is taken so, without pretending to overthrow the instances produced by Mr. Walker and others, where it is used for washing only some part of the body or thing spoken of. In short, it is to no purpose for them to say any more of this matter, till they have answered to those instances in Mr. Walker's ' Doctrine of Baptism.' If they expect that we should write them over again in answer to every new book of theirs, it is an 120 A Defence of the unreasonable demand : since there they stand ready for any one's examination ; and I referred them to tliem. And it is alike unreasonable to exjject, that without their overthrowing the evidence of those there brought, we should spend time in looking out others; and read books to so poor a purpose as is the search of a word. However, because Mr. Gale is so positive, and ventures his reputation on it, saying here, p. 144, (and to the same purpose, at several other places, over and over,) ' that the word is never used to * signify pouring, but always dipping ; I will endea- vour to prick this bladder of confidence, and name him a jdace that shall aifect the re])utation, not only of his skill, but of his veracity; and omitting those in Mr. Walker, (which would be too voluminous,) and any other which I cannot be sure he has seen, mention one which he must have seen (for he quotes a part of the sentence in which it is, in his tenth letter or chapter, p. 398). I do in my answer to that chapter and page recite it at large, (as jierhaps he would have done, if it had not been for the shame to have it compared with what he says here, for the word is used by Origen for the action of baptizing the sacrifice and Mood, which incontestably was only pouring water on them :) the reader may stay till he comes to the place, or turn to it beforehand. Page 143. He is angry that I passed over this matter in so few words, (whereas he has spent more ])ages on it than T did lines.) and thinks it a sign that 1 am under some apprehensions that 1 am not in the right. And I on the contrary think a man's using a great many words, especially when he says History of Infant-baptism. 121 nothing new in them, a sign of such apprehension. To any other man my reason of saying so little of the manner of baptizing should be, because it was none of my subject. To Mr. Gale, how does he know but that I had some intimation that he had lying by him a long collection about that dispute, which (if I meddled with it) he would publish as * Reflections' on me, and make the antipaedobap- tists believe it was written in answer to me, and expect that I should reply to it. To avoid that trouble, I said as little as possible on that matter, so little as would have prevented the occasion with any other man ; but he was resolved to publish his lucubrations, and absurdly put my name in the frontispiece of them. He comes at last. Page 144, to the use of the word in Scripture (which I had said was chiefly to be regarded); he mentions twenty-five instances M^hich he will give out of the Old Testament and Apocryjjha, and at last there are but four (two of the Septuagint, and two in the Apocrypha) that have the word in them. All the rest are of (3a.7rTco. Of these two of the Sep- tuagint, one, Isa. xxi. 4, is a figurative expression, and so nothing to the purpose. He thinks (and truly enough) that 'nobody will urge that place • against him.' So there is but one, 2 Kings v. Naaman's washing himself in Jordan ; which wash- ing is expressed there four times ; once in the command, once in Naaman's refusal, once in his servant's entreaty, and once in his actual obeying. In the first three it is \ovco, in the last (^aTrrl^w : a sign that those words are used synonymously and promiscuously. And Naaman's body does not seem to have been leprous all over, (that we need suppose 12Je A Defence of the him to have gone all over into the water,) but some one place of it. For what he had expected of the pro})het was, that he should have stricken his hand over the place, and recovered the leper, ver. 11. Of the two in the Aiiocryj)ha, one is Judith's being washed (or as the word in the Greek is, bap- tized) in or at a spring, to make herself more ac- ceptable to Ifolojihernes, chap. xiii. 7 ; which whe- ther it were by dippimj herself, (note, that it was in the camp ; for so are the words, ' ad fontcm ilhon * aqucB in castris ;' and it appears, from chap. 7, that the springs were especially guarded with soldiers,) or only washing her hands, feet, &c., we cannot know. The other is a ])lace of which Mr. Gale tells a lamentable story how it affrighted him for a while. It relates to the washing that was to be used by one that was unclean by touching a dead body. Syra- cides, Ecclus. xxiv. 26. 6 /3a7rT<^oVei/09 diro vcKpou, 8ilQ. ' He that is washed from (or, after the touching of) ' a dead body, and toucheth it again, what availeth * his washing ?' jNIr. Gale having observed from Numb. xix. 18, and otlier places, that such a person was to have the water of purification sprinkled on him on the third day and on the seventh day, had thought that the word ^airriCoixevo'; related to that sprinklinr/ ; and says, * he remembers the time when ' he thouglit this a very forniidahle instance.' lie recovered some degree of hope when he observed that the unclean person was (as he thinks) required, beside the si)rinkling, to have anotluM- washing. He goes a great May about to prove this, ))artly from Scripture, partly from the customs of the JMalio- History of Infant-haptism. 1SJ3 nietans and of the Babylonians ; and expresses a profane doubt, (whether the Jews borrowed it from the Babylonians, or they from the Jews,) and makes an imperfect proof of it at the last. If there were any such other washing, there is no doubt but the word ^aiTTiC^oixevo^ refers to both. But why did the appearance that the word might signify sprinkling with water look so formidable to Mr. Gale ? All the tendency that it had, was to have convinced him that he must acknowledge his Christian neighbours, who had received this sacra- ment by sprinkling or perfusion, to be baptized f)er- sons as well as himself; and so the separation be- tween them must not have continued. All the sepa- rators, who are of a sincere and charitable principle, do own it to be a desirable thing, that all Christians were of one body and communion ; and that if they could be satisfied in conscience that it were lawful for them to join with the church, they should count it .a great happiness so to do. But any appearance of such satisfaction or conviction is to Mr. Gale, it seems, a ' very formidable' thing. Such expressions, starting from a man before he is aware, do give the truest indications of his inward aims and fears. I had mentioned, at the latter end of my book, a sort of people who ' keep their consciences (as beggars * do their sores) raw and unhealed on purpose.' The readers of this expression of his will be apt to make the application. These four are all the instances where the word ^a-KTvQa is used by the Septuagint, or the Greek writers or translators of the apocryphal books. They used other words instead of it. For washing of clothes, TrXwft) ; of the body, or hands, or any 124 A Defence of the part, Xou'w ; (as almost always where it is ordered, lie shall iimsh Ids flesh, or imish or bathe all his Jlcsh in icatcr, tlioy render it, Xova-erai vSari, or Xovcrerai ro fro'/xo, or Trar to awna vouti ;) where a foot, or hand, or finger, or tip of a finger, or top of a bunch of hyssop, is dipped in Mater, tliey use mostly /SaTTTw. On that one instance which 1 brought (in my first edition, but left it out in the second) of Nebuchadnezzar's body being wet with deiv, (which they render €(3a(pr],) Mr. Gale makes a long discourse, and would have it to be, zvas dipped in dew ; and runs to St. Helena, the Leeward Islands, ^-Egypt, &c., to fetch in stories of dew, all to no purpose ; since the words are aTro T/J9 Spoa-ov, from, or by the dew. No writer M'hatsoever would speak of a body dipped from the detv, or hi/ or zvith the dcn\ Of the four instances which I (passing by others) had in half a page produced out of the New Testa- ment, to prove that to baptize is a word oftentimes there so used as not to include dipping in its signi- fication, the first was Luke xi. 38, where St. Luke says, The Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour ivas not first baptized, oi> irpMrov e/SaTrr/o-O?/, before dinner. Now all that the Pharisee expected, was that he should have washed his hands before dinner. I shewed this to be all that they themselves did, or required of others, from IVIark viii. 5, and Mr. Gale makes it no otherwise. I called this a plain instance, that St. Luke uses the phrase of a man's being baptized, in a case where there is no dipping of him, but only washing his hands. And I do still think it so plain an one, that nothing of good sense can be objected against it. And I am the more confirmed by the impertinence History of Infant-baptism. 125 of all that Mr. Gale brings in answer to it ; which answer of his is at Page 160, &c. I entreat the reader to mind well. He says thus ; ' If the Jews washed their hands, * as we usually do now, by dipping them into the * water, this instance turns against him, and makes * considerably for us.' And then he labours for ten pages to prove that they did so. If St. Luke had said that the Pharisee's wonder was, that our Saviour did not baptize his hands be- fore dinner, this answer had been sense ; (though I think not true ;) but is the washing of a man's hands by dipping them, the dipping of the manf When any one in washing his hands puts them into the water, is that man then dipped? Or had it been proper for St. Luke to say that the Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour had not first been dipped before dinner, when he meant only washing his hands ? But he does actually say, he marvelled that he was not baptized. _ A plain instance that St. Luke took the word baptized for a more general word than dipped. The English translators express it washed ; but St. Luke's own words are as I have set them down. I know Mr. Gale will stand to this, that when a man's hands or feet are dipped, the man is dipped, (for he does stand to it at p. 145, 146, 153, as was before observed,) and I had rather he should. For then, as I there shewed, he gives up all the cause at once. If that which the Scripture re- quires to be done in baptism be, that the person be dipped; and if he who has any part of his body dipped, (or which Mr. Gale, p. 122. 150, owns to be all one, covered with water,) be dipped ; then we do 12fi A Defence of ty nil of us, dip in baptism, (nay we are ourselves liemerobaptists,) and there is no reason for the separation on that account. If St. Luke by e^airTia-Orj meant tlie washing of hands by putting them in the water, the argument will be as I here urge it. But if he meant, and if the Jews before meals commonly used, washing them by pouring water on them, then there will be still less to be said against this instance. And that this latter was their custom, I brought a plain proof for the times before our Saviour out of the Old Testament; and for the times after him, from the Jewish rabbins, INIaimonides, &c., and from Dr. Pococke arguing out of them. To the proof of the Old Testament, 2 Kings iii. 11, where it is used as an ordinary periphrasis of Elisha's having been a servant or disciple of Elijah, that he poured ivater on the hands of Elijah, he answers, That this was long before our Saviour's time; and great alterations might happen in the mean time : and here he talks of the revolutions of states and kingdoms, and how the Jews had been con- quered by the Babylonians and Romans ; and you must think that they imposed new laws upon them for the ways of washing their hands. He proves also from the Old Testament and the New, that they were an obstinate, bigoted, stitiiiecked race. From whence the reader must conclude, that they would not wash their hands as they should do. Tf this man were to write a large book, he would never want matter. He would alter the translation, and have it to be ' who poured out wat(>r for the hands,' but the History of Infant-baptism. 1J27 Septuagint render it eVi x^'P"^ • ^^^ ®^ ^^^^ ^^^ Latin, super. And so, I doubt not, do all the trans- lations in the world. So that the common sense of mankind, concerning the meaning of a phrase in Scripture, must be altered to serve the purpose of a separation. He talks here of the brasen sea, and counts how many barrels of water it held ; and of the laver in the court of the tabernacle ; and how the priests were to wash their hands and feet thereat ; but he would have it said therein, contrary to the text, and all translations, (which render it e'^ avTov and eiv eo :) but whethersoever it was, what is that to the people's ordinary washing before meals ? Our Saviour, he observes, poured water into a bason, and washed the disciples' feet. Here he tells you what is Greek for a bason, and for the water ; but cannot tell us whether our Saviour put their feet into the bason or not. Nor is it material that he should ; for our question is of washing hands. And that feet also were generally washed by water poured on them, appears probable by our Saviour's way of expressing it, Luc. vii. 44, vSwp e-n-l TroSag fjLov, which properly signifies upo7i my feet. Our Saviour, he says, [p. 165,] poured water into a bason. 'We see the water was not poured on their ' feet, but into the bason.' But does not he know that viTTTtjp commonly signifies those little vessels in fashion of small cisterns, which had a cock to let out or pour water on the hands or feet ? And he him- self cites here Eustathius^, where he says that x^pvi^a g [The passage referred to is on the Odyssey, book I. 136. Xepvi^a 8' diKpiTToXos npo^oco ene)(ev€ (ptpovcra. Where the comment of Eustathius is, ^epi'i/Sn to Kara x^ipos B186. 128 A Defence of the are vessels that pour out water on the hands : though Mr. Gale (by a mistake, which one wouhl think such a man incapable of) translates his words quite contrary, and takes -xepvi^a to mean, not the cisterns, but the water. Tn the text, Mark vii. 3, the Pharisees, and all the Jews, e.rcept theij uash their hands oft, cat not, he would have the word irvyixri to be rendered not oft, but up to the wrist, (and that indeed is what many learned men of late have thought to be the meaning of the word,) or tip to the elbow, (for which he quotes some few); this he concludes *must imply ' dipping.' It was but to say so positively, and in short ; for proof or reason for such conclusion there is none ; since every body knows he can with water poured or running from a cock wash his hands up to the wrist without dipping them. I had said at that place that Dr. Pococke had largely proved out of JNIaimonides and other rabbins, that this washing of hands before meals, used by the Jews, was by water running or poured out of a fievov v8(op. TO S' nvTo riva vScop Koi x^ipovinTpov (pacriu. ThuS Pol- lux likewise interprets both vinrpov and notovmrpov by the water, und Eustathius himself attributes the like sense to iiTTovnrTpov. He then quotes Athenapus as defining npoxoos to be uyyelov tp a TO vSoip' x x^^P^'/^'oi/, and sometimes by xfp''i'^oi>. (See the Lexicographers.) Bishop Maltby, in his edition of Morell's Thesaurus, gives xipvi^ as signifying the water, and x^P^'-^°^ ^he vessel, referring for proof to Homer, Iliad. Q. 302. After all, the argument in the text is not affected by the dispute ; for the word x«P''t/ia does not occur in the passage of St. John referred to.] History of Infant-baptism. 129 vessel or little cistern, or poured by some servant for that purpose. It was ill-fortune that I mentioned this. For it has brought upon Maimonides, and the rabbins, and Dr. Pococke too, a great deal of anger from our author, who thinks himself no mean judge. Dr. Pococke, he says, was a learned gentleman, &;c. ' But really, sir, I should have honoured his parts ' and learning much more, if he had trusted less to ' those fanciful authors the rabbins,' &c. It is pity the doctor could not foresee this ; for surely he would have altered the course of his studies. ' Maimonides,' he says, ' was one of the greatest and most judicious ' that ever appeared among the rabbins ; but a true ' rabbi notwithstanding, and perfectly besotted,' &;c. As for the other rabbins, he will ' say more of them * in another place.' Now allowing that these rab- bins are fanciful and absurd reasoners, (which is indeed their character with men of another size of judgment than our author, and with all men,) and that one would not depend upon them for any mat- ter of moment ; yet can he think that they are not capable of telling what is their own custom in wash- ing their hands? That explication of Trvy/arj in St. Mark, (to signify up to the perek, or ?vri.st,) was never thought of by learned men till they learned from the rabbins that custom of washing their hands in some cases. For the word has naturally no such import. Shall we in our explications of a word in Scripture borrow the notion from a custom of theirs, and yet not believe that they had such a custom ? Or shall we believe them when they say they washed to the wrist, and yet think that they themselves cannot tell how they do it ; by dipping the hand, or pouring water on it ? WALL, VOL. IV. K 130 A Defence ofths He makes a greater matter of the difference be- tween ^airTi^ea-Oai and yepvLTrreLv^ and cannot see that in this very place, Mark vii. 23, as also in the parallel place, Matt. xv. 2, and 20, (which s]>eak of the washing before meals,) the word is -^epviirTeiv. For it is yepcriv dviTTTOi^, and v'nrmvTaL ra? -^eipag, where they speak of the same washing before meals, which St. Lnkc describes by ef^mrTiaOt]. And Dr. Pococke both says himself, and quotes Beza saying the same, that (SaTTTi^ea-Oai here in St. Luke means the same as XovecrOai and yepviirreiv, to ivash, or to wash the hands. And that, ' since that washing of the hands might * be done, either by putting them in the water, or by * pouring water on them ; there is (here in the text * of St. Luke) a word used, e^a-wTia-Qr], which com- ' prebends both the one and the other of those ' ways.' He says at last. Page 167, That I have abused Dr. Pococke in my quotation of his words ; yet he does not deny the words which I cited, to be as T cited them ; nor that be does in a great part of that long chapter shew at large from the rabbins, that this pouring of water was the Jews' ordinary way of washing their hands : but only, that he observes (as he does indeed) that a Jew might, if he pleased, instead of pouring on water, put his hands into the water ; and that it is likely enough that some of them did : and that the word ^aiTTiCeaBai does comprehend both of these ways. ' For,' says the doctor, ' though ^a-TrTi^earOai does ' indeed especially {pro'cipuc) suit to that washing * which is by immersion ; yet that it does not neces- * sarily mean that, nor is used only for that, I think * is plain from that which we read in Luke xi. History of Infant-baptism 131 38. * The Pharisee marvelled that ov Trpoorou e^air- This quotation, which he brings to confront that which I brought, is one that I might have well added to mine. For it shews the doctor's sense most plainly, both concerning the matter in general, (that to baptize does not necessarily signify to dip,) and also its acceptation in this particular text. But of these last words of his, wherein he appeals to this text, Mr. Gale says, [p. 169,] ' It is a down- ' right begging of the question, to instance in the * very case disputed :' (oh ! the man's logic :) as if Dr. Pococke had wrote that book in a dispute be- tween himself and ]\Ir. Gale, (who was not then born,) about the meaning of that word in that text. Where- as he brings it in as a plain text, to explain another, on which he had been discoursing. Mr. Gale has the courao-e thus to conclude this debate concerning Dr. Pococke's opinion, at Page 170. ' It may be fairly gathered from the ' doctor's words, that in Luke xi. 38, and Mark vii. 4, * ^airrlZeaQai does naturally and principally signify to ' wash the hands by dipping, which is all I desire,' &c. Now whoever shall read the doctor's words, (even as they stand in Mr. Gale's quotation, much more in those which I produced, and much more in the place itself,) and shall not perceive the doctor to say that ^a-Tnl^ea-Oat, though it is for the most part used for such washing as is by dippivig, yet it is not always so used, and particularly not in tins text of Luke xi. 38, I would advise him to go to some private academy. And I should be sorry to have any reader, to h [Not. Miscell. c. 9, p. 397.] K 2 132 J Defence of t/w ^vhom it may not be safely left to judge whether any or all of these exceptions of Mr. Gale against this text do take off the force of the proof, that St. Luke, speaking of a man as baptized when only his hands arc icas/tcd, docs use the word in such a sense as does not include in its signification the dipping of the person spoken of. It was however necessary that this paragraph (on which INIr. Gale owns he has been very long) should end as the rest do, with a trium})h, (as here, ' in fine, * what the doctor says from the rabbins, &c., makes * nothing for JNIr. Wall, but rather against him,') or else how should his ignorant readers applaud, and say, ' That's brave for our side!' The next instance of a proof that baptism in Scripture is used for other washings beside dipping, taken from jNIark vii. 4, (which I had just mention- ed in two lines, but several learned men have largely insisted on,) he, after his arrogant manner, treats with great contempt, and, at Page 171, wonders what I mean by producing it. St. Mark is there reciting how the Pharisees and all the Jews do (among other traditions, which, he says, they received to hold) hold the baptisms of cups , and pots, brasen vessels, and tables ; which our English do rightly translate, the washing of cups, &c., but St. Mark's word is baptisms of them. Now some of these things may be conceived to be put into the water when washed, but some of them cannot. And yet St. Alark calls both one way of washing and the other, the baptism of them. And so he recites our Saviours own expression of the same thing, ver. 8. History of Infant-baptism. 133 What the rest of them do oppose to this proof, I know not. Mr. Gale opposes nothing material, but (what he opposes to every proof) confidence, and some insulting expressions. He cites a place of Scripture nothing relating to this case^ but to what the Jews were to do by the command of God, Levit. xi. 32, whereas St. Mark and our Saviour at this place are speaking of what they did (over and beside the command of God) by their own supersti- tion, and from the tradition of their elders : Teach- ing (as our Saviour expresses it, at ver. 7, 8,) for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradi- tion of men, as the baptisms of pots and cups ; and many other such like things ye do. What God commanded at the place cited by Mr. Gale, Levit. xi. 32, was only in case of any vessel that happened to be under any legal defilement by the carcass of a mouse, or any other unclean creature falling in it. And that, if it were of wood, raiment, skin, or sack, was to be put into the water ; if it were earthen, to be broken ; if it were of brass, or any other metal that would abide the fire, they were (as is ordered. Numb. xxxi. 23.) to make it go through the fire, and sprinkle on it the water of separation. So that brasen or silver vessels, pots or cups, were not commanded in the law to be put into water at all. And consequently Mr. Gale argues against him- self, if he apply this legal purification of them (which had no other use of water but sprinkling) to that which St. Mark calls the baptizing of them. But besides, this is not the case our Saviour speaks of. Does Mr. Gale think that he would have blamed the Pharisees or Scribes for doing any 134 A Defence of the thing of tliis, which in such a case of iincleaniiess was commanded by God ? The washings or baj3- tisms here spoken of, were such as had been devised by the Jews themselves, to be used without the case of legal uncleanness, as often (as it seems by the context) as those pots, vessels, or tables were used at any meal. At which times they were much more careful to have the outside of the cups clean, than they were of the inside ; as our Saviour told the Pharisee, at whose dinner he sat, and who marvelled at his omission of baptism or washing. So difterent are the cases that are spoken of in Le- viticus, from that here spoken of by St. ^lark. And yet Mr. Gale, api)lying them to this, urges that he ' has the express word of God for it.' He quotes here, p. 172, a few words in my book, just at the same rate, and with the same misappli- cation that he does the Scrijiture. He says of me, ' He allows that the Jews did immerse the thing ' or person to be washed.' There are indeed those words at the place he quotes, exjn-essing in short what was more fully spoken of in my Introduction, <§. 7. Whoever reads those places will see, that the case there spoken of is that of any ' person or thing ' which was by the Jews' law to have a tevillah, or * solenm washing, their custom was to do it three ' times over.' What is that case of a vessel which by God's law was to be ])ut into the water, to this superstitious washing of vessels or tables before meals ? There is not a more j)alpable proof of the in- sincerity of any writer, tlian when he (juotcs some words of Scrijiture, or of any author to one sense, which, if one turn to tlu^ place, do there plainly History of Infant-baptism. 135 appear to be meant in another sense. As for my words, it is no great matter ; but God's word is not to be so used, nor ever is, unless by men that write for a side, or for some wicked purpose. I mentioned another instance in the same text of St. Mark, where he says, of the Pharuees and all the Jews., When they come from market, except they be baptized, they eat not. Where common sense teaches us to understand it, (as our translators do express it,) except they wash, they eat not. For it is inconceivable, and an impracticable thing for men that live near a market, and have frequent oc- casions to go in and out, especially servants and officers of the market, who must go into it several times in a day, to undress and dip themselves as often as they eat. So that St. Mark, speaking of this baptizing as used by all the Jews, does plainly use the word for such washing as is without dipping. And the Jews themselves, who used these washings, do not pre- tend that they used in this case any other but such washings as are without dipping ; for which I quoted Dr. Pococke. Most of Mr. Gale's readers in- deed do not know who he was, nor how unexception- able an evidence his verdict is, concerning any prac- tice of the Jews ; but learned men do know it ; and Mr. Gale himself, a few pages before, viz. j). 166, had confessed, that ' he has taken a world of la- ' bour, &c., and has shewn himself very well versed ' in the rabbinical writings, which he understood, ' perhaps, as well as Maimonides did.' And yet now mind Mr. Gale's answer here to all this. Page 172, &c. He owns that Dr. Pococke is po- sitive in this, that they who washed coming from 13() A Defence of the market did not dip themselves all over ; and that ' he calls the whole body of rabbins to his as- ' sistance,' &c. ; but answers, ' That all this is but ' light and inconsiderable evidence, to build all on ' the authority of a thousand rabbins,' &c., and so he goes on to talk of * the silly whimsies of these ' men,' and the insufficiency of their evidence. If the question were about what we (m(fht to be- lieve or do, or what the Jews themselves cmtjlit to have believed or done, or what washings they ought to have observed ; and any body had quoted the rabbins, or set any value on their judgment for that ; this answer, shewing the shallowness of their Judgment, had been pertinent. But the matter then before the doctor, and now before us, is not what the Jews omjlit to have held or practised, but what they did practise. It is the ' silly whimsies' of these men, that our Saviour and St. ]Mark in this text are speaking of, and which Dr. Pococke in that chapter does explain. If in a question of what ou(jht to be held or practised, one should lay any stress on the opinions of the Quakers or Muggle- tonianSy the argument will be weak enough ; but in a question of what they do hold, the proof must be taken from themselves and from their writings. And in this case to answer by saying, ' They are an ' injudicious sort of people ;' would be so trifling and imi)ertinent an answer, that I question whether any rabbi or cpiaker ever made a weaker. Though I am weary, and would be short, yet T must si)end two or three lines in entreating the reader to mind the absurdity and inconsequence of this way of arguing or answering. [The rabbins are a fabulous and whimsical sort of men ; therefore History of Infant-haptistii. 137 they cannot tell us what whimsies they themselves do hold.] Because Mr. Gale, in some places before this, and in some after it, spends a great deal of time in shewing the vanity of the Jewish writers ; where his argument must run to that effect, or else (as the reader will observe) it signifies nothing to the matter he is answering. We do all grant the Pharisees, rabbins, and generality of the Jews to have been a superstitious and vain people. St, Mark says, that among other superstitions, they baptized upon coming from market to meals. If they, as superstitious and whimsical as they were, did not dip themselves in that case, then it plainly follows, that St. Mark does use the word in the case of such w^ashing as is not dipping ; and the enlarging on their folly does not avoid the force of the argument. But Mr, Gale produces two writers, who, in their comments on the place, do say that the Jews did in such cases dip their whole body. As there is nothing in natural philoso])hy so absurd, but that some philosopher has said it ; so I think there is hardly any interpretation of Scripture so impro- bable, but that one may find here and there some one or two commentators that have given it. The magazine of Pole's Synopsis has furnished him with two for his purpose. The first is Vatablus. Mr. Gale says, p. 173, ' Against them [the rabbins, and those that build ' on their authority] and the doctor I produce ' Vatablus, a man so singularly versed in the rab- ' binical writings,' &c. An apt qualification ! Did his skill in the writings of the rabbins (which was just now good for nothing) qualify him to give an 188 A Defence of the interpretation concerning their practice, contrary to what they themselves do all give ? But the truth is, that Vatablus never wrote any comments at all, on this or any other part of Scripture ; only as he read his lectures, some hearers took notes of what he said, and afterwards published them, in which case, what mistakes and blunders do happen, every one knows. The next is, Grotius in loc. concerning whom I had largely shewn by several instances, ])art i. chap. 8. §. 7, and cha]). 11. §. 9, and part ii. chap. 11. §. 9, what a i)artiality he every where discovers for the antij)a3dobaptists, even to the manifest altering the sense of the authors which he cites. It is the less wonder, if in his ordinary expositions he wrested the sense of one text to their side. But what is chiefly to be regarded in any such case of interpreters, differing in their opinions or expositions of any particular point, is, to mind which of them appears to have studied that particular matter most. Though Grotius was a man of uni- versal learning, yet he, speaking his sense in a transient way, in the ordinary course of his ex- positions, in few M'ords, and without any proof given, is not to be dei)ended upon for any par- ticular thing, so much as one that has a])])lied himself to the study of that particular. A\'hich Dr. Pococke is known to have done, and to have written largely and accurately on that subject of the customs of the .lews, and })articularly their washings, ])roving every thing by many testimonies ; yet after all, Mr. Gale concludes as he uses to do, * These authorities are vastly beyond Mr. AWiU's ' (J notation.' History of Infant-haptism. 139 But he will prove by other ways, viz. from an- tiquity and from the sacred text, that the Jews coming from market, dipped themselves before they eat. His readers must blush for him, to see how he does it. Upon the place of Scripture which he produces, he puts a broad and palpable abuse ; and to call it the ' sacred text' while he is doing so, renders the abuse the more profane ; he says, ' The priests were ' forbid to eat, unless they first washed their flesh in ' water.' [p. 174.] That, if it were true, is nothing to the market ; and if the priests had done so, that is nothing to the people. It is all the Jews (i. e. at least, the generality of the people) of whom St. Mark speaks. And he speaks not of any command of Scripture which they kept, but a custom of their oAvn. But mind the text to which he refers, (for he dared not set down the words,) Levit. xxii. 6, where all that is commanded is, that the priests, when they had touched any creeping thing, or any man, or thing, that was unclean by the dead, should not eat of the holy things, till they had washed their flesh in water. Now what is all this to the peoj^le, who had not touched any creeping thing, &c., eating, not holy but ordinary food Avhen they came from market ? The antiquity that he brings is nothing but this : that there was a sect of men among the Jcavs, who bathed themselves every day, called therefore hemerohaptists : which has no connexion with the thing we are talking of, but only in Pole's Synopsis it follows next after the forecited quotations out of Vatablus and Grotius ; and Mr. Galoj though he 140 A Defence of the was come to the end of all that was pertinent there, yet would still write on. He values himself and his readers so little, as to spend time in quoting four or five authors for this, (which I think are all quoted by Pole too,) which is a commonly known thing. And it may be collected from the author's ascribing this j)ractice as peculiar to this sect, that the gene- rality of the Jews did not do so. He quotes indeed '^Fertullian, as saying, ' Though the Jews daily wash ' every i>art of the body, yet they are never clean.' But he names not the place. And if Tcrtullian do any where say so, it must be accounted only an ovcrlashing expression ; saying of the Jews in general, Avhat was true only of some one sect of them. Page 175. He argues yet farther from the order of St. JNIark's words. He had said in the words next before, the Jews^ e.vcept they wash their hands [oft, as the English, and, I think, all translations read it ; or, ftp to the twist, as some learned men of late expound it] eat not, &c., and then adds, and tvheu they come from market, except they he baptized, &c. Now Mr. Gale thinks that St. iSIark, after he had said, verse 3, They eat not, except they wash their hands ap to the irrist, would not have j)resently added. And when they come from market, they eat not, except they be baptized, if he had not meant something more by this latter washing, which he names haptizincf, than by the former, of washing their hands. This observation, I confess, does confirm me in the opinion that the translations are right as they are ; and that how true soever the account given by learned men from the rabbins may be, that History of Infant-baptism. 1 41 the Jews in some cases wash up to the wrist, yet that St. Mark had not any intention here of ex- pressing that by the word xu^/x^, (which has not naturally any such signification,) but that he meant by it, often, dilicjeiitli/, throughly, or the like, as almost all men till of late have expounded it. And the sense and order of the words is natural : thus the Pharisees and generality of the Jews have a superstitious opinion, that they must not eat with- out washing their hands often [over and over, or carefully], and they place religion in this; holding it as a tradition from their elders ; and particularly when they come from market, they must Avash (or be washed) before they eat. Mr. Gale here, to prove that they washed their whole body when they came from market, runs as far as to the custom of the Mahometans. And yet even in their customs does not find at last any such thing. They, he says, before they go to prayers, do wash the face, the hands, the feet ; and upon greater and extraordinary pollutions, the whole body. And so did the Jews by God's command wash the whole body upon some great pollutions : nor would our Saviour have blamed them for that. But nei- ther Jews nor Mahometans do it upon a return from market to eating ; nor does his author pretend that they do. Page 177. He has yet one shift more, to evade this text ; but so wretched an one, as shews how hardly he is driven ; viz. that the words of St. Mark should be translated another way, without any rela- tion to washing either body or hands, and be under- stood thus : ' The things which they buy at market, ' they eat not, except they baptize them ;' that is, (as 142 A Defence of tJtp he would have it,) dip them. And then he vaunts after his conceited Ihshion : ' If this be the sense of * tlie words, they are directly against Mr. Wall,' (thus he briuf^s in my name to all his absurd conceits,) ' for nobody will make a question how herbs are • washed.' But will any body make a question mIic- ther other thins's beside herbs were sold at market ? He should have altered St. Mark's words more yet, and made him sjieak of a herb-market. Does he think that wheat, meal, honey, milk, salt, &c., were dipped in water before they were eaten ? Tt is a great abuse of Scripture, to put such absurd interpretations upon it, merely to serve a turn ; and because one is resolved not to take the texts in their plain sense. But, however, this paragra[)li must conclude as all the rest do. Whatever there be in the middle of them, they always end well. As the last words of this are, ' Either way I gain my point.' A few such victories will undo a better cause than his is. And the evasion, that he here again repeats and uses whenever he is at a dead lift, (that the Jews coming from market were dipped, if their hands only were dipped,) does, as I shewed before, plainly give it up. T had cited also Heb. ix. 10, where the apostle says, the service of the Jewish tabernacle consisted only in meats and drinks and divers ujashings^ &c. divers Jmptisms, i^iacpopoi /3uxTy. Presently this writer falls into a fit of slighting and vilifying in his arrogant way that great bishop and martyr, as arguing after a ' very ' frivolous manner,' &c. Whoever reads it Mill see that St. Cyprian's rea- sons, ' That the main thing in ba]itism in God's sight * is the dedicating the person to God and his Gospel; * that the contagion of sin is not washed off by the ' same measures that the dirt of the skin is, &c., so * that there should be a necessity for a large pool. History of Infant-baptism . 157 ' &c. It is another way that the breast of a believer * is washed ; that the mind is sanctified,' &c, ; are much to the same purpose as St. Peter's saying, Baptism saves us, not the putting aumy of the filth of the flesh, hut &c. And as St. Paul says. The niceties about meats, &c., have not profited those that have been e.vercised therein, but he that in the main things serveth God, is accepted of him ; so St. Cyprian argues, that ' many who are baptized in * sickness, when need so requires, are freed from the * unclean spirit, and do live commendably, &c., and ' do by the increase of faith proceed,' &c. This cer- tainly is the substance, and the quantity of water with wdiicli one is washed, is but the outward cere- mony. Yet our author, beside a great deal of other contemptuous language, says, * he determines the * matter, not only without, but directly contrary to, * the whole tenor of the New Testament.' [p. 214.] As if the ' whole tenor of the New Testament' were about the quantity of water in baptism. But indeed this way of braving, hectoring, and vilifying any adversary, (be it a Cyprian, or be it a Quaker, it is all one with him,) is the best tool that this disputant has. Take this from him, and a much meaner man than a Father might stand the brunt of his argu- ments. He, at Page 217, confronts St. Cyprian with an argu- ment from one of the forementioned texts that speaks of burial. Rom. vi. 2, 3 ; So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we are buried with him by bap- tism unto death. This, he says, * is as plain as words * can make it ; that all without exception,' &c. He is fain to patch two propositions into one to 158 A Defence of the make his argument. But the direct answer is, that St. Paul hatl not in his aim there the way or manner of ba])tism. And therefore the phrase, so many as, so far as it respects the metaphor of burial, is used (as the word all in Scripture very often is) in a sense that includes the generalit?/, but not always all ivithout ed'ccption. Page 218. He excepts against the quotations, which 1 had brought from the ancients for baptism by affusion in cases of sickness or other necessity, as being too late, one hundred and fifty years after the apostles. This, for want of any better defence, and because he cannot deny the facts, is said only to make a colour in the eyes of an ignorant reader. For all men of learning do know, and he himself knows, that this is an early date for any quotation ; and especially for any thing that concerns the ceremonial parts of religion ; the few books that are ancienter, being taken up with matters of faith, practice, and exhortations to constancy, &c., too much to have any thing in them of the quantity of water used in the baptism of sick people. He himself will fill his pages with authors much later than St. Cyprians time, and boast of them, if they speak of baptism by im- mersion, as he does in this chapter. And INIr. Gale, p. 538, 568, recommends the evidence of the first three centuries to determine this controversy. Page 220. He observes, as I had done before him, that men baptized in sickness by affusion, were, by the rules of those times, not admitted, if they reco- vered, to holy orders. And makes a very ignorant blunder in translating a passage in Petavius to that purpose, ibid. History of Infant-haftism. 159 Petavius says, They that were so baptized, were accounted irregular. This author not knowing the meaning of the word (though it be of very common use in church-laws, to signify one incapable of orders) translated it, ' such were thought irregularly bap- ' tized.' That ran in the man's head. He should also have owned the true reason, why such were irregular, not for the manner of their baptism, but because they would not take baptism till they were affrighted by approaching death. This is both by some of the ancients, as I shewed, de- clared to be the reason, and is of itself of such weight as to make a good reason. For there is not nigh so good ground to hope well of a profes- sion of faith and repentance first made in a fright, and by necessity, as there is of a voluntary one. Whereas the other is but a ceremonial difference. And whereas he argues, p. 220, that the canon of Neoca^sarea which I cited, being eighty years after that time, could not influence the judgment of the church at that time, I grant it. But that canon did not enjoin that as a new law, but esta- blished it as an ancient canon or rule of the church. Which Mr. Gale might have observed from the words of Eusebius which himself cites, who speak- ing of the times when Novatian's case was debated, says, eirei fit] e^ov »/i/ rov ev KXivrj Sia vocrov irepf^Qevra €19 KXijpov riva yevea-Bm. ' It was not lawful that any < one, who by reason of sickness was baptized in his ' bed by perfusion, should be taken into any office of ' the clergy.' He might have seen this to be their reason by what himself cites of the history of Novatus written by Cornelius (if he had understood, or would have 160 A Defence of the rightly applied the words). Cornelius there gives an account to Fabius, how this Novatus had been a heathen ; and that the occasion of his believing was, his being possessed with a devil for a long time ; in which he being something helped by the exorcisms (or prayers) of some Christian ])riests, would be baptized before he died. And having gone on to tell Mhat sort of Christian he made in his conversation afterward, a trickish, juggling, and forsworn fellow, &c., and afterward returning to speak of his baptism, which he took in that fright of approaching death, and had so abused afterward, he says, ' He received it by affusion in his bed, as ' he lay, e'/ ye -^p)] Xeyeiv toiovtov elXtjcpcfai. If it be fit * to say, that such a one as he received it at all.' Where the stress of Cornelius' doubt or qnestion concerning his baptism is plainly grounded on the ill temper of the man's heart, and his receiving it by fright and necessity, and his ill life afterward, and not on the manner of Mashing. I gave here the instance of St. Laurence out of Walafrid Strabo, baptizing with a pitcher of water in a case of necessity ; and of Basilides out of Euse- bius. To which he says nothing. Neither did I say that Novatian's case is the earliest, (as he falsely quotes my words,) but that that and the rest there given are some of the earliest. Page 221. He brings in Constantine's baptism to no manner of purpose. For though he says of his own head that Eusebius affirms, that ' he was not ' baptized in his bed, but, as was usual, in the church, ' called Alarff/rinm Christi, in the ordinary way ;' there is nothing of that matter said in Eusebius, only that he went to the suburbs of Nicomedia, History of Infant- baptism. 161 called together the bishops, desired of them baptism, oi Se TO. vo/uLifxa reXowre?, &c. ' And they performing ' the ceremonies, put in execution the Divine ordi- * nance, and made him partaker,' &c. oa-a yj>rj irpoa-- SiacTTeiXdjuevoi : which I render, ' having enjoined (or ' required of him) such things as ought to be en- ' joined,' i. e. the baptismal professions. Now from which of these expressions he con- cludes the immersion, I know not. I am afraid, because Eusebius says in the next words, 'and so ' Constantino the only man of all the emperors that ' ever were ^pia-ToO /xaprvpioig avayei'vco/mevo?, being ' regenerated in (or by) the testimonies (or ordi- ' nances) of Christ, was baptized ;' this translator concludes from /maprvpioig ^piarov that he was bap- tized in a church called Martyrium Christi (which name whether any church at Nicomedia had, I know not). We must not suspect such a thing of Mr. Gale ; but I question, as I said, whether this letter be his. But if it were so, (as I think it probable he was baptized in a church,) might it not be by per- fusion, if he was very weak ? Neither was he so weak then, but that he had lately travelled from Constantinople thither. If he was baptized in a church, that makes a good proof that he was not baptized by immersion, but as sick men were wont, by affusion of water on his face. For Mr. Bingham has well proved by several ancient testimonies, that in those times the KoXufxjS^Opai, the cisterns or pools made for people to go into at their baptism, were not in the church, but in an out-building, called ^aTTTia-T^piov^ or cpcjoTKTTrjpiov, at sonic distance from the church. And indeed it cannot well be conceived ^ [Compare what is said at vol. ii. p. 385.] WALL, VOL. IV. M 162 A Defence of the that such large ponds of water as they ordinarily had for hundreds of men to go in at a time, could conveniently be made in the body of the church. Page 226. He brings in an English council in the year 816, (which I had helped him to^) that children should be dipped in the font. And pre- sently adds, ' But what need is there to urge this V None at all, since he wilfully left out the word infants. Page 228, He makes a great reach to fetch in a compliment (which I take to be a begging one) for bishop Burnet. He takes a saying of his, ' That * the danger of dipping in cold climates may be a ' very good reason for changing the form of baptism ' to sprinkling.' And says, ' Tliis excuse is now ' become very common, and has gathered con- * siderable force by being used by men of his lord- * ship's good sense and learning.' Fulsome ! was it ever omitted by any, who, before he or the bishop were born, have pleaded for perfusion ? As for sprinkling indeed, I am content that he should be counted one of the first of the church of England, who ever recommended it. After all, he brings not one woi'd of refutation of the bishop's I'easou from the coldness of the climate. There is nothing else here, save that at Page 226 he repeats, as he had three or four times before, that slander on me, which I mentioned, that I * do pretend that baptism may be adminis- ' tercd indifferently in any manner.' I think he judges, that a false thing by being often repeated will become true. I have always held and taught, that where it may with safety be administered in » [Sec vol. ii. p. 395,396.] History of Infant-baptism. 163 that way of dipping, which St. John and the apo- stles in those hot countries used, that way ought to be preferred. In cases of haste, want of a quantity of water, or danger to health, 'pouring of water to be sufficient ; and indeed in the case of danger of health, the best way ; for God will have mercy and not sacrifice. As for sprinkling,, I say, as Mr. Blake "^ did at its first coming up in England, ' Let * them defend it that use it.' Our Saviour gave his last supper in unleavened bread. Many churches do therefore prefer that. But all (even those that use it) will agree that, when that cannot conveniently be had, it is sufficient to receive it in common bread. That common bread ought to be as fine and white as conveniently can be gotten, (for such, no doubt, the passover bread was,) but who will say, that in cases of necessity a coarser sort is not sufficient ? The essence of the symbols, as to religious use, and our Saviour's true meaning, does not consist in these things. The Scripture recommends pure (or clean) water for baptism, Heb. x. 22, and such, no doubt, is the fittest. Yet the antipsedobaptists, who stand so much on the quantity, are easily satisfied with the quality of the water; when (whether for necessity, or choice, I know not) they use the water at Hors- lydown^, and such like puddled places. Shall any '" [See some account of Mr. Blake, a writer of the age of king Charles I. at vol. ii. p. 402.] 1 [Horsleydown is a district of the borough of Southwark : it anciently belonged to the parish of St. Olave's, but was formed into a distinct parish in the year 1 733. It seems that the anabaptists had fixed themselves here in considerable numbers. In the year 1775 there were four M 2 164 A Defence of the one start up a new schism among them, and en- deavour to persuade some of their ignorant people that their baptism is invaUd, because their bodies were washed not with imre water, (M'hich the Scrip- ture speaks of,) but dirty ? Page 227. This cliapter conckides, like all the rest, with a boasting triumph. ' Thus have I made ' it plain — that the word (BaTrrl'^co always signifies * only to dip or plunge' And he has the confidence to say, that he has proved it ' from the constant use ' of it in the New Testament.' Whereas he has not brought one word of sense to weaken the proofs to the contrary, that I brought from the New Testa- ment ; and particularly that from Luke xi. But he has a new way of gaining his point, as he calls it. He sets up an image of a judge of his own making, (whom he calls 67"r,) and to him he makes a bow, and says, ' You see, sir, that I proved it all.' Then the image, I suppose, gives a gracious nod, and so the case is decided. Should not the antipaedobaptists rather set up somebody that might write, as IMr. Tombes and Mr. Stennet did, better sense in more modest expressions ; stronger reasons with less declamation? Would not that convince any rational inquirer sooner than this vaunting and insulting way, which always puts more in t4ie conclusion than was proved by the premises or middle terms of the argu- ment ; a way that never prevails u])on any but weak reasoners, and men prejudiced, right or wrong, for a side? meeting-houses of that persuasion. In 17 14 a school was esta- blished by Protestant dissenters of different denominations, for the children of jjoor persons. — Manning and Bray's History of Surrey, vol. iii. p. 613.] History of Infant-baptism. 165 If this letter were writ by another, and sent to Mr. Gale, he accounted it imperfect, as wanting an ornament with which all his are graced ; and that is, a fit of railing at the clergy of the church. He would not have it omitted here, and therefore has inserted it even after the foresaid conclusion. He observes. Page 227, 228, ' The clergy allow that dijiping * was the ancient manner in all common cases * at least and have wished that this custom might * be again restored among us here in England, as it ' continued till about queen Elizabeth's time.' And then presently adds two falsehoods. One, the forementioned one repeated again. * Why, after all these concessions, do they pretend ' it is indifferent V To order dijDping in all cases where the party may well bear it ; and pouring of water, only where he cannot, (as the church of England does,) is not to pretend it indifferent. The other follows it at the heels. ' They continue ' in the constant use and practice of aspersion, &c., ' and defend it in opposition to immersion.' To defend aspersion in opposition to immersion, is as much as to say or maintain, that aspersion is fitting, is lawful, &c., but immersion is not : or, to refuse or dissuade people from the dipping of their children, though the parents own them to be able to endure it. Which whether any clergyman in England has been ignorant enough to do, I know not. If he has, he has gone contrary to his promise of conformity to the liturgy. But to affix this upon the clergy in general, as he does, is for certain a notorious reproach and untruth. Beside two lesser 166 A Defence of the untruths in that one sentence ; one in saying, aspcrsiou (which the cliurch does not allow in any case) instead of perfusion. The other, when speaking of the clergy in general, he calls it their ' constant use and practice.' Whereas several clergy- men have prevailed on some of their people to have their children dipped in baptism, as the rubric directs; and some of the people have of themselves desired it, and it has been practised accordingly^. J^ut none of these expressions have as yet come up to Mr. Gale's usual strain. Therefore after much rambling talk on this matter, he at Page 230 expresses it thus ; ' So that, notwith- * standing their pretences, it is to be feared the ' clergy are a great cause of the corruption, and * its continuance.' And in the contents he says positively, ' They in reality obstruct its (the ancient ' practice) being revived.' [p. 189.] That I take to be Mr. Gale's own language, and it resembles the style of an observator^\ or fyiux) post. To what he would here beg, that we should take ^aTTTw, to dip or dye, instead of (^aiTTiCco the Scripture word, I gave answer before. Now 1 have gone through the work that this writer has dragged me into, by putting my name to the top of his pages, and here and there into his reasonings about matters in which I was concerned o [See vol. ii. )). 401 , where Dr. Wall relates that he himself had in one instance administered baptism by immersion, with the parents' consent.] P [Probably the allusion is to a political publication of Roger L'Estrange, which under the title of ' The Obscrvator' was issued during the years 1684 to 1687, amounting altogether to three moderate folio volumes.] History of Infant-baptism. 167 as little as possible. And almost half his book is over before he comes to speak of infant-baptism; the history whereof was my only subject. And he has gained this advantage, that he has made me weary before any trial of that begins. If I do give any of my sentiments concerning the difficulties which the clergy do find in bringing the people to that way of baptism, which the rubric orders in the case of children that may well endure it : I would not have it taken as spoken in answer to this man's insolent demand. For I think that when one in his station does in a malapert and factious manner demand of his superiors an account of the reason of their actions, as if he were a bishop or a judge over them, (as he does here ; ' Why don't * they take proper methods ? Why do they continue,' &c.,) he deserves no other answer than such as the Pharisees used to have from our Saviour to their haughty and illmeant interrogatives. But if I may be admitted in a submissive manner to take this opportunity (which is the last I can have) to give to my brethren of the clergy a scheme of my thoughts on this difficulty : I must own in the first place that many of the clergy seem to be of the opinion of the late bishop of Salisbury, (whom Mr. Gale here quotes,) that the coldness of our climate is a good reason to change dipping into {sprinMing he says, but a respect for the rubric would have directed him to say) pouring of water, in the case of all children weak or strong, and of all weathers, warm or cold ; for so they seem to mean. To these brethren I have no more to say, than to propose these few things to their consideration. 168 A Defence of the That our climate is no colder than it was for those thirteen or fourteen hundred years from the beginning of Christianity here, to queen Elizabeth's time ; and not near so cold as Muscovy, and some other countries where they do still di'p their children in baptism, and find no inconvenience in it. That the apjmrent reason that altered the custom, was, not the coldness of the climate, but the imita- tion of Calvin, and the church of Geneva, and some others thereabouts. That our reformers and compilers of the liturgy (even of the last edition'i of it) were of another mind. As appears both by the express order of the rubric itself; and by the prayer used just before baptism, ' Sanctify this water, &c., and grant that this child ' now to be baptized therein,' &c. ; (if they had meant that pouring should have always, or most ordinarily have been used, they would have said THEREWITH ;) and by the definition given in the Catechism of the outward visible sign in baptism ; ' \yater, wherein the person is baptized.' I know that in one edition it was said, * is dipped or sprinkled ' with it.' I know not the history of that edition ; but as it is a late one, so it was not thought fit to be continued. The old edition had the prayer beforesaid in these words, ' baptized in this water.' That if it be the coldness of the air that is feared ; a child brought in loose blankets, that may be pre- sently i)ut ott' and on, need be no longer naked, or very little longer than at its ordinary dressing and undressing; not a quarter or sixth ])art of a minute. If the coldness of the water, there is no reason, 4 [Viz. in Charles the Second's reign, i66i.] History of Infant-baptism. 169 from the nature of the thing ; no order or command of God or man, that it should be used cold ; but as the waters, in which our Saviour and the primitive Christians in those hot countries which the Scrip- ture mentions, were baptized, were naturally warm by reason of the climate ; so if ours be made warm, they will be the liker to them. As the inward and main part of baptism is God's washing and sancti- fying the soul, so the outward symbol is the wash- ing of the body, which is as naturally done by warm water as cold. It may, I sup])Ose, be used in such degree of warmth as the parents desire. 2. As to those of the clergy who are satisfied themselves, and do in their own minds and opinions approve of the directions of the liturgy, and would willingly bring their people to the use of it ; it is too apparent what difficulties lie in the way. So that this quarreller has no ground in his assuming way to demand, ' Why they do continue,' &c. The difficulty of breaking any custom which has got possession among the body of the people, (though that custom be but of two or three generations,) is known and obvious. And there being a necessity of leaving it to the parents' judgment, whether their child may well endure dipping or not, they are very apt to think or say not : and there is no help for it. For none, I think, will pretend that the minister should determine that, and dip the child whether they will or not. He can but give his opinion, the judgment must be theirs ; and they are for doing as has been of late usual. But there are, beside this general, two particular obstacles, which it may be fit to mention. 1. One is, from that part of the people in any 170 A Defence of the parish, who are preshi/terianly inclined. As the pKvitnn party brought in this alteration ; so they are very tenacious of it : and as in other church matters, so in this particularly, they seem to have a settled antipathy against the retrieving of the ancient customs. Calvin was, I think, (as I said in my book '',) the first in the world that drew up a form of liturgy that prescribed pouring loater on the infant, absolutely, without saying any thing of dipping. It was (as Mr. Walker^ has shewn) his admirers in England, who in queen Elizabeth's time brought 'pouring into ordinary use, which be- fore was used only to weak children. But the suc- ceeding preslnjterians in England, about the year 1644, (when their reign began,) went farther yet from the ancient way, and instead of pouring, brought into use in many places sprinkling : de- claring at the same time against all use of fonts, baptisteries, godfathers, or any thing that looked like the ancient way of baptizing. And as they brought the use of the other sacrament to a great and shameful infrequency, (which it is found difficult to this day to reform,) so they brought this of bap- tism into a great disregard. Now I say, a minister in a parish, where there are any considerable number inclined to this way, will find in them a great aversion to this order of the rubric. They are hardly jirevailed on to leave off that scandalous custom of having their children, though never so well, baptized out of a bason or porringer in a bed- chamber, hardly persuaded to bring them to church ; r [See vol. ii. p. 400.] s [An extract from Mr. Walkers publication on this subject is given at vol. ii.p. 398. 401.] History of Infant-baptism. 171 much farther from having them dipped, though never so able to endure it. 2. Another struggle will be with the midwives and nurses, &c. These will use all the interest they have with the mothers, (which is very great,) to dissuade them from agreeing to the dipping of the child. I know no particular reason, unless it be this. A thing which they value themselves and their skill much upon, is, the neat dressing of the child on the christening day * ; the setting all the trimming, the pins, and the laces in their right order. And if the child be brought in loose clothes, which may presently be taken off for the baptism, and put on again ; this pride is lost. And this makes a reason. So little is the solemnity of the sacrament regarded by many, who mind nothing but the dress, and the eating and drinking. But the minister must endeavour to prevail with some of his people who have the most regard for religion, and possibly their example may bring in the rest. The consequence that would follow from bap- tizing children ordinarily by this old way, would, I believe, be this ; that the schism of antipaedo- baptism would dwindle and cease. My reasons are. One which I mentioned in my book, that most of the people that have scruples about their baptism, (as far as I have observed ; and it has been my fortune to be often exercised in discoursing with such,) do not near so much question the validity of their baptism, for that it was received in infancy, as they do for that they were not dipped, or put ^ [See some observations on this point at vol. ii. p. 405.] 172 A Defence of the into tlie water"; for Avliich they see so clear ex- aiii])los in Scrii)ture. But what is far more considerable than any ex- perience of mine, is the observation that may be made from the history of this schism, wherever it has arisen. The Greek church, in all the branches of it, in Euroj)e, Asia, /Egypt, and YEthiopia, which has always preserved the custom of dipj)ing infants in baptism, that were in health and able to bear it, has accordingly never been molested with any dis- ])utes about infant-ba])tism ; nor ever have any an- tipaidobaptists been heard of among them. In the Latin church, (which is for extent of countries, and, as I think, for number of Christians, much less than the Greeks) as France ^ was the first country that left off dipping in the ordinary baptisms ; so there it was that the first antipaedobaptists in the world (the Petrobrusians about the twelfth century) arose-^. Germany and Holland afterward had their share of trouble with this sect ; but not till they also had, almost generally, left off the dipping of infants. England all this while kept to the old way. And though several times some Dutch anabnptists came over hither during those times, endeavouring to make proselytes here ; yet Foxe the historian in queen Elizabeth's time declares, that he never heard of any Englishman that was perverted by them. So that antii)a'dobai)tism did not begin here while dipping in the ordinary baptisms lasted. Then for two reigns pouring water on the face of the infant was most in fashion, and some few of the people turned antii)aHl()baj)ti!sts, but did not make a sepa- " [See vol. ii. p. 327.] * [See vol. ii. p. 239. 393.] V [^See vol. ii. p. 2^59.] History of Infant-baptism. 1 73 ration for it. They never had any considerable numbers here, till the presbyterian reign began. These men (out of opjiosition to the Church of Eng- land, I think) brought the external part of this sacrament to a less significant symbol than Calvin himself had done, (for he directs pouring of water on the face,) and in most places changed pouring to sprinkling. This scandalized many people, and in- deed it was, and is really scandalous. So partly that, and partly the gap that was then set open for all sects that would, to propagate themselves, gave the rise to this : which I therefore think, as I said, would upon our return to the church of England way, cease. However, they cannot upbraid the pourers or sprinklers with the novelty of that fashion, for, as new as it is, it is older than their religion in England is. This history, with the annals and proofs of it, I gave more largely in my book, part ii. chap. 9- §• 2. CHAP. VI. HE first lays down an absurd supposition, p. 233. If Mr. Wall had argued such and such things, (which things are nonsense,) and then adds, ' Of * the same kind exactly — are the two main founda- ' tions of infant-baptism ; I mean the celebrated * arguments from original sin, and from circumcision.' I would have any one that does not know this au- thor, to guess at the make of his face by this and such-like insolent speeches of his. The Scripture, and our own woful experience, makes us sensible of our original corruption ; which 1 74 ^ Defence of the needs cleansing and forgiveness. And as baptism is the sacrament of cleansing and forgiveness ; the Christians in all a^es have understood it to have that effect in infants, whom the same .Scripture and experience shews to have that corruption innate in them as well as others ; except Pelagius and a few followers of his, who used infant-baptism for other ])urposes. This has been discoursed largely by seve- ral of the ancient Christians ; particularly St. Austin in large volumes. And so likewise the Scripture speaks of our bap- tism, as being the Christian circu?)icisioji, or the circumcision of Christ, Col. ii. And as circumcision belonged to infants, as a seal of entrance into cove- nant with God ; and baptism has the effect of circumcision ; the consequence of its belonging to infants is by Christians, ancient and modern, largely deduced. Now here steps up a new author, who thinks to overthrow these doctrines by mocking at them, and at all the Christian world ; and with a scornful smile at such ' trifling foundations of infant-baptism,' puffs them away at one breath, and in three or four lines. A vulgar reader presently thinks, surely this is a great scholar. Yes, or else a very proud and assuming boaster, such as is described, Prov. xxi.24. He says, these two arguments 'have been often ' baffled.'' \\'as there ever any antipa^dobaptist that pre- tended to answer (to name no more) those books of St. Austin (which I mentioned) against the Pela- gians, which though not written to prove infant- baptism, (which no Christian then denied,) yet do prove original sin to be the doctrine of the universal History of hif ant-baptism. 