*wm^* 
 
 m 
 

 v 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 •5 
 
 1c 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 33 
 
 JO 
 
 
 
 
 *>* 
 
 IE 
 
 
 
 
 5 * 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 «-»- 
 
 
 
 
 * 5 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 CD 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 t* o 
 
 bfl 
 
 
 
 
 *SS &* 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 ^ g 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 - 5 
 
 E 
 
 CO 
 
 .5 
 
 & 
 .^ 
 
 "S 
 
 sa 
 
 > 
 
 ** PU 
 
 i_- 
 
 <3 
 
 3 
 
 $ 
 
 **£ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 Gk. 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 >* 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 *£ 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 , — 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 SCO 
 

 
 =: — 
 
 
itemmmmihiai 
 
 PiEDO-BAPTISM 
 
 DEFENDED, &>c. 
 
 mmmmmmmmmm-mm 
 
?y 
 
 P^DO-BAPTISM 
 
 DEFENDED: 
 
 OR, THE 
 
 ANTIQUITY 
 
 O F 
 
 INFANT-BAPTISM 
 
 FURTHER MAINTAINED. 
 
 In ANSWER to 
 
 Dr. GIL L's Reply, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 ANTIP^DO-BAPTISM, &c. 
 ^ J£l 
 
 Parvulos baptizandos eile, concedant, qui contra au&ori- 
 tatem univerfae Ecclefiae proculdubio per Dominum et 
 Apoftolos traditam, venire non pofiunt. 
 Augujlin, de Peccator. Merit, et Re miff". lib, i. cap. 26. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. Waugh, at the Turk'z-Head in 
 Lombard-Street, m.dcc.liy. 
 
 t 
 
 
Errata in PjEDO-BAPTISM. 
 
 PAGE 8. line 24, 25. for Believer's 
 B^ptifm difplayedy read baptifm dif- 
 covered. Page 59. in the Notes, line 8. for 
 Levit. read Luc. Page 92. line 8. read Bar- 
 defaneu 
 
 
PiEDO-BAPTISM 
 
 DEFENDED, &c. 
 
 SlfeF Infant-baptifm mould pafs 
 for an innovation ', or fuch a 
 late and novel invention, as 
 its oppofers pretend it to be, 
 this might prejudice them, 
 and others, againft any argu- 
 ment that might be offered in fupport of 
 its authority. Therefore, to prepare the 
 way for proving its authority, it was judg- 
 ed a proper ftep, in the fir ft place, to dif- 
 cufs the point of its antiquity. And fo, 
 this was the defign of the traft, entitled 
 Pcedo-baptifm, which Dr. Gill has honour- 
 ed with his remarks, beginning where it 
 ends, and inverting the order of the whole 
 argument. 
 
 Towards the clofe of Pado-baptifm [a'] 
 
 are thefe words : " Thus, from the begin- 
 
 " ing of the fifth century backward, either 
 
 " exprefsly, or in refpedt to the common 
 
 B " grounds 
 
 {a} Page 93, 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 €i grounds of it, (thofe very grounds, upon 
 " which, the Ant i pa do- b apt i ft s themfelves 
 " fay, it was founded) we have traced up 
 " the practice of Infant-baptifm to the 
 " time of the Apoftles". — Now, thefe 
 grounds were the fuppofed neceffity of bap- 
 tifm to falvation, either as a mean of cieanf 
 ing from fin y particularly original fin, or of 
 gaining admittance into the kingdom of Gcd. 
 Thefe are acknowledged to be the common- 
 ly received grounds of Infant-baptifm in 
 the primitive church ; whether right, or 
 wrong, was no queftion with the author, 
 who was only enquiring into the matter of 
 faff : For, as he adds, €i it is only the faff 
 " itfelf, as attefted by the antient writcrs y 
 u not their reafonings about it, in which 
 
 " we are concerned at prefeiu". Says 
 
 Mr. Ste?inet> [b] (one of the moft ingenious 
 and learned writers on that fide) " The opi- 
 <c nion of the abfolute neceffity of baptifm 
 <c to falvation, from a mifunderftandi:^ of 
 c< thofe words of Chrift, Except a Man be 
 cc born of water y &c. Joh. iii, 5. ferns to 
 <c have introduced Infant-baprifm into the 
 " Chriftian Church/' But, v ith f'ubmif- 
 fion, as it does not appear that the antient s 
 mifunderftood thofe words of Chrift, by 
 underftanding them of bapti/m; fo, it fol- 
 lows not, that Infant-baptifm was introdu- 
 ced into the Chriftian Church upon any 
 
 miftafo) 
 
 [b] Anfvver to Tyiiffen, p. 77. 
 
( 3 > 
 
 mi/lake , merely becaufe a wrong notion of 
 baptifm was, taken up; fuppcfmg that to 
 have been the cafe. For, people might ve- 
 ry eafily take up fuch a notion, after they 
 had received Infant-baptifm, and though 
 they received it as. a divine inftitution. 
 When any of the philofophers (e. g. Plato) 
 made ufe of weak arguments to prove the 
 immortality of the foul, it feems to be a juft 
 obfervation, that they muft have received 
 that doctrine before : otherwife they could 
 not have been induced, upon fuch flight, 
 infuflicient grounds, to embrace it at all [<:]. 
 In like manner, if wrong notions, and weak 
 reafons, of baptifm in general, or of In- 
 fant-baptifm in particular, prevailed in the 
 primitive church, it is eafy to conceive, that 
 the thing itfelf was in ufe, before any fuch 
 infuflicient grounds of it were afligned. 
 And thus, according to this view of the 
 cafe, the practice of Infant-baptifm was not 
 introduced, (as is imagined) or originally 
 grounded upon thofe reafons -, but thofe 
 reafons were grounded and grafted upon the 
 practice of Infant-baptifm, already received 
 in the Chriftian Church. This being pre- 
 mifed, let us now attend to Dr. Gill's re- 
 marks upon Paedo-baptifm. 
 
 Mr. Bingham (a name of fo much note 
 
 for learning and fkill in ecclefiaftical mat- 
 
 B 2 ters, 
 
 0] See Haliburtons Infufficiency of Nat. Relig. ch. 14. 
 p. 45. z 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 ters, that, if it mould not fecure a perfon 
 from error, it might very well fcreen him 
 from contempt with all men of candour) 
 was quoted [d] for this remark ; <c The 
 " moft antient writer, that we have, is Cle- 
 " mens Romanus, who lived in the time of 
 cc the Apoftles; and he, though he doth 
 €s not exprefriy mention Infant-baptifm, 
 " yet fays a thing, that by confequetice 
 il proves it : For, he makes Infants liable 
 " to Original Sin, which in effect is to fay, 
 <c that they have need of baptifm ,£?<:." [>]. 
 The pafTage to which Mr. Bingham refers, 
 is a quotation from Job xiv. 4, 5. which, ac- 
 cording to the Greek verfion, Clemens reads 
 thus : No man is free from pollution, 710 not 
 thd his life is but of one day. But, Dr. 
 Wall obferves [/], that in the next chap, 
 ter Clemens brings in, to the fame pur- 
 pofe, the faying of David, Pf. li. 5. 7 
 was/hapen in iniquity, &c. — Now, Dr. Gill 
 takes notice of the former paffage, but fays 
 not a word of the latter, pafling over it to 
 another, mentioned by Dr. Wall. And all 
 that he has to urge, with reference to the 
 paflage in Job, is, that " it might be brought 
 4C to prove Original Sin, but is not brought 
 " by Clemens for any fuch purpofe" \g\ 
 However, it is as much brought in for fuch 
 
 a purpofe, 
 
 [d] Paxlo-bsptifm, p. 92. 
 
 [0 Antiq. of the Chr. Ch. B. if. Ch. 4. S. 6. 
 
 [/] Hift. of Inf. Bapt. P. 1. Ch. 1. 
 
 Lg] Antipa;do-baptifm, p. 5. 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 a purpofe, as the faying of David ; and, as 
 both thefe pailages are commonly alledged 
 by the primitive writers in proof of Origi- 
 nal Sin, fo, it is prefumed, Dr. Gill him- 
 felf fuppoies, that Clemens alfo underftood 
 them in the fame light ; therefore, he can- 
 not fairly deny, that in this apojlolical fa- 
 ther we may trace one of the received 
 grounds of Infant-baptifm in the primitive 
 church, when he remembers his own ac- 
 count of Auftiris faying, " This the church 
 il has always had, has always held." For, 
 fays he [h] y " it was the doctrine of Ori- 
 <c ginal Sin, and the Baptifm of Infants for 
 " the remiffion of it, he fpeaks of." And 
 indeed, of all men, one cannot but won- 
 der moft at thofe, that hold Original Sin, 
 and yet difown Infant-baptifm ; that look 
 upon all infants as loji in Adam, and left 
 deftitute, at the fame time, of any appoint- 
 ed fign y or token of their concern with 
 Chrift, under the clearejl revelation, and 
 the brighteft difplay, of redeeming love 
 and grace. But, that any fuch perfons 
 exifted in the primitive church, does not 
 appear. It is to no purpofe then, for the 
 Doctor, to alledge any fuch in our days, 
 unlefs he had produced fome inftances of 
 this kind in the earlier ages of the church, 
 and particularly in the time of Clemens Ro- 
 manus. 
 
 The 
 
 [£] Argum. from A p. Trad. p. 26. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 The fame learned Bingham was alfo ci- 
 ted [/] for this obfervation, <c Hernias Paf- 
 " tor lived about the fame time with Cle- 
 " mens, and hath feveral paflages to (hew 
 u the general necejfity of water, that is, Bap- 
 <c tijm y to fave men." Now, fays the Dr. 
 [k] <c furely he could not mean real ma- 
 <c terial water, &c" and yet, he does not 
 pretend to know, what Hernias does mean. 
 But, whatever the true meaning be, the 
 words plainly allude y at leaft, to Baptifm, 
 and that as neceffary to falvation : for, 
 there is no accounting for his way offpeak- 
 ing upon any other fuppofition, when that 
 author expreffes himfelf thus [/] : " Hear 
 " therefore, why the tower is built upon 
 c< the water : becaufe your life is, and 
 €l fhall be faved by water*. And again, 
 [tn\ " before a man receives the name of 
 cc the Son of God, he is ordained unto 
 ct death ; but when he receives the feal, 
 cc he is freed from death, and delivered un- 
 to life. Now, that feal is water, into 
 which men go down under the obliga- 
 ct tion of death, but come up appointed 
 " unto life" [«]. Therefore, we have here 
 the general ground and foundation of In- 
 fant-baptifm, as received in the primitive 
 church, either clearly exprefled, or plainly 
 
 referred 
 
 [?'] Ibid. [k] Antipasdo, p. 6. 
 
 [/} Lib. i. Vifion 3. Sea. g. 
 
 [m] Lib, 3. Simil. 9. S. 16. 
 
 [n] See WaWs Defence, p. 237. S$c. 
 
 cc 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 referred to, viz. the necefjity of Baptifm 
 to life and filvation. And this is all that 
 Hennas Pafior was cited for. 
 
 Now, fays Dr. Gill [o] % " our author 
 <c upon the above paffages concludes after 
 "this manner; " Thus — we have traced 
 " up the praBice of Infant-baptifm to the 
 " time of the Apoftles ;" when thofe wri- 
 " ters give not the lead hint of Infant- 
 " baptifm, or have any reference to it, or 
 i{ the pra&ice of it ;" and then adds, " It 
 <c is amazing what a face fome men have !" 
 which is really very true ; otherwife, how 
 could the doctor deal fo unfairly, as to 
 quote the author's words imperfe&ly, by 
 leaving out the alternative t viz. " either ex- 
 " prefsly, or in refpeSt to the common grounds 
 *' of it;" Befides, he has removed the 
 words out of their proper place $ for, they 
 came in as they were cited above, upon a 
 review of the connected evidence for In- 
 fant-baptifm, from the beginning of the 
 fifth century, backward to the firft ages of 
 all. " In all which period, (as it is added) 
 <c [p] the Antipaedo-baptifts cannot produce 
 " one fingle author to difprove the fad." 
 Nor has Dr. Gill himfelf yet produced a- 
 ny fuch author, as will appear by the fe- 
 quel. Therefore, the preponderating evi- 
 dence, whether more or lefs, does ftill lie 
 on the fide of Infant-baptifm. It is true, 
 
 the 
 
 [o] Pag. 7. [p] Psdo bapdfm, p. 94. 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 the teftimonies from Clemens Romanm, and 
 Hernias Paftor, are not direct and exprefs 
 proofs, nor are they alledged as fuch, but 
 only as proving Infant-baptifm by confe- 
 quence ; (even upon the principles of its op- 
 pofers, by pointing out the acknowledged 
 grounds of it in the primitive church). It 
 was thus that the argument was ftated, in 
 the words of the learned Bingham ; and 
 the Doctor, if he pleafes, may wonder at 
 his face: But, as Dr. Wall obferves [q~\> 
 " Proofs by confequence for any affirmative, 
 <c do give that the advantage againft a nega- 
 €i the, of which there are no proofs at all." 
 Dr. Gill fays [r], " nothing out of Bar- 
 <c nab as, Poly carp, and Ignatius, in favour 
 <c of Infant-baptifm, is pretended to." But, 
 if that had been thought neceflary, or con- 
 fident with ftudied brevity, the fame grounds 
 of Infant-baptifm might have been pointed 
 out in thefe writers alfo. Ignatius men- 
 tions Original Sin [j], as the learned Voffius 
 underftands his words [t]. And Barnabas 
 fpeaks more than once of the ufe and effica- 
 cy of Baptifm to cleanfe from fin [«]. As 
 for Polycarp, I do not find, upon a curfo- 
 ry review, that he fays any thing of Bap- 
 tifm at all. And this alfo (to note that by 
 the way) is the cafe with fome other antient 
 
 writers, 
 
 [f] Defence, p. 281. [r] Pag. 4, 5. 
 
 [j] Ef>. ad Trallian. 
 
 J>] Hift. Pelag. lib. *. P. 1. Th. 6. [«j Sea. 1 1 * 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 writers, that are fometimes mentioned, as 
 having nothing in favour of fnfant-bnptifm : 
 [x] but their fcheme might therefore be as 
 pertinently and properly alledged, to dis- 
 prove all baptifm in the fame period. - 
 
 But, fpeaking of Barnabas and Hennas 
 upon another occafionfj], the Doctor ob- 
 ferves, " the learned Mr. Stennet [z] has 
 u cited fome paffages out of them, and af- 
 <c ter him Mr. David Rees [a] y which are 
 " manifeft proofs of Adult-baptifm, and 
 " that as performed by immerficn." And 
 what Pado-baptift doubts of either ? The 
 only queflion is, whether Adult-baptifm 
 was the only Baptifm, and immerfion the 
 only mode of baptifm ? As to the latter \ we 
 jfhall fay no more of it at prefent : but, in 
 relation to the former ', it is acknowledged, 
 that Adult- baptifms' were very frequent and 
 common in the fajl % and fome following 
 age?, by reafon of the great number of new 
 converts to the Chriftian faith. But this 
 concludes nothing at all againft Infant-bap- 
 tifm ; becaufe, as plain inflances y and as 
 clear defcriptions, of Adult-baptifm may 
 be produced from thofe very writers who 
 were Psedo-baptifts themfelves, and lived at 
 that time when Paedo-baptifm prevailed, 
 by the confeflion of it's mod fanguine op- 
 C pofers -y 
 
 [x~\ Divine Right of Inf. Bap. p. 22. 
 
