Paedo-baptism : or, A defence of infant-baptism, in point of antiquity against the exceptions of Dr. John Gill, and others

'Jl^

•J >; V

^ PRINCETON, N. J. "^^

Presented by Mr. Samuel kgne^N of Philadelphia, Pa.

Ag^iczv Coll. on Baptism, No.

p

[k f%. '3~2-vo^,'y<>~el

P^DO-BAPTISM:

O R, A

D E F E N C E

O F

I NF AN T-B A P T I S M,

In Point of

ANTIQ^UITY.

Againfl the

EXCEPTIONS

OF

Dr. JOHN GILL, and Others.

Baptizandos efle parvulos nemo dubitet ; quando nee illi
hinc dubitant, qui ex parte aliqud contradicunt.

Auguftin. de Verb. ap. Serm. 14,

- -

LONDON:

Printed for J. Wauch at the Turk's. Head in Lombard*

Street* mdccliii.

P^D O-BAPTISM:

O R, A

D E F E N/C

O F

INFANT-BAPT iS/M^^cki,'^.

SECTION L
^ general View of the Argument.

HEN God gave to u^brahmn the
Covenant of Ctrcumcijion [^s], this
religious Rite was adminiftred,
upon the ground of his own
faith \h\ to all the males, i. e,
all the capable members of his family, from
B 2 eight

[/z] hQi% vii. 8. [i] Rom. iv. z.

(4)

eight days old and upwards, according to their
feveral and refpedive ages [c] : Abraham him-
felf being ninety years old and nine when he
was cixQumcikd^J/hmael, his fon, thirteen years
old, &c[^]. But, for the future, the ap-
pointed time of Circumcifion, in ordinary,
was the eighth day from the birth; except-
ing the cafe of new Profelytes, e. g. the Se-
chemites [e\ and others, whofe families were
circumcifed together, as -^^r^/?^w*i had been [/I,
In like manner, when the Covenant of Bap-
tifm [g\ was given to the Chriftian Church,
it feems very natural to fuppofe, that this fa-
cred rite alio was adminiftred to perfons of
every age both old and young. For, Chrijl-
ian baptifm came in the room of Circumci-
fion, fo as to fuperfede it \jo\ ; and we find,
at the beginning of the Gofpel Difpenfatioq,
whole houfeholds baptized together [/*], as A-
hraham's houfehold had been circumcifed to-
gether, (though there is no exprefs mention
of any young children being then admitted to
the ordinance, in the one cafe . more than in
the other.) But, it is analogous to think,
that the ufual time of adminftring baptifm,
afterwards^ (excepting here again the Cafe of
new Profelytes) was in the flate of Infancy.

Becaufe,

[f] Gen. xvii. 23. [^ Gea. xvli. 24, 25.

\/\ Gen. xxxiv. 24. [/] Gen. xvii. 13. \g\ \ Pet. iii. zr.

\JS\ By chrijiian haptiffn I mean baptifm, as adminiftrcd
in the chrijiian churchy commencing after the death of Chriil,
whereby circumcifion &c. was vacated.

[/] Afls xvi. 15, 33. I Cor. i. 16.

(5)

Becaufe, there is no particular direction in
the Gofpel to defer baptifm ordinarily even to
the eighth day from the birth, and much lefs
beyond it, and left of all to riper years ; and
therefore it might well be judged lawful and
expedient before. However, in this light the
matter hath always appeared to me, and I be-
lieve to moft other men.

Neverthelefs, as the facred Hiftory often
fpeaks of adolt baptifm (which, as every one
muft perceive, was a thing unavoidable at the
firft inftitution of chriftian baptifm, even
fuppofing, not only that children alfo were
to be baptized, but that baptifm, as a (land-
ing ordinance in the chriftian church, like
circumcifion in the y^ic'Z/Z^ church, was chief-
ly defigned for children) I fay, becaufe the
facred writings of the new Teftament make
frequent mention of adult baptifm, without
exprefsly naming the baptization of children ;
this hath lead fome perfons to conclude, that
none, but the adult were, or ought to be bap-
tized. Now, this, I iinagine, is to turn an
accidental circumftance into a ftandingrule,
as the defcendants of Ipmael did, who cir-
cumcifed not their children before the 13 th
year of their age, becaufe IJhmael'\\\n\^t\i hap-
pened to be fo old, when he was circumcifed,
at the time of the firft inftitution of the
lite of circumcifion [^]. And, if the yhtTia-

eli'tes

[i] Jofeph. J. antiq. Ilk U

(6)

elites could commit fuch a miftake, as to the
time of adminittring circumcifion, contrary
to an exprefs command, fixing it to the eighth
day ; it is poffible that others might fall into a
like error about the time of admitting per*
fons to baptifm, though the proofs for InJanU
baptifm in the chriftian church, were as clear,
and ftrong, as the evidence for Infant-cir--
cumcijion in the Jewipj church. It is there-
fore no fufiicient ground of prejudice, or
objedtion, againft Infant-baptifm, if fome
perfons diflike, or difufe it 3 efpecially when
it {hall be confidered, how many more^ on
the other fide, have declared for it, and how
long it hath been pradtifed in the chriftian
church.

The Antiquity of this pradice is the Subjed
of our prefent Enquiry. And here again, fo
far as I am able to judge, want of attention
to the ftate and circumftances of perfons and
things, in the Primitive Church, hath proved
the caufe of error and deception. For, it
was by degrees that the chriftian religion gain-
ed ground in the world ; and fo, from time
to time, new Converts came over to the chrif-
tian church, and, by confequence, adult bap-
tifms were very common of courfe in the ear-
lier ages. But, to conclude from hence^ as
fome perfons would do, that Infant-baptifm
was not in ufe at that time, is evidently a
wrong conclufion. For, it by no means fol-
lows^ that Infants were not ordinarily bapti*

zed

(7)

zed in thofe days, only becaiife adult perfons,
not born of chriftian parents, were admitted
to baptifm. The Antipedo-baptifts them-
felves vouchfafe, to grant '' that Infant-baptifm
'' began to fpread in the third century, and
*' generally prevailed in the fourth [/]." And
yet during that period, there are fome remark-
able inftances, and examples of adult bap-
tifm. 'Tis true 5 thefe cafes have been mif-
taken, and mifreprefented. For, the per-
fons, fo baptized, were not born of baptized
chriftian parents, as fome have fuppofed, and
upon that fuppofition denied the general ufe
of Infant-baptifm in the firft ages of the
chriftian church. The pretence, I own, was
very plaufible at the firft, and before the mat-
ter of fad came to be critically examined by
the light of hiftory. To read, or to hear,
that fuch eminent and illuftrious perfonages,
as Conjlantine^ ConJlantiuSy Gratiariy Theodo^
fius the firft, &c. were not baptized in their
infancy; this^ upon a flight and fuperficial
view, might be apt, to raife a ftrong fufpi-
cion, that Infant-baptifm was a thing little
known, or pradifed, at the time of their na-
tivity. But, upon a particular examination of
thefe and the like inftances, it aj3pears, that
rnoft, if not all of them relate to perfons,

whofe

[/] " Infant- Baptifm was moved for in the third Century;
** got footing, and eftabiifhment in the fourth and fifth ; and
*' fo prevailed until the time of the Reformation." Dr»
Gi/lf The Divine Right of Inf. ^aj>. examine J, &c, f. 24.

(8)

whofe parents (one, or both) at the time
of their birth, were not baptized Chrtjitam
themfelves \m\ Confequently, no argu-
ment can be drawn, or pertinently urged, from
fuch examples, to difprove the conftant ufe
of Infant-baptifm, in relation to the children
of profeffed chriftians. A fingle exception,
or two, if any fuch be found, cannot be
thought of fufRcient force, to fet afide a ge-
neral rule, or to prove a contrary cuftom ;
efpecially conlidering that a delay of baptifm,
in fomc cafes, may be otherwife accounted
for, without fuppofing Infant-baptifm not to
have been generally pradtifed in the fame pe-
riod.

This Point, I prefume, hath been cleared
up by other hands, particularly by the ufe-
ful labours of Dr. JValh, to the conviction of
the moft judicious and learned Antipedo-bap-
tifts themfelves ; becaufe, they are now filent
upon this head. There is, I confefs, one
Nor cot (to fay nothing of others [«]) who
hath again made a flourifli with thefe great
names in a book called. Believer s Baptifm
difplayed [o]. But, he hath difplayed little
wifdom, or modefty in fo doing. His leader
fccms to have been Colonel Danvers that no-
ted

[w] See Wall's Hiji. of Infant- Baptifm. Part. i. Ch. 3.

{n] Some of the more illiterate among the Antifaedo-bap-
tifts are often haranguing upon the fame fubjed, both in pub-
lic, and private.

[»J See his Poftfcript.

( 9 )

ted romancer [/>]. In (hort, al! the infiances^
referred to before, have been fcewed to be
nothing to the purpofe, excepting 07ie only^
and that a dubious one at the mod \ viz. the
cafe of Gregory Nazianzen\ at the time of
whofe birthj that his father, (though after-
v^ards a Bifliop) was a chriftian, is far from
being certain [5^]. The general ftream of hif-
tory would prove the contrary, but for one
lingle paffage in his life, writ by himfelf [r] j
which therefore hath puzzled all the Critics*
So that that the learned Dr. JFall could find
no way, to reconcile it with hiftorical truth^
but by fuppofing a corruption of the text, and
offering an emendation \s\ But, as I am not
fond of fuch expedients, I would humbly
propofe another method of rernoving the dif-
ficulty, e. g. thus : When Gregory Nazian-

C zens

[/>] Dr. U^all hath given his charafter. Hiil. of Inf. Bap*
Part 2. ch. 2.

[9] That Greg. Nazianzen's father was once a HeathcHj
appears from what himfelf fays of him. De Vita fua.

Oaoq ef'liixQB '3-t/{7tfcv «//o/ yjoso<;, i. e.

Nondum tot anni funt tui, quot jam in facris

Mihi funt peradi vidimis.

[j] '* If crr.e were to amend by the fenfe without any
** book, or manufcript, I fhould think that ^t/{r/&>y has crepc

" in by mi (lake for 'jroKiZvy Sec. Tote are not fa sld, as mj

** gray hairs are," 'is to the purpofe of the Father's ar-

*' gument at that place." Hiil. of Inf. Bap. p. 2. ch. 3.
fefl. :;. Edit. 3. It will yield as congruous a fenfe, if,. for
-{TvaiZv, we read (pujicoi'T a participle agreeing with g/y;??,
which is an eafier corredion. <pv(TiaVj ct^iMumjv, Trnv^.tZif.
Hefyqh. Thus, the fenfe will bf, I have been trQuhUd nfjlth
ffu aBhma before you I'jas horn.

( 10 )

zens father fpeaks of the time cf facrijices,
he might refer, not to the time when himfelf
was made a Bi{hop, (which probably was at
a very advanced age, as he was a heathen in his
younger days) but to what was the moft
ufual time, in thofe days, of Bifliops enter-
ing upon their office ; and this, according to
the Conjlitiitions [/], was at fifty years of age,
though that rule was not always obferved [^/].
Thus then, the good old Bifhop, urging his
fon to afiill; him in his weighty charge, may
be conceived, to tell him, among other Ar-
guments, ** that he had furvived [the com-
*^^mencement of) the Epifcopal age, more
** years than his fon had lived :" and not,
that his fon had not lived fo many years, as
himfelf had been a Bifhop, according to the
Latin tranflation. — 1 fubmit this remark to
the judgment of the critical, and candid
Reader. And if, after all, it (hall not ap-
pear of fufScient weight and force, to ferve
the purpofe intended 5 yet, from the fingle
inflance of Gregory Nazianzen^ no argu-
ment can be drawn (as I hinted before) to
difprove the general pradlice of Infant-bap-
tifm in that age j for, by the confeflion of
Antipedo-baptifls themfelves, it generally pre-
vailed in the fourth Century. But, that it

then

\i] Conftit. Apoft. lib. 2. cap. i.

[«] Zee Bingham, Ant iq. of the Chr. Ch. B. 2. Ch. I a.
S. I.

< n )

then jirft began to prevail^ or received it's ef-^
tabliJJoment^ as is pretended \w\ ^ this is a
mere prefumption, without any hiftorical
proof, as I hope to fhew in the Sequel, by
confidering the pradlice of the primitive
churchy with reference to Infant -B apt ifm-,
in the time of St. Augnftin^ and from ihence
tracing it back to the firft ages of all •f-4-.

SECTION n.

A View of Infant-Baptifm in tht-
fourth Ce?ttury\

IN order to fix the antiquity^ and trace
back the original, of Infant-Baptifm, we
(hall begin at the time of St. Auguflin^ who
C 2 flou'

f w] ^ee Dr. Gilh uhi fupra .

f-j- The order of Catechumens in the primitive Church
has been alledged as a proof, that Infant-Baptifm was not prac-
tifed in thefe days. But this can be no proof at all. For that
order fubfifted in the time of St. Jujlin : [Vid. Auguftin de
Fide Catechumen, &C.3 when Infant-Baptifm', as its opponents
acknowledge, was in common ufe. The ^ruth is, the order
pf Catechumens, (properly fo called, viz. thofe who were in-
truded in the Chnftian religion to prepare them for baptifm,)
were not perfons born of baptized Chriltian Parents, but fuch,
(or their children) as relinqui/hed Pagani/m, and came o'ver t»
the Chrijitan faith : ?.s Lord King obferves. [Enquiry into
theConilicution, &c. of the Primitive Church, p. 2. Ch. 3,
S. 3. Compare the learned Beza's note on i Cor. yii. begin*

( 12 )

flouriflied about the end of this century, and
in v;hofe days the practice of Psdo-baptifm
did confefledly prevail. But, when it is pre-
tended, that it was chiefly owing to his in^
fluence, and authority, that it did fo gene-
rally prevail, either then or afterwards [a;]; this
pretence is a contradiction both to hiftory and
to common fenfe. For, St. Augufttn him-
felf fpeaks of it, as the antient pradice of the
unherfal church [^]. And how could he be
fo rafli and (lupid, as to affirm fuch a thing,
if Infant- Baptifm was generally known in his
days, to be a no'vel, or late invention, which
owed it's ejlablijhment to himfelf? Let me
father obferve, when the Pelagiam were
ftrongly prcITed with an argument, in proof
of Original Sin, from Infant-baptifm ; they
never denied it to beanapoftolical inftitution,
or the perpetual practice of the chriftian
church ; which, being the (horteft way to
get clear of the difficulty, they would un-
doubtedly have taken it, if they had any
ground for fuch a pretence, as they muft
have had according to the modern hypothe-
cs of our Antipaedo-baptifts. Their hypothe-
fis therefore is groundlefs and abfurd. For
any one to fay, that the Pelagians durjl not

deny

[,v] See Tomhes Examen. p. I5.

[y] Ut antiquitus univerfa Ecclefia pertlncret fideles par-
vulos originalis peccati remiffionem per Chrifli baptirmum
cparecutos. Jttgujlincont. Pelag. lib, 3.

( 13 )

deny Infant-Baptifm [z], is an Idle conceit, api
plainly faying nothing, for want of fiayirtg
fomething to fay. For, what dur/i not ibey
do, who had the courage, to deny Original
Sin ? which was generally confidered, at that
time, and flrenuoufly urged, as the ground,
and reafon of Infant-Baptifm ; fo that upon
this very fcore they were charged with deny-
ing Infant-Baptifm, as a confequence of their
denying Original Sin, but they difowned the
charge ; and acknowledged the neceflity of
Infant-Baptifm, though upon a different
ground [^]. It \vas not therefore, for want
of courage-, for, they were men of mettle-^
but for want of evidence, that the Pelagiam
did not deny Infant-Baptifm. The plain
truth of the matter then is, they could not
deny it. But, the fad itfelf is enough for
our purpofe, viz. that the Pelagians did not
deny Infant-Baptifm \b\ when the fairefl:
opportunity was offered, and they had the
flrongefl temptation to deny it, if they could
have done it confiflently with honour and
truth. This appears to me an unanfwerable
argument, that the pradice of Infant-Bap-
tifm was far from being a new thing, or look-
ed upon as a human invention, in thofe days,
but, on the contrary, was confidered, on all
fides, as a divine inflitution, and the imme-
morial

[■s] Tomhes Examert. P. 2. SeSl. 2.

[/2] Vid. Hieronym. adverf. Pelag. lib. 3. fuh. fin.

\b] Vid. G. 7. Vojf, Hijl. Pelag. lib. 2. par, 2. Ihef. 4.

( H )

morial praSicc of the chriftian church [c],
it is an argument which I fufpedt the Anti-
paedo-baptifts do not care to look in the face;
and, though the celebrated Dr. G/7/hath been
lately forced to attack it, or give up the caufe ;
we fhall prelently fee, that it flands firm
againft all his artillery.

One method taken to invalidate the force
of this argument, is alledging other Ecclefiaf-
tical cuftoms, which prevailed as generally in
the primitive church, as Infant-Baptifm, un-
der the notion of unwritten traditions ; and
yet arc not held by us to be apoftolical infti-
tutions. But before any great execution can
be done this way, it muft be firft fhewn, that
the faid Eccleliaftical cuftoms have the fame
evidence from the teftimony of the antients for
their apoftolical inftitution ; that they were
put to the fame teft with Infant-Baptifm, to
try their true antiquity and authority ; and
that ihty Jiood the trial, as Infant-Baptifm did.
For, if thefe things cannot be made to appear,
'tis evidently not rights but very wrong, to
put them upon the fame foot, as if we were
equally obliged to receive the one, as the
other, that we may preferve the charafter of
hone ft men [/|. But more of this matter
hereafter. At prefent 1 (hall apply myfelf to

a par-

[f] See this argument well urged. The Baptifm of Infants
a Reafonable Service. Arg. 5.
y] See Dr. Qiirs Remarks on the Bap. of In/, a Reaf. Serv,

P' 27. '

a particular, and diftindt confideration of alt,
that Dr. Gill hath advanced, in order to evade
the force of our argument, as ftated above.