175 church from its practice of infant-baptism ; and so do shew the connection between the two doctrines ? So far have they been from answering or baffling, that I believe none of them (except perhaps Mr. Tombes) ever read them. Page 235. He comes to me. And after a smooth- ing comj^liment, he in the next words sets up against me one of the falsest accusations, and most abomi- nable calumnies, tliat in all the seventy years of my life was ever thrown upon me by any lewd or slan- derous tongue or pen. He makes me a teacher of false doctrine, contrary to the principles of the church of which I am a member, and contrary to what I have always taught therein, and contrary to what I declare in many places of the book he had before him. A doctrine that was never maintained by any Christian, (beside the antipaedobaptists them- selves,) but by some late papists ; viz. that I ' freely ' allow that it cannot be made appear from the * Scriptures, that infants are to be baptized.' He has in the foregoing parts of his book used many uncivil taunts and reproaches, unhandsome and rude expressions, and such as (considering from whom they come) may well be called arrogant ; some of which I have noted, some I passed by. He also spent his first two chapters on my charac- ter, as he calls it, picking up from any hands pitiful personal stories of no moment to the matter in hand, nor indeed to any thing else, but to shew a temper that is by all men counted scandalous and contemptible in a writer of controversy. But all these I count as nothing in comparison of this impudent slander. His way is (as I noted before in another instance) 17G A Defence of the the falser any thing is that he says, to say it over and over again so much the oftcner. This therefore being a notorious untruth, and contrary to what he saw with his own eyes, and to what he must think the reader would see, needed to be repeated a great many times to make it jiass. And he does repeat it at least twenty times in this one chapter. All which repetitions are so many . I shall recite some of them. I thought to have set them down all, that they might fly in his face. But it is too tedious and loathsome. I will note the pages of them all. Page 235. The words I now recited. Page 236. Having quoted some of my words, (but those cur- tailed,) ho adds, ' All which, is in short, to grant that ' infant-baptism cannot be proved from Scripture.' Page 237. ' You may be pleased to observe his con- * cession ; which is a very unhappy one for him.' Paqe 238. The same slander aaain : ' ]Mr. Wall con- ' fesses,' &c. Page 239- The same repeated three or four times. Page 241. ' ]\Ir. Wall has ruined * his whole design by what he lays down at first. ' For if infant-baptism cannot be found in Scripture, ' as he confesses :' and another in that page of the same. Pages 243, 245. JNIore of the same. Page 245. ' Pa^dobaptism, which JNIr. Wall confesses can- ' not be proved from Scrii)ture.' Page 246. Over again. Page 248. ' JNIr. Wall, or any man who owns ' infant-baptism cannot be maintained but by the ' traditions of the church, and yet practises it.' Ibid. Over again. See more, page 251, 254, 259. If I had said any such thins: «is these accusations amount to, I ouglit to tn!:c shame to myself. But if all this be notoriously false, the anti})iedobai)tists History of Infant-haptism. 177 ought to disown such a defender of their cause, as could not do it without the help of a gross untruth in matter of fact, at the beginning; and to take care to employ next, one that, beside a faculty of declaiming, has learned to speak truth. I have been forced by this foul and importunate cavil to look over those places of my own book, where I do enforce the proof of infant-baptism from several texts of Scripture. For though I declared in the preface, that ' the arguments from Scripture ' for each side of this controversy having been so ' searched, and so often bandied to and fro, that not * much more could be said to illustrate them,' my purpose was to take it for my task to write the history of the practice of the ancient Christians in this matter; and accordingly T, as an historian, did in many places forbear arguing from Scripture : yet in some other places, where the Fathers, whose words I recited, did quote or refer to such texts of Scripture as do naturally confirm the doctrine of infant-baptism ; it was necessary for me, in the notes on such passages, to shew how those texts do agree with, and illustrate the discourses of those ancients. Hence it came to pass, that though the main scope of my book was history, and not argument, yet I did (occasionally and by the way) bring many proofs from God's word, which stand as so many evidences of the falsehood of this foul charge against me. I need not repeat them, because Mr. Gale's readers must of course have my book, or else they read an answer to they know not what ; for he does greatly misrepresent it. I will refer to the places. On the text, Matthew xxviii. 19, all nations, &c., I shew that it ought to be understood of all the WALL, VOL. IV. N 178 A Defence of the persons of wliicli the nations arc composed, infants as well as their parents. And do endeavour to clear this sense from the evasions of the antipocdobap- tists. Introduction, ^. 5. Book, part ii. chap. 10. §. 1. N°. 1. item J. 3. N". 4. Of that saying of our Saviour, John iii. 3, 5, I have spoken more often and more largely, because the ancient Christians do hardly ever omit it ; and shewn that it concerns all persons, infant or adult, and can be understood in no other sense than to mean, or connote baptism, nor ever was otherwise understood by the ancients : and that the new inter- pretation of Calvin and his followers (who expound the water mentioned there by our Saviour quite away) is unreasonable, far-fetched, and Quaker-like. Introduct. §. 6. Book, part i. chap. 11 §. 4. chap. 3. §. 2, 3, 4, 5. chap. 6. ^. 14. part ii. chap. 6. §. 1. chap. X. §. 1. N«.2, 3. item §. 3. N«. 5. The proof from circumcision which was appoint- ed to infants, and that St. Paul does call baptism the Christian circumcision, Col. ii. 11,12, I do urge and apply part i. chap. 11. §. 2, where Justin i\Iar- tyr himself applies it so. And likewise part ii. chap. 10. f 1. N". 5. The command of our Saviour, that infants should be brought to him, Mark x. 13, &c., is insisted on, part i. chap. 4. ^. 10. And at the same place I shew that infants are expressly ordered to be en- tered into God's covenant, from Dent. xxix. 10. And in a larger manner than the rest, I do en- force to this purpose the argument from 1 Cor. vii. 14. And having learned from the Fathers the an- cient interpretation of that text, (which to a diligent reader of the i)lace will, I think, apjiear to be the History of Infant-haptism. 179 true one,) I do shew the reasonableness of that inter- pretation, (which directly proves the children of those Corinthian Christians to have been baptized,) and its agreement with the scope of St. PauFs discourse in the context. I have had the acknowledgment of some great and learned men, that I have been instrumental in retrieving and confirming from the ancient Chris- tians the true sense thereof, which had been unob- served by most moderns, and misapplied by the antipaedobaptists to a very improbable, jejune mean- ing, inconsistent with the scope of the place. This was visible in my book, part i. chap. 11. \. 11. chap. XV. \. 2. chap, xviii. §. 4. chap. xix. '^. 19- part ii. chap. 10. §. 1. N«. 9. item §. 3. N". 6. These proofs from Scripture Mr. Gale had not only seen in my book, but spends a great part of his in confuting and answering them, as well as he can after his way ; which renders the falsehood of his saying that none were pretended by me, absurd as well as slanderous. I had also, long before Mr. Gale wrote, published a little treatise on the question of infant-baptism, wherein I insist chiefly and almost only on Scrip- ture proop. I cannot be sure that he had seen it ; but he will hardly persuade any one used to such sort of writings, that he had not, because those that write against any book, do generally take into consideration any other book written by the same man on the same subject, (but he indeed would not ^ [The piece alluded to is Dr. Wall's * Conference on the ' subject of Infant-baptism:' which appeared first in 1706, and again in 1708 ; and has been frequently reprinted to the present day.] N 2 180 J Defence of the take notice of so much as my secoiul edition of the same book). This also might have contributed to discourage him (if he had been troubled with mo- desty) from saying a thing of me which the world knows to be false ; for two editions, of about two thousand each, of that little piece were then extant. However, there is in what he had before him, enough to have made him ashamed to say in the contents of this chapter, and repeat it so many times in the chapter itself, ' jNIr. Wall allows it cannot be * made ajipear from Scripture. He owns it cannot * be shewn to be founded in Scripture, nor be main- * tained but by the traditions of the church. That *■ the Scripture is silent in the case.' He himself at one place in the chajiter, p. 240, owns enough to have shamed himself, and stopped his mouth from repeating the slander again and again afterward. He says there that * I do suppose (so he in his proud and contemptuous manner calls my proofs) ' that in some general expressions infants ' are to be included, as in the commission, INIatt. *xxviii.l9, and perhaps in some other passages, ' and John iii. 5, which,' he says, ' I reckon the ' plainest argument for infant-baptism.' Why then does he in all the chapter afterward say confidently, that I own that there is no proof (or argument) at all from Scripture? There needs no judges or witnesses, his own mouth condemns him of falsehood in that accusation. He says of my proofs, that they are ' but sup- * positions at best.' And that ' to affirm infimts are ' intended as well as adult, in these and such like ' })laces, is begging the question, and nssrrfing the * thing instead of jiroving it.' History of Infant- haptism. 181 But, good sir, that will not save, or bring off your untruth. For you here deny my asserting it. Whether a writer does solidly and effectually prove his point from Scripture, is one question, and whe- ther he does disclaim any Scripture-proof, and con- fess there is none, is another. If I say, of any one that brings texts of Scripture for proof of a thing, and applies them as well as he can, that all his texts and arguments upon them do not amount to a good or full proof, that may be true, or it may be false, and be only my ignorance, or incapacity, or pre- judice, or haughtiness, and confident censure. But if I say positively, and repeat it, and stand to it, that such a man does oum and confess that there is no Scripture-proof for it, I am an open and bare- faced liar. Therefore let that point be decided first, the mat- ter of fact, whether I owned that there is no proof from Scripture. Then afterward, of the validity of the proofs there may be time enough to debate. I should not value myself much upon it, if it should be thought they are (though set down in short, as being not the proper business of that book) such as the man whom you propose to write an answer to my book, cannot solidly confute. From you, sir, I do not expect it, since I have seen your faculty of reasoning. If a loose vein of declaiming would do it, you might be the man. In the next page, p. 241, Mr. Gale says of me, that ' all that I pretend to is, not that I see it ' (infant-baptism proved by Scripture) by any neces- ' sary inference, but only that 'probably it may be ' comprehended in some of the more general pas- * sages.' 182 A Defence of the The reader might have guessed at the truth of this tale, by his telling it so many several ways. Is it not intolerable (I may appeal to his own fa- vourers) that an answerer of a book should take the liberty to aflix and impute to it what sayings soever he shall forge, and then run on in descant and trium])h upon those his own forgeries? If he had said, that the proofs which I bring, are in them- selves only probable; that, as I said before, might have been debated. Some of the inferences from Scripture are less, and some from other places are more plain. But to say, that ' all that I pretend to from any * or all of the places, is, that I see no necessary in- ' ference,' (plain enough, I mean, to satisfy the con- science of any sincere inquirer of tolerable learning and capacity,) is an injurious perverting of my words ; especially when he backs and improves this falsehood by saying absolutely, in the following as well as foregoing ])arts of this chajiter, that I ' con- ' fess it cannot be proved from Scripture.' He makes me by saying so, say that in earnest, which (as I shewed) the late Jesuits say out of a politic and wicked design to puzzle all ])rotestants, and promote this schism. If the reader please to turn to part ii. chap. 8**, he will see that near the end of that chapter I do charge and prove this upon the ])apists, that they have of late taken upon them to say, that 'infant-baptism cannot be ])rovcd from * Scri})turc, but only by the custom and tradition of ' the church ;' that the old books of the pajiists, till about eighty years ago, do constantly prove it by " [See vol. ii. p. 371, ami 379.] History of Infant-baptism. 183 Scripture ; and what a weak thing it is in the anti- paedobaptists to be caught by this bait of our com- mon enemies. And is it credible after all this, that I should maintain the same thing myself? Now I have sheM^n sufficiently, that what he charges me with, is a heinous thing; and how con- trary it is to the tenor of my book ; let us see what are his proofs on which he grounds this accusation. And the way of managing his evidence is such as must needs shame him as much as the foulness of the charge itself. He first quotes to this purpose three pieces of sentences in the first page of my preface. Which page I desire the reader to peruse, and see the tenor of the whole sentence. One is this. I am there making what excuses the matter would bear, for the doubts of the un- learned men among the antipaedobaptists ; and after some other things do say, ' that the commission, ' Matt, xxviii. 19, is set down in such brief words, ' that there is no particular direction given, what * they were to do in reference to the children of * those that received the faith.' This he recites, p. 235, Avithout any very material alteration of my words. But reciting them again, p. 239, he basely alters them ; and makes me say, * that there is no tvJiere any particular direction,' &c., and adds some words to the end of my sen- tence ; those last indeed not very material. But the putting in the words no ivhere, is a very gross forgery, and a very material alteration. For it is one thing to say, there is no particular di- rection concerning such or such a point of Chris- 1 84 A Defence of the titiii practice in Matt, xxviii. and a very different tliin<>- to say, there is no where in Scriptnre any such direction. Let any one judge whether this man is to be trusted to quote the words of his an- tagonist, and then draw odious conclusions from tlieni. JNIy own words are no more than any paedo- baj)tist will say. They do not import that our Sa- viour in the conmiand of baptizing all nations is not to be understood to mean infants, as well as men and women, (which I endeavour at other fore- cited places of my book to shew that he did,) only that they are not 'particularly there named, (for those are my words, ' no particular direction,') as indeed neither men nor women are ; but only the aggregate word, nations. Much less do they import that in no other place of Scripture there is proof that infants were, or ought to be baptized. There are many proofs of it, beside this commission ; and which do help to explain the commission : the tenor of the whole Old Testament, that infants were (before our Sa- viour's giving this commission) all along received into covenant with their parents, and were expressly ordered so to be, Dout. xxix : and those other places of Scripture which I just now mentioned as having been urged by myself: and that the blessing {or Qo\^\\va\i) of Abraham is come on the Gentiles; which blessing or covenant of Abraham had plainly this advantage, to have the children entered into it : and many other places brought by those who pur- ])osely insist on Scripture proofs. So far are those my words (that in iNIatt. xxviii. History of Infant-haptism. 185 there is no particular direction about infants) from implying what he says, ' I confess, that there is no ' ivhere any proof from Scripture.' My next words are, ' And among all the persons * recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no ' express mention of any infant ; nor is there on the ' other side any account of any Christian's child, ' whose baptism was put off till he was grown up, or ' who was baptized at man's age.' Of this he recites one part, and very unfairly leaves out the other. For all the question now in our time being about the children of Christians, whether they are to be baptized in infancy, or afterwards ; my words, as they stand, make the failure of proof from the instances of persons bap- tized by the apostles, equal on both sides as to any that were born of Christian parents, infant or adult ; for the apostles lived to see many children of Christians thirty or forty years old ; and yet there is no eapress mention of their baptizing any such at their adult age (which, by the way, is a great sign they had been baptized before in their infancy). Mr. Emlyn might (if he had been as im- modest as Mr. Gale) as well have charged me with ' confessing that there is no proof from Scripture • for baptizing those who had Christian parents at ^ all,' as Mr. Gale can charge me with what he does here. He did not so ; he only pretended to draw consequences of his own, that children of Christians need not be baptized at all : he did not say, that ' I ' confessed it.' If Mr. Gale had done no worse than so, I might have blamed him for weak arguing, not for an unfair account of my words. 186 J Defence of the But suppose the first part of that saying of mine had stood without the latter j)art ; could any modest man have taken it for a ' concession that there is no ' Scripture proof,' &c. ? Among- the few persons recorded ex})ressly and by name, as bai)tized by the apostles, there is no mention of any infant : (as in the life written of any great bishoji, archbishop Laud, &c., I do not think there is :) does it follow from thence that their baptizing of inftmts, or or- dering it to be done, is not implied by circumstances, as the baptizing of households, &c. ? Kd'press mention (which is the word I use) were as much as to say in so many words, ' they baptized such or * such an infant ;' but there may be suflicient proof of a thing by circumstances without such express mention. But however, to say, ' I confess there is no * Scripture proof,' is to say, ' I confess there is no ' proof from those recorded examples of the apo- ' sties, nor from any other place of Scripture ;' which that I should ever say, is, I am sure, a very great falsehood. And there follows one worse yet. In the same page, [p. 235,] (where I am still making excuses for the mistakes of such, who for want of learning or reading fall into doubts, or, (as I express it,) ' contrary sentiments,' concerning in- fant-baptism,) T say, that ' the proofs drawn by con- ' sequences from some ]>laces of Scripture, for any * one side of this question, are not so ]>lain, as to ' hinder the arguments drawn from other places for * the other side, from seeming still considerable to ' those that have no helj) from the history of the History of Infant-haptism. 187 ' Scripture times, for the better imderstanrling of the * rules of Scripture.' This wretched quoter recites one half of this sen- tence, (yet in that half leaving out those material words, ' for any one side of this question,') and then cuts it off at the word ' considerable,' where there is no stop, not so much as a comma ; and leaves out, * to those that have no help,' &c., and presently adds, ' all which is in short to grant, that infant-baptism ' cannot be proved from Scripture.' This is right Danvers, or worse than Danvers, For if I say, ' the exceptions made by the antiptedo- * baptists against the Scripture proofs for infant- ' baptism, may seem considerable to ignorant and ' unlearned men ;' and another quoting my words shall take the liberty to leave out the last words, and conclude, that / confess or grant that there are no good Scripture proofs for it ; all faith or credit to one man repeating the sayings of another is lost and destroyed. For it is a very different thing to say, an exception or argument is, or seems, consi- derable, meaning by its own real weight or force ; and to say, it may seem considerable to ignorant men. When an ignorant man reads that our Sa- viour was baptized at thirty years of age ; and many in heathen countries at their adult age ; it may seem to him a considerable argument that in- fant-baptism was not then accounted lawful ; for he thinks, if it were, why had not these men been bap- tized before in their infancy ? But what are learned men appointed teachers for, but to do this office, among others ; to make such an ignorant man un- derstand the historif of those times, that Christian 188 A Defence of the baptism was then but newly instituted, or but newly brouoht into those countries ; and therefore they coukl not have received it in their infancy ? Besides all this difference, to say, there are ex- ceptions against a proof, which do .seem considerable, (which was my word,) is not presently to grant those jiroofs to be no proofs. Many texts of Scrip- ture, and many other propositions, have objections against them, that may seem considerable, and yet do remain true. So weakly does he argue, as well as falsely quote. There is another saying of mine, which he, at his Page 238, recites from near the end of my book. It is too long to copy out his words and mine at large. The reader may see them in his book. He falsifies the import of my words by perverting the sense of them, as much as in the other instances. I am there mentioning the advantages which the antipccdobaptists do take in their public disputes before a multitude of vulgar people. ' Having plain * places of Scripture to produce concerning adult ' baptism, and several examples of it, they work * much on such of the people as had not minded ' this before,' &c., and in accounting for the mistake of the force of the argument from thence, do say, ' that in a nation newly converted to Chris- ' tianity, (and such are all the cases mentioned in ' the Scrij>ture,) the adult people must be baptized ' first, liefore their infants can be baptized.' The improvement he makes from hence is, * Mr. Wall confesses, all the passages in Scripture ' relate to the baptism of adult persons.' Utterly false. T said, ' they have plain })assages for adult History of Infant-baptism. 189 * baptism ;' he makes me say, ' all the passages.' I said that in such a state of a ' nation newly con- ' verted, the adult persons must be baptized first, ' before their infants.' He represents me as ' con- ' fessing that the Scripture gives no proof of the ' baptizing their infants at all.' The ignorant imd- titude, of which I there speak, are apt to think that we do by our j)rinci])le deny adidt baptism ever to have been used, or that it ever should be used ; and consequently that every example in Scripture of adult baptism is an argument against infant-bap- tism. Whereas we do from those plain places and examples of Scripture urge the necessity of baptism to an adidt person that has not been yet baptized, as much and more than they do, (for they will suffer a sick man, that cannot bear dipping, to die without it,) they would have the multitude to think those examples to make against us, when really they do not at all. Now then let any one judge whether that my saying, ' there are plain places of * Scripture concerning adult baptism,' be any better proof than the rest, of my ' owning that there is no ' proof of Scripture for the other.' Having now recited all the evidence he brings against me for that vile accusation ; I desire that I may have the justice allowed me, to charge him home with the falsehood of it. And because Colonel Danvers had a great name, and ]Mr. Baxter ^, making a comparison between him and one Bagshaw, (who it seems was notorious for this faculty,) said, ' Mr. ' Bagshaw is now quite overdone in the quality of ' untruths ;' let us for this purpose compare some of ' [In his ' Confutation of the strange forgeries of Mr. Henry ' Danvers,' &c.J 190 A Defence of the the worst of Mr. Daiivers' untruths witli this of the ■writer before us. ]Mr. Dan vers wouhl falsely recite, or ])ervert the sense of some old author ; so that by his manage- ment of a sentence, and making his own conse- quence from it, and then setting down that conse- quence as the author's words, or what that author confessed, some old council or author would speak antipajdobaptism '^ But he never, that 1 remember, had the face to do this with a book that he was answering, or writing against. He would never say that ]Mr. Baxter, for exam])le, said, confessed, or owned, what he did not say or confess. Good reason. For his readers were supposed to have ]Mr. Baxters book to compare, Mhereas the old books they would hardly ever examine. Another difference ; that gentleman understood Latin but very indifferently, and might mistake the sense, which cannot be said of our author, whose talent is philology. So that upon the whole I should think that Mr. Gale has won. He thinks he exposes me to some contempt, when he relates how I asked pardon of one whom I con- ceived I might have wronged, (who it seems told him of it ; so greedy have they been to pick up frivolous stories ;) but I would advise him, if he have wronged any one to such a degree as he has me in this untrue accusation, to ask his pardon ; or else to read and apply to himself what our Saviour says, Matt. v. 23 — 26. As for doing it to me, I shall excuse him by giving it beforehand ; only for 'I [See instances of this unfair dealing given at vol. i. p. 259. 328 ; vol. ii. p. 7, 8. 10. 45. 214. 231. 408.] History of Infant-haptism. 1 91 the vindication of the cause and myself, I would have the truth of the matter of fact fairly examined, and I do not care if it be done by those of his own ©iDinion, who have any due regard to common justice. This pretended concession of mine is the ground- work of all this chapter of his, and all the rest is a declamation and triumph upon the supposal that ' we have no Scripture proof to plead ;' that ' the * Scripture is wholly silent concerning infant-bap- ' tism ;' and twenty other ways that he has of expressing it. And to give him his due, grant him that, and he can go on, and build consequences upon it, strenuously enough, and approve himself a very wordy author. But the foundation being taken from him, all the superstructure falls of itself. So that I have no more to do with this chapter, than to make a few remarks on here and there a pas- sage. Page 234. He says, the antipcedobaptists ' have * been taken for a very strange sort of people;' but now the world is persuaded they ' are not that ' unreasonable mischievous sect they were repre- ' sented to be'.] But the good opinion that was had of their sincerity is something lessened again by his unfair way of defending their cause ; so far, I mean, as one man's foul dealing can go, to reflect a discredit on the general body, which does not go very far ; for I believe a great many of them do disapprove of his disingenuous representations of thmgs. And where he in the same page wishes ' a ' more impartial and learned examination of these ' matters might be seriously entered on,' it nmst be then with some better regard to truth than he 192 A Defence of the has shewn, lest it come (as INIr. Baxter complain^ cd it did in his days) to, ' Thou liest,' and ' Thou ' liest.' Page 241. ' They must not surmise, but phunly ' shew us that infant-baptism is indeed contained ' in the Scriptures.'] Sonic writers, and particularly some of the anti])8edobaj)tists, do carry their demand (A plainness in the Scriptures to such a degree of peremptoriness, as is inconsistent with that awe and reverence which is due to God's word. AVe must take his word as it is, and not arrogantly demand why he did not cause such or such things to be expressed plainer, that there might have been left no ])ossible room for cavils, doubts, or exceptions. Some things therein are so. But that some other things (even of those which God would have to be done) are not expressed with the same degree of ])lainncss, but must be concluded by circumstances, &c., is confessed by all readers of it. We must in such cases use humility and diligence in reading, weighing, comparing the several texts, and consequences from texts, or from the nature of the thing itself. And if from all these there bo light enough to satisfy the conscience of an impar- tial inquirer, that such or such a thing is our Lord's real meaning, we must do it without cavilling. If a master give a command to his servant in short, to take care of his flock, shall an arrogant servant excuse himself, that he did not in the commission particularly name the lambs? Now what we say of the plainness of the proof from Scripture for dedicating and entering our in- fant children (as well as ourselves) into the covenant of God in Christ, (without which there is no salva- History of Infant-laiitisni. 193 salvation either to infants or adult,) and giving them baptism, the seal thereof, is this : that there is in God's word so much proof of this being our duty, as may^^satisfy the conscience of such an inquirer as I spoke of, though not such as will stop the mouth of an importunate and undutiful caviller. If upon such weighing and consideration, the reasons from God's word for the doing any thing do clearly over- weigh those that may be brought against the doing it, our duty is to do it. Page 243. 'Which (baptism of adult persons) ' is a thing very rarely seen or heard of now in * the greatest part of the Christian world, their ' traditionary paedobaptism being substituted in its ' room.'] And should not such a matter of fact (setting aside his invidious epithets) startle the con- science even of a confident man, to see his opinion concerning the sense of God's word condemned by almost all his brethren of the Christian world ? Almost all in this age, and quite all in most former ages. Can they think that there were not, or are not, in any or all the national churches that are, or ever were, any that can judge of the meaning of God's word ? They should mind how St. Paul speaks to some among the Corinthians, who were very self-conceited : 1 Cor. xi. 16. If any he con- tentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God : and again, ch. xiv. 36 ; What ? came the viord of God out from you ; or came it unto you only f Page 244. ' Our author at his ordination — declared ' upon oath his free and full assent to the Articles.' And again, p. 247, ' All the clergy their free ' assent to upon oath.'] This happens to men that WALL, VOL. IV. O 194 A Defence of the will talk confidently of things they understand not. The clergy do subscribe the Articles, but not at their ordination, nor upon oath. The excoj)tion that he here makes against mine, or their adhering to the doctrine of them, is too apparently frivolous (being founded on his foregoing untruth) to need any notice. Page 251. He seems here to be writing for a place. I thought that some of them had gratified him for his pains, that he needed not to bring in any by-aims into a book of controversy. But how if that great man should read his second chapter, p. 85, 86, &c., where he would understand himself to be (as IVIr. Gale pronounces the verdict u[)on us all) ' no true member of a Christian church ; not ' baptized ; one with whom it is not fit to have any ' communion,' &c. Page 254. Speaking of the subjects of baptism. ' And those you have already seen, sir, ]\Ir. Wall ' himself allows to be the adult only, as far as the ' Scri])tures can go to inform us of the matter.'] This is one of the twenty 1 spoke of. But tell me, Mr. Gale, did your sir give his nod to this too ? I can hardly think it of him. If he did, it is like pleader, like Judge. This calumny (since he stands in it thus) and some of his others are of such moment, and are such direct falsehoods, that it may be needful for me to do as Mr. Wills did against ISIr. Danvers, viz. to ])ut in an Appeal^ against him to his own brethren. And I do in good earnest desire any c [One of Mr. Wills' publications on the baptismal controversy is entitled, 'An Appeal to the Baptists against ^Ir. Danvers for ' his strange forgeries.' See the note at p. 492 of vol. i.] History of Infant -haptism. 195 of the antipsedobaptists, who are lovers of truth, and do scorn to have their cause defended by base methods and untruths in matter of fact, to examine and give their opinion concerning this conduct of his. What I have to say to the body of them, any other reader may, if he pleases, pass over as a thing not concerning him. I desire them to try, and judge, and declare, whether he has not done an open injury to me and the truth, and indeed to the credit of their cause, by this falsehood of which I have been speaking, and (because I would not incumber them with an inquiry into all his misrepresentations) by two more. What he affirms positively, over and over, through this chapter, (that I do confess, or own, or allow, or grant, that infant-baptism cannot be proved from Scripture,) T charge upon him as a falsehood. Let the places of my book which he quotes, or any other that he can find to prove this my concession, (as he calls it,) be considered and canvassed. Please to observe, gentlemen, that the verdict or judgment to be given in this case, is not, whether there be, or be not, in your opinion, proof from Scripture for it : but whether I have said or granted that there is none. And if I have not, you see where the falsehood rests. Of the other two things, one is, where he says, ' that I do industriously take all occasions to blacken ' the antipsedobaptists, and render them the objects ' of resentment and contempt:' and a great many other odious charges to the same purpose, (his way being, as I said, where a thing is untrue, to repeat it over and over). These are to be seen in his 21,22, o 2 196 .1 Defence of the and 23 pages. And again at j). 48, 49, where he refers to a page of mine, which i)age, if any one read, I desire them to mind whetlier I say any thing of countenancing; and whether I do not say, * there are but few of them in England that hold * that error.' And again at p. 51, 52, where he speaks of me as ' representing and judging of the * whole body by the odd, singular opinions of a few ' particular men in it ;' which I did not do. And again at ]). 57, that ' I load them with some of the * most infamous and hated opinions,' and instances in that of the Socinians, and says, ' I insinuate as if * they countenanced' such ; whereas I neither say nor insinuate any such thing, but do say the direct contrary, (and he had seen it, and quotes part of it.) that ' they that profess it openly are rejected from * their communion.' I begin that paragraph thus : * Socinians they have some that creep in among * them ;' and end it as he says : and had, in my second edition, p. 449, mentioned a decree or reso- lution of their general body for that purposed If any anti])a?dobaptist will mind what expres- sions I use, when I speak of the general body of them, (as in those places of the second part of my book, which in the first edition are p. 216. 279, 280. 288. 402, 403, 404. 416 ;— in the second edi- tion they are p. 430. 453, 454. 460. 549, 550, 551. 554. 561^,) he will see how falsely IMr. Gale repre- sents the character that I give of them. And in reading that second edition every body will observe f [Tliis is found at vol. ii. p. 359 of the present edition.] g [In the present edition these passages occur at pages 323. 367,368.380.551.552. 56c. 573 of volume ii.] History of Infant-baptism . 197 that what I could learn concerning their several tenets, by discourse with Mr. Stennet, (who gave me better information than I could get elsewhere,) I have carefully and candidly inserted it. For when my second edition was in the press, a good while before that chapter concerning the pre- sent state and tenets of the English antipsedobap- tists was printed off, I wrote to him, being then unknown to me by face, to this purpose ; that however different our opinions were concerning what ought to be held or practised, yet that in an historical account of what they do actually hold or practise, I was desirous to be informed by them- selves ; and accordingly desired him to read that chapter, and give me his observations on it. But before he could well answer, I having occasion to go to London, called on him. He received me very kindly ; acknowledged that I had treated the antipse- dobaptists more civilly than had been usual ; said that he had not yet written any thing of what I had desired, but that if I would take pen and ink, he would, as he read the several ])aragraphs, tell me what he thought might be added or altered, which I might set down in short notes. I did so. He did not pretend, as this man does, that I had said any thing false of their tenets, but in many places where I had said that *' some of them' hold so and so, he told me, 'there were but few, and those of * least repute, that held so.' I inserted in the several paragraphs the notes I had taken from his mouth, as may be seen in the second edition. As at p. 432. [vol. ii. p. 327.] 'And I have received of * late a credible account,' &£C. — p. 435. [333.] 'I am * told by one that should know,' &c. — What I say, 198 A Defence of the p. 436. [335.] 'I think it is but few in EiKjland^ &c., stands as it did. He made no exception or ad- dition to that, p. 445. [352.] * I am lately assured ' by a man of chief note,' &c., p. 447. [357.] ' But ' this account of Danvers,' &c. — and another like note at the foot of that page. P. 451, 452, [364, &c.] there is a more exact account of the office of teachers, messoigers, represc7itatires, than I had had before. And what he could tell me, that tended to the clearing of Hicks, I added as a P.S. p. 431. [324.] Now what I desire in justice is, that such foul words as Mv. Cale uses against me on this point, (as where he says, p. 57, ' If indeed the things he taxes ' us with were true,' &c., ' but they are so noto- ' riously false, that I admire any man, especially one ' of jMr. Wall's order,' &:c.,) may be examined ; and he required to shew the falsehood, or else to take the guilt and shame and imj)utation of it to himself. And that to that purpose, what I have said above, in answer to his first and second chnptoi-s, viz. to his, 21, 22, 23, and 48, 49, and 57, 58 pages, may be considered. And that they try whether they can fairly bring off this defender of their cause from the imputation of using base means to do it ; and if not, consider how far they will approve of him. I suppose he spread this character of me, on purj^ose to keej) the antijijiedobaptists from giving any impartial regard to what T said, or produced from anti(piity ; (for no man hears willingly one that hates and belies him ;) but T hope they will search carefully where the lie is to be fixed. The other is, that which [ mentioned above in J History of Infant-haptism. 199 my answer to his long discourse from p. 81 to p. 88, where he represents the sense of my words in a manner so gross and absurd, as to make it as bad as his other way of falsifying words. In my ' Dissuasive from Separation,' part ii. chap. 11, I have argued, that Christians, whose opinions do not differ in fundamentals, ought not for other differences to separate or renounce com- munion with one another (owning at the same time that they that differ in fundamentals must sepa- rate). I gave there several reasons why the differ- ence between pgedobaptists and antipnedobaptists should not be accounted a fundamental one. From the Scripture. From the Creeds. From the case of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen. From the declared sense of many of the most noted men both of the one and the other side of this question, parti- cularly of Mr. Tonibes, Mr. Stennet, and of those one hundred churches of antipsedobaptists whose confession is published 1699, and another 1701. With these I there argue, that they ought, by their principle, to hold communion with the church of the place where they live, in prayers and in the other sacrament, even on supposition that their opinion be right, that giving baptism to the adult only is the fittest, and though they continue in that practice themselves. My reason is, because the difference is confessed by them not to he fundamental. And this wretched perverter of my words, declaring himself for the other uncharitable o])inion, says, ' We (mean- ' ing himself, and I know not who else) do hold it * to be fundamental ; and that none but persons ' dipi)ed at their adult age, are true members of the ' Christian church ; and that none else are baptized.' 200 A Defence of tie And ' Mr. Wall su])poses us in the right in all this ; ' and yet would have us unite with jjersons we are * jicrsuadcd are not baptized,' p. 86 : and p. 84, says of me, that I always, ' proceed on this supposition.' I had indeed said that there were some few such un- charitable men among them, who say (much as the Donadsts did, and Papists do) that none are Christians but themselves. But any one that reads the place will see, that it is with the other (the main body of them) that I there argue, that they ought (even supi)osing their way of baptism bo in itself better) to join with the church in other duties. Let the men, to whose honesty J appeal, judge if this be not a base abuse of my words. The other slander he repeated about twenty times: this I think about ten. Let them say whether such tricking imposture be to be used in arguments for religious matters. Worse than this. He at p. 84 calls it my conces- sion. I never made a concession that the other, the charitable sort, are in the right in their opinion ; but only a supposition or putting the case that they were so. All this while, though he pretend to answer that cha|)ter of nn'ne, he takes not a word of notice of what I there produce from the confession of the one hundred churches, and from JNlr. Tombes and JNIr. Stennet, declaring the contrary to what he here declares to be the sense of the antipiedobaptists, I believe indeed he does not like them. But I won- der that saying of Mr. Stennet, ' the reproach which ' Mr. Russen casts on them, (the antipa^dobaptists,) ' viz. that they judge none of the true church but History of Infant-baptism. 201 ' those of their own way', did not fly in his face and daunt him, while he was setting" me forth as a reproacher of them ; for by Mr. Stennet's account it is he, and not I, that casts a reproach upon them. I shall never forget what Mr. Stennet told me, (which I recite, second edition, p. 447,) vol. ii. [p. 357,] that ' the country where I live, is full of ' such of them as are of the least repute.' For I see that the anti])3edobaptists in many other parts of England do speak and argue much more like Christians than this man. These three instances of his conduct I do lay before the antipncdobaptists, for their approbation or disapproving ; and I think it concerns the credit of their cause, and the reputation of their sincerity, to declare one or the other of them. And when their hands are in, and his book is before them, it will, I know, be much expected of them to declare their sentiment concerning Mr. Gale's notion of dipping, whether a thing or person be dipped, if a small part of it (as the nib of a pen) be dipped, or covered with water. A fair stating of this, and their free declaring their opinion, may go a great way toward adjusting and ending many contentious disputes. The pages where he treats of this, p. 122, &c., I noted above. In favour to that notion of his, I would give my humble advice, that they take this consideration along with them ; that without the help of it, they will never be able to maintain that the word baptize does always signify to dip. Page 254. ' And our author himself has recourse ' to it so frequently.'] I thought I might have done with that grating complaint ; but here is another 202 A Defence of the necessary occasion given, another thing said of nie, that is utterly false. For he is here speaking of some who use ' a iniseral)le cavil, that Christ has ' no where forbidden them to baptize infants, and * therefore they infer they ought not to neglect it.' He spends four or five pages in a trifling manner to expose this cavil, and exemplifies it by comparisons : ' Why docs not our author baptize persons after ' thty are dead since the Scripture does not ' expressly forbid him ?' The Scri})ture does not say ' to the contrary, but that such a clod in a field is ' Adam's body :' nor ' that the Roman is not the ' only true Catholic church ;' and such rambling im- pertinences. But at p. 258 he says he will ' give * an instance something nearer to the matter in ' hand. We are no where forbid to baptize our ' cattle, bells, tables,' he. But I will give an instance nearer yet. We are forbid to . For this (as said of me, that I 'have ' frequent recourse to this argument') is no other. I had argued in my infroducfioti to this purpose : that there having been before Christ's and St. John's time a custom to baptize infixnts, we must not say that they altered any thing, or that Christ bade his apostles alter any thing from the usual way, unless we had proof from Scrii)ture that they did so. And where Christ uses general words, all na- tions, every person, we must not make excejitions unless the Scrijiture do. And T produced Dr. Light- foot's words to that })urposc. Ikit this is nothing like the cai'il that Mr. Gale speaks of, but has a direct contrary tendency. Yet he, without any re- gard to truth, im|)utes it to me; and goes on with aggravating the absurdity of this cavil, (which he History of Infa7Lt-haj)tism. 203 feigns me to use,) till at last he has heated him- self to that degree of foul language as to say, at Page 259, ' If our author argues well, and the ' Scripture's silence be sufficient reason for a thing, * he ought in honour and conscience to return to ' Rome''] Most young men that are brought up to learning, are at the same time taught and inured to rules of civility, good manners, and to forbearing of scur- rilous language. I wonder how Mr. Gale has at- tained the one of these, (for he has indeed a good faculty of philological learning,) and yet seems never to have been taught any thing of the other. Some of the country clownish disputants, when they are got on some heath or common, one into one waggon, and the other into another, to brawl against one another before a rabble, are apt, after some pro- voking language, to say, ' Get you gone to Munster, ' from whence you came all of you ;' and the other to answer, ' Do you return to Rome.' But in a printed book of a learned man, I have seldom seen such stuff before, as in this and in the next para- graph, ' Our author ought to follow his example,' &c. Especially if the occasion was not real, but feigned, as it is here, and no provocation given. As to any given by me, I was so unfortunate as never to have heard of Mr. Gale before he wrote ; and for the antip?edobaptists in general, I am con- fident (and will refer it to any impartial reader) that what Mr. Stennet observed is true, that no book written in this dispute has been freer from any provoking or abusive expressions. But he has in this very chapter forged out of his own l)rain several things to fix upon me, and then pursues the 204 J Defence of the consequences of those forgeries with reproaches, such as are never used (at least without a preceding ])rovocation) but by very ill-bred men. But why does he repeat this but three or four times? For it is as false as any of the rest. I will not hastily believe of the antipa^dobaptists, many of whom (I have once said it '', and will'not yet go from it) are * a sober and grave, quiet and ' peaceable sort of men,' therefore I will not believe of them, that they, perceiving that the history which I wrote of infant-baptism did, by all the testimonies which are to be found of the ancient Christians, shew their practice and doctrine to be for it ; and that the summing up of the evidence did turn (whe- ther I would or not) against their tenet ; and that they were not able to bring any candid writer that could fairly contradict or overthrow the credit of the testimonies produced, did therefore contrive to set up against me one of their fierce creatures to bait me. I rather think they were mistaken in their man. For they might easily judge, that the satisfying the conscience of a doubting Christian (which is all that controversial books are good for) does not depend upon declamation and harangue, or an assured and masterlike way of talking, much less u})on picking up stories, and making personal reflections on the writer, and less yet upon forgeries, taunts, and foulmouthed reproaches. Any history (and mine was nothing else) can be answered no other way, but by shewing the evidence of the facts or sayings to be either not true, or not pertinent; which has been the least part of this author's aim. He has not pretended or attempted to answer in h [Sec vol. ii. J). 323.] History of Infant-baptism. 205 that way any more than the first five chapters, not one tenth of the whole evidence ; and we shall see, when we come at it, how that is done. CHAP. VII. WHEN I read over the first ten pages of this chapter, I was under some difficulty in what method one must begin an answer to so long and rambling an argument, the force of which does all depend upon something which, at page 9,Q5, he says he will discover by and by. But when I came to p. 271, I was eased. For there he says of all before, ' But * these are trifles. A more material objection is * yet behind.' I thought he never spoke a truer word, and should have been content to let them pass as such. But they are indeed worse than trifles. For he cannot forbear to bring in by head and shoulders a; malicious accusation against king Charles I, at f)ages 262, 263, that ' all people thought he ' gave private instructions to his fleet sent to Ro- ' chelle, that they should not assist the town,' And another false one against me, at page 270, (which I think may be the fortieth or fiftieth of that nature,) that I do ' insinuate more than once, that the com- ' mission, Matt, xxviii. 19, relates 'peculiarly (that is, as he presently after explains his meaning, only) ' to the adult.' His confidence at some times is not strong enough to aflflrm that I say such or such a thing, (which I wonder at,) and then he says that I insinuate it. Hia evidence against the blessed martyr is one 206 A Defenc*' of the Lcti ; who, I sui)i)o8e, knew iiotliing of tlie matter, but only echoed wliat tlie rebellious party then in Eno^land said ; and yet at last does not say near what Mr. Gale does. And against me he quotes my book, part ii. p. ,378, 379^ (in the last edition it is p. 531 ',) which wliosoever reads over, be he ptrdobaptist or antip?edoba])tist, and does not see that I am so far from saying or insinuating what he says, that I endeavour to prove the direct con- trary, (viz. that infants are meant as part of the nations,) that man and I shall never agree about the sense of plain words. His boasting of his performance, which is not omitted in any cha])ter, takes up a good part of this. He begins it, ' T hope, sir, I may venture to ' say that what was urged in my last' (that was where he urged from the concession which he had forged in my name of the Scripture's silence) ' amounts to little less than a demonstration.' It does not quite, it seems, amount to a demonstration. But I can tell him what it amounts to quite. And at p. 264, ' the steps that I take are easy and sure, ' according: to the method in nse amoncr mathcma- ' ticians — — : and therefore I may well enough cull ' it a demonstration.' It were really advisable for him to study something of the mathematics, for he could never then allow himself to argue so loosely as he does. The demonstration (all of it that is pertinent) comes at Pages 267, 268, &c. The words of the commis- sion, Tench (so he translates the word fxaQt^Tevarare) all nations, haptizimj than, &:c., ' are equalb/ said ' [In tlie present edition, p. 513, 514, 520.] History/ of Infant-baptism. 207 ' of all without difference or exception. From ' whence it follows, that the same things are to be ' done to all, and that too in the same order.' Then he infers to this purpose : But the adult must be taught Jirst, before they be baptized : therefore infants must either be taught Jirst, (which is im- possible,) or else not baptized. This is the substance, for it is impossible to bring his demonstration into a syllogism. And it is just as strong as this other would be : The commission, hajHizing them in the name, &c., teaching them to observe, &c., runs in the counter- order ; and therefore demonstrates the direct con- trary. Nay not so strong. For here the word (}i^aa-Kovre<; does certainly signify teaching, and no- thing else. As strong as this: That command, Exod. xii. Let all his males be circumcised, is given for all males in the same words : therefore if the adult males must be taught the meaning of that seal of God's covenant before they receive it, so must the infant males also, or else not be circumcised. Page 271. To shew that all persons in the na- tions are not meant, he instances in unbelievers, blasphemers, atheists, debauchees, &c. Now these are that sort of persons whom our Saviour came especially to call, and sent his apostles to convert and baptize them. It is true, that if they would not be converted, they must not be baptized. The reason is, that they themselves did in such a case put a bar, which is not the case of infants. Page 273, he gives as great an instance of pride and insolence, as one shall almost ever see in any haughty ill-bred young man. He attacks Mr. Dor- 208 A Defence of the rington, a grave divine, in a most contemptuous manner, for no other reason but his publishing a book to prove infant-baptism from Scripture, and particularly from this text, Matt, xxviii. 19 ; calling him ' an author that affects wonders, and his whole ' book is one, in which he undertakes to prove in- * fant-baptism from Scripture.' And he concludes, * If the rector of Wittresham had better considered, he would not ' have exposed himself so nmch ' by the publication of this book.' Has he in the midst of his haughtiness forgot who he himself is, and that a rector of Wittresham (which term he, according to the custom of ill-bred men in these times, uses in contempt) is a much better title than any he can pretend to? Or does he think things are come to that pass, that the schismatics shall publish what they please against the doctrines of the church, and it shall not be allowed to the ministers thereof to write the defence of them from Scripture, without being publicly insulted for so doing? Sure that is no part of the indulgence intended to dissenters by the present toleration. It was so perhaps in Oliver Cromwell's time. If he do not know that all others (as well as Mr. Dorrington) have been used to prove infant- baptism from Scripture, why have the antipa^do- baptists set uj) one to write, that has read nothing of what has been said before on the subject ? Has not Mr. Baxter, for one, a large book, ' Plain Scrip- ' ture proof for Infants' Church-memberslii|) and ' Baptism?' Colonel Dan vers speaks, and I from him, of a papist, who going to hear a dispute about infant-baptism, told his friend, he was ' going to History of Infant-baptism. 209 * hear a miracle, viz. infant-baptism proved by ' Scripture '^.' This has been counted an instance of a shameless papist mocking the protestants. But we see he is imitated. He abuses Mr. Dorrington and me, both in that one paragraph ; either of us, I suppose, old enough to be his father : him for undertaking to prove it from Scripture, and me by repeating again the forementioned vile slander, that I own, &c. At page 274 begins the long dispute of above sixty pages, about the signification of the word /ua- Oijreucrare, Matt, xxviii. 19 : whereas, to the argu- ment for infant-baptism taken from that text, (which is in the English, Go and teach all nations, bap- tizing them, &c., teaching the?}i to observe, &c.,) viz. that infants are part of the nation, and so to be baptized by this commission, the antipsedobaptists do retort, and say, infants are such a part of the nation, as are not capable of being taught, and so not to be baptized ; I had answered in half a page, that the word which is translated teach, in the first of those clauses, has a peculiar signification in the original, and is not the same word as that which is translated teach in the second, but signifies much like what we say in English ; ' to enter any one's ' name as a scholar, discijjle, or proselyte to such a ' master, school, or profession.' And that the Jews' language, as it does not admit of this phrase, ' an * infant is taught, or instructed,' so it very well allows of this other, such or such an infant is ' en- ' tered a disciple,' or ' made a proselyte' to such a profession or religion. And T instanced in those children of proselytes, which when they were to- '•^ [See vol. ii. p. 377.] WALL, VOL. IV. P 210 A Defence of the gether with their parents circumcised and baptized, the Jews did commonly (as I had shewed) call young proselytes. And I added some other things in confimiation of that answer. To overthrow this interpretation of mine given of that text, and of the word juaOnTeva-aTe, he (who through all the last chapter had boldly maintained that I pretended no Scripture proof at all) spends the most of this, and the next chapter, producing a number of quotations, in some of which that word is used in the case of present actual teaching. I would (as before for the word ^utttii^co) have granted him that ; that the word, making disciples^ is far oftener used by authors in the case of such as are at that time actually begun to be taught. But the import of the word does not necessarily include that in its signification, and so need not be supposed to do it here. T do not think fit to follow him in his long ramble through every paragraph and quotation, but shall here make such observations as I think neces- sary, and such as will, I think, take off the force of all that he in these two chapters brings against our sense of the word. The word in its neuter intransitive signification (to be a disciple to, or under any one) had been used by others, viz. philosophers, historians, &c., be- fore our Saviour's and St. Matthew's time ; but I think St. Matthew (or rather his interpreter) is the first that ever used it in the active transitive signi- fication, (to jnake any one a disciple, or to teach one as a disciple,) or with any accusative case. There is no instance of this transitive signification in any of the passages of the heathen authors pro- History of Infant-baptism. 21 1 duced by Mr. Gale, nor, I think, in any other*. The Christian authors that use it so have borrowed it from St. Matthew, of which the earliest is St. Luke, Acts xiv. 21. (which is the only instance beside St. Matthew that I remember in the Bible.) The Fathers continue the use of it from them. So that it seems to have been a new word, made on purpose to express the sense of the command given by our Saviour to his apostles, of proselyting all the nations of the world to him and his religion. The sense of it therefore must be learned from the notion of the word /xaOj/r);?, from whence it is imme- diately derived. 1. Ma0>/r^9 is a disciple. And that ixaQrjrevw does accordingly, when it is used as a verb active, li- terally and in its immediate import, signify to make disciples ; and when used as a verb neuter, to be a disciple, and jmaOtirevofxai, to he made a disciple, is so plain a thing, that I will never spend time to prove it, unless I were to teach any one the grammar and analogy of that language. All that know them will, if they be not strongly biassed for a side, presently own it, and they that do not must take time to learn them. Even those that translate it teach, have done it only for this reason, because they ob- viously conceiving that the making men disciples is ordinarily done by teaching, have thought that to be the more intelligible word to stand in a vulgar translation. Mr. Le Clerc, who pretends to no small skill in these niceties, has (as Mr. Gale here quotes him, p. 310) owned this ; that ' the proper 1 [The lexicographers at least are acquainted with none such. See the latest and fullest, namely, Stephens' Greek Thesaurus, enlarged by Valpy, &c.] p2 212 J Defence of flip * signification of the word fxaOtj'^eveiv is, to make dis- ' ciph's, and not fo teach ;' thougli he do there add, ' it ' is true that disciples are not made Imt by teaching. And Episcopius (whom he quotes afterward, p. 323) speaks to the same purpose. And so does Limborch. Nor is it contradicted by any that he quotes, (as far as I remember,) when they speak of the proper and grammatical rendering of the word ; though the thing itself which they suppose our Sa- viour meant to command the apostles to do, they do many of them express by the words teaching, in- structing, &c. ; but many do keep to the word itself, 7nake disciples, gather disciples, &c. And the cri- ticism is not, as Mr. Gale, p. 305, expounds it, that the word ' primarily and immediately signifies teach- * ing,' and consequentially 7?iaking disciples, but the direct contrary : the immediate signification is making disciples, and consequentially teaching, viz. in all cases where disciples cannot be made, but by present teaching, of which more must be said by and by. It is indeed true, what he there urges, that in the nature of the things ' teaching is in most * cases the cause, and being made disciples the ef- ' feet ;' but in the grammatical import of the ivords, /jLaOtjrevo) primarily signifies making, fxaOtjrag, dis- ciples, and teaching no otherwise but by a conse- quence backward from the effect to the cause. 2. Since the direct and strict translation of the word in the commission is making disciples, it is proper to examine what is the import of that word disciples. 1. First, the etymology of it is, we know, from ixavQavw, to learn, as a man learns an art, a trade, a doctrine, or a language. And I think Dr. Whitby, History of Infant-haptisni. 213 (as Mr. Gale quotes him here, p. 277,) saying, ' I * desire any one to tell me how the apostles could * jULaOrjreveiv make a disciple of an heathen, or unbe- ' lieving Jew, without being fxaOijrai or teachers of * them,' has forgot himself; fxaOtjT}]? never signi- fying a teacher, but a learner. And the apostles were not to be jmaOnrai of the heathens, but the heathens of them. Else our Saviour's command to the apostles would run ; make all iiations fxadijras, i. e. your teachers. But for a true conception of the import of the word disciples ; a thing much more considerable than the etymology, is to observe the use of it in the books of the New Testament, in what sense it is generally taken there. And by a diligent minding the several places where it occurs, it will appear to be used by them in much the same sense as the word Christians is with us. In Acts ix. 26, St. Paul, soon after he turned Christian himself, assayed to joi7i himself to the disciples at Jerusalem, but they were afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple : and at E])hesus he finding certain disciples^ &c.: in all which places we should have said Christian, or Christians. And what puts it out of doubt that they used these words as synonymous, is that St, Luke tells us, that those who had been hitherto called disciples began at Antioch to be called Christians, Acts xi. 26, The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. In the books of Scripture, even after this, the writers do seldom use the word Christians. St. Peter, who lived and preached at Antioch, where the word was first framed, uses it once ; If any man suffer as a Christian. And king Agrippa was almost persuaded 214 A Defence of the to be a Christiayi. But our Saviour himself was the first author of the word in effect. Those, who were afterwards called C/irisfiaus, he styled Xpia-rov oi/ra?, hclnnging to Christ. And (what is remarkable to this purpose) he uses it as equivalent to the word disciples. For that which St. JMatthew expresses thus, chap. X. 42, Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold icater onli/, €19 ovo/uLu fxaOijTov, in the name of a disciple, or because they are disciples; St. Mark, ix. 41, has thus. Whosoever shall give yon a cup of water to drink, ev tw SvofxaTi /uLov, oTi ^picTTov €crT€, in my name, because you belong to Christ, or because you are Chrisfs, or Christians. And St. Paul, who never, as I remember, uses either the word /iaO;?T>;p or the word Xpia-navo^, does frequently use the word Xpia-Tov wv (which had been used by our Saviour) instead of them, for any one's being a Christian. 2Cor. X. 7, Jf any man trust to himself, Xpia-Tov elvai, that he is Chrisfs, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is 'Kpia-rov, Chrisfs, even so are we ^picTTou, Chrisfs ; where without any deviation from the sense it might have been translated Christian ; we are Christians as well as he : and the like, Gal. v. 24, ol rod Xpirrrov, they that are Chrisfs, or Christians ; so Gal. iii. 29; 1 Cor. xv. 23. Another word commonly used by him to the same purpose, is ayioi, the saitits. Almost all his epistles are so directed ; roh dyloi^, ' to the saints^ at such or such a place, i. e. the Christians there, lie chides the Corinthians that they went to law before the unbelievers, and not before the saints, the Christians. He made a collection f, of being to be received m his name, and of being saints, or Jioly^ will not deny them the name of brethren, or the other names which I mentioned, as equivalent to disciples. 3. Whereas Mr. Gale represents (as he does many times in these two chapters) the psedobaptists as denying that the word fxaBrjTevoo does include, or connote, or has any relation to, teaching, he imputes to them more than, for ought I know, they ever said. At p. 280, having spoken of his antagonists, (for he has a scheme in his head, in which he is a considerable man, and the Catholic church are his antagonists,) he says, ' Where is their ingenuity, who ' so irregularly, &c., arbitrarily pretend that these ' words have no relation to teaching?' He says it positively of me, p. 311, that 1 ' infer, since the ' word which signifies to make disciples, does not ' necessarily include teaching,' &c. But this is no news with him to say of me, that I say or infer things that I never said or thought. I do think and own that it does connote, or has a relation to, teaching, or being taught. For as ixaOrjTt]^, discipulus, and the English word disciple, are derivatives of ixavQdvw and disco, to learn, so (what one of his authors observes) learning and teaching are, I own, correlatives. He says, p. 275, History of Infant-baptism. 217 that if it do not include teaching, all his 'argument ' from this place unavoidably falls to the ground.' So that I think we must, if it be but for pity's sake, allow him that ; that it has a reference to teach- ing. What we pretend to is, that it does not neces- sarily follow from the signification of the word, that that learning or teaching must be at that j)re- sent time, when one is made, or styled ixaOt^ri]^, or ixaQrjTevQe'i's. But sometimes it refers to that teach- ing which one has had a good while before, and sometimes to that teaching which one is entered, consigned, and covenanted to have hereafter. 1. That Mnason, mentioned Acts xxi. 16, is styled a disciple still, though he may be judged to have learned all that was necessary long before. And so is St. John himself, at a time when all the world had need to learn of him, viz. in his old age, when he was the only surviving apostle, and after he had written his Gospel. John xxi. 24, This is the dis- ciple who wrote these things, &c. It would not be proper here so say, the learner. And in many of the quotations brought by Mr. Gale, the word is used for such as were not then learners, but had learned; as Aristotle, p. 318, and several others, p. 319, 320, &c. 2. Of the word /ui.a6t]Tt]9, applied to such as had not yet begun to learn, but were appointed, dedi- cated, consigned, or bound to learn, the examples in books cannot be so frequent, because it is a case that writers, holy or profane, have seldom occasion to speak of. T did in those few lines mention some. As that the Scripture does include the children of Christians in the notion of the word imaOtjTai, dis- 218 A Defence of th^ ciples, in those words of St. Peter, Acts xv. 10, where he says of tliem that woiikl have imjiosed circumcision on the Gentile Christians, that they thereby attempted to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples ; whereas it was the infants of those Chris- tians especially, on whom the weight of this yoke woukl have fallen. Mr. Gale, p. 311, makes an excep- tion against this instance, in which I am pleased to see how little he has to say against it, and shall answer it when I come to it. I mentioned likewise the custom of the Jews to call the infant children of a proselyte, who were circumcised and baptized together with their father, young proselytes, (wiiich, as I shewed, is the same thing as to say, young disciples,) at a time when as yet they could not learn or know any thing ; only they were then dedicated to learn and keep the covenant of the true God, when they grew up. And I produced the testimonies of the Jews them- selves, and of their Misnah for proof of this cus- tom. I quoted also Justin Martyr using the very same word that St. Matthew does, eixaQrjrevOrja-av, and ap)>lying it to children, speaking of some old men of his time, who e/c TraiSoou efxaOtjrevOijcrau rw ^piaTw, * were made disciples to Christ in (or from) their * childhood.' A very learned man has been j^leased since to communicate to me some observations of his, which prove that the penmen of Scripture and other Chris- tian authors have commonly used the word to sig- nify the reception of any one to the degree and number of disciples, as preparatory to subsequent instruction : so as that the person so received in History of Infant-baptism. 