 [y] Ibid. p. 20. [2] Anf. toRufen,?. 142, 143 . 
 
 [#] Anfwerto Walker , p. 157. 
 
( io ) 
 pofers ; as will be (hewn in a proper place. 
 At prefent I muft obferve, that Mr. Sten- 
 net, and Mr. Rees, as referred to by Dr. 
 Gill himfelf, underftood the words of Bar- 
 nabas, which have been confidered, of Bap- 
 tifm, and confequcntly as fpoken of real ma- 
 terial water - y though the Doctor would 
 now fhuffle them off to fomething elfe, he 
 knows not what. Before % they were ma- 
 nifeft proofs of Adult-baptifm, • &c. but 
 now the Doctor can properly fee no Baptifm 
 at all in them, no real material water, 
 fomething myftical muft furely be defigned ; 
 and what it is, he leaves to thofe who bet- 
 ter underftand thefe vifionary things ! Thus 
 Doctors differ ! And thus can the fame 
 Docloj* differ from himfelf! underftand the 
 fame paffages different ways ; or affect not 
 to underftand them at all, juft as it ferves 
 a prefent turn ; and ftill keep bis counte- 
 nance ! Proceed we now with him to 
 
 The fecond century. 
 
 Of the Recognitions, fays Mr. Bingham , 
 \b\ <c it is an antient writing of the fame 
 u age with Juftin Martyr, mentioned by 
 ic Origen in his Philocalia, and by fome 
 " afcribed to Bardejanes Syrus, who lived 
 " about the middle of the fecond century. 
 u This author fpeaks of the necejjity of 
 
 " Baptifm^ 
 
 0] Ubi fupra, Sett. 8, 
 
C M ) 
 
 €< Baptifm, in! the fame flile, as Jujiin 
 « M?r(>T did, GV." |>]. Dr. G/V/ here re- 
 plies, with fome warmth, faying [d], 
 " whenever this wretched tenet, this falfe 
 " notion of the abfolute neceffity of Bap- 
 cc tifm to falvation is met with, the Pa- 
 <c do-baptijis prelently fmell out Infant* 
 " baptifm, &c" And why mould they 
 not? when the Antipado-baptijls themfelves 
 have lent us their nofes, to fmell it out ? 
 But fome people have a wonderful faculty, 
 and a ftrange command over their fenfes, 
 (happy for them, and others, if they had 
 the fame over their paffions !) They can un- 
 derftand, or not underftand ; fmell y or not 
 fmell, juft as it fuits their prefent occafi- 
 on ; otherwife, what imaginable reafon 
 can be affigned, why thofe, who believed 
 the abfolute neceffity of Baptifm to falva- 
 tion, mould defer one moment, to admini- 
 fter it to Infants, at leaft in cafe of dan- 
 ger ? — In refpect to the notion itfelf, whe- 
 ther it was true, or falfe, is not the ques- 
 tion ; but whether fuch a notion did really 
 obtain in the moft primitive times: and 
 that it actually did, we have feen before in 
 Barnabas and Hernias. Therefore this is 
 none of the dotages peculiar to the Recogni- 
 tions •> nor was Bardefanes Syrus, (if he 
 was the author, and the contrary is not 
 proved) ever charged wirh herefy for hold- 
 C 2 ing 
 
 [V] See Pagdo-bap. p. 9*. [d] Antipaedo, p. 9* 
 
( *f ) 
 
 ing this tenet : fo that all, the Doctor fug- 
 gefts upon this head, is nothing to the pur- 
 
 pofe. But, he has one falvo yet $ he 
 
 fays, " the myftery of iniquity worked by 
 <c degrees, &c." which is very true, in re- 
 fpect to the general corruption of religion : 
 but, if by the my fiery of iniquity he means 
 Infant baptifm, we deny his fuppofition, 
 anddefpife the calumny. However, " true 
 " it is, (as he fays) that one error leads on 
 " to another;" and this may account for 
 the introduction of Antipczdo- baptifm, which 
 upon enquiry will be found to be a myjiery\ 
 which worked by very fow degrees. I 
 fhall only add, Bardefanes Syr us was a wri- 
 ter of great note ; as appears from Jerome's 
 account [e] : Eufebius has given us 'a large 
 extract from fome of his writings [f] ; and 
 if he was not wholly free from herejy, even 
 to the laft, Dr. Gill mould not bear too 
 hard upon him on that account, for the 
 fake of his favourite author, Tertu/lian. 
 But, if Antipado-baptifm may be upheld ; 
 no matter by what weak arguments it is 
 fupported. 
 
 Pafs we on now to Jujlin Martyr, from 
 whom a paffage was alledged [g], to con- 
 front the Doctor's affertion [b], (fpeaking of 
 the time of Irenceus, junior to Jujlin) viz. 
 
 " that 
 
 e] Catalog, de Script. Ecclef. 
 
 /] De Praep. Evangel, lib. 6. num. 10. 
 
 \g] Paedo-baptifm, p. 84. 
 
 h\ Argum. from Apoft. Trad. p. 14. 
 
( i3 ) 
 
 cc that it had not as yet obtained among the 
 " antients to ufe the words, regenerated, 
 " and regeneration, for baptized, and Bap- 
 f 1 tifm." The pafTage is this 5 u We bring 
 " them (/. e. the «£i0 converts) to fome place, 
 c< where there is water, and they are regene- 
 <c rated by the fame way of regeneration, by 
 " which we were regenerated: for they 
 " are wafhed with water in the name of 
 " God, the Father, &c. becaufe Chrift 
 c< fays [7], unlefs you be regenerated, you 
 cc cannot enter into the kingdom of hea- 
 « ven, &c"[k]. Obferve now, (1.) Jujiin 
 fays of the new converts, {after they were 
 made fuch) c< we bring them to fome place, 
 <{ where there is water, and they are rege- 
 tc nerated, &c." (2.) In proof hereof he 
 adds, CI for they are waflied with water, 
 " &c." Thus he defcribes the way of re- 
 generation. And then, (3.) he affigns the 
 reafon of this practice : <c For, or becaufe, 
 " Chrift fays, Unlefs you be regenerated, fifc." 
 Can any thing in the world be plainer -, than 
 that Jujiin here ufes the term, regenerati- 
 on, and alfo underftands thofe words of 
 Chrift, of baptifm ? How then could Dr. 
 Gill have the face to fay [/], " that the per- 
 u fons Jujiin fpeaks of are not reprefented 
 " by him as regenerated by baptifm !" and 
 who can but wonder at the reafon he gives 
 2 for 
 
 [/] Joh. Hi. 3,5. [k] Apol. 2, 
 
 r 1 
 
( H ) 
 for it? viz. " becaufe they are fpoken of 
 " before, as converted perfons, and belie- 
 " vers !" Before what ? why, before they 
 are fpoken of as regenerated by Baptifm ; 
 therefore, they were not regenerated by 
 baptifm! excellent logic! This is the Jlrong, 
 and nervom reafoning of the Antipcedo-bap- 
 tift ! In vain would the Doctor avail him- 
 felf here of the modern ufe of the word re- 
 generation, as implying the fame thing 
 with converjion: but that word had no fuch 
 ufe among the antients, without a refer- 
 ence to Baptifm [m]. In vain alfo would 
 he burlefque the fenfe given of Juflin' $ 
 words, by pretending, that it makes him 
 fay, ic they were baptized, becaufe they 
 § * were baptized." — For, the prefent ques- 
 tion is not about the thing, but the ufe of 
 the word, regeneration. And we do not 
 fay, that regeneration, and baptifm, are 
 identically the fame ; but that the former 
 word is fo ufed, as to connote baptifm, and 
 refer to it, viz. as the way, and mean of 
 regeneration. So fays Juflin, " we bring 
 cc them to the water, and they are rege- 
 " nerated by the fame way of regeneration, 
 <c by which we were regenerated ; for 
 <c they are waftied with water, &c." — 
 When Dr. Gale had quibbled upon the 
 words of Juflin Martyr, in the fame man- 
 ner, as his brother Doctor now doth -, Dr 
 
 Wall 
 
 [«] J/V/'sHift. P. i. ch. 2. 
 
( *5 ) 
 
 Wall faid [»], ct I mud: declare, and I do 
 " it in cold blood, I never met with any 
 <c one of fo finiihed effrontery, to deny 
 " things, that are plain, and vifible." — In 
 fhort : Juftin puts the very fame conftruc- 
 tion upon our Saviour's words, Job. iii. 3. 5. 
 as the author of the Recognitions did [0] : 
 therefore " that then no fuch conftrucli- 
 " on of the words obtained, that baptifm is 
 te neceffary to falvation," is a groundlefs pre- 
 tence, and a manifeft error. Before we 
 
 difmifs this paffage, it is proper to confider, 
 what Dr. Gill has fuggefted from it, (after 
 Dr. Gale) in disfavour of Infant-baptifm. 
 It is very plain, that 'Juftin is fpeaking of 
 new converts from heathenifm\ and it is al- 
 lowed, on all fides, that fuch perfons muft 
 be baptized at adult-age. But this makes 
 nothing againft Infant-baptifm. However, 
 let us hear what is offered upon this head. 
 It is alledged [/>], that cC if Infant-baptifm 
 ic had been pra&ifed in thofe days, it is 
 " not confident with that fincerity, which 
 " Juftin fets out with, when he propofed 
 u to give the Roman Emperor an account of 
 " Chriftian Baptifm, not to make any men* 
 " tion of it, &c" — To which I reply, there 
 was no infincerity, or unfair dealing in the 
 cafe, if Juftin faid fo much of baptifm, 
 and the other Chriftian rites, as was fuffici- 
 
 ent, 
 
 [«] Defence, p. 325. \o] Lib, 6. num. 9. 
 
 \p\ Antipsdo, p. 10. 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 ent, to anfwer the Emperor's expectation, 
 and the proper defign of writing his apology ; 
 which was to (hew, that the Chriftians 
 were not fuch vile, and feditious perfons, 
 as their enemies reprefented them, but wor- 
 thy men, and good fubjedts, and that there 
 was nothing in their religion, which had a 
 tendency to make them otherwife. It was 
 therefore quite impertinent for Jujiin to fay 
 any thing of infants ; who could lie under 
 no fufpicions of that kind [q], Befides, as 
 the Romans had a folemn form of luftration 
 for infants [r], the Roman Emperor, with- 
 out being told of it, might naturally con- 
 clude the fame of the Chriftians. -It is 
 
 further urged from the fame quarter, that, 
 " he had occafion to fpeak of it — had it 
 " been ufed ; fince the Chriftians were 
 < c charged with ufing their infants barbar- 
 f< oufly, &c" But this is a far-fetched 
 imagination-, as Dr. Wall properly enough 
 calls it [s] : befides, that calumny, among 
 others, Jujiin refutes in another part of his 
 apology \ and fo had no occafion to recur to 
 it again [t]. To which let me add, if, as 
 thele writers are wont to contend, immer- 
 /ion was the only mode of baptifm ; had Juf- 
 tin told the Emperor, that they plunged their 
 infants, this might rather have confirmed, 
 
 than 
 
 lq\ See Gobbet's Juft Vindication, P. 3. ch. 4. p. I. 
 
 [r] Vid. Macrob. Saturn, lib. 1. c. 16. 
 
 [>] Ibid. p. 275. [0 P. 70. E. Colon. 
 
( I* ) 
 
 than removed the fufpicion of ufing thini 
 barbaroufly : and for my part, I cannot con- 
 ceive, how fuch a notion fhould get among 
 the Heathens concerning the Chriftians, if 
 their Infants had nothing to do with their 
 
 facred rites.- In reply to what is further 
 
 recited from Jujiin Martyr, after Dr. Gale-, 
 it will be fufficient for me, if I tranfcribe 
 Dr. JValh anfwer, (of which Dr. Gill takes 
 not the leaft notice ; an endlefs way of writ- 
 ing controverfy !) [u] " what he obferves of 
 " Juftiris faying, that our firft generation 
 " is without our knowledge, or choice ; but 
 " that a heathen man (for of fuch he there 
 <c fpeaks) comes to this Baptifm (which is 
 Cc his regeneration, or fecond birth) of his 
 C: own will and choice ; is no more than he 
 <c would have faid of any profelytes, entring 
 " into God's covenant by circumcifion, 
 <c (which the Jews, as I (hewed, did alfo 
 <c call regeneration). The adult proielyte 
 " did partake of this regeneration by his 
 <c own choice. This is no proof, but that 
 <c his Infant-children had the fame circum- 
 <c cifion, and regeneration, by their parent's 
 cc dedicating them, and God's gracious ac- 
 <c ceptance." 
 
 In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, it 
 
 was obferved [w] there is a paffage, " where 
 
 €C J u fi^ n Martyr fays, that concerning the 
 
 <€ influence and effed: of Adam\ fin upon 
 
 D mankind, 
 
 [«] Defence, p. 276, [w] Psdo-Bap, p. 85. 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 <c mankind, which the antient writers re- 
 €c prefent as the ground and reafon of In- 
 <c fant-baptifm." « Now (fays Dr. Gill) [x] 
 " allowing that this is fpoken of Original 
 " Sin, as it feems to be, what is this to In- 
 <c fant-baptifm?" — To which I anfwer, if 
 Original Sin is any thing to Infants ; why 
 fhould not the words of Ju/lin make for 
 Infant-baptifm, when the antient writers 
 reprefcnt the former, as the ground and rea- 
 fon cf the latter? But fays the Doftor, " I 
 cc have already expofed the felly of arguing 
 " from perfons holding the one, to the prac- 
 <c tice of the other." — Has he fo indeed ! 
 But how ? Why, by telling us of fome mo- 
 derns that hold Original Sin without prac- 
 tifing Infant-baptifm ! And could not I tell 
 him of many others, that both hold the one, 
 and praevtife the other ? But, what is this to 
 the antients ? And let it be remembered, 
 that it is not the reafon of the thing, much 
 lefs any modern opinions about it, but the 
 fenfe of the antients concerning the matter 
 in queftion, which is the fubject of this pre- 
 fent difquifition. — Again, in the fame book 
 another paffage was referred to, as pointing 
 out fome analogy between baptifm, and cir- 
 cumcifion. This the Do&or will not al- 
 low, though Ju/iin fpeaks of Chriftians 
 receiving the fpiritual circumcifion by bap- 
 tifm ; but from hence he infers, " that it 
 
 "muft 
 
 [x] Antipaedo, p. 12. 
 
( 19 ) 
 (C muft be different from baptifm:" which 
 isjuft fuch another cavil, as he made be- 
 fore in diftinguifhing between baptifm, and 
 regeneration. But it. is plain, that, as ac- 
 cording to Jujlin, regeneration was per- 
 formed, or effected i?ijlrumentally by bap- 
 tifm ; fo, when he fays of the fpiritual cir- 
 cumcifion, " we have received it by bap- 
 <c tifm," (in whatever way others had re- 
 ceived it) he refers to what was done for 
 Chriftia?2s in their baptifm. But, for a 
 more particular anfwer to the Doctor's ex- 
 ceptions, I refer the reader to Dr. Wall\y\. 
 