I. Says the Docflor, '* Hov/ever embar-
*' raffed Pelagius might be with the argu-
^' ment, it did not lead to a controverfy about
** the fubjeB^ but the eiid of baptifm, and
*' about the latter, not the former wa^ the
" difpute. [f]." Very well ! then both fides
were agreed about the fiibjedt of baptifm*
However, the difpute with the Pelagians did
in faB lead to a controverfy about the fub-
jcd: of baptifm, fo far as that they were ac-
tually preffed, and even teazed with an argu-
ment from Infant-Baptifm ; as the learned
Do6lor cannot but know. And how eafy a
matter had it been for them, to crufli this ar-
gument at once, and get clear of it for ever,
without any more adoe, only by denying Infant-
Baptifm, if they could have denied it with a
fafe confcience r I appeal to the Dodlor him-
felf, whether this was not the (horteft way,
and the moft effectual method, to filence all
his opponents. This may ferve, as a proper
anfwer to what follows [/"]. " Nor w^as he
" under fo great a temptation, and much lefs
** neceffity, nor did it fo greatly concern him
to deny the baptifm of Infants, on account
of his tenet ; fince he was able upon his
principles to point out other ends of their

*' baptifm,

ie-\ ihid, p, 20. [/] nu:

((

( 36)

« baptifm, than that of remiflion of fin ; and
" particularly their receiving, and enjoying
" the kingdom of heaven, &c." There is
nothing in all this, that afxeds our argument,
in the leaft. We readily grant, that PeJa-
gius was not obliged by his principles to deny
Infant- Baptifm. On the contrary, we affirm,
and maintain, that he neither did, nor could
deny it. But, what we urge is this, that, when
he was vehemently preffed with an argument
from Infant- Baptifm in proof of original fin. In-
fant-Baptifm was con fide red as a medium al-
lowed on both fides, and it is what Pelagius
never difputed, when he had a fiir occa/ion
given him to deny it, if he could have done
it with any appearance of niodefty, reafon,
and truth. — The Docflor proceeds.

2. [g\ "" It fliould be known, and obferv-
" ed, that we have no writings of Pelagius

" extant, &c." But, where is the u(e, or

importance of knoid'cig and ohferving this, in
the prefent cafe, when Dr. GUI doth not de-
ny '' that he bath been ufed fairly, and is
'' willing to allow his (i. e. ^///?/Vj) authori-
" ties." Why, it is here, that we join iflTue
with him \ for, it is only upon fuch evidence,
as we have^ that we can proceed, in deciding
any controverted point of this nature. If the
DcBor can produce any- better ; wx are ready
to attend to it. But he goes on thus,

3. *' How*

cc

€i

(17)

3. [b] " However acute, learned, and fa*
«« gacious Pelagius was, yet falling in with
the flream of the thnes^ and not feeing him-
felf concerned about the y//^>^j, but the
end of baptifm, might give himfelf no
*' trouble to enquire into the rife of it; but
" take it for granted, as Aujliii did, — that
" it had been the conftant ufage of the church,
<* and an apoftolic tradition/* — Upon which
it is obvious to remark, (i.) We have here
a fair conceffion that thejiream of the times ran
in favour of Infant -Baptifm, as ihtcGiiJlant ti^
fage of the churchy and an apoftolic tradition^
in the days of Aujtin\ and of Pelagius^ who
began in the year 400 to teach his errors at
'Rome^ as fays Dupin [i\ (2.) That Pelagius
fhould fall in with the ft ream of th-s times],
whatever Auftin might do, is highly impro*
bable. Nor can it be fuppofed that Aiftin
himfelf aded in this manner, without grant-
ing at the fame time, that the practice of In-
fant-Baptifm was a prevailing cuftom before
he came into play, which therefore could not
be owing to his influence, and authority \k\
For, though we allow him to be a very acute
man ; yet furely he could not be the author
of fuch an ingenious contrivance, as firfl: to
ratfe the ftream of the times, and then fufFer
hitnklf to hQ carried away with it. But, in

D refped

[.h-] Ibid.p, 21. [/■] Hiji. Ecck/, [i] See Jfall't

*4njkv€r to Gale, /. 4 27.

( j8 )

rcfpefi: to Pelagius^ I fay, it is highly impro^
bable that he fliould fall in with the ftreara
of the times, and take the thing, in queftion,
for granted without examination. So that
there is no weight, or force in the Dodlor's
fuggeflion, viz. " that Pelagius might give
^* himfelf no trouble to enquire into the rife
** of Infant-Baptifm." For, we are not en-
quiring into mtxt poJJibilitieSy but probabilities^
and fads. And whatever Auftin was, it is
certain that Pelagms was not of that temper,
and complexion, as to fall in with the ftream
of the times. Witnels his open oppofition
to the vulgar dodrine of original fin. In this
cafe Pelagius went againft the ftreara of the
times, and particularly againft Auftin him-
felf, whether at the head, or in the midft of
the ftream. (3.) If Pelagius faw himfelf no
ways concerned about the fubjeds, but the
end of baptifm ; as Dr. Gill faysj this im-
plys, that Infant-Baptifm was no point of
controverfy between him, and his opponents.
It was a point in which both fides were ful-
ly agreed > otherwife, when he was urged
with an argument from Infant-Baptifm, he
might have difpatched it at once, and {truck
all his adverfaries dumb, by denying Infant-
Baptifm ; as, I am perfuaded, Dr; Gill, or
any other fkilfu! difputant, would have done
in the lame cafe 3 and Pelagius appears to
have been a man of fufficient fagacitv^ I add

of

( 19 ) ^>;ijo V

o£ Jpirk too, not to have let flip fuch an ad-
vantage.— But let us attend the DoSor.

4, " Tho' Pelaghis complained, that he
** was defamed, and flandered by fome, who
** charged him with denying Infant-Baptifm ;
*' yet this, An/tin obferves, was only a fhift
" of his, in order to invert the ftate of the
*' queftion, that he might more eafily an-
" fwer to what was objected to him, and pre-
" ferve his own opinion [/]." — Now, for my
part, I cannot conceive, with what view Dr.
Gill mentioned this, or with what pertinency
it is brought in here, unlefs with a defign to in-
finuate, that Pelagius, notwithftanding his
pretences to the contrary, did really deny In-
fant-Baptifm, For, the Dodor immediately
adds ; ** And certain it is, according to Auf"
" ti?7y that the Pelagians did deny baptifm to
" fome Infants, even to the Infants of Believ-
*' ers, &c." — But, I muft leave the Doc-
tor, to reconcile this with what he had
faid, under the laft article, of Pelagius fal-
ling in idth the ftream of the times ^ and not fee-
ing hirnfelf concerned about the JubjeBs of bap*
tijm ; and fo proceed to examine the truth
of his round aiTertion, ** that, according to
** Auftiny the Pelagians did deny baptifm to
** fome Infants, even the Infants of Believ-
" ers." A ftrange afiertion indeed! and a
very falfe one \ as I fhall (hortly prove, I hope
D 2 to

[/] Ibid.

it

(20)

to the Dodor's convidion. At prefent, let
us confider, what the complaint of Pelagius
really was, and Aujlin's refledions upon it,
in order to fet the matter in a true light, that
the Reader may not be miflead by the Do^-
tor's reprefentation of the cafe. Pelagius then
faid [m] '* that he was defamed, and flan-
*' dered by feme men, as denying the facra-
*' ment cf baptifm to Infants^ and prcmijing
the kingdom of heaven to Jome without the
redemption of Chriji, But (fays Aujtin)
theje things are not fo objedled to them, as
'* he hath put them. For, neither do they
*' deny the facrarnent of baptifm to Infants^
^' nor promife the kingdom of heaven to any
*' without the redemption of Chrift, There-
" fore, what he complains of being defamed

'' for,

[;;;] In literis etiam, quas Romam mifit (fc. Pelagius) ad
beatae memoriae papam Innocentium (quoniam eum in cbrpore
non invenerunt, et fandlo papae Zoziuio datse ibnt, atque ad
nos inde diredse) dicity^ ab hominibus infamari, quod negat
■par<vulis baptifmi facramentuniy et abfque redemptione Chrif;
ti aliquibus ccelorum regna promittat. Sed non fic illis
hsEC cbjiciuntur, ut pofuit. Nam neque pawulis negant bap-
i'lfmi facramentum, neque abfque redemptione Chrifli hsec
aliquibus ccelorum regna promittunt. Itaque unde fe queritur
infamari eo modo propofuit, ut facile poffet crimini objefto,
flilvo fuo dogmate, refpondere. Objicitur autem illis, quod
iron baptizatos parvulos nolunt damnationi primi hominis ob-
noxios confiteri, et in eos tranfiiife originale peccatum regene-
ratione purgandura, quoniam propter accipiendum regnujn
ccelorum tantummcdo eos baptizandos efle contend.unt, &c.
»— Ecce qjod eis objicitur de baptifmo parVulorum ! non quod
ipfe ita propofuit^ ut poffit fuse propofitioni, quaft adverfantis
olijeclioni, fecundum fua dogmata refpondere. Denique,
quomcdo refpondeat'advertite, et videte latebras, &c. An-
gujiin. ds Peccat. Qrig. cont, Pelag. et Celeji. lib. 4.

(21 )

" for, he hath ftated in fuch a manner, as
" that he might eafily anfwer to what was
«« objeded to him, and preferve his own opi-
" nion. (i. e. as to original fm) Now, that,
" which is objeded againft them, is ihisy
" that they will not acknowledge unbapti-
" zed Infants to be Hable to the condemna-
" tion of the firft man, and that original Jin
*' hath paffed upon them to be purged by re-
*' generation; becaufe they maintain, that
*' they are to be baptized only that they may
" receive the kingdom of heaven, &c. — Be-
*' hold what is objeded to them concerning

^' the baptifm of Infants! &c." Thus,

whatever fhufHing Pelagius might ufe, it was
not to difguife any private opinion he enter-
tained againft Infant-Baptifm, as Dr. Gill's
way of introducing this matter would lead
one to fufpedt. For, as Auftin affirms, this
was not the thing laid to his charge ; on the
contrary, Auftin exprefsly fays, that the P^-
lagians did not deny the facrament of baptifm
to Infants, but held that they were to be bap-
tized, that they might receive the kingdom
of heaven.

Let us now examine the truth of our learn-
ed Dodor's affertion, viz. '' and certain it is,
** acccording to Auftin, that the Pelagians
" did deny baptifm to fome Infants, even to
" the Infants of Believers, and that for this
*' reafon, becaufe they were holy." Here,
upon a little enquiry, it will appear, that the

Doftor

( 22 )

Doflor was lead into a great miftake, by un-
derftanding abfolutely what was only fpoken
kypothetically. For, the Pelagians did not
abfolutely deny baptifm to the Infants of Be-
lievers ; but they only denied the neceffity of
it upon the fuppofition of their antagonifts,
viz. that the defign of baptifm was to cleanfe
from /in : ftill infifting uDon the neceffity of
their baptifm on another account, viz. that
they might enter into the kifigdom oj heaven.
It is a difadvantage in this argument, that we
have none of their writings entire, and com-
pleat, but are obliged to take up with fmall
fcraps, and quotations from them, without
the benefit of feeing them in their due order,
and connexion. However, by a narrow in-
fpedion of the paffage upon which Dr. Gill
hath grounded his miftake, we fhall eafily
detedt, and expofe his error. St. Auguftin
introduceth the difcourfe thus [«] : " But
** what we have faid above, in anfwer to
" thofe that fay, If a finner begets a finner,
^* a righteous man (hould beget a righteous
^« man ; the fame we alfo fay in anfwer
*' to thofe, who affirm, that one born of a
*' baptized perfon (hould be confidered as al-
^' ready baptized, &c." — Now, this argument

affedb

\n\ Qnod autem fupra refpondimus adverfus eos, qui di-
cunt, fi peccator genuit peccatorem, juiius quoque juftum
gignere debuit : hoc etiam his refpondemus, qui dicunt de ho-
mine baptiz^to natum, jam veluti baptisatum haberi debU"
i/fe, &c. Augujiin, de Peccat, merit, et remis, cont. Pelag*
iib. z.

( ^3 )

affedls the adult children, as well as the In-
fants, of baptized chriftians. But to proceed :
a little after we have thefe words [o] ; *' But
*^ the apoftle fays, your children would be un-
" clean^ but now are they holy : and therefore
** fay they, the children of Believers ought
" not now to be baptized." This is the
paffage upon which Dr. Gill hath grounded
his affertion, that the Pelagians denied baptifm
to the Infants of Believers. But (not to in-
lift, that the words do not mention Infants,
but children at large, and fo may include the
adult children of Believers ; and confequently
make as much againft adult Baptifm, as In-
fant-Baptifm) th^it the Pelagians did not ab-
Jblutely deny baptifm to the Infants of Believ-
ers, is evident from what follows in anfwer to
their argument ; which is only argumentum
ad hominem. Says Auftin [^] *^ It is not con-
*' trary to our affertion, although holy chil-
" dren are born of Believers, that we fay, if
" they are not baptized^ they go into condem-
** nation 5 to whom (viz. the unbaptized chiU

" dren

[0] At enim ait apollolus, Fiiii veftri immundi efient, nunc
autem funt fandi \ et ideo inquiunt fidelium iilii jam baptizari
ininimedebuerunt. Augujlin, ibid,

[ f\ Et contra noftram quidem noti eft alTertionem, etiamfi
ex fidelibus fandli propagantur, quod eos dicimus, fi. non bap-
tizantur» pergere in damnationem, quibus et ipji regnum cce-
lorum intercludunt, quamvis eos dicant ncn habere ullum vel
piroprium, vel originale peccatum. Auguftin. ibid. Upon an-
other occafion St. Augufiin fays, that the Pelagians never de-
nied, that Infants could not enter into the kingdom of heaven
ivithout baptifm. De Feccat^ Origin* cont. Pdag, et Ce/ejl.

(24)

*^ dren of Believers) even they themfelves
«^ (viz. the Pelagians) fhut the kingdom of
" heaven, though they fay, they have no
" fin, pei'fonal, or original." — And now, let
any impartial Reader judge, v;hether, as I
faid before, the learned DoBor was not lead
into a great miftake, by underflanding abfo-
lutely, what was only fpoken hypothetically.
For, it manifeftly appears, from the very
words of Auftin in the place referred to by the
DoBor^ that the Pelagians held Baptifm to be
neceffary for the Infants of Believers, There-
fore, they could not deny Baptifm to fuch In-
fants abfolutely^ but only upon the fuppofi-
tion of their opponents, viz. that the defign
of Baptifm was to cleanfe from Jin, And thus,
the diredt contrary of what Dr. Gill afferts is
certain according to Auftin, We fliall take
him tripping again, under the next article,
and in a yet more egregious manner.

5. *' Pelagius fays no fuch things that he
** never heard, no not even any impious he-
*^ retic, who denied Baptifm to Infants [f]:'
This is a furprizing ailertion in the Doiior,
For, we (liall prefently prove, and out of his
own mouth, that Pelagius {^.id ih^ very thing
itfelf His words are [r], " that he never
'' heard, no not of any impious heretic, who
*' would fay this concerning Infants, which

he

[q] Ibid. p. 24.

[r] Nunquam fe vel impium aliquem hjereticum audiiffc
qui hoc, quod propo/uit, de parvulis diceret.

( 25 )

^* he had propofed, or mentioned.'* — " Ths
" fenfe, as the Dodlor rightly obferves^ de-
*' pends upon the phrafe, quod propofuit^ what
" he had propofed^ or mentioned, of whom,
** and what that is to be underilood*" But
the fame or the Hke phrafe is ufed feveral
times in the difcourfe, and plainly refers eve*-
ry time to the fame perfon, and thing, viz.
** to Pelagius himfelf, and to the ftate of the
** queftion, as he had put it [j]j" to borrow
the Doctor's words again. Accordingly, the
Dodlor fays, this feems to be the fenje [^].
Well ! thus far we are agreed. Nothing now
remains, for clearing up the whole matter,
but to confider, how Pelagius had, in faci,
flated the queftion. *' Reprefenting (fays the
*' Dodtor) that he was charged with promi-
*' fing the kingdom of heaven to fomc with-
" out the redemption of Chriit [u]. " But oh,
good Doctor ! Is this the whole of his reprefen -
tMon} {or propo/ition J to ui^St^uJlins phrafe)
Have you not (I am loth to fay defignedly)
dropt the jirft part of it? the part, which ex-
prefsly mentions the Baptifm of Infants ? the
very part, in (hort, upon which the prefent
quefl:ion depends 1 For, Pelagius bad repre-
fented, and complained [w'] *' that he was
E " unjuft-

[/] Ibid, p 23. uc pofuit — eo modo propofuit — ita propo-
fuic, ut poflit fucs propolitioni, &c. Vid. fupra not. [ct], -

[/] Ibid. [//] Ibid.

[fuS] Dicit fe ao hominibas infamari, quod neget parvulis
baptilnii facramentum, et abfqae redempnone Chnlli h:cc aU-
quibus coelorura regnapromiuat, Vid. /iipra njt. [m].

(26)

*' unjuftly charged with denying the facra^
" ment of baptijm to Infants, and promifing
** the kingdom of heaven to fome without the
** redemption of Chrift ;" as we have feen be-
fore. Therefore this is, in part, what Pelagius
faid, he never heard, no not of any impious he-
retic that would fay concerning Infants, viz.
that they were to be denied Baptifmj which
w^as one thing falfely laid to his charge, as Pela-
gius complained : and the words refer to the
fiate of the quejiion, as he had put it^ by Dr.
GUI's own confeffion. Confequently, the
learned Doctor is miftaken again, or (which
I would hope is not the cafe) willing to lead
others into a miftake, when he affirms, that
Pelagius fays no fuch thing. And to what
can we impute the DoBors quoting by halves,
and his leaving out the main words of the
fentence, upon which the prefent debate
wholly turns ? but to his excejjive modefty,
which could not bear the mortification of a
moft glaring felf- con tradition ? But, upon fe-
cond thoughts, he may fee reafon to retradl
his following words [x], ^' take the words
'* which way you will, they can't be made
•' fay, that he never heard, that any heretic
*' denied Baptifm to Infants." For, taking
the words in his oum wayy they as plainly fay
this, as the other thing he mentions -, becaufe
both are equally included in the propojition^

or

[^1 Ibid, p. 3.4."

( 27 )

or in ih^Jlate of the quejiion^ as Pelagius had
put it. And if the Baptifm of Infants was
not included in the propofition 5 how comes
their Baptijm^ and regeneration in Chriji^ to
be mentioned afterwards with reference to
it [y] ? whether /w/^/, or vetaty be the right
reading. Having fet this matter in a proper
light ; let us now follow the Dodtor a ftep
farther.