5219 order to be taught, was, before the instruction itself, styled a disciple. As wliere Eusebius, discoursing of our Lord's authority as a teacher, says, 'A teacher professes ' himself skilful in some art or science ; and his * disciples being desirous to learn, submit them- ' selves to his instructions :' "Ore yap SiSda-Kwv e-way- yeKiav /naOrjixaTO^ tivo]T€veiv nva should be rendered, to make such or such an one a disciple ; /uaOtjTeveiv nva shall not signify, to he a disciple to such or such ; which yet both every man and boy, that reads the language, knows to be so, and every lexicon renders so; and many of his own quotations, (all, as I said before, that he brings Q [See ' A full Answer to the Argument of the Rev. Jo. Ed- ' wards,' &c., 8". 17 12. Preface, p. 4. I have extracted the words above, at cliap. v. p. 151.] History of Infant-baptism. 229 from secular authors,) make no sense unless they be rendered so. The first that he brings, p. 283, has plainly the neuter signification, to he a disciple, or scholar, to (so happy he is in applying quotations ); and if any one will bestow the pains to read (as I have been fain, to no purpose, to do) the rest of his quotations where it is construed with a dative case, he will find that in all of them it is used as a neuter, and cannot be translated learn, or teach, or 7naJ{:e disciples, but to be a disciple to. As, p. 293, being a disciple tm Trarpi, to his Father: and speak- ing of Isocrates ; such an one, and such an one, e/uaOi^Teva-ev avrw, ivere disciples to him. And in like manner ixaQrjTevaai Tia-l. And p. 300, 301, 302, out of Clemens Alea?andrinus, Toig Mdyoig, tw H^a^aparw, yvdoaei ^ap^dpoy, tw K.vpup ; and p. 303, out of Origen, rot? iSicorat?, are all to be translated by being a disciple to : to the Afagi : to Nazaratus : to the learning of the Barbarians : to the Lord : to igno- rant men.' Unless Mr. Gale would have us say, Such a man learned to the Magi, or taught to them, or was taught to them. As juaOnrt]? is a learner, not a teacher, (with every one but Dr. Whitby,) so ij.a- Orjreveiv, when it is active, (as it is often, since St. Matthew's time, in ecclesiastical writers,) is to make people learners, or disciples ; and when it is neuter, (as it was always before,) to be a learner or disciple to, or under, any one. I happened to look into the Index of Clemens Alexandrinus, and there is a reference to three several places of the book where ixaO^Tevw is found. Two of them are, where it is used in the neuter signification ; and the index-maker might have noted several more such ; but on one he makes a particular 230 A Defence of the note, that it there signifies, docere tit discipiihim. Mr. Gale sets them down all three with this preface, * I remember I have read in Clemens Alexandrinus,' (and, T suppose, would have done, if there had been ten,) though two of the three make directly against his notion. Such a man may be well enough em- ployed in searching for quotations, but there ought to be somebody else to judge whether they are for his turn. He would evade this absurdity of bringing several instances of its neuter signification, (when his busi- ness was to maintain that there are none,) by sup- posing, at p. 294, that Mhen /uLaOijreveiv, is construed with a dative, there is a praeposition, a-vv or irapa, understood. And says, ' The passage from whence I * gather this, is a good instance against Stephens, * Constantino,' &c. (under which Sfc. are compre- hended all lexicons that ever were wrote ; and Dr. Busby he had named, as being against him two pages before). The passage is out of Origen. Now here one would have expected Orifjeii!s use of iJ.a6t)T€voo with such a praeposition. But (to the laughter of all schoolboys that shall read it) he in- stead of it brings in, with a long preface, a quota- tion of Orifien using the passive naOriTevoiuai so, lxeiJ.aBrjTeviJ.evai Trapa tw Trarpl, edoctcB apud Patrcill : having been instructed when with the Father. And to expose himself yet more, says, * Here Origen * uses /ixaOtjTeveiVf for the same as fxavOdveiv,' which is as much as to say, to teach is the same as to learn. The like work, or worse, he makes in the next paragraph with a passive of Irenceus, where there is no dative at all, ixaBtjTevdeh i'tto twv aTroa-ToXcov: as if he did not vet understand that though the History of Infant-haptism. 231 active, to teach, or 7nake any one a disciple, or the neuter, to he a disciple, does not require a prseposi- tion, yet the passive, to be taught, or discipled by any one, does. Then there follow fourteen of his quotations more, that are nothing at all to the purpose, not having any thing of ^aQr^revw in them. These, you will say, are mean and poor observa- tions. How can I help it, if I am set to answer such a book ? He had begun this nonsense at p. 279, where he says, jmavOdvco ' signifies properly docere, as ' well as discere.'' There is iu Scripture an instance of this word used as a neuter. St. Matthew, chap, xxvii. 57, speaking of Joseph of ArimathcBa, says, o? koI avrog efxaOi'jreuG-e tm 'It^crov. Mr. Gale, if he had had the translating of this, would have rendered it (as he does all the rest of that very construction) without any mention of the word disciple. But this being translated to his hand, tvas Jesus' disciple, he would have the translation altered ; and if it were true, which he pretends, that /uLaOrjrevo) does always signify actively, to teach, then this must have been rendered, who also himself taught to Jesus. Into such ab- surdities do people run, when they will obstinately deny things that are plainly true. He would turn it into a passive, had been instructed, taught, brought over, or any thing, so it be not urns a disciple to. Let us see if St. John's authority will convince him. He, chap. xix. 38, expresses the same thing : wv /Li.a6rirt]9 Tou 'I)](tov, being a disciple of Jesus. It is pity this place was not shewed to Mr. Gale, that we might have seen how he would have exercised his faculty of twisting and warping upon it. S32 A Defence of the Pie was in the right (if it had been feasible, and if he was resolved, sense or nonsense, to carry his point) to deny that the neuter /maGtjTevo) (which was in use before St. Matthew's time) signified to he a disciple. For if that be granted, that that was the known signification of it before, and St. jNFatthew only turned it into an active, none will doubt but the active must be, to make disciples. There needs nothing more to be observed of his rhapsody of quotations, but these few general things. First, that a great many of them are, as I said, absolutely imj)ertinent to the purpose ; having not the word /j.a6t]Tevo), nor any derivative of it in them ; but are about ukovw, niidio, TraiSevco, instituo, &c. Secondly, that of those which have the word, the far greatest part would have been best translated by makim) disciples, or being disciples to, or being made disciples. But he without any ground chooses to translate them by teach, learn, &c., which was the question. This any one will see, that peruses the places. Thirdly y that there are indeed some of "them that are best rendered by teach, or being taught. And that is nothing but what would have been granted him at first ; that where the circumstances of the passage, and of the persons sjioken of, do shew it to be meant of adult persons now in the state of learning, there to make disciples does im- port teaching of them. And in such places it does often best fit the construction of the sentence to express it teach. Because, as I said before, in most ])laces where the word occurs, the disciplinr/ is bv present teaching. But our Saviour, or St. Afafthew, History of Infant-haptism. 233 or his interpreter, seem to have gone out of the ordinary road of words, to apply here a word of so large a signification as to include any way of entering disciples ; which is, as I said, agreeable to the tenor of God's covenant, and receiving persons into his fold, or peculiiim. And this very thing, of choosing a new word on purpose for this sacrament, (viz. discipUng in general,) is of itself a proof that it is not to be taken in the same limited sense as the word teach- ing. For if it had been to express teaching, there were plenty of common and known words in use for that. Some few passages I shall note as I go along, and so dismiss these two chapters. Page 275, and again at the end of chap. vii. and again at the beginning of the eighth, he accuses Dr. Hammond of prejudice, partiality, and contra- dicting himself, when he translates fxaQyiTeva-are, make disciples. And yet he confesses at one of them, p. 309, that most paedobaptists, w^ho argue from that text, do give the word that sense. All that he says of moment (beside his angry and unmannerly censures of that worthy man) is, that though in his 'Answer to Six Queries' he do contend for that sense, and argue from it for the capacity of infants to be discipled by baptism ; and in his ' Dissertations on Episcopacy' render it in discipida- tuni vocate ; yet in his ' Paraphrase and Annotations' ho asserts the direct contrary, and thus parajihrases the words ; ' Teach all nations the Christian doc- * trine,' &c. I know not what edition of the Paraphrase and 234 A Defence of the Annotations Mr. Gale has met with", nor have at present any opportunity of comparing the several editions ; but 1 know there is some variety in them as to the notes on this text, and that in some of them the doctor does (as well as in the Six Queries) assert the ])roi)er signification to be, ?ffake disciples : which it is a wonder to me if INIr. Gale was ignorant of. I remember to have seen a ])am])hlet giving an account of those variations in the later editions, but they do not amount (as Mr. Gale rejjresents) to a contrariety, or contradictinn. It is to be noted that that great man lived a good part of his time before there were any antip]g, 6 Se ia-)(iJ09, 6 Se id(T€w?, &c. ' Who do also receive gifts ' (every one as he is Avorthy) when they are bap- ' tized (or enlightened) by the name of this Christ. ' For one receives the spirit of understanding, ' another of counsel, another of strength, another ' of healing,' &c. Mr. Gale talks of (Jod's delaying to ' pour down ' his judgments ;' which neither agrees to the words nor the sense. But (what is material to our purpose) the place plainly speaks of baptism, viz. of some daily being made disciples, forsaking idolatry, and being baptized in the name of Christ, and receiv- ing such gifts of the Holy Spirit as the Christians History of Infant-baptism. 237 at their baptism are known to have received ; many of which (as learned men have proved from this and other passages in St. Justin) did continue in his time to be ffiven Christians at the time of their being baptized, and of the bishops laying their hands on them. Mr. Gale's exception, (p. 288,) that ' to disciple * or proselyte into the name of Christ' is a phrase never used, is a mere cavil ; eU ro ovofxa is to be ren- dered here as jSaTrri^ovres ek to ovo/ua, Matt, xxviii. 19- in the name. And his other objection, p. 289, 290, that if (pcon- ^6/j.evoi signify here baptized, it will make a gross tautology, is a worse ; for it is the same order of words as our Saviour used, Disciple all the natio7is, baptiziyig them. And his third, that (pwri'^ofxeuoi did not signify baptized so early as St. Justin's time, is a shrewd proof of what some have thought, that he has read the fathers no otherwise than by searching such places as the inde.r of certain words used in this debate directed him to. It is impossible to read Justin without perceiving that he uses it as an or- dinary word for baptized. I myself had quoted to Mr. Gale his first apology ; where having discoursed largely of baptism, he tells us, that this was one of the common names of it: KaXeirai Se tovto to Xovrpou, (pa)ria-/j.6s '. this washing is called (pcoria-juos. And a few lines after, he repeats again, in Avhat name 6 (pcoTi'i^oiuLevog Xovctui, the baptized person is ivashed, viz. of the Father, &c. And in the next page again, how after the baptism the peoi)le go to prayers, praying virep re eavrwv, Ka\ rod (pcoTicrOepTO? Ka} aXXoov, &c., both for themselces, and for the baptized perso??, and all other Christians, &c., where he sets down the 238 A Defence of the substance of the prayers, much like those of our church on tliat occasion. Page 291. He says, I bring no proof of that sense of }xaQt]Tex}eiv which I give, part ii. chap. 10, nigh the end, viz. that it ' signifies much like what we ' say in English ; to enter any one as a scholar, dis- * ciple, or proselyte, to such a master, school, or * profession.' That it signifies to make disciples, needs no proving. I used the other words as ex- planatory. And though I mentioned all this matter but in half a page, yet I gave (beside other) one proof to which he can give no answer, from the Jews' use of the word 'proselyte (which is a parallel word to disciple) in that manner, calling the adult that Mere entered at their own desire, proselytes, or disciples to Moses, and their infant children en- tered at the parents' request, youncj proselytes, or disciples. To which I have now added some other proofs of the use of the \Yord, communicated, as I said, by a learned hand. Mr. Gale himself, at p. 313, says, ' Ask a countryman what he means by the * word scholar, he will tell you, he means one that ' goes to school to learn.' Right : to learn, i. e. that he may learn. But when he is first put to school, and before he has begun actually to learn any thing, he is such a man's scholar. So an infant is baptized, 1. e. entered and consigned to Christ as a master, and obliged to learn and practise his religion ; and though he has not yet, nor does as yet actually learn, he is ])ut to be Christ's scholar or disciple. He is in Justin's phrase, e/c TraiSo^ /w.aOtjTevOe'ig tw 'Kpia-Tii), disci pled to Christ from a child. Page 299- He had been bringing there fourteen or fifteen instances of what the words o/couw, irai- History of hif ant-baptism. 239 ^evft), &c., do signify in passages of the authors there quoted ; for which, as for an impertinent digression, he ought to have asked the reader's pardon. But instead of it, he says, ' This is a very home argu- * ment that fiaOrjTevco in all such places necessarily * implies hearing and learning,' &;c., and then adds, ' This is sufficiently demonstrated.' It must needs be, that the master to whom Mr. Gale went to school, taught his boys to conclude their declama- tions with some great boast of their performance. For the concluding, that because aKovco, TraiSevw, &c., do necessarily imply present learning and teaching, &c., therefore fxaOrjTevw does, is much such a ' demon- ' stration' as the countryman gave of the cause of Godwin sands p. Page 305, he tells his * ,m% that always sits by him, something of his mind. ' I would choose ra- * ther to lay that phrase (make disciples) aside.' And a little after, ' If it be rendered ?nake disciples^ P [Namely, that the sand -bank was caused by the erection of Tenterden steeple. The real origin of this dangerous bank is thus recorded by Stow, in his Chronicle of England, at the year 1099: • This year, as well in Scotland as in England, the sea brake ' in over the banks of the Thames and other rivers, drowning ' many towns and much people, with innumerable numbers of ' oxen and sheep. At which time the lands in Kent, that some- ' time belonged to Duke Godwine, earl of Kent, were covered ' with sands and drowned ; which are to this day called Godwyne ' sands.' The reader may likewise consult Lambarde's ' Perambulation ' of Kent ; ' or an extract from it given in Brayley's Beauties of England, vol. viii. p. 1025 : where also is related, out of sir Thomas More's Dialogues, the anecdote which seems to have given rise to the vulgar opinion alluded to by Dr. Wall in the text.] 240 A Defence ofih: ' our adversaries take an advantage,' &:c. I com- mend him : and I supj)ose his friend wishes so too. But then they must contrive to have the Greek word itself laid aside too, and changed for some other word. I could tell them of texts of Scripture which several sorts of men would wish to be laid aside. Some, the first three verses of St. John ; some, the first verses of Rom. xiii ; but these are vain wishes : it is better to lay the schism aside. The ])hrase make disciples will always stand either in the text, or, as it does now, in the marginal notes of our English Bibles, both at ]\Iatt. xxviii. 19, and in Acts xiv. 21, as the proper and grammatical sense of the word. Page 312, 313, he gives me very foul language. My ' assertion grossly false.' ' A great dishonour * and disservice to religion, that any who are teachers ' of it, and appointed to guide the people, should ' endeavour to support their fancies by a fallacy.' Thus I have lived to have an ill-behaved schismatic, and one whom for age I may account a boy i, affront and abuse me in respect of my office ; and all, only for affirming a thing which every one that reads the Scri})ture nuist own to be a truth. I had observed that St. Peter, speaking. Acts xv. 10, against the imposing of circumcision on the heathen converts, {and their children, so T had ex- pressed it,) words it thus : to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples. He styles those on whom this yoke was intended to be i)ut, niaOiiTa?, disciples ; and I said, that it was infants especially on whom this yoke was attempted to be put. q [It appears that Mr. Gale was born in i68o, which would make liim about five and thirty vears yonnp^er than Dr. Wall.] History of [nfant-haptis7n. S41 He says, it was disingenuous to exjiress it, hea- then converts ' and their children,' and ' much worse, ' to assert downright, that it was infants especially ' on whom,' &c. And his reason is, because ' infants * are no where mentioned; nor is any thing said which * can be applied to them in the whole chapter.' And because the men only are mentioned, he concludes, p. 313, that 'by juaOtjroov, the disciples, the apostle ' intends only the converts, exclusively of their in- ' fants, if they had any.' Now I say, that every one that reads the Scrip- ture, and the rules that it always gives concerning circumcision, must understand the attempt of im- posing it, to have reached, and to have been in- tended, to the children as well as their fathers ; and that (though they be not mentioned, yet) the nature of the thing does of itself evince it. For whether it be Jeios, the seed of Abraham, or proselytes to them, that receive circumcision ; it is notorious that all of them received it on these terms, that they and all their male children of eight days old or above, were to undergo it. This might be proved from the case of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 12,13. item xxi. 4 ; of any proselytes, Gen. xxxiv. 15, Exod. xii. 48. But I forbear to spend time in the proof of a thing, which every body, but he, understands. Moreover these Jewish believers, who disputed among themselves whether this yoke of circum- cision should be laid on the Gentile believers, or not, did practise it thus in respect to their own children : as appears from Acts xxi. 20, 21. And can any one now think that those sticklers for circumcision, mentioned Acts xv. 5, who held it was needful to circumcise the Gentile converts, did not mean that WALL, VOL. IV. R 243 A Defence of f he those Geiitile converts should do as they did, viz. circumcise their children too ? The children are not mentioned ; but a circumstance, plain by the nature of the thing, needs it not. He imjnites 'gross falsehood' to mc. But either that, or else cjross ignorance belongs to him, when he says, it was meant 'exclusively of their infjints, * if they had any.' Whereas no rule of circumcision was ever meant so. He seems to think that it was used, as the antipa^dobaptists would have baptism to be, 'exclusively of children.' But even they do know that circumcision, and all other Christians, that baptism, have been ever used inclusively of them. And that which I said, that it was children espe- cialh/ on whom the weight of this yoke would have fallen, is so plain and easy to account for, that he must be shamefully dull, that needs the explanation. For if a man of adult age had received this doc- trine, he himself must have been circumcised ; but so must all his male children too. This may be counted equal. But in the succeeding generations it would have fallen on the infant children only. So that T had good reason to say, that they were children especialhj on whom this yoke would have come. Page 337, he names another place of my book, where T ' insinuate' (but how is his confidence sunk ! He was wont, when he affixed a false thing on me, to say, I owned it) that the commission. Matt, xxviii. 19, and the comment of St. Hierome on it, relate only to adult persons. I had the })atience to turn to the place of my book that he refers to, and do find his accusation false. I think not to take that History of Infant-haptism. 243 pains again, bat if he say such things of me, to con- clude them to be false by the custom. The reader may consult the place if he please. But if I had ' insinuated' so, how absurd is he to spend two chapters against me, to prove what I myself had ' insinuated' or taught ! Next, having much leisure, he brings some texts to prove that the apostles were to preach the gospel where they came. And then concludes, not for- getting to assure us, that w^hat he has said does ' plainly demonstrate.' So it does ; something. But it is pretty to observe what a liberty he takes in talking of the method of my book. He at the latter end of this chapter, and beginning of the next, brags that he has discovered ' an error in my ' very foundation, in the very groundwork of my ' system.' And he means this observation concern- ing the word juaO/zrei/Vare to be that foundation and groundwork. Whereas I never mentioned any thing about that matter, but in half a page near the end of my book ; as in a history there was no occasion. These two chapters were collections made, I suppose, before by him, or somebody; and he puts upon the antipaedobaptists, by making them believe they were wrote against me. CHAP. IX. HERE is the first place that he brings his an- swers or reflections into any appearance of a method ; and now above half his book is over, begins to an- swer my introduction, concerning the Jewish bap- R 2 244 A Defence of the tism of proselytes and their children. He spends two chajiters in opposing what I had said of that. If I could have foreseen that we should have had so full an account of that matter as the learned Dr. AVootton has since published "■ ; I might well have spared my pains in answering these two cha])ters. But as I had drawn up the answers to the particular objections he makes against me, before I heard of that book published, let them stand. A reader that has perused that, will, I suppose, have no need of them, and may pass them by. Every body will see an instance of Mr. Gale's assurance in denying things that are so certain as this had been before shewed to be, and is now so incontestably confirmed by that elaborate work. His first exception against the passages of the books of Jewish writei'S which I produce, is, that they are not so ancient as to be able to inform us of the customs of the Jews that lived in or before our Saviour's time ; that the Misna, or text of the Talmud, (which is the ancientest that I cite,) was not compiled till about one hundred and fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem ; that is, two hundred and ten years after Christ's birth. So he says; but men of the best learning in that liistory prove that it was composed by Rabbi Judah Ilakodesh, seventy years sooner, in the midst of the second century, in the time of Antoninus Pius. I refer myself to Dr. Prideaux®, Connection of Hist, part i. lib. 5. p. 257, r [In a work entitled, ' Miscellaneous Discourses relating to ' the Traditions and Usages of the Scribes and Pharisees in the ' time of our Blessed Saviour.' 2 vols. 8". London, 171S. i. e. published two years before this piece of Dr. Wall's.] s [See the Old and New Testament connected, in the history of the Jews and neighbouring nations, bv Huni])hrv Prideaux, History of Infant-baptism. 245 who makes it plain by circumstances too long to be here repeated. Now two hundred and ten years after Christ's birth is but one hundred and eighty after his and St. John's baptizing ; and one hundred and fifty is but one hundred and twenty : which, in the scarcity of books that are left to us, is an early date for Jewish or Christian writers, (especially when se- conded by so many following testimonies,) as he knows well enough, and fills his book with author- ities of a much fresher date, though here he spend two pages in a showy flourish, and address to his sir ; ' Now, sir, can any reasonable man take the ' reports of authors who wrote so long after,' &c., and yet at last says, p. 346, that he 'will not ' insist upon this.' And yet in the next chapter (if that be writ by the same man) resumes it again at p. 391 J 392 ; observing that Philo and Josephus, who are something elder, have no mention of this custom of baptizing proselytes. To which an an- swer must be made here, if any where ; and if one would bring his immethodical arguings into any brevity. It is much such an argument as that of Mr. Tombes, which I recited, was against the antiquity of infant-baptism among the Christians ; that among all the ancient Christians that mention it, Eu- sebius and some others have nothing about it. Philo was all taken up with allegorical and philoso- phical flights. Josephus wrote the History and Anti- quities of the Jews in much the same way as Eu- D.D. second edition, 3 vols. 8°. London, 1716, &c., vol. i. p. 326, &c. ; third edition, fol. London, 1717, 1718. vol. i. j). 257, &c. ; 80. Oxford, 1820, vol. ii. p. 99.] 246 A Defence of the sebius of the Christians ; their original, tlieir kings, their high priests, their wars, &c. In no such books one can reasonably expect an account of their rituals, or the ceremonies of admitting proselytes into their religion. But the Talmud, and books of the rabbis, which I cited, do contain (as our Common Prayer Book does, for our religious usages) the rubrics for their ceremonies of this sort. JMr. Gale, at that p. 391, refers us to two passages of Josephus, lib. xiii, where he thinks this initiatory baptism would have been mentioned if it had been in use in the time of the INIaccabees and later kings. Hyrcanus having subdued the Edomites, suffered them to continue in that country, ' on condition ' they would be circumcised, and live according to * the Jewish laws. And they, out of love to their ' native country, comjilied to receive circumcision, * and live after the fashion of the Jews.' And the like expressions he uses in the next chapter but one, in relating the like terms required of the IturcEans, who had been conquered by Aristobulus. Here JMr. Gale concludes, that at this time prose- lytes were not used to be baptized, but circumcised only; because Josephus, mentioning one, says no- thing of the other. Indeed he does not make his argument so fair, as to say, ' he does not mention ' it ;' but boldly says, ' Josephus informs us, that ' Hyrcanus made and initiated them Jews by cir- * cumcisiou only' But the words are, as I have recited. Circumcision is here by .Jose])hus mentioned, as the chief and most remarkable circumstance where- by the Jews were distinguished. It was also the most difficult and jiainful of the things imposed. History of hifant'haptism. 247 and (as one Mr. Stokes S a writer against Mr. Gale, whose book I have but just now seen, and who has dubbed him Dr. Gale, observes) it was most con- temned by other nations ; so that the chief diffi- culty was in forcing them to receive that. Baptism, as an easy thing, and not unusual among other nations, may well be supposed to be included in the general words, ' the other Jewish laws.' An argument which prevailed with Mr. Emlyn, (as I noted before,) and does prevail with most that speak of this matter, is, that since it is notorious that the Jews have such a custom now, of baptizing their proselytes ; and it appears by their books that they had the same in the times within less than one hundred and fifty years of our Saviour, and they spoke then of it as a custom always used by their nation, and that it cannot be conceived that they would borrow it, or use it in imitation of our Saviour Christ, or the Christians, whom they dis- [t Of this writer we have the following account in Ivimey's history of the Bajitists, vol. iv. ' Mr. Joseph Stokes, a Presbyterian minister at Horsham in • Sussex, published in 1715 a httle pamphlet in defence of in- ' fant-baptism, entitled " A Survey of Infant-baptism and the ' mode of baptizing, in a letter to a gentleman at London." ' 8vo. (containing thirty-two pages.) And again : ' Mr. Jos. Stokes of Hoi'sham, a champion of ' paedobaptism- published in this year (J717) an octavo • work in reply to Dr. Gale's treatise. It was entitled, " A ' C-ompassionate Plea for Infants ; or Remarks on Dr. Gale's ' Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant -baptism." This ' book and his former pamphlet were answered by a Mr. John • Tasker.' I have not been able to meet with this latter work of Mr. Stokes, therefore have had no opportunity of verifying Dr. Wall's quotations in this instance.] ^48 A JJefence of the daiiied and abominated : there is all reason to con- clude that they derived it from their ancestors, as they say they did. None can maintain the con- trary, but one whom his hypothesis forces; espe- cially when the Scripture itself speaks of baptizing unto j\ loses. Therefore Mr. Gale here says, he will not insist upon it. But he does a worse thing. lie denies a plain matter of fact .that was before his eyes. He says of the passages cited by me, ' Not one does so ' much as assert or intimate that the baptism of ' j)rosolytes was in use in our Saviours time.' Mr. Stokes has found him tardy ; and has referred him to the first of them, which speaks of the use of it in David and Solomon's time. And there arc (as he tells him) several others. And indeed nobody that had eyes could miss them. Yet he, at p. 352, 353, says it over again. Page 347. Another shift is, that perhaps ' they ' do not speak of an initiatory baptism, but only a ' purification from the blood of circumcision.' His reader, that will read the passages over again, must be ashamed for him. They do all speak of en- tering/)ro.«'/?/^('6 ; some, adult ; some, infants ; some, males ; some, females. And whereas he would except those found in the Misna itself, there are none that mention proselyting plainer than they. And they also instance \n female children; which makes his exception concerning the blood of circumcision to be absolute nonsense. Page 348, he would prove a thing that is a direct contradiction to what he had said the page before. For there he had yielded that a passage there pro- duced out of the Talumd did ' shew indeed what History of Infant-baptism. 249 ' was the method when that was written, but not ' that the same custom had been observed for two ' hundred years before.' But here he produces two Jewish writers, from some of whose words he would conclude that they knew of no baptism of pro- selytes at all, as used by their nation, but took it to be a ceremony first instituted by John or Christ. I shall by no means transcribe passages so im- pertinent. Most of them speak of the custom of baptizing Jems or any persons born of faithful ])arents, as a new thing brought up by John or Christ ; and not then, or formerly, used by their nation ; which is nothing to -the baptizing of prose- lytes from among the heathens. And besides, if these two had, in their spite to the Christians, vented slanders which would have recoiled upon their own religion, (as some eager disputants commonly do, go on so fiercely in ruin- ing other men's foundations, that they undermine their own,) should we thence conclude against plain proofs that the Jews had no such religion ? What are two (as Mr. Stokes observes) against a cloud of witnesses ? AVhat are conclusions drawn by con- sequence from some raging blasphemous expres- sions, to full attested matter of fact ? — Two obscure authors, to the Talmuds, and the generally owned and received books of that time and ever since, and the known present practice of the nation ? If Mr. Gale's cause have no other hopes but in the denial of such publicly attested facts, it is plainly despe- rate. Besides, that one of his authors (whom he styles ancient) speaks of the Christians as baptizing 250 A Defence of the their infants. Let ]Mr. Gale believe liis rabbi for that, if he j)lead his credit as to the other. The last shift to which he flies, at Page 353, docs not help. He would argue the insufficiency of the evidence which is taken from any writings of the rabbins, to prove what was their practice from hence, that those Jews ' are ' a desj)icable, ignorant, and whimsical sort of ' writers.' To which I need dve no other answer than that which T gave before to the very same objection in his fourth chapter, p. 172, w^iich I entreat the reader for once to recur to. From this p. 354, the next thirteen pages, to 368, are such as any Christian reader of Mr. Gale's book ought to tear out, and burn without reading them. They are nothing at all to the purjjose of baptism, infant or adult, Jewish or Christian. They are a kennel of stinking blasphemies, and burlesque on the Christian religion. What conceit made him translate and publish them in English, it is hard to guess. It is just as if somebody lighting on some of the late English atheistical ]>amphlets of Blount, or of or should think it a good employ- ment, instead of burning them, to translate them into other languages, and send them about the world. The book called Toldoth Jesii, (out of which he takes the most.) is a book commonly mentioned with abhorrence for its blasjdiemy, and scorn for its dulness. I think I remember some years ago an advertisement in the Holland prints, of some- body that had translated it into some vulgar lan- guage ; and had a conceit of his skill in doing it History of Infant-haptism. 251 enough, and reverence for Christ little enough, to desire it might be published ; but his friends, being Christians, overruled him, and got him to burn it. I have forofot the man's name, I think it could not be Mr. Gale, because of his age ; but certainly some such friends Mr. Gale wanted at this time, when he resolved, at p. 344, ' to venture' (as he calls it) to mention some of the least shocking of those blasphemies; even these do shock every Christian reader. The old blasphemous books of Celsus, Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, and others then written against the Christian religion, though set forth with a great deal of wit and learning, (such as makes our mo- dern atheists and deists look in comparison, as a parcel of very sordid imitators,) and therefore thought fit by some Christians to be preserved ; were however, for the odiousness of the subject, by the far major part thought fitter to be burned ; and accordingly they (and also the books of the old blasphemous heretics) are (except some fragments, which by being confuted have been preserved) long ago extinguished. How much more ought this putid rubbish, which Mr. Gale here rakes together and translates, to have been so served ! Those rabbins, out of whom he fetches these blasphemies, are not (T think not one of them) those whom I had cited as mentioning the Jewish baptisms. And if they had, it had been nothing to the purpose. No more, than if I had quoted Tacitus upon any dispute of the Roman customs or history, he should for answer have recited and translated for the use of an English reader those vile reproaches 252 A Defence of the which that historian casts on the Jews and Chris- tians ; on God, and on our blessed Saviour. The testimony of those Christian writers which he quotes, from that p. 368, to the end of the chapter, setting forth the character of the Jewish writers ; as, that they are for the most part a vain, tritiing, enthusiastic, ])erverse, and superstitious sort of ])eoi)le, (for which he cites Justin jMartyr, Scahger, Buxtorf, Lightfoot, Du Pin, Le Clerc, and especially St. John Bai)tist, and St. Stephen,) is certainly true, and known to be so by every body ; and one that s])ends so many words in proving it, must be almost as trifling as they ; especially where it is nothing to the purpose, as it is not here, since (as I have been forced often to say) we do not appeal to them for any thing wherein their candour, judgment, or sincerity is depended on, but only perceive by their writings, and ritual books, what their usages and tenets are. And this use of their writings, JNlr. Gale knows very well, that several of these same learned men, particularly Diuvtorf and Li(jhtfoot, do make to good purpose. For though they have no o})inion of the men, yet from their books and dis- jnitings they came to a more particular understand- ing of their customs, to wdiich customs the phrases of Scripture do often allude and refer, and the sense and meaning of such places of Scripture is therebv better understood. CHAP. X. BESIDES the Jewish writers themselves, T quoted other ancient writers, some heathens, some History of Infant-baptism. 25'5 Christians, mentioning the Jewish custom of bap- tizing proselytes. One was Arrian, a philosopher living at Rome. Mr. Gale excepts against his evidence, as not early enough ; one hundred and fifty years after Christ. Suppose it were so much after Christ's hirtli^ (as it was almost,) is not this an evidence coming- very near to the time of John's and Christ's bap- tizing ? He says again, that perhaps Arrian might mis- take the Christians for the Jetvs ; and spends several pages in reaching after probabilities for this con- jecture : but those so rambling, and little to the purpose, that I, who knew that a learned man or two had spoken of this as possible, do count it less probable after having read these pages. At best it is but a conjecture. The plain words, repeated several times, are, the Jews. The same answerer should not give both these answers : first, that it was too long after Christ's time ; secondly^ that it was not long enough after his time for the Christians to be distinguished from the Jeu:js. If there were no other evidence beside this, that the Jews used baptism as well as the Christians, there were more room for this guess ; but this, corrobo- rated by so many more, renders the evasion very precarious. Page 384, he is fain to use the very same shift for Gregory Nazianzen, that he lived too late to be an evidence. All learned men know how much his testimony is valued for the customs of Christians, and there is the same reason for his knowing those of the Jews, many of whom lived in that country. 254 A Defence of Ike Mr. Gale says, [p. 385,] his words may be under- stood (nay, he insults any one that understands them otherwise) of washings for uncleanness, and not of any initiatory bajitism. This he confidently says, though the comparison be there purposely made between Moses' bajitism and John's, which was an initiatory one ; and Christ's, which was also plainly such : and though the words themselves (Moses baptized, but that was with water only; and before that, in the cloud and in the sea) do compare two several baptisms of Moses, that at mount Sinai, with that in the cloud and in the sea; which last St. Paul himself speaks of, as an initiatory baptism, and a type of the Chi-istian baptism, and laying like obligations on the Jews, as the other does on Chris- tians ; which is a quite different purpose from that of washings for uncleanness. I quoted St. Cyprian and St. Basil speaking of the same Jewish baptism. INIr. Gale did not care to re- peat them ; and has nothing else to say, but that they amount to no more than St. Gregory's ; and if they amount to so much, it is sufficient ; especially since St. Cyprian will surely be allowed for an an- cient evidence. And he is there giving the reason why the apostles in instructing and baptizing a Jew, bad no need of pains to teach him the doc- trine and belief of the Father, but only of the Son. (Whereas a Gentile must be instructed concerning the Father as well as the Son and the Holy Si)irit.) * For the Jews had,' says he, ' already, and a long ' time ago, the baptism of the law and of Moses, ' and were now to be baptized in the name of Jesus * Christ.' Now could any man living, beside Mr. Gale, have the forehead to say that St. Cyprian does History of Infant-baptism. 9^5 not here speak of such a Mosaical baptism, as was initiatory into a certain faith or profession, the faith of the true God ? Though this, and some of the rest, be exceeding- plain, yet this answerer draws his conckision, at Page 385, 386, without altering his countenance at all, but turning confidently to his sir, tells him, ' It is sufficiently evident Mr. Wall has said nothing ' which rises to any probable proof For I leave ' you to judge whether every pretence to this has ' not been sufficiently refuted.' He puts a great confidence in his judge. I quoted TertuUian, ancienter than any of the rest, and also St. Paul, testifying that all the Jews, at their coming out of jEgypt, (before the washings for legal pollutions were instituted,) were baptized unto Moses, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, which same expression St. Cyp]-ian (as I shewed) uses for their being bap- tized into the faith of Jehovah. To all this he says nothing. Page 386, he will no longer be on the defensive, but will undertake to prove the negative, viz. that the Jews had no initiatory baptism. The Scripture, he says, makes no mention of it, though I had quoted St. Paul's words just before. I added also another text, Exod. xix. 10, which the Jews them- selves, as I shewed, understood of an initiatory baptism at their entering into the covenant of the Ten Commandments and other laws at mount Sinai or Horeb. He proves that they could not then by that wash- ing at Sinai enter into covenant, ' for that they had * done before by circumcision.' This he says, though the Scripture does expressly mS A Defence of f he say, that they did ff/cn enter into covenant; and there be recited the i)articuhir interrogations and answers of it ; and in a recital of another covenant forty years after, Deut. xxix. 1, it be said, that that covenant in the land of Moah^ urns beside the cove- nant which he made rvith them in Horch. Thongh they had circumcision, as the seal of the covenant with Abraham, that does not hinder but baptism might be a seal of this ; as the Jewish writers do all say, that their fathers entered into covenant by these three things : circumcision, baptism, and sa- crifice ; and of this last also the Scripture uses the same phrase. Psalm 1. 5, ThoHo that have made a covenant with me hy sacrifice. Page 388. Whereas the words of that text, Exod. xix. 10, 11, are, Sanctify thcm,8^Q.., and let them trash their clothes, and he ready afjainst the third day, &c. And I had shewn from Maimonides, the Gemara, Ahen Ezra, Selden quoting a great number of rabbis, that (beside their understanding that sanc- tify imj to be ivashimf) the Jews did apprehend, that wherever in the law the washinsr of the clothes is commanded, it means much more the wash- ing of the body itself: he denies that phrase to be so meant, and yet in the page before, ]). 387, heed- lessly recites one of the texts from which it is plainly proved; M'hich is Numb. xxxi. 19, 24, there all that Eleazar ])rescribes to such as had killed any person, or touched any slain, was, to 'purify themselves, &c. And ye shall ivash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean. Now it is plain from Numb. xix. 16 — 19. that every person in their circumstances was to wash or bathe his whole body, as well as his clothes. History of Infant-baptism. 25lf t^age 391, 392. What he produces here out of josephus and Philo, I shewed just now, in answer- ing the beginning of his ninth chapter, (where this ought to have come in, if any where,) to be nothing to the purpose. Page 392. If ever any man confuted himself, our author does it here. For his business was to deny that the Jews had any initiatory baptism, and particularly that the Scripture nowhere speaks of any such thing. And whereas I had produced two places of Scripture that do speak of it ; he proves here, that the one does not speak of it, because the other does. St. Paul speaks of it, 1 Cor. x. therefore Exod. xix. does not. Whereas if either of them speak of it, his argument is lost. That i7i the cloud and in the sea St. Paul calls a baptism. But that having been done in a transient and typical way, and without express covenanting, there might be afterward at Horeb a more explicit performance of the ceremonies. By just the same arguing he in the next page, p. 393, overthrows the testimony which I brought of Nazianzen, Orat. 39 ; where he refers to both the said texts of Scripture, and distinguishes the two times. Mr. Gale j)leads that Nazianzen paraphrases 1 Cor. x. * The sea typified the water, the cloud ' the Spirit.' True. But does not he, beside this, speak of the other ? ' Moses gave them a baptism ; * but that was with water only. And irpo tovtov, ' before that, they were baptized in the cloud and ' in the sea^ Page 394, he falls again upon that plea, (which has been used two or three times, though not worth WALL, VOL. IV. S 268 A Defence of the once using,) that he can name writers that make no mention of tliis Jewish ba])tism. ' Barnabas,' he says, * has not one word.' And then two pages more spent in shewing that Justin Martyr has not one word of it neither. Does he think any one will read them over to see whether he say true or not ? What does it avail that they do not mention it, if St. Paul, and the Christian writers which I quoted, and so many of the Jewish writers themselves do ? But he produces a place in Justin, where he thinks it must have been mentioned, if there had been any such thing. Trypho acknowledges that the passover and other sacrifices could not be used, now that the temple was destroyed. Justin asks, what part of the legal ordinances did remain in use at such a time. Trypho answers, ' The sabbaths, * circumcision, the new moons, and baptizing upon * uncleanness.' Here Mr. Gale says, he would have mentioned this other initiatory baptism, if it had been in use with them. He is so forgetful, or impertinent, as not to mind that this initiatory bai)tisni was not by Trypho ac- counted necessary to the Jews themselves ; but only to heathens proselyted. And Trypho was speaking only of what the Jews were to do. And this, if he had thought of it, would have made him omit the quoting both that other place of Justin which he brings, j). 395, and the follow- ing one of Tertullian, p. 398, where he urges that Tertullian makes baptism to be ' a new ordinance.' But the sense of the place is only this, that it began but now at Christ's time to be used on any posterity of the faithful. History of Infant-baptism. 259 Page 398. The saying of Origen, Comment, in Joann. p. 116, 117", looks most plausible for his turn of any; where Origen says, * He [Heracleon] ' cannot shew that any prophet did baptize.' O^ yap evet Sei^al Tiva twv TrpocprjTwv (SairTicrapTa. But it is a proof, how a scrap of a line or two out of a discourse may be perverted by those that have the baseness to do it, to a sense quite contrary to the import of the discourse itself. Origen is there commenting on that question of the Pharisees put to John Baptist, John i. 25 ; W/it/ baptizest thou then, if thoii be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet ? He had observed before, p. 109, the difference between 'Kpo(^rirm and 6 -rrpo- ^>?T>?9, a prophet indefinitely, and that prophet; and that the question of the Jews is not to be understood concerning the ordinary prophets, but one particular one, whom they expected to come, that should be like unto Moses ; as Moses himself had foretold, Deut. xviii. And having by the way blamed many passages in Heracleon's comment on that text, and particularly that he had understood the word 6 Trpo- (p^Tt]?, in that question, of a prophet at large ; he says, p. 116, that there may very well be returned this answer to that insulting demand of the Pharisees, who seem to have thought that the Christ and Elias were to baptize in their own persons ; but that he that was the voice of one crt/ing in the wilderness, &c., might not baptize at all. ' You, sirs, do put to him who was sent as a mes- ' senger before the face of the Christ, to prepare his * way before him, an unhandsome interrogation, being " [Op. torn. iv. p. 125. Comment, vi. sect. 13. edit. Benedict^ S 2 260 J Defence of the ignorant of all the mysteries that belong to his office. For the Clirist (and Jesus was he, though you would not have it so) did not baptize himself, (or in his own j)erson,) but his disciples. And he it was, that was that Prophet. And what makes you think that Elias when he comes will baptize, ov^e to. eir) ra Tov 6v(Tia(TTt]piou ^JXa, Kara tovi^ tov 'A^aa/3 j^ovov?, Seofxeva Xovrpou, "iva CKKauO^, eirKpavevro^ ev irvp] rov Yivpiov, /SaTTTiiravTO^ ; eTTiKeXeveTai yap Toh lepeuai Tovro TToina-ai ; who in Allah's time did not bap- tize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt up, when the Lord should shew himself in fire ? For he ordered the priests to do that ; not only once ; for he says. Do it the second time, &C. 'O toIvw ixrj avro^ ^aTrrla-a^ Tore, a AX' erepoig tov epyov Trapa-^^wpi'jcra?, He there- fore who did not himself (or, in his oM^n person) baptize at that time, but left that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, ^a-n-TCCeiv e/u^eXXe, when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, came? There- fore the Christ does not baptize with water, but his disci])les ; and he reserves to himself the baptizing with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. But Heracleon admitting this speech of the Pharisees as good sense, TrepJ rod 6]v toO ocbew^ eireTr- TWKeif Trapa ti]v Lvtav aiTiav eKacTTOv avTcov irov^pevcra- (xevov. Which I translated : ' for mankind, which by ' Adam was fallen under death, and under the guile * of the serpent, beside the particular cause which * each man had of sinning.' He says, it ought, he thinks, to be translated thus ; ' for mankind, which ' from (not bij) Adam was fallen under death and ' the guile of the serpent, by their own act and * deed, every one having done wickedly.' This were tolerable, even thouoh the mistake be his own ; if he did not add to it some of his natural impudence, and abusive language. My translation, he says, is ' such as no schoolboy would have made.' Whether ' I did it out of ignorance, or inadvertency, ' he will not determine.* The only difference is about airo and irapa. How '' [Justin. Dialog, cum Tryphone Judtvo, sect. 88. edit. Bene- dictin.] History of Infant-baptism. 303 they are in this place to be rendered. Every one knows that an author speaking of mankind 'fallen ' under death and the guile of the serpent' airo rod 'ASa/ui. may be understood either thus ; from (or bi/) Adam, as the cause or origin of that fall, and death ; as I translate. Or thus, ' from the time of Adam,' as Mr. Gale translates. They know likewise that Trapa with an accusative does signify generally pr(B- ter, beside; and sometimes (but very seldom) propter, hy reasoyi of. And that it is the sense and scope of the place, that must determine how these prepositions must be rendered here. Now all that I have seen, that have had occa- sion to take notice of this saying of Justin, and, I believe, absolutely all that did ever translate or interpret it, have understood and rendered it as I did. Perionius, whose Latin translation of Justin is in the BibliotJieca Patrum, Colon. 1618, renders airo rod 'A^a/x, ' Adami opera ; by the means (or fault) * of Adam.' And irapa rtju iSiav aiTiav cKaa-TOv ; ' prseter privatam ac propriam uniuscujusque cul- ' pam ;' ' beside every one's particular and peculiar * fault' (or sin). In the Paris edition, 1636, the translation given by Langus, is ; ' Sed humani ' generis causa, quod per Adam in mortem, et * fraudem seductionemque serpentis conciderat : ut ' interim projiriam pro se maligne agentis cujusque ' culpam taceam.' Dr. Hammond, having occasion in his Annota- tions on Psalm li. to quote the former part of this sentence, translates a-n-o rod 'A^a^t, ' by Adam's fall.' And that shews also how he must by the tenor of 304 A Defence oftlie the sentence have translated the other part too, if he had recited it. Of learned men that have collected the testi- monies of the ancients owning and bewailing our original corruption, none, I think, have omitted this of Justin. However Vossius in his Hist. Pelagiana has not. Nor the learned Spencer, Annot. in Origeneniy p. 54. Whose putting this among the other pas- sages of the Fathers which speak of oricjinal sin, shews how he would have translated it. For according to Mr. Gale's translation it speaks nothing about it. He curtails the sense of it, that it should not. The reverend and learned Mr. Bingham, in that elaborate work of his, Origines EcclesiasticcB, vol. iv. chap. 4. §. 7, translates it ; 'By reason of Adam's sin ; * beside the particular guilt which each man,' &c. The reader sees what men I have named ; and will judge what a forehead that man must have, that will not allow them to understand the sense of a passage in a Greek Father as well as himself or the ' schoolboys.' He would give a colour to his own translation from the connexion which this sentence has with the words next following. Which are, ' For God * did this, willing that these (men as well as angels) * should act with a free choice and a free power to * do what he enabled every one to do : that if they * did choose what was pleasing to him, he might * preserve them immortal ; but if,' &c. Now Mr. Gale says, * For Justin to say this, and connect it * by the illative particle, for, to another sentence * wherein he says. All fell in Adam, is so great * an absurdity,' &c. History of Infant-baptism. 805 But he perverts the words; and there wants nothing but reading them, to see, that Justin does not argue, that all fell in Adam., and so men had a free choice. But thus ; ' God did this (i. e. caused ' his Son to be born, to be baptized, and to be cru- ' cified ; which are the very words of the disputed ' sentence) for men ; that they might once more * have a free choice.' Mr. Gale in his English gives no rendering, but only a for eTroitja-ev, did it Which would have made the sense not so easy to be perverted. He that will warp one sentence, must commonly bend the next. He spends the next pages in telling us stories of aTTo and Trapd. 'Atto often signifies /^'om ; £Lsfw?n such a place, or from such a time; (who doubts it?) and St. Paul says, Death reigned airo 'A^a/x m^XjO* Mft)(Tew9, from Adam to Moses. And if the con- struction of the sentence had been alike here, it must, I grant, have been so translated here. But he will not deny that it often signifies from, i. e. from, or by, such a cause, such an occasion^ such a man's faidt. As the learned men I mentioned, and, I believe, all translators of St. Justin have here ren- dered it. For Trapd he is more put to it. Yet the lexicon does furnish him with a few examples. And then he goes to the ooks ; Dionysius, Thucydides, tells us long stories of two or three fights, where irapd is so used. The property of one that loves to hear himself talk. Had it not been more natural, if he had sought the true import of it here, to see how Justin him- self uses it? Of which this dialogue would have given him forty or fifty examples, where it always WALL, VOL. IV. X 306 A Defence of the signifies, beside. There are four or five in the space of a page, p. 69, edit, prcedicf. Anotlier Gofl, rrrapa tovtov, ' beside him that was seen by * Abraham.' Christ does nothing irapa yvco/mtjv toO UoitjTov, beside (or without) the will of the Creator. Again, Trapa rovTov, beside this. And again, irapd rov voovjiiei'ovlloiijTtjv, beside him that is understood to be the Maker of all things, &c., so p. 78, another cove- nant Trapa t)]v ev opei XtO|0^j8, beside that made at the mount Horeb. If Mr. Gale had amended my translation of the word air lav, there had been more room for his cri- ticism (but that would not have advantaged his plea). I expressed it, ' beside the particular cause * which each man had of sinning.' It is better rendered, ' beside the peculiar guilt (or crime) of * every one of them that had sinned.' But this makes Justin not less plainly speak of original sin derived from Adam, beside every man's particular and actual offences. Alrla sometimes is the cause or reason of any thing ; sometimes a cri77ie or guilt ; but never, what Mr. Gale renders it, an act and deed. Page 466. In answering the next passage, where Justin speaking of the Jewish circumcision, and comparing with it the spiritual circumcision, says of the latter; 'And this, we being sinners have * through God's mercy received by baptism ; and * every one is permitted to receive it in the same ' way.' He first manfully proves that circumcision and baptism are two things ; and that Justin's say- ing, we receive circumcision bi/ baptism, is not saying, that circumcision itself is baptism. What readers, and what answerers, must this History of Infant-baptism. 807 man have? Did ever any -one pretend that the fonnalis ratio of them is the same ? Or any more, than fthat one is to the Christians the initiating ceremony instead of the other which v^^as so to the JeM's ? This disputant would confute any of the Christian Fathers that should say that Christ cruci- fied is to us the passover lamb ; because one was a lamb, and the other is a man. He observes that Justin in the same place says, that Enoch and the other holy patriarchs had the spiritual circumcision ; and yet, says he, ' when, * where, and by whom, was Enoch baptized ?' The sense is plain to any reader, that Enoch received it without any external ceremony ; Abra- ham and the Jeivs by external circumcision ; and the Christians (as his express words are) by baptism. Then through three pages he cites sentences out of Justin and other Fathers, (and he might have brought a hundred more,) where they speak of the circumcision of the heart, the putting away the evil of our doings, the purification from all error and wickedness, &c., as being the ' true circumcision ' chiefly intended by God ;' the ' spiritual circum- ' cision, our circumcision,' &c. And he would argue from thence, that they cannot account baptism to be instead of circumcision; because purification of heart and life is instead of it. But both of these may well consist. Purity of heart and life is the chief import and aim both of circumcision in the Old Testament^ and of bap- tism in the New. That does not at all hinder, but that as circumcision was the external sacrament to import this purity in the Old, so baptism may be instead of it, for the same purpose in the New. X 2 308 A Defence of the And though the Fathers may in many of their sayings express only the com])arison between the carnal circumcision and the spiritual ; without men- tioning at those places baptism as the sacrament of it ; yet it is sufficient that they at several othei* places do expressly mention it ; as Justin does here. For he has been here shewing that almost all the ordinances of the Old Testament were types of something under the New. As the passover-lamb roasted, of ' Christ crucified :' the scape-goat, of Christ bearing our sins, and made a curse for us : the fine flour used at the cleansing of a leper, of the bread in the eucharist : the twelve bells on the high priest's garment, of the twelve apostles : and several more. After which follows this ; how the Jewish circumcision was a type of the true circum- cision, which we receive, says he, by baptism. Mr. Gale lays a particular stress on one of the places which he brings [p. 470] ; which is a saying of Lactantius ; * that there was to be another cir- * cumcision, not of the flesh, as was the first, which * the Jews still practise ; but of the heart and spirit.' Upon which he turns to his sii\ * You see, sir, he * expressly says, the second circumcision is not of * the flesh ; but baptism is plunging the flesh into ' water, and is therefore of the flesh.' His sir might have had the sense to have told him, that as St. Paul saying that the true circum- cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, does not mean to deny the being of the outward circumcision in the letter, or flesh, but only that the other was the chief: so Lactantius, saying what he does there, does not mean to deny the being of the outward washing of the flesh ; but History of Infant-baptism. 309 only that the other was much more to be re- garded. Page 471, where I had said that this saying of Justin is to the same sense as that of St. Paul, Col. ii. 11, 12, where he calls baptism (with the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, which attends it) the circumcision of Christ, or (as it might more agreeably have been rendered) the Christian circu??icision : he answers, first, ' The Scriptures nowhere call baptism circum- * cision.' A pretty way of arguing. As if that were not Scripture, which I cited. He proceeds, ' Now if * baptism is never called circumcision in Scripture, ' &c., how natural and necessary does it appear, to ' understand the circumcision, Col. ii. to mean, not ' baptism, but purity of heart V This is not against me, but against St. Paul ; who, notwithstanding that it is nowhere so called in Scripture, ventures to tell those Christians that they were circumcised with the circumcision of Christy being buried with him in baptism. Secondly, he answers, that St. Paul cannot mean baptism there ; because he calls the circumcision he there speaks of, the ci^^ctwicision inade without hands : now baptism is not ?nade without hands. This might have been used for an argument (though a weak one) that St. Paul did not mean baptism ; if his words had not expressed baptism. But as his words stand, it has no other inference, than that St. Paul spoke improperly. But the propriety of his words may be well defended. Partly because he here joins together 810 A Defence of the the outward and the inward ])art of baptism ; and speaks of them as considered together. And partly because )(€ipo7roi^TO(; may very well be taken (as ■)(^eipovpyiK09, a word of the same grammatical im- port, commonly is) not for every work or thing in which men's hands are at all used ; but for a thing done by chirurgical oj)eration, as circumcision was. He says, if the circumcision here called fJ/e Christian circumcision, do consist both of the in- ternal and external part of baptism ; it cannot be called circumcision without hands ; because one part of that is performed with hands ; but St. Paul's direct assertion is, that that, which he speaks of, is done without hands, and consequently cannot be baptism. But could he not see that St. Paul does as di- rectly assert that it is by being buried with Christ in baptism, as he does the other? What avails arguing that the words should not be so, when they plainly are so ? If one of these two consequences must be allowed ; either that St. Paul contradicts himself, or else that this is a cavilling argument ; I doubt our author and his sir will come by the worse. Pages 473, 474. Whereas I had said that the ancients, in conformity to this phrase of vSt. Paul, were wont to call baptism Trepirofxtjv a-^^eipoTronjTov, the circumcision done ivithout hands ; he says, if my meaning be, that they called the outward part of baptism, circumcision without hands ; he has a more honourable opinion of them, than to suppose they could be so grossly absurd. I gave at this very place references to the following chapters of my History of Infant-haptism. 31 1 book, in which chapters I set down at large their own words where they do call it so. He has the forehead to say, ' The passages of the ancients, our * author refers to, I have consulted particularly, and ' I am sure they say no such thing.' I am not much afraid that any that know me and him, will count me to be indeed a liar upon his giving me the lie. But I will set down here again so much of them as is necessary for the reader to see whether he be one, or not. In my twelfth chapter, part i. [sect. 5. p. 211.] here referred to, I recited the chief passages of St. Basil's sermon ' against the delaying of baptism.' He that reads either the sermon itself, or the sen- tences which I recited out of it, will see that it speaks of the outward part ; i. e. the baptism itself of their bodies. I do not say, that he excludes the inward graces that God would work in their souls, but uses the word as comprehending both. And to those who put off their baptism from day to day, he .addresses himself thus : ' A Jew does not delay circumcision because of * the threatening that every so2(l that is not circum- ' cised on the eighth day shall be cut off from his ' people; and doest thou put off the circumcision made * without hands^ {ayeipoTroiriTOv 7repiT0/j.t]v,) in the put- * ti?ig off the flesh, which is performed in baptism, * when thou hearest our Lord himself say; Verily^ ' verily, I say unto you ; Ea/cept one be born of water ' and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the khigdom ' of God: In the fourteenth chapter, [sect. 2. vol. i. p. 230.] (there referred to likewise,) I shewed how St. Austin quoting this passage in his disputes with Julian, 312 A Defence of tie lib. ii. contra Jidianum, cap. 9- (but mistaking it to be a sormon of St. Chrysostom's,) after reciting the foresaid words, speaks himself thus ; * You see how ' this man established in the ecclesiastical doctrine ' compares circumcision to circumcision, and threat ■ to threat. That which it is not to he circumcised on « the eighth day; that it is not to he haptized in Christ : * and what it is to he cut q^ from his people; that ' it is, not to enter into the kingdom of heaven. An ' yet you [Pelagians] say, that in the baptism of ' infants there is no putting off the flesh, i. e. no * circumcision made without hands ; when you affirm,' &c. I quoted also in the same chapter St. Chrysostom himself, in his fortieth homily on Genesis, taking notice of ' the pain and trouble' that was in circum- cision ; and how favourable God is to Christians in the baptism that he has appointed them in lieu thereof, in these words ; 'H ^e ^fxerepa Trepiro/nij, &c. ' But our circumcision, I mean, the grace of bap- * tism, gives cure without pain, &c. And it has no ' determinate time as that had ; but one that is in * the very beginning of his age, or one that is in ' the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may ' receive (raiJTfjv t>V a-^eipoTroujrov TrepiTojuLiji') this ' circumcision made without hands^ This is meant plainly of baptism itself; and not merely of the internal effects. These places Mr. Gale says he had ' particularly 'consulted;' and, not daring to recite them, he assures the reader (who will never hereafter give him credit) that ' they say no such thing.' More of the Fathers speaking of baptism being to us instead of circumcision, I referred to, part ii. History of Infant-haptism. 313 €liap. 10. ^. 1 ; as, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory Naz. Qiicest. ad Orthodod'os, St. Ambrose, &c. At last he says, that if the Fathers, and St. Paul too, do speak of baptism as I pretend ; yet this does not affect infant-hsi^thvci : and then runs on vapour- ing about the want of consequence from infant- circumcision to infant-baptism. But then why did he not say this at first? A man that has true grounds to defend any proposi- tion, is a mad sort of disputant, if he strive a long time to defend it by such as are manifestly and notoriously false. For whatever becomes of the consequence, it is notorious that St. Paul and the ancient Christians do speak of baptism as being instead of circumcision ; and a man does but dis- grace his cause by denying it. The rules by which he would overthrow the con- sequence, are, if one mind the logic of them, ex- tremely ridiculous. We argue, that the Scripture ordering circumcision to be given to infants as a covenanting and initiating seal ; and ordering after- ward baptism to be the covenanting and initiating seal instead of it, does by consequence order bap- tism to be given to infants. He says, this conse- quence does not hold, because ' it is not ordered* to be given to infants. Which every one sees to be the woman's reason, the denying the conclusion. Therefore, p. 475, that he may give something like a man's reason, he maintains that the principle upon which the argument proceeds, (viz. that what was done in respect to circumcision, must be done now in respect to baptism,) does not hold in two other particulars. One of the time, the eighth day ; the other of the male seA\ to which circumcision 314 A Defence of the was limited. And so need not be supposed to hold in this. To the first of these ; 1 had shewed him, chap. vi. what a large and full answer was given by St. Cy- prian and the council in their epistle to Fidus, who had made a like objection concerning the eighth day as he does here : not to oppose infant-baptism, but to tie it to the eighth day. They shew that ignorant disputer, that the circumstance of the day was typical ; and had not, by the nature of the thing, the same reason in the ' spiritual circumcision' (so they call baptism) as it had in the carnal circum- cision. Now this does not prove but that the prin- ciple may hold in all points that are material, sub- stantial, and of moment. The second, concerning the sex, is, we allow, a difference of moment ; as it determines the admit- ting or rejecting all females from the seal of the Christian covenant ; in like manner as this present dispute determines the admitting or rejecting all males and females too under such an age. But he should have considered that we hold the foremen- tioned principle, (what was done in respect to cir- cumcision, must be done in respect to baptism,) with this exception ; unless where Christ has ordered an alteration. As he has in this point expressly. For St. Paul, speaking of the Christian baptism, Gal. iii. 27, 28, tells us, that whereas there had been a difference made between Jews and Gentiles^ and bet\veen males and females; there should be no difference made in either of these cases as to bap- tism into Christ : So many of you as have been baptized into Christ, &c., there is neither Jew nor Greek, &c., there is neither male nor female ; for History of Inf ant-baptism. 