 Says Jujlin Martyr [z], (as was alto ob- 
 ferved [a]) " Several perfons among us of 
 " both fexes, of fixty or feventy years of 
 u age, 01 ex 7Tcciocov efAa.SijTevS'Yjo-ct.v tw XP 1 £m> 
 u who were difcipled to Chrift in, or jrom y 
 c< their childhood, Wc" — Dr. Gill contends, 
 it mould be read injlruSied in Chrift : but 
 this was (hewn to be an improper way of 
 ipeaking ; as it would be to fay, that Anti- 
 pbon, the fon of Sophilas, was inflruBed in 
 his Father [/?]. The phrafe, as the Doctor 
 thinks, might better be rendered, inftruff- 
 ed by his father - y which is indeed agreeable 
 to the Englijh, if it would fuit the Greek 
 idiom ; but fome good critics are of another 
 opinion [c\ and judge it more proper to 
 D 2 fay, 
 
 » 
 
 [y] Defence, p. 267. fcfr, [z] Apol. 2. 
 
 [«] Pjedo-bap. p. 86. [b~\ See Psedo-bap. p. 86, 
 
 [f] See Walker's Modeft Plea, p. 207. 
 
( 2° ) 
 
 fay, Antiphon was a difciple to his father, 
 Di/cipled, or (which is the Doctor's phrafe, 
 though of the fame import) profelyted, to 
 his father, I think, is not fo well expreffed. 
 However, I could fee no impropriety in it, if 
 Sophilas had fet up for the head of a religi- 
 ous feci: ; and it is only in the facred, or 
 Chriftian fenfe, that we affix the idea of 
 projecting to the verb in queftion. Now, 
 what we urge is this, that the perfons de- 
 fcribed by Juftin muft have been baptized 
 in their childhood, or Infancy ; becaufe the 
 word, difcipling, in the Chriftian notion, 
 includes baptifm : for which an authority 
 was produced, that Dr. Gill cannot well 
 objedt againft, viz, his own [d]. Nor doth 
 he yet retradt what he faid ; only, he tells 
 us, what his meaning was, which was clear 
 enough before, as expreffed in his comment ; 
 but, leaving him to enjoy his own fenfe, we 
 accept of his conceffion, that the word, dif 
 cipling, includes baptifm. And this notion 
 was confirmed by A£ls xiv. 21. But here 
 the Doctor would have the word, difcipling i 
 to fignify only an ejfeel (not an adt) where- 
 in, I fancy, he is very Angular. And yet, 
 if he would honeftly tell us, what that ef- 
 fect was, (provided he may enjoy his own 
 fenfe) he would undoubtedly fay, it includ- 
 ed baptifm ; which is the thing we contend 
 for. This conftrudtion of the word was 
 
 further 
 
 fy] His Commentary on Aflsxxx. 1. 3. 
 
( « ) 
 
 further fupported by Mat. xxviii. 19, 20 [e\ 
 " Go ye, therefore, and difciple all nations, 
 fC &c" where the word, difciple ', is mani- 
 feftly a general term, which includes &?p- 
 tizing, as well as teaching. But of this, 
 the Doctor takes no notice, nor makes any 
 attempt, to juftify his former criticifms on 
 the text [/]. Admit then the notion, we 
 advance, is juft; the perfons, abovemen- 
 tioned, muft have been baptized in their in- 
 fancy, as they were difcipled to Chrift in y 
 or frorriy their childhood : for, as was ob- 
 ferved \g\ baptifm not being a continue d y 
 but a tranjient aft, to fay they were baptized 
 from their infancy, would be improper} 
 as Dr. Wall had hinted before \h\ But, 
 Dr Gill (p. 14.) would turn this off with a 
 laugh, by faying, this " reafon — is merry 
 " indeed ; when Juftin is not fpeaking of 
 " the baptifm of any perfon at all." How- 
 ever, he muft not think, to efcape thus - 3 
 for, if baptifm is included in the notion of 
 difciplingy (which the Doctor cannot deny 
 without contradicting himfelf) when Juftin 
 fpeaks of certain perfons being difcipled to 
 Chrift, he muft confequently fpeak of their 
 baptifm. Therefore he muft give us, or 
 we mall take leave, to conclude, that <c in 
 " the paffages of Juftin quoted, if there is 
 
 "no 
 
 \e\ Psdo-bap p 89. 
 
 [/] ght of rnf-bap. examined, p. 79. 
 
 \h1 Defence, p. 280. 
 
(22 ) 
 
 t( no exprefs mention of Infant-baptifm; 
 cc yet there is zhint given of it, and fome re- 
 " ference unto it;" contrary to what the 
 
 Doctor afferts. But he would willingly 
 
 warp himfelf off, by fuggefting, that Juf- 
 tin ufed the word, difcipling^ in a different 
 fenfe from the fcripture notion of the thing. 
 " From whom (fays he p. 13.) can we bet- 
 <£ ter learn his meaning than from him- 
 C J felf ?" and complains of his opponent , that 
 he takes no notice of feveral paflages in Juf- 
 tin y which the DoBor had alledged, to con- 
 firm his new fenfe of the word under con- 
 fideration. Therefore, to eafe him of his 
 complaint, we will now examine all thofe 
 paffages, and lliew, that the Greek word for 
 difciplin^ admits the fenfe, contended for, 
 there alfo. Let us begin with that paffage 
 [/] where Jujiin fpeaks, (as it is cited and 
 exprelfed by the Doclor [k]) « of ChrifVs 
 " fending his difciples to the Gentiles , who 
 " by them epc&SvjTevo-cw (it fhould be, gp*- 
 <c Sv\Ti\)(Tw) injlruffied them/' — Now, who 
 does not fee, that Jujiin here alludes to the 
 words of the commijjion. Mat. xxviii. 19, 
 20. where, as has been (hewed, the word, 
 puSqTeuirotTs, difciple, includes baptifm. Thus 
 then, Jujiin fpeaks not any peculiar dialedt 
 of his own, but the language of the New 
 Tejlament -, and fo from thence we are tp 
 2 learn 
 
 [/] Dialog, cam Try ph. p. 272,. Colon. 
 \X\ Argum. from Apoft. Trad. p. 12.J 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 learn his meanings which is this, 'viz. that 
 Chrift by his difciples, fending to the Gen- 
 tiles, difcipled them. And how did they 
 difciple the Gentiles - y but by baptifm, and by 
 teaching them ; according to Chrift's di- 
 rection [/] ? — Again, in another palTage al- 
 ledged [m], Juflin fpeaks of perfons " being 
 " fjLOLdyiTzvopsovovg, in/lruBed in the name 
 " (perion, or doctrine) of Chrift, and leav- 
 " ing the way of error •" as the Doclor gives 
 the words. But here alfo pot&iiTevo[jt,Bvovg slg 
 to ovojjicc Tcvxg'S'M (which is Ju/lins phrafe) 
 aptly fignifies their being dijcipled to Chrift, 
 fo as to be baptized in his name 5 agreeably 
 to thefe words, ABs xix. 5. e@cc7TTi<r&vi<ru» 
 tig to ovopa, tou Kvpiov lycou, i. e. they were bap- 
 tized in (or into) the name of the Lord Je/us. 
 This notion is confirmed by what jujlin 
 adds of their leaving the way of error % 
 which implies their renouncing the Pagan, 
 and embracing the Chriftian religion : and 
 when they left their old church (into which 
 they, and their children had been initiated 
 before) furely they would carry their chil- 
 dren along with them. Once more j 
 
 Juflin <c fpeaks [;z] of perfons fca^nst^Aw, 
 «« injlruBed into divine doctrines." So the 
 Doctor renders the words; but methinks, 
 inflruEied into divine doclrines, is an harm, 
 expreflion. I mould rather read it, initiated 
 
 into 
 
 [/] See Paedo-bap. p. 89. \m~\ Ibid, p. 258. 
 
 [»] Apolog. 1. p. 43. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 into divine doctrines, i. e. the Chrifiian reli- 
 gion. And thus, baptifm, the Chriftian 
 rite of initiation, may be referred to in this 
 place, as well as in the two foregoing.- — 
 After all - y < c we grant, the word, difciple, 
 " has a reference to teaching, and inftruc- 
 ce tion :" and that new converts from hea- 
 thenifm were (and ought to be) inftructed 
 firft, before their admiffion to baptifm. But, 
 this concludes nothing againft the baptiftn of 
 infants, nor difproves the notion that chil- 
 dren were (and mould bej baptized, " and 
 <c fo far made difciples to Chrift, in order 
 " to be taught ; as (Difcipulus) a fcholar is 
 u put to fchool, that he may learn'' [o]. 
 
 We now attend the Doctor to the next 
 writer in this century, viz. Irenceus. 
 
 Irenceus fays [p] of Chrift, " that he 
 <c came to fave all by himfelf; all, I fay, 
 " that by him are born again unto God, in- 
 <c fants, and little children, young men, and 
 <c old men." Upon which paffage (it was 
 obferved) [j], cc the learned Fenar dentins has 
 " this remark, that by the name of regene- 
 <c ration, according to the phrafe of Chrift, 
 " and of his Apoftles, he underftands bap- 
 " tifm, &c" Now here Dr. Gill is out of 
 patience ; he will not allow this monk (as he 
 calls him in contempt, p. 15.) to be a man 
 of learning ; though all the proof, he gives 
 
 or 
 
 [0] See Paedo-bap. p. 88. [f\ Lib. 2. p. 39. 
 
 [ ? ] Psedo-bap. p. 76. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 of it, is, that he was a great bigot to a party : 
 a man of large ajitrance, and uncommon bold- 
 mfs, &c. But, if this is the peculiar cha- 
 racter of a monk, and the fign of an unlearn- 
 ed man ; one might perhaps, find more 
 monks, and fewer fcholars, in the world, 
 than is imagined ; yea, fome famous Doc- 
 tors themfelves might be in danger of being 
 undubbed, and put on the hood. 'Tis pre- 
 fumed, however, that Dr. Grabe will be 
 allowed, to be a man of learning, and mo- 
 deration : and yet, he thought the obferva- 
 tion of Feuardentius aforefaid, worth retain- 
 ing in his edition of Irenceus [rj. Nor is 
 it, I think, a falfe glofs, as Dr. Gill pre- 
 tends, but much truer than his own affer- 
 tion, " that Chrift and his Apoftles no where 
 " call baptifm by the name of the new 
 * c birth ;" if his meaning be, that they no 
 where have reference to baptifm, when 
 they fpeak of regeneration. The words of 
 Chrift, Joh.iu. 3.5. moft plainly, and //- 
 terally, refer to baptifm. Accordingly, /?, 
 we have proved, beyond all rational contra- 
 diction, Juftin Martyr underflood them : 
 and he muft be a man of monkijh affurance, 
 that can fay, without fome equivocation, 
 " the paffage in Juftin before-mentioned, 
 " falls ihort of proving,— that in Irenceus $ 
 E " time, 
 
 \r\ P. 161. where Dr. Grabe not only efpoufes the 
 opinion of Feuardentius, but confirms it, by fome remarks 
 of his own. 
 
C 26 ) 
 
 u time, it had obtained among the antients, 
 <c to ufe the words regenerated, or regcnera- 
 " tion y for baptized, or baptifm." [s] — Tis 
 pretended (ibid) " the paffages in Tertullian, 
 cc and Clemens of Alexandria, concerning 
 cc being bom in water, and begotten of the 
 lt womb of water jV], are too late." But 
 how can they be too late ; when both thefe 
 writers, though younger men, lived at the 
 fame time with Irenceus? — The Dofior 
 goes on ; " befide, the one is to be interpret- 
 " ed of the grace of God compared to wa- 
 "ter; this is clearly Tertulliansknk ; for, 
 <c he adds, " nor are we otherwife fafe, or 
 <{ faved, than by remaining in water, which 
 " iurely can never be underftood literally of 
 " the water of baptifm." But if he had 
 not been in too much hafie, to confider the 
 fenfe, and defign of the words, the Doctor 
 might have clearly perceived his own mif- 
 take. For, Tertullian is there exprefsly 
 treating of water- baptifm, which fome per- 
 fons, as he fays, were for laying afide [>]. 
 This was the cafe of one ^uintilla, who, as 
 he tells u?, <c dedroyed baptifm according 
 u to her nature $ for he calls her a venomous 
 "viper; and obierves, that fuch kind of 
 " creatures frequent dry unwatery places." 
 Then follow the words before us -, " But 
 
 Is] Antipasdo, p. 15. [/] See Psedo-bap. p. 79. 
 
 [«] Tertul. de baptifmo, which book begins thus, Felis 
 facramentum aquse, &c 
 
( 2 7 ) 
 
 " we are born in the water like little Jijhes, 
 " after the example of Jefus Chrift, &c." 
 Therefore, by remaining in the water, is 
 plainly meant retaining the falutary ufe of 
 water baptifm in the church. Accordingly 
 Pamelius obferves, " that thefe words are 
 " to be chiefly remarked againft thofe, who 
 <c deny the necejjity of 'water in baptifm." \_w~\ 
 To the fame purpofe fays De la Cerda \x\ 
 cc Obferve the neceffity of water in baptifm 
 " againft the Paulicians" This laft writer 
 refers to a parallel place [y], where Tertul- 
 lian fays, cc There is one kind of flefh of 
 u birds, that is, the ?nartyrs, who foar to 
 " the higher regions; another of Jijhes, that 
 " is, thofe, whom the water of baptifm 
 " fuffices." But there are other pafTages, 
 which plainly fhew, that Tertullian confi- 
 dered baptifm as a kind, or mean, of rege- 
 neration ; and fo made ufe of this word to 
 exprefs baptifm. Says he [z], tc the law 
 <c of baptizing is enjoined, and the form 
 ** prefcribed. Go (fays he) teach all nati- 
 " ons, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- 
 c< ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghojl. 
 ff< Parallel to this law is that definition, Ex- 
 " cept a man be born of water, and of the 
 cc Spirit, he Jhall not enter into the kingdom 
 *' of heaven! 1 And again [a], cc Bleffed 
 E 2 " are 
 
 [w] Pamel. Not. inloc. [*] Not. ibid. 
 
 [_?] De Refurred. Carnis, Cap. 52. 
 
 [2] De Baptifmo. [«] J bid, {lib fin. 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 iC are ye whom the favour of God attends, 
 <{ when you afcend out of the mod holy 
 cc laver of the new birth, [iiovi na talis]"- 
 Dr. Gill is as far wide of the truth, in fay- 
 ing, (p. 1 6.) "as for Clemens \b\ he is 
 " fpeaking not of regeneration, but of the 
 " natural generation of man, as he comes 
 cc out of his mother's womb, &c." For, 
 Clemens is allegorizing, in his way, upon the 
 words of job [c\, Naked came I out of my 
 mother s womb ; and naked fiall I return. 
 <f Not naked (fays he) of poffeffions, for 
 <c that is a fmall and common thing; but, 
 ct as a juft man, he returns naked of vice, 
 " and wickednefs, &c. For this is what is 
 <c faid, Unlefs ye be converted as little chil- 
 *? dren, pure in body, and holy in foul, by 
 " abftaining from evil works -, (hewing that 
 " he would have us to be fuch, as he begot 
 " us of the womb of water. For, generation 
 " fucceeding to generation, will advance us 
 u to immortality." Now, in this allegori- 
 cal difcourfe, the womb of water plainly an- 
 swers to the mother s womb -, and fo, thefe 
 cannot fignify one, and the fame thing, 
 without deftroying the allegory, and lofing 
 the whole fpirit of the difcourfe. There- 
 fore, when Clemens fpeaks of Chriftians be- 
 ing begotten, or born, of the womb of wa- 
 ter ; he muft intend fomething elfe, than 
 the natural generation of man -, and what 
 
 can 
 
 \h\ Strom, lib. 4. \c\ Job. i. 21. 
 