6. *' Auftin himfelf doth not fay, that
*' he had never heard, or read of any catho-
" lie, heretic, or fchifmatic, that denied In-
*' fant- Baptifm [2;]." — To which I anfwer,
it is not material to the purpofe in hand, whe-
ther Auftin himfelf fays fo, or not. We
have already feen him quote Pelagius ^ faying
the ftrongeft thing, that any man could fay,
for the perpetual and univerfal pradice of In-
fant-Baptifm in the chriftian church from the
beginning. But, the Dodor adds; " He
" could never fay any fuch thing " and gives
feveral reafons for it, which we fhall examine
in their order.

(i.) Says the Do(a:or[j], "Hemuftknow,
*' that Tertullian had oppofedii" — Here the
DocSor hath changed the terms of the propo-
rtion. For, he gives it, as a reafon to prove,
E 2 that

[>•] ** Dum eos baptizari; et in Chriflo renafci putat.— »
** So it is in my edition of Aujiin ; putat, and not vetat, aa
« Dr. ?r«// quotes it." Dr. G'///. ibid. p. 23. Vid. WaWs
Hift. of Inf. Bap. p. i. ch. 19. fedt. 30.

[«] Ibid. p. z^. [^] Ihiii.

( 28 )

that Aiiftin had heard of fome body, who
<5^^wV^ Infant- Baptifm, that he muft: know,
that Tertiillian had oppofed it. But, whatever
Aiiftin might know of that matter, one thing
he certainly knew, viz. how to diftinguifh be-
tween perfons denying Infant-Baptifm, and
their oppofing^ or contradidiing it, in fome
fort \b\ Or" this kind was Tertuiiians oppo-
iition to it. For, whatever he faid againft it,
he did not properly deny Infant-Baptifm; but,
on the contrary, allowed of it in cafes of ne-
ceffity ; as will be (hewn in its proper place.
Therefore the Dodtor's firft argument falls to
the ground. For, Sr. Auftin might know,
that TertuUian had fome way oppofed it, and
yet have never heard of any one that denied
Jnfant-Baptifm.

(?.) " And he himfelf (fays the Dodor [c'])
*' was at the council of Carthage^ and there
" prefided, and was at the making of that ca-
'' non, which runs thus; alfo it is our plea-
" fure^ that whoever denies^ that new-born

*' Infants are to be baptized -^ let him be

*' anathema: but to what purpofe was this
*' canon made, if he, and his brethren knew
of none that denied Infant-Baptifm ? To
foy, that this refpeds fome people, who
were Hill of the fame opinion with Fidus^
au /Ifrican BiOiop that lived 150 years be-

•' fore

^J>\ See his -ivoraj in our Ti/te pagf.

<<

(29 )

fore this time, that Infants were not to be
baptized until they were eight days old, is an
idle notion of Dodlor IVall [d] : can any
man in his fenfes think, that a council,
confiding of all the Bifliops in Africa,
fhould agree to anatloemize their own bre-
thren, who were in the fame opinion, and
practice of Infant-Baptifm with themfelves;
only they thought it fhould not be admi-
niftred to them, as foon as born, but at
eight days old? Credat Judceus Jpella^ &c."
— Now here let it be obferved (i.) It appears
by the inflance o( Fidus (whofe opinion might
poffibly furvive himfelf 150 years; there is
no ai/urdity in the fuppofition) that fome per-
fons might be again ft: the baptizing of new-
born Infants; and yet not deny Infant-Bap-
tifm, unlefs they could both deny, and prac-
tife it at the fame time. For, Fidus himfelf
was for having Infants baptized, when they
were eight days old ; at which age they furely
were Infants ftill. Accordingly (2.) TheCanon
before us relates, not to Infants at large, but on-
ly to new-born Infants. For, fo it is exprefled,
both in the Greek H, and likewife in the
old Latin copy, in a Treatife bound up wnth
St. Auftins works [yj. Therefore, to ex-
tend

[d] Hill, of Inf. Bap. part i. ch. 19. feft. 37.

Canon. 1 1 2. Synod. Carthag. Ballamon.

[/] Quicunque parvulos recentes ah uteris matrum bapd-
zandos negat, &c. De Ecclejiaji, Dogmat.

{ 3° )

tend the canon farther, than to new-born In-
fants, is evidently to pervert it's meaning, and
to put a ftnfe upon the canon, which the
makers of it never intended. For, if they
meant Infants at large ; why did they ufe
fuch a reftridtive term, as new-born Infants!
It muft then be a wrong conclufion, for any
one to infer from hence, either that Aufiin^
or any of his brethren, knew of fome, that
denied Infant-Baptifm, For, if any perfons
were againft the baptizing oi new-born Infants \
it by no means follows, that they denied In-
fant-Baptifm. Becaufe, as appears by the
inftance of FiduSy thofe, that were in the fame
opinion and pradice of Infant-Baptifm with
themfelves, might neverthelefs think, that it
(liould not be adminiftred to them, as foon as
born. It is obfervable, that St. Auflin him-
felf \g\ makes mention of new-born children,
by way of contradiftindion from children
eight days old, with an eye to the fcruple of
Fidus. (3.) It is demonffcrably certain, that
this canon was not made againft any perfons,
that denied Infant-Baptifm. Becaufe, it was
made againft Pelagius, and Celejlius^ as is
noted by Photius, who mentions this ca-
non [/?]. But, neither of thefe men denied
Infant-Baptifm. What then did they deny ?
The refolution of this point will lead us into

the

[^] De peccator. merit, etrtmis, lib. 3,
Ih-] Bibliotbec, Cod. 53.

(30

the true meaning, and defign of the canon ;
and fo furnifli us with a proper anfwer to the
Dodtor's queftion, (viz. ** to what purpofe
was this canon made?") without receding in
the leaft from our hypothefis, that the mak-
ers of the canon, even their grand prefident
himfelf (tho' the council confifted of all the
Bifliops in Africa) knew of none^ that denied
Infant'Baptifm, — ^Now, though Pelagius de-
nied, Celeftius confeffed that, according to the
ufual form of Baptifm, Infants were to be
baptized for the re?niJ/ion of fin 5 and both
agreed in this, that Infants derived no original
Jin from Adam. Let us then confider the
canon, which was made againft them jointly,
with proper attention ; and it will appear to
be judicioufly, and accurately framed, in few
words, according to this double occafion. The
canon bears this title [/], *' That Infants are, or
*' are to be, baptized for the remijfion of fin"
And it runs thus [Ji] : " It is alfo our plea-
" fure, that whofoever denys that Infants new^
*^ born are to be baptized, (e. g, Pelagius) or
" fays that they (hould be baptized, (e. g.
*' Celeflim \f\) for the remiffton of Jin ; but
•' that they derive no original fin from Adam^

- *' which

[/■] 'Ot/ la.ynK^a. e^ aps<Tiv ufjLotflicov (ixTrlil^di^oit.

tH. 7UV yccHpeov tZv (/.iijipav {iocult^oiJ.iv<;t rtpu<hTai, » hiyei eiq

cTii//., &c. — Avi^i^M. tm-

[/} Vid* Augujlin, cont, Qekji, ^x, lib, a. de peccat* ori^,
€aP, 5,

(30

" which ought to be cleanfed by the laver
*'* of regeneration, &c* (e. g. both Pelagius^
" and Celeflius) let him bt; anathemay Thus,
according to the title, and to the occojion, and
to the conftruBion of this canon, it is fo fram-
ed, as that the remijjion of fin ftands in con-
nexion with the />//, as well as with the fe-
cond claufe; there being a plain contraft be-
tween Pelagius's denying, and Celejtiuss con-
fejfing, the Baptifm of Infants for the remif-
Jion of Jin. Therefore, that part of the canon
was not made againft any perfon, that abfo-
lutely denied the Baptifm even of new-born
Infants; but again fl: him^ who denied, that
new-born Infants were to be baptized for the
remiffion of fA\ as is well known Pelagius did,
tho' he held their baptifm to be neceffary up-
on another account, viz. that they might enter
into the kingdom of heaven. This difcovers
the reafon of the councirs fo particularly fpe-
cifying new-born Infants, (or. Infants ?2ew*
born from their mother s womb , as the canon
expreffes it) Becaufe, as fuch Infants could
not be fuppofed guilty of any aBnal, ov per-
fonal fin of their own ; this precifion in word-
ing the canon was intended to limit the rea-
fon of their Baptifm to original fin » \x\ fhort,
the whole emphafis lies in this circumflance
of Infants being new-born. And no one
could rationally pretend, as the council itfelf
thought [w], that fuch Infants ftooj in need

of

{nT^ For, u;on that fuppofition they fay, [l^iv ylv^at

(33 )

of Baptifm In it's then ufual and common form^
that is to fay, /or the remijjion of fin [«] ;. if
they derived no original fin from Adam, And
this explains the meaning of what the learn-
ed Photius fays of the council at Carthage^ who
made the canon under coniideration, viz,
[o] '' that they anathematized thok, who faid,
** that new-born Infants flood in no need of
*' Baptifm, becaufe they derived no original
*' fin from Adam!' — Therefore, tho' we have
no occafion to fuppofe with Dr. IVall^ *' that
*' the canon refpeds fome people, who were
" ftill of the fame opinion with Fidus, an
*' ^r/V^;'2 Bifhop, that lived 1 50 years before
** this time;" (Dr. Gill rmy call this an idle
7iotion^ if he pleafeth ; we want it not) Yet
(wonder it, who will) *' a council cohlifting
*' of all the Bifnops in Africa^ didy in fact,
" agree, to anathematize their own brethren,
*' who were in the fame opinion, and pradice
*' oi Infant -Baptifm with themlelves;" only
they differed about the reafon of the thing.
Nay, we fee by an cxprefs claufe in the canon,

F that

lJ.(x]oi i-ndhn^iK, ciXXcL TTKocroq voeiTctt) Ibid.

[n\ Infantes autem debere bipcizari in remilTionem pecca-
torum fecundum reguJam uni'verfalis ecclef,:s — confiteniur :
fays Celeftius. Augultin, de peccat. orig. c. 5. Hence mat
queltion. Quid feiiinat innocens 3Etas ad remiflionem pcccato-
ram ? Tertullian. de Baptifaio.

Tl<TlXO(^0ft t^tA To Ui] iXy.eiV AVTcl TpOyOViiCilV AUCCOriAV €^ A-

^dtij., dvxQiiAixll^ei' Synodus Carthag. contra Pelagium, &
Cdellium. Phot. Biblioth. cod. 53,

(34)

that the members of this council were not fa-
tisfied, if a perfon owned, that Infants were
to be baptized for the remljjion of Jin ; unlefs
he acknowledged that they were to be bap-
tized on the account of original fin alfo. And
doth not Dr. Gill himfelf fay, and fay truly,
(St. Auftin having teflified the fame thing [/>].)
** that the controverfy with the Pelagians was
** not about the JubjeB^ but the end of Bap-
*' tifm, and about the latter, and not the for-
•* mer was the difpute [q]y — This, I prefume,
any competent, and candid Reader will judge
a fufficient anfwer to what the Dodlor hath
advanced, both lately, and on a former occa-
fion [r], with reference to the Carthaginian
council, and their famous canon. For, it is
manifeft upon the whole, ** that tho* St. Au-
** y///z prefided .in that council, and was at
" the making of this canon ; he might not-
•' withftanding, have never heard, or read of
*' any catholic, heretic, or fchifmaMc, that de-
*' nied Infant-Baptifm." — Let us now confi-
der, what farther props, the Dodtor hath, to
fupport his tottering hypothefis.

(sO C"^] *' -/^i^^7^ himfelf makes mention of
** fome, that argued againft it after this man-

" ner.

[p] Concedunt parvulos baptizari oporterc. Non ergo
qusftio eft inter nos, ct ipfos, utrum parvuli baptlzandi fint,
ied ce causa quaericur, quare baptizandi fint. JugujUn. de 'verb,
apoji. ferm, 14.

[y] Ibid, p. 20.

[rj Divine right of Inf. Bapt. examined , isfc. /»• 35.

[j] Remarks ou Infan: Bapt. a reafonablc (erv. p. 2$.

(35 )

*^ ner [/]." " Men are ufed to afk this queft-
«^ ion, fays he, of what profit is the facra-
" ment of chriflian-baptifm to Infants, fee-
** ing when they have received it, for the
" moft part they die, before they know any
** thing of it." — But neither doth this come
up to the point, or prove, what it is al-
ledged for, viz. that Auftin had heard of any
one (I mean any chriftian, whether catholic^
heretic^ or fcbifmatic) who denied Infant-Bap-
tifm. For (i.) men might afk fuch a qued-
ion for their own information, without deny-
ing Infant-Baptifm, or fo much as arguing
againft it. In the fame place St. Auftin makes
mention of another queftion, which fome
ignorant people were ufed to afk, in reference
to the death of Infants, and their bodily pains.
"** What occafion was there for one to be born^
** who departed this life, before he could
" merit any thing r'* This queftion he hath
no fooner anfwered, but he mentions the
other queftion produced by the Dodtor, and
mentions it in fuch a manner, as to put it
upon the fame foot with the former [w].
Now, if that queftion was afked by any
chriftian, it could only be for the fake of in-
formation, (and when perfons are ignorant^
it is very commendable in them to defire, to
be informed.) For, it is very abfurd to fup-
F 2 pofe,

\j\ Augujlin. de libero arhit.lih. 5. cap. 23.
[«] ^^0 loco etiam illud perfcrutari homines folent, facra-
mentum baptifmi Chriili quid parvulis prcilt, ^.

C36)

pofe, that any chriftian would afk the queft-
ion, with a defigh to argue againjl the birth
of children, dying in Infancy. But, there
is the fame reafon to fuppofe this, as the Doc-
tor hath to fuppofe, from the like queftion
concerning the Baptifm of children, dying in
infancy, that the perfons, who afked the
quctlion, argued again ft \K» (2.) If they did
thus argue againft Infant- Baptifm. ; it is in-
cumbent upon the Dodor to prove, that they
were chrijlians. For, there is fome reafon
to doubt of it, confidering in what manner St.
Auftin introduces the Jimilar queftion going
before, calling it a calumny [i£;]: And truly,
if it was meant as an obje&ion^ it is fuch
calumny, or refledl:ion upon divine Provi-r
dence, as could proceed from the mouth of
none, but men of atheiftical principles.
(3.) They might even argue in this manner
againfl: Infant- Baptifm ^ and yet not denyxi :
nay, be ' fo far from denying it, as to prac^
tife it themfelves, fuppofing them to be chrif-r
tians. For, there is fuch a thing, as arguing
iov arguing s fake : and this very way I have
known the fame queftion afked among, and
by thofe, who do pradlife Infant-Baptifm.
And I would gravely afk the Dodtor, whe-
ther he really thinks, that any of thofe men,
who raifed the other difficulty about the birth
of Ipt'cuus, would fcruple, upon the ftrength

of

[fjc] Huic autem difputationi objici ab imperitls folet quae-
<dam cqhmn'ta dc mortuis paryulorum, &c. Augujlin, ihid.

( 37 )
of their own objeiflion, to render due henew--
knee ? The application is eafy, and I hafte
to the next thing.

(4.) " And as before obferved (fays Dr.
" G/7/[x]) he brings in the P^/i:7g-/^;^5 faying,
" that the Infants of beHevers ought not to
** be baptized [;?]." But, in relation to what
he hath before obferved as to this matter ; we
have before proved that oui; learned Dodlor is
under a grofs miftake. And fo we proceed
to his laft argument, (which will prove faulty,
like the reft) to prove, *' that Aufttn could
*^ not fay, what he is made to fay."

(5.) *'And fo Jerome [2^], who was a co-
" temporary of his, fpeaks of fome chriftians,
^' qui dare noluerint b apt if ma ^ who refufed to
*' give baptifm to their children^ fo that tho' In^-
^' fant-Baptifm greatly obtained in thofe times,
'^ yet was not fo general as this author re-
*' prefents it. Auftin therefore could not
** fiy, what he is made to fay." Thus far
the Do6lor \a\ But, as his conclufion is now
come to it's laft legs ; fo it will be hard fet,
to maintain it's ground. The fmall fcrap of
Zi^//>2 words, cited from y^'ro//?^, may feem,
perhaps, to make for his purpofe,, detached,
as they are, from the reft of the fentence j
but, confidered in their due connexion, they
will appear with a different afpedt. For, up-
on examining the paffage, the Dodlor will bq

found,

^x-[ Bid.

[j] ^4uguftin. de pec;ator. rierit^ I, z, c, 25.

[«] Ep, adLatam. [«] Ibid.

( 38 )
found, to have repeated his former miftake,
by underftanding here again abfolutely, what
was only fpoken by way of fuppofition. Be-
caufe, St. Jerome is not relating a Ja5l ; as
the Dodor*s manner of quoting him would
infinuate ; but only putting a cafe -^ in order
to illuftrate, and enforce a point, which he
had to manage with La^ta^ about fending her
daughter Paula to Bethlehem^ &c. And hav-
ing urged that parents are accountable for
their children, during their minority^ he
adds[<^]; *' unlefs, perhaps, you fuppofe, the
*' children of chriftians, if they fhould not
" have received Baptifm^ themfelves only to
^^ be guilty of fin, and the fault not to lie
" alfo upon thofe, that would not give them
" Baptifm!* Thus, it is plain, St. Jerome
doth not fay, what Dr. Gill would make him
fay; nor is he ftating a matter of fa5l^ but
only arguing upon a fuppofition -, and in this
manner either he, or any other man, might
have argued, if he had never heard of one
fingle chriftian, that denied Infant Baptifm.
Befides, if we fliould fuppofe, without any
neceflity, the cafe, which St. Jerome puts, to
h^faci ', this will not prove, that any chrifti-
ans denied Infant-Baptifm in thofe days, but
only that they neglected it in fome inftan-

ces.

\h'\ Nifi forte exiftimas, Chririlanorum iillos, Ji baptifma
non teceperinty ipfos tantum reos efTe peccati, et non etiam
fcelus referri ad cos, qui dare noluerint, &c. Hieronyni. EpijU
ad Latam,

(39)
ces [c]. For, it fometimes happens in our
days, that children mifs of Baptifm, and die
without it, through the negle^ of parents,
who are far from denying Infant- Baptifm ne.
verthdefs. By the way, it is obvious to re-
mark, that the great St. Jerome thought, that
chriftian parents could not negledl to get their
children baptized, without being guilty of a
culpable omiffion.