315 ye are all one i?i Christ Jesus. Now such an ex- press exception in these particular cases strengthens the law (or principle) in all cases not excepted. Mr. Gale should, if he could, shew us an exception as clear as this concerning infant and adult ; that though infants were admitted to the one seal, they should not be admitted to the other. Though all this be plain and obvious, and such as not only any clergyman, but almost any ordi- nary layman, could have told him ; yet he with his usual insolence insults all the clergy upon it. And says, Page 477, ' if they were to consider the matter * more deliberately, they would be ashamed of all ' they have urged upon this head.' True genuine arrogance ! He thinks himself ca- pable of making all the clergy ashamed of their arguments. It brings to one's mind the character which Mr. Stokes (p. 51.) gives of the antipaedobap- tists (which I would not apply to all ; but some, I see, can come up to it). He having there con- cluded that infant-baptism must have been at the time he speaks of, universally received, not only by some particular churches or men, as they pretend, but by all Christians, from hence ; that there do not appear to have been any debates or disputes against it ; adds, ' There were certainly no antipsedobaptists in ' those days ; or else their temper was quite dif- ' ferent from ours. Ours are, many of them, so * positive in this controversy, as to unchurch all ' that differ from them ; and of such martial souls, ' as that a diminutive fellow of scarce common sense ' shall challenge men of the brightest parts.' And 316 A Defence of the a little after, ' Was there not a Danvers nor a ' Gale?' Page 477, where I had brought a passage of St. Justin's Apology, (owning at the same time that it does not make directly or immediately for or against infant-baptism,) he will have it to make against it ; and that for these miserable reasons : First, if the Christians then had baptized infants, he would have mentioned it, in order to remove out of the emperor's mind all suspicion of their murder- ing infants and eating them. To which far-fetched imagination of his, vented before in his first chapter, and brought here again, I answered there more than such a groundless guess could deserve. Secondly, he would have this passage to make against infant-baptism, because Justin there de- scribes only such circumstances as are proper to adult persons, as making their voluntary choice and professions, &c., and does not mention their bring- ing their children to baptism. This is no wonder ; since he did not go about to instruct the emperor and senate in all the principles and tenets of the Christian religion, but only to shew that their sacraments had no harm in them, but were innocent and pious. What he here talks of my making and the church of England making two baptisms, one for the adult, another for infants, is nothing but a sample of the insolent liberty he takes to say any thing, true or false, of any man or any church. They use some prayers and exhorta- tions differing in the different cases; and that he calls * two sorts of baptism.' And what he observes [p. 480.] of Justin's say- ing that our first generation is ' without our know- History of Infant-haptism. 317 * ledge or ohoice;' but that a heathen man (for of such he there speaks) comes to this baptism (which is his regeneration, or second birth) of ' his ' own will and choice ;^ is no more than he would have said of any proselyte's voluntary entering into God's covenant by circumcision (which the Jews, as I shewed, did also call his regeneration). The adult proselyte did partake of this regeneration by his own choice. This is no proof but that his infant children had the same circumcision and regenera- tion, by their parents' dedicating them, and God's gracious acceptation. Page 480. I had said that this passage of Justin is ' the most ancient account of the way of baptizing ' next the Scripture,' Mr. Gale adds, ' and that was ' by dipping.' Which I do not deny to have been generally and ordinarily so. And whereas he adds farther; 'Justin here mentions only adult persons :' I grant that too. But his next words, * he else- ' where plainly excludes infants from being then .' baptized in the church,' are an open falsehood. And the next, ' he says that adult persons only can ' or ought to be baptized,' are a downright forgery ; and just like those of Danvers, which I mention in a like case, part ii. chap. 1. §.5. Let him for shame find where Justin says so ; or else take to himself the name of a forger of sayings for the Fathers. Page 481 . I had observed that Justin in that passage uses the word regeneration, (or being born anew,) for baptism ; and so he does plainly. ^ We ' bring them (the new converts) to the water, and ' they are regenerated by the same way of rege- ' neration by which we were regenerated. For they 318 A Defence of the ' are washed with water in the name, &c. For * Christ says, E.vcept you he regenerated, you cannot ' enter,' &c. Mr. Gale objects, ' that tKough he talks of their * being regenerated, and joins it pretty closely with ' their ham^ baptized ; yet he does not say baptisjn is * rcfieneration." And then he brings two places more of the same dialogue : one, where Justin says, ' We * are regenerated by him, by water, faith, and the ' tree.' Another ; ' Him that is washed with the laver ' which is for remission of sins and regeneration," And thinks that these and the like expressions make against my assertion ; whereas they are so many confirmations of it. He says, ' Justin only ' thought that we, some how or other, obtained or ' sealed, &c., our regeneration by baptism, as a mean ' or sign, ^c, just as we also obtain remission of ' sins thereby ; but not that baptism is remission of ' sins or regeneration.' Thus he would escape. As if our argument de- pended ui)on a formal or logical identity of the things. When I say, that by regenerated they always mean baptized ; I mean no more, nor does the argument need any more, than that regeneration does in their sense of the \vord always imply or connote baptism : so that if any author of these times do speak of any person, infant or adult, regenerated; we are to suppose him baptized. I expressed it so at several places, as chap. 11. ^.4. ' They so appropriated that word to baptism, as to * exclude any other conversion or repentance that is * not accompanied tcith baptism, from being signified * by it.' Of which I give there several plain proofs. The authors which I cite there, and through all the History of Infant-baptism. 319 book, do not stand upon the metaphysical quiddity or formalis ratio of the things ; but do sometimes call it the regeneration of baptism ; sometimes the regeneration hy baptism ; sometimes the baptism of regeneratio7i, (which is St. Paul's phrase, Tit. iii. 5,) or, baptism for regeneration. They generally under- stand by it a complex notion of the outward act of baptism, accompanied with that grace or mercy of God, whereby he receives the person into a new covenant, or new spiritual state (so grossly quibbling is Mr. Gale's evasion here ; ' he must doubtless mean ' some farther regeneration than bare washing-^ as if I had ever argued that the bare washing, which is only the outward part, were the whole, either of baptism or regeneration^ ; regeneration, in the sense of the Fathers, is, (if we must formally define it,) ' the change of the spiritual state of any person ' granted by God in baptism.' And what is fairly concluded from their general use of the word is this, that they give that term of regenerated to none but baptized persons. Of this observation, he says, I mean to make some use afterward. And why should I not, since it is an undeniable one ? And the same may be observed to a good and fair purpose, of the term a'yioq, a saint, or holy, and several others which are never given but to baptized persons, and are in Scripture or the Fathers given to some infants. Page 483. When I observed that Justin does here understand that rule of our Saviour, John iii. 5, Ej?cept any one be born again, &c., of water-baptism ; and that all the writers of those first four hundred years, not one man excepted, did understand it so ; 320 A Befmce of the he finds out my design, viz. to have it beheved that Justin thought that that rule includes infants. Which, he says, is absurd, when I had owned before, that Justin is speaking there of adult persons. But there is no absurdity in it ; for Justin, though speaking there of adult persons, may give a rule out of Scripture for the necessity of their baptism ; which rule may reach to the case of all persons, adult or infant, that shall enter the kingdom. Page 484. In another passage of Justin's Apology, concerning some Christians of his time, sixty or seventy years old, who, he says, eK -jralScou efxaOtj- TevOrjcrav tart of which falls in the forepart of ann. per. Jul. 4742. anno Dom. 29; Duohus Gcminis Coss. And that ' []See ' Dbserlatio dc .Icsu Christi Domini nostri anno et ' mense natali, authore P. Allix.' 8vo. Londini, i/c/-] z 2 340 A Defence of the our Saviour was then baptized. He would have no new interpretation put on Luke i. 3, concerning the fifteenth of Tiberius ; but instead of it, liel[)S himself into the road of other chronologers by explaining in his own way Luke iii. 23, w'hich says, Christ was then beginning to be about thirty. He says, he Avas thirty-three. And that St. Luke's word wcrei TpicLKovra, about thirtij, (he speaking aKvpoXoywg, not pretending to exactness of the number,) will bear that. And that after his baptism there were five passovers before his death ; which make up the years of his life completely thirty-seven. His reason for not allowing bishop Ussher's account of the baptism of Christ, ati7io Dom. 26, (which was the fifteenth of Tiberius' consortship in governing the provinces ; but no more than the thirteenth of his full imperial power,) is, that Pi- late's government in Judaea could not begin so soon as ann. 26 ; because he, as Josephus says, continued but ten years in the place ; and being sent for by Tiberius to answer for his crimes, saved his neck by Tiberius' dying before he arrived at Rome. Now Tiberius' death was March l6tli, anno Domini S7 : therefore Dr. Allix thinks Pilate must have held his office till the end of ann. 2Q, and consequently, having been in it but ten years, could not have begun it in any part of ann. 26. But bishop Ussher had answered this objection before it was made. That the hinderances and delays in the navigation to Rome in that winter- time might be more than three months. And be- sides, the number of ten years in Josei)hus need not be taken so precisely, as not to admit of six or seven months over. What he says in a cui-sory History of Infant-baptism. 341 way, is, that ' Pilate, (Je/ca erea-L SuiTpiy^ag, having ' continued ten years, was driven,' &e., which is what any historian would say, speaking in brief of the time of so hated a governor, though he had continued for any fraction of months that did not make it eleven. So that being discarded toward the latter end of thirty-six, he might have begun in twenty-six. Whereas there is an objection obvious against Dr. Allix's scheme ; that if our Saviour had been thirty-three at his baptism, St. Luke, though he might have said about thirty, yet would never have used the word ap^ofxevo?, he began to be, or ivas 7iear, if he were three years above it. He answers, that Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 1, reads it, not ap-)(6jj.evog, but ep-)(o/ui.evo9f (as he does indeed, ''Hj/ Se ^Irjuovg ipy^ofxei'og exi to ^aTrrtcrfxa co? erwi' X.) and that the CodecV Vaticanus has the text so. To which may be added, that it is pretty plain that Justin Martyr read the text without apyofj-evo? in it. For he in his Dialog, circa medium, p. 94. ed. Steph. ^ laying before Tryj)ho a short account of the pas- sages of our Saviour's life, says, that he ' having ' stayed rpiuKovTa ertj, »/ irXeiova, tj Kal eKaarcrova, thirty ' years, or some more, or some fewer, until John ' came,' &c. And it is more intelligible to say, ' He was about thirty,' than ' He began to be about ' thirty.' Some chronologers have made much more bold with these texts, to make them agree to their ac- count of time. Some have thought that in Luke ii. 2, which speaks of the census or taxing under ^ [Section 88, p. 185, of the Benedictine edition.] 342 A Defence of the Mliich Cliribt was born, (which Mr. Gale thinks might have directed Irenseus to the time of the birth : shewino- thereby his own ignorance ; for the time of that taxing is liarder to settle than of the birth itself,) the name of Cyrenius, or Quirinius, has been by mistake of transcribers written for Quintilius ; meaning Quintilius Varus, who is much spoken of by Joseplms as the ordinary governor of Syria in the latter end of Herod's time, and is mentioned as such by the Roman historians. And others would have the name Saturninus substituted, \\\\o likewise had that place next before Varus ; M hereas there is not in Josei)hus, or an}" Latin his- torian, any mention of Quirinius (or Cyrenius) hav- ing that government any thing near that time. Ten or twelve years afterward indeed, Sulpitius Quiri- nius was made governor of Syria, and was ordered to take possession o^ Jadcea, (which borders on it,) and is accounted the first governor of Jiidcea, (^A4lich till that time was governed by its own kings,) and he taxed the people. But this cannot be the time that St. Luke means ; for our Saviour was by this time ten or twelve years old. If we were to admit or suppose any mistake committed by transcribers, in the texts concerning Christ's age ; I should think it more likely to have been in the numerical word or figure of thirty, than in any other word of the text. It being more ordi- nary for scribes to mistake in those figures than in other words ; and there being several errata of that nature in the copies of the Scripture itself: as in 2 Chron. xxii. 2, the number forty-two is kept in the text, though it be plain it should be twenty-two. In this place of St. Luke the mistake of a X for a ix. Histoty of Infant-baptism. 343 or (if it were in words) of rpiaKovra for reararapu- Kovra, might create all the difficulties we have been speaking of. For there is no other text, nor any other circumstance, from which one would have computed our Saviour's birth to have been so late as it is commonly computed, but this place. There are many, from which one would have guessed it earlier. The only reason that Irenoeus or others had to fix or suppose it on the forty-first year of Augustus, (before which year, if we reckon his years from his triumvirate, or first consulship, as Irenaeus does, Herod was dead,) was, their reckoning back twenty-nine or thirty years from the fifteenth of Tiberius as ordinarily placed, which cannot be a true reckoning. Of the many texts, and many circumstances, I spoke of, these are some : 1. From St. Matthew's account one would be inclined to think that our Saviour Jesus was born (not only before Herod's death, as he certainly was, but) a considerable time before it. Epiphanius and others, w ho had not considered the distance between Herod's death and the said fifteenth year, but allowed the spaces of time, as they thought the circumstances in St. Matthew did require, concluded that his nativity was four years before Herod died, Baron i us eight. 2. If more time were allowed, one would reason- ably have supposed from the text, that John had begun and continued his baptizing a considerable time before Christ came to be baptized of him. For as Isaiah and Malachi had spoke much of the preparation that he should make for the Messiah by converting the people to repentance ; so the three 344 A Defence of the Evangelists who give the history of Christ's baptism by liim, do si)eak of things that might seem to re- quire some time, as done by him, before they relate his baptizing of Christ. As namely, that he came into all the country about Jordan^ Luke iii. 3 : and that there ivent out to him Jerusalem and all Judcea, and all the re()iou round about Jordan, and were baptized of him, Mattli. iii. 5, 6. And St. Luke having said, verse 15, All men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or no; says, verse 21, Noro when all the people ivere baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also, &c. And St. Paul, Acts xiii. 24, John frst preached, before his coining, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. Now it was the fifteenth of Tiberius, that the word of God came to John ; and he iverit out, &c. One might think it was some following year on which Christ was baptized, beginning then to be about thirty. But that cannot be, if that date of time be taken precisely. For it is the hardest matter in the world to bring the fifteenth of Tibe- rius, within thirty years of Herod ; and to bring- any later year within that space must not be at- tem])ted. The chronologers are forced to connect, as close and immediately as possible, the nativity to Herod's death ; and the bai)tism to the calling of John. 3. There would have been no need of stretchino- the number of the passovers in Christ's ministry after his baptism (which some make three ; and that does pretty j)lainly appear: some four, and some five) : nor of sujiposing that St. Tiuke counted the years of Tiberius otherwise than from the Histori/ of 'Infant-baptism. 345 death of Augustus ; if more time were allowed before the baptism. 4. That saying of the Jews to our Saviour, John viii. 57, TUoil art not yet fifty years old^ would make any reader apprehend, that they took him then to be forty or upward. For when they were to express the absurdity of the supposition that he had seen Abraham, being no older than he was ; they would not, one would think, call his age much more than they thought it to be. If they had taken him to be but little above thirty, they would have said, Thou art not yet forty. Therefore the putting of the case, that he was then forty or more, makes that saying of theirs a much more reasonable answer. Not to say any thing now of what Irenaeus had heard those ancient men say of St. John's speak- ing of our Saviour, as having lived to ' an elderly ' age.' I am far from thinking these reasons sufficient to conclude there has been any alteration in the word rpiaKovra, (which was read by Justin, Irenseus, Cle- ment, &c., and is in all the copies that are extant,) but that there is more appearance of reason for that, than for altering the names of the governors of Syria aforesaid. For as to the difficulties that arise in settling the time of that airoypafph (the numbering, enrolling, or taxing) mentioned by St. Luke, ch. ii. 2, to have been at Christ's birth ; they are more easily removed ; not by any alteration of the names or of the words ; but of the translations that have been given of the phrase. The translations represent St. Luke's mean- ing to be, that this taxing was made, ichcji Cyrenius 846 A Defence of the (or Quiriiiius) was governor of Syria. But it is tiiucli more probable that his meaning was on the contrary, to contradistinguish this taxing from that which was in Cyrenius' time ; and to signify that this was before that. It is to be noted, that there was a very remark- able change of the government in Judaea, a7ino Domini 7. (which was of our Saviour's true age, according to bishop Pearson, as I quoted before, the thirteenth year ; according to bishop Ussher, the eleventh) ; a revolution, accompanied with a taxing of the persons and their estates; which, at the time that St. Luke wrote, many could re- member. And of this taxing in Judaea, Cyrenius, a man of consular dignity at Rome, (he had been consul eighteen years before,) being made governor of Syria, (which was a province adjoining to Judaea,) was ordered by Augustus to have the management. The history of it is at large set down by Josephus, lib. xviii. He had said before, how at Herod's death, the chief of the ])eople having been wearied out by his cruelties, and the grievances which they had suffer- ed under him, (for he had utterly corrupted their church-government, and had made the high-priest- hood (which their law accounted most sacred) venal and mercenary ; putting in and turning out the high-priests at his j)leasure, and choosing for that office men the most hated by the priests and peoj^le,) had petitioned Augustus, tliat they might have no more kings ; but that they might be governed immediately by the Romans; to whom they were alrcadv tributary. Au^fustus would have them try once more ; and confirmed the kingdom (or Histoty of Infant-laptism. 347 eihnarchy) to Arclielaus ; and the tetrarcliies to the other sons, as Herod had left it by will. They bore with x\rchelaus for nine years and part of the tenth. He proving no better than his father, they renewed their complaints and petition. Augustus sent for him, heard the matters, banished him into another part of the world, and reduced the kingdom to a province. Then, as Josephus relates, lib. xviii. cap. 1, Qui- rinius was sent to be governor of Syria, and to come into Judaea, which was now annexed to Syria, to seize on Arclielaus' money, and to ' tax the ' people's estates.' One Judas, (whom in the next chapter he styles Judas of Galilee,) together with Saddoc the Pharisee, stirred up the people to rebel ; telling them, that ' this taxing was a mere bondage ; ' and that they ought to stand up for their liberty ; ' or else God would not help them. And the people ' rebelling accordingly, this proved a beginning of ' infinite mischiefs.' He goes on to reckon up the governors of Judiea from that time to Pontius Pilate, and from thence to the end of the Jewish state. This taxing was so remarkable a time, that when in any writing or any discourse, there was mention of ' the taxing,' or ' the time of the taxing ;' it would of course be understood of this. Some former numberings and enrollings of the people had gone through all the provinces of the empire : but with- out any paying of money at the time ; but this was a money-tax. So Gamaliel, in that speech of his, Acts V. 37, After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, means undoubt- A Defence of the etUy this; which had been about twenty- six years before. When St, Luke was mentioning that numbering or enrolling (for it was not a taxing) of all the empire, (not of all the world ^ by order of Caesar Augustus, under which Christ was born ; it might be necessary for him to advertise his reader, that he did not mean tliis taxing of Judi^a by Cy renins when he M'as governor of Syria ; but one before it. For if the reader had taken it for this, it must have created an utter confusion in his mind con- cerning the order of time : a mistake of ten years at least, which would have made the history of Christ's life inconsistent. And he does, as I take it, so advertise his reader ; if his words be construed in a sense of which they are well capable, and which is consistent with his- tory ; though all the translations have rendered them otherwise. But Dr. Whitby^ has, I see, taken notice of this construction, and endeavoured to confirm it ; and so perhaps may several other authors whom I have not seen. St. Luke's words are, chap, ii : having mentioned a decree of Caesar Augustus that there should be a census, or registering, or enrolling of all the empire, he adds, Ahrtj rj ^ A-iroypacpri 7rpu)T>] eyevero ^jyefiovevovTO^ Trj? ^vplag J^vprjuiou. The word TrpwToq, witli a genitive, sometimes has, both in Scripture and in other au- thors, the sense and pro])erty of rrporepog, prior to, or before the thing next mentioned, hi John i. 15, and again, ver. 30. it is of necessity so construed (as • [See his annotation on tlic passage, Paraphrase, vol. i. and (he note in Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase there referred to.] History of Infant- Baptism. 349 Dr. Whitby observes, -wpwroi; ixov Tjv, lie iims before me. And Nonniis in the paraphrase of that place uses both it and -Kpuona-rog so : 'Orri jj.€V rjv Trpwrtoro?. — And there are several examples of the like in the Greek writers ; some of which Dr. Whitby quotes in his comment on this place. The sense, I think, requires that it should be so rendered here ; lu those days there ivent out a decree from Ccesar Augustus that all the ivorld should be tacved. This taxing Trpwrrj eyevero was before that Cy renins was governor of Syria; or, before that tamng which was made by Cyrenius ivhen he was governor of Syria. Everybody then remembered that taxing. If Christ had been born but then, he would not have been near thirty when he suffered. Tertullian must needs have understood it so. For he, lib. 4. contra Marcion. c. 19, speaks of the enrolling or registering at which Christ was born as being known to have been in the time of Satur- ninus' government of Syria. ' Constat,' says he, ' census actos sub Augusto nunc (lege tunc) in Ju- ' dsea per Sentium Saturninum.' ' It is known that ' there was at that time (the time of Christ's birth) ' a registering of the people in Judcea made under • Augustus by Sentius Saturninus.' Now if he took it to be in the time of Saturninus ; he must know that it was not in the time of Quirinius, (for there was about twelve years' distance between Saturni- nus' going out of that office, and Quirinius' coming into it,) and consequently must have understood this 360 A Defence of the text of St. Luke, not ivhen., but before Cyrenius was governor of Syria. This interpretation of the i)lace is confirnierl by the difficulties which all, even the most skilful chro- nologers, that have taken it in the formerly received sense, have found in reconciling it with the history of those times. Baronius finding the times of Qui- rinius' government of Syria too late for Christ's birth, thrusts it up eight years without any other reconciling of passages, than saying broadly, ' Jose- * phus is mistaken.' Others being aware that this is too gross, (for this revolution of the state of Judaea is connected by circumstances with the Roman affairs,) do allow this taxing to have been at this time, as Josephus sets it, after Archelaus' banishment. But then they think that there was another registering or taxing of the whole empire before this, in Herod's time, under which Christ was born ; in which thev are certainly in the rio-lit (Tacitus says, that Augustus made such rolls or reviews more than once) : but then they suppose farther that Quirinius was governor of Syria then too. And so the words of the English and other translations would infer. Now this last is a very improbable thing. Jose- phus particularly names the governors of Syria during the latter part of Herod's reign. Not the years indeed of each of them ; but by circumstances, Titius must have been five or six years before He- rod'y death : presently after he speaks of Saturninus, with whom Herod had much converse and business ; and he seems to have held the place three or four years. And he says expressly that Saturninus was succeeded bv Varus, in whose time Herod died ; History of Infant-baptism. 351 after Varus had been his neighbour (as one may judge by the circumstances of their converse) about a year. So that here is no room for Quirinius. Some suppose therefore that Quirinius never was the ordinary governor of Syria in any part of He- rod's reign, (for that would have been mentioned,) but that while Saturninus, or one of the other, was the ordinary governor, Quirinius Mas sent with an pMraordinary commission to tax Judaea "'. But this is very hard to suppose, while Judaea had its own king. These sort of governors were not sent, except into such countries as were reduced to pro- vinces ; as Syria had been now for a long time, but Judaea not yet. But suppose it ; still there does not seem any reason that, in order to tax the people of Judaea, he should be made governor of Syria. The translations do not make very good sense. They do not know what to do with the word Trpcvrij. The vulgar, ' Haec descriptio prima facta est a prae- * side Syrise Cyrenio.' Some mean by it, ' Hsec ' prima descriptio.' Others, ' Haec descriptio primum ' facta est.' As ours, This taa,'ing was first made when, &c. Concerning any one taxing it cannot properly be said to be first made at such or such a time ; for one taxing is made but once. They who think Quirinius was twice governor, would, 1 sup- pose, if the Mords would bear it, translate ; ' This ' taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor the ^ first time.' But neither will the M'ords bear that construction ; nor is there any appearance that he was twic^ governor. But if we understand it ; This was a tamng (or registering) prior to (or before) that which was "" [See Dr. Hammond's note upon the place.] 352 A Defence of the when Cyrenms was governor of Sj/ria ; both tlio word irpcoTt] is necessary in the sentence; and it agrees with the history of the times. I know that Justin Martyr, in his Apology to the emperors, does suppose Christ to have been born at that time when Quirinius, being made the ordi- nary governor, did tax Judaea. His words shew that he means that time. For he calls Quirinius the first governor of Judaea for the Romans. During the time of the kings, the Romans had no other governors in Juda}a but the kinos. But when Archelaus (the last king, or ethnarch, there) did, as we call it, abdicate ; then the Romans sent go- vernors to receive the taxes and tribute. And of these Quirinius was the first. But for Justin to set the date of Christ's birth at this time, is a mis- take of above ten years, and proves nothing but (what I said before) that the Christians of those times had no skill in keeping the account of time. Irenacus made no mistake comparable to this. And yet nobody for this has judged Justin's Apology to be spurious ; nor even for his mistake of making Ptolomy Philadelphus contemporary with Herod, which is a mistake of above a hundred years. I have been larger in this than was needful for answering JMr. Gale. Every one sees how poor an evasion it is, to deny the authenticalness of any ancient Christian book, because it has mistakes in the chronology of the years of Christ's life. The explication I have given of St. Luke's words con- cerning the taxing, does not, I confess, settle the time of it ; it shews it to have been before Quiri- nius' time, (and so removes a puzzling difficulty,) but not hoir lonq before. T do not write these History of Infant-ha'ptism. 353 things for Mr. Gale, to whom they are useless ; nor for the learned in chronology, to whom they are needless : but that the ordinary reader may have a conception of the years something nigher the truth. Let us see some of Mr. Gale's arguments. Page 494. He says, ' It was commonly known ' from the censual rolls of Augustus, both at what ' time and in what place, our Lord was born.' And therefore he thinks Irenseus, or any of the ancient Christians, could not mistake the time. To say, *' It was conimoyily known,' is gross igno- rance, if he thinks so ; and a gross abuse of his ignorant reader, if he say it without thinking so. That there were rolls of the number of citizens or freemen in each province, laid up for some time in the Capitol, or such like place, is very probable. But there is no account of any Christian that ever saw them; nor likelihood that they might have had the sight and searching of them, to find the name of any particular person, if they had desired it. But he talks as if they were common in everybody's hands. If any Christian had ever seen them, and had seen our Lord's name Jesus registered, as the son of Joseph and Mary, born in such a year of Augustus, and had declared to his fellow-Christians such his account ; this had at once ended all dis- putes and mistakes ; and all Christians after that would have agreed in one account. Whereas M^e see on the contrary, that those few of the ancients that about a hundred and fifty or two hundred years after the time have said any thing about it, have differed very much ; not only Irenseus, but all the rest. Neither they nor we having any plain proof of the very year when Christ was born, or WALL, VOL. IV. A a 354 A Defence of the when that census or taxing was, but these two : it must have been in Herod's time ; and it must (if the words are taken strictly, and no mistake be in the copies) have been at or under the distance of thirty years reckoned back from the fifteenth of Tiberius computed from some epocha ; but it is not certain from which. He says, Justin Martyr and TertulHan do appeal to these rolls kept at Rome. Justin docs, at the place I just now mentioned, {Apol. 2. circa med.) tell the emperors, that it had been prophesied that the Christ should be born at Bethlehem, a village nigh Jerusalem ; and that our Jesus was accordingly born there, 'you may,' says he, ' learn from the tax -rolls made by Cyrenius, ' your first governor in Judaea.' He supposed or guessed that there were then remaining in the em- peror s custody such rolls, which they might, if they please, search ; but it does not follow, that any one that would, might search them ; much less that any one had searched them upon this account. And the saying of Tertullian imports no more. He speaks of them as of rolls, which one might suppose to be kept in the Roman archives ; not as though he had seen them, or had any account of any one that had ; much less as though he knew what they contained concerning Christ's birth, or the time of it. And indeed, if there were then any in being, and Justin and he had been permitted to search them ; one of those two would have searched in the time of Quirinins, and the other in the rolls of Saturninus, as I shewed from their several words. It is probable enough that both of them were mistaken in their guessing that the names of par- Ilutory of Infant-baptism. ^55^ ticnlar persons were set down in them. Suppose the names of every one, and the parents of every child, were set down in the first copies drawn up in the several provinces ; yet it is likely that in those copies sent to Rome and laid up there, there was recorded only the number of persons in each city, tribe, &c., and the value of the estates. Else, the account of all the provinces and kingdoms of that empire would have filled books too many for one house to hold. In short, these rolls, if they had been searched, might have given some light : but since nobody did search them, neither did Irenaeus know, nor do we know, what was in them. Besides, that Irenaeus' mistake was not in the date of Christ's birth. He sets that at the forty-first of Augustus ; which is the time, or within a year of the time, that the chronologers would have it ; and which they think those rolls, if they had been searched, would have confirmed. His mistake was in the number of about ten years which he supposes our Saviour to have lived after his baptism, and before his preaching ; which number of years the time of Pontius Pilate, reckoned by Josephus to be but ten years, will not allow. He had not read, or did not mind, that limitation of ten years in Josephus. Just as Mr. Gale had not read, or did not mind, that of St. Matthew, that he was born in Herod's time, which will not allow him to have been so young as thirty at the fifteenth of Tiberius, taken by the ordinary account. Page 495. * If Christ lived but forty years from ' the forty-first of Augustus, he could not be cru- * cified in the reign of Tiberius.'] Why not ? The forty-first is indeed too late upon other accounts. A a 2 356 A Defence of the But if he bad been born atin. per. Jul. 4710, (in which Augustus began his forty-first year,) since Tiberius Hved to 4750, anno Dom. 37 ; — there is the distance of forty years. Our Saviour did not indeed live to that last year of Tiberius. But why does Mr. Gale say, that if he had, he would not have been forty ? Page 495. ' Pilate was removed from his govern- * ment at least a year before Tiberius died.'] Whence comes this news? Josephus relates how Vitellius, governor of Syria, hearing of Pilate's villainies, sent IVIarcellus to take care of Juda?a, and ordered Pilate to be carried to Rome to answer for his crimes before Tiberius ; but before he was brought thither, Tiberius died. That sailing to Rome could not take up nigh a year. Page 496. ' He was made governor in the twelfth * of Tiberius, and continued but ten years.'] Bishop Ussher shews that it must have been ten years, and some months over. Now from the latter end of Tiberius' twelfth year, to his death, are but ten years seven months. Ibid. Mr. Gale runs downward seventy years to the destruction of the temple, to find the time of Christ's birth ; reckoning backward up again the years of the emperors that were between ; not one of them being truly accounted. The aim is, that since that destruction happened anno Dom. 70. he may, by subtracting out of seventy the yeai*s that passed between Christ's death and it, leave but a few for the time of his life. He cites authors that say forty (or some of them forty-two) years were between the passion and that destruction. This would leave for Christ's life but thirty or twenty- History of Infani-haptism. 357 eight. Our chronologer himself was ashamed of this foot of the account. By adding some scraps to the emperor's years, he makes the sum (which really was seventy and no more) seventy-one. So he leaves our Saviour thirty-one. And, to the shame of all chronologers, and of St. John, (who recites at least three (probably four) passovers after the baptism at about thirty,) says, p. 497, ' about ' which age (viz., thirty-one) he was crucified.' Could not this poor accomptant perceive where the mistake of all this lies ? The destruction of the temple by Titus was indeed ayino Domini 70. That is, seventy years, and no more, had passed from the beginning of the common cp.ra by which we reckon the annos Domini, to the time of the destruction. But does it follow that no more years had passed from the true time of Christ's birth ? Every body that has spent an hour in these studies knows that cera is too short, and that our Saviour was born several years before the beginning of it ; six, or five, or four at the least. Else nobody need study for the time of Christ's birth ; but depend upon it, that it was from this present year 1719 years. And our disputant seems to know no better. In the same page he very seriously quotes Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Phlegon, as authors by whose computations the erroneous account of Irenaeus may be made apparent. There Phlegon places the fifteenth of Tiberius (when St. Luke says our Sa- viour was baptized) forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, anno Domini 70. And Clemens and Origen place our Saviour's passion forty-two years before it. And he takes notice that Phlegon says so expressly; and that Irenoeus cannot be supposed 858 A Defence of the ignorant of it. Does lie think these accounts to be true and consistent ? If not, why does he dwell upon them to the re])roach of Irena^us ? But if he do, (and he seems to think so in earnest,) then our Saviour died two years before he was baptized. Rather he might have seen by this, that all men in those times, as well as Irenaeus, were at a loss in counting the years of our Saviour's life. That he may shew some of his own skill in chronology, beside what he quotes from authors ; he says here, that this Phlegon wrote a little before Irenseus was born ; and the next page but one, says, he wrote but in Hadrian's time. Does he think that Irenaeus was not born before Hadrian's time ; and especially the latter end of it, anno 138, to which year Phlegon brings down his chronicle ? This cannot be Mr. Gale. This must be spurious. Page 498, he runs over the same computation again, out of Joseph us, after a more absurd manner than before. He gives us a table of the years of the emperors ; wherein the reign of Tiberius is twenty, which every one knows was twenty-two and above a half; and which he himself in the page before had set down twenty-three. The foot of this account is in the next page, ' Christ must have * suffered at near thirty years of age.' Boys that are taught arithmetic, if they perceive the total sum to be certainly wrong, cast it over again and amend it, before they shew it their master. Here is a pro- ficient who shews his calculation to all the worlds the foot whereof stands as you see. Page 497, ho has given us an evptiKa of his own, (which if it had been true, would have compensated History of Infant-haptism. 359 the tcedium of reading all this trash,) that there are observations of eclipses that will settle all this matter. How ignorant have all chronologers been, who have in volumes disputed a question which this young master in the art can demonstrate at once ! * It is plain,' he says, ' from, &c., and from * the observation of eclipses, that Augustus died ' fourteen years after the birth of Christ.' Now the year of Augustus' death we all know ; that it was per. Jul. 4*727' duohus SeMis Coss. which is aim. Do7n.\4>. and the (\2ij Aiig.l^. So then Mr. Gale's eclipse will fix our Saviour s birth some time in the year before a7in. Dom. 1. per. Jul. 4713. I should be unwilling to have so mean a thought of this corrector of Irena3us, as that he should in- tend no more than that Augustus died in the year aforesaid, (which every one knows,) and that an eclipse that year at a certain distance before his death, and another in the same year at a certain distance after it, do confirm that to be the year which the historians who mention his death, do mean : but that if he be asked, how old our Saviour was at that year, mm. Dom. 14, whether fourteen, or sixteen, or eighteen, or twenty ; and desired to prove his answer by the history of some eclipse happening at a known distance from our Saviour's birth ; he should have nothing to say, but only that Augustus died in the fourteenth year of those called ' the years of our Lord.' We must not think so poorly till we hear farther from him about the eclipse. He himself has said four or five times over, that the birth was the forty-first of Augustus ; and says in the next page, that Augustus reigned fifty- seven years (so he did, reckoning from the death. 860 A Defence of tie of his uncle; and something over): the eclipse, when it comes, will make these pages spurious. Or else, that fifty-seven exceeds forty-one but by fourteen. Page 500. Mr. Gale makes a second exception against this passage in Irenaeus, wherein infants are reckoned among those who ' by Christ are * regenerated unto God ;' that we have not the original words of it, (as indeed we have not of any of his works, except a few fragments,) but only a translation in Latin. But since this translation is so ancient ; made either in the author's own time, (as Dr. Grabe thinks,) or at least (as he proves) soon after ; and has been quoted, owned, and acknowledged all along ever since ; this must appear, to any reader of those ancient books, a very frivolous evasion ; made only for the necessity of an hypothesis, which cannot stand a fair trial. But this it is to have to do with an adversary that runs from the matter in hand into long disputes and cavils about the authenticalness of the books. All, or in a manner all the quotations that have been made by the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus have been taken from this translation, and have been allowed ; and it is too late now to demur to its authority ; especially in such a place as this, which runs agreeably, and pertinently, to what goes before, and what follows. It is indeed composed in an uncouth and barba- rous Latin phrase ; partly for that the translator had but a mean faculty in that phrase, (which is no exception against the truth or faithfulness of the translation,) and partly for that he has aimed to History of Infant-haptism. 361 keep in his Latin all the idioms of the Greek which he translated ; and to render every sentence verbatim (which will make any translation barba- rous). But this rather assures than overthrows the repute of its fidelity; and is the case (though not perhaps in the same degree) of all in that time, who translated the books of the Gospel, or any book which they accounted of awful authority ; as is apparent in the fragments that are left of the old Italic version, and in the whole vulgar Latin translation of the Bible; and much more in the Greek Septuagint. This is it, which the writers whom Mr. Gale quotes here, do note as a fault in the translation ; that it is in a dull, barbarous, impolite style. They do not impeach the honesty of the man. His fault was, aiming at an excessive exactness. That un- handsome expression of Scaliger's, (which nobody but Mr. Gale would have expressed with an air of seriousness,) that ' the translator was an ass,' is taken • out of a book, which has done Scaliger a great deal of discredit"; as the like usage has done to Luther, and some others. Both these men gave their pens too much liberty in censorious and extravagant ex- pressions ; but it seems they gave their tongues more. And they have had, after their death, friends or else enemies, who have published to the world all their rash sayings spoken in passion, dispute, or table-talk. Which course, if it were taken with the best men that are, would expose their character. It is well when a man's sedate thoughts are worth publishing. Nobody's tattle is. ° [The collection entitled ' Scaligerana :' see the passage alluded to, quoted at vol. iii. p. 500.] 362 A Defence of the As for the instances wliicli Mr. Gale has picked out of the whole five books, where there is some variety between this translation and some transcripts of the original, found in Eusebius, Epiphanius, &c., they are not more considerable for sense, nor more in number, than are found in the copies of any book whatever, that has had so many copies transcribed of it, as this book and translation must be suj)posed to have had. Epiphanius might transcribe from one copy which had some various lections, which the copy made use of by this translator had not. There are none that alter any doctrine, history, &c., delivered by this holy Father. JNIr. Gale, who ex- cepts against any doctrine of Irena^us being proved by this translation, might with the same face except against any one translation of the Bible. For in comparing that one with some other copies and some other translations, there would more various lections be found. And whatever various lections there are of any other place of Irenseus, there are none of the place before us. To one that is so endless in his cavils and excep- tions against books and translations, we must, I think, stop his mouth with that answer of JNIr. Stokes, p. 43. ' It is your common method to evade ' the authority of the Fathers, by saying, they are ' but translations, &c. But you have neither ori- ' ginals nor translations of those early times, on ' your side. Were there no antipaxlobaptists ' then, to translate?' &c. Page 504. If the place must be allowed for genuine ; yet Mr. Gale will not be found without something to say. His third exception is, * that by ' the M'ord regenerated in it, there is no reason to History of Infant-baptism. 363 ' understand baptized.^ And whereas I had said that the word regeneration does in the usual phrase of those times signify baptism ; this he not only denies, but with that rudeness which seems natural to him, says, it is a sign that ' I never read the ' books of those times;' and, that 'nothing can be ' more apparently false.' To satisfy the reader, who might not be ac- quainted with those books, (for they that are, do know it themselves,) I referred to what I had said in the introduction, concerning the Jeius applying this word regenerated, or bom again, to the pro- selytes whom they baptized ; and concerning some places of Scripture, where it is so used : and I added at the place itself for the present some sayings both of the Latin and Greek Fathers, which do plainly shew, that they not only used that word for baptism, but also that they so appropriated it to baptism, as to exclude any other conversion or re- pentance, that is ' not accompanied with baptism,' from being signified by it. That I did it in that chapter itself, where I quote Irenaeus ; but the whole book afterward is full of quotations, (I think above a hundred,) where this sense plainly appears. Which the reader must turn to, if he would see which of us is guilty of the ' apparent falsehood.' What he has to overthrow them, is, Page 505, First, for the Jeivs. He first broadly denies that they used any initiatory baptism of prose- lytes at all, (by which you see what an adversary I have got, that will deny what every body knows to be ti-ue,) and faces it out, that he has proved they had none. Those that will, may take a journey to St.Alban's to see his proofs. But it will be to no 364 A Defence of the purpose ; since he declares beforehand in effect, that he will not lose, if none be found. For he adds, ' However if it should be allowed they had ' such a baptism ; I believe they nowhere call it re- * generation.' I had shewed him where they call it so. He observes ; the word there is new-born. And that any one becoming a proselyte is not said to be new-born neither ; but as new-born. I suppose he has some disciples whom he can convince that netc-born and regenerate are not the same thing; because one begins with an N, and the other with an R. And some Nicodemuses, who will not believe they could be new-born or regene- rate without entering the second time into their mother's womb. When our Saviour says, born agaiti, is it not meant, as born again? If they were neiv-born and regenerate too, Mr. Gale will not yield. He denies that they were put into that state by baptism. But it had been largely shewn before, that they accounted them to be made proselytes by bap- tism. And therefore to say, 'If any one become a ' proselyte, he is like a child new-born ;' is as much as to say, ' If any one be baptized.' But he observes, that in one of the places ' the same is said of a ' slave made free,' that he also is as a child new- born. INIaimonides does express that resemblance be- tween a Gentile proselyted, and a slave made free ; that each of them is like a child new-born : which comparison does the more lively express the regene- ration s]ioken of. A slave, when made free, is rege- nerate, i. e. brought into a new state, in respect of temporal concerns ; as a juoselyte, when baptized. History of Infant-haptism. 365 is, in respect of spiritual concerns. It is the spi- ritual regeneration we are speaking of. But he pleads, ' Why should not their circum- * cision be the regeneration, as well as bap- ' tism V I grant it. A proselyte, or a proselyte's child, was at that time to be circumcised and baptized ; and both together were the symbol of his regenera- tion. And so it would be now to a Christian's child, or a man turning Christian, if Christ had appointed both to be used. But as he has appointed baptism only ; that only now is the symbol of the new spi- ritual state entered into, i. e. of the regeneration. But to conclude, as Mr. Gale does, that the pas- sages which I there produced, intimate no such thing of either of them, is like him. For they speak it plainly. Being no better able to maintain his denial of this phrase used by the Jeivs, he turns the dispute into railing ; ' If all the rabbins did assert this ; is * it becoming a Christian divine to forsake the ' Scriptures, to follow the rabbins ?' A calumny this is ; to call that the forsaking of the Scriptures, which is used as a help for the better understanding the language of them. Secondly, for the Scripture. — Mr. Gale, who had before told his reader that I pretended no proof from Scripture, comes the second time [p. 507.] to attack my proof from John iii. 5, Except any one he horn again, horn of water and of the Spirit, &c,. that the Scripture does call our baptism our new hirtJi, or regeneration. He confesses those words ' are a little obscure since the prevailing of infant- ' baptism.' For, he says, since that time ' all that 366 J Defence of the ' were baptized, were sjiokcn of as regenerated. ' And then infants being baptized, they must be * taken to be regenerated too.' Now by this chronological calculation of the time when persons baptized were spoken of as regene- rated; that it was since the prevailing of infant- baptism ; it appears that not only Irenaeus (who in the place we are upon speaks so) lived since that time ; but our Lord also. For that which is in other places expressed, baptized with water, and baptized tvith the Spirit, he in this text expresses, born (or regenerate) of water and of the Spirit. Page 507, he says, ' the mistake may be easily ' seen. For our Lord does not say, born of water ' alone, but born of water and the Spirit. He * does not speak of two new births, one by water * and one by the Spirit ; but only of one, which was * to be of water and the Spirit in conjunction.' Now these are indeed the plain words ; and this is the very sense of the place. And it is what we urge against the antipa^dobaptists ; and what, if they would keep it in mind, M^ould set them right. Therefore see how long he is able to stand to this. Within the space of a page he has these words, in contradiction to our Lord, and to himself. ' The ' baptizing in water is not the regenerating' — (Not that alone, we know. But he adds fiirther) — ' The ' regeneration really consists but in one,' &c. * He speaks onlt/ of being born of the Spirit.' And again, p. 510, ' Our Saviour means only being born * of the Sjiirit, by or in the use of baptism with ' water, as the external symbol and seal of such ' regeneration.' Our Saviour certainly means as he says. Born of History of Infant-haptism. 367 water and of the Spirit. And it is Mr. Gale's own mistake in the import of the word, that makes him think our Saviour's speech must be construed other- wise than the words stand. He thinks that baptism means only the outward part, the external washing ; whereas it is (as he had better expressed it before, in explaining the new birth) one baptism, or one Tegeneration, of water and the Spirit in conjunc- tion. This mistake appears to hang in his mind by what he says, Page 509, ' Christ speaks of spiritual regenera- ' tion, and no other. For had he by born again ' meant baptism,' &c. He speaks indeed of a spiritual regeneration, i. e. of the persons coming into a new spiritual state. Which is effected by the outward action appointed by Christ, accompanied with the grace and operation of his Spirit. As for the sense in which a baptized infant is born of the Spirit, I have been forced to speak of it twice or thrice already. Mr. Gale will not seem to understand that there is any efficacy at all of God's Spirit extended to infants to put them in a new spiritual state ; but yet he dares not openly deny it. He refers here, p. 508, to the twenty-fifth article of the church of England, as if that made for him There is nothing there for his purpose. Our church plainly owns two parts in one sacrament ; the out- ward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace. If he pleaded only, that the ' inward spiritual grace, ' the being born of the Spirit,' is the chief, no man would oppose him. Every one knows it. Page 510. From another place of Scripture, which I cited to shew that the Scripture applies the word 368 A Defence of the regeneration to baptism, it will apj)ear by Mr. Gale's rule, that St. Paul also lived ' since the time * that infant-baptism prevailed.' For he uses it so; Tit. iii. 5. He saved us hy the washing (or baptism) of regeneration. Mr. Gale allows that ' by the washing of regene- * ration is meant baptism ; that is,' says he, ' by the ' whole phrase ;' but then he brings in a logical quibble about the quiddities of the things ; that washing denotes ba])tism ; but regeneration does not. This metaphysical distinction is grounded on that mistake of his, (which I mentioned just now, and which runs through all his arguings,) that the sa- crament of baptism consists only in the outward part, the corporal washing: and it is nothing per- tinent to our argument. For the argument requires no more, than that the word regeneration does generally in the Scripture (as here) and more con- stantly in the ancient Fathers, carry along M'ith it a supposal of baptism, (whether as a cause, or effect, or necessary adjunct, is nothing to the purpose of our argument,) so as that wherever any Christian author speaks of any persons regenerated., (as Ire- naeus here speaks of infants regenerated,) we may conclude they were baptized. That regeneration does connote baptism, the reader saw before at his p. 481, and sees here, and will see again ; that whenever he is put to a shift, he flies to this logical quirk for an evasion. I gave a solution of it, in answering his foresaid page 481. Page 512, he objects that baptism is often culled the baptism of repentance ; and yet that repentance does not signify baptism. History of I'nfant-haptism. 369 This then shews the difference between the use of the word repentance, and the use of the word regeneration, or new birth ; that the name of peni- tent is often in the Scripture and the Christian writers given to persons not yet baptized ; or is given to them in respect of some great change and recovery from a sinful course into which they had after baptism fallen ; but the name of regeneration, or regenerate, never. In tliis very chapter concern- ing Irena^us, I gave the words of Gregory Nazian- zen, warning a baptized person against falling back into courses of wickedness ; ' There is not another ' regeneration to be had afterward ; though it be ' sought with never so much crying and tears.' And yet he grants in the next words that there is repentance after baptism. The baptism of John is often called tJie baptism of repeiitance ; (and all the three places of Scripture, which Mr. Gale pro- duces here, Mark i. 4, Acts xiii. 24, and xix. 4, speak of that ;) but none but the baptism of Christ is called the baptism of regeneration. Whatever epithets may be conmion to baptized and unbap- tized persons, the term regenerate is not. Paufe 513. Concerninq; the use of this word among the ancient Christians ; whereas I had said that in their iisual phrase it signifies baptism ; he in his usual phrase says, ' It is one of the most ' groundless assertions that I ever met with,' &c. Now the thing is what every one that has read them knows to be true. But how shall one con- vince his readers ? If any of them has read but so many of them as are recited in my book, he must see that this answer of their defender is not true. Mr. Whiston, though he be engaged on the same WALL, VOL. IV. B b '370 A Defence of the side, yet having read what I say, and what he says here, owns in his ' Primitive Infant-baptism,* 1>. 7, *That regeneration is here [viz, John iii. 3, 5.] ' and elsewhere (generally, if not constantly) used ' with relation to baptismal regeneration, is undeni- • able.' Mr. AVhiston adds, ' not as supposing the bare * outward ceremony to deserve that name.' Which we all know. To disprove this use of the word, he tells his sir, that he has already sliewn him that Justin by the word regeneration cannot be under- stood to mean baptism. The words of Justin which I produced, [part i. p. 68.] concerning new converts that came to be baptized, were ; ' Then we bring them to some place ' where there is water ; and they are regenerated ' by the same way of regeneration by which Ave ' were regenerated; for they are washed with water ' in the name,' &c. The reader must pardon me for troubling him with the words over again ; for I must declare, and I do it in cool blood, I never met with any one of so finished effrontery to deny things that are plain and visible. When Mr. Whiston said, this use of the word was undeniable ; he meant it could not be denied by any man of tolerable modesty. For other Fathers after Justin, he has been searching the indexes ; and though nineteen in twenty of the places to which they directed, must have been plain for this sense ; he has found some that may bear a cavil. There is hardly any word whatever of so deter- minate and constant a meaning, when it is applied History of Infant-haptism. 371 to one subject, but that, if it be used in relation to another subject of a different nature, it takes a different sense. The word baptism itself is found sometimes used in relation to sufferings or to vices ; baptized with afflictions, or in voluptuousness, &c. This does not hinder us to say, that the word dap- tism has a constant signification, viz., the sacra- mental ivashing in the form appointed. So if I say that the word regenerate has a constant sense among tlie ancient Christians, to mean, or connote baptism ; no man of sense will challenge me with instances, where the ivorld^ or the earth, &cc., is said to be regenerated, i. e. new made, new moulded, &c., because he naturally knew I was to be under- stood concerning the sense of the word, when it is applied to men ; and in their religious concerns. And even when they are applied to the same sub- ject (as regeneration to men) it is also conniion for all words to be used sometimes metaphorically, and by way of allusion. In which cases no man expects a strict account of the same sense of a word as it has in its ordinary signification. But such differ- ences as these do always ap])ear by the scope of the place. Now must I follow Mr. Gale in an imper- tinent ramble which he has made to pick up some such instances. They begin at Page 514. There he brings two places of Origen, where, by his own confession -KaXi'yyei'ecria is taken for the resurrection, the day of judgviod, the world to come. Our English translation, in one of the places which Origen there quotes, Matt. xix. 28, renders it, the regeneration. But Origen takes it (and, I suppose, rightly) for that time of new-making, or (as St. Peter, Acts iii. calls it) restitution of all B b 2 37Ji A Defence of the things. To what purpose does Mr. Gale bring these places here ? Yet they might have been of some use to him. For they might have taught him to construe and translate that passage of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, 3. of \vhich he had just before made non- sense. Clement's words are good sense ; speaking of the Brachnians. Ys^aruippovovarL Qavdrov, Kui Trap' ovoev riyovvTai to (^>iv' ireldovTai yap eivai iraXiyyevea-lav. ' They fear not death, nor esteem life : for they be- * lieve that there is a resurrection.' The place that he quotes, page 518, of Clemens Romanus, may most fitly be considered here before- hand ; because the sense of it is like these other. He says, 'Noah preached TraXiyyei^ea-iav to the world.' Which is meant either (as Junius, the first editor, understands it) a resurrection; or else, that he by preparing the ark admonished men of that destruc- tion and renovation of the world, which was then coming and did quickly come ; ivlierehy the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished ; and the restoring it was a Trakiyyevearla. Mr. Gale is angry with Junius for spoiling one of his quotations ; and accosts that learned man with his usual rudeness : ' it is strange what could be in ' Junius' mind.' In a case where every reader sees that himself is in the wronof. These places, where regeneration is applied to the world, should not have been set down at all in a question concerning the sense of that word when it is applied to the spiritual concerns of a person. He has found two j)laees where it is applied to a person ; but in a very metaphorical way, which History of hif ant-baptism. 373 runs out from the common road of the use of words, and they are both in Clemens Alexandrinus, who generally gives himself a latitude in that way. One is, that recited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. 23. In that example shewn by St. John of the recovery of the young apostate from a state of soul that might have been thought desperate, by a repentance as extraordinary as the fact had been, Clement aims to express it in words also alike extraordinary. In the description of the repent- ance, among other expressions, he has this, (which Mr, Gale should not have omitted,) that he ' was ' i^aTTTifoVei/o? €K Sevrepov, baptized the second time ' with his own tears.' And in carrying on this hyperbolical allegory, he says, St. John shewed in this performance fxeya yvcopio-jULa TraXiyyevecria?, Kai TpOTraiov avacrracreco^ (BXeTro/uevi]^, ' a great pattern of ' a regeneration, and instance of a visible resurrec- * tion.' In the same sense that he calls it a regene- ration ; he calls it also a baptisin, and a resurrection ; both one and the other hyperbolically expressed. For as, properly speaking, there is but one baptism ; so Gregory Nazianzen (as I there cited him) says, ' there is not a second regeneration.' Not but that they allowed repentance afterward ; but they in ordinary speech called no repentance by the name of regeneratio7t, but that upon which any one was baptized. The other is Strom, ii. p. 425. He had been speaking of the duties of matrimony, and the great guilt and mischief of adultery. And then says, t\ ovv vojuo? ; * what provision does the law make ' against this ?' The substance of the answer is, that in order to clear the world from such mischiefs, the 874 J Defence uf the law orders the adulterer and the adulteress to be both put to death. And then he pretends to shew that the provision made by the Gospel is not inferior to this ; that the law and the Gospel do agree, &;c. 'H 'yap roi iropvevcraa-a, &c. ' For a woman that has ' fallen into adultery, is indeed as yet alive in (or to) ' sin ; but she is dead rah €VTo\al(} to (or by) the * commandments (dead in law). But she, when she * has repented, oiov avayewtjOeia-u, being, as it were, ' born over again by the change of her manners, ' TraXiyyevecrluv eyei ^wJ/? has a resurrection to life. * The former harlot being dead ; and she that was ' begotten by repentance, coming to life again.' Mr. Gale, not observing the occasion of these words, (which was not in the inded\) has lost the emphasis of them ; and translated them wrong [p. 516.] For TeQvt]Kvia]9 7ropi/tj(i rr/g TraXam? can never be construed, ' she is dead to the former adulteries ;' but ' the former adulteress being dead.' Nobody would seek for the ordinary sense of a word from such a sentence as this, which all runs upon a quasi. She is, as it were, another woman ; and so is, as it icere, born again. And in the fol- lowing words, avTiKa \i66Xeu(TToi jlvovTuii ' they are ' at present stoned,' he means, they are by the sen- tence of condemnation in the Gospel, as it tvere, or in effect, stoned. There are none of the other instances which he gives of the use of the word (which are at all per- tinent to this matter) but what may, I think, be fairly supposed to have in the author's meaning a relation to baptism ; though he has picked out one or two where this relation is not at that place expressed. Tertullian says, ' We are born in the Histort/ of Infant-baptism. 375 • space of ten months ; wliich is the number of * the commandments, bj which' (or in which, or unto which) ' we are regenerated.' AVhich may be para])hrased, or baptized. For the baptismal sponsion was, as, to believe in God ; so also, to keep his commandments. In which respect, as they often say, we are regenerated (or baptized) to, or into, the creeds or faith ; so here Tertullian means ; we are baptized to, or unto, the keeping of the commandments. The rest of the places he cites, either have not the word at all, (as that of Barnabas, which he calls a very remarkable one,) or have it in a sense which is plainly enough, and in some of them expressly, applicable to baptism. In Clement's EpitomcB et Eclogce there is much talk of baptism ; mostly concerning the Valentinians' way of explaining the doctrine thereof. And it appears that they, as well as the catholics, gave it the name of regeneration. There are such sayings as these : •Epitom. p. 802. ' Our regeneration is from water ' and the Spirit.' And a little after; ' Therefore * our Saviour was baptized, though not needing it ' himself, that he might sanctify all water to those ' who should afterward be regenerated. By it * (meaning this regeneration) we are cleansed not * only in body, but also in soul. And it is a proof * of even our invisible (or inward) parts being sanc- ' tified by it, that unclean spirits, which are infolded ' in the soul, are purged away by this new and ' spiritual birth. The water above the heavens. ' For as much as baptism is performed by water * and the Spirit,' &c. 376 J Defence of the All this stands together in Clement. And yet Mr. Gale, Page 516, leaves out all the rest, and quotes that scrap out of them ; ' This new and spiritual * birth, (or generation) :' and would make his reader believe they are spoken without any reference to baptism. And at the same place he quotes out of the pre- ceding page of Clement, p. 801, ' Baj)tism, which is ' the sign of regeneration ;' as words making for his tuni ; and says, ' Clement is so far from leaving any ' room to imagine baptism was called rPAfeneration, ' that he expressly says. It is the sign of it.' All such places do, as I said before, help to prove that the ancients connected the notion of regeneration with that of baptism ; not limiting themselves to one logical idea of the word ; but using it sometimes for the inward part of the sa- crament, and oftener for the whole complex notion of it ; as it is not half a page from this, where the words I last quoted are, ' Our regeneration is by ' water and the Spirit ;' but never speak of it as a thing that can be separate from baptism. Mr. Gale's business was, to prove that the word is used without including, supposing, or connoting baptism : so as that the infants, which Irenjeus speaks of, might be called regenerate without being baptized. One more observation he makes. Page 516, out of these Excerpta, p. 800, which is a notable one. Clement, he says, ' instead of calling ' baptism generation^ or regeneration^ directly on the ' contrary calls it deaths and the end of the old ' life.' History of hifant-hapHsm. 