( *9 ) 
 
 can that be, but baptifm ? that generation 
 fpiritual, which fucceeded the generation 
 natural And what muft that generation 
 be, which fucceeded another ; but a regene- 
 ration ? — Befides, there are other paffages 
 in Clemens, which may be feen in Dr. Wall^ 
 [d] where he fpeaks of baptifm under the no- 
 tion of regeneration. Thus, e.g. he fpeaks 
 of Chrift himfelf being regenerated, in dif- 
 courfing of his baptifm [e]. This may per- 
 haps feem a very odd notion ; but Cyprian 
 alfo fays [/J, " the mafter himfelf fubmit- 
 c< ted to be baptized by his fervant; and 
 " he, who was to confer upon us the re- 
 " miffion of fins, vouchfafed to be waflied 
 " in the laver of regeneration" All which 
 agrees with Tertul/ians faying before, " We 
 Cl are born in the water like little fimes, af- 
 <c ter the example of, or conformably unto, 
 " Jefus Chrift." [g] And in what other 
 fenfe could Chrift be fa id to be born in the 
 water, or regenerated -> but with a reference 
 to his baptifm ? 
 
 It was obferved [Jo], " a like notion Ter- 
 " tullian mentions [/], as maintained by the 
 " heathens, no doubt long before the time of 
 " Irenceus" Upon this, lays the Doclor, p. 
 1 6. cl To have recourfe to heathens, to af- 
 €< certain the name of chriflian baptifm, is 
 
 <c monftrous." 
 
 [V] Defence. ApDendix, p. 7. 
 
 [e\ Psdagog. lib. 1. c 6. [f] De Bono Patientia?. 
 
 [g] Secundum )%$vv nollrum Jefum Chriitum. 
 
 [h] Pagdo-bap.p. 79. [/] De baptiirao. 
 
( 3° ) 
 
 V monftrous." But, where is the wonder, 
 if perfons, juft converted from Paganifm, 
 did not immediately change their language 
 with their religion, but ftill retained fome 
 of their old terms, (if not their tenets) and 
 applied them to the Chriftian myjieries ? 
 Priejis, facrtfices, altars, &c. are words ve- 
 ry familiar with the antient writers, when 
 they fpeak e. g. of the other Sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper. — If the DoSor had as 
 much of a difpofition, as he had reafon to 
 retract, what he faid about the cuftom men- 
 tioned by Barnabas, of giving milk and ho- 
 ney to perfons juft baptized ; he would at 
 leaft have dropped that matter. For, as 
 this ceremony was ufed by the antients in 
 token of fuch perfons being new-born; [k] 
 it is plain, they confidered baptifm as a 
 new-birth, and a kind, or way of regenera- 
 tion. It is therefore perfect trifling, to in- 
 ferr, " that the words regeneration, and re- 
 " generated, are neither of them mentioned 
 " by Barnabas-" nor can it anfwer any 
 other end, but to difcover, how well fome 
 perfons are fkilled in the ingenious art of 
 equivocation or evafion. The queftion is 
 not, whether Barnabas ufeth thofe words -, 
 but, whether in Irenaus's time it had ob- 
 tained among the antients to ufe them for 
 baptized, and baptifm. Now, if fo much 
 earlier than Irenczus, as the time of Bar- 
 nabas^ 
 
 [q See Pasdobap. p. 80. 
 
( 3i ) 
 
 ftabas, the notion of baptifmal regeneration 
 obtained among the antients ; does not this 
 over-throw the foundation of the Doctor's 
 hypothefis? He had better fuppofe with 
 Vojjius [/], that the words of Barnabas have 
 no reference to the antient cuftom aforefaid : 
 and fo withdraw his former plea for the 
 high antiquity of that cuftom [m] ; if he 
 can prevail with himfelf to retradt any 
 thing. Bat even this will not help him 
 much > fince the faid cuftom of giving milk 
 and honey to new-baptized perfons, is men- 
 tioned by fome of Irenauss cotemporaries, 
 particularly, Tertullian [/z], and Clemens A- 
 lexandrinus \o\ 
 
 Irenaus was alfo cited for this paffage [p], 
 " giving the power of regeneration unto God, 
 " to his difciples, he faid unto them, Go, 
 €t and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 " name of the Father, &c." [q] m " By which 
 ,c power or commiffion (fays the Dcclor, p. 
 iX 16,) is meant not the commiffion of bap~ 
 c< tizing, &c." Aftonifhing ! he might as 
 well fay, with equal modefty and truth, 
 that baptizing is not in their commiffion 
 at all. But fince it is a part of their com- 
 miffion, it muft be one branch of their 
 power of regenerating perfons unto God, ac- 
 cording to Irenceus. — It was alfo obferved, [r] 
 
 « that 
 
 [/] Not. in Barnab. 
 
 [*»] Argum. from ap. trad. p. 37. 
 
 O] De Corona milic [0] Pasdagog. lib. 1. 
 
 W Lib. 3. c. 19. [qr] Pado-bap. p. 81. 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 " that Irentius mentions by name the 
 " baptifm of regeneration unto God" [s] 
 Here the Dodlor only repeats (p. 17.) Dr* 
 Gale's quibbles [*], which have been fuffici- 
 ently obviated before, by obferving, that we 
 do not take baptifm and regeneration to be 
 identically the fame thing 5 but that, ac- 
 cording to the fenfe of the antients, the latter 
 has a reference to the former, as the way 
 and mean of regeneration. It is evidendy 
 thus, that Irenceus explains himfelf [u] y when 
 he expreffes the fame thing by the (aver of 
 regeneration, and regeneration by the laver* 
 Says Dr. Wall [w], <c Mr. Gale comes here 
 <( again with his quiddity ; and fays, rege- 
 " neration, which is by the laver, is different 
 "from the laver ; not minding that the force 
 €t of his objedtion is equally taken off by 
 ct it's fo accompanying the laver, as never 
 " to be without it in the fenfe of the an- 
 <c tients." — And yet this is one of the two 
 places, to which Dr. Gill refers, as where 
 <c Irenaus ufes the word regeneration ia a 
 " different fenfe from baptifm :" he fhould 
 have faid, without any reference to baptifm ; 
 if he would have fpoke to the purpofe. In 
 the other paffage \x\ (where the fenfe is 
 obferved to be imperfect, [y]) Irenaus hints, 
 u that a man cannot leave the generation of 
 
 " death, 
 2. 
 
 [/J Lib. 1. c. 18. [/] Refleftions, p. 487. 
 
 [»] Lib. 5. cap. 15. £w] Defence, 343. 
 
 O] Lib. 4. cap. 51. \y] Vid. Grabe in loc. 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 *' death, but by a new generation!' Now, 
 this is fo far from contradicting the fenfe of 
 the word, regeneration^ for which we con- 
 tend, as that it really confirms it. For, 
 we have here generation fucceeding generati- 
 on, as Clemens Alexandrinus fpeaks, with 
 an eye to Chriftians being begotten of the 
 womb of water : which, as we have (hewed 
 before, fignifies baptifm. And Tertullian 
 [z] calls baptifm " the blefTed facrament of 
 ci water, becaufe, the fins of our former 
 u blindnefs being wafhed away, we are de- 
 " livered unto life eternal" Here then we 
 have the new generation, whereby a man 
 is delivered from the generation of death - y 
 as mentioned by Irenaus. 'Tis true; he 
 reprefents the thing as effected by the pow- 
 er of God : but ftiil his account is confident 
 with the notion of baptifm, as being refer- 
 red to by him. For (to mention that once 
 for all) the antients diftinguhlied between 
 the inftr anient al and efficient caufe of rege- 
 neration ; and fo, betwixt the material and 
 the fpiritual part of baptifm [a], " Rege- 
 " neration is by the water, and the fpirit, 
 " even as all generation. For the fpirit of 
 " God moved upon the face of the deep [b]. 
 <c And for this reafon our Saviour was bap- 
 " tized, not that he needed baptifm, but 
 F « that 
 
 fz] De baptifmo. 
 
 Ol Clem. Alex. Epitom. p, 802. Edit. Paris. 
 
 [JjGen.i.a. 
 
( 34 ) 
 " that he might fanftify all water to the 
 " regenerated. Hereby we are purified not 
 <c only in body, but in foul, &c. — For, bap- 
 u tifm is by water, and by ibefpirit" Agree- 
 ably to this account, Clemens Alexandrinus 
 reprefents Chriftians as pure in body, and 
 holy in foul \ when he fpeaksof God's beget- 
 ting them of the womb of water : as we 
 have feen before. Now, all this confirms 
 the notion, that in the time of lrenaus, it 
 did obtain among the antients, to ufe the 
 words regenerated, and regeneration, for 
 baptized, and bap tifm. 
 
 But to return to the firft quotation from 
 lrenaus, upon which the chief ftrefs is laid 
 in the prefent controverfy. Says Dr. Gill, 
 (who is as capable of faying very furpriz- 
 ing things, as mod men) [c] " Irenaus — 
 <c mod clearly ufes it (viz. the word, regene- 
 " ration) in another fenfe in this very paf- 
 <c fage; fince he fays, Chrift came to lave 
 " all, who by him are born again unto God, 
 €l who are regenerated by Chrift, and not 
 <c by baptifm -, and which is explained both 
 <c before and after by \{\$fan5lifying all forts 
 ec of perfons, infants, litde ones, young men, 
 <c and old men ; which cannot be under- 
 " flood of his baptizing them, for he bap- 
 <c tized none, &c." Mod admirable rea- 
 foning! as if Chrift might not be properly 
 faid to do that, which is done by the virtue 
 
 and 
 
 [<-] Antipaedo, p. 17. 
 
( ^ 35 ) 
 and influence of his ordinances, and ap- 
 pointments! [d] Thus, what is done by 
 baptifm, may be faid to be done by Chrift 
 himfelf. As for his fanSifying all forts of 
 perfons, &c. this alio (if, as the Dodlor 
 fuppofes, it relates to the fame thing,) cor* 
 refponds with the nature, and defign of bap- 
 tifm, as a facred rite of dedication, or con- 
 fecration, to the fervice of God ; which is 
 a proper notion of fanctifying perfons, and 
 things. Accordingly, the Apoftle makes 
 mention of ChriiVs fanclifying his church 
 by the wajliing of water, &c. [>]. And 
 the antient chriftian writers often fpeak of 
 baptifm by the name of fan5tification.[f\ 
 But, it is the Doctor's misfortune to con- 
 found the antient, ecclejiaftical, with the 
 
 modern, Jyftematical fenfe of words. . 
 
 He goes on in his own way thus: " And I 
 * c fay it again, to underftand Irenceus as 
 " fpeaking of baptifm, is to make him 
 " fpeak what is abfolutely falfe ; that Chrift 
 " came to fave all, and only fuch, who are 
 " baptized unto God, &c" Well ! and 
 what if Irenceus was not more infallible in 
 points of doctrine than the reft of his bre- 
 thren, called Fathers ? Here the good Doc- 
 tor breaks forth into declamation, and ex- 
 prefTes an extraordinary concern for the re- 
 
 F 2 putation 
 
 [d] Joh. iv. l, 2. 
 
 {/] Eph. v. 26. 
 
 £/] See Walker's Modeft Plea, ch. 28, 29, 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 putation of this good old Father [g]. But it 
 is no breach of charity to fay, it is all gri- 
 mace. For, why mould he be fo very fo- 
 licitous to advance the character of Irenceus 
 fo much above many other of the good old 
 Fathers, who held the necefjity, and efficacy 
 of baptifm to falvation as ftiongiy, as Irence- 
 m can be fuppofed to do upon our hypothe- 
 cs ? No, no ; take my word for it, it is a 
 zeal, a flaming, though difguifed zeal for 
 his own jy/lem, fo nearly interefted in the 
 cafe, that has infpired him upon this occafi- 
 on with fuch a mighty regard for the rules 
 of honour, juftice, truth, and charity, (tho" 
 taken out of that fphere of attraction, I 
 make no queftion, but the Doctor is a very 
 worthy Gentleman). However, he feems 
 to have taken a falfe alarm, from his own 
 miftaking the fenfe of Irenaus. He fays, 
 u to underftand Irenaus as fpeaking of bap- 
 " tim, is to make him fpeak what is abfo- 
 <c lutely falfe -, that Chrifl came to fave ally 
 <{ and only fuch, &c." Now, it happens, 
 that the cxclufive word, only, is an addition 
 of the Doctor's; who would call this, ma- 
 nagement ^ in another. And then, as for 
 the word, all, it does not fiddly refer to 
 individuals, but to all forts of perfons, (to ufe 
 the Doctor's phrafe, p. 37.) that is, peribns 
 of all ages, infant 5 % little ones, young men, 
 and old men , as Irenaus himfclf explains 
 
 it. 
 
 [g] Antipacdo, p. 18, 19. 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 it.— It was obferved [h], that Chrift fpeaks 
 the fame kind of language, that we fuppofe 
 Irenceus to fpeak, fo far as relates to bap- 
 tifm [/]. And his words plainly include 
 this propotition, ct He, that is baptized, 
 ci jhall be faved" But this parallel difpleafes 
 the Doctor : he calls it mean and Jlupidi a 
 plain fign it pricked him : but, he mould 
 have mewed, wherein it fails ; inftead of 
 which, he has only involved himfelf in 
 frefli difficulties. He fays of Chrift's words, 
 ' c they need no qualifying fenfe ; the mean- 
 <c ing is plain and eafy; that every bap- 
 <£ tized believer fhall be faved, and leave 
 " no room to fuggeft, that unbaptized be- 
 " lievers (hall not." But do not the words 
 of Chrift as much fuggeft this, as the words 
 of Irenceus, according to the fenfe, we put 
 upon them? Let the Doctor lend us his 
 hand, to flip in the exclujive word, (only) 
 here, as he did in the other cafe j and the 
 thing is plain to be feen by every body. 
 Be fides, his affertion, that every baptized 
 believer fliall be faved, (which he lays down, 
 as the plain and eafy meaning of our Sa- 
 viour's words) muit be under flood with 
 fome rejlriSlion, by his own account. For, 
 Simon Magus he gives up for lolt. And 
 yet was he a baptized believer -, for the fa- 
 cred hiftory fays exprefsly [k], that (i Si- 
 
 
 Psedobap. p. 83. [/] Mark. xvi> 16. 
 