We have now gone through all the Doc-
tor's proofs, to fupport his aflertion, '* that
" Aiijtin could not fay, what he is made to
** fay :" and whether he hath not failed in
every one of them, I appeal to all the learned
world. Therefore, I will venture to affirm,
that for any thing he h^th /aid himfelf to prove
the contrary, Aufti?! could fay, what he is
made fay ; whether, in fad, he did fay it, or
not ; which is not very material. It is fuffi-
cient for our purpofe, that St. Auftin could fay,
if he had any occafion, " that he had never
" heard, or read of any catholic, heretic, or
** fchifmatic, that denied Infant-Baptifm."
And I am amazed to think, that, in attempt-
ing to prove the contrary, Dr. Gill could fa-
tisfy himfelf, or expedl to convince others,
with fuch flight, and fuperficial arguments.
This to me appears very wonderful in a per-
fon of his approved learning, and unfufpedted

integrity

[f] ^se Wall's Biji, of hf. Bap. P. 2. ch. z> on Greg.

(40)

integrity ; nor can I other ways account for if,-
than from the power of prejudices or hurry
of precipitation.

What the Dodor next adds, is of little
force, fpeaking ftill of Auftin \_d\ *' But
*' what then doth he fay, that he never re-
<* membered to have read, in any catholic,
*' heretic, or fchifmatic writer? why, that
" Infants were not to be baptized, that they
*' might receive the remiffion of fins, but that
" they might be fandified in Chrift, &c. "
I think the Dodlor is here in the right j and
alfo in what follows [<?], " in the fame fenfe
** are we to underfland him, when he fays,
** and this the church has always had, has
** always held[/]." " What? why, that
*' Infants are difeafed thro' Adam\ and ftand
" in need of a phyfician ; and are brought to
" the church to be healed. It was the doc-
" trine of original (in, and the Baptifni of
*^ Infants for the remiffion of it, he fpeaks
" of in thefe paffages/' — I fay, in my opini-
on. Dr. Gill hath here given a true reprefen-
tation oi Aujtitis fenfe. But then, I mufl de-
fire the favour of him, to refolve me one
queftion, (whether Infants were to be bapti-
zed for the remt[jion of Jin, or for their fane-
tification) viz. How could any chriftian, ca-
tholic, heretic, or fchifmatic, believe, that

the

[^] Ibid. [f] Ibid, p. 26.

[/] De 'verb. apoJL ferm. 10.

(41 )

the Baptifm of Infants was of any ufe, or
efficacy for either purpofe, without fuppofmg,
at the fame time, that Infant-Baptifm was of
divine authority, or an apoflolica! inditution,
and confequently that it had been always prac-
tifed in the chriflian church? Accordingly^
thus much feems to be implied in St. Aujiins
faying, " This the church has always had, has
'' always held. " And though, as the Doc-
tor obferves [^], *' it is one thing what Auf-
*' tin faySj and another, what 7nay be thought
^* to be the confequence of his fo faying j"
yet, where is the difference between what
Aiiftin fays, and what is a natural confequence
of his faying it ? fuch a confequence as AuJ^
tin himfelf would own, and acknowledge \Jo\
And, " it is true indeed, fays the Dodor [/],
** he took Infant-Baptifm to be an antient,
*' and conftant ufe of the church, and ail
*' apoftolic tradition." But then the Doc-
tor's way of accounting for this notion of
Aujiin is very extraordinary, and fuch only as
might be expeded from a writer, that is at a
lofs what to fay. For, thus he proceeds ;
*' which perhaps he had taken up from the
*^ Latin tranflations of Origen by Jerome and
*' RiiffinuSi &;c."— But, 1 muft tell the learn-

G ed

[.] ihid. _ ......

[/'] Confuetudo tamen matris Ecclefias in baptizanais p^rra-^
jis nequaquam fpernenda eft, neque ullo modo fuperfiua depa-
tanda, nee omnino credenda, nifi apojiolica ejfct traditiv^
A'JguAin. de Genes, ad lit. lib. lo,

[ij Ibid.

(42)

ed Do5lor, a perhaps will not do in this cafe.
As to the bufinefs of the Latin tranflations of
Origen by 'Jerome and Ruffinus ; we fliall fet-
tle that account with the Dodlor in due time.
At prefent, fince Jerome, and Riiffinits were
his cotemporaries, it is natural to afk, how
they came by the notion, that Infant- Baptifm
was an apojlolic tradition, or infiitiition ?
(words of the fame import in the ecclefiadic
flile) And, why might not Aujtin come by
the notion the fame way, that they did, with-
out being beholden to them for it ? But, if
St. Aujtin took the notion from any particu-
lar writer of the church , he had a much
earlier author (an original too) than thefe
Latin tranflators of Origen. For, he fays
himfelf [i], *' Bleffed Cyprian indeed, not
*' making any new decree, but preferving the
*' eftablifhed faith of the church, to redify
" the miftake of thofe, who thought, that
*' a child was not to be baptized before the
** eighth day from the birth, faid not that
" thje fieih, but the foul was [not] to be loft j

" and

[/^] Beatus quidem Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens
novum fed Ecclef]:^ fidtm firmiffimam fervans ad corrigendum
eos, qui putabant ante o6lavum diem nativitatis non efie par-
vulum baptizandum, non carnem, fedanjmam [non] dixit efle
perdendam, et mox-natum rite baptiz.ri pofl'e, cum Tuis qui-
bufdam co-epifcopis cenfuit. Sed co-tra Cypriani aliquara
opinionem, ubi quod videndiim f'uit fortaffe non vidit, fentiat
qu:lque quod iibet : tantum contra apoftoiicam inanifcrtiffimam-
lidf.m nemo fennat, qui ex uniu3 delido omnes in condemna.
tiouem duel prxdicat, ex qua condemnatione non liberat, nift
gratia Dei per Jefum, &c. Augujlin, Hisronymo Ep, 28,

(43 )

'^ and judged with his fellow-bifhops, that a
*' new-born child might be rightly baptized.
" But againftany opinion of Cyprian^ where
" he did not fee, perhaps, what fliould be
" feen, let any one think, what he pleafeth ;
*' only let no man think againft the mamfejl
" faith of an Apofiky who declares, that by
'* the offence of one^ all were brought into con-
" demnation, &c." It is thus, that St. Aujtin
writes, in an epiftle to Jerome himfelf. Is it
likely then, that he learned his notion of In-
fant-Baptifm, as an apofbolical tradition from
St. Jero-me^ or Ruffinus ? And was not St.
Cyprian^ whom he quotes, a much earlier
writer than either of them ? And yet, we fee,
he did not confider the Baptifm of Infants,
particularly for original fin, as a novel thing
in Cyprian's time, nor did he found it merely
upon Cyprian's authority, but referred it to a
much higher original, even the authority of
an apojile. Again : St. Au/tin fays [/] " that
*' antiently, the univerfal church held, that
** Infants of Believers obtained the remiffi-
'* on of original (in by the Baptifm of Chrift.
" Whence not without reafon bleffed Cyprian
G 2 - . ^' fuf.

[/] Ut antiquifjs univerfa eccleiia pertineret fideles parvulos
originalis peccati rcmifiionem per Chrifti baptifmum confecu-
tos. Unde non immerito beatus C)'/>r/«;/aj (ads ollend^t quarti
hoc ab initio creditum, et inteiledum iervet Ecclefia, qai
cum parvulos a materno utcro recentilTimos jam idoneos sd per-
cipiendum baptifmum aileret ; quoniam confukus fuerat urrum
hoc ante odlavam diem fieri deberet. Idem, de pcccat. merit,
lib, 3.

(44)
*' fufficiently fhews, how the church pre-
^' ferves this, as it was believed, and un-
^* derftood from the begining ; who, when
*' children are new-born^ aflerted that they
^' are fit for the Baptifm of Chrift ; becaufe,
*' his opinion had been aflced, whether this
*' ought to be done before the eighth day/*
Once more 5 fpeaking of the fame thing, and
referring to the fame epiftle, viz. that to K-
dus, he fays again \in'\ ; " Holy Cyprian, what
" he thought of the Baptifm of Infants, yea,
*^ what he hath fliowed the church always
^* thought, hear in a few words, &c." — And
now, what becomes of the Dodor's perhaps ?
Or, what force, what truth can there be, in
his reafon to fupport it, when he adds, ** fince
*' no other ecclefiaftical writer fpeaks of it
" as fuch in thofe days." For, St, Aujiln,
we fee, without appealing to Origen at all,
tranflated, or untranflated, hath found ano-
ther ecclefiaftical writer in the fame age, fpeak-
ing the fame language, and afligning the fame
^rc/W of Infant -Baptifm, that Origeii is made
to do.

But the Dodor grows more pofitive: for,
ftill fpeaking of *' Auftiris taking Infant-Bap-
/* tifm to be an antient, and conftant ufage
" of the church, and an apoftolic traditon."

Dr.

\t}i\ San£tus Cyprianus quid fenferk de baptlfmo par-

vuloi um, immo quid femper Ecclefiam fenfifle, monftraverit,
paululum accipite. Idem, ds 'verb, apofi. ferm. 15. Confer
Cyprian Ep. ad Fidum. '

(45)
Dr. Gill fays [«], without a perhaps ^ " but
*' in this he was deceived^ and tnijiakeny as h^
" was in other things, which he took for
" apoftolic traditions; which ought to be
" equally received as this, by thofe, who
*' are influenced by his authority."— -Now,
this is plainly begging the queftion ; a great
fign of an impoverijhed caufe. It is roundly
aflerting the very thing, which is to be prov-
ed, and which, I am fure, never can be prov-
ed by fuch an argument, as the Dodlor hath
here advanced. For, in the name of LogiCy
where is the confequence ? that, becaufe St.
Auftin was deceived^ and mijlaken in other
things (fuppofing him to be fo) therefore he
was deceived and miftaken in this, *' thatln-
*' fant-Baptifm was an antient and conftant
^^ ufage of the church, and an apoftolic tra-
*' dition ? " Is not this arguing without a
genuSy from one particular to another, con-
trary to the rules of the Logicians ? The Doc-
tor himfelf is deceived, if he imagines, that
we are influenced folely by Auftin' s authority
in this queftion. And, perhaps, upon fecond
thoughts, he will permit us to join with Au-
ftin at lead Jerome and Riiffinus ; and to caft
the weight of their authority into the fame
fcale; when he remembers, what he hath
faid of their Latin tranflations of Origen:
However, if Auftin was miftaken in fome

points 5

[n] Ibid. /, 26, 27,

(46)

points ', this proves indeed that he was not tn-
fallible', but it doth not prove, that he was
always in an error, nor, confequently was his
being deceived in other matters any proof,
that he was miftaken in his notion of Infant-
Baptifm, as an apoftolical inftitution. I hope.
Dr. Gill is fometimes in the right, though, I
have fhewn, I think, that he is often in the
wrong. But, what a ftrange principle doth
he reafon upon here ! viz. that we muft be-
Heve a fallible man in nothings unlefs we will
believe him in every thing! Nay, that an ho-
neft man is obliged to it! What! is it come
then to this ? that all men muft be knaves^
for uiing a judgment of difcretion ; or foolSy
and believe every thing at random ! But furely,
eft modus in rebus: there is a medium^ proper
to be obferved, between being wholly influ-
enced by any man's authority, and paying no
regard to it at all.

But the Doftor infifts [<?], *^ Every honeft
*^ man, that receives Infant- Baptifm upon the
" foot of tradition, ought to receive every
" thing elfe upon the fame foot, of which
*' there is equally as full, and as early evi-
'' dence of apoftolic tradition^ as of this." —
All which we readily grant. But, when he
fays afterwards [/>], of feveral other rites, and
ufages^ by him fpecified, not only " that they
" claim their rife from apoftolic tradition, but

*^ have

[o\ Ibid. p. 27.^5* 38. [/] Ibid. p. 37.

(47)
« have equal evidence of it, as Infant-Bap-
*' tiihi has;" this we utterly deny, and fliall
now try the ftrength of his hypothefis, not
doubting but, whatever equaUty of evidence
may appear in fome refpeds, we (hall difcover
a plain inequality of evidence in others-, as the
DoSor hath ftated the cafe. For,

(i.) In rcipcO: to Infant- communion, with
which the Dodor begins his detail [q], the
evidence, which he hath produced, of it*s be-
ing an apoftolic tradition is not equally as full,
and as early, as of Infant-Baptifm. In the
words alledged by the Dodor from St. Auf-
tin [r], he is indeed argiii?ig in his manner for
Infant-communion, and urging it from the
rezcird which all chriftians owed to the autho-
rity of Chrifl, and his apoftles, as the proper
ground, and flandard of the catholic faith.
But, when St. Auftin only argues for Infant-
communion, or delivers his own opinion about
it, tho' in the ftrongeft terms; every one muft
fee, that this is a very different thing, from his
teftifying, and declaring what was the antient^
and univerfal ^r2idi\CQ of the chriftian church j
as he doth in the cafe of Infant-Baptifm. But,
the Dcdor affirms [5], '' that of the neceffitv

" of

M Ihid. p. 27.

[r] *' If x\ity pay any regard to the apofiolic authority^ or
^* rather to the Lord and Mafler of the apoftles, &c.— — No
** man that remembers that he is a chriftian, and of the ca-
*' tholic faith denies, or doubts that Infants, &c," Augufi'm,
Ep. 106.

[i] Ibid.

(48)

** of this, as well as of Baptifm to eternal lite,
** Ju/tinkys[t], iht African chriftians took
** to be an ant lent apoftolic tr adit ion ^ Now,
here I might borrow the Dodtor's words, and
fay point blank, *' Auftin fays no fuch thing,
" What then does he fay ? Why, that the
<^ chriftians of Carthage very well call Bap-
" tifm itfelf nothing elfe but health-, and the fa-
<» crament of the body of Chrift, nothing elfe
*< but life. From whence ? but, as Ifuppofe^
<« from an antient and apoftolic tradition."

Thus, what Auftin delivers only as his

o^^n private opinion, Dr. G///r eprefents him,
as declaring it to be the general opinion, not
only of the chriftians of Carthage^ but of the
African chriftians at large. Is this quite fair
dealing ? But, how differently St. Atftin ex-
preffeth himfelf, when fpeaking of Infent-Bap-
tifm as an apoftolic tradition, is extremely evi-
dent from what hath been faid before. To which
let me add the following paffage in the fame
book, to which the Do6lor hath here referred
us [«]. " Moreover, becaufe they grant, that
•« Infants are to be baptized, who cannot go

" againft

[/] Optime Punici chrifliani baptifmum ipfum nihil aliud
quam falutem^ et facramentum corporis Chrifti nihil aliqd
quam njitam^ vocant. Unde ? nifi ex antiqua, ut exijiimo,
ct apoftolica tradicione. Augujiin. de peccator. merit, 6f re^
mis. lib. I. c. 24.

[«] Porro quia parvulos baptizandos effe concedont, qui
contra authoritatem univerfae Ecclefis proculdubio per Domi-'
rum et apoftolos traditam, venire non poiTunt, &c. Au^fiiif^
ibid. cap. 26.

(49 )

^* agalnft the authority of the univerfal churchy
*' without all doubt, delivered by the Lord
*' and his apoftles, &;c." Thu-s then, of In-^
fant-Baptifm, as the antient and univerfat
praftice of the church, and an apoftolic tra-
dition St. Auftin fpeaks with the utmoft con-
fidence ; but not fo doth he exprefs himfelf
concerning Infant- communion under the fame
notion. Therefore, upon the foot of his tef-
timony, Infant-communion hath not an equal
claim to apoftoHc tradition, or the fame evi^
dence of it, as Infant-Baptifm hath.

The Dodtor adds \w'\ '' Innocent the firft^ his
*^ cotemporary, was alfoof the fame mind, "
What mind? Was it that Infant-communion
was an apoftolic tradition ? Granting this ;
doth it therefore follow, that it hath the fame
evidence on it's fide, that Infant-Baptifm
hath ? Or, doth Innocent the firft, or Cyprian,
whom the Do(flor m.entions afterwards, ever
teftify of Infant-communion^ what St. Auftin
declares of Infant-Baptifm, viz. that it v^-as the
antient, conjlant, and tiniverfal pradice of the
church ? and confequently an apoftolical infti-
tution ? The Doctor vainly fwaggers, when^
fpeaking of the cafe cf a child mentioned by
Cyprian, he fays [.v], *^ Now here is a plain
*' inftance of Infant-communion in the third
*' century 5 and we defy any one to give a
H *' mor^

[yj] Ibid. p. 2S.

Ix] Ibid, p, 29. Confsr Cyprian, de hpp.