377 Now see the whole sentence. 'Therefore baptism ' is called a death and the end of the old life ; since ' we renounce all evil powers ; but life according ' to Christ, who is the only Lord of it.' Did not he make a hard shift for this quotation ? And is it not a learned argument, that ba]>tism, if it be a death unto sin, cannot be a new birth unto righteous- ness ? For other books of Clement, where he speaks, not the sense of the Valentinians, but his own, Mr. Gale, at Page 515, quotes his Psedagog. lib. i. p. 90, say- ing, ' God receives those that fly to him, koL avayev- ' i/j/ixa? Tw TTuevjuan eig vioOetrlav, and having regenerated ' them by the Spirit to the adoption of sons, rjTrlovq ' oi§ev, finds them to be of a good disposition, and ' loves them,' &c. What difficulty could Mr. Gale find in apprehend- ing the regeneratincj of them by the Spirit to be in the use of baptism ; and in the same sense that our •Saviour expressed. Except any one be regenerated by water and the Spirit f Is it because Clement does not mention the water at this place? But he does at forty other places ; as in the same book, p. 133, ' God has made man of the dust, regenerated * him of water, perfected him by the Spirit, in- ' structed him by his word,' &;c. Mr. Gale says, ' Here avayevvrja-a^ Trvev/maTi, I hope, ' cannot be thought to mean baptized, especially ' since it is said that those who are so regenerated ' are ^Trtoi.' Is not such arguing intolerably imper- tinent ? Does baptism hinder people from being good, meek, or humble ? The same Clement, Strom. 5, p. 552, for a proof 378 J Defence of the that the notion of regenerating by baptism is ge- neral, says ; firei kcCi irapa Toh j3upl3dpoi9 (piXoaocpoi^ to Karri-^jaai re kui (pooTicrai, ufayepi^rjaai Xeyerai, ' Since ' even among the heathen philosophers, to instruct * and baptize, is called to regenerate' Mr. Gale, that he may turn this (which is indeed a proof of our sense of the word) to a proof against it, translates it, * to instruct and enlighten the under- ' standing;' not knowing, or not willing to own, that (po)Ttcrai in Clement and other the most an- cient Christian writers, is used for baptizing. That Clement uses it so, is apparent from forty places ; but ])articularly from one which Mr. Gale saw, and quoted a little before a part of the paragraph, in the story of the young man whom St. John recovered from his lost condition. The first part of that story was, that St. John committed him to a bishop, who (as St. Clement relates it) took him home to him, educated and instructed him, &c., ku) to TeXeuracov e(pcoTia-€, * and at last baptized him.' And (that Mr. Gale may be sure that is the meaning) the next words are ; * but after that remitted of his care ; for * that he had now given him the perfect preserva- * tive, the seal of our Lord.' And that the heathens did use a baptism, such as St. Clement here speaks of, and did call it regenera- tioti, he saw in that passage of Tertullian, (which I cited, De Baptismo, cap. 5, * Tinguntur, idque se * in regeneration em et impunitatem perjuriorum ' suorum agere proesumunt.' ' They are baptized : * and say they do it for their regeneration,' &c. And adds afterwards ; ' This is the aim of the * Devil imitating the things of God.' By which he must refer to the Jeicish baptism. Histoiy of hif ant-baptism. 379 Page 516. He brings a place of Origen on John, p. 124, and gives a translation of it at large. But to what purpose in this question, no reader can guess. There is nothing in it against, but rather for, the notion of regeneration by the Christian baptism. The substance of it is, that as the cures wrought by our Saviour on the bodies of men did pro- mote a spiritual good ; inasmuch as they invited to the faith those who were benefited by them ; so the baptism of water is, even of itself, a principle of heavenly gifts to him that yields himself up to the divine power of the invocations of the adorable Trinity. That the Spirit came upon those who were baptized, as is related in the Acts, so visibly (the water preparing a way for him in those who came in sincerity) that Simon Magus being amazed, &c. That the baptism of John was inferior to that of Jesus. That the effect of regeneration was not had with John, but with Jesus baptizing by his disciples. Then follow the last words, * And it (viz., the * Christian baptism) is called the washing of rege- * neration, being performed with the renewing of * the Spirit ; who being the Spirit of God, is now * also carried (or moveth) upon the face of the * water, but does not come upon all men after the * water.' The term regeneration is here mentioned. But is it not here, as it is every where else, referred to baptism ? Mr. Gale does not tell us what he cited this sentence for. If he lays his stress upon the last words, which he translates, ' which is now also ' preferred above the water,' (as if that were any news, that the Spirit of God is preferable to the water,) that, though undoubtedly true, is a mis- f380 A Defence of the taken and ignorant translation of Origen's words here. For eTrnpepo/mevov eTrdvo) rov vSaro^ docs not sig- nify that; but is a recital of that expression, Gen. i.2, Ko.) TlvevfjLa @eov enrecpepeTO eirduco rov uSarog '. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. Origen meaning to express how in the sacrament of baptism the Holy Spirit is present and does ratify the promises thereof, does (in allusion to that Scrip- ture ])hrase, of his being at the creation carried (or moving) upon the face of the water) speak of it as being so in the case of baptism also. Tov koi vvv e-KKpepofxevov. ' wlio is novv also, i. e. in this case also ' of baptism, accompanying the water.' But to say, that ' now also (i. e. in the administration of bap- ' tism also) the Spirit of God is preferred above the ' water,' is too insipid a sense for Mr. Gale to ascribe to Origen. And if it were the sense, it avails nothing to the proof of that which he brings it for, viz., that Origen mentions here regeneration without connoting baptism ; for it is the baptismal regene- ration that he is speaking of. Thus I have had the patience to follow him, and trace all the quotations he has brought against me ; which, after all, do prove utterly imjiertincnt to the purpose he brings them for. And indeed it was im- possible to disprove a thing so certainly true, as this is ; that this word is constantly used by the ancients with a relation to baptism. Or if there were, among thousands of instances, one or two where that sense did not appear, (as it hai)pens in the case of almost all words, that a man may light on some few places where they are used in an odd and improper sense,) yet that ought not to be accounted sufficient to over- throw a general rule. History of Infant-baptism. 381 The sense M^as so known and universally received both in the Greek and Latin church, (which con- currence of the two churches in the use of their phrases does not happen always,) that a writer citing a place out of another author, or out of the Scriptures, will sometimes (quoting by memory) use one of those words, where his author had used the other. As Clement, in one or two of the places which T have recited, quoting the Scripture w^here Christ was baptized by John, expresses it, ' regene- ' rated by him.' And St. Hierome does the same. And so on the other side, The Constitutions, lib. vi. cap. 15, citing John iii. 5, Ejccept any one he horn of water ^ &c., expresses it ; \kjei yap 6 Ki/|Ofo?, eav ixi] tU ^aTTTiaOij e^ vSaro?, &c. * The Lord says, Ea/cept ' any one he baptized with water and the Spirit.' Beside the drudgery, I must bear with his re- proaches : Page 518. 'And now could any body, sir, that ' had read these passages, fairly pretend, &c. If * JVIr. Wall had not read these books, he ought not * so readily, &c. If he has read them, w^iat excuse ' can be framed for him ?' I have read so much of them, that I am sure of one of these things ; that either he has not read them any other way than by inde.ves ; or else does not understand them ; or else against his conscience faces out a sense contrary to what he sees in them. For in several of these places which he cites, the sentences before, or after, make it palpable that this word is taken in that sense against which he con- tends. Most that he here brings are out of Clemens Alexandrinus. No writer can shew the sense in which he takes the word regenerated more clearly 382 A Defence of the or positively. To give one instance ; to which others, if they be searched, \\'\\\ prove like. Mr. Gale brings a passage out of his Psedagog. lib. i. p. 90, where he would pervert the sense, as I shewed just now. If he had read on, he could not have mistaken. For in the next page but one, j). 92, where (element disputes against some who pretended that baptism does not put us into a complete state of Christianity, (they required something else ; I know not what,) he has such sayings as these ; avayewt]- Oevres ovi^ evOeoog, &c. ' When we are regenerated, (by ' which he means plainly there, baptized,) we pre- ' sently receive the perfection, &c. When our Lord ' W-aS baptized, aOr.Va yoCv /^aTrr/^o/xeVft) tw K^vpiw, pre- ' sently came the voice from heaven, declaring him * the beloiied, &c. Let us then ask these wise men ; ' was Christ, as soon as he was regenerated, avayewt]- * Beh, perfect, or not, &c. As soon as baptized by * John, he is perfect, &c. He is perfect by the laver ' alone; and sanctified by the coming of the Holy ' Sj)irit on him.' And a little after. 'O ixovov uvuyev- vt]6e\9, wcnrepovv Koi Tovuofxa e-)(€i, Ka\ (pcoriade]?, &C. ' He that is once regenerated (as the name of that * thing is) and enlightened, is presently freed from ' darkness, (or the state of darkness,) and receives ' from that time light, (or the state of light).' Beside that the words baptized and regenerate are here used promiscuously ; and that Christ him- self is here said to be regenerated (which it were blasj)hemy to assert in any other sense than bap- tized) ; here arc the very terms of the question. * Regeneration,' Clement says, 'is the name for baj)- ' tism.' Which is th(> direct contradictory of what Mr. Gale would ))rov(' out of him. History of Infant-haptism. 383 This question, wliether the word regeneration does always imply baptism, is but subservient to the main question ; whether infants M'ere at this time baptized. But there is in this same Pcedagog. of Clement, lib. iii. c. 11. p. 247, a passage which speaks of them not only as baptized then in Cle- ment's time, (after the apostles 90,) but also as baptized in the apostles' time, and by the apostles. I am ashamed I had not found it, when T published my collection of such passages. I have been lately advertised of it by learned men. I shall not recite it here ; but in an appendix at the end of this de- fence, which shall contain that, and one or two more quotations fit to be added in another edition of my ' History of Infant-baptism ;' if it ever have another^. Page 518. Mr. Gale says of me; ' What excuse ' can be framed for him ? For it is apparent from ' these instances, &c., that the most ancient Fathers, ' by regeneration mean something spiritual and in- •' ternaly and very different from baptism.'' Now the dream is out. It seems he has disputed against regeneration in baptism all this while ; as supposing that there is not, or that we hold that there is not, any thing spiritual or internal in bap- tism. Whether any book whatever could have taught this man modesty, civility, or humility, I knovv not. But a catechism (if his mother had had the grace to teach him it) would have instructed him, that the sacrament of baptism consists of two parts : ' the outward visible sign ; and the inward spiritual [a This is added to the third and the present edition, forming the ninth section of the third chapter. See vol. i. p. 84, &c.] 384 A Defence of the ' grace ;' the one done, or used, by men, by Christ's api)ointnient ; the other conferred by his own mer- ciful covenant and promise. The Fathers take it no otherwise. All Christians, protestants and })a- pists, take it no otherwise. If he had ever been at church, and had seen any person, adult or infant, baptized; the sentences, prayers, and thanksg-ivings, used in that office, do all cx])ress this. He has so long studied what ^a-n-Tii^o) signifies in the heathen poets, when they talk of wa.shinf/ wool, &c., that he has quite forgot what it imports in the Scrip- ture and in the Fathers ; when it is a holy sacra- ment, and the outward action is attended with God's heavenly grace and mercy, i)utting the j)erson into a new spiritual state. So here is half his book written on a wrong and ignorant supposition ; and nmst be begun again. Since this testimony, concerning infants regene- rated unto God hy Christ, is taken from Irenaeus ; I had shewed that, as the other Fathers, so he par- ticularly does in all other i)laces of his book, which I had seen, use the word regenerate so as to in- clude the notion of baptism in its signification. And I recited one place, lib. iii. c. 19, where he plainly does so. And Dr. Grabe had made the same observation on the same place. Mr. Gale, Page 518, 519, insults me, as having not read the several places where Irenicus has the word. And for the place which I had cited, attacks Dr. Grabe for understanding it so. ' I am surprised that the ' learned Dr. CIrabc should refer to it also with the • same design as our author.' — «;? t>V ""AOiivuv. There is no dealing with such a face, but reciting History of Infcmt-haptism. 385 again the passage. The title of the chapter is, * De eo, qui descendit in ipsum, Spiritu. Of the ' Spirit which came down on Jesus.' It is to be noted that the Cerinthian and the Valentinian heretics divided Christ from Jesits ; and said, that Jesiis, of himself, was a mere man ; but that at his baptism Christ (meaning a Divine power, or a Di- vine person) came down upon him. Irenseus main- tains the Scripture doctrine, that Jesus and Christ are the same one person ; and that the Holy Spirit came down upon him. And the substance of the chapter is, to recite such texts of Scripture, as do teach us the nature of the Holy Spirit. It begins thus : ' The apostles might have said, that Christ came * down upon Jesus, &c. But they neither knew ' of, nor said any such thing, &c. But what * was true, that they said, That the Spirit of God ' came down upon him like a dove. That Spirit, ' which was spoken of by Isaiah, The Spirit of the * Lord shall rest upon him. And again. The Spirit * of the Lord is upon me; because the Lord hath ' anointed me. That Spirit, of which our Lord says, * It is not you that speak., hut the Spirit of yom^ * Father which speaketh in you. Et iterum, potes- * tatem regenerationis in Deum demandans disci- * pulis, dicebat eis ; euntes docete omnes gentes, ' baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spi- ' ritus Sancti.' And again, when he (Christ) gave * his disciples the commission of regenerating unto ' God ; he said to them, Go and teach all nations, ' baptizing them in the name of the Father, ayid of ' the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' He goes on to recite ten or twenty texts more, WALL. VOL. IV. C C 38G A Defence of the where the Spirit is mentioned, as Joel ii. Ps. 11. Acts ii. John xiv. &c. Now that in this text of Matt, xxviii. 19, (where he observes tliat the Holy Spirit is one of the Divine persons, in whose name we are baptized,) that commission which he calls the commission of regeneratinf) unto God, is the commission of bap^ tizing, is so plain by the very words of the sentence itself, baptizing them in the name, he, that instead of spending time in proving it, or in answering the cavils that he raises from some words of the other texts, not at all pertinent to the explication of this, I shall only desire any one to read them, as a spe- cimen of the property of an everlasting caviller against things that are plain. He observes that Irenaeus, commenting upon other texts recited in the same chapter, speaks of this Holy Spirit * working in men the will of God, and * renewing them a reinstate in novitatem Christi, ' from their old (or natural) state to a new state in ' Christ.' No doubt but these are offices and opera- tions of the Holy Spirit, wrought partly in baptism, and partly at other times. But none of his offices have, in the phrase of the ancients, the name of regenerating, except those which he does at bap- tism. At another place in the same chapter, Ire- naeus says, ' Our bodies have received that union ' which is to immortality by the laver (or ivashing) ' but our souls by the Spirit. So that both of them ' are necessary ; since both do profit us to the life * of God.' Upon which IVIr. Gale says, this shews that ' he argues here chiefly upon that which is ' spiritual ; and implies the regeneration he has be- * fore spoken of was such.' If that will do his cause History of Infant-haptism. 387 any service, we will grant, that both of these toge- ther do constitute and make up the regeneration ; and no doubt but the office of the Holy Spirit is by far the chief of the two. Dr. Grabe in his notes on this place of Irenaeus, where infants are said to be regenerated to God, (by which, he, as I think all that know the ancient phrase, understands baptized,) did in confirmation of that sense refer to another book, where Irenseus uses the same phrase and applies it to baptism, viz., lib. i. c. 18. There Irenseus relates, how corrupt and abomi- nable doctrines the Valentinians held concerning the sacrament of baptism. It is to be noted, that they called baptism redemption; or (as some of them seem by Irenaeus' words to have explained themselves) the outward part they called baptism ; and the inward and spiritual grace redemption. And he says, they had as many several ways of this redemption, as there were leaders or raysta- gogues among them. But all so corrupt, that he affirms (and says it will appear when he comes to refute their particular tenets) that ' this sort (or ' generation of heretics) has been sent out by Satan ' 6/V e^apv}](7iv Tov l3a7rTi volume. So that it is no wonder that the ancient exposition of 1 Cor. vii. 14. should render has been sanctified, by ' has been brought to Christianity and ' baptism,' and hohj, by ' Christian and baptized ;' since it was their common jihrase in all their writ- ings, speeches, and sermons : Mr. Gale answers, first, that I produce none of the first three hundred years, who do so explain that text, 1 Cor. vii. 14. I produced TertuUian, anno Domini 200. and St. Cyprian, anno 250. The one confessing the sense of that text to be, that children of Christians are not born actual Sancti, Christians ; nor can be called actually so, till baptized. The other saying directly, that an infant is in baptism sanctified, or made a saint, or Christian. And to them that take the words so, the text explains itself. Read it so far right, and you cannot read the rest wrong. Besides, that the current interpretation of the times a little after confirms that sense in the former. He says again, the word sanctify, in the Old Testament, does often signify other things beside ivashing. Which I grant, and did there give St. Austin's distinction between the visible sanctification and the invisible. But he cannot deny that in the places I mentioned, and abundance more, it does signify ivashing : nor that in the New Testament the word ayioi, when it is applied to persons, (as it is in this text,) means saints, i. e. Christians ; and ijyiatrij.evoi, those that have been sanctified, means such as have been entered into the Christian covenant, or religion, by baptism ; generally and almost without exception. That expression of the apostle, The unbelicvincj Histmy of I nfatit -baptism. 41 7 (or an unbelieving) husband has been sanctified by his wife, which I after the ancients do paraphrase, * has been converted, brought to the faith, and so to ' baptism,' (and so saved, as the follovs^ing vs^ords are ;) he says, why may it not be read, ' has been ' prevailed on to forsake his former vices and irre- ' gular course of life, and so saved V He does not care how palpably he perverts the scope and aim of the apostle's discourse. Do not the very words of the text lay the stress of the change from unbelievhig (or heathen) to believing) (or Christian) ? and does not a Christian wife save her husband by bringing him off from infidelity to Christianity ? The qucere put by the Corinthians to St. Paul, was not whether a godly wife should separate from a husband of ill morals ; but whether a Chris- tian wife should go away from a heathen husband. For a wife by her persuasions to reduce a husband, heathen or Christian, from his irregular courses to sobriety, is a good thing ; but it is not the thing spoken of in this text. Here he cites a place where Origen mentions this case of a woman converting her husband, or e contra. But he betrays a shameful degree of partiality, or else of ignorance, in translating it ; and in saying, it is, ' thus Origen seems to understand it.' Thus ; that is, (as Mr. Gale had in the preceding paragraph explained it,) the believing wife sanctifies and saves her husband (not by making him a Christian, but) by ' prevailing on him to forsake his former vices ' and irregular course of life.' Whoever views the place in Origen, or reads but so much of it as Mr. Gale himself has transcribed of WALL, VOL. IV. E 6 418 A Defence of tJie the Greek, will see a notable j)attern of warj)ing. For the sense is as directly contrary to his ' thus,' as one thing can be to another. I thank him for finding it for me. For here Origen (who is another within the three hundredth year) paraphrases this text of St. Paul exactly to the same sense, as I shewed St. Austin and Pelagius, &c., to have done ; and keeps the emphasis which most of the modern translations and expositions have lost. I M'ill transcribe it here ; though it must have a place also in the Appendi.r, I promised, of quotations to be added to those in my History. For a quota- tion that translates this text right, is as much to the purpose as one that expressly speaks of infant-bap- tism. The occasion and context of the words may more litly be set down there. But the words are, Comment, in Matth. p. 332. [edit. 1668. — torn. iii. p. 608. edit. Benedictin.] 'Aj'(5j0O9 Kai yvi/aiK09 aixcpOTepoov uTrlcrTcoi', ore jj-ev 6 avtjp irpoTepou TTicTTeua-ag tm ■y(^p6v(p, crwXei Ti]v yvva'iKa' otc oe tj yvvt] apc^aixevf] vcrTepov ttotc ire'iQei tov avopa. ' 01 a ' husband and wife, both unbelievers, sometimes the husband believing first in time saves his wife: and sometimes the wife believing first, does afterward persuade her husband.' INIr. Gale translates it, ' When the husband believes first, he sometimes * saves his wife : and when tlie wife believes first, * she persuades her husband.' He leaves out the first words, ^AvSpo^ koI yvvaiKO(s, uiucporepoov aTrla-Tiov, * When a husband and a wife are both unbelievers ;' which regulate the sense of the following words ; and plainly shew the conversions S])oken of in them to be from nnbeliefio Christianiti/. This I do not call ignorance^ but something worse. In the re- History of Infant-baptism. 419 maining words, (which himself sets down,) that he should not understand that ore juev 6 avtjp, and ore Se >/ yvvr], should have been rendered, sometimes the hus- band, and so7netimes the wife, looks very like igno- rance. In the former clause, he (though he had the Greek before him, and wrote it down) follows the Latin ; where some printer or compositor has trans- posed the words, (for Huetius was not capable of such blunders,) and instead of ' aliquando vir qui ' prior credidit, uxorem servat,' has printed, ' vir ' qui prior credidit, uxorem aliquando servat.' But in the latter clause, where the ' aliquando' is set right, (' aliquando autem initium faciens uxor,' &c.,) he has followed neither the Greek nor the Latin. Origen, we see here, understands St. Paul's words of an unbelieving husband being sanctified and saved by his wife ; and of an unbelieving wife saiictified and saved by her husband ; to be meant, of the one being converted from unbelief, being made a Christian (or as St. Paul's common word is, a saint) by the means of the other. Which, added to what I and others have cited from other Fathers, confirms this to be the current interpretation given to this place by the ancients. He does not here go on to the following words, else were your children unclean^ hut now they are saintSy (or holy,) as not being pertinent to the matter he was discoursing of. But he that went so far as to paraphrase ijyiacrTai in the former part of the verse, ' has been made ayio?, a saint, a Christian,' could not miss of translating the last words, eTreJ ra T€Kva vjuwv aKaOapra eaTi, else would your children he unclean^ i. e. kept in the heathen state ; unbaptized ; vvv Se ayia ecrriv : but now they are saints, i. e. Chris- E e 2 420 A Defence of tlie tiaiis ; which can be meant no otherwise than by being baptized into Christ. I have endeavoured to make this sense of that text plain, in a little piece which I believe Mr. Gale has seen'. But he, who had so openly accused me of giving up all proof from Scripture, could not with any credit own the sight of it. And indeed shames himself by letting his reader see by one attack before, and this a second one, upon my argument from this text, that T had not omitted all the proofs from Scripture. He says at last, that ' Dr. Whitby, and bishop * Burnet are very accurate in proving, that the ' words, now are yoivr children holy, do speak only * of seminal holiness.' Yet, as much as he worships those two men, he says in his Contents, ' their sense cannot be the true ' one.' And he tells them, their argument for infant-baptism from seminal holiness is a petitio principii. By wliich I should guess that they have said something beyond liis reach ; for that is the common name that he gives to all arguments that he cannot answer. T remember something of that sort of argument from seminal holiness. But, as I never used it, it is not my present business to defend it. Let those that will, derive their children's saintship from their OMH. I question whether it be a rule in the hea- venly city, (as it is in some cities here,) that a man may claim his freedom by his father's copy. A parent that has an infant child like to die, may, if he please, say to God ; ' Thou wilt save this » [Namely, ' A Conference on tlie subject of Infant-baptism,' described above, p. 179.] History of Infant-haptism. 421 * child, because he is mine, and derived from me.' I had rather have it to say, ' because he is Christ's; ' dedicated to him ; and cannot be saved but for his ' sake.' If this doctrine be true, David had ill luck in his conception and birth, to be shapen m iniquity, and that in sin his mother did conceive him ; when these fathers can beget their children in seminal ho- liness, and their mothers conceive them in saintship. Yet I do not dislike that sentence of Mr. Baxter, where (as I cited him) speaking of a child dying before actual baptism, he says, ' Believing that our ' heart-consent and dedication qualifies infants for ' a covenant-right before actual baptism.' A de- vout dedication of a child to Christ, to be received into his covenant of forgiveness and regeneration, joined with a sincere purpose of sealing this by bap- tism, may, we hope, (though the child be suddenly snatched away,) be accepted by God for the deed. Pages 540, 541. He would retrieve the credit of that exploded interpretation of this text given by some antipsedobaptists ; sanctified by the wife ; that is, says he, to the wife, meaning, for the use of the bed ; so as that he, though an unbeliever, is not an adulterer to her ; nor she a harlot to him. And the children are holt/, i. e. not bastards. And he is so void of shame, as to say, twice in one page, that this explication is built ' on my principles.' My principle is, that St. Paul by the word ayioi, saitits, or holy, when applied to persons, does always mean Christians. And by ^ylaa-rai, and ^yiaa-fxevoi, does always mean such as have been made or are become Christians; and that he never styled an unbeliever a saint, or sanctified. Mr. Gale's 422 A Defence of the exposition would have St. Paul to mean, that the unbelieving wife, or husband, continuing such, is sanctified. But St. Paul explains ^ylaarai in the fourteenth verse, by saved in the sixteenth. Does Mr. Gale think that saved means nothing but alloived the use of the bed f The qucere put by the Corinthians to St. Paul, M'as not, whether it were fornication for two such parties to cohabit; so that the children would be bastards. Nor does St. Paul answer it, as he would do a question of lawful or unlawful ; but only of expedient or inexpedient. If the question had been whether it was a sin or not, he would never have said, To this question / speak, not the Lord; nor would have advised the Christian husband to cohabit with the unbelieving wife, if she he willing to dwell with him. The woman's willingness to stay, would not, if the question had been about fornication, have mended the matter. Let Mr. Gale try how this bed-sanctification will fit Origen's paraphrase, which he just now com- mended ; which was, that sometimes the unbe- lieving wife is sanctified, saved, or persuaded by her husband, a believer ; and sometimes the unbelieving husband by the wife, a believer. That is, we will say, sometimes the man is sanctified to his wife's bed, and sometimes she to his. Nonsense. Whereas to say, sometimes an unbelieving husband is brought to Christianity by his wife ; and sometimes the wife by the husband ; and then by the consent of both, the children are made holy, or saints, i. e. Chris- tians, by ba})tism ; is good sense, and a good reason why St. Paul should advise them to continue together. History of Infant-hapiism. 423 111 short, not only this explication of the antipse- dobaptists, but all the modern ones that forsake the ancient interpretation, have this fatal absurdity ; that they make St. Paul speak of the man, or the woman, and the children, as sanctified, or saints, without Christianity. Which he never did, nor would have done. Page 541. Mr. Gale asks, 'what can this holiness ' of the children be, that springs from the Chris- ' tianity of the parents? The baptism of the pa- ' rents cannot serve for the children.' True. But the Christianity of the parents may make them baptize their children. And then they are in St. Paul's sense ajioi, holy, saints, or Christians. Page 544. The passages which I produced from Origen do, as Mr. Gale confesses, speak ' directly ' and clearly' of infant-baptism. They speak of it as a known principle of Christians, and ordered by the apostles. And whereas Mr. Whiston, having before his eyes the places themselves, has ventured to say, and to print, that it is not plain from them that the infants he speaks of were such as we com- monly call so; but that his words may be under- stood of lads big enough to make catechumens ; he could not have more shamed his eyesight. And it ought to be a warning to him, not to print any thing in such haste ; for the words are, nuper nati parvidi ; and 7Adi,at sin could they have ? Mr. Gale's only exception is, of the authentical- ness of the passages, of which I had spoken largely ; which the reader must see'', if he would understand the dispute between us. He wonders that all the passages about infant- '^ [Sec vol. i. p. io6, &c.] 424 A Defence of the baptism should be in the Latin translations; and none in the Greek remains, which are, he says, larger than of any Greek Father before him. The thing were no wonder, if it were so. Since he having written above twenty times as much as any Greek Father before him ; the Greek remains, tliough larger than of those before him, are yet not the twentieth part of what were extant in St. Hie- rome's time ; who, as I shewed, had read in the Greek his sentiments of infant-baptism. Page Q'itB. One passage which sir Peter (now lord chief justice) King brought from the Greek, and I from him^, Mr. Gale in many words labours to prove to be nothing to the purpose; as speaking only of new converts compared to infants. Neither did I, nor do I, positively maintain the contrary. I was the first that shewed the doubtfulness of the phrase. But M'hereas he puts into my mouth those rude expressions and reflections on that great man, of ' artful leaving out of words,' &c., let him take them to himself; they are his natuml talent. I said no such thing ; but only acknowledged that that sentence by being compared with the following ones is rendered ambiguous. I have since found a passage in the Greek, viz.. Comment, in Matt. tom. xv. which speaks manifestly of infants in the proper sense, (for, to satisfy Mr. Whiston and Mr. Gale, it names those of one day old,) and, I think, shews plainly Origen's sentiments of the necessity of their baptism. I shall not tran- scribe it here, but in the Append ia/ I mentioned "'. I [At vol. i. p. 114.] ™ [It is incorporated into the third and tl\o present edition, forming sect. xi. of vol. i. chap. 5.] History of Infant-haptism. 425 If it be allowed, it makes all my answer to the exceptions he here brings against the places in the translations needless. But as I had drawn u]) the substance of my answer to those his exceptions before I found that passage, and as it is the last trouble I shall have with him, I will not grudge the pains of transcribing that also, that both to- gether may give the fuller satisfaction. Page 547. Mr. Gale, not content with what I had owned, that Ruffinus (out of whose translations several of the passages which I brought were fetch- ed) took a great liberty in translating; sometimes abridging, paraphrasing, &c., sometimes omitting, or altering a place where Origen had vented any of his singular and heterodox opinions ; thinks it worth his while to get together and recite, not only all the censures of Ruffinus' translation that he could find in Huetius, Daille, Du Pin, Tarinus, &c., but any thing that tends to discredit the translations of the Fathers in general. 'They have,' he says, 'a ' very bad name.' And where Grotius says, ' some ' pieces ascribed to Origen are not his, and some in- ' terpolated ;' Mr. Gale, turning the word some into a great deal, would have us believe none. One that had not read the works of these modern learned men, which he here cites, would think by this account that they had a much worse opinion of Ruffinus' translations than they had really. They, notwithstanding the fault they find with his para- phrastical way, do upon many occasions quote his translations, and depend upon them, as being Origen's sense in the main. And Mr. Gale himself, in the chapter before, viz., p. 497, (when he sought for evidence against Irenseus,) thought the Tractat. in 426 A Defence of the Mattli. (which is a translation of Origen of far less credit than Ruffinus' are) a good authority. Huetius, who knew best of any one what credit was due to each translation, though he give the pre- ference by far to those done by St. Hierome, yet he more than a hundred times recurs to those done by Ruffinus, either to confirm or to explain the sense of some place in the Greek tracts on which he is making notes. And particularly when he is vindi- cating Origen against Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, (who accused him of a thing he was not guilty of, viz., the denial of original sin,) he does it by one of the same quotations, which I brought for proof of his holding infant-baptism. For Origen speaks there, and at other places, of both those points together. I said, whatever Ruffinus might add of his own in his translations, he would not add any of this sort of sayings which express an acknowledgment of original sin ; because he himself was inclined to the contrary opinion ; as I have shewed plain enough, and Huetius more largely. Of this Mr. Gale takes no notice. And he does wisely. For it renders all that suspicion which he would raise of Ruffinus' inserting these passages of his own head, utterly incredible. Mr. Whiston, tliough he be engaged on the same side of the dispute with Mr. Gale, and had seen his objections, confesses, p. 40, of his Primitive Infant- Baptism, ' I think we may allow them in the main ' to be genuine.' And the worthy Dr. Grabe de- clared to me, that he had met with so many frag- ments of those lost jiieces of Origen, quoted by Greek writers or in the Catenas, as do manifestly History of Infant-haptism. 427 shew the Latin of Ruffinus to have been taken from them, though after a more loose and paraphrastical manner than is usual in a translator. If there were found in these translations but one or but two places, and those in Ruffinus alone, that did speak of infant-baptism ; there might have been some reason for this suspicion. But when they are found in several places, brought in on several occa- sions, in translations made by several men who were of several parties, and enemies to one another, (as Ruffinus and St. Hierome were,) and upon no temp- tation ; (for Mr. Gale himself will own that there was no dispute then about infant-baptism ;) to say, that they be all forged, is a thing that will sink with no man that considers and weighs the reason- ableness of any plea. And thus to except sometimes against the book, as in Irenoous ; and sometimes against the translations, as here ; is in effect to say that he will not stand to the voice of antiquity. Of the passages cited, one is from the Homilies on St. Luke^ translated by St. Hierome, which speaks to the same purpose as the rest. Mr. Gale having no other escape, fights his way through, and pelts St. Hierome with reproaches for a translator as bad as Ruffinus. I had, from Erasmus, quoted St. Hierome's own words, that in that translation of the homilies on St. Luke he had ' changed nothing ; but expressed ' every thing as it was in the original".' Here Mr. Gale, Page 549, sends his ' sir' to 'compare the transla- ' tions with the originals;' and tells him what he shall find there. " [See vol. i. p. 108.] 428 A Defence of the He is either so very ignorant as to tliiuk, or else would have the ignorant reader think, that those homilies on St. Luke are extant in the original, (for of those he must be understood to sjieak ; or else it is no answer to what I said,) and that he had com- pared them. If they had been at all extant in the Greeks I must have been very dull to cite them in the Latin. Such homilies as are extant both in the original, and in St. llierome s Latin, (as for instance, some on Jeremy,) answer so well to one another, that Huetius sets no other Latin over against the Greek than St. Hierome's ; and where the Greek copies have some words vitiated so as to mar the sense, he very often corrects them in his notes by the Latin. The Latin shews what the Greek must have been ; and Huetius, who says, ' the Latin does ' in many places recede from the Greek,' imputes that to the variation of the Greek copies since St. Hierome's time. And bishop Pearson, in his Vin- dicice Lgnatiance concludes that St. Hierome must have been very exact in the translation of the Ho- milies on Luke by this ; that RufRnus, who had the original, and out of envy sought to find what faults he could in the translation, mentions no interpolation but one of two M^ords, {atqiie natunv,) which shews he could find no more. Mr. Cale says, St. Hierome, in translating Euse- bius' Chronicoiu and I)e locis Hehraicis, owns that he altered some of the chronology and geo- graphy. That is quite another case. The skill in chro- nology improved by degrees. And for the geogra- phy of the Holy Land, St. Hierome, living on the Sj)ot many years after Eusebius was dead, might History of In/ant-ba^Jtism. 429 naturally come to know the names and circumstances of many cities and places there, which Eusebius had omitted or mistaken. And any one, that is able, does well to correct mistakes in those matters. Especially when he owns the alterations that he makes. But in matters of religion any thing- that is new is faulty for being so ; and the perfection of it is, to keep close to the primitive patterns. But Mr. Gale cites some sayings of St. Hierome, where he confesses that in the translation of some books even of Origen he had omitted what was bad or erroneous, and kept in only what was sound and useful. But, first, that is not adding any thing. And secondli/, there are two different aims in translating. And he at several times had both of them, viz., either to satisfy the curious what it was that Origen held (and in such cases he sets down all, sound or unsound) ; or to publish some tract or discourse of Orig'en for the use of vulvar Christians : in which if there were many useful things, and some unsound tenets, he did well to omit the latter. And this Mr. Gale should not call St. Hierome's ' confession' that he did so. He pleads it in his own vindication against those that accused him of disseminating Origen's errors. But even this is not adding any thing. And besides, in the Homilies on St. Luke, (which is the only book I quoted,) he declares he took the former course. Mr. Gale [p. 547.] cites Mr. Du Pin, vol. i. p. 132, [or 100,] where, after he had given instances of RufRnus' licentious way of translating some pieces, he adds, ' St. Hierome's versions are not more exact.' And there Mr. Gale cuts off the sentence ; and makes 430 A Defence of the much use afterward of this verdict of Mr. Du Pin against St. ITierome. Whether he do say just so, and do not add any expressions in abatement of what he had said, I know not. A reader that has Du Pin by him may do well to see°. But it is certain, the expression taken strictly is not true. St. llierome may in some books have made some paraj>hrastical alterations, or omissions, ( though none, he says himself, on St. Luke,) but not nigh so many as Ruffinus. Mr. Gale tells us over and over again, that these translators * do confess and own the alterations' they have made, and warn the readers of them. There is then the more credit to be given them, when they say they have altered nothing. They do in some books of Origen own that they have left out many things that were unsound ; and abridged some books that were too long (as Origen's style is indeed redundant) ; but there is no sign of their adding any thing of their own (except in those books where they declare they have supplied some particular chapters that were missing) ; I mean, not any material thing. Transitions they must make for the gaps where they left out any large passage. But this is nothing to the Homihes on St. Luke, in which St. llierome says he altered nothing. Of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (out of which one of the passages concerning infant- baptism is taken,) there are two fragments preserved in the Greek, viz., Philocal. c. 9- and c. 25. INIr. Gale tells us, twice over, that of that in c. 25, there are <> [The citation from Du Pin is made fairly. See his Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. loo, both in the text and the note'', edit. 1692 or 1696.] History of Infant-baptism. 431 in Ruffinus' version hardly any footsteps of the original preserved. Suppose they had been both wanting in Ruffinus ; what wonder ? Since, as I said, he professes that he had shortened that work by one half. All that can be argued from hence is, that as there is in that half which he has preserved, one place that mentions infants' baj)tism, probably in the whole there were two. And just such an advantage accrues to his ai-gu- ment from that which he quotes, Page 552, of Ruffinus, complaining that several volumes or tomes of this Comment were wanting, before he took it in hand, ' fere apud omnium ' bibliothecas,' (which he in translating augments to all libraries.) This argument weighs backward. Therefore he, to make it turn the right way, does in the next page call this deficiency an ' interpolation ;' which is quite the contrary. Those two sentences of Ruffinus, which Mr. Gale here recites out of the peroratio of his translation of Origen on Epist. ad Romanos, were not meant by him for any serious account of what he had done in that work ; but for a jeer on St. Hierome, who had set out tracts in his own name, whereof all the substance was (as Ruffinus would insinuate) taken out of Origen. So that Ruffinus pretended, he might 9,8 well have called this translation, Ruffini JEa'positio, &c., as St. Hierome had entitled some works of his, Hieronymi Libri, &c., which were little more than translations of Origen. But he says, he would not get himself a reputation by such tricks of a plagiary. 482 A Defence of the Though this appears by the sentence itself, and by his putting the name Hicronymi into it ; and though Iluetius (out of whom, I question not, Mr. Gale had it) do note the drift of it ; yet he, like a true representer of things, sets down the sentences, but leaves out the note. Page 553. Whereas one of the passages I cited was from Origen's Plomilies on Joshua, (' Thou * wast an infant, when thou wast baptized,') con- cerning the translation whereof I produced Ruffinus' declaration, that he had in that translation neither added nor omitted any thing ; but truly rendered what he found in the Greek books : — Mr. Gale would here prove Ruffinus a liar ; because in one part of a chapter (not that which I cited, but another) there is found the difference of a few words between Ruffinus' translation, and a quota- tion of that part in the Philocalia. But, first, the difference is of no moment. And secondly, there is no knowing by the Philocalia how the original was. For their way, when they entitle a chapter as taken out of such or such a tome, is, after they have recited something out of that tome, to run to another tome where there is any thing to the same purjiose, and then go back to where they left off. And this commonly several times in one chapter; as appears in all the c.vcerpta which they have taken out of the books against Celsus ; and would, no doubt, ajipcar in the other, if the original of the other were extant, as it is of them. Mr. Gale gives instances of some chapters in the Philocalia, which arc there said to be transcribed from such or such a homily of Origen's on such or History of Tnfant-hdptism. 433 such a book oF Scripture ; whereof one shall not find any footstep in Ruffinus' Latin. Huetius will tell him the reason of this. Origen composed several sets of sermons or homilies on the same book or epistle. One perhaps when he was young. Another volume of sermons on the same epistles when he was old. St. Gregory and St. Basil sometimes lighted on one of these vo- lumes, Ruffinus on another. Vide Huetii Prcefat. in Origeniana, p. 4. They that can think that these passages concern- ing infant-baptism in the translations of Origen's vwrks were put in by the transla-tors, who lived but a hundred and fifty years after Origen's time ; and yet do maintain, that in Origen's time there was no infant-baptism, do make them more absurd men than we can conceive them to have been. For the practice of the church could not have been changed from antipsedobaptism to paidobaptism in that space of time, but that such learned men, as St. Hierome especially was, must have known it. Eusebius' Church History, written in the interme- diate time, and translated by RuflSnus, must have taken notice of it. Or the very tradition from father to son must have carried a memory of it. And then, for them to make Origen several times over speak of a thing which all the world knew was not in use at his time, must have made them ridiculous. Mr. Gale observes twice or thrice, how dipping of infants, in the ordinary baptisms in England, began about two hundred years ago to degenerate into pouring or sprinkling. It is true, it did so ; but everybody knows it, and the time of it. And WALL, VOL. IV. F f 484 A Defence of the therefore he that should in translating a book writ- ten before that time, put in any thing of sprinkling as used ordinarily in England in the author's time, would be hooted at. The like would have been in the case of these men. If Ruffinus had first fallen into such a blunder, he would not have escaped the lash of St. Ilierome. Nor if St. Hierome had been guilty, would Ruffinus have spared him. But the contrary is true. For not only both of them do translate Origen so speaking of infant-baptism as being ordered by the apostles ; but all of that time, St. Austin, St. Chrysostom, &c., that do sjjcak any thing of it, speak of it as practised, not only in Origen's time, but from the beginning. If JNIr. Gale had been a candid inquirer after the truth in this question concerning Origen's holding or not holding the doctrine of infant-baptism ; he would have taken notice of a passage in St. Hie- rome ; who being the greatest reader of Origen's works in the original, of any Christian that ever was, brings in, in his discourse of him, such cir- cumstances as do plainly shew, not only that he held it, but also built some of his particular tenets upon it. And since his works (which were more than all the Bibliotheca Patrum that we have now) are lost, (the Greek of almost all ; the translations of the greatest jiart,) suppose we could not be sure of the autheuticalness of this or that passage in the trans- lations, nor find any passage in the remaining Greek to that ])urpose ; yet these two things concurring together, that there are several plain places in the translations, and a plain testimony from one that had seen tlie originals, that this doctrine was held History of Infant-haptisiYi. 435 by liim, and was then visible in his books ; would convince any body, except it be one that has a task set him to maintain the negative, and maintain it he must. The passage in St. Hierome, which I mean, was in my first edition not set down in this fifth chap- ter which is concerning Origen, and which Mr. Gale is here answering ; but it was in the nine- teenth chapter, (which speaks of St. Hierome and the Pelagians,) §. 26. . And in the second edition I put a note of it into the fifth ; because it clears up the doubt concerning Origen's holding infant-bap- tism. Mr. Gale, I doubt not, had seen both. It is St. Hierome's jeering advice to the Pelagians, who were put to it how to give any good account of the reason of baptizing infants, since they would not own that they had any original sin or corrup- tion. He in a mocking way advises them to march over to Origen's opinion ; ' Qui praeterita in coelis et * antiqua delicta solvi dicit in baptismo.' ' Who * holds that their sins committed in a former state, ' (the state of praeexistence,) in the coelestial regions, ' are forgiven them in their baptism.' This is a plain proof that Origen did use to speak of infant-baptism ; and that St. Hierome had seen the places where he did so ; and that the doctrine of baptizing infants was current in his time ; since he endeavoured to link his tenet of praeexistence to it. But we have found, as I said, in the original text of Origen a passage, which will, I think, clear up any diflficulty that remains, and stop the mouth of all objections or evasions concerning the sense and practice of the church in his time ; which was F f 2 436 A Defence of the about anno Domini 210 : after the apostles 110. The passage is so much to the same sense and puipose with those translated by St. IJierome and Ruflinus ; the style and phrase so much the same ; the same texts of Scripture quoted, &c., that it is not only itself an evidence, but also confirms those other to be genuine translations. It shall be recited at large in the Appendix f, which I tnink to set at the end of this Answer; meaning also to print a considerable number of them for the use of those M'ho have the first or the second edition of my history. My next chapter was quotations out of St. Cy- prian, who flourished a hundred and fifty years after the apostles. Him, and his time, and all that comes after, Mr. Gale yields as practising infant- baptism. So that I wonder what work he means the man, who, he says, is to write an answer to my book, shall have. For he himself has in these * Re- ' flections' answered the first five chapters, to p. 125. And that, if we believe him himself, sufficiently. But if the other man be to answer all the rest, Mr. Gale has done ill to yield it all beforehand. What is the consequence of this concession, we will con- sider i)resently. But he throMS in some disparage- ments of the men and times which he yields up. Page 554. First, St. Cyprian speaks as plainly of infant-communion, as he does of infant-baptism. Concerning this matter I have spoken three or [P As was observed above, p. 424, this passage is incor- porated into the present edition in its proper place, at vol. i. chap. 5. sect, i 1. The Appendix spoken of contained 25 pages 8vo. Its contents are all disposed in their due places, in the third and the present edition.] History of Infant-baptism. 487 four times in this answer ; and also had shewed largely in my book, that there is no proof of mere infants (but only of children of four or five years old) being admitted to the communion in St. Cy- prian's time ; and that, except that time and place, there is no account (at least, that I know of : — I do there refer myself to such as had studied that point more ; no account, I say) before the year four hundred^ of children being admitted at all in any church. Of which since he will take no notice, I shall not repeat the same answer to all his crambes, but add this general reply : That this is at best but an argument ad Jwminem. It is a question in the present Christian church, whether giving the communion to infants be an error or a duty. The present western Christians think it an error. The Greek church, which is, I think, the biggest half of Christendom, think it a duty. To these last, an argument against infant- baptism, drawn from the practice of those times which gave the communion as well as baptism to infants, weighs backward ; and confirms the thing which it would overthrow. To us and all Chris- tians hereabouts, it weighs but very little. It proves only that those churches and those times which did so, were, in our opinion, in an error in one thing. Does that overthrow the force of an argument taken from their doctrine and practice in other things? It is not, in the opinion of any Christian, a funda- mental error. If providence should place any of us in Muscovy, or any country of the Greek Chris- tians, where this custom is used ; we should not (do, as Mr. Gale, and another, would have the antipse- dobaptists and other dissenters do here) renounce 438 A Defence of the their communion ; unless we had some greater reason than that. There is no good argument to prove any thing, which does not prove it to one Ciiristian, as well as to another. Secondly, St. Cyprian he says was an African ; and so were the sixty-six bishops whose testimony is joined with his ; so that probably infant-baptism began in the church of Carthage. Does Mr. Gale take his readers for such idiots, as to think a testimony is disparaged, because he can tell where the people that give it, lived ? So Origen lived at Alea'andria ; and Mr. AVhiston thinks it began there. And Irenseus at Lyons in Gallia. By that account it began there. Those Christians, whose children, St. Paul says, were saints, lived at Corinth. And the places where he is mentioned to have baptized the whole households were all in Greece. Some perhaps will think it began there. But our Saviour, who commanded little children to be received iti his name, was, according to the flesh, a Jew. So that the Christian baptism began there. Antipaedobaptism began among the Alps, or in Germany. Will that be taken for a refutation of it? Thirdly, ' The Africans were generally men of ' weak undcrst.andings. And St. Austin, another ' African, thought it an apostolical tradition.' St. Austin concludes partly from proofs of Scrip- ture ; partly because it had been ever used from the beginning by all Christians, that it Mas ' apostolica ' auctoritate traditum,' ' ordered (or delivered down) ' by the authority of the apostles.' Is there any thing ill this Avhcreon to ground a note of contem]>t upon St. Austin ? Does not Origen say the very History of Infant-baptism. 439 same in the places we were last speaking of? Can the antipaedobaptists account it decent in their champion to insult, as absurd, sometimes the present divines, sometimes the ancient Christians, for saying that which all Christians in the world say, and ever said, except themselves. Page 555. For a parting blow, he has preserved a testimony against infant-baptism ; which ought in policy to have been one of his best. He says, * Though the African bishops were no wiser, &c., * the Greek churches seem very plainly to have * been still of another opinion.' Here one would expect something that according to his promise should ' seem very plain.' It is this at last: Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, writing a letter concerning the character of Novatian, (whom he makes a monster of impiety,) says of him, after a great many worse things, that he did aBereiv ayiov Xovrpov, ' make void holy baptism,' (which words Mr. Gale translating, adds a crime that he was never accused of, making him a Quaker ; ' he utterly dis- ' allows of holy baptism,') and, rrjv irph avrov irlcmv Koi o/uoXoylav avarpeireiv, ' Subverts the faith and pro- ' fession that goes before it.' Here Mr. Gale sets his thumb. Dionysius speaks of the jtrofession of faith ffoiji^ before baptism. Now this is a known thing ; that a profession of faith was usual before baptism (I, after others, had spoken largely of it) in the case of persons bap- tized at full age, (as Novatian was,) made by them- selves as the faith they then actually had ; in the case of infants, made by their sponsors, as he might see in Tertullian, (for there were then no freshy- 440 A Defence ofih& terian baptisms without sponsors,) as the faith into which the infant was baptized, and in which he was to be instructed, and which he must here- after hold and keep, if he ex])ected any benefit by his baptism. This was abundantly enough to make Dionysius say what he did. And is no more than any one would now say concerning such a case, that a Chris- tian turning to wickedness or apostasy, renounces his baptism, and the profession of faith, that went before it. This might well enough be said even of one that was baptized in infancy, in respect to the profession made in his name by sponsors at his bap- tism. But Dionysius was now speaking of a man who was known to have been baptized at age. He represents him as one who, having been an infidel and a very wicked man before, and then in a fear of death desiring to be baptized, and in order thereto making the professions, and being baptized in his bed of sickness, had afterward been as bad as ever before. That was ' frustrating holy baptism, ' and perverting the faith and profession made be- * fore it.' This is all that Mr. Gale has to prove that * the ' Greek churches were of another opinion' than St. Cyprian and his dull Africans. His clients must needs think this but a very in- different ])lca to close their cause with. But he, to excuse himself, and put them out of hopes of any better from any other pleader, plainly tells them, they must not ' expect to find any passages more ' inconsistent with that j)ractice (the practice of ' infant-baj>tism) than this is.' T do not love boasting, to the degree that he does. History of hifant-haptism. 441 Yet this, I think, I may say ; that I, though their adversary as he would represent me, produced several passages more plausible for antipaedobap- tism than this, or indeed than any he has brought ; and those such as had never been made use of in that dispute before. I produced impartially all that I found. As for Dionysius ; there is a particular reason to satisfy us that neither he and his church of Alexan- dria, nor the church of Rome, nor that of Cappa- docia, did take the doctrine and practice of infant- baptism to be any error in St. Cyprian and his church of Carthage. For all these (and indeed all the noted churches in Christendom) were engaged at that time in a question and dispute about baptism ; not in any question whether infants are to be bap- tized, (of that, as I have often said, there was never any question made by any church nor by any man, except Tertullian, for a thousand years,) but in a question whether baptism received from the hands of heretics or schismatics was valid, or not. Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of Cappadocia, and many other bishops and churches said it was not ; but that men baptized by heretics must, if they would be admitted in the church, be baptized anew ; and they practised accordingly. Stephen bishop of Rome, and some with him, maintained the contrary. The contention increased to a great height, and lasted a long time. Councils were held on each side, in Europe and Asia, as well as in Africa. Many messages and letters sent. Ste])hen carried it so high, as to renounce in great measure communion with Cyprian, Firmilian, &c. This Dionysius of Alexandria, (whom Mr. Gale here Mould make an 442 A Defence of the antipaedobaptist,) acted the part of a mediator, and wrote pacificatory letters, whereof good parts are preserved by Eusebius'J. Now I say, if the practice of baptizing infants, which is known to have been then used by the churches of Africa, had been at that time by any of the other accounted an error ; it could not have missed of being censured, or taken notice of, in the dispute. When they were inveighing each against the other's mistakes about the nature and use of baptism ; Stephen, who reproached Cyprian for an abuse of bai)tisra in one respect, viz., for giving it to men who had already a baptism which Stephen thought (though received in a blameable way, yet) valid, would also not have failed to have censured the abuse of it in this other respect, if he had thought the giving it to infants to be an abuse. But so it is, that in the Avhole dispute there is not one word said about it. A certain sign that there was no dif- ference in their tenets and usages in that particular. So that the proof of the African church using it, and the silence of the rest, is a proof for all of them, that they used it ; and for Dionysius and his church among the rest. Page 55^. Here he enters on the recapitulation, or summing up of what he has done : of the argu- ments he has used ; of the texts of Scripture he has explained or cited; with which he has done, as he has with his table of authors. For as in the one he has given you the name and edition of every dic- tionary or school-book ; so in the other, if he has mentioned or occasionally referred or alluded to any n [See his ' Ecclesiastical History,' book vi. chap. 40 to 46. book vii. chap. 26, &c. &c.] History of Infant-baptism. 443 text, he puts that text down in the index to fill up the number. I shall not follow him in the recapitulation ; but leave him and his ' sir' (to whom he ever and anon ad- dresses, 'you see, sir') to applaud and crow over their egregia facinora et res 'prcBclare gestas ; as knowing that whatever I may do with his arguments, I can never stop or quell his humour of boasting. Instead of that, I crave leave to address myself in a few words to the antipoedobaptists, and in a few to ray brethren of the clergy. The first, if they cannot from the evidence, and the pleas pro and contra, determine their opinion concerning the times of Origen, Tertullian, Irengeus, &c., should at least weigh in their minds the conse- quence that follows from this very thing that is granted concerning the practice of infant-baptism, viz., that it can be plainly traced up to St. Cyprian's time. The force and weight of the consequence or argument from thence does not lie, as Mr. Gale would represent, that it began in that time, but since it was not used from the beginning, we ought not to use it : but it lies thus ; that which we can plainly trace so far up, we have all reason to think was from the beginning. We are now at above sixteen hundred years dis- tance from the time that all the apostles had left the world. Of these sixteen hundred, one thousand four hundred and fifty are granted and yielded. Not to mention now the improbable things which the deniers of it are forced to say, to stave off the evidence for one hundred farther up — (' The books ' are not gemiine ; such a part of the chapter is in- ' terpolated : they by infants do not mean as we do : 444 A Defence of the ' the translations are not right ; which is the plea ' that the papists use when we urge to them texts of ' Scripture,' &c.) — but to speak of the time that is yielded. Of the sixteen hundred, the first two hundred (which, with the hundred years of apostolic times, make the first three centuries) are owned by all learned men of all persuasions, to have been the most pure both in doctrine and practice. They that except against the canons, the councils, the customs, since Constantine's time, (when the empire turning Christian, the riches of the world came into the church, and by degrees corrupted it,) as not so safely to be relied on ; do yet extol the purity of the first three centuries, (i. e. the time of Christ and the apostles, and two hundred years more,) when there was no temptation from the love of the world to warp men's consciences. That which depraved the church, when it did come to be depraved, was the same place-hunting that has since depraved and ruined every particular church, and state too, that has been ruined ; and will do more. But in the times we speak of, there was no place worth standing for; but that of a martyr, to make a glorious end of a life which would have been, as St. Paul says, if in this life only they had hoped in Christ, the most miserable. Now the times of St. Cyprian, which are yielded, were far within that space, and in the midst of the jiersecution. He himself at the head of his people, and multitudes of them with him, and after him, (as many of them had done before him,) gave up their lives as a sacrifice to the testimony of the truth of our holy religion ; butcliercd by the cruelty of their History of Infant-haftism. 445 heathen governors in their hatred to the Christian nanif and doctrine ; which they saw did by the c iistancy of such men increase, in spite of all their opposition. These were the men whom Mr. Gale represents to you, as ' the dull Africans.' And these were the times which he, at p. 568, would have you comprehend under the name of 'the more corrupt ' centuries.' If you were to read this holy martyr's learned works, and pious letters, you would be sufficiently angry with your advocate, for styling (as he does, p. bbbi) the letter he there speaks of, (which to read would be for your better informa- tion,) 'a trifling and empty reply.' Honest men, that have, or think they have, an honest cause, hate to have it defended by pleas that are not true. He tells you in the next words, p. b^b^ that they used infant-baptism, ' perhaps only ' as an indifferent thing, or in cases of danger.' I desire no other judge than one of yourselves, to see, by reading the place itself, where they speak of the necessity of it in terms as high and higher than we do now, if that be not as directly false a representation of it, as can be given by any man of any thing. He has undertaken to defend you. I desire you to defend him, if you can. And if you cannot, you know what you ought to do. Mr. Dan vers himself did not say but that this place spoke of infant-baptism as a thing, not indif- ferent, but necessary and ordinary. He thought of it (as Mr. Gale does now of Origen's and Irenaeus' sayings) that it was forged. That thought, though it be so plainly confuted that such a plea will never 446 A Defence of the be used anymore, might at that time be his mistake. But to deny a book before one's face to say vvliat it does plainly say concerning the danger to the soul of an infant dying without baptism, is a thing that needs a better defence than that which saved Danvers. Mr. Gale himself uses commonly to speak of the first three centuries as early times, and fit to be appealed to. But here, seeing this to be fifty years within them, would have it to avail nothing, unless testimonies be brought for the same practice within the other two hundred and fifty. And though that have been done, yet he knows how to get a verdict that it has not. It is but saying so positively, and four or five times over, p. 568, ' The authority of * the pi-imitive Fathers for at least two hundred and * fifty years gives no countenance,' &c., and then appealing to his ' sir,' p. 568, ' You see, sir, there is ' indeed nothing in whatever they advance, which ' can in the least favour their opinion,' &c. But should he not mind, or could he think that you would not mind, that even this question and answer in a meeting of sixty-six bishops, at the year after the apostles a hundred and fifty, concern- ing the baptizing of an infant before the eighth day, does carry in it an evidence for seventy or eighty years higher? It cannot be thought but several bishops among so many, were seventy or eighty years old, (which reaches up to seventy or eighty from the apostles,) and it is plain by the discourse, that not one of them had any doubt or question of baptizing in infancy; which yet they must have had, if it had not been in use ever since they could remember ; or if they themselves (such of them History of Infant-haptism. 