 Ads viii. 13, 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 " tnon himfelf alfo believed, and was bap- 
 " tizedy Such inconfiftencies will men 
 fall into, when their prejudices, and paf- 
 fions, get the better of their reafon ! Here 
 one might return the Doctor fome of his 
 fine rhetoric, and fay, " what a wretched 
 11 caufe rnuft the caufe of Antipcedo-bap- 
 11 tijm be, which requires fuch managing 
 cc (I add fuch blundering too) as this, to 
 " maintain it ?" I fay, what a wretched 
 caufe muft this be, which is attended with 
 fuch a complication of ignorance, fraud, 
 and diflimulation ? 
 
 The paflage cited from Clemens Alexan- 
 drinm [/], where he makes mention of an 
 Apoftle drawing children out of the water \rn\ 
 yet flicks in the Doctor's teeth j he chews it, 
 and criticifes upon it, but can make nothing 
 of it, after all, without altering the text up- 
 on his own authority. ct However, (fays 
 " he, p. 21.) if thisinftance is continued to 
 Cl be urged, I hope it will be allowed, that 
 " baptifm in thofe early times (he might 
 " have added in thofe warm climates) was 
 " performed by immerfion." Thus, what 
 he lofes one way, he hopes to gain in an- 
 other ; nor ought we to grudge him fo fmall 
 an advantage after his other loffes. Let us 
 then compromife the matter with him, and 
 allow, that Infants were not the only jub- 
 jecls of baptifm j provided he will grant, 
 
 that 
 
 [/] Piedobap. p. 76. 03 P^dagog. lib. 3, cap. 1 1- 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 that immerfion was not the only mode of 
 baptifm, in thofe early times. For neither 
 fide can pretend to more from this particu- 
 lar inftance. But, the Doctor feems to have 
 forgot one thing, viz. that Chrift made 
 his Apoftles fijhers of men \n\ ; and why 
 not of children ? particularly thofe under 
 their parent's command ; unlefs, when the 
 parents were received into the christian 
 church, their children were to be of ano- 
 ther ^ or of no church. Befides, it muft 
 not be forgot, that Tertidlian compares bap- 
 tized perfons to little fifhes ; which confirms 
 the notion that Clemens alludes to the bap- 
 tifm of children. This may fatisfy the 
 Doctor without his infilling upon any fur- 
 ther account of the matter. But, " that he 
 " fhould believe, that Infant-baptifm is here 
 " referred to j" this, to be fure, is more 
 than can be expected from a man of his 
 temperate brain, cool imagination, and un- 
 prepojfejfed mind ! However, to infer from 
 fuch lame prenaiffes, as he has laid down 
 for the two firft centuries, that Infant-bap- 
 tifm muft be an innovation \ (p. 21.} is ve- 
 ry extraordinary. It is amazing to think, 
 that any man of character could propofe fuch 
 forced, and unfair conftructions, as he has 
 put upon many paflages, that have occurred 
 in the courfe of this debate. But, that he 
 fhould lay any firefs on them, and pertend 
 
 to 
 
 O] Mat. iv. 19. 
 
( 4° ) 
 
 to draw a conclufion, fuch a conclufion frorn 
 them: this furpaffes all wonder! On the 
 other hand, let the impartial reader review 
 the inconteftable evidence, that has been 
 produced, that in Irenauis time, the an- 
 tients ufed the word regeneration, fo as to 
 connote baptifm thereby j and his teftimony 
 alone is a fufficient proof of Infant- baptifm 
 in that age. Befides, the remarkable tefti- 
 mony that was bore to the univerfal, and 
 immemorial practice of Infant-baptifm, in 
 the Pelagian controverfy, when a much 
 greater number of primitive writers were 
 extant ; is fuch a corroborating circumftance 
 as furnifhes us with an unanfwerable argu- 
 ment for it's antiquity. But if, notwith- 
 ftanding this, any one will conclude that 
 Infant-baptifm is an innovation 3 becaufe 
 there is no more faid of it in this period : 
 we may fay with Dr. Wall\p~\\ "what 
 " then will become of Antipcedo-baptifm, 
 c< which does not appear to have been prac- 
 " tifed 'till after the middle of the eleventh 
 <c century ?" Proceed we now to 
 
 The third century. 
 
 <c At the beginning of which Tertullian 
 
 tc lived ;" according to the Doctor, p. 22. 
 
 And if, as he pretends, Tertullian is the 
 
 firft perfon, that ever mentioned Infant-bap- 
 
 2 tifm -, 
 
 . [c] Defence, 281. 
 
( 4* ) 
 tifnij he mud alfo be the firft perfon, that 
 ever /poke again/1 it. Therefore, by the 
 Do&ofs con feflion, there is no evidence for 
 Jfntipcedo-baptifm in the two firft centuries. 
 Thus, his own argument turns againft him. 
 But, it does not appear, that Tertullian did 
 fo fpeak againft Infant-baptifm, as abfolute- 
 ly to oppofe it ; on the contrary, he allowed 
 of it in cafes of neceffity [p]. And though the 
 Doctor would make nonfenfe(p. 23.) of that 
 exceptive claufe ; " what neceffity is there, 
 if it be not however necejfary : n the turn of 
 expreffion is very agreeable to Tertullian s 
 ftile and manner. For, the like exception 
 he makes about Lay-men's adminiftring bap- 
 tifm, which he allows of only in cafes of 
 neceffity [q]. He fays [r], " If thou haft 
 " the right of priefthood m thyfelfj thou 
 " mayft have it when (or where) it is ne- 
 < c cefary." But then he alfo obferves [s], 
 u No neceffity may be excufed, which may 
 V be no neceffity." Is there not as much 
 nonfenfe in this, as in the other claufe? and 
 does it not imply the fame fentiment that is 
 there expreffed, viz. that it is not necefTary, 
 except in cafes of (real) neceffity.— Befides, 
 
 G this 
 
 [/>] See Pasdobap. p. 73. 
 _ [?] Sufficiat fcilicet in necefiitatibus, ut utaris. De hap- 
 tifmo. 
 
 [r] Si habes jus facerdotis in temet ipfo, ubi necefe eft 
 habeas. Exhort, ad Cajiitatem. 
 
 [s] Nulla neceflitas excufet'ur, quae potell non efle necef- 
 fitas. Ibidem. 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 this is the oldefi reading we know of 5 and 
 Rigaltius, who firft dropt it, is not always 
 the happieft critic [f\ : but fometimes alter- 
 ed the reading for the worfe. And though 
 the Antip&do-baptifls catch at his needlefs 
 correction here, (for, I hope we (hall now 
 hear no more of the pretended nonfenfe^ 
 and impertinence of the reading) Rigaltius is 
 dcferted, and the older reading of Gaigncem 
 is preferred, not only by Pamelius, but others, 
 [u] It is a further confirmation of the ge- 
 nuinenefs of this reading, that Tertu/lian \w] 
 afTcrts the necejjity of baptifm to falvation, 
 from thofe words of Chrift, Except any one 
 be bom of water, &c. [w]. And though he 
 fays, " true faith is fecure of falvation," as 
 the Doctor obferves; (p. 24.) this does not 
 deftroy his other affenion : however diffi- 
 cult it may feem to reconcile them [x] - y 
 nor can the difficulty reach the cafe of In- 
 fants, unlefs the Doctor will fuppofe them 
 to have true faith. — It was obferved [y], 
 that the words of Tertullian, in what he fays 
 of Infant- baptifm, imply, that it was actu- 
 ally praffifed in his time. But this the Doc- 
 tor denies -, (p. 23.) and fays, " Tertu/lian 
 u might fay all that he does, though as yet 
 Cc not one Infant had ever been baptized, 
 
 [t] See Wain Hill. P. i. ch. 4. S. 8. 
 [«] Vid. De la Cerda in loc. 
 \jw] De baptifmo. 
 O] See Wain Hift. ibid. Sefr 7, 
 [y] Pasdobap. p. 71. 
 
C 43 ) 
 « £ fifc." Now, what a ftrong imagination 
 may poflibly do in this cafe, I cannot fay. 
 One may indeed, by the help of a lively 
 fancy, fuppofe, that Tertullian was prefent 
 upon the fpot, when the firft child, (as well 
 as the firft Virgin, and the firft Widow, was 
 converted from Paganifm ; for he advifes 
 the delay of baptifm in all thefe \ and, as 
 himfelf fays, for equal reafon [z],) came to 
 be baptized ; and that he delivered his dif- 
 courfe about baptifm on that occafion. This 
 is the imaginary fenfe, which the Doctor 
 paints before his reader's eyes, by the cafe 
 he fuppofes. But, can any man of cool 
 thought and reflection conceive, that Ter- 
 tullian (as mad a Montanijl as he became af- 
 terwards) would fit him down to write a 
 book, or in a book deliver a grave difcourfe 
 about a non-entity ? a thing that was not ! 
 — Befides, there is fome reafon to inter- 
 pret his words of Infants of Infidels, though 
 he makes no diftinction -, becaufe, he is dif- 
 courfW of new converts from heathenifm. 
 And he not only fays, that the children of 
 believers are holy, as they are defgned for 
 holinejs \ but that holinefs he explains of 
 baptifm [a]. Now, if fuch children could 
 not be admitted to baptifm without previ- 
 ous inftruction -, where was their preroga- 
 tive, Tertullian fpeaks of, above the chil- 
 dren of Heathens ? Nor is this contradicted 
 G 2 .by 
 
 [«] Non minor! de caufa, [a] De anima* 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 by his faying, " Men are not horn, but 
 <c made chriftians :" [b] becaufe baptifm is a 
 mean of making chriftians 5 a mean of their 
 regeneration, according to Tertullian : and 
 thus, they are not bom, but born again, or 
 made, Chriftians. So, when he fays, fiant 
 Chrifiiani, cum Chrifium noffe potuerint, Sec. 
 let them be made Chriftiam, &c. his mean- 
 ing plainly is, let them be baptized. 
 
 It was obferved [c], that Tertullian does 
 not mention Infant-baptifm among the un- 
 written cufcoms in a book, which was 
 wrote after his book of baptifm, where we 
 have difcovered plain evidence of the prac- 
 tice of baptizing Infants, From whence it 
 is is inferred, that he looked upon Infant- 
 baptifrn as a written cujlom, &c. But the 
 Doctor's account of the matter is, (p. 24.) 
 that CI as yet no fuch cuflom had obtained, 
 " &c" agreeably enough to his own hypo- 
 thesis, but contrary to fact, in our humble 
 opinion. And perhaps his brethren will 
 not thank him, for making the Antipcedo- 
 baptifis or Non-paedo-baptifts, the authors of 
 all thofe innovations in religion, mentioned 
 by Tertullian there [d], as they muft be up- 
 on the Doctor's fuppofition : tho' at other 
 times [_e], thefe confident writers can re- 
 prefent Infant-baptifrn as the leading mif- 
 
 chievous 
 
 [£] Apolog. [<•] Psedobap. p. 74. 
 
 [/) De Corona milit. 
 
 [<?] D'Anvers's Treatife of Bapt. p. 11 1. 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 chievous caufe of thefe very corruptions, 
 and what introduced them into the Church. 
 Concerning Origen , the Doctor takes a 
 great deal of pains, (p. 25, &c.) to prove 
 what no-body denies, viz that his works 
 are interpolated in the Latin tranflations ; 
 though the charge feems to be too much ex- 
 aggerated [/] : and what is quoted from 
 Ruffinus's peroration, at the end of his trans- 
 lation of Origen on the epiftle to the Ro- 
 mans, H was not meant by him for any fe- 
 " rious account of what he had done in that 
 u work ; but for a jeer on St. Jerome, &c" 
 as Dr. Wall obferves [g]. So that " the 
 " quotation from Mar/hall [b] y is dill good 
 "for fomething" But the Doctor having 
 made the moft of thefe interpolations, (and 
 perhaps more, than the matter will well 
 bear) very gravely asks, (p. 27.) u and 
 " now, where's his probability, and moral 
 ? c certainty, that there are no additions, and 
 " interpolations in Origen?'* No additions, 
 and interpolations ! But who faid fo ? This 
 is grots mifreprefentation. The words, here 
 referred to, were fpoken of the particular 
 paffages in queftion. And that they could 
 be no interpolations of Rujjinus's, was 
 proved by feveral arguments [/]. (1.) a "Ruf- 
 " Jinus could have no temptation, or occafi- 
 
 " on, 
 
 [/] See Waifs Defence, p. 174. 
 
 [g] Ibid. p. 379. [b] Psdobap. p. 6z. 
 
 10 Psdobap. p. 64,65, 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 *\ on, to coin any paffages for him to that 
 " purpofe, fince it was never made any part 
 " of Origen's accufations, that he was a- 
 u gainft Infant-baptifm." [k] (2.) It is ab- 
 furd to fuppofe, and ridiculous to fugged:, 
 that Rujfmis would coin any fuch paffages 
 for Origen, as imported that original Jin was 
 the ground andreafon of Infant-baptifm, di- 
 rectly contrary to his own private opinion - 7 
 as Ruffinus was inclined to the Pelagians, ac- 
 cording to the doctor's quotation from Vof- 
 Jiii* [/]. If then it was not unlucky for his 
 hypotiKfis, that he ftarted fuch a notion in 
 his reader's way j he muft be one of the 
 luckieft men alive. But, fays he, <c it is 
 " lucky on my fide, that Voffius a Pcedobap- 
 **■ tijl fhould fugged, that this paiTage is in- 
 <c terpolated, &c." Now here, I fufpect, 
 the Doctor's good fortune fails him : for, 
 Vojjius feems not to fugged any fuch thing. 
 The words, referred to (as I fuppofe) are 
 thefe [m] ; (fpeaking of Original Sin as the 
 ground of Infant- baptifm) " Origen truly 
 c < has mentioned it, in his eighth Homily 
 " on Leviticus , and he, whofe authority 
 <c fhould be of greater weight in this part y 
 *' becaufe of Origen's books being interpo- 
 cc lated by Ruffinus? Now, if Voffius ftip- 
 
 pofed, 
 
 [K\ See Mar/haWs Cyprian, P. i . p. 120. Notes. 
 
 [/] Hilt Pelag. lib. 2. P. 1. Thef. 5. 
 