(5°)

** more early inftance, or an inftance fa early,
** of Infant-Baptifm.'* — This is a mere bra-
vado j bullying, not arguing. For, if by an
inflame he means a particular fad, fo circum-
flantially related, as that other -^ what can he
infer from it? Is it, that Infant-Baptifm was
pot pracftifed, before that cafe happened ? No:
this he doth not pretend : for the Dod:or him-
felf foppofes, " that this very child was bap-
" tized, or otherwafe, fays he, it would not
" have been admitted to the Lord's Supper."
Very well! then by the Do6tor's confeffion,
Infant-Baptifm was pradifcd before Infant-
communion : none being admitted to the
Lord's Supper before they were baptized [jy].
However, he adds, *' it is reafonable to fup-
" pofe, they both began together.'* But he
produceth no proof, or evidence of it. — There-
fore, if the Dodor's challenge hath any mean-
ing at all, it mull be tbh-, that there is no
fiifl-cient evidence that Infant-Baptifm was
praCtiled before that time. And, if this is
what he intended to fuggeft, I accept his chal-
lenge, and hope (hortly to give him Jatii-
faBion,

(2.) If thofe other rites, and ufages, menti-
oned by St. Baf![z], to whom the Dodtornext
refers us[j], are called apojtolical traditions^ in

commoa

W] ^^^- Jufiin Martyr. Apol. 2.
[s] De Spiritu Sand, C. 27.

la] Ibid, p, 29. — 35. As for the cuftom of giving a

mixture

( 50

common with Infant-Baptifm ; yet there Is
this remarkable differejice between it and them^
that St. Bajil fpeaks of tbem^ as unwritten tra-
ditions, but he doth not mention Infant-Bap-
tifm under that notion, or as one of that
number. This, I fay, makes a remarkable
difference in the cafe. For, we fee, that In-
fant-Baptifm was none of thofe rites, which
the primitive church built upon a my/licalkx\k
oi fcripture^ or which in St. Baftfs time were
only ^r^w^^ to be apoftolical inftitutions, on
account of their having early and generally
obtained [b'] ; otherwife, they had ranked it
alfo among the unwritten traditions. There-
fore they confidered Infant-Baptifm, as hav-
ing Jironger evide?ice on it's lide, than any of
thofe unwritten traditions j and confequently,
it's apoftolic authority \% better (upported, than
that of thofe other rites, and ufages, even upon
the foot of their tejlimony. — If any one Ihould
objedt, that by this argument, Injant-commu'
nioUy fpoken of before, would be put upon
the fame foot with Infant-Baptifm y I freely
H 2 grant

mixture of milk and honey to a perfon juft baptized, men-
tioned by Dr. Gill^ p. 36. it Hands uron the fame ground with
the reil. And let me obferve, the higher it can be traced ;
fo much the earlier proof there is, that Bupnfnn M'as conlide-
led under the notion of regeneration. BecHLife milk and honey
was the food of Infants. And To, the giving this mixture to
a perfon juft baptized, denoted his being ve-iv-born : ad .fn-
fantiae fignificationem, fays St. Jerome, adverf. Lucifer ian.

[^] See Di'vine Oracles, in an/nver to t^ivo Catechi/?ns»

fia. 3.

( 52 )

grant it, and therefore acknowledge that there
is more to be faid for it, than for any of the

unwritten traditionSy as they are called [<:].
But then, what hath been already faid, under
the preceding article, and what will be far-
ther oblerved heareafter, when we come to
St, Cyprian^ plainly fhews a vifible difpa-
rity between it, and Infant-Baptifm,

(3.) Infant^Baptifm, as I can affure the Doc-
tor, appears to many perfons, who pafs for men
of fepfe and probity among their neighbours, a
more rational thing, upon the whole, than any
of the unwritten traditions, mentioned by him,
and therefore more likely to be an apoftolical in-
ftitution. So that, in the judgment of difcre-
tion they verily think, that a fiiperior regard
is due to the teftimony of the primitive church
on it*s behalf. For, the matter of Infant-
Eaptifm, whatever may be faid oiih&fubje6t^
is a divine ordinance, as may be proved from
fcriptiire ; but none of the unwritten traditi-
ons, tho*, perhaps, originally founded upon
Jcriptiire^ by one Jort of conftrudion or ano-
ther, can be proved from it. Now, doth not
this material circumftance make a very wide
difference ? Doth it not appear in this view
m jre probable that Baptifm, which can be
proved to be a divine ordinance, (hould be ap-
plied to Infants by an apoftolic tradition, than
that any of thofe things (hould be apoftolic tra-
ditions,

[.:] See Mr. James Pierce's treatlfe upon that fuhjeB,

( 53 )
ditlons, which can in no (hape be proved to
be divine inftitutions ? In the one cafe, only
the fiibjeB is the matter in queftion ^ in the
other, the verj thingi themfelves. If any
one fliould here renew the former objedlion
about Infant-communion j I refer him to my
former anfwer.

(4.) It doth not appear, that the unwritten
traditions were ever put to the fame teft of
their apoftoHcal authority, as Infant-Baptifm
was, as we hinted before, and flood the* trial,
as it did, particularly in the Pelagian contro-
troverfy. And thus, we are come round to
the Pelagians again, where we began.

Upon the whole then, I imagine, that an
honeji man may be an honeft man ftill, and
yet think in his confcience, that the teftimony
of the primitive church deferves more regard
in favour of Infant-Baptifm as an apoftolical
inftitution, than in behalf of the unwritten
traditions under that notion. The attentive,
and judicious Reader mull have obferved in
the procefs of this argument, that Dr. Gill
hath exprefsly given us up by name fome of the
greateft lights of the church in the fourth
century, as vouchers for the apoftoFic autho-
rity, and antiquity of Infant- Baptil'm: viz.
St. Jerome^ Rujinus^ and Augujtin, And he
hath in effed, given us ail the reft. For,
he hath not been able to produce one
lingle author in this period on the other fide
of the queftioi^ If anv one fliould fuppofe,

that

( 54)

*hat Gregory Nazianzen was an Antipaedo-
baptift, bccaufe he advifed the delay of chil-
drens Baptifm till they were three years old ;
he would be much miftaken : for he approv-
ed of their Baptifm at any age in cafe of dan-
ger [d].

SECTION IIL

A View of Infant - Baptifm in the
third Century.

HAVING feen how the cafe flood in
the fourth^ and in the begining of the
fifth century ; let us now carry our enquiries
back into the thirds and fo upwards, 'till we
come to the times of the apoflleSy and to the
Holy Scriptures themfelves, from whence the
right of Infant- Baptifm (which we referve, at
prefent for the fubjedl of another differtation)
muft be derived. (Though as to the y^^^,
the matter now in hand, I might leave it to
reft upon the evidence already produced, 'till
better evidence can be offered on the contrary
fide, without giving ourfelves any farther trou-
ble

f4.iv; Travv ysj eitsrip t/j i'aeifof '/dJ'vi'^'. Greg. ^'azia». di
baptifm. Or at. I 40.

(55)

ble about it.) In this century we find a queft-
ion, relating to the Baptifm of Infants, unani-
moufly refolved by a fynod of fixty-lix Bi-
fhops, with the famous St. Cypria?i at the
head of ihem, who flouriftied about the mid-
dle of it. But, what was this queftion ? Why,
not abfolutely concerning Infant^Baptifm it-
felf J or, whether Infants were to be baptized
at all, (for this point was no matter of doubt,
or difpute among them) but, whether new^
born Infants were to be baptized, particu-
larly whether it was lawful to baptize a child
before the eighth day, according to the time of
circumcifion among the Jews, This was
what one Fidus fcrupled ; but Cyprian [e'] tells
him, " We are all, here affembled in coun-
*' cil, of another mind ; and no one of us
** came into your fentiments ; but, on the
*« contrary, we all concluded, that the grace,
<' and mercies of God were to be denied to
" none, who fliould come into the world."
Upon which Mr. MarJJ:all makes this perti-
nent and juft remark, in his notes upon the
place : ^' The unanimity, wherewith this
*' queftion was carried, fhews that Infant-
" Baptifm was at this time no novel ufage %
" there was no manner of difpu-te whether
*' Infants (hould be baptized \ but whether
** before the eighth day, or not : To which
*' the unanimous refolution was, that the

*' grace

\J\ Cypfi^^- ^^ Fidiim, Ep. 64,

( 56 )

" grace of God fiotild be denied to none. *^
—And now, what have the Antipccdo-bapti/ls
to fay to this ? Why, a defperate cafe requires
a defperate cure. Having therefore no other*
way left, to deal with the argument, from
Cyprian^ for the indifputed. pradice of In-
fant-Baptifm in his time ; they, at leaft fome
of them [/], will needs queflion ih^ genti^
inefi of his epiftle to Fidus 5 without any fort
of proof, or pretence, fit to be oppofed to the
teflimony of AujiiUy who, as we have {qzh
before, refers to that epiftle, as Cyprian'^ s^
over, and over again. Nor^ have we only
his authority for the genuinefs of the epiftle
itfelf, but alfo his teftimony for the proper
fenfe and meaning of it, fo far as relates to
the matter in hand, with this farther declara-
tion concerning it, that the refoliition^ therein
mentioned, was not any new decree^ intro-
ducing a novel cuftom, but agreeable to the
conftant opinion, and practice of the chriftian
church from the begining ^ as manifeftly ap-
pears by his words, already cited in the pre-
ceding fedion. Now, if it was an antient cuf-
tom in St. Cyprians time to baptize children,
particularly before the eighth day, Infant- Bap-
tifm could not then be a new thing, or a late
invention.

What becomes now of Dr. Gill's open chaU
lenge aiorefaid ? Doth it not already begin, to

look

[/] J^^anvers : Treatife of ha^iifm, Blackwood : Storm*
ing of Antkhrift.

(57)

look a little out of countenance ? But fays th^
Do(ftor[p'] " by Fidus, the country Biihop^
*^ applying to the council, to have a doubt
** refolved, whether it was lawful to baptize
*' Infants until they were eight days old j
*^ it appears to be a novel practice, and that
** as yet it was undetermined by council,
^' or cuftom, when they were to be baptized^
*' whether as foon as born, or on the eighth
*^ day, 5cc." — -Now, granting all this, what
doth it fignify, in reference to Infant-Bap-
tifm at large ? For, the doubt of Fi^Jus had no
relation to Infant-Baptirm,^jy?/^i; but only to
the particular time of adminiftring it, as the Doc«=^
tor himfelf hath ftated the cafe. Therefore, to
invert his argument, fince Fidus, the country
JBifl:iop, did not apply to the council, to have
any doubt refolved, whether it was lawful to
baptize Infants ^f all ; by this Infant-Baptifm
appears not to be a novel pradlice, Befides,
the particular day, or time, when Infants
JJjould be baptized, is a circumftance not yet
pofitively determined, but left to every one's
liberty. Doth it therefore follow, that In-
fant-Baptifm in thefe days is a novel practice ?
Perfons now differ about the particular time
of adminiftring the Lord's Supper [h\ And
doth it from hence follow, that the celebra-
tion of this holy ordinance is a novel praBice

I ia

{£\ Argtim. from apoft. tradit, ^c. p. i%.
[^] ^ee Dr, GiWi anfvisr to a Welch Clergyman, ibid.
p. io8.

(58)

in the prefent age ? Or, would this be a juft
inference, 1500 years hence, from the diffe-
rent cuftoms, or fcruples, which now obtain
amongfl: chriftians, in relation to that mat-
ter?— But, the Do(ftor adds ; " it fliould al-
*' fo be obferved, that in this age Infant-com-
" munion was pradifed, as well as Infant-
'' Baptifm ; and very likely both began to-
'' gether, as it is but reafonable, that if the one
" be admitted, the other fhould." — To which
I anfwer -, as to the rea/d?2ai?lenejs of the thing;
this is not the fubjedt of our prefent enquiry ;
but only the fa5l. And, though Dr. Gill is
pleafed to fay, very likely both began together ;
yet he offers no proof of it. This matter hath
been coniidered before. And to what hath
been already faid upon it, I (hall here add
the words of Mr. Marjhall [/]. •' Infants
*' were admitted, 'tis plain, in our author's
*' time and country, to receive the holy Eu-
** charifl: ; which indeed was a juft confe-
" quence of interpreting John vi. 53. {except
" ye eat the feJJoof the Son of man, and drink
" bis blood, ye have no life in you) of the ho-
^* ly Eucharift ; fmce, upon the foot of that
" principle, children could with no more
*' fafety be deprived of the holy Eucharift,
*' than of Baptifm. And, as to the prepa-
** rations neceffary, the fame objedtions might
" feem. to lie againft Infant- Baptifm, as againft

*• Infant-

[7] Cyprian. P. u p^g^ 1 20,

(c

«

(59 )

*^ Infant-communion. But, tho* this prac-
" tice obtained in our author's time, Tertul-
Hans filence in it, where he had a jnft
occafion of mentioning it (upon his advi-
fing againft Infant-Baptifm) gives fome
reafon of fufpeding, that it was not much
earlier than our author, nor therefore very
general, &c,"
Proceed we now to Onge?j, who flouriQied
about the year A. D. 230. He mentions
Infant-Baptifm on fundry occafions [k]^ but
never other wife than as a thing in commo?i ufe,
and pradice. i^nd, not only fo ; but he
fpeaks of it as a tradition^ or (which is the fame
thing in the facred, and eccleiiaflical flile [/j,
tho' Dr. Gill[m] fays, '' If Infant-Baptifm is
" a tradition of the apoftles, then — it is
*' not a fcriptural bulinefs") an injiitiitmi^
which the church received from the apoftles;
and, confequently, as what had been always

I 2 prac-

[i] Quia nemo mundus a forde, nee fi unius diel fit vit^
ejus. Addi his etiam illud poteft, uc requiratur, quid caufa;
fit, cum baptifma Ecclefias in remiJJJoftem peccatorum detur,
Jecundum Ecclejt^ obfer^antiam etiam pawulis haptifmum

dariy Sec. Origen in Levit. Horn. 8.- Ec quia per bap-

tifmi facnmentum nativitatis fordes deponuntur, propterea
baptizantur et parvuli. Nifi enim quis reratas tuerit ex
aqua, &c. Idem m Levit. Horn. 1 4. Pro hoc et Eccielia ab
apojlolis tradittonern fufcepit etiam parnjulis bapttfrniim dare,
Sciebant enim illi, quibus myfteriorum fecreta comm^fli funt
divinorum, quia eiTent in omnibus geauinae Ibrc.es peccati,
quae per aquaniy tX fpiritum abiui dcDe;ent. idt:,i. Commcui,
in ■£/». ad P.oman. lib. 5.

[/] See this point lately difcuiTcd. Divine Oracles.

[w] Page 40.

( 6o )

praaifed from the begining. Thus, we have
the clear teftimony of the great Ot^igen, not
only for the pradice of Infant-Baptifm in hh
own days^ but for the conjlant ufe of it all
along from the time of the apoftles. But
weak, and tender eyes cannot bear a ftrong
light. No wonder then, if all methods are
tried, to evade the force of fuch brighl and
glaring evidence.

. Says Dr. Gill [«] ; «' It fhould be obferved
^^ that thefe quotations are not from the Greek
*^ of Origeny — True; they are only hatin
tranflations from the Greek ; but are they
falfe tranflations? This the Doctor doth not
venture to affirm. But, he tries another way
to get clear of the argument, drawn from
thefe paffages. For, fpeaking of Origen he
fays \6\'^ *^ His Homilies on Leviticus^ and
■ ^ expofition of the epiftle to the Romans^ out
** of which ^'i^^^ of them are taken, are tran-
■' ^2.itd by Ruffimis ', who with i\\Q former,
^' he himlelf owns, he ufed much freedom,
*^ and added much, and took fuch a liberty
*^ in both of adding, taking aivay^ and chang-
^* jng, that, as Erafmus fays, whoever reads
** thefe pieces, it is uncertain whether he
^* reads Origen, or RiiffiijusJ" — But, notwiih-
ftanding Erafmus s cenfure, if we attend
to what Ruffinus himfelf fays ; it will appear,
that there is no fuch mighty matter in it, as,

perhaps,

U\ Page 1 6, [o\ Page 17,

(6i )

perhaps, may be imagined. For, as a learn-
ed writer of the laft age hath obferved [/>],
' Ruffiniii acknowledges, in tranflating Ori-
' geiii Homilies on Leviticus^ that he added

* fome things to what Origen faid, and what
' they were he expreiles, ea qus ab origine
' in auditorio Ecclefias ex tempore, non tarn
' explanationis, quam aedificationis intenfi-
' one perorata funt [^], the things, which were

* fpoken by Origen to his auditory, he tran-
' flated them by way of explanation, or did
^ more fully lay them forth in a popular way;
' and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly, telling
' us what were the things he added ; in this
' Eraffjius acknowledges his fair dealing,
' But, as for his commentary on the Romans^
' Ruffinus confeflith [r], fe hoc opus totum
^ ad dimidium traxifle, there was no addition
' of Ruffinus ; Erajmus here blames him for

* cutting off what Origen delivered more at
' large, but neither doth Ruffinus confefs,
^ nor Erajmus challenge him here for, any
^ addition to what Origen faid." Thus then,

this great out- cry about additions y and inter-
polations in the Latin tranflations of Origen
by RuffinuSy comes to nothing !

But

[/)] Mr. Stephen MarJhaU. Anf^wer to Tomhes. p. i6, I7_.

[5'J Rufini peroratio ir> Ep. ad Rom. Confer Wall's anfwer
to Gale, p. 371.

[r] Idem pr^fat. ad Rom. Confer Era/mi Cenf. de Ho-
mil. in Levit. For, traxijfe^ 1. contraxijfe. Confer Wall.
hill. P. i.ch. 5. fed. 6,

( 62 )

But, let us fuppofe, that both Ruffinus m
the Homilies on Leviticus^ and in the Com^
mentary on the Romans made fome additions
of his own ; and alfo that St. Jerome did the
fame in tranflating the Homilies on Luke^ out of
which is the other pajfage, alledged for Infant-
Baptifm ; I fay, fuppofing all this, What doth
it fignify in the prefent cafe 5 unlefs it could
be proved, that the particular paffages under
confideration are additions, or interpolations ?
Dr. Gilt makes a feeble attempt this way, fay-
ing [i], *' it looks very probable^ that thefe
*' very paffages are additions, ,or interpola-
" tions of thefe men, fince the language agrees
" with thofe times, and no other ; for, no
*« cotemporary of OrigenSy nor any writer
*' before him, or after him, until the times
" of RuJinuSy Jerome and Aujtiny fpeak of
** Infant-Baplifm as an ufage of the church,
*' or an apojiolical tradition." — But, the weak-
nefs, and fallacy of this way of reafoning
muft obvioufly appear to any one, that confi-
ders, how few writers, cotemporary with O-
rigen^ are nov^r remaining ; and yet neither
out of thofe /fU', nor out of any -writer before
him^ or after him in the primitive times, hath
Dr. Gill been able to produce one fingie author
that fpeaks a contrary language of Infaiit-Bap-
tifm, or plainly denies, what Origen is made fo
clearly to affirm, concerning it. BefwJe?, doth it

not

W Page 17.