447 as were born of Christian parents) had not been baptized in infancy. For St. Cyprian tells Fidus, that there was not one in all the number who doubted but that a child must be baptized before the eighth day, if need require. Much less then did they doubt but that they must be baptized in infancy. Mr. Gale would have you conceive of St. Cyprian as an obscure bishop, of no greater converse than with his Africans. But it appears by his books and letters that he had great correspondence and communion with the most noted churches and bi- shops then in the world. In all which churches his memory was also afterward honoured, as of a glorious martyr. Whereas Mr. Gale, at p. 568, would have you insist upon proofs within the first fifty years, or less : if he mean other than Scripture-proofs, he mocks you ; and takes you for more ignorant than I hope you are. At the year of Christ fifty, i. e. after his ascension about seventeen, whether any book of the New Testament was written, is not certain. But for certain no other book of any Christian, of which we have any memory ; nor in a long time after. And indeed very few are left, either of the apostles' times, (beside their own,) or of the hundred years following. The persecution and opposition against Christianity itself, hindered them from any leisure to write of any thing but the defence of the fundamentals of their religion. There is little in those few that remain, about the rituals of it. Of those remains that are left, elder than St. Cyprian, I have told you what Justin, Irenseus, 448 A Defence of the Tertullian, and Origen tlo say ; and intend to give in the Appendix a quotation or two out of Clemens Alexandrinus "■; and do wish you could read the books yourselves. When the world became Christian, (which was chiefly in the fourth century,) more books were written. And accordingly the testimonies are many, full, and undeniable. Neither docs one of them speak of it as new, or as a thing that needed proof: but as of a thing supposed and ordinarily known. No council ever enacted it, or made canons to enjoin it ; because no church or sect of Christians had ever denied it. On the contrary, they occasionally in- stance in it as a thing that had ever been. Pelagius, who set up a sect that denied original sin, was galled with that argument of the catholics; ' Why are infants baptized for the remission of sin, 'if they have not original sin? Actual sins they ' can have none.' And some that aggravated his error, accused him of it, as a consequence of his tenet, that he pleaded against the baptizing of in- fants, lie declared an abhorrence of the slanderous imputation ; and said, they accused him of saying a thing which ' he never heard any Christian, no not ' even any sectary, say.' And if there had ever been any church in any time, or any part of the world, that denied infant- baj)tism, he must have heard of them. For he was a learned man ; and had lived in the most noted churches of Europe, Asia, and Africa. And they ["■ These quotations are incorporated into the work itself, forming the eighth and ninth sections of chap. iii. in the first volume.] Hutor^ of Infant-baptism. 44<9 had then but three hundred years, or under three hundred and twenty, to look back to the time of the apostles. These, and many such decisive evidences, were in that part of my book, which Mr. Gale gives up and cannot deny. Now this fourth century, in which Constantine the emperor became Christian, was none of the corrupt times of the church, nor the next century to it ; I mean, not to any high degree. I said before, that the world with its pomps coming into the church, corrupted it by degrees, with ambition, fac- tions, schisms, parties, &c. But that was not done to any high degree presently. It was that fourth century that had those shining lights, Constantine the first Christian emperor, Eusebius, Athanasius, St. Basil, the two Gregories, St. Ilierome, St. Chrys- ostom, St. Austin, &c. These Mr. Gale himself, when he quotes them, styles saifits ; ' St. Cyprian, ^ St. Basil, St. Gregory,' &c. Do you think he ac- counts them saints? Does he allow them to be Christians? Will he own that there was any church of Christ at that time ? Would he have held com- munion with the church then, or any part of it ? His answer, either affirmative or negative, will fly in his face, so long as he holds that uncharitable and unchristian opinion (which he has professed in this book of his, and which was the only one he could find to confront and defeat the exhortation I gave you against separating from the church, though you thought her to be in an error in points not fun- damental) ; I mean his opinion and assertion, that paedobaptism is a fundamental error in the consti- tution of a church : that the age and manner of WALL, VOL. IV. a g 450 A Defence of the receiving baptism are of the essence of it: tliat ba[)- tism so given as the jnx'dobaptists give it, not only is blameable in its circumstances, but ' becomes no ' baptism :' that persons so baptized ' are not true ' members of the Cliristian clmrch ; have no bap- ' tism ; no title to church-membership ; but shouhl * be disclaimed ; no more to be communicated with, ' than one Avonld communicate with persons he can- ' not esteem baptized.' These positions he maintains, J). 82, &c., to p. 86, and without any shame or mo- desty, pretends that I supposed all of them to be right. And he intimates worse, and speaks them as far as he dare ; that the cluirch of England has ' no bishops, presbyters,' &c. Now I say, a man holding these desperately un- charitable positions, could not have held communion with the church of the time we were speaking of. For in all that time, by all the footsteps found in reading the numerous books then published, there is no appearance of any church, nay, not of any sect, l)ut what were psedobaptists. T know, you generally do not hold so uncha- ritable a tenet (but only he and some few). Tf you did, I would never advise yon to conic to church, nor any church to receive you. St. Paul, when he spoke, 2 Thess. ii, of the fa/h'nq mem/, or degeneracy, uTroa-raa-la, that should come in the church, or greatest part thereof, said ; there was something that did then let, or wit/ihold, i. e. put a stop to the coming of that apostasy, and to the revealuuj of that man of sin, ivho should sit as God in the temple of God, i. e. in the church, which he should defile. And he said that that ivhich did then let, ivould let until it were taken History of Infant-haptism. 451 out of the way. And, that they knew what it was; for he had told them, when he was present with them. That is, he had told them in private : it being not a thing fitting to be published. For it was the power of the Roman empire ; of the de- struction of which, or its being taken out of the way, it was not proper for St. Paul at that time publicly to speak or write. But it came abroad among the Christians afterward ; and they knew what it was, that he had told the Thessalonian Christians, viz. that when the Roman empire should be destroyed, then that wicked should be reveal- ed, &c. Now that empire was not destroyed at once ; but by degrees. And accordingly some modern divines have placed the beginning of the apostasy sooner, some later : but none so soon as the end of the fourth century ; in which (or before which) lived all the Fathers that I cited speaking so fully and plainly of infant-baptism, that Mr. Gale yields St. Cyprian (who lived in the middle of the third century) and ail downward. Some did of late, with great assurance of their skill in computing the history of the prophecies, fix the beginning of the ajxistatical times about the middle of the fifth century, viz., at the year four hundred fifty-five, or six*. But most readers of s [Probably the person principally alluded to is Mr.Whiston ; who maintained this position strongly, in his ' Essay on the ' Revelation of St. John,' 4to. Cambridge, 1706. See Mr.Whis- ton's interpretation and arguments examined by Dr. Wells, both in his 'Explanation of the Revelation.' (4to, Oxford, 1717.) more especially at page 102; and likewise in his 'Explanation ' of the Book of Daniel,' (4to Oxford, 17 16.) especially at page 80. — According to Whiston's theory, a great advancement and G ^^ 452 J Defence of the Scripture did tlioii think even that date to be by many years too soon, (for the Scripture does not for every decay of the church impute apostasy^ or fallinq away, to it ; but then when the corruption becomes a gangrene. And the Roman empire held a considerable degree of power, even in Italy, to a much later date.) And now they themselves may see their own mistake. For it was by their hypo- thesis to last but 1260 years, (which with the 456 make 1716,) and then a great advancement, or re- surrection, of true religion and of Christ's kingdom was to begin. Which he that thinks to be now, or does not see that Christendom is yet in the dregs of that degeneracy, does not know what religion, or Christ's kingdom is. But none, as I said, did ever conceive it to have begun during the fourth century. I mention these things to you, for this reason ; that you (who perhaps may not be acquainted \\\i\\ the character of the Christians that lived in the several ages or centuries of the church, by reading the books and histories of each century) may be able, by such general accounts as lie open to all readers of Scripture, to understand that the cen- turies which we quote, and which INIr. Gale yields, were not within the space of that falling away^ but were times wherein the true spirit and genius of Christian religion and piety did continue to a degree, to which we may wish we could see any thing equal in our time. And that consequently you may perceive, that not only those that have improvement in the state of the church and of reUgion was expected to take place in the year 1716, a point here touched hv Dr. Wall.] History of Infant-laptism. 453 told you, that infant-baptism began but of late under such or such a pope of Rome ; but also Mr. Gale, who insinuates to you that it began in ' the corrupt ' centuries,' do abuse you. You ])erceive and mind, that I sjieak now only of the time that he yields, from St. Cyprian and down- ward. Not but that there is evidence, both from Scripture and from the elder Fathers, (such as may satisfy any impartial inquirer,) of its being from the beginning. Suffer me to advise you of one thing, wherein the writers against infant-baptism take advantage of your incapacity to read the ancient Christian authors yourselves. There are some of the Fathers, who in their books that are left have not happened to say any thing about the baptizing of infants ; there having not been any dispute about that in their time ; and yet they have perhaps occasion, by reason of the frequent baptisms of adult converts then, to speak of the sacrament of baptism in gene- ral. And when they do so speak of it in general, it is common with them to mention faith, and a serious purpo,^e of amendment of life, &c., as neces- sary for those who are by that sacrament entered into the Christian covenant. Now it is usual with the antipsedobaptist writers to collect a number of these sayings, concerning the necessity of faith, &c., as there are thousands of them. Those of the said writers who are cautious not to discover the M^eakness of their plea, pick them out of such Fathers, in whose books there is not any mention of the case of infants ; and they would have an unlearned man conclude from them that those Fathers must have thought baptism of 454 A Defence of the infants impracticable, because they do in those general sentences speak of faith and repentance as requisite to baptism. Now all such arguings are shewed to be incon- clusive by this one observation, viz., that those Fa- thers M'ho were uncontestedly psedobaptists, and in whose time the practice is notoriously known, do, when they speak of baptism in general, speak in the same language, and insist upon the same qualifi- cations. A learned friend has sent me a collection of seve- ral such sayings, of such Fathers as the antipaedo- baptists themselves do own to have practised infant- baptism ; and advised me to let you see some of them, St. Cypi-ian, who lived in the hundred and fiftieth year after the apostles, is now well known to the antipaedobaptists, as one maintaining the doctilne of psedobaptism ; and yet he, when he is discoursing of baptism in g*eneral, has sentences concerning the necessity of faith, repentance, &c., to baptism, as positive as can be found in any Father whatsoever. As for example. Epist. 75. cd. OdV)i.^ ' Qui cum Noe in area non fuerunt, non tantum ' purgati [et salvati] per aquam non sunt, sed statim ' diluvio illo perierunt. Sic et nunc quicunque in ' ccclesia cum Christo non sunt, foris peribunt ; nisi * ad unicum et salutare ecclesiae lavacrum per poeni- ' tentiam convertantur. ' They who were not with Noah in the ark, ob- ' tained no i)urgation or cleansing by the water, but ' even perished by that flood. So also whoever they t [ P. 225. and p. 148. of the Benedictine edition, with the addition of the words et salvati.'] History of Infant-haptism. 455 ' are that are not with Christ in the church, will ' perish as men out of it ; unless they do come, with ' repentance, to that only salutary sacrament [wash- ' ing] of the church." Here one of the writers, I mentioned, would from the universality of this sentence, ' whoever they are,' have concluded that no person whatsoever was in Cyprian's judgment capable of that sacrament of baptism without repentance; if we had not other- wise known his sentiment concerning infants being baptized, from those places of his books where he treats particularly of their case. The like use they would make of his seventieth Epistle, where he is speaking of the interrogations made at baptism ; ' Dost thou believe,' &c., if he had happened never to write any thing concerning the baptism of infants. Gregory Nyssen lived in those times and places, when and where the antipaedobaptists themselves now do not deny that infant-baptism was in use, viz., more than a hundred years after St. Cyprian. He mentions faith and prayer among the things that complete the sacrament of baptism. Orat. Catechet. cap. 33 «. Ei'^j; Trporofcss themselves of our church. 'S [See vol. i. p. 559, and 566.] h [Vol. i. p. 5.S1.552.] i [Vol. i. p. 359. 552. 553. 57'-] History of Infant-baptism . 479 It is true, they do, for all this, continue in actual separation. I do not mean Mr. Tombes did ; but most of these present subscribers of the confession which I mentioned, do. What reason they have to give, or how, after such declarations, they do endeavour to justify their separation, I know not. If I had had the good fortune to have had my book answered by one of those, instead of Mr. Gale, I must have known their ground. He would not say a word concerning that confession, or concerning the declarations of Mr. Tombes or Mr. Stennet. I did once propose the question to Mr. Stennet ; how they did count it consistent with such declara- tions, to renounce communion ? He answered ; that they should not refuse to admit a paedobaptist, against whom they had no other objection, to their communion. I remember, he was pleased to in- stance in me : so that he must mean, one that had no other baptism, but in infancy, and by pouring water. There was not then time (for we were just parting) for the question that ought to have fol- lowed next ; why, if they could admit us, if we came to their assemblies, they might not with as good conscience come and communicate (in the prayers and the other sacrament) at ours? And I never after had opportunity before his death to renew the conversation. It must be, either that they hold something in which they must join, in our prayers, or way of worship or of communicating, to be sinful : or, that it is sinful in them to be present at the baptizing of an infant, though they do not join in those particular prayers: or else, that those who have different opinions in things not fundamental, must 480 A Defence of the set up several cominnnions, or churches. Which last is a very mistaken notion ; has done unspeakable mischief in hindering many sorts of protestants, Lutherans, Calvinists, Preshi/terimi.s, 8>cc., from com- municating with the national churches Mhere pro- vidence has placed them : and vvill, if it be followed, propagate divisions in infinitum : and yet, to our shame, is encouraged in some even of our own pulpits. This sort of antipa^dobaptists, though they sepa- rate themselves from us, yet do it not upon so uncharitable a principle, nor do shew so obstinate a temper, but that there may be some hopes of reducing them to a right sentiment, either of the essentials of the sacrament of baptism ; or at least, of the article of the co?mnunion of saints : and hopes, that pains spent with them in conversing, discoursing, arguing and recommending books to them, may be not in vain. Which pains should be taken, and used with them, in all patience and meekness, so long till they appear incorrigible in their schism. Thirdly, there is another sort, who do not only separate from, but rail at our church, clergy, and people, and all other protestants, as being either no Christians, (as many of them do shew their real sentiment to be) or no church ; having no bishops, no Christian presbyters, no sacraments, &c. As you see Mr. Gale and that sort do broadly intimate their censure. There are, God l)e thanked, 1)ut few of them so far gone in the spirit of uncharitableness. They that are, deserve to be thought as far from Chris- tianity, as they censure all others to be. He that History of Infant-haptism. 481 excommunicates all Christendom, except liimself and so very few, does stand ipso facto excommunicated from them whom he so renounces. As Firmihanus told Stephen bishop of Rome, that by excommu- nicating so many as he did, all that he got, was, that he had cut himself off from so many churches of Christ. Whatever becomes of the questions of baptism, he that has lost charity, has lost his Chris- tianity. I do not say, but that some pains of admonishing should be used even with these. But I think such a temper of obstinacy, arrogance, and censorious self-conceit to be that very disposition which St. Paul meant by the name of heresy, when he or- dered Titus, that such men he should after the first and second admonition reject. A'lpea-is does gram- matically signify that temper; and I believe St. Paul took it in that sense at that place. I have known some of the other sorts recovered. None ever of this. None, I mean, of such as were quite gone off from us, and herded with them, and had imbibed that censorious spirit with which they infect one another. Many that were wavering, and half way seduced, have been reclaimed. Any of my brethren that shall have occasion, or think it necessary to write any thing in this con- troversy, may comfort themselves, that they cannot have worse luck than I have had. I set myself to speak of the antip^edobaptists in the civilest lan- guage I could. The answerer represents me as a spiteful slanderer of them : picks up personal stories of my actions nothing to the purpose : pretends to publish a character of me : runs from one end of my book to the other, to single out passages upon WALL, VOL. IV. 1 i 482 A Defence of the which lie thinks he can declaim : faces down the world, that I have said things there, which I never said ; as, that there is no proof of infant-baptism from Scrij)ture : gives very insulting and reproach- ful language, &c. I fancy they will not employ him again ; but do rather hope, they will call him to account for using, in the defence of their cause, affirmations of matters of fact which are not true. My opinion was, that there needed no answer to his book. Some very worthy men thought that for the sake of the people it might be needful. I told them, they must then think of some younger man, fitter to bear the fatigue of writing books : and I thought for a long time that that course had been taken ; and depended upon it. It came how- ever to be devolved on me, and the English proverb made good, Wear out the old one first. The reader, that sees the imperfection of the performance, must consider the defects of age. I thank God who has enabled me to come to the end of it a little (God knows how little) before the end of my life'-. For I have been apprehensive of dying in a circumstance, in which archbisho]) Til- lotson somewhere says^ none would be willing to ^ [Dr. Wall lived liowever six or seven years after writing this paragraph, dying in 1727, at the age of 82.] 1 [Namely, in the preface to his sermon on Steadfastness in Religion, being the 49th in the first volume of the folio edition. — His words are these : ' For this reason a good man should not ' be very willing, ichen his Lord comes, to be found so doing ; and ' as it were beating his fellow -sei-v ants : and all controversy, as it * is usually managed, is little better. A good man would be ' loth to be taken out of the world reeking hot from a sliarp ' contention with a perverse adversary : and not a little out of History of Infani-haptisni. 483 be surprised with death, viz., in the midst of a controversy, or reeking hot from one. I would not have any one that shall write, flatter himself, that they will let him have the last word, with what strength and evidence soever he write. I have some particular reasons to be satisfied that some monied men among them, both have, and will again, if need be, contribute largely to keep the press at work. In which case, reasons and answers will never be wanting to authors. There is, while I am writing this presage, a new instance given of the incessant attempts of their preachers to write against any thing that is said for their conviction ; whether they have any thing rational in argument, or true in fact, to oppose to it or not. One Mr. Davye of Leicester, in a book called ' The ' Baptism of Adult Believers only™,' Sec, undertakes to shew, that there have been antipsedobaptists in ' every age of the church' from Christ's and the ' countenance, to find himself in this temper translated into the ' calm and peaceable regions of the blessed, where nothing but ' perfect charity and good-will reign for ever.'] ™ [I have not been able to obtain a sight of this publication ; therefore cannot answer for the correctness of the citations from it. In Ivimev's History of the Baptists there is the following brief notice of it and its author : ' Mr. Stokes found an able antagonist also in Mr. Thovtas ' Davy, who published a work of 158 pages^ dated "Leicester, * 29th September 1718," entitled "The baptism of adult be- ' lievers only, asserted and vindicated, and that of infants dis- ' proved," &c., with a postscript and appendix.'] I i 2 484 J Defence of the apostles' time till now. AVhich if he can do, he shall be the champion of their cause. He saw this to be needful ; because (as he ob- serves) Christ's church must have had a being in all ages. From which the true conclusion being, since many ages have been without ever an anti- pa;dobaptist, there must have been in all those ages a true church of posdobaptists : he, not liking this conclusion, labours, in spite of all history, to find some antipa^dobaptists in all the several ages. This he declares in his preface to be the thing which he is largest on, and labours cJiiefly to make out. He does however treat of the arguments from Scripture ; but owns, they have been ' so fully and ' nicely canvassed' that they are come to their ne plus ultra in matter of argument. And, as he does not pretend, so he has not on that head any thing but what has been often considered. I shall pass most of that by. What he wishes to discourse of is their antiquity. And for the first two hundred years, (i. e. after the apostles a hundred,) of which there are few books left, he depends upon the failure of proof given by the paedobaptists for the baptizing of infants, and the testimonies of Scripture concerning adult persons baptized, that there was then no infant-baptism, all were antipa}doba])tists ; and says, p. 52, ' that there is nothing of it to be found in ' the writings of St. Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, • Ignatius, Polycarp, Irena?us, Justin INIartyr, or ' Theophilus Antiochenus. In Tertullian's time, about • the latter end of the second century, it began to ' appear,' &c. For all this, T suppose, he depends upon Mr. History of Infant-baptism. 485 Gale or some others of them. He himself would begin, where Mr. Gale ends, at the time of St. Cyj3rian. And there being for his time and the following (of which there is plenty of books) full proof of infant-baptism, he undertakes however to find some in every age that opposed it. If there had been any such thing to be found, it would have been found before now, by some learned men that they have had. Mr. Tombes reckons St. Cyprian's time to be the spring-head (as he calls it) of infant-baptism ; and St. Austin's authority in after-times carried it * al- ' most without control.' And all the pretences of proof that any one then, or for many centuries after, did oppose to it, have been shewn to be gross mistakes. It could not be St. Austin's authority that carried it ; because St. Austin says, he never knew, nor heard of, any that denied that infants are baptized for forgiveness of sins. And Pelagius? who lived at the same time, owns, that he never heard of any that denied it to be given. But as to its obtaining universally, Mr. Tombes need not have put in the word ' almost.' For for seven hundred years after St, Austin there is, in all the numerous books then written, no account of any church, any sect, any author, any Christian, that re- jected it ; nor none before Austin, but Tertullian. Mr. Davye, after a slight attempt of expounding some words in a canon of the council of Neo-Caesarea to the purpose of antipaedobaptism (which have been fully shewed to be impertinent to it), and having recited some words of Balsamon's Comment on it, (but leaving out those in the same j)aragraph that speak directly of infant-baptism,) seeks for proofs on 486 A Defence of the his side among the heretics of the following times \ the Novatimia, the Donatists, and the Pelagians. He had before tohl his readers at page 4, that one main part of the controversy between those sects on the one side, and St. Cyprian and St. Austin, &c., on the other side, was concerning infants' baptism. And whereas every one must wonder how he could venture to say this ; after that Mr. Danvers had been so shamed for pretending to proofs of it, and after it had appeared upon a diligent canvassing, that they never had one word of difference about that matter ; he proves it there no otherwise than by saying, ' I cannot but believe it was so.' And so he says afterward at page 50, ' to me it is apparent.' But here he runs out into argument. At page 9, 10, he reckons up several mischiefs of infant-baptism. One is, that ' by this practice so * many human inventions have been invented.' Among which he reckons chrism and unction as two. And says, ' none of which we read of in * primitive antiquity for the first three hundred * years at least after Christ.' To such a writer there needs no other weapons but his own to overthrow him. For if chrism be one of the consequents of infant-baptism, who is there so ignorant as not to know that that was in use long before the times he speaks of? lie says there, the argument for infant-baptism from circumcision ' was not insisted on by those ' called ancient Fathers.' And though he might have instanced in some of them, who indeed do not mention its succeeding circumcision, he unluckily picks out for his only instances St. Cyprian and St. Austin, who arc kinnvn to have mentioned it. History of Infant-ha'ptism. 487 But he says, it was not insisted on by tliem ' for ' ought he finds.' That salves all. Page 15, he grants, that infants were church- members under the psedagogy of Moses ; and page 16, that they were brought to the ordinance of the passover as soon as they were capable to eat it. And page 17, that under the Gospel ' infants dying * (he means, all infants dying) are in the covenant of * grace.' And ten lines after, says, ' Where faith, * repentance, &c., are wanting in the recipients ; ' there cannot be right church-membership ; nor can * they be in the covenant of grace ; let men pretend * what they please.' And page 16, that ' the New * Testament church is wholly of a new frame ;' that we are not concerned now with what was done under the Old Testament. Forgetting that St. Paul tells the Gentile Christians that the blessing of Abraham is come on them ; and that they who were of the wild olive-tree are graffed among the natural branches. Here in ten pages he disputes against the inde- pendents. And it is pretty to see how they confute one another. He concludes with quotations from bishop Burnet, Dr. Whitby, Continuers of Pool's Annotations, Assembly's Annotations, &c. And what is most ridiculous, he quotes here, and in twenty places more, bishop Taylor's ' Liberty of ' Prophesying ;' a book written in Oliver's time to puzzle the schismatics then in power, by shewing that even the papists and anabaptists had as much to say for themselves as they had ; and produced their arguments, which himself shewed afterward to have no solidity in them. Chap. ii. To disprove the Jewish baptism of pro- 488 A Defence of the selytes, lie transcribes Mr. CJale ; and (what Mr. Gale thought not fit to do, since the place has been examined) sir Norton Knatchbull ; and (not know- ing who speaks for him, and who against him) Codwyn's ' jMoses and Aaron,' which plainly asserts tliis custom of the Jews ; and says, page 37, that he cannot understand, if the custom had been to baptize proselytes^ why the Pharisees should ask John, why he ba])tized Jews. On Matth. xix. 14, and 1 Cor. vii. 14, he brings over again some of the most trite pleas which the antii)a3dobaptists have used in their descants on those texts. There is nothing else in this chapter, but that he catches hold of that subtle and airy distinction of fundamentals, which Mr. Gale, T think, has invented for them, Avhereby to Justify their separation from the protestant churches, with whom they would yet seem to agree in all fundamental points of faith. It is a device which, T see, takes with them. He manages it page 47, to this ])urpose : ' There are some things or doctrines, which ' though they are not fandamental points of relifjion, * or necessary to salvation ; are yet fundamental^ or * essentially necessary, to the constitution of a church. ' And here we say, baptism is fundamental^ or essen- ' tially necessary.' And he says, ' baptism of infants by sprinkling ' (and I suppose he would say, by pouring water, or ' even dipping of them) is indeed no baptism. And ' therefore, though we honour them (the protestants) ' as brethren, love them as children of God, and * believers, &c., yet we cannot join M'ith them in a ' church state.' History of Infant-baptism. 489 They seem to have had some cue given them by somebody, that separate they must ; or else they do nothing to purpose. And they strive for far- fetched pleas to justify their so doing. As for this nev\^-invented one, it is the emptiest that ever was used to justify so great a sin and vt^ickedness. For it appears on the first weighing it, that any defect in baptism, if it does not hinder any single person from being a Christian, does not hinder a body of such as have that defect, from being a church. If a man be once a Christian, there is no new use of baptism to make him a priest (or, as they call it, an elder), or to make him a bishop. So that if they were a number of Christians before, (which a new preacher would have to be the defi- nition of a church,) they may without any new trial of the validity of their baptism have church officers, and be a church in the sense of that word which is acknowledged by all. This author manages this argument a great deal more weakly than Mr. Gale himself did. He says, p. 48, ' It is proved by Heb. vi. 1, 2, 3, and Matt. ' xxviii. 19, 20, that baptism is fundamental to ' church-communion, and to the constitution of a ' church.^ What those texts do speak of baptism tends to shew its necessity for one's being a Chris- tian, or being saved ; but they have nothing parti- cular in reference to communion, or the constitution of a church. And he has spoiled the whole argument by saying, ' We do not unchurch all other protestant churches. ' — There is scarce any thing more distant from our ' thoughts.' Mr. Gale would not have taught him to have 490 J Defence of the said so. He would have taught him to say ; We do not unchristian them, or deny their salvation ; but unchurch them we must ; or else we cannot justify our separation ; which is the main point of all. The third cha])ter has (beside the common pleas which have been answered a hundred times) no- thing new that is material, but these absurd pro- positions. Page 49- That the doctrine of original sin began to be disputed anno Dom. 250. Page 50. That the Novatians (which is true) and the Donatists (which is false) were before Constan- tino's time. Of both of them he says, that it is * to * him apparent,' that they before that time opposed the growing errors or heresies of the times. And, that the Waldenses and Albigetises sprang from the Novatians and Donatists. Page 54. That INIr. Wall (meaning me) confesses that Justin INIartyr excludes infants from being bap- tized, and in the church ; and says, that only adult persons can or ought to be baptized. Mr, Davye had said in his preface, that he was not conscious that he had wronged any of the authors cited. By which it appears, he does some things that he is not conscious of. Page 57. That St. Cy])rian taught that the church of Jiome was the mother-church. And here he quotes Dai lie observing from St. Cyprian's fifty- ninth Epistle, that St. Cyprian thought the eu- charist necessary to infants for their salvation. Which (as proved from that Epistle) has been shewn to be Mr. Daille's oversight in reading sacrificanduni for sancfificauduni, admitted to the History of Infant-haptism. 491 eucharist instead of baptized"^. And though Mr. Davye was told of this, yet he had rather follow the oversight than consult the place. The eucharist was called a sacrifice ; but the recipients never were said to be sacrificed. Page 58. That the Novatians and Donatists kept their distinct congregations from St. Cyprian's, be- cause of his infant-baptism. This, as to infant- baptism, is as true of the Donatists who did not arise till near a hundred years after St. Cyprian was dead, as it is of the other, who in his time made a schism, but disputed not one word of infant- baptism. Page 59. Having shewn that the Novatians dif- fered from St. Cyprian in several other things, he infers, ' From all which we have very great proba- * bility on our side, that they rejected the baptism ' of infants.' This argument will fetch in the whole legion of heretics to be of Mr. Davye's side. For they, all of them, differed from St. Cyprian in many things. Page 60. He cites one Gabriel Prateolus as saying of the Novatians, that they affirmed that infants did not stand in need of baptism **. He that will be at the pains to search the place in Prateolus, p. 125, will know which of the two, Prateolus, or Danvers, was the first that forged this on the Novatians (for Danvers once said this of them, and was soundly » [See vol. i. p. 139.] o [The words of G. Prateolus in his book entitled • De vitis, ' sectis, et dogmatibus omnium hsereticorum,' 40. Colonicc, 1581, are, (he is speaking of the Cathari,) 'Aiebant infantes absque ' peccato esse, ideoque non egere baptismo'.] 492 A Defence of the shamed for it) : I do not think the reputation of eitlier of them worth the pains. From p. 61, to the end of the chapter, he i>illages that chapter of my History^^ wherein I mentioned some moderns who have made objections against the opinion of infant-ba])tism being used (generally or universally from the beginning. JNIany of whom answered their own objections, or recanted them. But ]\Ir, Davye recites their objections, and omits their answers ; and so brings in Dr. Hammond and Mr. Baxter among the antipaidobaptists ; and bishop Taylor, who declared what he wrote to have been only some objections easy to be answered ; and bishop Barlow, who had in his youth in a letter to Mr. Tombes, said some things of the ancient history, which being without his knowledge printed long after, he recanted as having been written in the time of his ignorance. Yet Mr. Davye reprints the letter at large, but not the recantation ; though he saw them both together in my book. And having recited out of Mr. Stennet a saying of one Vansleb concerning the ancient practice used at Alexandria, which has nothing of probability in it, nor is confirmed by any ancient historian ; he. to put some mark of antiquity on it, quotes Socrates for it, lib. vi. c. 7, 9- and lib. 7- c. 7. meaning, I suppose, Socrates the historian : but he might as well have cited Socrates the philosopher : one says no more of any such matter than the other. And this is Mr. Davye's way. Chap. iv. He enters upon his task of bringing r [Namely, part ii. chap. 2.] History of Infant-haptism. 493 proofs that the Donatists were antipsedobaptists. And haying first premised, what I mentioned before, concerning the council of Neocsesarea and Balsamon, and coming to speak of his Donatists, he makes several gross mistakes of their tenets about other matters ; as that they rejected chrism, &c., p. Q5, and then asserts of their tenets concerning infant-baptism things absolutely false ; as, that they held that infants ' needed not to be baptized/ p. QQ. He quotes Vincentius (who held only that infants who had missed of baptism might yet by God's mercy be saved) as an antip?edobaptist. He says, p. 67, ' That Fulgentius the Donatist and Cres- ' conius denied infants baptism^ and asserted only ' that baptism which is after faith, as saith the ' Magdeburgensian history. Augustin also in his ' Epistle to Marcellus writes against them for de- ' nying baptism to infants.' And many other such strange things, copied, I think, mostly out of Dan- vers. Now there is not one word of all this true. Nei- ther St. Austin nor the Magdeburgenses have one syllable of what he here quotes from them. St. Austin has no epistle written to any one of that name. And Mr. Davye has given me the trouble of reading all his epistles to Marcellinus. In all which he has nothing about the Donatists, save that in one or two of them he entreats Marcellinus (the emperor's commissioner) in his court of judica- ture to abate of the riofour of the law ao^ainst some of them that were convicted of sedition, outrage, and murder; that the church might have the re- pute of moderation. Of their tenets about baptism not one M^ord. A Defence of the If these proofs will not do, he demands proofs of the other side from us that the Donatists were for infant-baptism. Several of us, and I for one, gave proofs from the councils of that time, and other evi- dences ; to which he has nothing to oppose. Page 69. He would however get the Pelagians of his side. He owns that St. Austin speaks of them as allowing and practising infant-ba])tism ; though they denied original sin. But he says, 'I cannot * help hesitating a little about it.' x\nd because they said that an infant dying unbaptized may have an eternal life somewhere, though not in the kingdom of heaven, (into which, as they confessed, no infants but baptized ones could enter,) he thinks 'it can * hardly be believed they were for infant-baptism.' He concludes a little more modestly, that if w^hat he says of Pelagius be not a proof, it must be allow- ed for a strong probability ; and says, ' for my own * part, I believe, he and his followers were for be- * lievers' baptism only.' So the bell chinketh. Page 70, he questions whether Pelagius' creed, and Celestius' Confessio Fidei, of which I gave copies out of St. Austin, be genuine. And what is w^orse, says, it may be questioned by my confession. They were authentical pieces sent or given by them in their own defence to the bishops of Rome. No man can suppose, even if he thought St. Austin to be a forger, that he would forge or mis-recite public records kept at Rome. Page 71, he would prove, from some canons or synodical epistles of the councils of Carthage and Milevis, anno 416, directed against the Pelagians^ that the Pelagians or some people of that time op- posed the baptism of infants ; because those canons Histoyy of Infant-haptism. 495 do, as he says, anathematize some that did oppose it. Now there wants nothing but the reading of the canons and epistles, by any one that can read them, to see that they do not speak of any that opposed it ; but only of some that thought it must not be given to new-born infants before the eighth day ; and of some others (viz., the Pelagians) who denied that any original sin derived from Adam was forgiven to infants in it. Page 72, he says, those against whom these canons were made must have held, that infants, though unbaptized, might enter into the kingdom of heaven. The distinction the Pelagians made between an eternal life somewhere, and the kingdom of heaven, is beyond Mr. Davye's skill. They held that in- fants who missed of baptism might have an eternal life somewhere, they knew not where, as being with- out sin ; but that baptized infants did enter into the kingdom of heaven, as being not only without sin, but also regenerated in Christ. Page 75. For the following centuries, he finds that the council of Gerunda decreed, that infants ncM^y born, if sick, or not able to suck the breast, should be baptized, though it were not Easter time. Would any one but he conclude from hence, that either the bishops of that council or any one else of that time denied that they were to be baptized at all ? Another synod Mr. Davye has found quoted. The Bracarensian synod in the seventh century condemned the errors of the Manicliees and Pris- cillianists. Now Cassander says, that in the twelfth 496 A Defence of the century in Bernard's time, arose the Albigcnses, who to the rest of their errors borrowed from tlie Manicliees and PriaciUianists, added this, that the l)aptism of little ones is unprofitable. From hence this notable arguer concludes that there were antipsedobaptists in the seventh century ; whereas the proof is only of the twelfth., when some ])eople holding some ancienter errors added to them this of antipsedobaptism. Chap. V. p. 77. Having renewed that absurd pretence of Danvers, that the old Britons denied infant-baptism, and quoted nothing for it, but that edition of Fabian *! which Danvers had lighted on, (wherein the misprinting of three words makes all the mistake,) he concludes, page 81 : * If all this will not be allowed for proof, ' I must let my opposers enjoy their contrary opin- ' ions ; it is not much material, yet I must tell ' the reader, these considerations weigh with me, to ' make me believe these Britons were really for • believers' baptism only.' It is an advantage to have a faculty of believing what one will, with reason or without. Page 81. For an evidence in the ninth century, he is not ashamed to bring upon the stage again that blunder which Danvers made in the story of Hincmarus'", bishop of Laudun ; M'hich has been exposed even to ridicule. And finding in Danvers* book the Bihliotheca Patrum and the Magdehur- genses quoted for things not there to be found, he copies the quotations just as they were in Danvers. Q [See vol. ii. p. 127. for the difference of reading in several editions.] •■ [See vol. ii. p. 233.] History of Infant-haptism. 497 A thing that he did not think of here, but argues at large in his recapitulation, at page 122, and says, he cannot omit it, is a manifest instance of his venturing to aflfirm confidently matters of fact which he only guesses at, and which are not true. He ob- serves that I in my Preface do say, that St. Austin has whole books against the Pelagians, wherein he proves the doctrine of original sin from the practice of infant- baptism. Mr. Davye positively asserts the contrary, viz., that from the doctrine of original sin in infants St. Austin infers the necessity of their baptism ; and says, ' his works do plainly shew this to every ' reader.' And, that mine is a ' wrong construction' of them. And, that he * vehemently in several * places condemns the Pelagians for suffering in- * fants to die without baptism.' Could any man, in a thing that had been true, and which he had read himself, have expressed a greater confidence than he does in this, which is notoriously untrue? Every man that has read any thing of St. Austin against the Pelagians, (if it were only those places which I quoted, which are not the hundredth part,) must see with his own eyes that St. Austin all along, and many times over, sj)eaks of the Pelagians as owning and practising infant-baptism ; and argues with them, that the custom used by the whole church and by themselves of baptizing infants ought to convince them, that they have original sin which needs to be washed away. Mr. Davye says, this is not a congruous way of arguing ; nor to reason with them like men of sense. ' Is not,' says he, ' the same argument used WALL, VOL. IV. K k 498 A Defence of the * against us now ? And do not the paedobaptists ' argue from original sin to the necessity of infant- * baptism ? The other is a thwarting way of arguing, ' and very unlikely.' But, good ]\Ir. Davye, if there be something which may be seen with one's own eyes by any one that Avill be at the pains to go and see it ; and some do go and see it ; for you to sit at home, and guess by congruitics and likelihoods, how the thing must be ; and not only to disbelieve them that have seen it, but to face them down that they give wrong ac- counts ; is to take too great a liberty to yourself. What will become of your credit, even with your own party, if these books of St. Austin should be translated into English ; or if any of them be able to read them in Latin f The paedobaptists do indeed argue with you from your confession of original sin, to convince you of the necessity of baptism to infants ; and good reason ; because you do (many of you) oum the former, but deny the latter. St. Austin argues with the Pelagians from their con- fession of infant-baptism to convince them of the doctrine of original sin, with the like congruity on the other side ; because they (not some, but all of them) did own infant-baptism, but deny original sin. And whereas you say here, that he 'vehemently ' in several places' condemns them for suffering infants to die without baptism ; bring one of those places ; or else take shame to yourself, and never meddle any more in matters of antiquity which you understand not. In the mean while you may read, if you please, the places that I have brought in my History, part i. chap. 19, where you will find Pelagius, Cselestius, and Julian, owning the necessity History of Infant-baptism. 499 of infant-baptism, (not for the cure of original sin from Adam indeed, but for entering the kingdom of heaven,) and some of them anathematizing any that should deny it, if there were any such ; but they say, they never heard of any that did. One of them says, he never knew any one so ignorant or so impious as to say, or to have a thought, that infants are not to be baptized. Another allots an eternal anathema to any one that should say it is not necessary for infants. And see if you can find me misquoting or misrepresenting the words of my author in any of those places ; a course too common with you. You go upon congruities. When you at one place insinuate of St. Austin that he forged those confessions of the Pelagians wherein they own infant-baptism ; do you think that congruous, that the same man should represent them as owning it, and yet vehemently condemn them as disown- ing it ? Page 83. Mr. Davye comes at last to the twelfth century, the time of the Waldenses and Albigenses. Some of the later (viz., the Petrobrusians) did indeed (as I, among others, have shewn) deny baptism to infants : the first body of people in the world, that we read of, that did so. After all, I know not how it happens, but I cannot be very angry with Mr. Davye. A man that writes in such a fashion as can do nobody any hurt, (because he discovers at the very first sight that he has no skill in the things he talks of, nor has taken any care of the truth of his quotations,) does not near so much provoke one's indignation, as one that in a more plausible and K k 2 500 . A Defence of the cautious manner perverts the truth. A reader is a])t to make allowances for the temper of a man, his incapacity, and his open way. Hunc ego fatis Imputo, qui vultu morbum incessuque fatetur. Mr. Gale spoke of somebody that should answer my book. Was it Mr. Davye ? Was he to account for the times after St. Cyprian with as much success as the other had done for those before ? It may seem so. For he concludes, p. 140, as Mr. Gale uses to do : ' All which, I think, has been made apparent * in the preceding treatise ; which may be a sufficient ' answer to and to the historical part of Mr. ' WaWs book of infant-baptism.' I crave pardon of my brethren, the clergy, for inserting this digression about Mr. Davye's book, (which is just come to my hand, and which I am satisfied they will never read over,) in the address I was making to them. It is to convince them of what I was saying ; that if any of them do write in this cause, the antipa^dobaptists will never suffer him to have the last word. For if such an answer as this can find one that will print it, and men that will buy and read it, the antipaedobaptists will never want authoi-s. I crave leave to go on with a few words to the clergy. I hope those that shall write in defence of infant- baptism will not droj>, or suffer to sink, the argu- ment from antiquity ; now that we have carried it so far, and produced i)lain evidence of its use among Christians, from authors so nigh the apostles' time. History of Infmit'haptism. 501 There are, beside the time spent in arguing, disputing, and talking each man for his side of a question, (in which eagerness seldom suifers men to weigh things soberly and impartially. But there are, I say, beside these,) times, in which every serious man considers the reasons and proofs of things by himself. Now a man that does this, will see it impossible to be conceived, that in a practice so public and notorious as baptism is, they whose fathers or grandfathers lived m the apostles' time, should not know what was done in that time, as to this matter. The testimonies so far up, as to a hundred and fifty .years after that time, they do now yield and own ; and make, I think, but very weak opposition against those which are brought from authors within the hundred. They tliat have formerly been told by their leaders, that the baptizing of infants began under such or such a pope of Rome, will see things with another view, when in follow- ing the plain footsteps of it, they come, not only up to Constantine's time, but do pass or shoot the gulf, as I may call it, that is between that and the age of martyrs ; and can trace it there as plainly as in the ages below. They yield Cyprian. I have, if I do not flatter myself, vindicated the testimonies of Origen ; and of Irenseus, who was born in or about the end of the apostolic times. Higher they cannot expect to have the express mention of so particular a thing, for want of books between that and the Scripture-times. There is indeed one of our own order, one by profession of the church of England, who has meddled in this point, and has to our disgrace said 50% A Defence of the in print, page 15, that ' till Cyprian's time none but * adult persons were baptized ; and even in his time ' baptizing of infants was very rare.' One would wonder what should make him say this, or from whom he had it. He himself, I can easily guess, knows little of the matter. He has either shot his bolt blindfold, or else he has had it from somebody. It could not be his father, he never lighted on that paradox. I do not think he has it from the man whose cause he is there defending. He, for a very good reason, avoids any talk of the tenets of ' those ' weak men in several ages.' Mr. Le Clerc, or any of that sort, have not said any such thing that I know of. Let me be far enough, if I do not think he has taken it on trust from Mr. Gale ; and think- ing it might help, among the other odd things that he has said, to do some prejudice to the church of England, has put it in at all adventure. If I guess right, that he has learned it of Mr. Gale ; he is a pregnant scholar, and has already outshot his master. For even he never ventured to say that in St. Cyprian's time it was rare. To those that shall write to enforce the argu- ments from Scripture, I would humbly recommend one advice or two. One is, that although many of the late English writers in defence of infant-baptism have thought fit to omit the arguments from John iii. 3, 5, and from 1 Cor. vii. 14, yet they would not be discou- raged from using them. A right translation, and explication of the words, in those two texts, would contribute much to satisfy the doubts concerning the baptizing of infants. History of Infant-baptism. 503 In explaining the sense of both of them there is an instance how much the alteration (which hap- pens in process of time) of the use and meaning of words in commom language, does, with illiterate men, weaken the force of an argument taken from a text of Scripture or any ancient book, where any words are used that have had their use so altered. I consider who I am speaking to now. And to them I do not think it needful to say any thing concerning the ancient meaning of the word rege- nerate, or bor7i again ; or of the words saints^ or sanctified. Whereas I and Mr. Whiston and seve- ral others have positively affirmed that the word regenerate is in the ancient phrase used constantly (or, as Mr. Whiston cautiously expresses it, almost constantly) in relation to baptism ; and Mr. Gale has so positively denied this ; that he, or else we, must be guilty of a notorious untruth, in matter of fact ; I speak now to those that know, or can know when they please, by minding, as they read the ancient books, where that guilt settles. They know also how new, and unheard of in the ancient church, that interpretation of some late ex- positors is, who by water, in John iii. 5, would have us understand not material water, but some mystical thing ; such as our Saviour compared to water in his discourse with the Samaritan woman, John iv. 13, 14: and by saints, 1 Cor. vii. 14, not Christians, or persons christened, (which is St. Paul's constant use of the word,) but children, saints, or holy, i. e. born holy by a holiness previous to their baptism : and by sanctified, (when a heathen wife is sanctified by her husband a Christian,) not con- 504 A Defence of the verted to Christianity, and brought to baptism ; but the man is sanctified to his wife, i. e. the husband ' potest bona conscientia uti infidelis conjugis vase.' Beza, one of the first that gave that interpreta- tion, adds, after he has said this, ' Tliis place makes ' against the Catabaptists' (which is his name for antipa>dobai)tists). It did so indeed, till he marred it by his wonderful explication ; which the antipyc- dobaptists are so far from thinking to make against them, that they have taken it into their scheme; only improving horn hohj, i. e. in covenant, into born holy, i. e. not bastards. If those two texts were read in the ancient sense, (which I think may be made out to be the true one,) the one, Exce'pi any one he horn of water, &c., i. e. baptized into the religion of Christ, he cannot enter, &c., (always understanding this to be a rule in God's ordinary way; not to limit his mercy in cases extraordinary) ; and the other, a7i iinhelieving hus- band has been sanctified (i. e. brought to Chris- tianity and baptism) by his icife, &c., else your children ivould have been unclean, i. e. brought up heathens ; but now they are ayioi, saints, i. e. Chris- tians, or christened, or dedicated to Christ by bap- tism ; the dispute would be at an end. Dr. Hammond, whose treatise on this subject in his ' Six Queries' it is advisable for any clergyman that studies this })()int, to read, was the first of the moderns, who retrieved the sense of this latter text from the unnatural glosses of some late writers. He did it by observing what is the constant use of the word saints and sanctified in the language of the New Testament, viz., Christians. I have shewn that several ancients (before there was any dispute History of Infant-haptism. 505 of infant-baptism) do paraphrase it just as he does. Which must needs be a great confirmation. It was perhaps not without reason that the Chris- tians of the middle times left off the phrase of call- ing the men of their profession samts ; because the word was abused by some sectaries who made an hypocritical cant of it, to distinguish themselves by. But yet when we read any text of the New Testa- ment, or of any ancient Christian book written while that word was in constant use ; we must take the words saints, and sanctified, or made saints, as it was used at that time ; or else we lose the sense of the place. Mr. Bingham, who to a very good purpose makes it his business to acquaint us with the general cus- toms, and use of words, among the ancient Chris- tians, does in his book i. chap. 1. p. 3, (without having any discourse or any thought at that place of infant-baptism, or of this text,) give us this ac- count : ' The names, ayioi, ina-ro), e/cXe/cTo), &c., occur fre- ' quently in ancient ecclesiastical writers ; and signify, ' not any select number of Christians (as now the ' "wordis saints, and c/ec^, are often used to signify only ' the praedestinate) ; but all Christians in general who ' were entered into the communion of the church ' by the waters of baptism. For so Theodoret and * others explain the word ajLoi, saints, to be such ' as were vouchsafed the honour and privilege of ' baptism.' Theodor. Comm. in Phil, i. 1. It is but reasonable then to let the word have here the sense that it always had in those times. And then it will be ; ' Now are your children vouch- 506 A Defence of the * safed the honour of baptism;' or, 'entered into ' the communion of the church by the waters of ' baptism.' All the difficulty is, for a minister to satisfy the vulgar people, who understand no other phrase but that of their own times, and of the common trans- lations, of the matter of fact; that this was the ancient sense of the words. They are shy of any thing that is told them more than they see in the translation ; especially if they have any writer of their side, that will confidently tell them that it was not so. The word was not so used, &c. Whether they will find any that will deny the word saints to be used by St. Paul for Christians, I know not. But I know of one that has denied things as plain and certainly true as that is, in cases where he knew they could not search the books. If there be such a necessity, they must be shewed the several places where St. Paul uses the word saints ; which if they read with attention, they will see by the sense of the place that it is there (as also in the Creed) put instead of the word Christians. One other thing I would recommend, which will be more obviously conceived by all ordinary readers of Scrijiture. And that is, that those who have an occasion to argue on this matter, do keep their an- tagonists, or any whom they would convince, close to that question or consideration ; hoiv, or by what means, or by 7chat merit, or title, infants do ever obtain tlie kingdom of heaven. There is no method of arguing or of meditation that will sooner bring, an antipccdobaptist to think rightly of this matter History of Infant-haptism. 507 than this ; if it be well pursued in his own thoughts, or by the conduct of a Christian guide. If he be a man at all versed in the Scripture, and in the mystery of the salvation of mankind, as there taught ; he will presently understand and grant, that it is by Christ, hy his merits, his purchase, &c., that there is no way by which any of human race can come to that kingdom, but by an interest in him. Mr. Gale indeed talks, p. 444, with great confi- dence of the state of all infants, that they must needs go to heaven, as having no actual sin, by virtue of God's general justice and mercy (* If there * be any mercy in God, &c., God our Saviour cannot * ordain such unreasonable laws,' &c. ; and such like rants). But no pious and well studied Chris- tian, antipaedobaptist or other, will think or speak at this rate of the kingdom of heaven, as any one's natural right, or to be conferred on any, but by Christ, and for his sake; by virtue of his merits and death. They must be urged then to consider, that the infants as well as the adult, who are admitted thither, must be members of Christ, united to him by the Holy Spirit, included in his covenant and purchase, of his fold, his kingdom, his peculimn, his body ; fellow-heirs, as St. Paul expresses it, atid of the same body, and partakers of God's promise in Christ through the Gospel; such as obtain an inheritance among them that have been sanctified (^ytao-yueVou?, as the word is in both the places where that phrase is used. Acts xx. 32, and xxvi. 18) : that is, among the Christians that have been baptized ; not strangers or foreigners, but felloiv-citizens with 508 A Defence of the the naiuts, or Christians, and of the household of God. To say of any one, that he shall enter the kingdom, is as much as to say all this of him. These terms signify neither more nor less, than being of hu church, which the Scripture calls his body ; and him the Saviour of the body. The con- sideration that infants are capable of being admitted to these spiritual ])rivileges, (which admission is the same in substance with that spiritual grace or favour which makes the inward and spiritual part of the sacrament of baptism,) will easily incline any one that considers it, to believe that they are capa- ble of the outward part, which is but the seal of the other. Who can forbid water to those who are capable of receiving with the water such spiritual favours as well as we ? Since our Saviour has esta- blished the terms of his covenant so ample and mer- ciful, as to include them, and to testify his love and tender regard to them ; and has bid us suffer them to be brought to him ; who are we, that we should exclude them from the outward tokens of his fa- vour, as if they did not beloncj to him and to his kingdom ? I wish some good man would be at the charge of an impression of a small picture, that might be given to such as need instruction and satisfaction concerning the will and j)urpose of our Saviour in this matter. The proverb is true, that pictures have with vulgar men the use of books ; especially if they represent some useful history of the Gospel, such as this which I am going to recommend, is, being recited by three Evangelists, JNIatt. xviii. 5, Mark ix. 37, Luke ix. 48, our Saviour holding a little child in his arms, and saying to his discii)lcs, Whosoever History of Infant-baptism. 509 shall receive this child (in Matthew and Mark it is, otie such little child ; or, one of such chiklren) in my name receiveth me. If our Saviour be drawn in that posture, holding forth the child in his arms, and those Avords sub- scribed, Whosoever shall receive such a child in my name receiveth me ; and over against him be drawn two men standing by a font, both pretending to be ministers of Christ ; and some people offering such a child to them ; and one of them reaching out his arms to receive it, and the other thrusting it back : I would fain see what countenance the painter will give to that man, who seeing our Saviour look upon him, and hearing him say those words, does dare to reject it. The ordinary meaning of the word receive in the books of the New Testament, even when it stands alone, is well known to all readers of Scripture, to be, to receive or admit to a brotherhood, or fellow- ship in Christianity ; as (to name one place of forty) Rom. XV. 7, St. Paul commands those dissenters in opinions to receive one another. But when Christ does moreover add here those words, in my name; it more plainly still imports that they should be received to be as his members^ his children, belonging to him ; or, as I once before deduced the import of the like phrase, as rod ^fna-roO ovre? ; being Christ's, or Christians. And the sanction here given to the command of such a receiving of them is the highest that is ever given : even the same that is given to the command of receiving the apostles themselves. For as it was said to them. He that receiveth you receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that se?it 610 A Defence of the History of Lif ant-baptism. me; so the very same is said here of receiviiig children in his name. The dispute is concerning a considerable part of Christ's flock : and it is, whether they shall be admitted into his fold, or not. The infants of man- kind, taken together with all such as are under the age at which the antipa3dobaptists receive them, do make, I believe, a third part of the whole people. Our blessed Saviour will certainly at his coming be much displeased (for he was so once upon earth on a like occasion) either with us for receiving them, or else "with them for rejecting them. It behoves us all therefore to mind what things dis- pleased him here ; and with such care and impar- tiality to study and learn his true will and mean- ing ; and with such sincerity to follow it ; and for our performance of both these things, so to implore bis heavenly direction and assistance, that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. Amen. POSTSCRIPT. Some of the antipaedobaptist writers do give us occasion to observe the great mischief to religion that comes by any one's forging words, and attri- buting them in print to any ancient father : so great, that though the first forger should repent, and pubhcly recant what he has said ; yet the mischief and ill consequence would continue by ignorant men's taking him at his first word, and commonly adding to it. POSTSCRIPT. 511 Justin Martyr is (a very few excepted) the eldest of the Christians whose books are left to us. He was born in the apostles' time, and wrote about forty years after it. A testimony of his is more consider- able than of five or six later ones. Any words of his, that should plainly and expressly determine, either for or against infant-baptism, would be a more material and decisive evidence than any that has as yet been produced from antiquity on either sice. The greater must the impiety be of any writer in this controversy, who should forge such decisive words in his name. Mr. Gale writing his ' Reflections' on a passage which I had cited out of Justin's apology, (where he speaks of some circumstances, used at the bap- tizing of adult converts,) adds these words, at his page 481 : * St. Justin here mentions only adult persons : and ' elsewhere plainly excludes infants from being then ' baptized in the church ; and says, that " adult ' persons only can or ought to be baptized."' This, if true, is a very positive evidence. Mr. Davye, having mentioned the same passage of Justin, and knowing nothing to the contrary, but that what Mr. Gale had farther attributed to him might be true, recites Mr. Gale's words, (as if they were from his own knowledge or reading,) and adds to them another forgery, of my confessing the thing to be so : in these words, at his page 54 : ' St. Justin mentions only adult persons, and ' [elsewhere, as Mr. Wall himself confesses) excludes * infants from being baptized, and in the church ; ' and says, " that only adult persons can or ought ' to be baptized." ' 518 POSTSCRIPT. If Mr. Gale can produce no such words of St. Justin, (as I am confident lie cannot,) and Mr. Davye can produce no such ' confession' of nnine, (as I am sure he cannot,) they are both of them forgers of evidences. And it concerns not only the cause of religion and truth in general, but particularly the credit of the antipocdobaptists, that they be called to account, whether they can or not : and if they can- not, that they be disowned. Otherwise they will be worse than the papists : for whereas some impostors formerly did, for the maifitenance of popery, forge decretal epistles, under the name of bishops as ancient as Justin JMartyr ; they were credited for some time : but when the cheat came to be detected, all the honest papists did themselves join in condemning and exposing it ; and they now disown, and are ashamed of the epistles. I did, as I passed along, take notice of this foul dealing of both of them, at page 205, and page 432, of this ' Defence.' But I had a mind to give a memorandum of it here by itself. Because the attempt being extraordinary; and the evidence for the antiquity of antiprcdobaptism far more consider- able, if it be a true one, than ever was heard of; it is ])ity but it should be brought to light, and into a fair view. I do not know whether Mr. Davye can find the place in Justin's works ; but Mr. Gale can, if it be there. THE END. ADDITIONAL NOTES. VOL. I. P. 139, 140. sanctificandum.'\ On the various reading of this passage, sanctijicandum and sacrijicandwn, see a full discussion by Mr. Joseph Clarke, in his preface to ' Waterland''s Sermons,' published in the ninth volume of his works, edited by Bishop Van Mildert, p.xxvi, &c. P. 196. act^ The Act, 10th William III. cap.3j, [alias 32,] entitled, ' An Act for the more effectual suppressing of ' Blasphemy and Profaneness,' enacts, that, 'Whereas ' many persons have of late years openly avowed and pub- ' lished many blasphemous and impious opinions, contrary ' to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion, ' &c Be it enacted that if any jDerson ' having been educated in, or at any time having made ' profession of, the Christian religion shall by writing, ' &c., deny any one of the persons in the holy Trinity 'to be God and shall be duly convicted, &c. &c., he ' shall be disabled from all places, civil, ecclesiastical, or ' military ; and for the second offence shall be further dis- ' abled, and imprisoned,' &c. &c. VOL. II. P. 127,2. The edition of 1542, as I find by a copy in the Cathedral Library of Chichester, leaves out the passage relating to the Church of Rome, and reads, ' the second, that * ye geve Chrystendoni to chyldren.' P. 131,^ Mehrnmg.'