 [/»] Meminere fane eji^s Origines Homil 8. in Levit. et 
 is, cujus, ob interpolates a Rufino Origenis libros, major 
 etiam hac parte eiTe debet autoritas, p. 155. 4to. 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 pofed, that the paffige itfelf was an inter- 
 polation ; how could he refer to it as Ori~ 
 gens ? But it is not worth one's while to 
 contend about this point ; as the private opi- 
 nion of a particular perfon is of little con- 
 fequence either way. (3.) Jerome and Ruf- 
 finus y though at great difference among them- 
 felves, perfectly agreed in giving the fame 
 fenfe of Origtn upon the point, in their La- 
 tin tranflations. The Doctor fays, (p, 26.) 
 " the paffage in Jerome's tranflation of Ori- 
 <c gen's homilies on Luke, fpeaks indeed of 
 <c the baptifm of Infants, and the neceffity 
 <c of it, (he mould have added, for clean fing 
 "from original fin) but not a word of it's 
 V being a cuftom of the church, and an 
 " apoitolical tradition." — However, it fpeaks 
 of Infant- baptifm as the praffi ice of the 
 church ; and founds it upon the words of 
 Chrift, Except any one be born of water, &c. 
 which is, in effect, the fame as making 
 it an apoftolical tradition, or inftitution. 
 Therefore, tbefe parts of the Latin tranfla- 
 tions of Origen may well pafs for genuine, 
 and confequently be admitted an evidence in 
 any court, fit to try fuch a caufe, and where 
 queftions oi fa5l are determined by fuch 
 moral proof, as the nature of the cafe ad- 
 mits. But, if the Doctor is for proceeding 
 by the civil forms of judicature in deciding 
 the point of Infant-baptifm ; this rule will 
 do him little fervice upon the whole 5 when 
 
 it 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 it fhall be remembered, that parents can 
 contraSl for their children in civil affairs. 
 — Cyprian, a cotemporary of Origen, fpeaks 
 the fame language with thefe Latin tranf- 
 lations of his books, fo as to fuggeft, that 
 Original Sin is a ground of Infant-baptifm j 
 and if he does not exprefsly fay, that it was 
 a cuftom of the churchy or an apojlolical tra- 
 dition, the nature of his difcourfe implies > 
 and fuppofes it [n]. Nor had he any occa- 
 fion to refer to Origen, as faying thefe things 3 
 becaufe they were no matter of debate in 
 his time; a plain fign that Origen^ as his 
 fenfe is given by his Latin tranflators, fpeaks 
 the common fentiments of that age. As 
 little neceffity was there for Aujlin, if cc he 
 " made a blujler about Infant baptifm being 
 11 an apojlolical tradition" (though it was 
 not the thing itfelf, but the reafon of it, 
 that came intoqueftion [0]) to appeal to Ori- 
 gens tejlimony of it \ and for the fame reafon 
 alio. But, how does the Doctor's infinu- 
 ation, (p. 28.) that there was no fuch 
 teftimony in Aufliris time, agree with his 
 former fuggeftion [/>], that Aiiftin might 
 take up his notion (viz. " that Infant- bap- 
 <c tifm was an antient and conftant ufage of 
 <c the church, and an apoftolical tradition) 
 " from the Latin tranflations of Or i gen by 
 <c Jerome and Ruffnus ¥* 
 
 2 Dr. 
 
 [«] See Paedobap. p. 63. 
 ' M Argum. from Ap. trad. p. 20. [/>] Ibid. p. 26J 
 
( 49 ) 
 Dr. Gill having faid [£J, (fpeaking of the 
 Greek oiOrigen) " that many things may 
 " be obferved from thence in favour of 
 sc adult-baptifm :" fomebody had the cou- 
 rage to tell him [r], the affertion was either 
 fdl/e> or impertinent: the latter, if it was 
 not meant exclujively of Infant-baptifm ; 
 and the former, if this was the Doctor's 
 meaning; and he was challenged to make 
 good his aftertion. This was a bold ftroke ; 
 and if it was a little /mart upon the Doctor, 
 he fhould make fome allowance to the au- 
 thor, as a junior, (fuch as the Doctor takes 
 him to be, p. 15.) confidering the manners 
 of youth [s] : efpecially as it becomes them 
 to imitate their feniors ; and the Doctor 
 (who by his way off peaking feems to have an 
 indifputable claim to that character) muft 
 know, who is the perfon, that fir ft hectored 
 mojl manfully upon this occafion, by giving 
 out words of defiance [/]. But, the good 
 Doctor is highly affronted, (though, as 
 Plato fays [«], No man fioould be offended at 
 the truth) and, as revenge is fweet, he gra- 
 tifies his fpleen in fo mean a manner, as 
 himfelf thought flood in need of an apolo- 
 gy, (p. 23.) He knows well enough, fo 
 much has been faid in this argument on 
 H both 
 
 \q\ Ibid. p. 17. [*] Psedobap. p. 66. 
 
 \f\ biXoriu.o) >A'J u&'i, [AcUfav efs eiKoVifipt. Arid. Rh. 
 lib. 2. cap. 12. [.*] SeePadobap. p. 49, 
 
 [a] TZ y&p *m££ ;£aA£TfittW/p Qud-ijjui. Placode Re- 
 pub, lib. 5. 
 
C 5° ) 
 
 both fides the queftion, that no one, fenior 
 or junior, can now write upon the fubje& 
 with any propriety, without recurring to 
 many tejiimonies y aheady alledged by Dr # 
 Wall> and others. But, if by taking quota- 
 tions at fecond hand, (which he imputes to 
 the writer, he is oppofing, and abujing) the 
 Doctor means, taking them upon truji alto-; 
 gether, without having recourfe to the ori- 
 ginal authors , 1 can afTure him upon very 
 good grounds, that he unhappily trefpaflts 
 at once upon the laws of candour and truth. 
 Befides, what is all this to the purpofe of the 
 argument , if the paffages produced from 
 the antients are truly and properly alledg- 
 ed ? But to be Aire, the Doctor cannot be 
 impertinent ! However, he cannot but be 
 confcious to himfelf of one thing, viz. that he 
 has repeated many things, that were faid 
 before by Dr. Gale, and others. What then ? 
 fhall we fuppofe, or injinuate, that he has 
 not examined with his own eyes both Greek 
 originals, and Latin transitions ? By no 
 means , on the contrary, we will allow that 
 he has read them all ; and from hence he 
 will permit us to conclude, that he has 
 picked, and culled out the ftrongeft pqfages y 
 he thought to his purpofe. Now, if upon 
 enquiry, thefe very paflages {hall prove no- 
 thing to his purpofe y how Ample mufl the 
 grave Doctor look, after all thefe big words, 
 (p. 28.) " to flop the mouth of this Jwag- 
 
 gering 
 
( I* ) 
 
 ?< gm^g blade, whoever he is, I'll give him 
 c ? an ialtance or two out of the Greek of 
 c ? Origen, in favour of adult- baptifm, to the 
 ? c exclufion of Infant- baptifm, and as mani- 
 " feftly againft it."— This is doing fome- 
 thing : and if the Doctor is as good as his 
 word -, he will be the braved man that ever 
 appeared upon the flage of this controverfy. 
 But, though he fays it with champion- like 
 aifurance ; it will prove a mere flourish 
 after all. He did well " not to infill: upon 
 * c Origen's interpretation of Mat. xix. 14. 
 " as not of Infants literally, but metapho- 
 €C rically." For, he muft have read Origen 
 to very little purpofe, if he does not know, 
 that in his allegorizing way Origen put a 
 double fenfe upon the fcripture ; and fo, by 
 the allegorical, he did not deftroy the liter 
 tal fenfe. Therefore his metaphorical fenfe 
 of that text does not dejlroy the argument 
 of the Pado-baptifts from thence, (as is pre- 
 tended) becaufe it does not deftroy the //- 
 feral fenfe, upon which their argument is 
 founded (w). Befides, it were eafy to make 
 reprifals upon the Doctor, by reminding 
 him, that the author, on whom he would 
 lay fo much ftrefs, viz. Tertullian^ under- 
 ftands St. Paul's words, (1 Cor. vii. 14.) 
 elfe were your children unclean, but now are 
 they holy : in a different fenfe from what the 
 H 2 Anti- 
 
 [w] See Divine Oracles, p. 60. and 80, 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 Antipcedo-baptifts put upon it [#].—-. The 
 Do<ftor proceeds thus: u It is to be obferved, 
 €i fays Origen, that the four Evangelifts 
 <c faying, that John confeffed he came to 
 " baptize in (it might be read, as ufual, 
 €< with) water, only Mat hew adds, unto re- 
 Ct pentance; teaching that he has the profit 
 <c of baptifm, who is baptized of his own 
 c< will and choice" [y] Now here, it is ac- 
 knowledged, we have a description of adult- 
 baptifm y and an account of the proper qua- 
 lifications for it : but not a fingle word ex- 
 clujive of Infant-baptifm, or manifejlly a- 
 gainfl it (which is the point the Doctor had 
 to prove). For, in like terms the Apoftle 
 teaches us [z], who has the profit of cir- 
 cumcifion ; and wili the Doctor pretend that 
 the profit of circumcifion is fo tied there- 
 by to the adult, as to exclude Infant-z\x** 
 cumcifion? But he goes on, (p. 29.) " and 
 " a little after he fays, " the laver by the 
 cc water is a fymbol of the purification of 
 <c the foul, warned from all the filth of wick- 
 " ednefs; neverthelefs, alfo of itfelf it is 
 <c the beginning and fountain of divine gifts, 
 ec becaufe of the power of the invocation 
 rc of the adorable Trinity, to him that gives 
 <c up hi mf elf to God " which laft clauie ex- 
 €t eludes Infants, &c" — Does it fo indeed ! 
 
 but 
 
 [at] See Paedobap. p. 72. 
 
 [jv] ^ r 'g- Comment, in Joan. p. 124. Edit. Ami 
 
 [sc] Rom. ii. 25. 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 but how ? jLift as the other paffage exclud- 
 ed Infants ; when neither there, nor here, 
 is the leaft fyllable, nor fo much as the 
 little word, only, to exclude them, without 
 fome of the Doctor's legerdemain to flip is 
 in here alfo, as he did uppn a former occa- 
 fion. 
 
 If the honeft reader is not yet convinced 
 how much Dr. Gill has trifled with him, in 
 putting him off with fuch paffages as thefe, 
 after fuch large promifes $ let him attend to 
 the following obfervations already made by 
 Dr. Wall [a], <c It is ufual with the Anti- 
 " psdo-baptift writers, to colled: a number 
 "of thefe fayings, concerning the neceffity 
 u of faith, &c. as there are thou lands of 
 <c them. Thofe of the faid writers, who 
 ** are cautious not to difcover the weaknefs 
 %l of their plea, pick them out of fuch Fa- 
 u thers, in whole books there is not any 
 €l mention of the cafe of Infants ; and they 
 " would have an unlearned man conclude 
 " from them, that thofe Fathers muft have 
 <c thought the baptifm of Infants impradti- 
 " cable, becaufe they do in thoie general fen* 
 " tences fpeak of faith, and repentance, as re- 
 <c quifite to baptifm. Now, all fa h arguing? 
 <c are fhewed to be inconclusive bv tnts one 
 " obfervation, viz. 1 hat thofe Fathers, who 
 " were unconteftediy Vcedo-baf>tiJis, and in 
 *J whofe time the praffict is riotorio ily 
 
 kno i n, 
 
 [«] Defence, p. 399. &c. 
 
( 54 ) 
 *' known, do, when they fpeak of baptifm 
 * f in general, fpeak in the fame language^ 
 " and infifl upon the fame qualifications" — \ 
 u St. Cyprian, who lived in the 150th year 
 <c after the Apoftles, is now well known to 
 <* the Antipaedo-baptifts, as one maintaining 
 " the do&rine of Psedo-baptifm ; and yet 
 <c he, when he is difcourfing of baptifm in 
 * c general, has fentences concerning the ne- 
 < c ceffity of faith, repentance, &c. to bap- 
 " tifm, as pofitive as can be found in any 
 €: father whatfoever. As for example, JE- 
 <c pi ft. 75. Ed. Oxon. 
 
 " Qui cum Noem. &c. They, who were 
 u with Noah in the ark, obtained no pur- 
 cc gation or cleanfing by the water, but even 
 <c perifhed by that flood. So alfo, whoever 
 te they are, that are not with Chrift in the 
 " church, will perifh as men out of it ; un- 
 <c lefs they come with repentance to that 
 " only falutary facrament of the church, &c. 
 " Gregory Nyjfen lived in thofe times and 
 cc places, when and where the Antipaedo- 
 <c baptifts themfelves now do not deny, 
 " that Infant- baptifm was in ufe, viz. more 
 " than an hundred years after St. Cyprian. 
 <e He mentions faith and prayer among the 
 <c things, that compleat the facrament of 
 €< baptifm. Or at. Catechet. c. 33. 
 
 " Evxv TrpoV tov Beov, &c. i. e. Prayer to 
 <e God y and the imploring of the heavenly 
 *i grace, and the water, and faith, are the 
 
 " things 7> 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 * c things, that make up the facrament of re- 
 " generation. St. Cyril, St. Chryfoflom, St. 
 €i Aujiin himfelf, when they fpeak of bap- 
 " tifm in general, ufe fayings like to thefe. 
 <l Yet we are Aire from other places in their 
 <c books, that they underftood the cafe of 
 <c Infants to be a particular, and excepted 
 *' cafe j and that they were to be baptized, 
 cc though they had not at prefent thole qua- 
 cc lifications ; but that they were by bap- 
 <c tifm dedicated to that religion, which 
 <c would teach them, and which did require 
 cc of them, thefe things, as they grew up, 
 " &c" [a]. 
 
 Where now are the injlances, which Dr. 
 Gill promifed from the Greek of Origen, 
 in favour of adult-baptifm, to the exclufion. 
 of Infant-baptifm &c? Or, what has he 
 yet done, to Jlop the month of the fwagger- 
 ing blade, (as he called his antagonist) and 
 to take down his mettle ? Here a fair op- 
 portunity offers, to rally the Dodtor up- 
 on his fuperior acquaintance with originals, 
 and tranflations. But, as he feems to think 
 himfelf too roughly handled already, it 
 ihall fuffice for the prefent to mention Dr. 
 Walh anfwer to Dr. Gale upon a like occa- 
 fion [b~]. " I have read fo much of them, 
 <c that I am fure of one of thefe things j 
 ct that either he has not read them any other 
 " v/ay than by indexes j or elfe does not un- 
 
 " derjland 
 \a\ Defence, p. 399. &c. [£] Ibid. p. 335. 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 Kt derfland them ; or elfe againft his con- 
 <l fcience faces out a fenfe contrary to wW 
 cc ^ /<w in them." — Bat I muft advertife 
 the reader of a certain fallacy, which lies in 
 this phrafe, the Greek of Origen, and in ap- 
 pealing to it in oppolition to the Latin trans- 
 lations of his works. If we had now thofe 
 Comments of Origen in Greek ; the Latin 
 tranflations whereof, by Jerome and Ruffinus, 
 are al^^dged in favour of Infant-baptifm * 
 (viz. on Leviticus , L^/y, and the Romans) 
 and found, that the paffages, cited from the 
 latter, were not in the former ; this would 
 be a ftrong proof of their being interpolations, 
 But this is not the cafe ! Therefore, the 
 Doctor's way of arguing from the Greek of 
 Origen, againft the faid Latin tranflations, 
 proceeds upon this principle, that if Origen 
 did not make mention of Infant-baptifm as 
 an apoftolical tradition, e.g. in his Com- 
 ments on Mat hew and John -, he could not 
 mention it in his Comments on Leviticus , 
 Luke, and the Romans. A plain inconfe- 
 quence! as if Origen muft always fay the 
 lame things in every Comment, or book, 
 he wrote. However, Dr. Wall has refer- 
 red [c], to fome paffages in the Greek of 
 Origen, very agreeable to what is cited from 
 the Latin tranflations -, and though the bap- 
 tifm of Infants is not there particularly and 
 exprefsly mentioned, there feems to be a re- 
 I ference 
 
 [r] Ibid. Appendix, p. u. — 13. 
 