( 63 )

not appear with undeniable evidence, from what
hath been already remarked on St. Cyprians
epiftle to Fidus, that Infant-Baptifm was the
commofi lifage of the church in his time? And
doth not the fame St. Cyprian in the fame
epiftle, fuggeft the fame groimd of Infant-
Baptifm, that Origen himfelf is reprefented to
do in thefe Latin tranflations ? Saying [/], *' if
*' remijfion oi f.ns be granted to thefe moft:
*' heinous offenders, who have long ago finned
•* againft God ; and if none of them be de-
" nied acccfs to the grace of. Baptifm ; how
** much lefs reafon is there for denying it to
" Infants ; who, being but newly-born^ can bs
*^ guilty of no fin, except that, by being deriv-
** ed from Adam^ according to the flefh, their
** birth hath communicated to them the in-
" fedion, and punishment of his offence, &c."
— Thus, in effed, Cyprian declares Infant-
Baptifm to be an apoftolical tradition ; for,
otherwife, neither he, nor any other fenfible
man, could fuppofe it to be of any ufe or efH-
cacy for the remij/ion of Jin^ or any fignifica-
tion of the grace of God, Therefore the lan-
guage of Origen ^ in the Latin tranflations,
agrees with the language and fentiments of
the Cyprianic age, that is to fay, his' own. To
all which let me add from Dr. Wall [u\ " In
" the Greek remains there are fentences, and
*_' cxprefTions fo alike and parallel to thofe —

and

[/] Cyprian. Ep. ad Fid urn »
[ [*] Anfwer to Gale. Appendix, p. ir.

( 64 )

** and citations of texts of fcripture applied (d
" much to the fame purpofe; that they do
** confirm thefe to be genuine tranflati-
«^ ons, &c."

Having now, I think, overthrown Dr*
Gilh pretended grounds of probability ; I
fhall (hew, in the next place, it is fo far from
being probable, that the paffages under confi-
deration are additions^ or interpolations \n Ori-
gerJ, as that there is not only the higheft prcba^
hilityy but a moral certainty of the contrary.
Says Mr. MarJ}jall[w] (fpeaking of the pafTage
in the commentary on the epiftle to the i^^-
mans. For this reafon the church of Chriji re^
ceived it as a tradition from the apoftles^ to
baptize children^ &c.) " Nor could Ruffinus
*' eafily be fuppofed to palm this paflage up-
" on Origen^ with whom he took, indeed,
<* great liberties, where he had occafion to
*' defend his favourite author from fome im-
*^ imputations; but here, I fay, he had no
** fuch occafion : fince it was never made any
** part of Origens accufations, that he was
" tf^^/^Infant-Baptifm, and therefDre i?^^-
'^ finus could have no temptation thence, to
'' reprefent him as a friend to it, if he were
*^ really not fo ; nor to coin any paflages for
** him to that purpofe." — Befides, as to the
other pafTage, in the Homilies on Leviticus y
Dr. Gill himfelf hath unluckily obferved *' that

" Foffius

[fitl Notes on Cyprian. P. i. page 120.

<c

(65 )

VoJJtm [x] thinks that the paffage cit»d was
of the greater authority againft tb Pela-
gians, becaufe Ruffinus was incined to
them." Is it not then abfard tcfuppofe,
and ridiculous to fuggeft, that Ruffim would
coin any luch paffages for Origen^ asimported
that original fin was the ground aid reafon
of Infant-Baptifm, diredtly contnry to his
own private opinion ? Here Ruffims hath ex-
hibited a remarkable proof of hs honefty,
which muft give the greater authority to his
tranflations of Origen^ and at the fame time
confirm the genuinefi of the thi^d paffage in
his Homilies on huke^ as tranflatd by Jerome^
efpecially confidering that the.'e two great
men, Riiffinus, and Jerome were bitter ene-
mies to each another, and yet perfedly agrted
in giving the fenfe of Origen, upon the point
in queftion, the fame way [y].

And now I appeal to all unpreiudiced, and
impartial men, whether the teftimonies alledg-
ed from Origen do not (land good, as authentic
proofs, not only of the pradice of Infant-Bap-
tifm in his time, but as pradtifed under the no-
tion of an apoftolical tradition. But what proof
fo early, or what evidence fo ftrong, can our
mighty champion (to remind him again of
his noble challenge) produce for Infant-com-
munion ? It is in vain to feek for his proofs

K. againjt

\_x'\ Hijl. Pelag, P. I. ilh. ;2. Confer ffalL hljl, of Jtf.
Bap. P. I. ch. 5. feci. 8.
[;■] See Dr. Wall. ib:d.

(66)

ngmift Infant-Baptifm in this period ; for he
hath noie at all. 'Tis true, fpeaking of the
Greek 6. Origen Dr. Gill fays [z\ *' many
" things may be obferved from thence in
** favourof adult-baptifm:" an aflertion either
falfe, or lery impertinent ! It is quite imper-
tinenty ani nothing to the purpofe, if he
means notadult-baptifm exclu/ive of Infant-
Baptifm ; br in that fenfe many things of the
fame nature may be obferved from St. Auftiuy
and other vriters, who lived in thofe times,
when Infart-Baptifm, by the confeffion of
it's adverfares themfeives, undoubtedly pre-
vailed \a\ But if the Docflor's meaning be,
that many things may be obferved, from the
Greek of Orige?i in favour of adult-baptifm
exclufive of Infant-Baptifm, or in oppofition
to it, and againfl it 5 then, what he fays is
utterly fal^e^ and, to play the Hero in my
turn, I challenge him to make good his af-
fertion. — Therefore, as for Bifbop "T^^v/^jr'i [^]
obfervation here cited by Dr. G///, concerning
Origen (who, by the way, was never accufcd

of

WP. 17-

\_a\ e, g. Wlien they fpeak of the qualifications of ntijn
connjerts requifite in order to baptifm. See Wall's anfwer.
p. 399, &c.

[^] Liberty of prophefying. p. 320. This is a book of-
ten cued hy the Antipcedo-baptifts, .who afFcdl, upon all oc-
cafions to bring in the name of Biftiop Taylor', tho' ** he de-
** dared what he wrote to have been only fome obje£lions ea-
" fy to be anfwered ; and which afterward he did anfwer him-
" feif." See Wall's hift. of Inf Bapt. p. 2. ch. 2. and De-
. fence, p. 433. But it was not for Dr. Gill's pu:pofe, to take
TiOtice of thefe things.

(6; )

of herefy for holding Infant -Baptifm) it may
be ftrongly retorted. For, one plain autho-
rity on the one fide is a Juller teflimony than
no authority at all on the other fide.

SECTION IV.

A View of Infa7tt - Baptifm in the
fecond CeJitury.

WE have feen how the cafe flood in
the third century. And if ** out of
" the mouth of two, or three witnefl^es every
*' word (hall be eftablifhed \' efpecially when
they are not confronted by any crofi evidence ;
proper proof, I prefume, hath been produced
of the practice of Infant- Baptifm in that pe-
riod. Let us now rife a flep higher, and
look back into ih^ fecond century, the age
next to that of the apoftles. At the end of
this century we find "tertullian ; whofe tefli-
mony for the praBice of Infant-Baptifm in
his time is clear enough -, tho', as to the right
of the thing, the Antipaedo-baptifts are wont,
to alledge his authority on their fide of the.
quefl:ion. It is only the fadiy that is the
matter of our prefent enquiry. But we (hall
here take occafion, to confider, en pafent^
K 2 what

(68)

what is commonly alledged from this antient
writer againfl the right of Infant- Baptifm alfo.
There is one thing I would prcmife, which
perhaps is not duely attended to in this argu-
ment, but deferves confideration, as it may
throw fome light upon the queftion before
us. It is thisy that, though the ftated time
of circumcijion was fixed to a certain day fo
precifely, that it was neither to be adminiflred
before that day, nor after it ; yet the time of
Baptifm was not fo limited to any particular
ac^,e. From hence the primitive chriflians
might eafily conclude, that Baptifm was law-
fid at any age ; and yet differ in their opini-
ons about the particular time when Baptifm
was neceffary, — -Now, the lawfulnefs of In-
fant-Baptifm, or it*s validity y is all that we
need contend for in this debate. And this, as
will be {hewn, Tertullian himfelf allowed ;
and not only fo, but in fome cafes he held it
to be necefary^ though in other cafes he thought
it lawfiily and expedient to defer the Baptifm
of children for a time, Gregory NazianzeUy
as we have obferved before, was of the fame
opinion: And fo, the Antipsdo-baptifts can
claim neither the one, nor the other of them

to their party. -But fays Dr. Gill [^], *' Ter-

** tullian is the firfl man, that ever made
*' mention of Infant-Baptifm, that we know
" of; and as he was the firft, that fpoke of

" it,

[0 -Argum. from appft. tradit. p. 15.

(69)

^^ it, he at the fame time fpoke againfl: it,
" Sec, " Now, whether Tertullian is the
firft man, that ever made mention of Infant-
Baptilm, as the Doftor affirms, we fliall con-
fider hereafter. At prefcnt, let us enquire
how far Tertullian fpoke againfl Infant-Bap-
tifm ', and I doubt not, but it will appear,
that what he faid of Infant- Baptifm doth not
amount to an abfolute denial of the thing, in
point either oi faB^ or of rights but the con-
trary. Let us examine his words with care,
and attention, as we have them already tran-
flated to our hands by Dr. Wall\_d\, TertuU
lian then fays \e'\ — *' according to every one's
" condition, and difpofition, and alfo their
** age, the delaying of Baptifm is more profi-
" table ^ efpecially in the cafe of little children.
" For what need is there [ ] that the godfa-
*^ thers fhoujd be brought into danger ? becaufe
" they may either fail of their promifes by
death, or they may be miftaken by a
child's proving of wicked difpofition. Our

" Lord

[^] Hift. of Inf. Bap. p. i.*ch. 4. fea. 5.

[^] Tertullian de baptifmo. c. 1 8. Says Dr. Wall ibid,
feft. 13. *' It is plain, that St. Auftin^ and Pelagius, and
** feveral others, that managed tht Pelagian controverf)', had
*' never feen TertuUiaris book of baptifm." But, when
Tertullian alks, " Why doth their innocent age make fuch
*' halte to th.t forgi'venefs of Jim P'* his queftion implies two
things: (i.) That Infants fwere baptized i as Dottor Wall
juftly obferves. And (2.) That they were, in faSi, accord-
ing to the ufage of the church, baptized for the remijjton of
fins. Therefore I can fee no great neceffity for the Dodor's
fuppofition ; as thefe two fads remove the difficulties he
ijientions as the ground of it, at leall in a good meafure.

<c

(70)
" Lord fays indeed, Do not forbid them to
" come to me. Therefore, let them come
" when they are grown up : let them come
•' when they underftand : when they are in-
" ftruded whither it is they come ; let them
** be made chriPdans when they can know
" Chrift. What need their giiitlefi age make
" Jiich hajte to the forgivenefs of fins ? Men
" will proceed more wearily in w^orldly things ;
" and he that (hould not have earthly goods
" committed to him, yet fhall have heavenly.
" Let them know how to defire this falvation,
" that you may appear to have given to one
" thatafketh. For no lefs reafon unmarried
" perfons ought to be kept off, who are likely
*' to come into tentation, as well thofe,
*^ that never were married, upon account of
*' their coming to ripenefs ; as thofe in wi-
«' dowhood for the mifs of their partner : un-
" til they either marry, or be confirmed in
** continence, &c,"

As I have here copied Dr. JVall-y fo I have
left a blank, in the fame manner as he did,
at the place where, in the older editions, thefe
words come in, / non tarn necejfe [jT ], accord-
ing to which reading Tertullians meaning is
plainly this [^], " What occafion is there,

** except

[/] Fq*" *^-^ ^ fhould rend tametty fuppofing it was for-
merly written with an abbreviation, thus tn, (as the word is
fometimes printed. Vid. Ruffini Perorat. in Rom. old Edit.)
and the letter n miflaken for an ra by the tranfcriber.

k] Qil^'^ ^"^"^ neceffe ell, fi non tarn [vel tamen] necefle,

Iponfores,

(7? )

'* except in cafe of necejjity^ that the fponfors,
** &c.'* This being premifed, I proceed to
obferve (i.) The words of Tertullian feem fair-
ly to imply, that Infant- Baptifm was not only
moved for^ but adually pra£lifed in his time.
" For when he fays, Why does that innocejit
*' age make fuch hafte, &c. His words fhew
" the matter of faB to have been fo, together
" with his opinion againft it [/?]." But yet
(2.) Tertullian doth not abfolutely condemn
Infant-Baptifm as unlawful^ or unprofitable ;
he only gives his private opinion (wherein, for
any thing that appears to the contrary, he
was very lingular as he was in fome of his
other notions) for the delay of Baptifm, as
more profitable^ not only in children, but in
the adult alfo. Particularly, he was for hav-
ing the Baptifm of young women deferred 'till
marriage, as well as of widows^ &c. And
will any one infer from hence, that it was a
novel ciifiom in thofe days for unmarried per-
fons of either fex, men or women, to be baptis-
ed ? But, you might as well infer this^ as con-
clude from the words of Tertullian that Infant-
Baptifm was a novel cuflom in his time. (3.) If
(as fome learned writers have fuggefted [/])
the words of Tertullian may reafonably be in-
terpreted

fponfores, &c. The turn of expreffion here is very agreeable
10 Tertullian' s ftile, and manner; tho* Dr. Gale is pleafed to
cenfureit. Refledions on Wall's hiftory, &c. p. cii.

M Wall ibid. fea. 9.

[z] Mr. Stfvm MarJhalU Anfii;tr t6 Mr, Tomhs JExamem
p. 36, 37.

(72 )

terpreted of the Infants of Infidels; then,'
however his reafoning may feem to conclude,
his advice about delaying Baptifm can relate
only to fuch children. In relation to thofe
Infants, whofe parents, one or both, were
chriftians, he allows them a prerogative, or
priviledge, by bif'th, zvA i nji ituti on m^zhovc
the children of heathens, referring to the
words of Si» Paul[l]: For the unbelieving
hujband is fanBiJied by the wife, &cc. which
by the way (hews, that the conftrudtion,
which the Antipaedo-baptifts put upon thofe
words, is a 720vel interpretation, when they
underftand the fanclijication, there fpoken of,
as denoting lawful wedlock, or cohabitation,
and by the holinefs of the children, fo procre-
ated, only their legitimacy [;;;]. For furely
Tertullian did not fuppofe all the children of
heathens to be baflards. However, he repre-
fents the children of idolaters as born with an
evil genius ; but the children of chriftians,
as holy by birth and ifijlitution : i. e, as candi-
dates for holinefs by birth, and as ?nade holy by
Baptifm : for fo he afterward explains the
matter. Therefore, it doth not certainly ap-
pear, that 'Tertullian was for having the Bap-
tifm

[y^] Adeo nulla fere natlvitas munda eft, utiqae Ethnico-
rum. Hinc enim et apollolus ex fanflificato alteratro ^c-Xw^
fanftos procreari ait : tarn ex feminis prssrogativa, quam ex
inftitutionis difciplina : cocterum, inquit, immandi iiafceientur^
&c. Tertullian. de anima. c. 39, &C.

[/] I Cor. vii. 14.

[z7] See Dr. Gill's commentary in Ice, &c.

(75 )

tifm of Believers children delayed at all ; and
much lefs do his words imply any lach ci/f-
torn. But, (4.) Whoever thcic Infants were,
he was not abfolutely againfl their Baptifm;
but, on the contrary, allowed of it in cafe of
nece/Jity, Nay, in this cafe, *' he pronounced
*' him guilty of murder, who (hould refufe
*^ it to any. He he{d that Baptifm was fo
*' neceflary for all, that even laymen fhould
*' adminifter it, when a clergyman could not
*' be had, rather than any one fliould die
'' without it [ny TheixforQTertullian wsls
properly no Antipcedo-baptift ; for he allow-
ed, and even required Infants to be baptized
in cafe of necellity, or danger of death.
(5.) To what hath been faid, I (hall add two
confiderations to prove, that Tertullian himfelf
looked upon Infant-Baptifm, as no human^ or
late invention, but a fcripture inftitution ;
though left at large, where no urgent necef-
fity, or immediate danger appeared, and not
limited, as circiimciiion was, to any particu-
lar day. (I.) Thofe words of Chriil \o\ Ex-
cept a man be born of icater^ and of the fpirit^
&c. .1 fiy, thefe words Tertullian underftood
of Baptijm^ and from thence inferred it to be
neceffiry to falvation [/>]. Thus, he put that
very conftrudioa upon the text, which, as

L the

[«] Tertullian. de baptifm. c. 17. \_o\ John 1. 5.

[/»] Cum vero prsfcribitur nemini fine b.ipcifmo cooipetere
falutem, ex ilia maxime pronanciatione Domini, qui aic, nifi
natus ex aqua ouis erit, &c. Tertul. ds bait. c. \z.

(74)

the Antips3do-baptifts pretend [q], gave rife
to the pradice of Infant-Baptifm. Therefore,
they cannot fairly deny, that it was pradifed
in the time of Tertullian, that it was then
pradifed as a Jcripture inftitution, and that
Tertullian himfelf confidered it under this
notion ; at leail:, if they allow, that he be-
lieved Infant-faivation. (2.) When he pro-
duces fundry inftances of unwritten cujioim
in another treatife, and methodically begins
with the adminiftration of Baptifm [r] ; Ter-
tullicifi makes no mention of Injant-Baptifm^
(tho' he mentions other things of lefs mo-
ment) as any of thofe unwritten cuftoms.
From whence one of thefe two things naturally
follows, either that Infant-Baptifm was not
pradifed at that time 5 or that he looked upon
it as a written cuftom ; that is to fay, a cuftom
founded upon the written rule of God*s word,
and confequently a fcripture inflitution. But
the former fuppofition hath been proved to
be falfefron:i his book of Bapnfm, which was
written before [j] 3 and fo the latter mufl be
true.

Having given Dr. G///, I hope, proper fa-
tisjaBionn^on this point; we are now at lei-
fure to attend to his other ailertion, viz. " that
"^ Tertullian is the firft man, that ever made
/* mention of Infant-Baptifm, that we know
'^ of. " — Upon which 1 obfcrve, that thofe

words

f^] Mr. Stennet. Anfwer to Ruffen. p. 77.