\ Walchius has taught me, that the book quoted under this title is a German version (by Jacob Mehrning) of a Dutch treatise, ' On the Vanity ' of Infant-baptism,' composed by Hermannus Montanus. WALL, VOL. IV. L 1 514 ADDITIONAL NOTES. — Mchrning's Version was published at Dortmund, in 1646, 1647. — It may be noticed, that a tract under the same title appeared in English in the year 1642, and was answered in 1644, by William Cooke» P. 1 49,''. It should have been noticed, that the tracts here cited, as well as that mentioned at p. 167, form a portion of that Collection which was published by the Unitarians, in 3 vols. 4°. in 1693, 1695, &c. P. 375. By the kindness of the present Bishop of Rochester, I learn that the manuscript in question has not been restored to the repository from which it had been purloined ; so that all hope of recovering it, after so long an absence, must now, I fear, be given up. VOL. IV. P. 2S, "i.Emli/n.] The full title of this piece is, ' Mr. Wall's ' History of Infant-baptism improv'd : or a just occasion * taken from thence to enquire, whether there be any * Necessity (upon his principles) for the continual use of ' Baptism among the posterity of baptized Christians.' (Anonymous.) 80. Londoti, 1709, 19 pages. — The author argues, that if Dr. Wall's assertions be true, there is tio necessity for continuing baptism now, to the descendants of such as have been once truly baptized. The tract seems to be little known. The old edition of the Biographia Britannica does not notice it at all : and the later one, by Kippis, knows it only in its altered shape, as published with the author's name in 1 7 1 o, calling that ' one ' of Mr. Emlyn's most curious productions.' P. 16^,^. Ilorsley-doicn.'] In Crosby's ' History of the ' English Baptists,' vol. iv- p. 189, there is given a parti- cular account of the great /3a7rrto-T?yptoy, or * baptizing- ' place,' with a preaching-house, &c., which was erected here, and duly registered according to Act of Parliament, in the year 1717. INDEX. Abarbanel, Isaac, iii. 344. Abassenes, or Abyssinian Christians, ii. 143. baptize infants, and give them the eucharist, 291, 417, 491. circumcise both sexes, 291. See Abyssinians. Aben Ezra, quoted, i. to. iv. 256. Abgarus, king of Edessa, ii. 468. Abraham Ben David, a rabbi, iii. 344. 345- * Abraham's bosom,' how under- stood, ii. 344, 346, 347. Abyssinians, their baptism, ii. 143, 291,417, 491. Acacius, ii. 469. Acholius, or Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, ii. 70. Act of parliament against blasphemy, • i. 196. iv. 513. Act of Toleration. See Toleration. Acta Sanctorum, ii. 79. Adamantius, i. 107. Adelman, ii. 237. Adeodatus, St. Augustine's son, ii. 121. was baptized on the same day as his father, 122. Adult-baptism, not used exclusively in ancient times, ii. 8, 9, 10. the Enghsh office, when added, and why, 321. iEgypt, chrism used in, ii. 433. iElian, the historian, iii. 317. jEneas Sylvius, his ' History of Bohemia,' ii. 267, 297. iEra, Christian, does not commence from the true time of our Saviour's birth, iv. 331, 333, 338, 357. ^ra Augusti, what it was, J. 313. jEschines, iii. 293. iEschylus, iii. 109. Aetius, a heretic, called 'the Atheist,' ii. 457. iii. 295. AfFusion, used anciently in cases of necessity, ii. 385, 390. England, though a cold country, was one of the last to adopt it, 392. France the first, 393, 394, 396. then Italy, Germany, Spain, ibid, attempted in England so early as A.D. 816, 395. first publicly prescribed by Calvin, 400. not much used in England till A.D. 1641, 403. the last order of the church of Eng- land on the point, 404. See Sprinkling, Perfusion. African bishops remonstrate with pope Zosimus on the countenance shewn by him to Coelestius and Pelagius, i. 377, 378, 458, &c. they excommunicate those two men, 459. Christians rebaptized a schis- matic who came over to them, ii.571. churches, iv. 56 — 59. stre- nuously opposed the encroach- ments of Rome, 59. "Aytoy, holy, its meaning in the text I Cor. vii. 14. explained : from TertuUian, i. 101. generally, 183. from St. Austin, 241, &c. 385. from Jerome, 342 — 344, 388. from Origen, 387. from Chrysostom, 389. from Ambrose, ibid. Calvin's and the antipaedobaptists' view of it, 344— 346. iii. 567. "Ayios, signifies baptized, or Chris- tian, iv. 414, 416, 419, 421, 503, 504, .505 • Ainsworth, H., his commentary on Genesis, i. 4, 44, 184. Atpeo-if, heresy, what it precisely means, iv. 481. Aix, the synod of, i. 306. ii. 394. Akiba, rabbi, iii. 358, 359, 364. l1 2 51 G 1 N I) K X. Alanus, writes concerning the Ca- thari, ii. 262. Albanenses, ii. 253, 269. Alban's, St., a synod holden there, Albigcnses, ii. 239, 502, 507. iv. 9, 102, 490, 496, 499. numerous in France, ii. 246, 266. Albina, i. 379, 452. Ale.vander de Ales, ii. 208, 212. iii. 433- Alexander, bishop of Ale.xandria, ii. 163. his creed, 453. Alexander Polyhistor, iii. 513. Alexander, an historian, iii. 298, 300. Alexandria, the church of, iv. 56, 58, 492. the council of, ii. 466. Algerus, ii. 237. Allen, Wm., two books of his com- mended by Rd. Baxter, ii. 560. Allix, Dr. P., ii. 263, 307, 505. iv. 68, 325. his dissertation on Ter- tulhan, i. 102. his notes on Dr. Wall's introduction, iv. 43, 238. his work on the time of our Saviour's birth, 339, 340, 341. Alting, Jacobus, i. 4. Alvarez, Fr., ii. 417, 491. Alypius, was baptized together with St. Augustine, ii. 122. his charac- ter, ibid. ' Xfiapria and ayi,apTJ]jjia signify actual sin, i. 234. Ambrose, St., i. 28, 78. ii. 168, 169, 191, 196, 433, 496. iv. 9, 313. his testimonies on ba])tism, i. 220 — 226. qxioted, 338, 450. his ghost said to appear, 347. his commen- taries, 389, 506. is persecuted by Valentinian, ii. 63. sent as a me- diator to Maximus, 65. his funeral oration on Valentinian, 66, 98. and on Theodosius, 67, 68. cited, 134. account of him, 97. is elected bisho]) before his baptism, 98. why not baptized in infancy, 98 — 100. Ammianus Marcellinus, ii. 62. Amphilochius, his life of St. Basil, ii. 73, 74. that which goes imder the name is a forgery, ibid. Anabaptists, the meaning of the word, ii. 134. do not own them- selves rebaptizers, 143, 144. a ' short history' of them published in 1642, 31 1. Anabaptists of Munster, iv. 64, 172, 203. of Holland, 86, 172. Anacharsis, iii. 320. ' AviiKuivianoi, used to denote bap- tism, i. 69. Anastasius, bishop of Rome, i. 112, .313. 333- Anaxagoras, iii. 299. Anaximenes, iii. 297. Anglers, the synod of, ii. 393, 400. Anianus the deacon, a Pelagian, i. 348. Anne, queen, eulogized for the Toleration Act, iii. 89, 90, 92, 492- Anointing, used in baptism, ii. 137, 429, 431, 432, 434. Anselm, ii. 207. Anthusa, the mother of Chrysostom, ii. 92, 94, 95. Antioch, the council of, ii. 455, 466. Antipa?dobaptists (see also Anabap- tists), i. 21, 22, 55, 66, 70, 100, loi, 108. some would allege that the use of the word man, in John iii. 5, excludes infants from baptism. There were none in the Greek church in the twelfth century, 155. their interpretation of the passage i Cor. vii. 14, 182, 186. the opinion entertained by some moderns on the origin of the soul, 298. are unfair quoters, 328. none were ever heard of by Augustin, by Pelagius, or Coeles- tius, 383, 450, 466. quote the early Fathers as opposers of infant-baptism, ii. 2. what is their strongest argument, 46, 47. their argument about Nectarius falls to the ground, 91. that about Chrysostom, 93. about St. Am- brose, 98. they reject the name of ' anabaptists,' 134, 144. therefore Dr. Wall never calls them by it, ibid, their interpretation of the text John iii. 5, 181, 186. tliey use it against Quakers and others, 188. their opinion of unbaptized infants, 224. claim the Wahlenses as on their side, 239, 241, 247. hold that all infants are saved, 258. no national church ever held the doctrine of antipaedobaptism, 279, 292. some few individuals in different countries hold these opinions, ibid. 292. as, in Germany, INDEX. 517 beginning in 1522, ibid, in the Low Countries, 293, 294. whether the practice were then new, 294. the i)rotestants disown the sect, 299. but few are left in Germany, 300. they are favourably received in the Low Countries, ibid, their disorders there, ibid, the Minnists, and their divisions, 301, &c. some Dutchmen of that opinion in England, 306, 314. the convo- cation, A.D. 1536, takes notice of the opinion, 307. some Dutch bvirnt in London, 309, 314. their proceedings in England, during the reigns of Henry VIH, 311. of Edward VL ibid, of Mary, 312, of Ehzabeth, 313. not numerous till about the year 1641, 315. the first book written in favour of their tenets, ibid, they are encouraged by Oliver Cromwell, 317. their address to king Charles H, 318. their confession of faith, A. D. 1644, 322, 333. their state in our author's time, 323. their general good character, ibid, charged to be concerned in the duke of Monmouth's plot, 323. they de- creased during Charles I L's reign : but afterwards increased ; chiefly in the eastern parts of England ; and in London and its suburb.s, 325. their tenets on many points besides denying infants' baptism, 326. viz. they separate from all other Christians, ibid, require complete immersion as an essen- tial, 327. do not baptize naked, 333. their indifference as to the form, ibid, many Socinians among them, ibid, some few (of this kind) hold that Christ took not flesh from the Virgin Mary, 335. they expect a personal reign of Christ with the saints for a thou- sand years, 343. abstain from blood and things strangled, ibid, an opinion ascribed to some few among them, that the souls of infants die with their bodies, 352. this denied of the great body, ibid, one party deny any sleep of the soul, 353. many of them re- ject psalm-singing, ibid, some reject the Lord's Prayer, 354. some use e.\trerae imction, ibid. a peculiar way of marriage used by some of them, ibid, receive the Lord's su])per in a sitting posture, 355. some are Sabba- tarians, ibid, differ among them- selves about Confirmation, 356. on priedestination some hold the opinion of Arminius, and are called general baptists ; others, that of Calvin, and are called particular, 357. their schisms and divisions on this ground, ibid, many of the general sort are Pe- lagians, 3,58. individuals among them are Socinians, 359. their ' confession of faith,' 358. a more recent one, 359, 552. their ' gene- ral assembly,' ibid. 365. they love public disputings about religion, 362. with the Quakers, ibid, their form of church-government, 364. their mode of settling diflferences among themselves, 367. their treatment of immoral or scandal- ous members, ibid, some Jesuits have crept in amongst them, 371, account of them in Poland, 380. in Bohemia and Moravia, &c., 382. in Hungary and Transyl- vania, ibid, whether or not they are schismatical in separating from the church of England, 547. they admit that the differences between it and them are not of the essen- tials of rehgion, 551, 554. par- ticulars of their ' confession of faith,' 552, 571. ' articles' drawn up by them in 1702, 554. these approach very near to the Articles of the church of England, ibid, they ought to join in communion with the church of England, 556. and we ought to communicate with them, ibid, no national church of them, 557. when the separation began in England, ibid, they ought to unite with the church, 562. difficulties in their way, 563 — 572. what persons alone they admit to the Lord's supper, 570. a good character given of them by the author, 573. earnest advice to them, ibid. Mr. Gale complains that they are traduced as enemies to the state, iii. 7. they are loyal to the so- vereign, 9. Balsamon and Zonaras 518 INDEX. speak rather against infant-bap- tism, 46. the term antipadobaptist adopted by Dr. Wall, 47. the controversy between them and the church of England consists of two heads, 94. their practice of dipping agreealile to scripture and primitive antiquity, 95. Mr. Gale states the case between the cluirch of England and them, 80, &c. Dr. Wall seems to suppose them to be in the right, 81, 86. iv. 450. Mr. Gale justifies their separation, ii. 85, 88. they were once considered a very strange and mischievous party, 234. the controversy will do good, ibid, an amicable adjustment desirable, perhaps practicable, ibid. Soci- nians amongst them, 289. iv. 196. their mode of receiving the Lord's supper, 23. how far they admit the force of the Jewish baptism of proselytes, 40. Dr. Wall vindicates his manner of speaking of them, 69, 70. always wished to treat them with civility, 71, 196, 204. the confession of their churches, 86, 90, 478. their differences a- mong themselves, 88. they pay no regard to ecclesiastical au- thority, 94, 9.1^. they never had a national church in any part of the world, 9,T. Dr. Wall's reply to the assertion that he allowed them to be in the right, 98, 4.^0. some few of them very uncharitable, 99, 102, 4-,o, 480. antipajdobaptism probably would decrease, if the custom of dipping were restored, 171, 172, 458, &c. first arose in France, or Germany, or Geneva; and why, 172, 438, 4-8. none in England when the English version of the liible was made, 226. it has sprung in a great measure from the change in the ancient manner of baptizing, 458, &c. three sorts of aiitipivdobaptists, and how a clcrgjinan ought to conduct himself towards each sort, 471, &c. their history, ibid. Antiphon, iii. 293. Antoninus, Marcus, quoted, iii. 131, 134, 380. iv. 244. Antony, St., his picture at Padua, iii. 259. Apelles, ii. 335. Apollinarians, ii. 123. Apollinaris, i. 436. ApoUinarius, ii. 336, 337. Apostasy, when it may be said to have Degun, iv. 450, &c. Apostles, their careful choice of successors, ii. 171. they knew precisely the age of our Saviour, iii. 492. employed themselves in teaching much more than in bap- tizing, iv. 224. Apostolicals, ii. 245, 260, 270. Apprentice. This word may illus- trate tlie meaning of the word ixadrjrrjs, iv. 221. Aquileia, the creed of, i. 434, note. Aquinas, Thomas, his quotation of a passage in St. Austin, i. 406. ii. 208, 212, 391. Aratus, quoted, iii. 124, 125. Archelaus, a natural philosopher, iii. 298. Archelaus, son of Herod, iv. 346, 347' 352. Archontici, an ancient sect, ii. 141. Argobastes, a noble of the Greek court, ii. 66. his death, 67, 99. Arians, i. 186. the catholics would not baptize them, 186, 200. their dealing with the emperor Valens, 217. some of their opinions, 434, 437. favoured by the Greek em- perors, ii. 62, &c. 456. they re- baptized catholics, 69, 134. their disputes, 163, 164. they accuse the catholics of Sabellianis'm, 164, 165, 167. are by some called ana- baptists, 133, 313. did not oppose infant-baptism, 134. some of the Dutch Minnists were Arians, 305. some of their opinions, 452. their creeds, 454, 4,5,-,. partly approved the Nicene Creed, 457. often al- tered their creeds, 460. go beyond their founder, 462, 463. iii. 35. iv. 46. Arias Montanus, iii. 328. Ariminum, a council at, ii. 469. Aristobulus, his treatment of the Iturreans, iv. 246. Aristophanes, quoted, iii. 106, 109. his scholiast, iii, 116, 117, 119, 126. iv. 117. Aristotle, quoted, i. 154, 398. iii. 106, 108, 109, 120, 126, 127, 187, 318. iv. 1 II, 146, 217. INDEX. 519 Anus, his first secession from the church, ii. 163, 451, 452, 457, 462. Aries, council of, i. 207. some Pe- trobrusians in the province of, ii. 275- Armenian Christians, ii. 281. bap- tize infants, 283. and give them the eucharist, ibid. 291,491. Arminian tenets differ from Pelagi- an, i. 372. their tenets as express- ed at the synod of Dort, ibid. Arnold of Brescia, a follower of Peter Bruis, condemned by the Lateran council, ii. 265. Arnoldists, ii. 245. Arrian the philosopher, ridicules the Jews, i. 9.— iii. 375, 380, 381, 382, 383' 558- iv. 253. Arsenius, his schoUa on Euripides, iii. 105. Artemon, a heretic, i. 198. Articles of the Church of England, ii. 554. iii. 85, 245, 508. See Burnet. Ascher, rabbi, iii. 369. Asclepiades, iii. 293. Ascodruti, an ancient sect, ii. 141. Asphaltites, the lake, iii. 129. Assembly's Annotations, iv. 487. Athanasius, i. 57, 186. his Qucesti- ones ad Antiochum, 390.— 511, 533. was persecuted by Constan- tius the emperor, ii. 58, 145, 334, 336, 338. 342, 458. iv. 449- Athenaeus, iii. 119. Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, ^•.4;4- Attiniacum, or Acciniacum, a synod there, ii. 233. Audientes, who were so called, i. 36. Augustin, i. 78, 99, 102, 103, 112, 133, 136. comments on St. Cy- prian, i. 143, 145.— 159, 161, 184, 225, 230- — 233. his testimonies on baptism, 241 — 306. wrote against the Manichees, Arians, Uona- tists, and Pelagians, 241. his full evidence for the antiquity of in- fant-baptism, 259. he had no no- tion of transubstantiation, 275. his sentiments on regeneration, 277, &c. on original sin, 261, 283. on the origin of the soul, 282. — 313, 320, 338. somewhere states fourteen as the usual age of receiving ba[)tism, 340. his ac- count of Dinocrates, ibid. 351. quotes Pelagius, 355, 356. his writings against the Pelagians, 358, &c. 374, 379, &c. to 468, 472. nevei found a Christian who did not own that infants were baptized for pardon of sin, 383. ii. 116. was learned in church- history, i. 384. his opinion on the 'swearing' of the gospel, 401. was not very conversant in the Greek language, 417. respected Pelagius highly, except for his heterodox opinions, 432. doubts of his mean- ing in a certain passage, 449. he defends Zosimus against the Pe- lagians, who claimed him as their friend, i. 462. his letters against Julian, bishop of Eclanum, 472. his opinion on particular prse- destination, 416, 479. his books against Vincentius Victor, 481. his account of the Pelagians' ground for infant-baptism, 510. quoted by Walafrid Strabo, ii. 13. cited, 35. at what age he was baptized, 115. some account of his parents, 116, &c. he becomes a Manichee, 120. a sceptic, ibid. at length a Christian, ibid, cited, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 141, 168, 169. attacked by M. Le Clerc, 173 — 180. his explication of the text John iii. 5. 186, 190, 191, 196, 197. his opinion of infants dying unbaptized, 200 — 206,210, 212, 224, 225, 226, 229, 334, 347-— 438, 476, 477' 478, 479. 484, 485, 487, 496. ni. 25, 47, 432, 433. 518, 528, 554, 569. 573. IV. 7, 10, 16, 21, 31, 33, 45, 64, 83, 84, 174, 228, 286, 298, 311, 322,394,405, 4i^>4i5' 416,418, 434, 438, 449, 455, 457, 466, 485, 486, 493. 494, 497, 498, 499. Aurelius Victor, ii. 71. Auxentius, an Arian, bishop of Mi- lan, ii. 63, 69, 97, 134, 312. Auxilius, ii. 229. B. Babylonians, their customs, iv. 123, 126. Bagshavv, a writer quoted by Mr. Baxter, ii. 132. iv. 189. Balsamon, a Greek canonist, i. 155. his gloss on Photius, 157. ii. 34. iii. 44, 45, 46. iv. 7, 81, 82, 485, 493- 520 INDEX. Baluzius, an editor of the Councils, i. 149. Bampfield, Francis, his book on the sabbath, ii. 355, and note. Bangorian controversy, short re- mark on its rise and progress, iv. 297, note. Baptism, our Saviour's law concern- ing it, i. 2. the author's design concerning it, 3. baptism of Jew- ish proselytes ditfered from their other baptisms, 9. the mode a- dopted by St. John not minutely set down, 27. baptism of Jewish proselytes called their 7iew birth, 30. the foolish fancy of the Tal- mudical doctors on this, 31. a parallel instituted between Jemsh and Christian baptism, 33. Justin Martyr considers it to be instead of circumcision, 65. called by the ancients nepiTOfiTj axft-poTroirjTos, 66. denoted by the early Chris- tians by the words dpaKaivia-fMos, Kaivorroiia, (jycoriafios, 69. called by Irenseus XvTpaais and aTroXv- rpcoais, 7 1 . was used by heathens as a religious rite, loi. baptizing a woman with child, 150, &c. was sometimes delayed by half-Chris- tians, 210. the baptisms of Moses, John, and Christ contrasted by St. Basil, 215. private baptism, in houses, unknown in St. Austin's time, 302. conditional, used by the church of England, 320. the set times for it anciently were Easter and Pentecost, 326, 329. reasons for that custom, 331. strange modes adopted by the early sectaries, 497 — 510. private bajitism disliked by Cartwright and others, ii. 183. the baptisms or was/iitigs of the Jews,329^33i . ' bajjtism of blood,' what it is, 189, 190. persons dying without it, 182, 189, 190. delaying it till too late, 193, &c. {)revented by sudden death, 19,5. the opinions of the ancients as to infants dying unbaptized, 197, 199. 'baptism of fire,' what it is, 2fjO. opinions concerning the state of persons dying unbaptized, both infants and adults, 180 — 230. lay-baptism allowed by the Lutherans, 221. the Calviiiists' opinion of the value of baptism, ibid. John Frith's ' Declaration' of it, 306. the con- vocation, A. D. 1536, sets forth articles concerning it, 308. the convocation, A. D. 1662, adds an office for adult baptism, 321. the chief rites of it, in various coun- tries, 383, &c. at first was by immersioti, 384. in rivers or i)onds, 385. in baptisteries, ibid, the Eng- lish offices for, 397. who baptize naked, 417. what, in Mr. Gale's opinion, is true Christian bap- tism, iii. 83. what is essential to it, ibid. 84, 86, 88. was adminis- tered in England by dipping, till queen Elizabeth's time, 162. bap- tism of adults plainly sjjoken of in scripture, 238. but that of infants not only not mentioned, but po- sitively disallowed, 263. teaching must necessarily precede baptism, 264, 266 — 341. baptism called (r(ppayls t^s Tr/crrecos, sigillum fi- dei, 289. no initiatory baptism among the Jews spoken of in scripture, 386—390. nor in any other authentic ancient history, 391, 505. Dr. Wall's answer to these assertions, iv. 243, &c. 253, &c. 257, &c. his censure of Mr. Gale's definition of true baptism, 100. metaphorical uses of the word baptism, 371. Baptize, must signify to dip (ac- cording to Mr. Gale), iv. 457. ' Baptized for the dead,' its meaning, i- 53.596, 507. ii. 471. BaTrri^w, its sense in scripture, ii. 328 — 334. always signifies to dip, iii. 94, &c. synonymous with the word /3a7rTw, 97, 230. iv. 109. ancient authorities cited, iii. 99, &c. critics, 139, &c. the scriptures of the Old Testament, 144, &c. the Oriental versions, 177, 193. the Greek, 177. the New Testa- ment, 191, &c. Dr. Wall's re- marks on these points, and an- swers to them, iv. 108, &c. Baptisteries, ii. 385. liuTTTicrTljpiov, iv. 161, 514' liarker, Rev. Dr., ii. 375. Barlow, Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lin- coln, i. 98. he is quoted as a friend by the autipicdobaptists, ii. 27. his letter to Tombes, ibid. INDEX. 521 this was printed against his will, 28. his explanation of it to Mr. Wills, ibid. iii. 30. iv. 492. Barnabas, St., his Epistle, ii. 426. iii. 201, 394, 421, 422, 518, 560. iv. 258, 270, 375, 484. Baronius, cardinal, his Annals, i. I03' 313. 314- ii- 53> 70. 74, 79' 83, 105, 235. abuses the emperor Constantine, 59,60. his condemn- ation of Maximus, 68. his habit, ibid. iii. 489, 490, 491, 492. iv. 12,324, 325' 33.6. 350- Barthius, Caspar, iii. 383. Basil, St., quoted, i. 13. his testi- monies on baptism, 208 — 220. concerning his baptism, 162. and life, 164, &c. his treatment by the emperor Valens, 217. a passage supposed to be in favour of anti- paedobaptism, ii. 5. his age uncer- tain, 86. Danvers asserts that he was not baptized in infancy, 73. false ground of this assertion, ibid, cited, 134, 145, 159, 193, 421, 425, 512. iii. 335, 385, 487. IV. 254, 311, 433, 456- . Basil of Ancyra, his opinions, ii. 458- Basilides, i. 501. ii. 390. iv. 160. Basiliscus, tlie emperor, ii. 461. Basnage, M., his history of the church, i. 477. Batenburg, John, a leader of the anabaptists, ii. 300. Batrachomyomachia, whether Ho- mer be the author, iii. 100. Baxter, Richard, i. 97, 138. reproves Danvers, 259. ii. 10. his dispute with Danvers, respecting Vincen- tius Victor, i. 492. notice of his pieces on baptism, ibid, (note.) is unfairly cited, ii. 3, 4. his opinion as to the ancient practice of in- fant-baptism, 39. accuses Dan- vers, 4,5 — 124, 131. vindicates Wicklitfe, 214. cited 224 — 232, 234, 241, 243, 248, 264, 458, 551. writes earnestly to dissuade his followers from separating from the church of England, 560. iii. 54, 56. iv. 86, 189, 190, 192, 208, 411, 421, 492. Bechai, a Jewish rabbi, cited by Selden, i. 11. Bede, Ven., his ' Church history,' ii. 126, 128. Beghards, or Pyghards, ii. 251, 267, 271, 295, 297. their confession, 298. what the name may mean, 299. Begines, or Beguines, female Beg- hards, ii. 298. Belgic Confession, ii. 335. Bellarmine, Cardinal, ii. 74. iii. 52. Brjfia, its proper signification, i. 167. Benjamin, rabbi, iii. 175. Benson, a Jesuit in disguise, ii. 372, 373, 374- Berengarians, afterwards Walden- ses, ii. 238. Berengarius, archdeacon of Angers, ii. 235. his opinions on the real presence, and on baptism of in- fants, 236 — 238, 257. Bernard, Jacques, his review of Dr. Wall's History, iv. 10 — 27, 60, 291. Bernard, St., ii. 198, 212. opposes the Waldenses, 259 — 262, 276, 278. iv. 496. Bernardus Lutzenbergensis, ii. 268. Beveridge, bp., iii. 202, 204, 214, 219. Beza, Th., ii. 266. iii. 178, 291. iv. 130, 222, 504. Bible translations, and how far cor- rect, iv. 140, 145, 222, 225, 226, 240, 351, 361, 362. various ver- sions in Walton's Polyglott, iii. 513. the Syriac version of, 151. English, the authorized version, in Mr. Gale's opinion loose, 180, 182, 196. said not to express truly the original, 274. various versions, 331. published in English, 244. opposed by the church of Rome, ibid, chronological notes in its margin, iv. 332. English, 371. Bibliotheca Patrum, ii. 234, 235. iv. .303, 434, 496- Bilius, I., i. 165. his opinions on baptism, ii. 28. some account of him, ibid, (note.) 78, 82, 217, 218. iii. 30, 48. iv. 84, 85. Bingham, Joseph, his ' Antiquities' cited, i. 338. iv. 161, 304, 392, 505. Binius, an editor of the councils, i-3i3- Births, three several ones reckoned to every Christian by ecclesiastical writers ; Gregory Nazianzen, &c. i. 123. 522 INDEX. Blake, T., his pamphlets on sprink- ling, &c. ii. 402. iv. 163. Bleau, a printer, burns a Socinian book, i. 351. Blount, Jo., iv. 250. Bobovius, Albertus, his account of the Mahometan washings, iii. 176. some i)articulars of his his- tory, ibid. Bochart, iii. 328. Bochellus, L., his ' Decreta Eccle- sise Gallicamr,' i. 306. ii. 368, 394- Boemus, Jo., cited by Dan vers, n. 41. some account of him, note, ibid. 124. Bonaventure, ii. 391, 393. Bonfinius, Ant., ii. 268. Boni Homines of 'Hioulouse, ii. 243. were Manichees, 244. Boniface, bishop of Rome, corre- sponds with St. Austin, i. 260 — 273- . . B(mosus, a heretic, 1. 199. Bossuet, M., iii. 246, 378. iv. 77. Boval, Mr., ii. 302. Bracara, synod of, (sa;c. vii.) iv. , 495- , ... Brachmans, the, ni. 300, 513. iv. 372- ^ Bramhall, abp., m. 52. iv. 86. Brayly, his ' Beauties of England,' iv. 239, note. Bread. Many churches prefer \in- leavened bread at the eucharist, as most agreeable with our Savi- our's practice, iv. 163. Brerewood, Ed., ii. 143, 281, 382, 283, 286, 291, 417, 491. Bridekirk, an ancient stone font there, i. 86, and note ; ii. 43. iii. 205. Brown, rev. Edw., ii. 375. Brown, Joseph, presented by Dr. Wall for nonconformity, iii. 90. iv. 66, 72, 103, 190. Brownism, derived from the old Puritans, ii. 561. Bnmo, bishop of Angers, ii. 235, 236, 23S. Brute, John, a scholar of Wickliffe, ii. 215. Bucer, ii. 545. iii. 324. BuUinger, H., ii. 130. Burigenus, a writer of the Low Countries, ii. 298. and note. Burnet, bp., his interpretation of the text John iii. 5. ii. 184, 310. his life of sir M. Hale, ii. 317. Burnet on the Articles, iii. 29, 228, 245, 258, 276, 309, 322, 432,439. 444, 4.56, 539. iv. 162, 167, 227, 274, 298, 300, 420, 487. Busby, Dr., his Greek Grammar, iii. 292. iv. 230. Button, a zealous nonconformist, ii. 372- Buxtorf, his ' Synagoga Judaica,' i. 35, his Lexicon, iii. 149, 346, 363. 370. 543- iv. 252. C. Caecilian, an early bishop, i. 249. (JcBsarea, the ancient creed of, ii. 452. Caesarius, brother of Gregory Na- zianzen, ii. 87. was baptized, but not in infancy, 88. Caians, an ancient sect, i. 502. ii. 138. Cajetanus, cardinal, ii. 217, 218. Callimachus, iii. 124, 125. Calvin, J., his Psychopannuchia, &c. i. 299. his explication of I Cor. vii. 14. 344. of John iii. 5. ii. 180. the mischief of it, ibid. his interpretation (of John iii. 5.) condemned by Hooker, 183. adopted by Cartwright, ibid, by the modern antipa?dobaptists, ibid, his opinion on the sleep of the soul, 344. on sj)rinkling in bap- tism, ii. 400. cited, 116, 231,222, 266, 545. iv. 13 — 16, 19—22, 168, 170, 173, 178, 415. Calvinists, iv. 480. Camden, John, i. 86. ii. 43. his his- tory interpolated, ibid, 53, 54. ii. 373. iii. 205. Cameron, Lud., iii. 276, 324. Canisius, P., ii. 336. Canons, apostolic, ii. 334, 344. iii. 202. Canterus, G., his version of Lyco- phron, iii. 126. Capellus, Lud., iii. 175. Cappadocia, the church of, iv. 441. Carpocrates, i. 501, 502. his fol- lowers' manner of baptism, 503. Carthage, synod of, i. 126, 135, 307. iv. 446. council of, (A. 1). 412.) i. 112,3,^7. difficulty in fixing the precise times of the more ancient ones, 307. variation in the MbS. 311. council, (A. D. 416.) 358, INDEX. 523 424. iv. 494. it sends an epistle to Innocent, bishop of Rome, i. 425. another council, (A. D. 41 7.) 469. another, (A. D. 4 18.) 468. a canon recited, 470, 494. iv. 7. another, (A. D. 419.) i. 495. ii. 132. Carthage, a great persecution at, i. 141. the church of, iv. 56, 59. Carthusians, ii. 363. Cartwright, Tho., his controversy with Whitgift, i. 304. ii. 223. Casaubon, I., iii. 140, 204, 228, 489, iv. 119, 324, 325. Cassander, G., i. 227. ii. 132, 217, 219, 258, 272, 300. iv. 495. Cassianus, i. 479, 518. Cassiodorus, ii. 139, 140. iii. 546. Castalio, iii. 328. CasteUus, E., his Lexicon, iii. 149, 338, 543- Catabaptists, so called by Beza, iv. 504. Cataphryges, Montanists, i. 509. Catechism of the Church of Eng- land, i. 328, 332. ii. 567, 568. iii. 218. Catechumens, who were so called, i. 36, 148, 216, 277. Catena Patrum, iv. 426. Cathari, or Puritans, ii. 239, 249, 252, 262, 269, 270, 336. Cave, Dr., his ' Historia Litteraria,' i. 307, 313. ii. 76. his account of Jo. Philoponus, 166, 412. reflects on M. Le Clerc, iii. 35. Celecyth, the synod of, ii. 395, 396. iii. 226, 346, 570. iv. 162. Celsus, ii. 340. Celsus, a child; his history, i. 330. Census, difficulties attending the fixing of that mentioned in the Gospel, iv. 341 — 352. rolls of it laid up as records, 353, &c. Cephisodorus, iii. 318. Cerda, La, i. 501, 502. Ceremonies, any difference in, is no just ground for separation, ii. 537, 539. the church of England's de- claration, 539. Cerinthus, Cerinthians, i. 57, 195, 501. 50s, 506. iv. 385. Cevennes, the inhabitants supposed to be descendants of the Walden- ses, ii. 247. the wars there, 256. Chalcedon, the council of, ii. 461, 475- Chaldseans, a branch of the Musco- vites, ii. 142. Chardin, sir John, his remarks on the Georgians and Mengrelians, ii. 287, &c. account of a christ- ening there, 289. Charenton, protestant church of, iv. 96. Charles L king, iv. 205. Chemnitius, M., iv. 108. Xepvi^a. The meaning of this word discussed, iv. 127, 128. Chilmead, Edmund, his translation of Leo Modena, i. 7. Chrism, given to infants, i. 334, 335. See Anointing, Chrysome. Christ, Jesus. To what place his soul went, ii. 344, &c. Christendom, an old expression for baptism, ii. 127, 128. Christening-day, iv. 171. fiadrjreveiv is ' to christen', 215. Christening, modern usages as to the infant's dress, &c. iv. 462, 464. on the usual feasting and presents, 470. Christians, primitive : their custom as to baptizing infants, i. 3. ii. 417. their ancient writers speak of the Jewish baptism of proselytes, i. 12. had an eye to Jewish rites and ordinances, 33. this instanced in several particulars, ibid, in early times there were many wa- verers, or half-Christians, and these deferred their baptism, 210. some ancient Christians were not baptized in infancy, ii. 48 — 125. Greek Christians practise infant- baptism, 280. and by immersion, 414. Asiatic Christians, of vari- ous sects, all hold infant-baptism, 281, &c. of St. Thomas, in India, practise infant-baptism, 284. the primitive baptized by dipping only, iii. 199, &c. 206, 207, 212. accvised of child-murder, 16, the word Xpia-Tiavos not used by St. Paul, iv. 214. Chronicon Alexandrinum, i. 58. ii. 71- Chronology, iv. 323, &c. 332 — 340, &c. 428. Chrysome-cloth, a description of it, ii. 404, and note. Chrysostom, i. 58. his testimonies on baptism, 226 — 237, compares 524 INDEX. circumcision with it, 227. speaks of a dispute between a Christian and a Greek, 300. his interjjreta- tion of I Cor. vii. 14. 3S9. cited, 416. of I Cor. XV. 29. 505, 508. a work ascribed to him, 534. was baptized when adult, ii. 92. his parents not Christians at his birth, ibid, arguments brought forward on both sides, 92 — 96. — 192, 193. 418, 422, 429,437,471,496. undeservedly spoken of by Dr. Wall, iii. 31, 32. quoted, 201. iv. 24, 78, 312, 434, 449, 455. Church. What constitutes a true church, iii. 61, 65, 66. the extent and bounds of the church's pow- er, 78. what is Dr. Wall's notion of a true church, 84. a new no- tion respecting a church of Christ lately set forth in England, iv. 47, 48. Church authority attacked, 474 — 477. some of the objects of tlie attack, 477. church govern- ment, a point of the ancient disci- pline commended by Dr. Wall, ii. ^66. that of the English anti- ])?edobaptists, 364. Churches of Africa, iv. 56 — 59. of Alexandria, iv. 492. of Britain, in the times of Pelagius, i. 467. before the arri- val of the Enghsh, ii. 126. their conversion by Austin, ibid, they baptized infants, 128, 129. iv. 496. of Cappadocia, iv. 441. of Carthage, iv. 56, 59. — of Denmark, iv. 96. of England, her office of baptism, i. 186, 273, 320. ii. 397. iv. 294, 461. suffers from schism, i. 202. allows private baptism, in certain cases, 303. her couditiomd baptism, 320. her Catechism, 328 — 332. ii. 567. a point in it examined, 568. iii. 268. her li- turgy, i. 332. deems that the Fa- thers need not to be defended from the attacks of Socinians, ii. 150. her interpretation of our Sa- viour's words at John iii. 5. 186. her ordination, iv. 91. uses rege- neration as synonymous with baptism, ii. 187. her ojjinion of the necessity of baptism, 222. of the state of infants dying uubaj)- tized, 223. a rubric in her baptis- mal office objected to, 226. her moderate opinions, 280. one of the last to admit baptism by affusion, 392. her latest order on the subject, 404. her office of con- firmation, 434, 567. iv. 52. her excellence in the matter of sub- scriptions, ii. 535. iv. 97. her de- claration as to rites and ceremo- nies, ii. 539. iv. 97. is in commu- nion with foreign protestant churches, though she differs from them in ceremonies, &c. ii. 542. she and the dissenters ought to unite, 563. a character drawn of her, iii. 5. she is not chargeable with the strange opinions or evil deeds of individuals, 52, 53. most of the clergy called by Mr. Gale non-juring Jacobites, or high- flyers, 53, 66. he judges that those who own the church of Rome for a true church ought to join themselves to her, 62. her definition of a true church, 65, whether she ought to conform to the dissenters, 70. or to conciliate them, 78. her definition of a true church, as given in her Articles, 8,15. iv. loi. a question whether she herself may be a true church, iii. 85. iv. 90, 450. her order of confirmation, iii. S6. iv. 52. she has no power over dissenters, iii. 89. iv. 103. her baptism not real baptism, 86, 88, 98. whether she is tolerant, 211. some rank Soci- nians among her adherents, ibid. admits infants to baptism without a personal profession of faith, 212. why does she still continue bap- tism by sprinkling ? 227. if the wish of her clergy for restoring dipping be real, not pretended ? 229. her Articles cited, to prove that the scripture is her only rule of faith, 245, 247. said to have two baptisms, 478. this repudiated iv. 316, 463. her Catechism, 14. 383, 456, 465. her Articles, iii. 85, 24.5, 247. iv. 24, 101, 194. 245, 247, 367. bai)tizes children of infidels, but with certain en- gagements. 23. follows the anci- ent church in applying Christ's words, John iii. 5. to baj)ti8m, INDEX. 525 ibid, her Articles cited, 24. her Ordination Service, 460, 462, 463. her Office of Baptism, 461, 463. her Office of Private Baptism, 468. objected to by the presby- terians, at the Savoy conference, ibid. Church, Greek, knew no antipaedo- baptism in the twelfth century, i. 155. believed that infants dying unbaptized would miss of heaven, but not be punished, 533. ii. 199. still baptizes infants, 280, 285. abstains from blood and things strangled, according to the apo- stle's precept ; in which the anti- psedobaptists of England join it, 343. uses immersion, 414, 416. differs from the western in one clause of the Nicene Creed, 464. whether she now uses the Nicene or the Constantinopolitan, 466. how soon she began to give the eucharist to infants, 489, 490. of Muscovy, baptizes infants, ii. 280. of Prussia, iv. 96. of Rome, fabricates the De- cretal Epistles, i. 322, her liturgy, 332. has grown latitudinarian on the Pelagian tenets, 460. and has allowed the Jesuits to undermine the doctrine of original sin, ibid, anciently was zealous for the prse- destinarian side, 480. her limbus infantum, 224, ^g']. ii. 200. — 279. seeks to embroil protestants vv'ith each other, 33, 36, 40. a fit answer to one of her objections against us, 59. her conduct towards em- perors, ancient and modern, 60. is psedobaptist, 279. but recently has adopted the opposite course, to gain a point, 378. papists in disguise undermining our church, 377. her custom of anointing, 432. did not rebaptize believing con- verts, but anointed them, 433. it cannot be known what form of creed they used in the most ancient times, 467. they received the Nicene Creed, ib. but proba- bly had a form of their own, which they used in baptism, ibid. Rufinus' comment on it, ibid, how her creed, faith, and see, came to bear the title of apostolic, 472. she has often tried io force all men into unity, 530. whether protestants may join in her ser- vice, 545. maintains that there is no scripture-proof for infant-bap- tism, 551. iv. 182. an argument from thence, ibid, she encourages animosities and divisions, iii. 3. an union with her thought prac- ticable by Mr. Dodwell, 10. she comjjels persons to separate from her, 61. opposed the publication of the Bible in English, 244. ve- hemently assaults the Reforma- tion, 246. argues from infant- baptism in favour of tradition, ibid, the consequences of arguing solely from the silence of scrip- ture, 255, 258, &c. by what means her innovations gradually prevail- ed, 570, 571. — iv. 90, 102, 172, 202, 203, 286. Church of Rotterdam, iv. 96. of Scotland, iv. 96. of Sweden, iv. 96. Cicero, quoted, iii. 22. 181. his life, 299' 314- 318' 3^9' 321, 485- iv. 144. Circassia, ii. 279, 282, 283. their sad state of religion, 288, &c. Circumcellions. ii. 170. Circumcision, Abyssinian, ii. 291. baptism never so called in scrip- ture, iii. 471. two kinds spoken of there, ibid. 473. Clarendon, Edward earl of, his his- tory, ii. 318. called ' the English Thucydides,' iii. 56. refuses to communicate with the French protestants, 72. iv. 96. Clarus, an African bishop, iii. 336. Claude, M., iii. 73. Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 53. quot- ed, 82 — 86. — 512. ii.496. iii. 194, 285, 296, 299—301, 331—333, 487. 495.496, 498, 513— 516, 538, 546. iv. 149, 229, 230, 235, 341, 343. 357' 372, 373, 375—378, 381 —383. 448. Clemens Romanus, quoted, i. 47 — 65. his writings formerly not thought genuine, 55. his epistles were writ- ten before the Gospel of St. John, 56, 62, the time of his death in- quired into, 58. he was not the Clement mentioned by St. Paul, PhiUpp. iv. 62. — 325. referred to. 526 INDEX. ii. 90, 49O. iii. 334, 399, 400. 433, 5i«. 525. 5^'0- »v. 271, 372, 484. Clement's Constitutions, account of this and similar early forgeries, i. 524. ii. 480. iv. 45, 61, 62. its character, 63, 64, 75. 262, 381. Clericus, or Le Clerc, John, i. 99, 187, 202, 205. his history of Pe- lagianism and J^ives of the Fa- thers, 349. 350, n. 432. ii. 147. his mistakes in it, i. 352, 410, 440, n. 442, n. and misrepresen- tations, 367, 371, 373, 378, 380, 416, 417. fancies a contradiction in Gregory Nazianzen, ii. 77, 81, 1 75, his ill designs, 8 1 . false charge of tritheism, 148, &c. his 'Criti- cal Epistles,' 149, 155. misrepre- sents St. Augustin, 170, 173, 175. his ' Bibliotheque choisie,' 173. is not fit to translate or exjjound Scripture, 174. his 'Comedy,' 175. his Eulogy on Locke, ibid, his censure of StiUingfleet, 176. finds fault with St. Hilary, 177, 178. cited, 463. his ill design against the Fathers, 47S. iii. 32, the rea- son of so many enemies attacking him, 33, 34. he is accused by Dr. Cave, 35. defends himself, 36. quoted, 205, 309. his edition of the New Testament, 310. his opi- nion of the rabbins, 368, 445. iv. 78, 151, 210, 227, 502. Clerk, Samuel, iii. 327. Cobbett, Thomas, ii. 132, and note. Coelestinus, Pope, i. 517. Coelestius, i. 102, 112, 320, 348. was an Irishman, 354. some ac- count of him, ibid. 357, &c. 377, 380. his Syllogisms, 392. his Definitiones, 402. at Constanti- nople, 414. his Libellus Jiclei, 430. is not the same piece as that by Pelagius, 431, nor is it the same with St. Austin's Sei-mo de tem- pore, 440, n. his creed not extant, excejjt in part, jjreserved by St. Austin, 451. it was more open and undisguised than that of Pe- lagius, 452. an extract given, 451. he would not easily be ])ut doNvn, 453, 454. the Pelagian heresy call- ed the Coelestian in the East, 455. he flattered Zosimus, yet would not be guided by him, 455. main- tained that his doctrines were not heretical, 464. iv. 494, 498. Coleman, a Jesuit in disguise, ii. 372. 373. 374- Cologne, the council of, ii. 394. Colomesius, P., his ' I^etters,' ii< 295. Combefis, F., ii. 74. Common Prayer, book of, iv. 246. Commons, House of, their declara- tion A. D. 1620, iii. 73. Communicating infants, iii. 554, 573. iv. 44, 436, 437. See Eu- charist. ' Communion of saints,' its mean- ing, ii. 527. Communion, received daily in some ancient churches, i. 275. remiss- ness of modern protestants in this point, 276. See Eucharist. Competentes, who were so called, i. 36. Compton, Dr. H., bishop of Lon- don, his instructions to his clergy respecting private baptism, iv. 468. Computing time, some ancient modes of, iv. 323. Confessions of the Waldenses, ii. 241,280. of the antipasdobaptists, »• 322, 333, 358, 359' 552. 571- iv. 86, 199, 200, 478. Confirmation, the Anabaptists dis- agree about its practice, ii. 356, • 433. the English oflSce for it, 434. iv. 52. Conradus de monte puellarum, a writer, ii. 298. Constance, council of, i. 324. ii. 215, 218. Constantine the emperor, was not baptized in infancy, ii. 52. his vices, 59. yet he was chosen by God for an instrument of good, ibid, his baptism, iii. 221. iv. 160, 444. 449. 501- Constantine, H., his Lexicon, iii. 126, 139, 291, 292, 294, 322. iv. 119, 230. Constantinople, iv. 83. council of, ii. 451, 460, 462. Constantinopolitan Creed, i. 422, 434, ii. 460, &c. Constantius Chlorus, was not a Christian, ii. 53, 56. forced his subjects to become Arians, 133. was a bigoted Arian, ii. 456. INDEX. 527 Constantius, son of Constantine, was not baptized in infancy, and why, ii. 57. was baptized afterwards, 58. persecuted Athanasius, ibid. Constitutions of Clement, i. 524. of the Apostles, i. 524, 525. iii. 20, 165, 174, 201, 334, iv. 401. Cophti (j^Egyptian Christians), bap- tize infants, ii. 291. and give them the eucharist, ibid. 491. Cornelius, bishop of Rome, his Epi- stles, i. 325. ii. 195,385,433. iii. 220, 222, 224. his history of No- vatus, iv. 159, 160. Cornelius Nepos, iii. 296, 315, 319. Cornwell, Mr., a baptist minister, ii- 357- Costelecius, Jo. S., ii. 295. Cotelerius, his note on Hermas, i. 50, n. edits the ' Constitutions of the Apostles,' 524. iii. 174. Council of Alexandria (A.D, 362.), ii. 466. of Antioch (A. D. 341.), ii. 455. another (A. D. 378.), 466. of Ariminum (A. D. 359.), ii. 469. of Aries, i. 207. of Carthage. Synod of. (A. D. 253.), i. 126. 135. iv. 446. (A. D. 412.), i. 112, 357. several ancient ones cited, 306 — 316, 320. " one (A. D. 416.), 358, 424. iv. 494. another (A.D. 417.), i. 469. another (A. D. 418.), 468. a ca- non of this council recited, ibid, remarkable various reading of it in some copies, 471, 494. iv. 7. another (A, D. 419.), i. 495. ii. 132. of Chalcedon (A. D. 451.) ii. 461. 475. of Cologne (A. D. 1536.) ii. 394- of Constance, i. 324. ii. 215. of Constantinople (A. D. 381.), ii. 451, 462. 466. • (or synod) of Diospolis,( A.D. 415.), 1. 409—413. of Eliberis (A. D. 305.), i. 148. ii. 108. 431. or synod, an ancient one in England, ii. 395, 396. iii. 226, 346, 570. iv. 162. of Ephesus (A. D. 431.), i. Council of Florence (A. D. 1439.) ii. 219, 415. of Gerunda (A. D. 517.), i. 519. iv. 495. of Hippo, i. 314. of Ilerda (A, D. 524.), i. 519- of Illyricum (A. D. 367.), ii. 466. of Laodicea, ii. 384, 430. of Lateran (A. D. 1139.), ii. 265. another (A. D. 1215.), ibid, of Milevis (A. D. 416.), i. 424. ii. 484. iv. 494. of Neocsesarea (A. D. 314.), i. 150. ii. 108, 386. iii. 43, 44. 220. iv. 7, 59, 80, 159, 485, 493. of Nice, i. 250. ii. 145, 164. iv. 46. of Orange (A. D. 441.), ii. of Rome (A. D. 370.), ii. of Toledo (A. D. 63d.), ii. 424, 432. of Trent, i. 18, 280. ii. 210, 432- 466. 330- 415. 455> 517- ii- 461. • of Tribur (A. D. 895.), i. in TruUo, i. 302, 317. ii. 343. of Vienna, under Clement V, ii. 299. Creed, the Nicene, i. 187. is dis- owned by the unitarians, 201, 206. Mr. Le Clerc's slander of it, 206. the most ancient creed now ex- tant, ibid. ii. 439. the clause ' the Maker of heaven and earth,' when added, and why, i. 503. the form of this creed, ii. 450. some ex- pressions in it directed against Arius, 451. the orthodox Chris- tians maintain it against the va- rious creeds of the Arians, 454. is used by the catholics in the East, 460, 461. approved by the council of Ephesus, ibid, of Chal- cedon, ibid, by the edicts of Jus- tinian, of Basiliscus, and Zeno, ibid, some additions to it made at Constantinople, 463. so that by the words ' Nicene Creed' from that time the Constantinopolitan is generally understood, ibid, it is received by the church of Rome, 473. is on the whole preferable to the Roman, 474. 528 INDEX. Creed, that of ICusebius, ii. 451. of the church of Ca?sarea, ii.452. of Alexander, bishop of Alex- andria, ii. 453. the Constantinopohtan, i. 422, 434, n. ii. 460. is merely that of Nice, with some additional clauses, 463. a copy of it, ibid, is used now almost universally, ibid, one clause added afterwards by the church of Rome, 464. its difference from the Nicene,465. baptism is named in it, 549. iv. 47. of Jerusalem, mentioned by St. Cyril, ii. 460, 461. of Aquileia, i. 434, n. ii. 469, 471. of Arius, ii. 453. iv. 47. of the Arians, numerous, ii. 454, 455. often altered, 460, 469. iv. 47. of Eunomius, ii. 457. ■ the Apostles', or Roman, i.201 . ii. 466. a copy of it, 468. Rufinus' exposition of it, i.441, n. ii. 467, 469. differences in it, ibid. 470. why called 'The Apostles' Creed,' 472. no foundation for the current story, 473. at what period it took its j)resent form, ibid, is received by tlie Greek church also, ibid. Creed of Athanasius, i. 205. ii. 469, 474. its age and character, ibid. that of Pelagius, i. 432. is very ex])ress in reference to the Trinity, ibid. note, opposes Arius and Sabellius, 435. also Photinus and ApoUinaris, 436. differs from Origen and !St. Jerome, 440, n. 442, n. 443, n. Creeds, a Socinian jiamphlet on the subject, ii. 360. all the ancient ones agreed in substance, though not in form, 439. no copy of a very ancient one remains, ibid, the Nicene the oldest, ibid, the sub- stance of Christian profession of faith gathered from writers more ancient than any creed now extant, 440, &c. why creeds Ijecame ne- cessary, ibid, numerous among the Arians, 454, 469. whether the modern antiiuTdobaiJtists have any settled form, 47,-). the ancient ones contained every article deemed fundamental, 549. bap- tism was named in some, ibid, all ancient creeds contained the article of Christ's l)eing born of a Virgin, iv. 392. nia-rii, a com- mon name for the creed, ibid. Crellius, Jo., his book, iii. 2H. Cresconius, a Donatist, i. 161. iv. 493- Critolaus, iii. 318. Cromwell, Oliver, iv. 208. Cross, infants were anciently signed with it, at baptism, i. 237. Crossfield, John, his pamphlet on infant-baptism, iv. 37, n. Crull, Dr., his ' State of Muscovy,' ii. 142, n. 143, 280, 414. Cudworth, Ralph, ii. 148, 149, 150. Curcellseus, n. 148, 149, 150, 151, 168, 174, 176. iii. 30. Cusanus, cardinal, rejects the old Decretals, i. 323. Cyprian, St., quoted, i. 12, 125 — 147. a various reading in the editions of his works, 139. cited, 207, 260. ii- I45» 334, 3^7, 42.'), 43o> 437' 449,471. a false reading, 480. — 492, 496, 497, 572. iii. 15, 17, 18, 19, 87. 141, 203. an advocate for sprinkhng, 207, 213 — -216, 222 — 226. a friend to theclergy,224,237, 385, 525> 554, 555. 568. iv. 7, 41, 44. 5^—59' 64, 74. 156—158,254, 255, 275, 313, 314, 410, 411,415. 416,436—444,447.451,453—455, 485, 486, 490, 491. 500, 501. a high character of him and of his works, 444. D. Dacherius, his ' Spicilegium,' ii. 263. Dadosius and other leaders of the Messahans, ii. 139. Daille, his work ' De Usu Patrum,' i. 139. his opinions on infant- baptism, ii. 38, 48, 51, 124, 416, 478, 484. iii. 18, 30, 204, 41 7»547- iv. 425, 490. Dale, Antony van, his ' History of Baptisms,' ii. 29. Danetus, his lexicon, iii. 527. iv.396. Danvers, Henry, i. 97, 107, 133. he misunderstands St. xVustin, 257. accused of inifairness. 328. his dispute with Wills and Baxter respecting Vincentius Victor, 492. notice of the pieces i)ul)lished on both sides, ibid. n. cites Eusebius, ii. 7. Jerome, 8. Hilary, 10. Jo- INDEX. 5,'^{) annes Boemus, 41. and several other authors, all of whom he misrepresents, 44. was publicly accused of forging quotations, 45 . thinks Constantine's father was a Christian, 55. quotes the cen- turiators of Magdeburg, ibid, more unfair quotations, 73. cites a great many names of persons little known, 123, 124. further mistakes, 126, 139, 188, 212, 214, 216, 217, 231, 233, 248, 264. asserts that the German anabap- tists only continued an ancient doctrine, 294. that anabaptists were early found in England, 306. quoted. 356, 377, 408. his most unfair quotations condemned, ibid. 410. iv. 72, 82, 187, 189, 190, 194, 198, 208, 278, 291, 316, 317, 411, 445, 446, 456, 486, 491, 493, 496. Dauphine, some of the VValdenses there, ii. 259, 262, 274. Davye, Mr. Thomas, of Leicester, his book against infant-baptism, ii. 133. a review of it, iv. 483 — 500, 511,513- Dean, captain, ii. 31S. Decretals of Clement V., i. 305. of Siricius, 321, &c. general history of them, ibid. 330. ii. 2. iii. 24. iy. 512. Deists, ii. 251. Delaune, Thomas, his ' Plea for Nonconformists,' ii. 124, and n. Delphos, the Oracle at, iii. 3S8. Democritus, iii. 299. Demosthenes, iii. 283. Dempster, Thomas, mistakes in his ' History of Scotland,' i. 354, and n. Denmark, the church of, ii. 539. iii. 72. Denne, John, ii. 123. Deodwinus, bishop of Liege, ii. 235—237- Dervises, ii. 363. Dew, very abundant in the East, and in hot climates, iii. 150. iv. 1 1 1, 1 24. Didymus, his Scholia on Homer, ii. 334. iii. 105, 119, 128, 153, 165. iv. 56. Dimmock, Roger, ii. 307. Dinocrates, a boy, i. 340. whose case is discussed between Viii- centius Victor and St. Austin. i.487, &c. WALL, vol,. IV. Diodati, iii. 328. Diodorus, a philosopher, iii. 318. Diodotus, a Stoic, iii. 314,485. Diogenes Laertius, iii. 297, 316, 485. Dion, of Syracuse, iii. 29S, 319, 320. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, ii. 7. iii. 525. 555- iv- 439— 442» 457- . , . Dionysius the Areopagite, his works supposititious, i. 527. opinions of baptism given in them, ibid. ii. 498. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, iii. 128. 316, 318, 464, 465. iv. 305. Dionysius, bishop of Rome, iii. 555 . Dionysius, of Syracuse, iii. 298. Diospolis, (or Lydda,) the synod of, i. 379, 409, 453. Dipping. Dipping three times in baptism used by the Jews, i. 37. dipping of children first left off in France, ii. 239, 393. whether baptizing in Scripture is always to be understood of clipping, 329. it was the ancient practice, 384. defended, ibid, in cases of sick- ness, &c. affusion was used, even in ancient times, 385, 390. both were occasionally used in the ancient French church, ibid. 391. dipping the custom in England, 392, 393. its progress in France, 394. in England, 395, &c. left off in the reign of queen Elizabeth, 398. first by people of high rank, 399. Calvin's influence on the point, 400. Dr. Wall knew some few who had been dipped, and himself had dipped one in- fant, 401. Mr. Blake's pamphlets on it, 402. it is still used in coim- tries not subject to the pope, 404, 414. the present order of the church of England on the point, ibid, endeavours to restore the use of it, 407, 410, 411. it is still used in the Greek church, 414. and by many other Christians, ibid. 416. the only true way of baptizing, iii. 84. Dr. Wall said to admit this, 86. allowed to agree with the commands of Scripture, 95. jSciTTTL^co always signifies to dip, 94, &c. ^dnrco the same : with allusion to the art of dyeing, 109. authorities for this significa- tion, from classic writers,99 — 136. M m 530 INDEX. from critics. 139, Ike. from the (Jill 'rcstainent, 144, &c. from the Oriental versions, 177, 193. from the (jlreek, 177. from the New Testament, lyi, &c. St. John haptizeil by dippinpf, 19H. the primitive ("liristians did the same, 199. authorities from the Fathers, 200, &c. from modern authors, 203, &c. from several modern versions as quoted by bishop Nicholson, 205. whether «.v/)pmo» was used till one hundred and fifty years after the Ajjostles ? 218. and even then it was only admitted as an alternative in peculiar cases, 220, &c. 226. how it came into use in England, 346. how suddenly laid aside, 554. ,1570. Dr. Wall's reply to Mr. Gale's remarks on the point of dipping, iv. 105, ike. it was the ])rimitive mode of baptizing; and most learned men own it for the more fitting way, 151, 153. 155. 156. all churches used it except those of Rome and Geneva, 156. why no very early authorities are cited for sprinkling, 158. the English clergy defended in their practice, from Mr. Gale's remarks, 165. and the order of our church on the point vindicated, ibid. Dr. Wall's fuller thoughts and suggestions on the practice, 167, &c. and 458, &c. Directory, the Presbyterian, i.304, n. iv. 114. it orders baptizing in a bason, ii. 403, 404. Disciple, its true meaning, 11.514, &c. iii. 314. farther discussion of its meaning, iv. 211, &c. Dissenters. Whether they ought to join the church of England, or she ought to go over to them, iii. 70, 74, 82. arc obliged in con- science to separate themselves, 79. protected in the exercise of their religion, iii. 210. a loose ])olitical body of them in England induced the ])resbytcrians and others to sej)arate from the church of Eng- land, iv. 474, 475. Diverse, its meaning, iv. 143. Dodwell, Henry, i. 58, 59, 79, 80. his opinion of the Jewish rabbis, iii. 369. cited, 491, 499, .1501,527, 532. iv. 324, 325, 336. a reproof of him by Mr. Gale, iii. 10, 66. quoted, 52. Donatists, i. 103. their schism, 248. St. Austin writes against them, ibid. 408. tlieir tenets, 252, 257, 258,311,319. the sect dechnes, 307,311,467. rebaptizc cathohcs, ii. 69. their controversy with Optatus, i. 160. their opinions on baptism, ii. 129. did not reject infant-l)a[)tism, 132, 170. ac- counted schismatics, 543. iv. 102, 200, 4S6, 490, 491. 493' 494- Dorrington, Rev. Theoph., his work on baptism censured by Mr. (iale, iii. 273. vindicated, iv. 208, 209. Dort, the synod of, i. 372. ii. 305. Driedo, Jo., ii. 209. iii. 433. Druids, the, iii. 300. Drusius, Jo. quoted, i. 8. iii. 175. Dryden, Jo., his Virgil quoted, iii. 99. Dugranicia, a country so called, ii- 253- Dulcinus Navarrensis, ii. 264. Du Pin, his edition of Optatus, i. 162, n. his opinion of the Decretals, 330. of the canon of the council of Carthage (A. D. 418,), 494. ii. 74, 84, 85, 95, 505. iii. 369, 501, 547, 549, 550, 569. iv. 252, 425, 429, 430. Durandus, bisliop of Liege, ii. 235. Dutch anabaptists in London, ii. 314- Dutch Martyrology. See Mar- tyrolo(jy. Dutch Minnists. See Minnists. Dutch torture the Enghsh at Amboyna, ii. 423. E. Easter, the principal season of bap- tism among the Jews, i. 36, 93, 94. one of the two also among early Christians, 326 — 332, 347. Ebion, i. 195. the first Socinian, 196. Ebionites, i. 75, 199, 501. iv. 391, .392- Eckbertus Schonaugiensis, ii. 249, 263. Eclipses, the exact time of our Saviour's birth pointed out by them, iv. 359. Edessa, records of the church of, ii. 468, 469. Edomites, conditions imposed on them by Ilyrcanus, iv. 246. INDEX. 531 Edwards, Dr. Jo., his book on the Canticles quoted, iii. 215. iv. 228. Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, his time, i. 80. Ehas, the rabbins' idea of his pow- er, iii. 411. Ehas Cretensis, ii. 87, 159. Ehberis, council of (A.D. 305.), i. 148. ii. 108, 431. Eliezer, rabbi, quoted, i. 39. iii. 358, 363, 364, 408, 411. iv. 268. Emlyn, Thomas, his pamphlet in reply to Dr. Wall, iv. 28, 514. (a review of it. 28—48.) 185, 247, 265, 276, 279, 291. Encratites, i. 502. Enoch, his spiritual circumcision, iii. 467. iv. 307. Epaminondas, iii. 298, 315. Ephesus, council of (A.D. 431), i. 415. 455, 517- ii- 461- Ephrem Sjtus, i. 219. a life of St. Basil ascribed to him, ii. 74. Epicurus, his doctrine, iii. 486. Epiphanius, i. 62, 109, 198, 504, 509, 512, 513, 514. ii. 139, 142, 460, 470. in. 20, 255, 335. iv. 343. 362. Episcopius, iii. 204, 323. iv. 212. Erasma Tusca, ii. 123. Erasmus, his opinion of some works attributed to Origen, i. 107. his .edition of Origen, 118. of St. Ambrose, 346. his conjecture about St. Jerome, ii. 102, 106, 178, 204, 205. his Colloquies, 392. iii. 326, 330. iv. 427. Erbrardus, ii. 263. Ermingardus, ii. 263. Establishment, what privileges an established church is entitled to, iii. 72. iv- 94. Estius, ii. 407. Evagrius, ii. 475. Eucharist, anciently given to in- fants, i. 139, 147. in some an- cient churches was received every day, 275. given speedily to bap- tized persons, both adults and infants, ii. 478. Daille's remarks, ibid, the Fathers quoted for the practice, ibid, origin of it, 485. alteration made in it, 487. taken away by the council of Trent, 488. how soon it prevailed in the Greek church, 489. Dr. "NN'all's opinion on the matter, ibid, the modern mode of giving it, 490. argument drawn from this custom by antipsedobaptists, 491, 493- it is still used by many Christian nations, ibid, is not so ancient as infant-baptism, 492, 503. many persons delay their coming to receive it, 513. Eudoxius, an Arian bishop, ii. 62. Everard, Robert, his pamphlet, ii. 375; Evervinus, of Cologne, ii. 256. Eugenius, a Greek usurper, ii. 66. is slain, 67, 99. Eunomians, St. Basil writes against them, ii. 6, 165. iv. 46. one sect of them baptized in the name of the Father only, ii. 335. mode of baptism, 422. their creed, 457, 462. iii. 295. Euripides, quoted, iii. 104. his Scholiast, 126. Eusebius, the historian, i. 55, 62, 63, 81, 124, 125, ,[^04, 512. cited by Danvers, ii. 7. his account of Constantine's baptism, 52, 55, 56, 57, 170, 195, 347, 390. his creed, 451. quoted, 458, 468, 518. iii. ^6, 221, 333. 376,40.5, 419,493,496. 549. IV. 46, 159, 160, 219, 235, 24,5, 362, 373,428, 429, 433,442. 449- Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, iii. 222. Eustathius, a Greek bishop, ii. 165, his Comment on Homer, iii. 105. iv. 127. Eutyches, ii. 475. Eutychianism, ii. 279, 281. Eutychians, i. 437, n. Euzoius, an Arian bishop of An- tioch, ii. 58. Exorcising, the original use of it, the later abuse, ii. 438. Ezechias, rabbi, iii. 365. F. Fabian, Jo,, his ' Chronicles,' vari- ous readings in different editions, ii. 126, 127. iv. 496, 513. Fabius, bishop of Antioch, ii. 386. Fabri, Joannes, ii. 416. Facundus, his opinion of pope Zo- simus, i. 463. Falkland, lord, iii. 56. Fasting, usual before baptism, ii. 3^3- Fathers, the ancient, slanders on 532 INDEX. them, ii. 146 — 179. their real ex- cellence, 172. Fathers, the primitive, Mr. Gale thinks they loosely expound and misa])p]y scripture, iii. 216. the early, the credit due to them, iii. 41 7. iv. 269. their state- ments on the jioint of infant-hap- tism, iii. 41N, &c. Fathers of the second century, 461, &c. 518. the earliest, say little about infant-baptism, and why, iv. 447, 453. concerning those of the next age> 453— 4.57 • Fausta, wife of Constantine, not a Christian, ii. 57. Faustus Rhegiensis, i. 519. Faydit, Tablje, his book against Le Clerc, ii. 174. and n. Featley, D., ii. 316. iii. 8, 56, 309. iv. 72. Fell, John, bishop of Oxford, his edition of 'Passio S. Perj)etu8e,' &c., i. 489, n. some notice of his small pieces jmblished almost annually at Oxford, ibid, his judgment of Rigaltius, ii. 20, 194. iii. 30, 203, 221, 536. iv. 413. Ferrandus, Fulgentius, i. 519. his letter concerning a negro slave, 520. Ferrarius, Jo., his lexicon, iii. 294. Feuardentius, an editor, iii. 527. iv. 324,391- Ficinus, his translation of Plato, iii. 486. Fidelis, the difference between it and Catechvmenvs, i. 149, 277, 381. the term never given but to a baptized person, ii. 69. a bap- tized person, 117. Fidus, an African bishop, i. 126, 137- iii- ti^io- i^'- 3M- Field, Dr., his book 'of the Church,' ii. 32, 124, 209. Finnilian, bishop of Caesarea, ii. 194. bishop of Cappadocia, iv. 441,481. Firmin, Thomas, an English uni- tarian, his life, i. 189. Fisher, the Jesiiit, ii. 378. Florence, the council of, ii. 219, 415- Florentius Christianus, his note on .\ristophanes, iii. i 17. Flnycr, sir John, his book on bath- ing, ii. 412. iii. 2of\. Font, ancient one at Bridekirk in Cumberland, i. 86. iii. 205. Fonts in our churches exchanged for basons, ii. 403. Foxe, John, his ' Martyrology,' ii. 128, 215, 264, 267, 306, 310, 314, iv. 172. ' Foxes and Firebrands,' a book so called, ii. 363, 372. France, the clergy of, opposed prae- destinarian opinions in the fifth century, i. 480. Louis XIV., the king of, forces his subjects to become pa- pists, ii. 133, 175. -full of Albigenses, ii. 246. the French king drives away the Waldenses, 247. persecution of the protest- ants there, ii. 530. iii. 8, 92. their kind reception in England, ibid. iv. 72. first left off dipping. First antipaedobaptists arose there, ii. 239. iv. 172. Frank, Sebastian, an author fre- quently cited by Dan vers, ii. 44, 130, 140, 295. Frith, John, ii. 349, 350, 397, 485. Fulgentius, i. 479, 519. ii. 190, 206, 226. iii. 433. iv. 493. Fuller, his ' Church History,' ii. 54, 13O' 308, 309, 314, 315- Fundamentals, what are fundamen- tal points, in Mr. Gale's judg- ment, iii. 63 — 76, 82. what in that of Dr. Wall, iv. 90, 91, 97, 98, 199, 449, 478, 488. G. Gagnseus, an editor of Tertullian, i. 98. iii. 536. iv. 412. Gale, John, memoir of him. Intro- duction, p. xix. &c. i. 79. he writes merely until a more full answer to Dr. Wall shall appear, iii. 13. feels compelled to tax Dr. Wall, 23. is no Socinian, nor Tritheist, 27. denies that there are any Socinians among the an- tipaedobaptists, 49. or that the perverse opinions of a few are justly chargeable on the body, 54. examines Dr. Wall's Dissuasive from Schism, 59 — 92. the contro- versy consists of two parts ; one, about the mode of ba])tizing; the other. al)out ihc objects, whether INDEX. 533 infants or adults, 94. he argues that /SaTTTt^o) always signifies to dip, 94, &c. — 230. the second branch of the dispute entered on, 333-— iv. 33' 44, 49' 5°' 53'. 56, 57, 62. his 'Reflections' examined and answered by Dr. Wall, 64 to the end of the volume. Gale, Dr. Thomas, his ' Opuscula Mythologica,' iii. 12S, 135. Galenus, a Dutch Minnist, chief of the Galenists, ii. 305. Gamaliel, his observation, iv. 347. Ganz, rabbi D., iii. 345, 358, 392. Gamier, John, a Jesuit, i. 114. mis- takes a passage of St. Jerome, 353' 355- Hientions twenty-four synods holden against the Pela- gians, 455. cited, 462, 495. his opinion on infant-1)aptism, ii. 40. his design in it, ibid, his over- sight, 41. Gascoigne, some of the Waldenses from thence, ii. 259, 264, 275. Gataker, T., his edition of M. An- toninus, iii. 134. iv. 222. Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, i. 00'^ ■ Gaufridus, his 'Life of St. Bernard,' ii. 277. Geddes, Mich., ii. 284. Geles, John, a German anabaptist, ii. 300, 311. .Gemara, the Je\vish, quoted, i. 8, 10, 15, 16, 17,30, 39. iii. 345. iv. 256. Gematria, a cabalistic art, iii. 366. Geneva, the church of, ii. 537. iv. 168, 170. Gennadius, i. 276, 341, 519. ii. 336, 337' 39°' 393- ^i^ ^^^^ of the writings of Pelagius, i. 433, n. George, patriarch of Alexandria, ii. 92-. .. Georgia, n. 279, 283. Georgian Christians, ii. 34. how first converted, 285. still adhere to the Greek church, though im- perfectly, 286. sometimes delay baptism, not from principle but neglect, 288. Georgirenes, Joseph, his history of Samos, ii. 415. Gerhardus, a leader of the Gascon Waldenses, ii. 264. German antipsedobaptists, ii/502. Gerson, John, ii. 217, 218. Gerunda, the council of, i. 519. iv. 49.5- Ghebers, the Quakers resemble them, ii. 363. Gisburnensis Historia, cited by Jo. Foxe, ii. 264. Gnostics, i. 82, 502. ii. 335. iv. 388. Godfathers, or sponsors, ii. 437, 477- Godwin Sands, the vulgar story of their origin, iv. 239, and n. Godwyn, Morgan, author of a book called ' the Negro's Advocate,' i. 523' «• Godwyn's ' Moses and Aaron,' i. 4, 8. iv. 488. Gorgias, the orator, iii. 317. Gorgonia, sister of Gregory Nazi- anzen, ii. 87. her baptism and death, 88. Gospel of the Nazarenes, a book cited by St. Jerome, i. 445, n. Grabe, Dr., his various reading of a passage in Irenteus, i. 75, 80, n. cited, ii. 460. iii. 296, 501, 502, 519, 520. iv. 361, 384, 387,388, 391, 426. Grtevius, Theodorus, his edition of Callimachus, iii. 125. Gratian, the emperor, account of him, ii. 62. is slain, 63. it is pro- bable that he had been baptized, 68. iii. 437. Greek church, knew not antipaedo- baptism in the twelfth century, i. 155. the Pelagians endeavour to make a party in it, 414, 415. Grotius' mistake as to its prac- tice, ii. 33. they baptize infants, 280. receive the Roman (or Apos- tles') Creed, but baptize by the Nicene, 474. practise dipping, iii. 122. iv. 21. has never had any disputes about infant -baptism, 172. some members of it held, that unbaptized and heathen in- fants shall have little punishment or suffering, iv. 286. it gives the eucharist to children, iv. 437. Gregorius Ariminensis, ii. 208, 210. Gregorius Presbyter, his life of Gregory Nazianzen, ii. 76, 78, 80, 84. Gregory, the father of Gregory Nazianzen, some account of him, ii. 76 — 87. and of his children, 87. is a singular instance of a man purposely deferring baptism, 88, 534 INDEX. 501, 506, 550. iii. 31. iv. II, 60, , 7«- 79- (Jrejrory Nazianzen, i. 12, 77, 123. quoted 162 — 208. calls liaptisin our 'diurnal generation,' 164. his account of St. Basil, ibid. ii. 74, 86. concerning his own bajitism, i. 168. ii. 51. he strongly urges the ba|)tism of infants, i. 170, &c. combats the common excuses for delay, 1 76. a summaryot his tenets on baptism, iSo — 218. — 224. mis- quoted by CJrotius, ii. 35. quoted 39. was not baptized in infancy, 76. some account of his father, 77, 78, 82, 85, 87. whether he was 1)orn before his father's conver- sion. 78 — 87. a singular opinion of his, 84. resigns his bisho])ric, 90. called a trit heist by M. Le Clerc, I -,5,175. Ills realtenets, 156, &c. — 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 201, 231. iii- 3i> 39' 40, 42, 384. 393. 433. 558. IV. 7, II— 13, 59,61, 78, 79, 80, 199, 253, 257, 313, 369, 373, 394, 4i.")» 433. 466. (iregory Nyssen, his life of St. Ba- sil, ii. 74. cited, 168, 193, 195. iv. , 449' 455- (iregory, i)ope, the Great, i. 319. ii. 206, 210, 392, 423, 432, 487. (iregory Thaumaturgus, li. 159. iii. 194, 202. iv. 149. (iretser, J., his writings against the Waldenses, ii. 244, n. 268, 298. Grotius, i. 135, 150, 155, 158. his mistakes, 136, 180, 247, 274, 471. ii. 330. his opinion as to the an- cient ])ractice of infant-baj)tism, 31. his design vindicated, 33. but he is in error, ibid. 47. his mis- take about Chrysostom, 93 — 125. cited, 206, 379. iii. 32, 39. de- fended against Dr. Wall, 40. — 141, 173, 178, 179, 200, 276, 326, 44r). 510, .514, ,'")3^, 547- iv. (>, 10, 46, 59 — 61, 78 — 83,119,138, 139. (jinmnius, a name given to Rufinus by St. Jerome, i. 112. (Jrynreus, an editor of Origen, i. 1 18. (niitmund, ii. 237. his opinions, 238. (lundulphus, his sect, ii. 263. iv. 68. n. Hades, Christ's descent to, i. 76. its true meaning in the Hiblc, ii. 344. &c. Hale, judge, his behaviour to an- tip;rdobaptists, ii. 317. Hall, bp., his ' Honour of the mar- ried Clergy,' ii. 83. Hall, Mrs., e.xcomnumicatcd, iii. 90. iv. 66, 72, 103, 190. II alley, captain, his experiments on dew, iii. 151. Hallingham, a Jesuit in disguise, ii. 372, 373. 374- Hammond, Dr. H., i. 4, 13, 18, 19, 39, 44, 140, 182, 184, 416, 531. his judgment of bp. Taylor's ' Li- berty of Prophesying,' ii. 23. and answers to it, 23 — 27. cited, 551. iii. 168, 172, 175, 178, 200, 275, .^Ofj. 308, 322, 354, 382, 439, 445. iv. 225, 233. editions of his ' Pa- raphrase,' 234. variations in them accounted for, ibid. 235, 296, 303, 492, 504- Harding, John, ii. 313, Harpocration, his lexicon, iii. 119. Heathen temples overthrown, A. D. 399'. i- 314- . Hegesi])pus, iii. 174, 376, 419. Helena, the mother of Constantine, some account of her, ii. 57. be- came a Christian late in life, ibid. Hell, its meaning in our Bible, ii. 344, &c. Hemerobajjtistac, an anciant sect, iii. 174, 376. iv. 126, 139. HenricianS; ii. 270, 278. Henry, of Lyons, ii. 248, 256, 259. is banished, 260, 262. his history, 273, &c. Heracleon, iii. 398. iv. 259 — 262. Heraclides Ponticus, iii. 122, 319. Herbert, lord, his History of Henry Vlllth, ii. 311. Hereford, register of the church of, ii. 215. Heresies, or sects, lists of the earlier ones, by Irenoeus, i. 499. by Ej)iphanius, 512, 514. by Phi- lastrius, 515. by Theodoret, ibid, by Tertullian, ibid. Heretics, how received into the church in ancient times, ii. 145. Herman, archbishop of Cologne, ii. 394- Hermas, quoted, i. 48 — 6-y his work formerly not thought genuine, 55. it was written before St. John's Gosj)el, 56. he is not the person mentioned bv St. Paul at Romans INDEX. 