( 57 ) 
 ference to it, as a thing necejfary for them ; 
 \i Origen fuppofcd they had an equal con- 
 cern with others in Original Sin ; and a re- 
 furre€lion ; for, he reprefents baptifm, as 
 ftanding in connexion with thefe things] 
 I (hall only add one thing more, viz. that 
 in fome of the Latin translations of Origen, 
 there ate as ftrong defcriptions of adult-bap- 
 tifm, as thofe produced by Dr. Gill from 
 the Greek of Origen [d]. From whence it 
 appears, that his tranjlaton did not confi- 
 der fuch paffages as exclufive of Infant-bap- 
 tifm 5 fince they alfo mention the latter as 
 an apoftolical inftitution. Therefore, for 
 any thing the Do&or has faid to prove the 
 contrary, " we have the clear teftimony of 
 " the great Origen for Infant-baptifm, as 
 " praclifed in his time, and that too undef 
 u the notion of an apoftolical tradition. 
 
 <{ Of Cyprian the Doctor fays, (p. 29.) 
 " that he is the firft pleader for it (i'e. J«- 
 cc fant-baphfm) that we know of." But he 
 widely miftakes, or grofsly reprefents the 
 cafe. For, Cyprian was no pleader for In- 
 fant-baptifm, as fuch; nor had he any oc- 
 cafion to plead for it ; becaufe no body had 
 any doubt about it, and much lefs oppofed 
 it : the only queition in debate being, (oc- 
 cafioned by the doubt of Fidus % an African 
 bifhop) Whether Infants (hould be baptized 
 before the eighth day, according to the time 
 
 I of 
 
 y] Vid. Origen. Homil 3. in Exod. Homil 21. in Luc. 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 of circumcifion [e]. As for the Doctor's 
 pretence, (p. 30.) " that though Infant-bap- 
 c< tifm now began to be praclifed, it appears 
 tc to be a novel-bufinefs (and novel-bufinefs 
 <c it queftionlefs was, if it then began to be 
 " pra&ifcd) from the time of it's adminiftra- 
 cc tion being undetermined :" the weaknefs 
 of this argument was fo fully expofed ; that 
 he is in danger to expofe himfelf by repeat- 
 ing it [f]. The Do&or further urges, that 
 Cc the exceeding weaknefs of the arguments 
 <c then made ufe of for baptizing new-born 
 <c Infants, of which the prefent Pado-bap- 
 €i tifts mud be afhamed, fhew that Pado- 
 c< baptifm was then in it's infant Jl ate" By 
 this fort of reafoning one would be lead to 
 fufpect that thofe, who ufe it, are not far 
 from their fecond i? fancy. Why are not the 
 Antipcedo-baptifls alhamed, to confound two 
 inch different, and diftinft queflions, as, 
 Whether new-born infants were to be bap- 
 tized ? and, Whether Infants mould be bap- 
 tized at all? If Cyprian argued weakly for 
 the former - y in the name of good fenfe, 
 what has this to do with the latter? There- 
 fore, the long citation from Cyprian, (p. 30. 
 —32.) is mere parade, and nothing to the 
 purpofe, but only as it ferved to introduce a 
 mod curious remark of the Doctor's, viz* 
 «< Every one that compares what Cyprian 
 \ l and his collegues fay for Infant-baptifm, 
 
 (here 
 
 0] Pjedobap. p. 57. [/] See Psedobap. ibid. 
 
( 59 ) 
 (here he falls again into an ignoratio elenchi\ 
 he mould have faid, for baptizing Infants 
 at any time under eight days old) ct and 
 " what Tertullian faid again ft it as before 
 €t related, will eafily fee a difference between 
 " them, between Tertullian, the Antipce- 
 " do-baptijl, and Cyprian, the Pcedo-baptift •> 
 €C how manly and nervous the one ! how 
 "mean, and weak the other !" — A very 
 good jeft ! When Cyprian neither argued 
 for, nor Tertullian argued againfi Infant- 
 baptifm, abfolutely y and as fuch ! Here I 
 cannot but congratulate the Doclor upon 
 the felicity of his genius, and the dexterity 
 of his addrefs. Infant-baptifm, according 
 to him, muft be a novelty in Cyprians time, 
 becaufe he is the firjl pleader for it, that 
 we know of ! And it muft be a noveltv, or 
 non* entity, in Tertullian % time, becaufe he 
 is the firft, that was ever known to fpeak, 
 againjl it ! However, the Doctor doth not 
 deny, (p. 24.) that this y?ra^ and nervous 
 reafoner " might have feme odd notions, 
 M and Angular opinions ; about which he 
 " talked wrong, and weakly :" and it is 
 patty plain, that he had fomeodd, and fuper- 
 ititious notions of baptijm itfelf.— The Doc- 
 tor owns at laft, " that no doubt was raifed 
 " about Infant-baptifm at this time :" which 
 utterly fpoils all, he had faid before, of Cypri- 
 an's pleading for it. And this is a clear evi- 
 dence, that the practice of baptizing Infants 
 I 2 was, 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 was, at leaft, a thing of fome (landing in 
 the church, and fo did not then firft begin % 
 as is pretended. But this, fays the Do&or, 
 " does not prove it then to be an antient 
 " cuftom ; fince the fame obfervation, which 
 c< may be made, would prove Infant- com- 
 <c munion to be equally the fame.*' — Well : 
 fuppcfing that ; what follows from it ? 
 (though, perhaps, there may not be the 
 fame ground, to make the obfervation of 
 Infant-communion, if nothing relating to it 
 was not upon the carpet) The higher it can 
 be traced ; fo much the more it makes for 
 the antiquity of Infant-baptifm ; none being 
 admitted to that ordinance, but thofe that 
 were baptized ; as we learn from Jujiin Mar- 
 tyr [g] : (who fays not, however, that all % 
 who were baptized, had admittance to it). 
 The incidental way of mentioning a particu- 
 lar inflance of Infant-communion, in Cy- 
 prian [A], is an argument that it was not 
 xhtfrjl of the kind. And if Infant- com- 
 munion itfelf was at that time a thing of 
 fome (landing; Infant-baptifm could not 
 then be a novelty : as it mult be the older 
 of the two. 
 
 The fourth Century. 
 
 Here the Docftor makes the Psedo~bap- 
 tifts welcome to the greateft lights of the 
 
 church 
 
 \g] Apol. 2. [h] Cyprian, De Lapfis. 
 
( 6' ) 
 
 church in this century, as vouchers for In- 
 fant-baptifm ; (he mould have added, as 
 pracYifed not only in their time, but under 
 the notion of an apojlolical tradition [/]) for, 
 fays he, (p. 33.) <c they have need of them 
 " to enlighten them in this dark affair, &c" 
 Now, this is a mere flam of fancy, where 
 we have a little wit, bat no argument. Be- 
 fides ; he was told [k] y (and he does not 
 now gainfay it) that li he has in efTecT: given 
 " us all the reft : for, he has not been able, 
 c< to produce one fingle author in this peri- 
 <c od on the other iide of the queftion." 
 What a dark affair then muft that be, which 
 has no light at all on it's fide ? but clouds 
 in/lead, and ever during dark. In relation 
 to the teftimony of Pelagius, that he never 
 heard of any Chriftian whatfoever, that 
 denied Infant-bapcifm [/] : nothing further 
 needs be faid upon that head, fince about 
 this the Doctor will not contend \ which is 
 fairly giving up the point, But he would 
 impute it to the ignorance of Pe/agius, 
 without any fhadow of proof ; nor has the 
 Dodlor proved himfelf a more knowing man, 
 by producing any fuch inftances ; which it 
 was his bufmefs to have done; and not 
 content himfelf with calling Pehigius an arch 
 heretic ; as if giving him a nick-name were 
 fufficient to deitroy the weight of his tefti- 
 
 mon 
 
 7 
 
 [*] See Paedobap,. p. < 3 . 
 
 [*] Ibid. [/] Ibid. p. 24, esTr. 
 
( 6a j 
 
 mony : an artifice unworthy of a dignified 
 Protejlant Divine. Says Dr. Wall [/«], cc if 
 <c there had ever been any church in any 
 CI time, or any part of the world, that de- 
 " nied Infant-baptifm ; he (i. e. Pelagius) 
 <c mud have heard of them. For he was a 
 " learned man - y and had lived in the moft 
 <c noted churches oi Europe y Jfia, and A- 
 " frica.&cc." — What a wild imagination then 
 muft it be, to fuppofe, that Infant-baptifm 
 was an invention of the third century ! — 
 The Do&or does what he can, (p. 34, &c.) 
 to fupport the reafons he had alledged [«], 
 to prove, that Aujlin muft have heard of 
 fome that denied Infant-baptifm. But, how 
 poorly he acquits himfelf upon this head, 
 any judicious reader will eafily perceive, by 
 comparing the critical examination of thofe 
 reafons [0], with his lame defence of them. 
 Therefore, to avoid prolixity, we fhali 
 only make here a few curfory remarks. 
 (1.) Tertullian did not contradict or op- 
 pofe Infant-baptifm in the fame fenfe, as 
 Dr. Gill and his friends oppofe it : fo that 
 there is no arguing from the one cafe, to the 
 other. And whatever Dr. Wall thought ; 
 the author, Dr. Gill had to do with, did 
 not fubfcribe to his opinion, viz. that nei- 
 ther Aujlin, nor Pelagius, had feen Tertul- 
 2 Han's 
 
 [«] Defence, p. 395. 
 
 [«] Argum from Ap. trad. p. 24, 25. 
 
 \o] Paedobap. p. 27.-38. 
 
( 6 3 ) 
 
 lian y s book of baptifm [/>]. And indeed, 
 they might both have feen it, and yet have 
 faid what they did : the latter, that he had 
 never heard of any Chriftian that denied In- 
 fant-baptifm ; for Tertullian did not abjb- 
 lutely deny it ; and the former, that Infant- 
 baptifm was always adminiftered in the 
 church, for original Jin: for Tertullian' s 
 phrafe, innocens atas, as Dr. Gill himfelf 
 underftands it, (p. 22.) imports no more 
 than the comparatively innocent age of in- 
 fants. (2.) In refped to the controverted 
 canon* made in the council of Can 
 
 the Doctor had here another convincing 
 proof, that his antagonist was not a mere 
 copier of Dr. Wall; but, following the di- 
 rection of Photius, pointed out a different 
 fenfe of the faid canon. And, after all his 
 fhuffiing, he cannot obfcure, much lefs ex- 
 punge, this felf-evident truth, that the ca- 
 non relates not to infants at large, but to 
 nevj-born Infants alone. Therefore, he at- 
 tempts to put a fallacy upon his readers, by 
 flipping into his conclufion another term y and 
 faying, that Auflin muft know of fome per- 
 fons that denied baptifm to babes. This is 
 pure equivocation. For, if Auflin knew of 
 iome, that denied baptifm to new born In- 
 fants, does it therefore follow, that he knew 
 of any, that denied baptifm to babes indefi- 
 nitely ? that is, denied Infant- baptifm , which 
 
 is 
 [/>] Ibid, p. 69 
 
( §4 ) 
 
 is the point the Doctor was to prove. (3.) 
 It was only for argument's fake, that his au- 
 thov fuppofed, that the perfons, who.afked the 
 queftion, about the reafbn of baptizing In- 
 fants (becaufe many of them die youngs &c.) 
 were Chrftians : and it was the Doctor's 
 bufinefs to have proved them to be Chriftians, 
 in order to make the inftance pertinent to 
 his purpofe. Bat even this would not an- 
 fwer his end ; for, after all, thefe perfons 
 might be as good friends to Infant-baptifm^ 
 as thofe were good friends to Infant-propa- 
 gation, who afked the other queftion, men- 
 tioned by St. Auftin in the fame place, for 
 their own information, concerning the rea- 
 fbn of thofe Infants being born, that die 
 young. (4 ) The Doctor is here put to his 
 guejjes, and he gueffes wrong. For, his fup- 
 pofition of the Pelagians faying, " that the 
 <: infants of believers unbaptized enter the 
 c * kingdom," is a flat contradiction to what 
 St. Auftin fays of the Pelagians in the very 
 paflage referred to \q\ But the Doctor is 
 loth to own himfelf in an errour ; however, 
 if he is miftaken, he is not ajhamed of it, 
 becaufe it is in good company ; a pretty ex- 
 cufe for being lead aftray. (5,) Sparing, as 
 he is, of his conceffions, he is forced to 
 .nowledge, that the words quoted by him 
 out of Jerome ', are fpoken by way oifuppo- 
 fition. " But then (fays he) they fuppofe a 
 
 " cafe 
 
 [?] See Paedobap. p. 23, 24. 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 " cafe that had been, &c." Well ; but how 
 does that appear ? not merely from yerome's 
 fuppofing it : and the Doctor offers no other 
 proof of this contested fact, but a critic 
 upon the word noluerint ; which, after all, 
 may import no more than a wi Ifull omiGion 
 in rejufing to get their children baptized in 
 due time ; without implying that they de- 
 nied infant- baptifm. But, let the meaning 
 be as the Doctor would have it ; yet ftill, 
 as mentioned by j^rome, it is not a matter 
 offa£t> but a bare fuppofition. Neverthe- 
 less, the Doctor fettles his countenance, and 
 gravely fays, (p. 38.) " from all thefe in- 
 " Jlances put together, we cannot but con- 
 " elude, that there were fome perfons, that 
 " did oppofe, and rejedt infant- baptifm in 
 " thofe times !" But, if any one of his pre- 
 tended inftances proves any fuch thing, I 
 am much miftaken. The appeal lies before 
 the learned world [r], and let them judge. 
 
 As to what he iubjoins from Mr. Mar- 
 
 fiall, concerning fome in thofe times that 
 queftioned it; Mr. Marjhall dees not fay, 
 that there were any in thofe times that de- 
 nied and difufed it; for, he tells us, [s] 
 iC that the firfl, that ever made head againft 
 fC it, or a divifion in the church about it, 
 " lived in a much later age." Nor do the 
 words of St. Aujlin referred to, imply, that 
 any perfons in his time denied Infant- 
 
 K bap- 
 
 [r] Ibid. p. 39. [j] Sermon on Inf. bap. p. 5. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 baptifm, or fo much as doubted of it, but 
 the contrary : for he fays, that even thofe, 
 who contradicted it in fome fort, did not 
 doubt of it. 'Tis true, in that difcourfe [t] 9 
 he fets up a fictitious perfon to argue with 
 the Pelagians in their own way - y and then 
 afks them, how they would anfwer fuch a 
 Difputant, but from the Scripture : and fo 
 he exhorts them alfo to fubmit to Scripture 
 authority, and not trull: to their own fubtile 
 reafonings upon the point in queftion. But 
 therefore his faying, cc Let no one doubt , 
 <c whether Infants are to be baptized, &c" 
 does not imply, that any one did really doubt 
 of it ; this was only a wife precaution, 
 which Aufiin thought proper to ufe in a po- 
 pular difcourfe concerning baptijm of Infants 
 again/} the Pelagians ; in order to avoid the 
 raifing of unneceffary fcruples in the minds 
 of the people, and to prevent ihziv fufpecling 
 that any body did doubt of it. This is the 
 plain and obvious fenfe of his words ; nor 
 can we put any other conftrudtion upon 
 them, without making Aufiin contradict 
 himfelf in the fame breath. 
 