[rj Di corohd militis. [/] Vid. Dupin Wfl, EccJef,

( 75 )

words are equivocal^ and muft be underftood
with caution 5 for, other writers, before Ter-
tulliany fpeak of the fame things though not
precifely in the fame terms. And if Dr. Gill
will not be fo candid, ss to admit of this dif-
tindtlon j I wifti he would be fo kind as to
inform us, who was the firft man, that ever
made mention of original fin^ e. g. that is,
ufed this very term^ or phrafe, peccatiim origin
72is : to inftance in no other particulars, as I
might in feveral, which the Dodor holds
by no better tenure, than what depends up-
on the diftindion aforefaid. Have we not
already feen, that Origen^ his cotemporary,
though fomewhat'younger ih^nTertidlian, fays
of Infant- Baptifm, that it was a cuftom^ a tra-
dition, or inftitution, which the church de-
rived from the apoftles ? And how could Ori^
gen know this, but by the teftimony of other
writers? Therefore, whatever ic't' /(v^^^i^ of the
matter (and indeed we know very httle of the
authors, that lived in thofe days, fo few of
them now being extant) we have no room to
doubt, that other writers before TertulUan (the
facred writers are out of the prefent quefbion)
had made mention of Infant -Baptifm as the
ifage and pra&ice of the chriftian church de-
rived from the apodles, and confequently as
what had obtained from the begining. Ac-
cordingly, Clemens Alexandrinui^ TertulUans
fenior, plainlv refers to Infant- Baptifm under
L 2 that

(76)

that notion, faying [t] *' If any one be by
*' trade a fiflier-man, he will do well to think
** of an apoftle, and the children taken out
'* of the water." — ''An apoftle's taking,
" drawing, or liTting, a child out of the ivafer,
" cannot refer to any thing, that I can think
'^ of, but the baptizing of it : '* fays Dr.
Wall \it']. And fo fay I too ; being the
more confirmed in thisfentiment, by a paffage
in 'Tertullian[w], where he compares baptized
perfons to little fijkes -, and fo points out the
apt propriety of the fign, or feal^ which Cle-
mem Akxandrima propofes to fi(her-men :
and by his mentioning an apoftle in the cafe,
it evidently appears, that this antient writer
looked upon Infant-Baptifm as an apoftolical
praBice,

Come we now to Irejimis^ who flourifhed
about A. D. 167, thirty years or more before
Tertullian, The words, ufually cited in this
debate from Irencem, will appear to contain a
clear teftimony to Infant-Baptifm, if perfons
could, and would confider them without
prejudice, and prepoffeflion. For he fays of
Chrift [.r], *' that he came to fave all by him-
*' felfi all I fay, that by h'xmzvQ born again
*' unto God, Intants, and little children, youths,
*' and older men. " Upon which the learned

Feu-

[/] Pas^agog. lib. 3. cap. ii.
fa] Wall's Defence, &c. Appendix, p. 9.
[cu] Sifd nos pifciculi — ■. — in aqua nalcamur, TerluUiaif.
^e bapt'ijmo.

\^\ /a^^. lih. Z. cap, 59.

( n )

Feuardentius hath this remark ; " that by thfc
" name of regeneration, according to the
*' phrafe of Chrift, and of his apoftles, he
*' underftands Baptifm, clearly confirming
*' the apoftolica! tradition concerning the
" Baptifm of Infants." Let us now have
the patience to hear, what Dr. Gill, after
others, hath objected againft this teftimony of
Irenaus, ** The paflfage (fays he [)']) is only
" a tranflation of Irenceus, and not expreffed
" in his own original words." Again [2;] :
'* It is only a tranflation, as almoft all his
'* works be, and a very foolilh, uncouth, and
*' barbarous one." — But yet, the dodtor doth
not pretend to fay, and much lefs attempt to
prove, that it is a wrong, or falfe tranflation ;
which he fhould have done, if he would
have faid any thing to the purpofe. It is ob-
ferved by a learned and judicious writer [^],
" that the old tranflation, which we have of
" Irenaus is clofe, and unpolite, and for that
" reafon may often difcover to us the origi--
" nal, as might eafily be {hewed in a multi-
" tude of places." And thus, the coarfenefs
of the tranflation, objedled by Dr. Gill, is
really an argument in favour of it's truth,
and fidelity. — But, he adds [b'], " and the

" chapter.

iy] Divine Right of Inf. Bap. examined, &c. p. 22.
[2] Argument from apoft. tradit. p. 14.

[a] Jortin. Difc. i. on the Chriilian Relig. Compare
Wall's Defence, &c. p. 315, 316.

[b] Ubi fupra.

€(

(78)

chapter, from whence it Is taken, is bjr
*^ fome learned men judged to be fpurious. "
Which words imply, that all learned men do
not judge fo -, and the Dodlor muft allow us,
to think, that at lead ofie learned man hath
faid what is fufficient to prove the contrary,
until Dr. fFall's anfwer to Dr. Gale upon this
head [c] hath received a proper reply. But
this is a common artifice with writers in dif-
trefs, when they meet with any thing, which
they cannot reconcile with their own dear
prejudices, and prepoffefiions, to raife ground-
lefs fcruples, and fufpicions about it. Thus,
Charles Blackwood, that doughty champion,
who bravely undertook the Jtorming of Jinti*
chrifty would needs have St. Cyprians epiftle
to Fidus, though fo often quoted by St. Auf-
ttn^ be fufpeBed to be fpurious [^] ; (becaufe,
I fuppofe, it fpeaks too plainly for him of In-
fant-Baptifm) but upon the weakeft grounds,
that can be. No more folid, or fubftantial
is Dr. Gilh following remark upon the paflage
under confideration[^]. '* It is but 2i jingle
*' paflage out of him (as if Irenceus could
** not mention Infant- Baptifm at all, if he
*' fpeaks of it but once) and that depends
<< upon a fingle word, the fignification of
** which is doubtful at the beft." — So much
the better, if there is but one word in the

fentence

lc\ Wall's Defence, &c. p. 280, &c.

Uj Blackwood. Storming of Antichrift. p. 30.

\e1 Ubi fupra.

(79) .
fcntence of doubtful fignification ! But, wor-
thy Dodor, why is the fignification even of
this word fo very doubtful ? Hath not Dr.
Wall [f^ produced abundant evidence, to
prove, that the antients commonly fpoke of
Baptifm under the notion of regeneration ?
Nay, what better evidence can be defired,
than the poor evafions, and pitiful fhifts, to
which Dr. Gale was reduced in vainly at-
tempting to prove the contrary 5 and where-
by he juflily merited the charader given of
him, viz. an everJaJiing caviller againjl things^
that are plain {g\ ? We have feen before,
that TertulUan, cotemporary with Irenceus^
underftood the words of Chrift John iii. 5.
of Baptifm. He alfo fays that chrifi:ians are
born in water ^ like fifhes ; and to what can
this refer, but Baptifm ? Thus, he fpeaks of
Baptifm under the notion of regeneration : —
Clemens Alexandrinus alfo fpeaks of chrifl:ians
being born, or begotten of the womb of water.

VeyevriTcsv Ik fjtYjT^ocg vdocrog, Genuit ex ma-

trice aquae. Strof?2. /. 4, And a like no-
tion Tertullian mentions, as maintained by
the heathens [/?] : no doubt long before the
time of Ire?2ceiis, But, we need not have
recourfe to the heathens : feveral chriftian
writers, who lived with^ or before Irenaus^
fpeak the fame language ^ as will be fhewn

here-

[/] Hiftory of Inf. Pap. p. 2. ch. 6. and Defence p. 318,
(&c. Appendix, p. 3. &c.

[g1 Wairs Defence, Sec. p. 339.
[/^j Tirtullian de baptifmo, ca^* |.

(8o)

hereafter. At prefent, I fliall only remind
Dr. Gill of what he hath himfelf alledged [/]
concerning the antiquity of the '^ cujiom of
*' giving a mixture of milk and honey to a per-
" fon juft baptized." For, as milk and ho-
ney were the food of Infants; fo the giving
of this mixture to a perfon juji baptized, was
a fignification, or fymbolical fign pf his be-
ing new 'born, or born again [k']. Now, the
Dodor fays [/], even Barnabas^ a companion
of the apoftle Paul, is thought to refer to this
practice, in an epiftle of his flill extant [;«].
Let me afk then ; doth Dr. Gill himfeh^ real-
ly think fo ; or doth he not ? If he doth not ;
Why did he alledge this as a proof of the high
antiquity of that cuflom ? On the other hand,
if the Dodor is of that opinion ; if he looks
upon the epitlle of Barnabas to be genuine,
and fuppofes it to refer to the cuflom of giv-
ing a mixture of milk, and honey to a perfon
juft baptized : then muft he retrad: his own
words, when he adds [«], *' nor had it as yet
" obtained among the antients, to ufs the
" words regenerated^ and regeneration, for

^^ baptized,

[z] Argument from apoft. tradit. p. 37.

\h\ Hieronym. ad'V. Luc'iferianos. Bochart. Hierozoic. libs
4. cap. 12.

[/] Ibid. [w] C. 5.

[«] Ibid. p. 14. Dr. Gale alfo fays (Refleaions on Wall's
hiltory, &c. p. 489.) *' I do not believe it (i, e. the word re^
*' generatio?i) is ever fo much as once ufed in the antienteft
** times for baptifm, at leaft not till their zeal Jor Infant-
** Baptifm betrayed them into that abfurdity, which was not
** near the time of St. i^-f «.*»i," — But, a zeal for Infant-
Baptifm will prove, upon his hypothecs, much earlier than
*1ie Doctor pretends.

( 8i )

*^ baptized, and baptifmy — Let us now return
to Irenceiis ; and by examining another paf-
fage, or two in this antient writer, it will ma-
nifeftly appear, that he himfelf ufed the
words regenerated and regeneration in the
fenfe contended for. In one place [c] he
fpeaks thus -, " And again, giving the power
*' oi regeneration unto God to his difciples, he
" faid unto them. Go, and teach all nations ^
" baptizing them in the name of the Father^
'' and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghojir
This paflage feems too plain to need any
comment, or to be capable of any evafion.
In another place [/>], Irenceiis mentions by name,
*' the Baptifm oi regeneration to God, " — Tile
Dodtor cannot fay of this paffage, that it is
only a tranflation of Irenceus i for, we have
it exprejjed in his own original u^ords, if that
will pleafe him. Well then ! Ire?iceus expYe(S''
ly fpeaks of the Baptifm Ql regeneration unto
God, and of Infants being regenerated unto
God. From whence it is natural for any
man of plain fenfe, to infer that Infants were
baptized. — But fays the Dodlor [y] ** the true
** fenfe of Irenaus feems to be this, that

M . " Chrift

[o] Et iterum poteftatem regenerationls in Deum demandans
dircipalis, dicebat eis : Euntes docete omnes gentes, bapti-
ZAntes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sandi. Iren.
lib. 3. cap. 19.

[/)] — TK ^ctislio y.ccloq TJ7? e,", '3-scv Avxyzwn^Eso^y i. e. bap-
tifmatis ejus, quae eit in Deum regenerationis. Iren. lib. i.
cap. 18.

[q] Divine right of Inf. Bap, examined, 5fc. p. 23.

(82)

^« Chrifl: came to fave all, that afe fegene*
*' rated by bis grace and fpirit, and none but
" they, according to his own words. John iii.
^ *' 3> S-" Now, this is granting all we de-
lire, viz, that the words of Irenaus refer to
the words of Chrifl: in thofe texts of fcrip-
ture, particularly the lafl;. For, this is plain-
ly giving up the point ; as thole words were
always [r], and I think rightly [5], underftood
cf Baptifm by the antient chriftian writers*
- — — But the Do6tor is not yet eafy ; he fays,
that " to under (land Irenceus as fpeaking of
*' Baptifm, is to make him at leafl; to fuggeft a
*' dodlrine, which is abfolutely falfe, as if
*' Chrift came to fave all^ and only fuch, who
*' are baptized unto God." The like objec-
tion is made by another learned writer [/], who
(hould have underftood the fentiments and
language of the primitive Fathers better. Did
not he know, that Tertidiian as well as St. Auf-
tiuy &CC, fpoke of Baptifm as neceflary to fal-
vation ? How came the ecclefiajlical hiflorian
then to forget, that it is agreeable to the eccle-
Jiaflical Jlile, to underftand Irenaus alfo as
fpeaking of Baptifm under the fame notion ?

And

\f\ See Wall's Hiftory, &c. p. 2. ch. 6.

[i] The words of Chrilt, Except a man be horn cf ^jjater,
and of the fpirit. Sec. are parallel to the words of St. Paul,
Tit. iii. 5. hy the ^joajhing of regenerntion, and renewing of
the Holy Gholl. And thofc, who would confine the words
wholly to fpiritual baptifm, put a manifell force upon them,
at the expence of a tautology: which is Dr. Gilfs way, Sei?
his commentary, &€. Conf. Mar. xvi. i6.

[/] 7. Ckrk, HtJ}, Eccks. ann. i So. feB. 33.

(83 )

And thus, what is urged as an objedion, is
really a confirmation of the given fenfe of
Irenaus : which cannot be difproved by the
confeqiience drawn from it, unlefs the infalli-
bility of Irenaus in points of doctrine be firft
cftabliflied. Befides, hath not the Oracle of
truth himfelf declared [?/] ? " He that believ-
** eth, and is baptized, (hall be faved." And
is not this the fame kind of language, that we
fuppofe Irenceus to fpeak, fo far as relates to
Baptifm ? I hope, Dr. Gill will not here fay,
that " to underftand Chriji as fpeaking of
" Baptifm, is to make him at leaft to fuggeft
*' a dod:rine, which is abfolutely falfe, &c/'
But, if the words of Ch?^i/i admit of a quali-
fied fenfe 5 fo do the words of Irejiceus, There
is nothing therefore in his manner of expref-
fion, that argues that he doth not fpeak of
Baptifmy when he fpeaks of Infants being re-
generated unto God 3 but the contrary. For,
his way of fpeaking, thus underftood, is quite
agreeable to the ecclejiajtical Jtile^ and io /trip"
titre language alfo. So much then for the tef-
timony, the plain unexceptionable teftimony,
of Irenaus fov the pradice of Infant-Baptifm.
And as this antient writer flourifhed about fix-
ty feven years after the apoftles, fo that he
may well be fuppofed, as he is faid, to have
been born fome time before the death of St,
John: his teftimony therefore carries up the
M 2 evi-

[»] Mark xvi. i6.

(84)
evidence for Infant- Baptifm very near to the
apoftolic age.

But farther to corroborate this evidence, let
us proceed to Jujli?! Martyr^ whofe time is
fixed only forty years after the apoftles. And
the better to connecft our obfervations on him
with our remarks on Irencem ; we (hall be-
gin with a pailage, where Jnftin Martyr
plainly enough fpeaks of Baptifm under the
notion of regeneration^ though he is defcrib-
ing to the heathens the manner of adult-bap-
tifm only, having no occafion to defcend to
any farther particulars : nor do we alledge the
pafFage as a proof of Infant- Baptifm diredly ;
but only to fliew that this antient writer alfo
ufed the word regeneration^ fo as to connote
Baptifm, and thereby confirms the fenfe al-
ready given of the words of Irenceus, Juf"
tin Martyr then fays [w], *' We bring them
" (viz. the neW'Converts) to fome place, where
" there is water ; and they are regenerated by
** the fame way of regeneration by which we
*' were regenerated', for they are waflied with
*' water in the name of God the Father and
*^ Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Je-
*' Jus Chrift^ and of the Holy Spirit. For,
*' ChriiT:fays[:v], iinlefs you be regefterated, you
*' cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven^ &c/'
Thus, as Juftin Martyr ufeth the term rege-
neration^ {^ he underftands thefe words of our

Saviour,
I

[iv] Apolog. 2. [^] John iii. 3, $.

( 85)

Saviour, of Baptifm, Therefore, though he
here defcribes the manner of adminiftring
Baptiim only to the adidt^ as we are often
told ; yet his words cannot be thought to ex-
clude the Baptifm of Infants in thofe days :
becaufcj we fee, that conftrudion of our Savi-
our's words did then obtain, which, as the Anti-
paedo-baptilfsthemfelves fay, introduced Infant -
Baptifm into the chriftian church. So little rea-
fon had Dr. Gill to fay, fpeaking of the time
of Irenceus^ near thirty years younger than
^ if tin Martyr y " nor had it as yet obtained
*' among the antients to ufe the words rege-
" nerated, and regeneration^ for baptized^
*' and Baptifm /" As for Dr. Gales quibbles
upon this head, I fcarce need to refer the
Reader to Dr. Walts reply \f\ for a proper
anfwer ; the plain words of Juftin Martyr^
above cited, being a fufficient anlwer of them-
felves.

The next paffage I fhall mention is in his
Dialogue with Jrypho the Jew [z] ; where
Juftin Martyr fays that concerning the in-
fluence and efFedl of Adam's fin upon man-
kind, which the antient writers reprefent as
the ground and reafon of Infant-Baptifm.
In the fame book he fpeaks of Baptifm being
to chriftians in the room of circumcifion ;
and fo points out the analogy between thefe
two initiatory rites. Dr. tVall hath quoted

both

[y] Wall's Defence, &c. p. 177.

[2] 7. Martyr Dialog, cum Tryphy ^c.

( 86 )

both the paffages at large, and made proper
refledions upon them [a]. To him there-
fore I ihall refer the curious and inquifitive
Reader : for I haften to another paffage in
yuftin Martyr^ upon v;hich I muft dwell a-
while longer. Jtcftin Martyr then fays \b'\.
" Several perfons among us, of both fexes, of
" fixty, and feventy years of age, d Ik TraiScov
** ll4,u9-7jTeuBf}(ruv rS %p/r^j '^^^ '^^^^ difcipled
" to Chrift in their childhood, &c." Dr. Gill
renders the words thus [c], " who from their
*' childhood were inftruBed in Chrift : for fo
" (fays he) the phrafe, on which the whole
** depends, ftiould be rendered, and not dif-
** vipled, or projelyted to Chrift ^ which render-
*' ing of the words as it is unjuftifiable, fo it
** would never have been thought of, had it not
** been to ferve a turn." — Now, by expreffing
himfelf thus, the Dodlor feems to be aware,
that the turn of Infant-Baptifm would be ferv
edy if that conftruftion of the word, 6fA.xB7i-
T6y3'ij(rav, which he difallows, were admitted :
and yet, if he alfo had not a turn to ferve in
his way, it is probable that he would never
have thought of any other rendering of the
word : nor can he juftify his own fenfe of the
phrafe, IfjLocBvjrevBvi^oiv rco %p^r^, by any rule
of grammar, or parallel example, e. g. *' ^n-
*' tiphon, the fon of Sophilus — f^ccBviTsva-oig Si
f* Tu TTarpt, was difcipled, or a difcipk to his

*« father r

[«] Hift. of Inf. Bap. p. j. ch. 2." [hi Apol 2.