535 xvi. 63. cited, ii. 184, 192. Dr. Wall's arguments from him e.x- amined, iii. 426 — 431. and 446 — 453. 457' 561- iv. 271—275, 292 —295, 330. Hermians, or Seleucians, an ancient sect, ii. 141. Hermolaus, quoted, iii. 126. Herodotus, quoted, iii. 123, 387. Hervetus, G., an editor of Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 85. Hesychius, his lexicon, iii. 108. Hethe, a Jesuit disguised as a Puri- tan, ii. 373, 374. Heylin, P., his ' Animadversions on Fuller's Church History,' ii. 54. his ' History of Presbytery,' 373. his works, 281, n. 283, 286, 290, 291, 311, 491. Hezekiah, a Jewish rabbi, quoted, i. 20. Hicks, Mr., his account of the anabaptists, ii. 323. vindicated, .324- . : Hicks, Mr., his story, iii. 8, 49. iv. 69, 70, 198. Hieracites, a sect described by Epi- phanius, i. 512. Hilary, complains of the emj^eror Constantius, ii. 58. cited by Dan- vers, 10, 176, 177, 178. consults St. Austin, i. 246. on some doc- trines of Ceelestius, i. 392, 409, .517- Hilary, the deacon, his ' Commen- taries,' ii. 198, 228. HiD, Mr., his work ' De Presby- teratu,' iii. 400. iv. 262. Hillel, rabbi, iv. 222. Hincmarus, abp. of Rheims, i. 329. his opinion concerning infants dying unbaptized, ii. 211, 232, 234- Hincmarus, bishop of Laudun, ii. 211. his violent conduct, 232, iv. 496. Hippo, a council at, i. 314. Hippocrates, iii. 527. Hoadly, bp., iv. 5, n. his latitudi- narian doctrine, 473. the Bango- rian controversy, 297, n. Hobmeier, Baltazar, a German ana- baptist, ii. 292. Holiness, whether it can mean legi- timacy, iii. 541. Holinshead, R., his ' Chronicles,' ii. 264. Holland, mode of baptism there, iv. 22. mode of receiving the Lord's Supper, 23. Dr. Wall's remarks on the Minnists, &c. 24. and on the Hollanders generally, ibid. 47.— 71, 83, 86, 94, 102, 150, 172. toleration in the states of Holland, iii. 8. iv. 71. Holland. Dr., interpolated Camden's Britannia, ii. 43. Holland, rev. Mr., i. 84. Holy, meaning 'baptized,' iv. 414, 416, 421, 503—505. Homer, quoted, iii. 100, 102, 118, 128, 186. iv. 117. Homilies, English, ii. 349. Hooker, Richard, ii. 183. iv. 288. Hooper, bp. George, his ' Discourse of Lent,' i. 4, 37. Hooper, bp. John, a letter by him, "• 312. Hoi-ace, quoted, iii. 103. iv. 67. Horsleydown, a place of resort of the anabaptists, iv. 163, 514. Hortentius, ii. 311. Hoveden, Roger, ii. 243. Huetius, his edition of Origen, i. 107. ii.338. iii. 547- iv. 419, 425, 426, 428, 432, 433. Hugo de S. Victore, ii. 212, 487. Huss, John, ii. 217, 218. Hussites, their opinion of unbap- tized infants, ii. 217. Hyde, Dr., iii. 348. Hyginus, bishop of Rome, cited by Platina, i. 535. Hyperides, a scholar of Isocrates, iii. 283. of Plato. 317. Hypsistarians, a religious sect, ii. 77. Hyrcanus, John, iii. 391. iv. 246. L "l^to?, its meaning strictly defined, i- 153. 154- Ignatius, i. 511. iii. 283 — 285. iv. 236, 301, 484. Ilerda, the council of, i. 519. lUyricum, the council of, ii. 466. Immersion, (baptismal,) a conjec- ture that it was the ancient method used in England, ii. 308. con- sidered absolutely an essential by the English antip3edobaptists,327. was the usual mode in the pri- mitive church, ii. 384. is used by the Greek church, 414, 416. iii. 226. Dr. Wall much in favour of it, 143. 536 INDEX. Iijuiicision, trine, used by the Jews, and from them by the })rimitive Christians, i. 37, 38. ii. 434. or- dered b)' the first Common Prayer Book of Edward VI., ii. 397. was the general practice in ancient times, 419. doubts about its ne- cessity, 423. the Roman catholics prefer it, 424. sjjoken of by bi- shoj) Fell, iii. 203. See dipjiing. Imposition of hands, used by the Jews on solemn occasions, i. 36. or Confirma- tion, ii. 433. the EngUsh office for it, 434. Independtnts, iv. 474, 475, 487. Indians, conversion of, ii. 5. Indian Christians, ii. 284. Infants. The word sometimes refers to aye, sometimes to the profes- sion of Christianity, i. 116, n8, 337, 341 . what it may fairly mean, iii. 524. iv. 49 — .53, 61, 62. who are really meant by it, iv. 395. especially by Irenaeus, 396, 402. the eucharist anciently given to them, i. 139, 147. dying unbap- tized were supposed by many writ- ers of the Greek church to go to some middle place, 224. acknow- ledged to have orujinal sin, 235. used to be marked with the sign of the cross, 237. dying before actual sin after their baptism were Kupjiosed to be undoubtedly sav- ed, 274. ii. 225. chrism given to them, i. 334, 335. the Pelagians' opinion of infants dying unbap- tized, 424. that of Vincentius Vic- tor, 484, &c. other opinions, ii. 107. Intant-baptism, first expressly men- tioned by Irenanis, i. 72, 79. al- lowed by the Pelagians, 133. was acknowledged in the synod of Carthage (A. D. 2r,3.), 126, 136, 138. owned by Caelestius, 466. it was practised by all the ancient sectaries, who owned any baptism at all, 498. some few learned men among the moderns do not allow its full antiquity, ii. 12. no certain evidence of any who denied it, till about the year ir)22, 2(16. the modern Jesuits assert that it can- not be proved from scripture, 378. a Humming up of the evidence in its favour, 494. of that which is or seems to be against it, 502. why there is so little mention of it in the more ancient Fathers, 508. why St. Luke in the Acts does not name it, 510. the par- ticular aye of receiving baptism is not a fundamental ])oint, 548. persons ought not to break com- munion for it, 5.55, 557, 558. but Mr. Gale asserts it to be a fun- damental, iii. 82. according to Mr. Gale, Dr. Wall allows it can- not be ])roved from scripture, 235, 238, 240. the value of this ad- mission, 237, 241, 242. the ar- gument of the Romanists from thence, 246, 247. the fair conse- quence of the scrijjture's silence, 250, &c. Dr. Wall's inference from our Saviour's silence, 253. the dangerous consequences of such a mode of arguing, 255, 258, &c. the scriptures rather conclude a- gainst it, 261, 340. all who were to be baptized were also to be tauyhl, 264, 266 — 340. infant- baptism cannot fairly be founded on the Jewish baptism, 402 — 413. it was not practised in the primi- tive times : the ancient Fathers cited, 416, &c. the question, for what are infants baptized .'' 426. Dr. Wall states that the ancient Christian church had two bap- tisms, 478. Mr. Gale's summary of his arguments against it, 556. his idea of the mode in which it became prevalent, 571. he asserts that all infants will be saved, 443. Dr. Wall's remarks on this, iv. 284. in what country it began, 438. Innocent I., pope, i. ^Tii'i 377- * synodical epistle to him on the subject of Pelagius, from Car- thage, 425. another, from ^Jilevis, 427. another epistle from five bi- shops, 42S. his replies, 429, 456. a letter to him from Pelagius, 430, 432. ii. 432, 479, 484, 485, 487, 4^9' 492- Innocent III., pope, ii. 207, 265. Innocent XII., his reception of the book of cardinal Sfondrata, i. 461. IreUcTus, i. rfi, 5^. his account of the tunes of Clemens Romanus. 59. quoted, 7 1 — 82. a various read- INDEX. 587 ing by Dr. Grabe, 75. the time of his living and writing, 79, 80. — 137, 195. his account of sects, 499 — 509- ii-?- his account of the Valentinians, 136, 171, 347, 348, 430, 441, 474, 496, 511. iii. 295, 469, 488 — 529. badly translated, 500, &c. 538, 565. iv. 41, 49—53. 54, 62, 230. his testimony re- specting our Saviour's age ex- amined, 321, 323—35.-;, 358,360. the Latin translation of his works, 360, 366, 369, 376. iv. 384, 386— 404. further examination of a cor- rupt passage in his text, 391. — 43S. 443'. 445> 447. 484, 501- Isaac, rabbi, iii. 351. Iseeus, iii. 283. Isidorus Hispalensis. ii. 89. Isidorus Pelusiota, his opinion of the sin attached to infants, i. 234. supposed the forger of the De- cretal Epistles, 330. — 416, 417, 518. Isocrates, iii. 283, 293, 316 — 318. iv. 229. Iturseans, conditions imposed on them, iv. 246. J. Jacobite Christians, ii. 281. James, St., his meaning at chap. i. 6, 7, 8. ii. 192. Jansenius, iv. 426. Jarchi, R. Solomon, iii. 364. Jehuda Ben Levi, a rabbi, iii. 344. Jenkins, Rev. Dr., i. 84. Jeremias, ii. 491. Jerome, St., i. 56, 57, 62, 63, 78, no, 133, 135, 182, 183, 195, 224, 275. his opinion of Origen, 88. of TertuUian, 102, 103. a trans- lator of Origen, 107, 108. a great reader of his works, 118. his tes- timonies on baptism, 238 — 240. concerning his own baptism, 241. he writes on the origin of the soul, 290 — 298. was of a hasty temper, 291. educated in the Ro- man church, 325. — 341, 342. his great reputation, 343. his writings against the Pelagians, 352, 370, 391. 41S. called a semi- Pelagian by M. Le Clerc, 373. — 388. a pas- sage in his works corrected by Dr. Wall from an ancient edition, 433. writes against Rufinus and the Origenists, 439, note. Pela- gius' opposition to him in his creed, 442, n. &c. quoted, as ap- parently in favour of antipsedo- baptism, ii. 5. misquoted by Dan- vers, 8, 78, 87. little ground for doubting that he was baptized in infancy, 100 — 115. Erasmus fan- cied him baptized at Rome, 102. he wore a monk's habit, 103. greatly extolled religious vows, 104, 106. and virginity, 106. or- dained at Antioch, 103. the errors of his early life, 107. cited, 140, 168, 169, 173, 421, 428, 430, 434, 477, 488, 497. iii. 268, 327, 336, 337. 548, 549> 567- IV. 13, 55, 242, 381, 394, 415, 424, 426— 436, 449, 456. Jerusalem, a synod, or meeting of bishops there, concerning Pela- gius, i. 407. again, 414. the creed of its church, ii. 460, 461. the destruction of, iii. 496, 497. iv. 356. Jesuits, some say that they origi- nated the sect of the Quakers, ii. 363. some have crept in among the English antipsedobaptists, 37 1 . their shifts and disguises, to make proselytes, or to divide protest- ants, ibid, they feign themselves dissenting preachers, ibid. 380. — iii. 55. iv. 182. Jesus Christ, his command to his apostles, to ' go and disciple all nations,' explained by Jewish cus- toms, i. 21. illustrated farther, 22. he adopted baptism for a gene- ral sign of his religion, 27. his words to Nicodemus illustrated, 32, loi, 345, 364. ii. 495. how understood by all the ancient Christians, 180, &c. the antipee- dobaptists' use of the passage, 181. Bishop Burnet's interpreta- tion of it, 184. some defenders of infant-baptism omit to use it a- mong their proofs, 187. Dr. Wall's argument from hence examined, iii. 431. Jesus Christ is thought by some not to have taken any part of the substance of the Vir- gin Mary, ii. 335. his descent into Hades, ivlten inserted into the Apostles' Creed, 468, 469. what other creeds have this clause, 469. whence it was taken, ibid. 538 INDEX. the fact universally admitted, ibid, doubts respecting his exact ayre, iii. 4S9, 493, 494, iSic. these more fully discussed, iv. 323,&c. 332, &c. .levvel, bishoi), proves the old Decretals to be forgeries, i. 324. cited, ii. 74,313. Jews, their custom of baptizing in- fants, Introduction, i. 3, 8, 25. ii. 494. they defend the custom, out of the Mosaic law, i. 9. their writers defend it on other grounds also, 14. heheved that they them- selves did not stand in need of Ijajjtism, but their proselytes only, 19. ii. 494. baptized all children accidentally found, and such as were taken in war, i. 20. ii. 494. used to bring away the children of the nations whom they con- quered, i. 20. these customs do not affect the question of Chris- tian paxlobaptism, 24, 25. the whole body of them were baptized in Moses' time, 26. called the baptism of a proselyte his new birth, 30. ii. 495. the aljsurdities of the Talmudists u])on this no- tion, i. 31. a parallel between their baptism and that of Christians, 33 — 38. ii. 502. required sj)onsors at l)aptism, i. 34. ii. 500. in bap- tism dipped thrice, i. 37, 38. ii. 434. do still continue the baptism of infants, i. 42. anointed the newly baptized, ii. 434. gave milk and honey to tlie newly Ijaptized, ibid. Dr. Wall's arguments from the Jewish baptism examined by Mr. Gale, iii. 343— 373'375— 385- Mr. (Jale denies that the Jews bai)tized proselytes, 401. or if they did, that it will favour infant- ba])tism, 402 — 413. they had no initiatory bajjtism, 505. Dr. Wall's defence of himself, iv. 21S, 238, 241, 248, &c. Jews and Christians confounded together by Pagan writers, iii. 376. the precise mean- ing of the word ' Jew,' 379. Jewish doctors or rabbis, their character, as given by Mr. Gale, iii. 146, 166. their opinions on l)ai)tism, 349, 353. instances of their writings, 354, &c. 3^53—373. Joachim, abbot, ii. 167. Joannes V'loriaccnsis, ii. 263. Jochanan, rabbi, iii. 34.5. John Baptist, it is probable that he baptized children as well as adults, i. 27. iii. 253. this denied, 272, 404 — 407. St. Ambrose is of that oj)inion, i. 28. why the Pharisees asked, 'Why baptizest thou then?' 43. baptized by dipping, iii. 198. St. John the Evangelist, his Gospel when written, i. 56. the text I John v. 7. seemingly acknow- ledged by St. Cyprian, 208. the text John iii. 5. illustrated, 32, loi. 345. 364- »• 180, 495, 521. iv. 503, 504. John, bishop of Jerusalem, a friend of Pelagius, i. 407 — 409. John Becold, or John of Leyden, his excesses, ii. 293, 300. John of Lyons, a follower of Peter Waldo, ii. 272. Johnson, his 'Julian the Apostate,' ii.85. Joseph, a Jewish rabbi, quoted, i. 1 7. Josephus, iii. 174, 391, 405, 496, 498, 314, 565- iv. 245, 246, 257, 266, 328, 333, 337, 340, 342, 346, 350, 355, 358. Joshua, a Jewish rabbi, i. 40. iii. 358, 408, 411. iv. 26S. Judah Hakodesh, rabbi, iv. 244. Judas of Gahlee, iv. 347. Julian the emperor, i. 102, 231, 232. ii. 61, 79, 459. iii. 379. iv. 251, Julianus, a Pelagian bishop, i. 348, 414,416. maintains a dispute with St. Austin, 472, 475. ii. 202. iv. 498. Junius, Franc, iv. 372. Jurieu, M., iii. 20, 204,569. iv. 151. Justellus, i. 313. Justin Martyr, i. 22. quoted, 64 — 7 1 . asserts baptism to be in place of circumcision, 65. his account of the way of baptizing is the most ancient of any, next to the scrip- ture, 69, 73.-332. ii. 180, 348, 383, 429, 436, 440, 496. iii. 15, 17, 1 74, 277, 287, 289, S33' 367. 376, 395, 396, 461— 47I' 477—488, 494. 512, 513, 542, 563— 565- IV. 42, 47, 74, 218, 23.-,, 236, 237, 238, 2.52, 2,-/8, 300—309. 316—321, 341, 343, 352. his mistake in chronology, 352. 354. 370- — 447' 484, 490, 511, 542. INDEX. 539 Justina, mother of Valentinian II, ii. 63, 69. Justinian, ii. 461. Juvenal, iii. 314. Juvenis, what age it designates, iii. 527. K. KnivoTToita, used to denote baptism, i.69. Kennet, Dr. White, iv. 4, n. Kenwolf, a synod holden under him, ii. 395, 396. iii. 226, 346, 570- King, sir Peter, ' On the Primitive Church,' i. 114. iii. 545. iv. 424. his History of the Apostles' Creed, ii- 473- Kircherus, A., iii. 159. Kiss of peace, anciently given to all newly-baptized persons, i. 139. Knatchbull, sir Norton, his anno- tations on the New Testament, i. 39 — 43. wishes to restore dipping in baptism, ii. 409. iv. 33, 483. Koran, the, iii. 157. L. Labbe, an editor of the Councils, i. 3ii»3i7- Lactantius, iii. 193. iv. 308. Laeta, daughter of Albinus, i. 388. Lambarde, his ' Perambulation of Kent,' iv. 239, note. Lanfranc, ii. 237. • Langus, his translation of Justin Martyr, iv. 303. Langres, the synod of, ii. 393, 400. Languages, differ from each other so much, that scarcely an exact equivalent for an idea is found in any two, iii. 196. instances given, ibid. Laodicea, council of, ii. 384, 430. Lateran council, (A. D. 1139,) ii. 265. (A. D. 1215.) ibid. Latin Church, iv. 172. Laud, archbishop, his conference with Fisher, i. 288. ii. 223. 377. iv. 78, 186. Laurence, a martyr, ii. 389,395. Laurence, St., baptizes by affusion, iv. 160. Leger, J., his ' History of the Vaudois churches,' ii. 242, n. Leigh, E., his ' Critica Sacra,' iii. 322. Lent, one occa-sion of keeping it imraediatfly before Easter, i. 332. Leo I, pope, author of some pieces ascribed to St. Ambrose, i. 225, 316, 517. his works published by Quesnei, 495. ii. 228. Leo Modena, his history of the Jews, i. 7, 8. Leonilla, three sons of, ii. 123, Leti, G., his history, iii. 263. iv. 206. Libanius, was preceptor of Chrys- ostom, ii. 93, 94. his praise of his pupil, 95. Libertines, freethinkers, iii. 402. Lightfoot, Dr., i. 4, 9, 19, 21, 25, 28, 29, 44, 160, n. 184. iii. 370, 371, 376, 389, 45,5, 562. iv. 202, 222, 252. Limborch, P., his History of the Inquisition, ii. 239. iii. 324. iv. 212. Limhtis puerormn, a popish doctrine, i. 224, 497. ii. 208, 219. Lipsius, J., iii. 382. Liturgy of the Walloon churches, iv. 26. of the French church, iv. 26. English, iv. 168. a remark- able edition noted, ibid, revisal of, iv. 468. of Geneva, iv. 168, 170. Locke, John, his ' Paraphrase of St. Paul,' i. 345. ' On the human Understanding,' iii. 1 14, 257, 528. iv. 30. Lokman, his Arabian fables, iii. 310. Lollards, ii. 216, 306, 307. Lombard, Peter, ii. 207. iii. 433. Lucas Brugensis, iii. 178, 326. Lucas Tudensis, his writings against the Albigenses, ii. 267. Lucian, quoted, iii. 131, 320, 378, 380,381. Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, ii. 58. Lucifeiians, ii. 251, 254, 270, 271. Ludolphus, J., his lexicon, iii. 328. Luigerus, ii. 123. Luther, objects to conditional bap- tism, i. 320. rejects the Decretals, 324. ii. 221, 241, 266, 292. pro- tests against the excesses of the anabaptists, 293. iv. 361. Lutheran divines, o])inion of certain, on the faith of infants, i. 278. Lutherans, allow lay-baptism in certain cases, ii. 221. iii. 72. iv. ,480. Lycophron, quoted, hi. 99, 126. 540 INDEX. Lycurgus, iii.317. Lydius, Balthazar, his ' Waldensia,' ii. 298. Lyndewode's ' Constitutions,' ii. Lyonists, li. 239, 252, 254, 261, 270. Lysias, iii. 296. Lysis, his epistle quoted, iii. 135. Mabillon, ii. 235, 256. Macaire, or Macarius, an author produced by Mr. Stennet, i.523. ii. 42 Macedonians, an ancient sect, ii. 170. condemned by several councils, 463.46,-)- Macedonius, ii. 462, 463, 465. Magdeburg, the centuriators of, i. 140, 316. ii. 73, 232, 234, 268, 483. iv. 493,496. Magnus, a friend of Cyprian, ii. 387. St. Cyprian's letter to him, iii. 213, 214, 222, 224. Mahomet, i. 199. ii. 138, 146. Mahometans, iii. 156. their ab- lutions, 176, 177, 348. iv. 122, 141. Maimonides, quoted, i. 4, 6, 8, 10, 11,17, 19, 20, 30, 34. iii. 165, 166, 344. 345. 347^366, 388, 409—412, 505, 560. iv. 126, 128, 129, 135, 256, 364. Maldonatup, ii. 479. Malebranche, his singular opinion about original sin in infants, i. 278. Malt, a Spanish Jesuit, ii. 374. Man, ought to have been rendered 'any person,' in John iii. 5. — iii. 436. iv.276. Manichees, i. 241, 244, 247, 501. St. Augustine was one, ii. 120. they condenm all baptism, 121. are opposed in Pelagins' creed, i. 441, n. 446 — 473. their tenets, especially on baptism, ii. 138, 244, 24.!^, 249, 253, 256, 261, 263, 264, 268. their oi)inion on Christ's flesh, 336. some sectaries who preceded the Waldenses, held their opinions, 2fiS, 271. iv. 496. Marcellinus, a Carthaginian noble- man, i. 359, 36.-J— 367. Marcellus, a bishop at the council of Nice, ii. 470. Marcellus, governor of Judfra, iv. 356- Marc ion, i. 501. iii. 255. his doctrine on baptism, ii. 142, 335, 336. Marcionists, i. 312, 319, 505, 506, 508. ii. 142, 143. 336. Marius Mercator, i. 114, 199, n. 378, 414, 476, 47«, 517. ii. 487. Marlborough, the duke of, the word- ing of his patent, iii. 251. Maronites, ii. 281. baj)tize infants, 283. and give them the eucharist, ibid. 491. Marriage, a peculiar form used by some among the English anti- paedobaptists, ii. 354. Marshall, Steven, i. 140, 155, 511. ii. 116, 322, 559, iii. 44. Martial, iv. 78. Martyr, P., ii. 545. Martyrs dyingunbaptized,ii. 189, 1 90. Martyrology, Dutch, a work often cited by Danvers, ii. 45, 131, 216, 2.34.295. Mary, the Virgin, a text of St. Austin concerning her, i. 405. various readings of it, 406. the modern papists' opinion con- cerning her holiness, 405. that of the ancient fathers, ibid, her being without sin, iii. 26. Masson, Dom. ii. 263. Madr]Tev(o means to disciple, or ?nake disciples, i. 70. ii. 514, &c. what its real meaning is, iii. 265, 274, &c. authorities cited, 275, &c. etymology, 279 — 282. classic au- thors, 293, &c. it cannot signify to make disciples, 306. what is the true meaning of fiadrjTijs, ^11. modern critics cited, 322, &c. its sense argued from the ancient and modern versions of scripture, 328, &c. from the ?\ithers, 331, &c. — 485. — 5,',7. Dr. Wall's interpreta- tion of both words defended against Mr. Gale's objections, iv. 209, &c. further illustrations, 213, &c. Matthew, John, an anabaptist lead- er, ii. 300. Ma.xentius, Joannes, i. 519. Maximus, the Cynic, ii. 79. Maximus, a bishop of Jerusalem, "•.73- Maximus, an usurper, sets up for emperor, ii. 63. attacks Valen- linian, 64. is slain, ibid. Mechilta. a rabbi, cited by Selden, i. T I. INDEX. 541 Mede, Joseph, ii. 407. Mehrning, Jacob, ii. 131, 295. Melancthon, P., ii. 545. Melania, i. 379, 452. Meletius, ii. 76, 92, 93, loi, 165. Menander, i. 501, 503, 516. Mengrelia, or Circassia, ii. 282, 285, &c. the ignorance and neglect of the people in religious matters, 288, &c. Menno, of Friezland, an antipae- dobaptist, founder of the Men- nonites, or Minnists, ii. 300, 501. Mentz, the church of, ii. 395. Mercator. See Marius. Messalians, i. 234. their tenets, espe- cially on baptism, ii. 139. Middle state, between heaven and hell ; notions of it, i. 224. ii. 344, &c. for infants and others dying unbaptized, 197, 199, 201. Milevis, council of (A. D. 416.), i. 424. ii. 484. iv. 494. Milk and honey given to newly- baptized persons, ii. 426,428, 434, 488. iii. 421, 422. Milk and wme. given to the newly- baptized, ii. 488. Milton quoted, iii. 107. Minchas, a rabbi, iii. 344. Minnists, the Dutch, ii. 29, 253, 301 . their present state, opinions, differences, &c. 302, &c. ii. 335. iv. 24,85, 147, 153, 172. Miraculum, what the word properly signifies, ii. 175. Misnah, the Jewish, quoted, i. 15, 208. iii. 344, 346, 347. iv. 218, 244, 248. Mnason, how a disciple, iv. 217. Monica, St. Augustine's mother, ii. 121. Monk's habit, worn by religious in the time of St. Jerome, ii. 104. Monnulus, bishop of Girba, iii. 203. Montanism, iv. 408. Montanists, i. 87, 99. put much faith in dreams, 490. Tertullian was one, 491. Montanus, i. 87. More, sir Thomas, his ' Dialogues,' iv. 239, n. Morley, bp. George, his refusal to join French presbyterian congre- gation, iii. 72, and n. iv. 96. Moschus quoted, iii. 124. Moses Mikotsi, a rabbi cited by Selden, i. 8, 11. Muggletonians, an English sect, ii. 191, and n. iv. 136. Munzer, Thomas, a German ana- baptist, ii. 292, 293. Muscovites, their practice as to baptism, ii. 142, 280, 414, &c. 491. Muscovy, iv. 47, 118. Musculus, W., ii. 400. N. Nachmanides, a rabbi cited by Selden, i. 11. Nauclerus, Jo., his * Chronicon,' ii. 268. iii. 370. Nazaratus, a master of Pythagoras, iii. 300. iv. 229. Nazarenes, i. 199. Nazarius, ii. 123. Nectarius, is chosen bishop before he is baptized, ii. 90. nothing known of his parents, 91. so that the argument of the antipaedo- baptists fails, ibid. 97. Negro's Advocate, a book so called, i. 523- Nemesianus, an African bishop, iv. 275- Neocaesarea, council of, i. 150. ii. 108. 386. iii. 43, 44, 220. iv. 7, 59, 80, 159, 485, 495. Nestorianism, ii. 279, 281. Nestorius, is joined by Cselestius and his party, i. 415, 438. one 01 his errors, 437, n. ii. 475. Neubrigensis, Gulielmus, his His- toria Anglicana, ii. 264. Nicander, the scholiast on, iii. 126. Nice, council of, i. 250. ii. 108, 150, 164, 450. iv. 46. Nicene Fathers, abused, ii. 170. Nicephorus, his account of Con- stantine's baptism, ii. 53. Nicetas, his comment on Gregory Nazianzen, i. 164. Nicholson, bishop, his letter on the font at Bridekirk, i. 86. ii. 44. iii. 205, 309. Nicodemus, our Saviour's discourse with him, iii. 507, 510. Nicolaitans, i. 501. NiTTrrjp, its usual signification, iv. 127. Nizzachon, a Hebrew book, iii. 349, 350, 352- Noetus, ii. 162. 54-2 I N 1) E X. Nonjurors, no friends to the cluinh, iii. lo. many of the Knf^Hsh clerjry charged by Mr. (iale with Ijeing so, 53, 66. Nonnus, iv. 349. Noris, cardinal Henry, quotes the disputed canon of the council of Carthage (A. 1). 418), i. 494. Novatian, ii. 385, 386, 433, 450. the first person baptized by sprink- ling, iii. 319, 22i,5,f,5. iv.159, 439. Novatians. relagius' creed is oj)- posed to them, i. 441 — 467. their ojjinions on baptism, ii. 129. did not reject infant-ba])tism, 132. ever accounted schismatics, 543. — iv. 486,490,491. Novatus, iv. 159, 160. Nye, Stephen, ii. 174, n. O. Observator, a work (by R. L'Es- trange?), iv. 166. 'O^oXoyia, the baptismal profession, iii. 46. Optatus Milevitanus, quoted, i. 160, 258. Oracle portending the overthrow of Christianit)', i. 314. Orange, the council of, ii. 432. Orders, who were anciently to be admitted to, i. 336. Ordibarians, ii. 252, 254. Origen, i. 1^4, 63. a Platonist, 87. quoted, 103 — 125. is accused of Pelagianisra, 1 10. St. Jerome's opinion of him, 88. which of his works are authentic, 106, 107. attests infant-baptism, 1 18. trans- lations of his works by St. Jerome and Rufinus, 107, 108, 112, 119, 122. his i)arents were Christians, 124. his father a martyr, ibid. Jerome's version of his book Trtpl (tpxiov, 343. his opinion on infants' souls, 360 — 387. speaks of infant- baptism, ii. 21. a passage from him on the word baptize, t,-^i. quoted, 334, 337, 347. his opinion on Christ's soul, 338. debate whether his works should be received or condemned, 339. apo- logies for him, ibid. — 436. 446. 458. 496. 505. iii. 192, 194, 294, 295' 296, 302, 331, 398, 406, 454, 469, 486, 496, 497, 514, 516, 52''>. 539' 544' &C-— 5.^4.. '■/»7- 'v- 41. 43' 53— .5^. ^2. 120. 148. 229, 230, 258, 259, 261, 262, 266,304, 3 '3. .357. 371.379' .3«o.397' 402, 407,408,417,418,422,423. why some things are found only in the Latin version of his w orks, 424, 42.-,, 426—436,438, 443, 44,5, 448, r,OI. Original sin, in the jirimitive times was judged to affect all Adam's descendants, i. 64. Irenirus' opin- ion, 71. Origen's, 110. that of the Pelagians, 133, 159, 282. infants acknowledged to lie under it, 235. St. Austin's opinion, 261, &c. his difference with Pelagius on the subject, 381, &c. the opinions of the more ancient Fathers, 416. of St. Jerome, in opposition to that of Pelagius, 422. of late years the Jesuits have undermined the doc- trine; and the court of Rome winks at it, 460. is denied by those inclined to Socinianism, ii. 18. what kind of death was thought by the ancients to have been brought on mankind by it, 198. Mr. Gale's remarks on this subject examined by Dr. Wall, iv. 301, &c. Orosius, a scholar of St. Austin, comes to Jerusalem and accuses Pelagius, i. 407. writes his ' Apo- ' logetic,' 409, 432, 517. his ac- count of Theodosius, ii. 71. Ortlibenses, ii. 252, 254. Osiander, his ' Epitome,' ii. 73, 130. Osorius, Hieronymus, ii. 284. Ottius, J. H., his History of Ana- ])aptists, ii. 297, 312. Ovid, iii. 125, 127. P. P., E., antipaedobaptist preacher, ii. 377- Pacianus, ii. 199. Pagi, A., ii.8i. iv. 12, 337. liaKiyyeveijia, iv. 37^5 372- Palladius, his life of Chrysostom, ii. 91, 92. Pamelius, an editor of Tertullian, i. 98. iii. 536. iv. 411. Pamphilus, his defence of Origen, ii- 339. 4.-j8. Pana^tius the philosopher, iii. 321. Pancratius, ii. 123. Papebrochius. D., compiler of the Acta Sanctorum, ii. 79, 81, 83. iv. 12. INDEX. 543 Papists have earnestly laboured to embroil protestants \vith each other on the question of infant- baptism, ii. 33, 36, 40. object to protestants the bad character of Henry VIII, 59. their opinions of unbaptized infants, 217. called all protestants anabaptists, 299, 311. — iv. 182, 200, 208, 384, 473, 512. Paraeus, ii. 226. Parvulus, to what age it reaches, iii. 527- Paterines, ii. 239, 252, 253. Patripassians, ii. 163. Patritius, father of St. Austin, ii. 116, 120, &c. Paul, St., his meaning of the word holy in i Cor. vii. 14, i. i8r, 346, 385,386. ii. 1 18,230, 520. iv. 36 — 38, 178, 414, 417, 503, 504. what he meant by the ' falling away' in 2 Thess. ii. iv. 450. Paul Sarpi, father, ii. 210. Paulianists, i. 195, 250. ii. 145, 170, Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, ii. loi, 102. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, i. 182, 183. his testimony, 336, &c. ii. 43, 497. iv. 62, 415. Paulinus, the deacon, i. 112. his life of St. Ambrose, 346. ii. 98, ■ 99, 100. suspected of being a forgery, 99. he challenges Pela- gius, 112, 357, 388, 517. Paulus Samosatenus, i. 192, 198. Pearson, bishop, his ' Annales Pau- lini,' i. 58, 62, 80. ii. 459, 471, 474, 483- iv- 334, 335, 33^, 346, 406, 428. Pelagian bishops (eighteen) send a letter to the bishop of Thessalo- nica, i. 444, n. 445, n. 472. Pelagian controversy, i. 102, 238. Pelagian heresy, a short account of its rise, &c. i. 348, &c. only one account of it (M. Le Clerc's) in Enghsh, 350. Pelagianism has been accounted heretical doctrine in all ages and all churches, 372. in the Kast it was called the Calestian heresy, 455 . is fa^'oured by the court of Rome at present, 460, 461. Mr. Gale asserts that it is falsely charged on the antipse- dobaptists, iii. 58. Pelagians. The sect began (A. D. 410), i. 241, 348. denied original 6in> ^2,2,' 349' Z^'^^ 381, &c. prac- tised infant-baptism, 133, 159, 349, 366. asserted actual sin in infants, 282, 366. object to cer- tain doctrines of catholics, 301. held a middle state, between hea- ven and hell, 360. asserted that unbaptized children might be saved, but should not come to the kingdom of heaven, 360, 429. assert the redemption of baptized infants, 367. exalt man's free-will, 367. their opinion concerning the rich man, 396. concerning sweai'- ing, 400. mistranslate St. Chrys- ostom, 416,417. are much press- ed with the argument from in- fant-baptism, 465. their opinions declared heretical in England, ii. 309. cast odium on the doctrine of original sin, 201. — 227, 484, 485,499. iii. 23. iv. 31,174,312, 486, 494, 495, 497, 498, 499. Pelagius, author of the heresy, i. 102, 103, 182, 183, some account of him, 348, 353. ii. 129. his confession of faith, i. 352. none of his works (though a Briton) have been translated into English, 353, 432. called Pelacjius Brito, by way of distinction, 355. wrote some learned works before he adopted his new opinions, ibid, denied original sin, ii. 313. de- nied God's grace, i. 373, 376. spoke reservedly on the point, 376. persuades pope Zosimus to befriend him, 377. St. Austin's controversy with him, 355 — 468. his ' Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles,' 387. his book 'of the Abilities of Nature,' 403. lived much at Jerusalem, but wrote in the Latin tongue, 407, 409. is arraigned at Jerusalem, 408. and at Diospolis, 409. recants certain opinions, 410, 452. writes to In- nocent, bishop of Rome, and sends his hibellus fidei, or Creed, which (Innocent being dead) is deliver- ed to his successor Zosimus, 430, 446. this Creed supposed by some to be the same as Jerome's Explanatio symholi, 431. given at length, 433 — 446. the letter is .544 INDEX. lost, except some fragments pre- served by St. Austin, 447. he con- fesses that he never heard any one deny baptism to infants, 450, 466, 475. at lenfrth owns that they are baptized for remission of sins, 4f,2. maintains that his doctrines are not heretical, 464. Jolin Philpot erroneously asserts that he denied infant-baptism, ii. 312, 313. thinks infants will be in the ' middle state,' i. 225. 234, 238. See ii. 497. iii. 25, 47. iv. 83, 174, 415, 418, 448, 485, 494, 498. Pelopidas, iii. 298. Pericles, iii. 4^15 . Perionius, his translation of Justin Martyr, iv. 303. Perizonius, iii. 280. Perkins, ii. 226. Perpetua, a martyr, her case dis- cussed between Vincentius Vic- tor and St. Austin, i. 487, &c. Bishop Fell's edition of her mar- tyrdom, 489. Perrin, J. P., his history of the "NValdenses, ii. 240, 242, 265. Perron, cardinal, i. 313. his ' Reply to Kin^ James,' ii. 32, 53, 378. Petavius, D., i. 313, 373. ii. 53, 70, 148, 149, 150, 174. iii. 142, 204, 220, 227, 377, 382, 383, 489, 490. iv. 119, 158, 324—328, 330. Peter, St., cited as a strong witness against infant-baptism, by Mr. Gale, iii. 438. Peter Bruis, ii. 248. accused of de- nying infant-baptism, 256. burnt, 2f,7. his opinions, 259, 262, his history, 273, &c. Petrobrusians, a sect of the i2t]i century, i. 514. ii. 17, 239. ac- cused of various errors, especially the denial of infant-baptism, 256, &c. 270. charged with Manichean principles, 261, &c. 266. 272. it is probable that they did reject infant-baptism, 273. they were the first who taught that the Lord's supper ought not to be continued, ibid, whence their name, 2.-,6, 278, 294. reject psalm- singing, 353. e.xtol tlie Lord's Prayer, 3,-,4. — 007. ,569. iv. 172. 499. Petrus Blesensis, ii. 212. Petrus Cluniacensis, i. 331. ii. 256, 262, 270, 274, 275, 278, 353. 569. Phavorinus, liis le.\icon, iii. loS, 118. iv. 117. Phereponus, John, a name assumed by M. Le Clerc, ii. 173. Phiiastrius, i. 509, 514. Philip, St., his baptism of the eu- nuch, iii. 200, 338. Philo Judgeus, iii. 392, 514, 527. iv. 245, 2r,-j. Philoponus, J., the first tritheist, ii. 166. Philpot, John, his letter on baptism, "• 312, 313- Phlegon, iii. 497, 498, 565. iv. 357, 358- . . Phoebadius, i. 437, n. Photinians, i. 188, 195. iii. 35. Photinus, i. 192, 199, 436. ii. 146, 455. his belief, 4-,9. iii. 35. ^coTia-fMos, used to denote baptism, i. 69. 348. 'tcoTicrrrjpioi', iv. 161. - Plato, his opinion concerning in- fants' souls, i. 360. iii. iio. 133. 297, 2q8. 318, 319, 4S5. Pliny, ii. 435. iii. iiH, 151. INDEX. 545 Plunge, its etymology from ifKvva, iii. ii8. Plutarch, iii. lOO. io6, 107, 109, 130, 131. 135. 283, 293, 296, 298, 317, 486. Pococke, Dr. Edward, ii. 329. iii. 156, 165— 170, 172, 175, 177, 178, 412. IV. 126, 128— 131, 135, 136, Poland, antipsedobaptists in, ii. 380. Politian, his version of Callimachus, iii. 126, 127. Pollux, J., his lexicon cited, iii. 104, 108, 135. Polycarp, i. 81. ii. 171, 347. iii. 526. iv. 301, 322, 397, 406, 484. Polycrates, a bishop of Ephesus, iii. 53I' 532- iv. 405, 406. Polygamy, an argument against, i. 154- Pontius, ii. 123. Poole, M., his Synopsis, iv. 137, 139, 140, 222, 487. Porphyrins, his slander of Origen, i. 124. iv. 251. Possevinus, ii. 74, 143. Possidius, i. 518. his hfe of St. Austin, ii. 116, 117. Pouring, or Perfusion, the church of England allows it, iv. 166. this does not justify mere sprinkling a few drops of water, 114. Dr. Wall allows perfusion to be suf- ficient, but prefers dipping, 162, 459. further remarks, 167, &c. 458, &c. it was introduced by the followers of Calvin, 1 70. Praedestinarians, the followers of St. Austin so called, i. 479. the church of Rome anciently was zealous for this side, 480. that of France the contrary, ibid, mo- dern, ii. 225, 239. Praedestination, whether the more ancient Fathers agreed with St. Austin respecting it, i. 416. Car- dinal Sfondrata's book on the subject, i. 460. the church of Rome anciently maintained the opinion, 460, 480. Prateolus, Gabriel, his work on he- retics, iv. 491. Praxeas, TertuUian's writings a- gainst him, ii. 151, 152, 153, 162. Prayer, Book of Common, of Ed- WALL, vor.. IV. ward VI., ii. 397, 405. review of it, A. D. 1661, 404. Prayers for the dead, advised by Vincentius Victor, i. 491. an an- cient custom relating to the dead, ibid. Prajdius, a bishop of Jerusalem, i. 457- Preachers ought to subscribe Arti- cles of ReUgion, in order to detect disguised papists, &c., ii. 380. Prejudices arising in illiterate per- sons, ii. 519. Presbyterians, opinion of the an- cients respecting private baptism, i. 303. of the moderns, 304, 305. iii. 72. iv. 170, 173. their bap- tism, 440. their tenets, 474. they separate from the church of Eng- land, 475. they were formerly called Puritans, 480. Pretender, the, many of the English clergy charged by Mr. Gale with favouring him, iii. 53. Prideaux, Dr., his Connexion of History, i. 15. iv. 244. Priorius, an editor of Tertullian, iii. ?5o, 378- Priscillianists, are opposed in Pela- gius' creed, i. 441, n. iv. 496. Private baptism in houses, unknown to St. Austin, i. 302. its abuse very great at the present day, ibid, the church of England's in- jimction concerning it, 303. pres- byterians formerly objected to it, ii. 183. but at present use it al- most exclusively, i. 303—305. and will so baptize the children of churchmen, when their own clergyman has refused it, ibid, was first granted as a privilege to royal persons alone, ibid. Dr. Wall's opinion of it, ii. 118. iv. 170. his objections to it, 463, &c. difficulties attending it, 467, 468. bishop Compton, 468. Prodicus, iii. 300, 317. Professions made at baptism, ii. 435, 437' 439- two professions made by adults, 476. one for infants, 477. See Creed. Proselytes, Jewish, were baptized as well as circumcised, i. 4, 26. Mr. Gale denies this, iii. 401. their infant children also were baptized, i. 14, 26. if a woman N n )46 INDEX. f^ieat with child be baptized, her infant needs not baptism, i6o. ' j)roselytes of the gate,' 30. Prosper, author of some pieces as- cribed to St. Ambrose, i. 225. quoted, 378, 415, 4/9. 49.5- his works against Pelagianism, 516. ii. 226, 228. Protestants designedly embroiled with each other by the papists, ii. 33, 36, 40. their opinion of the salvabihty of persons dying unbaptized, 1S2. as to infants, 219, &c. whether a protestant may join in a popish service, 545- Prussia, the king of, prohibits M. Le Clerc's writings, ii. 175. Psahn-singing, rejected by many English antipaedobaptists, ii. 353. Psychici, the cathoUc Christians so called by TertuUian, i. 86. Ptolemy Philadelphus, iv. 352. Puljlicani (or Popehcani), some of the Waldenses, ii. 264, 270. Puer, what age it designates, iii. .527- Purchas, his Pilgrims, ii. 417. Puritans, or Cathari, ii. 239, 245, 249, 252, 253. in queen Eliza- beth's'reign, 372, 534, 561. Pythagoras, iii. 296, 300. Qusestiones ad Antiochum, ascribed to Athanasius, i. 390, 511, 533. Qurestiones ad Orthodoxos, a work ascribed to Justin Martyr, i. 66, 531- i^'- 3I3- Quakers, their opinions on the sub- ject of baptism, i. 26, 137. ii. 188, 217, 3-,5. disputes with the anti- psedobaptists, 362. their enthu- siasm, 363. they prevail most in England, ibid, said to have been devised by the Jesuits, ibid, their tenets, 364. ii. 135. 249, 251, 253, 255. 263, 273, 299, 302, 325, 337. iii. 209, 402, 472. iv. 19, 1.36, ir,7> 17^' 439' 473' 474- how they elude the eucharist as set forth in Scripture, ii. 522. refuse baptism, 547. some would fain deny them to be Christians, 570. Quesnell, P., i. 330. his edition of the Canons, 494, 495, n. Quintilla, a jireacher on baptism, ii. 13S. Quirinius, governor of Judaea, his census, iv. 341, &c. R. Rabbins, their estimation in Mr. Gale's eyes, iii. 146, »66, 353, 363. their character, 365 — 371, 413. Sr^^- "'• "29, 136, T37, 250, 2r)2. . .. Radulphus Ardensis, ii. 263. Re])aptizing, ancient disputes in the church on this point, ii. 144, 145. Reyenernte, how Cyprian under- stood it, iii. 18. for baptized, iv. 503- Regeneration. Baptism often sig- nified by this term, both among the Jews and early Christians, i. 30, 32, 69, 170. St. Paul's use of the word in this sense, 32, 70. the Christians of the first four centuries always denoted baptism by it, 70, 73, 77, 170. the term ap])lied to the xcorhL the body, the fiesh, &c., 75. spoken of by Origen, 122. by St. Austin, 277, &c. used as synonymous with baptism by St. Augustine, ii. 187. and by the church of England, ibid. Baptism so called by the Jews, 495. also by the heathens, ibid, understood in this sense by the ancient Christians, ibid. 522 meaning of the word altered in modern times, ibid, in the sense of baptism? iii. 482, 504, 566. its occurrence in Scripture? 505, &c. 513. Mr. Bernard's views and reasoning on the meaning of it, iv. 15 — 21. Mr. Gale's argu- ments examined, 362, &c. diflfer- ence between regeneration and repentance, 369. Reinerius, his writings against the Waldenses, ii. 252, 261, 263, 268, 269. 271, 336. Reland, A., iii. 157. Remonstrants, of Dort, i. 372, 380. their opinion on infant-baptism, ii. 40, 226. a confession of two ministers, 30,",. Ricaut. See Rycaiit. Rigaltius, N., an editor of Tertul- lian, i. 98, 137. ii. 194. his opin- ion on infant-baptism, 18. some notice of his edition of Cyprian, ibid. note, quotes TertuUian, 19. bishop Fell's judgment of him. INDEX. 547 20. his want of fairness, ibid. 21. iii. 30, 201, 219, 276, 325, 382, 536. iv. 411. Rivetus, A., i. 155. ii. 32, 74, 378. iii. 44. Rochelle, the siege of, iii. 262. iv. 205. Rochester, an ancient register be- longing to the see of, ii. 373. de- tected some designs of the Jesuits, and was stolen away in the time of king James II., 375. It has never been recovered, iv. 514. Rogers, Rev. Daniel, wishes to re- vive dipping, ii. 408, 410. Rome, a council at, ii. 466. account of it from the Talmud, iii. 362. church of. See Chwch, Papists. Romilius, a Roman consul, iii, 465. Roque, M. de la, ii. 379. Rotterdam, church of, iv. ()6. Rufinus, i. 55. a translator of Ori- gen, 107. the freedoms taken by him, 108, 118. an enemy to the doctrine of original sin, 112. call- ed a Syrian, and why, 114. his exposition of the Apostles' Creed, 441, n. his account of Gregory Nazianzen, ii. 80, 84, 285, 425, 426. his comment on the Creed, 467, 469. iii. 500, 501, 547, 551— 5,^4, 567. iv. 425—436. Runcarians, ii. 251, 252, 270, 271. Hupertus, a writer of the twelfth century, ii. 394. Russen, David, his ' Fundamentals without a Foundation,' i. 41, n. 42, ii. 354. his borrowing from Ware's ' Foxes and Firebrands,' 372. he alludes to the register of Rochester, 375, quoted, 417. iii. 56. iv. 23, 200. Rycaut, sir P., his History, ii. 280, 281, 283, 286, 290, 491. S. Sabseans, their practice as to bap- tism, ii. 143. Sabbatarians, some English anti- psedobaptists are such, ii. 355. Sabellians, ii. 155, 156, 162. Sabellius, ii. 162, 164. Sabinus, a Macedonian, ii. 170. Sacheverell, Dr., his sermon quoted, iii. 75, note. Sadoc, a Pharisee, iv. 347. Saffold, a London empiric, ii. 378. Saints, its meaning m ancient times, iv. 505, why left oft', ibid, diffi- culty of restoring it, 506. Salmasius, his letter to Justus Pa- cius quoted, ii. 29, 30, 483. Samaritans, modern, their daily ab- lutions, iii. 175. Sanctification, used to denote bap- tism, i. 139, 140, 181, 242, 243, 342. the scripture i Cor. vii. 14. to be so interpreted, 181. so the Jews interpreted the word in the Old Testament, 184. so all the ancient Christians, 346. Sanctius, his ' Minerva,' iii. 280. Sanhedrim, Jewish, its character, iii. . 367-. Sardinia, ' Epistola Episcoporum in Sardinia exulum,' i. 519. Saturninus, governor of Judaea, iv. 341, &c., 354. Saturninus, a heretic, i. 501. Saville, sir H., his edition of Chrys- ostom, i. 226. Savoy conference, iv. 468. Scaliger, J., his opinion on baptizing for the dead, i. 506. — iii. 99, 127, 369,445,500,550. iv.352. roughly handled by Petavius, 330, 336. his ' Scaligerana,' 361 . Schelstratius, E., i. 313. Schism, different opinions of its guilt holden by the ancients and the moderns, i. 150. a thing too general : its guilt, ii. 303. a dis- suasive from it, 524, &c. its sin- fulness urged by our Saviour and by the apostles, 525. what errors justify separation, 528. some per- sons think best to set up differ- ent churches, 531. its sad extent bothinEngland and Holland,537. cannot be justified from mere dif- ference of church ceremonies, 537 — 540. who are schismatics, 542, 543. a case argued, 543—545- whether the antipaedobaptists are guilty of schism, 547. what points are fundamental articles of faith, ibid, the particular age of receiv- ing baptism not fundamental, 548, 555. how parties who differ on such points ought to settle the difference, 555. men ought not to divide for mere mistaken opin- ions, 557. the anlii)a^dobaptists ought not to forsake the commu- nion of the church of England, 548 INDEX. 558. Bchistn so common in Eng- land, that it is very hard to re- pent of it, 561. common in Hol- land, ihid. schismatics tolerated among Christian nations, yet not guiltless in the sight of God, 562. Christians of Africa and Europe differ as to the validity of baptism given by schismatics, 571. Dr. Wall's remarks on this subject censured by Mr. Gale, iii. 59, &c. his definition of schism, 60. those are truly schismatics, who give just cause for separation, 60, 61, 62. its guilt. It ought to be preached against and wTitten a- gainst, iv. 26. its recent spread in England, 27, 47, 71, 83, 93. Mr. Gale's exceptions to Dr. Wall's remarks considered, 88, Sec. more prevalent in England (and Holland) than in any other country, iv. 472. See Separation. Scoti and Scotia refer to Ireland, i-. 3.^)4, 355- Scripture, a rule in reUgious con- troversies, iii. 242, 243, 244. its authority acknowledged, 248. Scudamore, lord, iii. 73. Seal-ring, Clemens Ale.xandrinus recommends an impress for one, i. 84. Sebastian, C, ii. 395. Secundus, the father of Chrysostom, ii. 92. Selden, John, i. 4, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 38. iii. 388. iv. 2.^6. Seleucians, an ancient sect, ii. 141. Semipelagians, quote St. Austin as in their favour, i. 246, 247. M. Le Clerc reckons St. Jerome to be one, 373. admit original sin in infants, 479. — ii. 228. Senior, what age it designates, iii. , 527- . Separation, a dissuasive from it on account of religious differences, ii. 524. what errors overthrow the foimdation of Christian faith, 527. unity to be dihgently studied, 530. many separate without rea- son, 531. the evil of this, 532. Christ ought not to be divided, 533, f,37. ditference of opinion no sufficient ground for separation, 533. difference in rites and cere- monies no sufficient ground, -,36. the primitive Christians thought ^o. 537. a case whether or not a man ought to separate, 543, 544, 545. the only cases in which scrij)ture justifies separation, 546. good men wish all Christians to be united, iv. 123. pride leads people to it, 472. very prevalent in England, ibid, the guilt of it, 477, 489. See Schism. Serira Gaon, a rabbi, iii. 344. Sfondrata, cardinal, his book on original sin, i. 460. some account of it and other pieces to which it gave rise, ibid. n. Shem Tob, rabbi, iii. 365. Siccius Dentatus, a Roman general, iii. 465. Simeon Metaphrastes, ii. 92. Simeon, rabbi, iii. ^66. Simon Magus, i. r,oo. iv. 379. Simplicianus, bishop of Milan, i. 309. baptizes St. Ambrose, ii. 98. Simplicius Yerinus (i. e. Salmasius), his letter to Justus Pacius quoted, ii. 29, 30. Siricius, pope, i. 309. his decretals, .321— 333- iii- 24-. Sirmondus, his publications, i. 518. Siscidenses, ii. 252, 254, 261. Sleep of the soul, the opinion of some modern antipaedobaptists on the point, i. 298. opinions of va- rious persons and })arties on it, ii. 344, &c. viz. Calvin's, 344. that of the Dutch Minnists, ibid, the German antipaedobaptists, ib. the English antipsedobaptists, ib. that of the primitive Christians, ibid. 347. of the English protest- ants at the reformation, 349. in Q. Elizabeth's reign, ibid, some antipsedobaptists deny it, 353. — iv. 88. Sleidan, J., ii. 299, 311. Sna])e, Dr. A., his writings against bishop Hoadly, iv. 297, n. Socinians, some would now abolish baptism in Christian nations, i. 25. have lately changed their doctrine, 192. Ebion and Cerin- thus were the first, 196. their opin- ion of the atonement, 203. at- tempt to discredit the Fathers, ii. 146, 147, 148, 167. their tracts, 167, n. 334. many of them among the English antipupdobaptists, INDEX. 549 333. — 453. expelled from Poland, 304. enter Holland, and join the Minnists, ibid, these were anti- psedobaptists, ibid, but the first Dutch Socinians did not abso- lutely refuse infant-baptism, 305. all in Poland called anabaptists, 382. needlessly lashed by Dr. Wall, iii. 26. they are not so despicable as he thinks, 27. Mr. Gale's anger at the charge of there being some among the an- tipsedobaptists, 57. he asserts that some very rank ones are found in the church of England, 211. See ii. 251. iii. 37, 402, 403. iv. 28, 46, 47, 48, 85, 87, 88, 196, 265, 473» 476- Socinians, modern English, fancy that Pelagius quite agrees with them, i. 432. their mean opinion of Jesus Christ, ii. 459. some individuals among the English antipaedobaptists, 359. iii. 389. they rail and scoff at the most awful truths, ii. 361. pamphlet, on Creeds, ii. 360. work burned by a Dutch printer, i. 351. Socinus, quoted, i. 26, 380, 381. ii. 381. iv. 30. the reason why he wished to abolish baptism, ii. 333. Socrates, the historian, i. 187, 219. ii. 62, 71, 72, 73, 92, 146, 163, 164, 165, 170, 285, 469. iv. 492. Socrates, the philosopher, iii. 116, 297, 298, 486. Socrates Scholasticus, iii. 295. Solomon, a Jewish rabbi, quoted, i. 12. iii. 344, 345. Sophocles, quoted, iii. 99. Soto, D. a, ii. 407. Sozomenus the historian, ii. 60. 73, 92, 95, 96, 164, 335, 418, 457. Spanheim, his notes on CaUima- chus, iii. 126, 127. Spanish church, uses one immer- sion, ii. 424. Spelman, sir Henry, ii. 395. Spencer, his notes on Origen, iv. 304- ' Spirits in prison.' Many of the oldest Christians conceived that the gospel and baptism were com- municated to the patriarchs in their separate state, i. 77. Spondanus, i. 313. iv. 325. Sponsors, were required by the Jews as well as Christians, i. 35. more ancient than the antipsedobaptists allow, TOO, 273. ii. 437. Sprinkling, or aspersion, when first used, iii. 207. why, 208. St. Cy- prian its earliest advocate, 207, 212. iv. 156. whether used with- in two hundred and fifty years after Christ, iii. 218. Novatian the first instance, 219. the church never justified it from scriptvxre or antiquity, 226, 227. why do the clergy of England still continue it ? 227, 228, 229, 230. it may perhaps be allowed in certain cases, but cannot be urged as an ordinance of Christ, 255. Dr. Wall's remarks on Mr. Gale on this point, iv. 105, &c. his own opinion of it, especially of such ministers as s])rinkle as little water as possible, 114. no very early quotations in favour of it, and why, 158. bishop Burnet'a remark on it, 162, 167. Dr. Wall's own suggestions, 167 — 173. was first introduced by the presbyte- rians, 170, 433. further remarks, 458, &c. Stennet, Mr, Joseph, his 'Answer to Russen,' i. 41, 42, 523. ii. 22, 31. cites an author named Ma- caire, 42. thinks Constantine was bom of Christian parents, 54. his interpretation of the text John iii. 5, 181. asserts that some de- nied infant-baptism in the year 1025. 262,263. quoted, 324, 327, 333' 352, 354, 378, 509, 551. vindicates the antipaedobaptists from an uncharitable opinion, 569. is said to give numerous instances of j3a7rrt(r/x6s signifying immersion only, iii. 142. cited, 28, 206, 246, 407. iv. 65, n. Dr. Wall's handsome remarks on him, 68, 71, 77, 99, 119, 164. an ac- count of a personal interview and conference with him, 197, 199, 200, 201, 203. — 266, 478, 479, 492. Stephanus, H., his Thesaurus, iii. 108, 118, 119, 139, 230, 292, 294, 314, 322. iv. 119, 210, n. 230. Stephanus, Rob., iii. 178. 550 INDEX. Stephen, pope, ii. 571. iv. 441, 442, 481. Stesimbrotus, an historian, iii. 299. Stillingfleet, bishop, i. i86, 192, 202, 206, 207, 227. restores a passage of St. Austin, 287. ii. 149, 151, 162, 168, 169, 175, 176, 230, 368, 371. detects the Jesuits, 373, 529, 564. iv. 15, 21, 22, 103. Stoics, iii. 486, Stokes, Joseph, his ' Survey of In- fant-Baptism,' iv. 247. his 'Com- passionate Plea,' il)i(l. n. 248, 249, 265, 266, 279, 282, 295. his de- scription of some antipsedobap- tists, 315, 362, 401, 483, n. Storck, Nicholas, a German ana- baptist, ii. 292, 295. Stoup, M., a Dutch writer, ii. 302. Stow, J., his History of England, iv. 239, n. Strabo, quoted, iii. 129, 157, 378, 387- Strabo, Walafrid, ii. 390, 394. Strato, of Lampsacus, iii. 316, 318. Subscription to doctrines. Those churches the best, which require the fewest, ii. 534. Suetonius, iii. 382. iv. 338. Suicerus, ii. 483. Suidas, his lexicon, ii. 78, 84. iii. 118, 119. iv. 12, 117. Sulpitius Severus, i. 336. Symmachus, the father of St. Am- brose, ii. 100. Synod of Aix (A. D. 1585), ii. 394. of St. Alban's, in Britain, ( A. D. 429), i. 455. of Angiers (A. D. 1275), ii. 393' 400. of Attiniacum, ii. 233. of Bracara (saec. VII.), iv. 495. of Carthage, i. 126, 135. iv. 446. of Celecyth, in Great Britain (A. D. 816), ii. 395, 396. iii. 226, 346, 570. iv. 162. of Diospolis, i. 379. 409. — 413- of Dort, i. 372. ii. 305. of Jerusalem (A. D. 410), i. 407. another (A. D. 418), i. 414. of Langres (A. D. 1404), ii. ^ 393. 400. Synods, twenty-four, holden against the doctrines of Pelagius, i. 455. T. Tacitus the historian quoted, i. 31. iii. 381. iv. 251. Talmud, the Jewish (see Geraara), quoted, i. 7, 8, 11, 19, 20, 31. iii. 344, 348. extracts, 358, 359, 360, 362—365, 376, 408—413, 505, 560. iv. 218, 244, 246, 248, 256, 268. Targum, of Jonathan, iii. 146, 149, 348, 389. of Jerusalem, 149. of Onkelos, 149, 389. Tarinus, an editor of Origen, iii. 548. iv. 425. Tartars, their mode of baptism, u. 415- Taylor, bishop Jeremy, i. 19, 151, 355, 551. the antipaedobaptists will have him to be on their side, ii. 22. his ' Liberty of Prophe- sying,' ibid. iv. 487, 492. Dr. Hammond's judgment of it, ii. 23. he explains his opinions more fully, 24. his ' Dissuasive from Popery,' 36, 47, 124, 407. iii. 30, 573- Teaching jomed m scripture with baptism, iii. 264. the verb fia- BrjTeixo signifies to teach, 265, and not ' to make disciples,' this point discussed, 265 — 306. TeUier, Le, archbishop of Rheims, i. 460, n. Terence, iii. 315. TertuUian, i. 13. quoted, 87 — 103. his seeming contradictions, ibid, advises delay of baptism in cer- tain cases, 96, 181. ii. 38, 46. various reading of a passage in his treatise de Baptismo, i. 98. ii. 21. was baptized in adult age, i. 124. quoted, 182, 183, 329, 387, 436, 482, 503, 506, 508. ii. 138, 148, 151, 152, 154' 162, 163, 179, 190, 191, 193, 200, 231, 334, 338, 346, 3^3' 38.5. 419. 424. 425, 426, 428, 430, 436, 437, 443,458,476, 477, 492, 497, 501, 504. 549. in. 85, 139, 174, 201, 202, 203, 219, 230, 250, 256, 335, 397, 398, 419, 470. 494. .514. 529. 531. 533. 554. 566. IV. 38, 41, ,53, 54, 56, lOI, 140, 199, 255, 25S, 275, 349, 354, 375. 378. 402, 407—416. various editions compared, 412, n. 443. 448. 4S4. Teitidlianists, a sect, i. 87, 99. INDEX. 551 Texerant (probably Tisserands), ii. 249. Theatine monks, their custom of fraudulently baptizing the Geor- gian and Mengrelian infants, ii. 289. Thecla, was baptized by St. Paul, ii. 123. Themistius, i. 220. iii. 135, 320, 377' 378. Theocritus, quoted, m. 123, 126. Theodectes, iii. 293. Theodoret, the historian, i. 199, 217, 218, 234, 390, 417, 510, 514, 518. ii. 69, 92, 139, 140, 141, 146, 165, 469. iii. 150. iv. 505. Theodoric, an anabaptist, succeeds to Menno, ii. 301. Theodoras, bishop of Mopsuestia, a Pelagian, i. 443, n. writes a- gainst St. Jerome, ibid. 477. his singular opinions, 476. Theodoras Presbyter, maintains the works of Dionysius the Areopa- gite to be genuine, i. 531. Theodosius (father of the emperor), ii. 71. Theodosius I., the emperor, ii. 63, 66, defeats Eugenius, 67. his death, ibid, he was baptized, but not in infancy, 70. why ? 72. Theodotus, bishop of Antioch, i. 414. Theodotus, a heretic, i. 198. Theophilus Antiochenus, iii. 486. iv. 484. Theophilus patriarch of Alexandria, i. 109. denounces Oiigen as a heretic, ii. 341. Theophrastus, iii, 318. Theophylact, iii. 175. Theopompus, an historian, iii. 293. 316. Thevenot, M., ii. 143. a mistake in his account of the Abyssinian Christians, 291. Thief, the penitent on the cross, the argument of Vincentius Vic- tor on his case, i. 486. St. Aus- tin's answer, ibid, opinions as to his being saved, ii. 196, 198. Thorndyke, Dr. Herbert, his opin- ion on infant-baptism in ancient times, ii. 37. Thuanus, his history, iii. 117, 173. Thucydides, quoted, iii. roi, 435, 465. iv. 275, 305. Tillotson, archbishop, ii. 526. iii. 29. iv. 78. his remark on contro- versj', 482. Tiff, ought not to be translated 'any 7nan' in John iii. 5, ii. 188, 189. Toldoth Jesu, a rabbinical book, iii. 254. iv. 250. Toledo, the council of, ii. 424, 432. Toleration Act, ii. 564. iii. 89, 90, 92, 210. iv, 72, 73, 83, 93, 155, 208. Tombes, John, his pieces against infant-baptism, i. 18, 98, 107. his opinion on some works ascribed to Origen, no, 11 1. on a passage in Cyprian, 132. quoted, 511, 512, 513. writes against Baxter, ii. 4 — 12. bishop Barlow's letter to him, 27. his talents, 44. quot- ed, 122, 188, 231, 248, 322. is more liberal than many of his party, 327. 509, 551. wrote a- gainst separation from the church of England, 559. and continued in communion with it till his death, 560, 566. iv. 164, 175, 199, 200, 245, 278, 411, 475, 478, 479' 485' 492- Towerson, Dr. Gabriel, wishes to revive dipping, ii. 411. Translations of scripture, not suf- ficient to secure all persons from error, but the originals to be consulted, ii. 513, 517, 520, 523, 548. of the Fathers very in- correct, iii. 546, iv. 425. Transubstantiation, when it sprang up, ii. 488, 490, 492. Trent, council of, i. 18, 280. cu- rious anecdote of its decrees con- cerning original sin, ii. 210. de- clares the eucharist not necessary for children, 488, 489. Tribur. council of, i. 330. Trinity, the, ancient heresies con- cerning, ii. 161, &c. Tritheism, charged unjustly on the Fathers, ii. 148, 161, &c. Philo- ponus the first tritheist, 166. Trophonius, his oracle, iii, 388. Turks, iv. 395, 473. See Mahome- tans. Turretine, M., iii. 322. Twisk, a chronicle cited often Ijy Danvers, ii. 44, 130, 295, 552 INDEX. Twiss, ii. n6. [qu. if not Twisk?] Tyndale, Wm., ii. 349, 350, 351. U. Union, recommended between our church and the antipaedobaptists, ii. 524, &c. difficulties in the way, 563. examples of such on both sides, 563 — 572. unity recom- mended too by Mr. Gale, iii. 79, Dr. Weill's plan imfair, 91. an- other proposed, ibid. Unitarians, in England, i. 188, ip3 — 200. their pubhshed tenets, ib. the difficulties of their doctrine, 197. hold an opinion half Ma- hometan, 200. oppose the scrip- tures, ibid, are to be carefully watched by parochial ministers, 203- Ussher, archbishop, his ' history of Pelagianism,' i. 349, 352, 354, 415, 463, 482, 495. ii. 23,^, 236, 238, 243, 249, 263, 268. ui. 52. iv. 78, 338, 339, 340, 356. V. Valens, the emperor, an Arian, i. 217. persecutes St. Basil, ibid. 220. ii. 61, 71. his baptism, 62. forced his subjects to become Arians, 133, 134. his death, 462. Valentinian I., some account of him, ii. 61. he was baptized, 64. at what period, 69. his death, 6^, Valentinian II., his birth, ii. 62. is made emperor, 63. favours the Arians, ibid, persecutes St. Am- brose, ibid, is reconciled to him, 66. is murdered, ibid, had wish- ed to be baptized, ibid. 196. St. Ambrose's funeral oration over him, ibid. Valentinians, i. 59, 73, 74, 76. deny the resurrection of the body, 76. refuse to give baptism, ibid, their errors, 82, 500. IreuEeus' ac- count of them, 500, 504. ii. 7, 136, 335. 430. 441- iv- 325. 326, 37.5. 377. 3«7. 3«8. 3.^9' 397- Valentinus the heretic, i. 501, 502. Valesius, editor of Ecclesiastical Historians, i. 219. iii. 220. Vanslebius, iv. 492. Vas(juez, (Jabriel, a commentator on Thomas Aquinas, i. 9S. an editor of St. Austin's works. 406. ii. 392. 407. iv. 411. Vatablus, iii. 173. iv. 137, 138, 139, 222. Vaucel, Louis de, writes against the book of cardinal Sfondrata, i. 461, n. Vaudois. See Waldenses. Velleius Paterculus, iv. 338. Versions of scripture quoted, for the sense of fjLadrjTfva, iii. 328, &c. iv. 222. Vicecomes, Joseph, his false charge against Luther, Calvin, and Beza, ii. 266. — 383. Victor, bishop of Rome, iii. 531. iv. Victorinus, ii. 476. Vienna, the council of, ii. 299. Vincentius, Bellovacensis, his ' Spe- culum,' ii. 73. its character, ibid. Vincentius Victor, an opponent of St. Austin, i. 41. quoted, 480. his character, and opinions, 481. his books, 482. is the first who advised church prayers for any who had died unbaptized, 491. did not deny infant-baptism, 492. is the first (except Tertullian) who said that infants might be saved without baptism, 493. ii. 130, 200, 211, 224, 499. iv. 493. Virgil, iii. 186, 194. Visitation, episcopal, not suffi- ciently attended to, ii. 368. this objected to the church of England by dissenters, ibid, difficulties in the way, ibid. Vitalis, candidate for the see of Antioch, ii. loi, 102, 103. Vitellius, governor of Judaea, iv.356. Vives, Ludovicus, ii. 12. cited, 16, 36. some account of him, 16, n. — 47. 124. iii. 30. Vorstius, iii. 358. Vossius, his work * De Baptismo,' i. 26, 320. ii. 191, 212, 229, 377, 417, 424. iii. 127, 139. his Pela- gian history, i. 415, 463. ii. 15. iv. 304. ' De tribus Symbolis,' ii. 473. his Etjnnologicon, iii. 204, 230, 280. iv. 119. W. Wake, archbishop, his translation of the Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, i. 55. iii. 4-,o. Walafridus Strabo, his opinion on infant-baptism, i. 523. ii. 12. not INDEX. 553 over-learned, ibid, his mistakes, 15, 47. — 424. iv. 160. See Strabo. Waldenses, their rise, ii. 238. opin- ions, ibid, disputes whether at first they were for or against infant-baptism, 239, 247. at pre- sent they practise it, 240. some of their books, ibid. 242, 243. their confessions, 241, 243, 280. Cate- chism, 243. formerly inclined to Manichean opinions, 244, 245. their numerous opponents, ibid, their chief seat, 246. notice of some works describing them, 246, n. various charges against them, 244. 247. there were several sects of them, holding different opin- ions, 249. whether any denied infant-baptism, 256, &c. certainly several sects of them did not deny it, 267, &c. some sectaries who preceded them held ob- jectionable opinions, 268. whence perhaps arose the charges against the Waldenses, 269, 270, 273. — iv. 9, 490, 499. Waldensis, or Waldo, Petrus, foun- der of the Waldenses, ii. 272, 273. Waldensis, Thomas, a Carmelite, his work on Baptism, i. 492. ii. 130. Walker, Wm., his Modest Plea for Infant-baptism, i. 19, 140, 181. an argument used by him, ii. 50. his explanation of the text, John iii. 5, and observations on it, 185. has proved that no national church is antipsedobaptist, 279, 280. his interpretation of the word itn- mergo, 329, 331, 398, 401, 408, 410, 412, 417. iii. 136. iv. 116, 119, 120, 170, 415. Wall, Dr., memoir of him. Intro- duction, p. V, &c. quotes his de- fence, i. 64, 79. jocosely speaks of his correcting the text of an ancient author, 433. his judgment of the genuineness of a disputed canon of the council of Carthage (A. D. 418), 495. protests his im- partiality in citing ancient testi- monies, ii. II. the occasion of his writing on the subject of baptism, 325. his preference of baptism by immersion, 402. iii. 86. he himself had dipped one infant, i. 402. WALI,. VOL. IV. Wall, Dr., as represented by Mr. Gale, secretly traduces the antipsedo- baptists, iii. 8. is very fond of Dr. Featly, ibid, laboured to root out the anabaptists in Kent, 9. is not a formidable adversary, though the best defender of infant- baptism, 13. wiU be fully answered by Mr. Stennet, ibid, is a writer not to be depended on, 14. cites Cyprian unfairly, 17, 18. also the Apostohcal Constitutions, 20. he endeavours to defame his oppo- nents, 21. affects impartiality, 22. needlessly introduces irrelevant matter, 24. as the history of the Decretal Epistles, and of Pelagius : this latter partial, 25. his reproof of the Socinians, 26. he enters on controversies too deep for him, 27. reflects on Mr. Stennet, 28, slights men of high station in the church, 29. is rude to the ancient Fathers, 31. also to Grotius and Le Clerc, 32. these latter two defended, 33 — 47. he is to be read cautiously, 47. is hollow in his show of candour, ibid, is eager to relate every thing to the dis- advantage of the antipaedobap- tists, 48. prefers dipping in bap- tism, 86. is accused of persecution, 90. of ill-temper, 90, 91. his dissuasive from schism censured, 59 — 92. his proposal for union an unfair one, 91. he is accused of disingenuity, 94. his account commended and examined, 235, &c. is guilty of prevarication, 248. his interpretation of iiadjjTfvto examined and disputed, 275 — 340. the same defended, iv. 115. his account of Jewish baptisms dis- cussed, iii. 343. his reasons for writing his Defence, iv. 4. the honour paid to his history, ibid., 77. he acknowledges some blamable ex- pressions in it : as respecting Grotius, 6. St. Chrysostom, 8. Gregory Nazianzen, ibid. St. Am- brose, 9. was reported to have recanted his opinion, 10. the charge unfounded, ibid, he dis- cusses Mr. Bernard's remarks on his book, 10 — 27. Mr.Emlyn's, 28 — 48. refers to his ' Critical 554 INDEX. Notes' on the New Testament, 36, and note : his comi)liment to Mr. Stennet, 68, 71. his kind feeling towards the antii)ted()hai)tists, 70, 196, 481. defends himself from the charge of persecution, 72,104. of slander, 75. notices Mr. Gale's pomposity of nuotations, 76, 115, 116, 117. and his abuse of him, 77, 87, 175. his captious com- l)laints, 78, 86, 100, 202. his false charges, 87, 88, 100, 105,118,162, 175, 195. has no doubt that Mr. Gale's three chapters on the subject of dippiny were obserA'a- tions made, either by him or some other person, at some former period, 106, 12 r, 243. owns a mistake in his first edition, no. his pul)lished supplement to his fir.st edition, ibid, his opinion of sprinkhng, and of such as use as little water as possible, 114. men- tions that one chai)ter of Mr. Gale's book was published before the rest, by way of specimen, 118. suspects that his fifth chapter was written by some Dutch Minnists, 147. his suggestions to the clergy on the subject of sprinkling, 167 — 173. his 'Conference on Infant- baptism,' 179. defends himself from the charge of admitting that there is no scripture-proof for infant-baptism, 175, &c. notices Mr. Gale's ill manners, 175, 203. 240, 242, his pride and insolence, 207, 222, 268, 315, 316, 328, 443. the emptiness of his quotations, 210, &c. 232, 442. the unfairness of tliem, 264, 506, 510. maintains that his collection of testimonies is most impartial, 269. the fact acknowledged by others also, ibid, his remark on Mr. Gale's assertion, that ' all infants shall assuredly be saved,' 284, &c. e.vamines at large Mr. Gale's argu- ments on the sul)ject of regenera- tion, 362—405. he notices that ' a full answer' to his history was promised, 395, 436, 500. s])eaks of his intended aj)pendix to former editions, 418,424, 436, 448. refers to his • Conference on Infant- baptism,' 420. his address to the antijxcdobaptists on the value of testimonies from the Fathers, 443 — 457. his motives for offering suggestions to the clergy on the subject of infant-baptism, 457, &c. wishes that the ancient method could be gradually restored, 461. his objections to the frequent use of private baptism, 463, &c. his distinction of English antipa;do- baptists into three classes, 471 — 481. his conference with Mr. Stennet on separation, 479. recapi- tulates Mr. Gale's unfairness to- wards him, 481, 482. the reason for his replying by his ' Defence,' 482. his thankfulness at being able to finish it before the approach of death, ibid, his review of Mr. Davye's book in answer to him, 483 — 500. continues his advice to the clergy, 500, &c. especially to those who intend to write on the subject of infant-baptism, 500, 502,506. he wishes that a picture were engraved and distributed, exhibiting Jesus Christ calhng httle children to him, 508. Walloon churches, their liturgy, iv. 26. Walton, his Polyglott Bible, iii. 513. Ware, Robt., author of ' Foxes and Firebrands,' ii. 363, n. his detec- tion of the Jesuits, 372. Water, the meaning attributed to it by some expositors in the text John iii. 5. — iv. 503. Watson, bp. of Lincoln, his sermons, ii. 399. Wemmers, J., hisiEthiopic Lexicon, iii. 327. West India planters, their spiritual neglect of their slaves reproved, i. 522. West, Mr., ii. 323. Whiston, William, i. 79, 524, n. iv. 42, 44. review of his answer to Dr. Wall's history, 49 — 64. his interpretation of the word infants, 49 — 53. his ' Essay on the Re- velations,' 57, 451. he became a convert to antipa?dobaptism, 64. the immediate cjiuse of this, 400. quoted, 369, 370, 401, 402, 404, 423, 424, 426, 438, 503. Whitaker, W., his opinion on sprinkling, ii. 401. Whitby, Dr. Daniel, wishes to revive INDEX. 555 the, use of dipping, ii. 411. cited, iii. 28, 175, 179, 198, 200, 205, 217, 252, 277, 288, 322, 346,404. 433. 439' 441. 445> 453. 539> 562. iv. 90, 151,212,227, 228, 229,265, 280, 292, 296. some remarks on his opinions, and on his tract against Dr. Edwards, 296. his taking part in the Bangorian controversy, 297. — 348, 349, 420, 487. White garments, newly baptized persons anciently clothed in, i. 337. ii.429. Whitgift, archbishop, his reply to Cart^vright, i. 304. ii. 223. WicklifFe, John, rejects the forged Decretals, i. 324. his opinion of infants dying unbaptized, ii. 212, 216,298. of the proper mode of baptism, 396. WiUiam III. of England. Some persons declined to join in the prayers for him, ii. 572. — iii. 492. iv.33i- Wills, Obed, rebukes Danvers, i. 328. his dispute with Danvers on infant-baptism, 492. notice of his tracts on the subject, ibid., n. his appeal against Danvers, ii. 11. accuses Danvers, 28. his ' Infant- baptism asserted,' 128, 130, 232, 234, 241, 5SI. iv. 194. Wotton, Dr.Wm., his Miscellaneous Discourses, i. 15, 16. high cha- racter of them, iv. 244. Z. Zampij F. M„ a missionary in Georgia, ii. 287. Zanchius, ii. 226. Zeno, the emperor, ii. 461. Zizka, John, ii. 296. Zoilus, the critic, iii. 317. Zonaras, a Greek canonist, i. 155. his Gloss on Photius, i. 157. ii. 34.— iii. 44,45. iv.82. Zoroaster, iii. 300. Zosimus, pope, a weak man, is persuaded to encourage Pelagius, i. 377, 378. deals with Coelestius, 455 — 463. his inconstancy, ibid, his story of the emperor Con- stantine, ii. 60. shewn to be false, ibid. Princeton Theoloaical Seminary Libraries ' 11 1 1012 01184 9678 DATE DUE i.«.rt»*^^ GAYLORD #3523PI Printed in USA