 <f Aufiin, we allow, (fays the Doflor) 
 <c frequently fpeaks of infant baptifm as an 
 <c antient ufage of the church, and as an 
 " apoftolical tradition." Why did he not 
 add here, (what he urged upon a former oc- 
 
 canon 
 
 0] De Verb. ap. Serm. 14. Nefcio quis, &c. 
 
 2 
 
( 6 7 ) 
 
 cafion [«]) for original fin? — To the Doc- 
 tor's queftion then, <c What proof does he 
 '* give of it ?** I anfwer ; he appeals to the 
 authority and practice of the univerfal 
 church in all pad ages. But, he had no 
 occafion to produce teflimonies for Infant -bap- 
 tifm itfelf: becaufe no one ever denied it; 
 no, not the Pelagians themfelves, with 
 whom he was deeply engaged, not about 
 the fubjefls, but the end of baptifm, by 
 the Doctor's own confeffion [w]. The Doc- 
 tor afks again, (p. 39.) "Does he produce 
 "any higher teftimony than Cyprian V* I 
 anfwer; for what? For infant-baptifm it- 
 felf, he does not produce the teftimony of 
 Cyprian at all ; having no occafion to do ir, 
 as was hinted before : but for the reafon of 
 it. So that all, which the Doctor can con- 
 clude from hence, is this, that the doctrine 
 of original Jin was a novelty in Cyprians 
 time: and if this doctrine gave rife to In- 
 fant bapt if m in Cyprians, time, as the Doctor 
 fuggefts, (though we have deplumed him 
 of his infallibility) why was not the one as 
 much a novelty as the other? But, he all a- 
 long confounds two different and diftindt 
 queftions : for, it is one thing to argueyir 
 I?ifant-baptifm from original fin \ which is 
 the cafe, which the Doctor here fuppofes, 
 contrary to fa£i -, and another thing to ar- 
 
 K 2 gue 
 
 O] Argum. from Av, trad. &c t p. 26. 
 [wj Ibid. p. 20. 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 gue for original fin from Infant -baptif?n : 
 which was really the ftate of the queftion 
 between St. Au/lin, and his opponents. 
 Thus Infant-baptifm was a common data, 
 
 a thing agreed on by both fides. The 
 
 fame obiervation may be made of Cyprian 
 and his coSlegues : and therefore he had no 
 occafion to urge it, as an apoftolical traditi- 
 on: however, what he fays about it, im- 
 plies fo much ; as has been remarked be- 
 fore. —In flier t : Aufliri appeals to Cyprian , 
 and. St. Paul, Rom. v. 18. for one, and the 
 fame thing, viz. original /in, as the reafon 
 of Infant-baptifm : for, as he underflands 
 that text of original fin, fo he refers to it as 
 exhibiting the ground and reafon of Infant- 
 baptifm ; for, according to him, it is by 
 bapiifm, that Infants are made partakers of 
 the grace of Cbrijl \x\. But, obferve ! nei- 
 ther was Infant-baptifm, the thing itfelf 
 nor original fin, as the reafon of it, any 
 matter of doubt, or debate in Cyprian's 
 time. This is the very thing, that Sr. Au- 
 ftin hinges upon • and from hence he draws 
 his obfervation. iC That blefled Cyprian did 
 <c not make any new decree ; but only pre- 
 <c ferved the ejlaklijlvdhhh of the church:" 
 [y] that is, with re f beet to the reafon of 
 baptizing Infants, which fuppofes the thing 
 
 it&If, 
 
 [#] Ep. adHieronym. Ep. 28. DeVerb. Apoft. Serm. 14. 
 
 [jy] See Pcedobap. p. 42. Nam de origine peccati nulla 
 erat quceftio ; et ideo, ex ea re, unde nulla erat quasftio, 
 fcc. Augudin ibid. 
 
( (>9 ) 
 
 itfelf. Our worthy Doctor feems not to 
 
 be aware, that his way of arguing will con- 
 clude too far ; unlefs he is turned as arch a 
 heretic as Pelagius. For, if the main de- 
 fign of St. Aujlin is to fupport the doctrine 
 of original fin by the eftab/ift:ed faith of the 
 churchy and yet " he produces higher tefti- 
 cc niony than Cyprian :' let the Doctor look 
 to the confequence, if there is any force 
 in his way of reafoning upon the head of 
 appeals. And here the difficulty, he ftarts 
 about Auftiris not appealing to Origen, and 
 the argument he would draw from this 
 circumftance, to prove that Origen muft 
 have been unfairly dealt with, — returns 
 home upon himfelf. For, if any one fhould 
 argue, that, becaufe Aitftin never appeals to 
 Origen, nor to any other antient writer be- 
 fore Cyprian in proof of original Jin ; there- 
 fore thofe writers muft have been unfairly 
 dealt with, and the paffages interpolated, 
 where they fpeak of original fin : What an- 
 fwer would the Doctor fhape to this argu- 
 ment ? Perhaps he would think it fufficient 
 to fay, Cyprians authority alone, at the head 
 of a whole council of bidiops, was of weight 
 enough, to decide a queflion of this nature, 
 without any other teftimonies. And as for 
 Origen, he lay under fome reproach for his 
 heterodox opinions, on which account he 
 is cenfured by St. Auftin himfelf [z] ; and 
 
 there- 
 
 [V 1 OeCivitateDei. lib. 2. cap. 23. Lb. 21. cap. 17. &c. 
 
f 7° ) 
 
 therefore this good bifliop of Hippo might 
 judge it improper to appeal to his obnoxious 
 books for any thing at all. Now, the fame 
 anfwer will ferve our turn ; without fur- 
 ther animadverting upon the Doctor's incon- 
 Jijlency> in formerly fuppofing, that Auflin 
 might take up his notion that Infant- baptifm 
 was an apoftolical tradition, from the Latin 
 tranflations of Jerome and Ruffinus, and 
 now fuggefting, that the paffages in Origen 
 relating to this point are interpolated fince 
 the time of St. Auftin. Thus the Doctor 
 founders himfelf, and his argument at once. 
 
 The pretence, " that there is equally as 
 "full, and as early evidence of apoftolic 
 <{ tradition for Infant-communion, &c." was 
 {hewn to be without foundation [a] : a little 
 further wants to be faid upon that point, 
 as the Doctor has ytt Jlated the cafe , and 
 it was only to the (late of the cafe, as he 
 had put it, that the reply was made. 
 
 (i.) As to infant- communion : " it was, 
 Cl (as the Doctor fays p. 4o.)inufe beyond 
 <c all contradiction," in Cyprians time , but 
 fuch clear evidence has been produced, that 
 Infant- baptifm was praetifed before Cyprians 
 time, as that none can reject it, but thofe, 
 who have a peculiar faculty of denying 
 things plain and vi/ib/e. — If St. Auftin ar- 
 gues for Infant-communion from the Scrip- 
 ture, as the rule and fiandard of the Chrif 
 
 dan,, 
 
 [a~\ Psedobap, p. 47.-53. 
 
( 7i ) 
 
 tian, and catholick faith ; he does not testi- 
 fy of it> as he does of infant-baptifm, that 
 it was the antient and univerfal practice of 
 the Chriftian church. Whether the Puni- 
 ci Chrijliani be the chriftians of Carthage ^ or 
 of Africa ; Auftin fays not (as he was re- 
 prefented by the Doctor) that they took it to 
 be an antient apoftolic tradition : nor does 
 he pofithely fay, that Infant-communion (if 
 that was the thing intended, and not the 
 particular mode of fpeech ufed concerning the 
 Eucharijl) was fuch a tradition -, but only 
 fuppofed it i which, as every one muft per- 
 ceive, is a more cautious and referved way 
 of fpeaking, than he ufes, when he fpeaks 
 of infant-baptifm under that notion [b]. 
 
 (2.) The other particulars were taken no- 
 tice of in the grofs, as mentioned by St. 
 Bajil y under the notion of unwritten tra- 
 ditions. But it was obferved [c] % that In- 
 fant-baptifm is not ranked in that number; 
 and confequently, the antients looked upon 
 it as having a better foundation in the Scrip* 
 ture y than any of thofe other Rites. Now 
 here the Doctor rejoyns, (p. 41.) <c neither 
 <{ are infant-communion, fponfors at bap- 
 <c tifm, exorcifm in it, and giving milk and 
 u honey at that time, mentioned by Bafil 
 €C among them, &c" — To which the reply 
 is, (1. ,) As to Infant '-communion , the objecti- 
 on 
 
 [£] Pasdobap. p. 47.-49. 
 [r] Ibid. p. 51. 
 
( 7* ) 
 
 on was allowed, and confidered [d], (2.) 
 Sponfors at baptifm, in one fhape or other, 
 being a natural circumjlance of Infant- bap- 
 tifm, are prefumed to bean apoftolical ap- 
 pointment, conformably to the practice of 
 the Jewifh church in the like cafe [e], 
 Thefe fponfors, among other things, gave 
 names to children [f] ; a cuftom transferred 
 from the Jewifh to the Chriftian church. 
 (3.) Forms of exorcifm are as antient as the 
 Apoftles time ; but exorcifm in baptifm is 
 not called an apojlolic tradition, nor an un- 
 written tradition by Aujlin, to whom the 
 Doctor refers [g]. He fpeaks of it indeed, 
 as an antient tradition ; and might properly 
 enough appeal to it for the general fenfe of 
 the church 3 but he does not urge it as of 
 apofiolical authority ; fo far as yet appears. 
 The fame remark may be made on the paf- 
 fages cited from the other antient writers, 
 mentioned by the Doctor. (4.) If Bafil 
 does not, yet (which is the fame thing in 
 this argument) Tertullian does mention the 
 
 giving 
 
 [d] Pzedobap. p. 52. 
 
 |V) _ Minorum vero nomine idem ipfum profitebatur 
 praefeftura ipfa, uti in Chrittianifmo/«/f^/or^ minorenni- 
 um, feu parvulorum, &c. Selden deSynedriis y &c. lib. 1. 
 cap. 3. 
 
 [/] Luk. i. 59. &c. ii. 21. a like cuftom obtained a- 
 mong the antient Perjians, of giving names to their chil- 
 dren at baptifm. Hyde Relig. Vet. Perf. cap. 18. Other 
 nations alfo made a ceremony of impofing names. Vid, 
 Ariftoph. Aves. Polyam. Stratagem, lib. 6. cap. 1. S. 6. 
 Lucian. Contemplantes, &c. 
 
 [g] Argument from Apoft. trad. p. 32. 
 
C 71 ) 
 
 giving milk and honey to the baptized per- 
 sons among the unwritten cuftoms and tra* 
 ditions [h], 
 
 (3.) It was obferved [/], that, " it does 
 ct not appear, that the unwritten traditions 
 " were ever put to the fame teji of their 
 c< Apoflolical authority, as Infant- baptifm 
 *' was, and flood the trial as it did/' By 
 which was obvioufly meant, it's obtaining 
 the jlrongejl and mod exprefs tejlimony of it's 
 immemorial, and univerfal ufe in the Chrifii* 
 an church, even From thofe very perfons, 
 that were urged with an argument from ih 
 Therefore, there is little force in the cbfer- 
 vation, that the Pelagians were alfo preiTed 
 with an argument from the exorcifms, and 
 exfujjlations ufed in baptifm. For 3 as thefe 
 are not called apoflolical traditions, (which 
 was not noted before) fo there is no evidence 
 produced, that the Pelagians bore the fame 
 tejlimony in favour of them, as they did of 
 Infant-baptifm. What the Doctor fays 
 there about any particular rite, flanding the 
 teflof all ages, in refpedt of continued ufe, 
 is not to the purpofe ; unlefs it were attend- 
 ed Vv T ith a declaration of it's apoftolic autho* 
 rity \ which is not the cafe. 
 
 " Upon the whole then it is clear, there 
 " is no exprefs mention of Ant i pet do -baptifm in 
 <c the two fir ft centurieSj no nor any plain 
 * c hint of it, nor any manifejl reference to 
 
 L "it* 
 
 [h] -De Corona M litis, [i] Psedcbap. p, 14, 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 cc it ; and that there is no evidence of it's 
 * c being prattifed in the third, or in the 
 "fourth century, &c" On the other fide, 
 we have traced up the acknowledged grounds 
 of ' Pcedo-baptifm to the times of the Apoftles. 
 In the next age we read of Infants (con- 
 flrudtively) made difciples to Chrift, and re- 
 generated, that is by baptifm. In the third 
 century that Infant-baptifm was pradlifed, 
 and prevailed in the fourth, is confefled by 
 it's greateft oppofers. And fo rejis the ft ate 
 of the controverjy. 
 
 The Public will now judge, what ground 
 Dr. Gill had for his candid insinuation, (p, 3.) 
 that the namelefs author, or anonymous writer, 
 with whom he is engaged, was amamed of 
 his caufe, or Name, becaufe he appeared un- 
 der that character; as fome Writers on his 
 own fide have had the modefty, or pru- 
 dence to do, without blame or cenfure. 
 And perhaps it may occafion fome fpecula- 
 tion, that the Doctor likewife was not an 
 anonymous Writer upon this fubject, either 
 on his own account, or for the fake of his 
 friends ; many of whom may be fo much 
 influenced by the authority of his name, as 
 implicitly to believe any thing he fays, how 
 remote foever from truth, and fact:. It 
 mould feern, that he himfelf hath no great 
 confidence in his argument, though he en- 
 deavours to put a good face on't j fmce he 
 
 hints 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 hints fo often at the uncertainty of tradition t 
 as if he wanted to fecure his retreat, in cafe 
 of any difafter. But the inftance he refers 
 to, viz. the obfervation of Eafter, is not 
 parallel. For, if two contrary traditions were 
 pleaded in that cafe, (which might affeft 
 the credit of both) no fuch thing can be pre- 
 tended in this cafe ; as one uniform tradition 
 carries it for Pcedo-baptifm ; and not a fingle 
 teftimony can be produced from the antient 
 writers in favour of a tradition for An- 
 tipado-baptifm. Originals, or tranjlations. 
 Therefore, upon a fair fumming up of the 
 hijiorical evidence, it appears, that not Pae- 
 do-baptifm, but Antipasdo-baptifm is an 
 innovation. 
 
 Haec Hadtenus. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BOOKS Printed for J. fVAUGH, 
 
 at the TurkVHead, in Lombard- Street. 
 
 ADhTent from the Church of England 
 fully juftified : And proved the genu- 
 ine and jufi: Confequence of the Allegiance 
 due to Chrift, the only Lawgiver in the 
 Church. Being the diffenting Gentleman's 
 three Letters and Poftfcript, in Anfwer to 
 Mr. John Whites on that Subject. Pr. 2S. 6d. 
 
 The Baptifm of Infants, a reafonable Ser- 
 vice ; founded upon Scripture, and undoubt- 
 ed Apoftolic Tradition : In which its mo- 
 ral Purpofes and Ufe in Religion are fhewn* 
 Price 8d. 
 
 Dipping not the only Scriptural and Pri- 
 mitive Manner of Baptizing. And fuppo* 
 fing it were, yet a ftric~t Adherence not ob- 
 ligatory on us. Price 6 d. 
 
 Paedo-baptifm : Or, a Defence of Infant- 
 baptifm in Point of Antiquity. Againft 
 the Exceptions of Dr. John Gill, and others. 
 Price i s.