[f] Argument from ap. trad it. &c. p. 12.

(87)

^^ father ;** fays Plutarch [c], Sut accord-*
ing to Dr. aWs rule of confl:rud:ion, we
{hould fay, Antiphon was inftruBed in his fa^
ther. And would this be good fenfe, or at
proper way of fpeaking ? The Doftor himfelf,
when perhaps he was off his guard, and had
no turn to ferve^ fometimes fuppofed, that in
the chriftian fenfe of the word, difciple^ it in-
cludes Baptifm. For, fays he [^], '' The apof-
*' tie takes it for granted, that they were bap-
*^ tized^ fince they were not only believers^
** but difciplesy And this fenfe of the word,
as including the idea of Baptifm, is confirmed
by the following paffage [e] j ** When they
*' had preached the gofpel to that city, and
" fjLaBTjTsya-ocvTsg taught (difcipled) many,&c.^
that is, made many difciples. By this ex-
preffion the facred writer muft intend fome-
thing more than bare injtruciion ; otherwife
it is a m^re tautology. And what can this
fomething more be, but baptizing them ? Dr.
Gill himfelf being judge. Therefore, fince
according to the chriftian fenfe of the word in
queftion, it comprehends Baptifm, when
Jujlin Martyr fays of certain perfons lyt TTcci-
2m BiA^uBTirevBr^trccv rco yj^igta \ his words imply
that they were baptized in their infancy, or
childhood : for, the Baptifm of any perfons
being not a contifiued^ but one fingle tranfi-

en£

[<:] Plutarc. de 'vit. decern Rhet. Op. Vol, z. p. 852.
[d-j Dr. Gill's commentary in Adlsxix. i, 5*
W Aftsxiv. 21,

(88)

ent aft, to fpeak of their being baptized front
their childhood, would be improper \^f\
We grant, the word, dijciple^ hath a reference
to teachings and initrudion. But then,
whereas the Antipsdo-baptifts pretend that
all perfons muft be jirfi taught before they
are baptized ; we, on the contrary maintain,
that children rightly may be, and in fadl were^
baptized, and fo far made difciples to Chrift,
in order to be taught, as a fcholar is put to
fchool, that he may learn.

With refpedl to the matter, of right in this
cafe, it is beyond the compafs of my prefent
defign, to difcufs the queftion in that view.
However, as it may contribute fomething to-
ward fupporting the given fenfe of Jujiin
Martyr ; I (hall here anticipate myfelf fo far,
as to offer fome conliderations upon the words
of the commijjion \g\, " Go ye therefore, and
** teach (difciple) all nations, baptizing them
** in the name of the Father, and of the
«« Son, and of the Holy Ghoft ; teaching
** them to obferve all things whatfoever 1
" have commanded you, &c." — Here, fay the
Antipsedo-baptiils, teaching is fet before bap^
tizing ; and fo, from hence they argue, and
would conclude, that all perfons muft be
taught, before they are baptized. But, from
a ftri6t, and impartial examination of the
words of the commiffion, the contrary w^ill

appear

[/] See Wairs Defence, c^'C. p. 280.
\l\ Mat. xxviii. 19, 20.

( 89 )

appear to be true, and that baptizing is really
fet before teacbmg^ in the proper order of
words ', though I (hall not argue from thence,
that all perfons muft be baptized, before they
are taught, but only that there is no ground
from the words of the commiflion for the
contrary fuppofition. For (i.) we have the
general matter of the commiffion laid down
in thefe words ; Go ye and difciple^ or profe-
\yiQ, all nations. For fo, I infift, the original
word ought to be rendred, to exprefs its true
meaning, and to avoid a tautology ; not teach
all nations j as teaching is mentioned after-
ward by a more proper, and known term,
§iU(T}coPm [/6]. Accordingly, thus it is, that
our tranfiators have very properly rendred
the word in another place of the fame gof-
pel [/]. Nor can Dr. Gill, remembring his
own obfcrvation above mentioned, difallow,
how much foever he may dijlike^ this inter-
pretation ; or confine the fenfe of the word
to mere teachings but at the expence of a pal-
pable fclf-contradidion. Therefore, dijci^
pling is a general, and comprehenfive term,
including both teachings and baptizing. For
obferve (2.) the particular method of execu-
tino; this commiiiion, appointed in two dire^ti"
ons J viz. baptizing^ and teaching : that is to
fay, by baptizing, and by teaching: for, the

N Greek

[/^] See Wairs Defence, &c. p. 135, 136.
[/J Mat. xxvii. 57.

( 90 )

Greeks ufe the participles for gerunds [/J]. Oar
learned Dodor over-adls the grammar ian^
when he fays [/], *' the antecsedent to the
" relative them (after baptizing) cannot be all

** nations^" but difciples, &c." The reafon

he gives for it, is of no force at all, viz. the
difagreement of gender. Such inaccuracies.,
or atticifms \tn\ are not uncommon. The
Dodor may find the fame conftrudlion in
other places [72], yea, the very fame phrafe [0].
And let me afk him, what is the antecedent to
the fecond them ? (after teaching) Will he fay,
as before, difciples ? Then, by his own con-
feflion, difciples are perfons to be taught I I
give the Dodtor free liberty, to chufe his own
antecedent. And whether it be all nations^
or difciples -, this is plain, that baptizing is
fet before teaching in the exprefs words of the

commiffion. Therefore, to return to 'Juf-

tin Martyr^ no fufficient reafon appears, why
the aged perfons, mentioned by him, as hav-
ing been difcipled to Chriji in^ or from their
childhood^ may not be fuppofed, to have been
made difciples to Chrifl: in their infancy by
Baptifm^ and afterwards taught from their
infancy; according to that obfervation of the

learned

[i] Vtd, Spanham. Dubia Enjang. in he,

[/j Divine right of Inf. Bap &c. p. 79.
• [w] The conitru£tion of a relative is of the fame nature
with that of an adjeBi'vc \ concerning which the rule is: po-
ettce, et attice, nee cafu, ntc genere, nee numero confentit.

[«] 2 Kings ;tvii. 41, 70. Ads xv. 17.

[c] Mat. XXV, 32.

(91 )

learned Dr. Lightfoot [/>], " Baptifm makes
*' difciples, and difcipling fets the way to be
** taught." This to me appears to give u/s
the full import of Ju/ii?! Martyr s phrafe.
And, confidering the time, when he writ,
the perfons, of whom he fpeaks, muft have
been difcipled to Chriji^ and confequently
baptized, in the apoftolic age, and near the
middle of it [q],

I (hall not here infift upon the queftions
and anfwers to the Orthodox ; a book which
goes under the name of Jufti?z Martyr^ but
is the work of a later author, in the fourth
century perhaps [r]. However, Infant-Bap-
tifm is there fpoken of, as a thing vulgarly
known, and pradiifed in thechriftian church,
and the right of children to Baptifm on the
foot of the faith of thofe, that prefent them,
is plainly, and pofitively afferted [i] We
may rank this book in the fame clafs with the
Apojtolical Conftitutions^ which exprefsly order
the Baptifm of Infants [/]. And fo, from
both we may conclude, that Infant- Baptifm
was pradifed in the Greek church 3 a fadt
which the Antipcedo-baptifts have fometimes
denied.

N 2 Perhaps,

[/>] Sermon on Matth. xxviii. 19. Op. Vol, 2. p. H24.
This is according to the rule. Baptize your children^ avd
bring thetn up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. A-
poft. Conftitut. ubi infra;

[^] See the Baptifm of Infants, a reafonable fervice. p. 32.

[r] Vid. %f/?. 74, 126, &c.

[i] %^y?. ^ Rejhonf. 56.

[/] Apoji. Conf.itut. lib, 6. cap. 15.

cc

( 92 )

Perhaps, according to my propofed me-
thod, Ifhouldhave mentioned the Recogmti-
ens before ynftin Martyr in order. How-
ever, fays the learned and laborious Mr.
Bingham [^u\ ** It is an antient writing of
" the fame age with Juftin Martyr^ men-
" tioned by Origen in his Philocalia^ and by
*' feme afcribed to Bardefenes Syrus, who
*' lived about the middle of thefecond cen-
tury. This author fpeaks of the neceffity
^' of Baptifm in the fame ftyle, as Juftin
'' Martyr did, &c. -— So that if Infant-Bap-
*' tifm was founded, as iS*j//;7^y?//5 pleads, up-
*^ on the opinion of the neceffity of Baptifm
*^ to falvation ; this author muft be an affertor
" of Infant-Baptifm ; becaufe he was unde-
" niably an affertor of the general neceffity
" of Baptifm to falvation [w].

To conclude in the words of the fame
author [w], *' The mod antient writer, that
'' we have is Clemens Romanus^ who lived in
*' the time of the apoftles. And he, though
*' he doth not diredly mention Infant- Bap-
*' tifm, yet fays a thing, that by confequence
*' proves it. For, he make$ Infants liable to
** original fm, which in effedt is to fay, that
^' they have need of Baptifm to purge it
*' away, &c [x], — Hermes Pa/tor lived

^* about

{u] Antiquities of the chriflian ch. B. xi. ch. 4. fe6l. 8.
[ •tc] Clement, Recognit. lib. 6,
r-?t] Bingham antiq. ibid. fed. 6.
[vj Clemens 'Roman, Ep, 1. ad Corinth.

(93 )

" about the fame time with Clemens^ and hath
*' feveral paflages to {hew the general neceffi-
*' ty of water ^ that is Baptifm, to fave men,
" &cM. — Therefore, they who reprefent
*' this dodlrine of the neceffity of Baptifm
*' as a novelty, or an error, firft introduced
*' into the church in the age of Sr. Auftin
^' againft the Pelagian hereticks ; do mani-
** fed wrong both to the dodrine itfelf, and
" to St. Auftin^ and to the antients, who
^^ embraced, and delivered the fame before
" him."

Thus, from the begining of the ffth cen-
tury backward, either exprefsly, or in ref-
ped: to the common ^roz^//^j of it (thofe very
grounds upon which the Antip^do-baptifts
themfelves fay, it was founded) we have tra-
ced up the pradice of Infant- Baptifm to the
time of the apoftles [j;]. (And it is only the
fa5l itfelf, as attefted by the antient writers^
not ihti^ reafonings about it, in which we are
concerned at prefent) Our teftimonies upon
this head might have been expeded to be
more full for the Jirft ages, if there had then
been any controverfy about InfantrBaptifm,

and

[.r] Hermes Paftor lib. i. & 3. See Wall's Hiflory, Sec.
p. I. ch. I. and Defence, ch. xi.

[_>•] Quod autem apud fimplicem vulgum dififeminant. Ion-
gam annorum feriem, poft Chrifli refurredionem, prseteriilTe,
quibus incognitus erat paedo-baptifmus ; in to fcedijime nienti'
untur : fiquidem nullus fcriptor tam vetuftus, qui non ejus
originem ad apojiolorum feculum pro certo referat. J. Cal-
yin. Inilit. lib. 4. cap. 16. fe<^. 8.

(94)

and we had now a greater number of primi-
tive writers extant. So that what our evi-
dence may feem to lofe in one view, it gains
in another. The main queflion is, on which
fide the preponderating evidence Hes. And
to judge of this, I defire the Reader to con-
fider, that in all the forementioned period the
Antips^do-baptifts cannot produce one fingle
author to di [prove the fa6t[jj. For, the
firft man, that ever fuggefted any thing of
that kind, was Wilfrid Strabo^ a writer in
the ninth century j and what he fays is
grounded upon a palpable miftake. Becaufe,
he builds his opinion, againft the early prac-
tice of Infant-Baptifm, upon no hiftorical
memoirs, or authentic teftimony ; but only
on a paffage in St. Aujiins book of ConfeJJions^
which fpeaks of his being baptized at adult-
age. Nothing at all to the purpofe ! For,
from the fame book of St. Aujtin we alfo
learn, that, when he was born, his father
was a heathen \z\ And, if his mother was

then

\^y\ " Mr. Gale fays, Had it been the fettled praSiice, Sec.
** it cannot be imagined, that TertuUian Jhould ^venture to
** oppofe it. Why not ? Why might not he have the confi-
«* dence, and felf opinion, that Mr. Gale has now, when it
<' is undoubtedly the fettled pradlice ? Pie knows well enough
*' (though he would conceal it from any ignorant Reader) that,
<* That is TertuUian' s character among all men ; to oppofe
** his fingular opinions to the pradtice, and tenets of the
** church ofhi.s time, &c." WnWs Defence p. 361.

\%\ See Marfhall's Defence of Inf Bap. in anfwer to
Tombes. p. 47. and Wall's hillory, &c. p. 2. ch. 3, fedl. ii.
and ch. 2. fed. 2.

(95)

then a chriftian ; his being not baptized m
infancy can no more prove, that Infant-Bap-
tifm was not the common pradtice of the
chriftian church at that time (as we know it
was by St. Auftins own teftimony) than Ti-
mothfs not being circiimcifed in infancy (whofe
father was a Greek, and his mother a Jew-
ejs [^]) is any proof that Infant-circumciiion
was not then the common pradice of the
Jewift^ church. Wherefore to conclude all
in the words of St. Auguflin^ in his epiftle to
St, Jerome^ contra Ecclefiae fundatiffimiim
tnorem nemo fentiat, i. e. " let no body think
*' contrary to the vioft firmly eftabliftjed cuftom
" of the church."

[a] Ads xvi. I, 3.

FINIS.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THIS Defence of the Antiquity is
defigned to prepare the Way for the
Defence of the Authority of Infant-Baptifm,
in Anfwer to tlie common Objedions againft
it.

BOOKS Printed and Sold by J. Waugh at
the Turk^s Head in Lombard- Street.

I. 'TT^ H E DifTenting Gentleman's three Let-
X ters, with a Postscript, in Anfwer to
the Reverend Mr. Whitis three Letters; in
which a Separation from the Eftablifhment is fully jufti-
fied ; the Charge of Schifm is refuted and retorted ; and
the Church of England and the Church of Jefus Chriji,
are impartially compared, and found to be Conftitu-
tions of a quite different Nature. The Letters and
Postscript may be had feparate,

n. The Baptism of Infants, a Reafonable Ser-
vice ; founded upon Scripture, and undoubted Apoftolic
Tradition : In which its Moral Purpofes and Ufe in Re-
ligion are fhewn.

III. Dipping not the only Scriptural and Primitive
Manner of Baptizing: And fuppofmg it were, yet a
fl:ri6l Adherence to it not obligatory on us.

IV. Euroclydon: Or, the Dangers of the Sea
confidered and improved, in fome Reflections on St*
Paul's Voyage and Shipwreck, J^s xvii.

V. Liberty and Loyalty: Or, a Defence and
Explication of the Subjection to the prefent Govern-
ment, upon the Principles of the Revolution.

VI. Divine Oracles : Or, the Sufficiency of the
Holy Scriptures, as a Rule of Religion, aflerted, ac-
cording to the fixth Article of the Church of England,
And the concurrent I'eftimony of Scripture and the Fa-
thers, in Behalf of Tradition, difculTed ; in Anfwer to
a Book intitled, a full, true and comprcheniive View of

Cluiilianity, dsff. during the four firll Centuries laid

down in two Catechifms.

VII. Holy Orders: Or, an Eflay on Ordination.

m^M^m^MMm^^

PiEDO-BAPTISM

DEFENDED, &>€,

mmmmmmmmmmm

P^DO-BAPTISM

DEFENDED:

O R, T H E

A N T I Q^U I T Y

O F

INFANT-BAPTISM

FURTHER MAINTAINED.

In ANSWER to

Dr. G I L L's Reply,

ENTITLED,

ANTIPiEDO-BAPTISM, &^c.

Parvulos baptizandos effe, concedunt, qui contra audlori-
tatem univerfae Ecclefiae proculdubto per Dominum et
Apoftolos traditam, venire non poffunt.
Augujiin. de Peccator, Merit, et Remijf. lih,-\. cap. 26.

LONDON:

Printed for J. Waugh, at the Turk'z-Head in
IfOmbard-Street. M . D c c . l i y .

Errata in PiEDO-BAPTISM.

PAGE 8. line 24, 25. for Believer's
Baptifm difplayedy read baptifm dif-
covered. Page ^9. in the Notes, line 8. for
Levit, read Luc. Page 92. line 8. read Bar-^
defanes.

PiEDO-BAPTISM

DEFENDED, &c.

I^F Infant-baptifm fhould paft
for an innovation^ or fa ch a
late and novel invention, as
its oppofers pretend it to be,
this might prejudice them^
and others, againfl: any argu-
ment that might be offered in fupport of
its authority. Therefore, to prepare the
way for proving its authority, it was judg-
ed a proper ftep, in the firft place, to dif-
cufs the point of its antiquity. And fo,
this was the defign of the traft, entitled
Pado'baptifm, which Dr. Gill has honour-
ed with his remarks, beginning where it
ends, and inverting the order of the whole

argument.

Towards the clofe of Pado-baptifm \a'\

are thefe words : '* Thus, from the begin-

" ing of the fifth century backward, either

" exprefsly, or in refped: to the common

B ** grounds

[«]Page93.

( 2 )

*^ grounds of it, (thofe very grounds, upon
" which, the Antipcedo-baptifts themfelves
" fay, it was founded) we have traced up
" the pradlire of Infant-baptirm to the
" time of the Apoftles". — Now, thefe
grounds were the fuppofed necefftty of bap-
tifm to falvation, either as a mean of cleanf-
ing from fin^ particularly original fin, or of
gaining admittance into the kingdom of God.
Thefe are acknowledged to be the common-
ly received grounds of Infant-baptifm in
the primitive church ; whether right, or
wrong, was no queftion with the author,
who was only enquiring into the matter of
faB : For, as he adds, *Mt is only the fait
*' itfelf, as attefted by the antient writers^
*' not their reafonings about it, in which

*' we are concerned at prefent". -Says

Mr. Stennety [b"] (one of the moft ingenious
and learned writers on that fide) " The opi-
" nion of the abfolute neceflity of baptifm
*' to falvation, from a mifunderfl:«nding of
*' thofe words of Chrift, Except a Man be
** born of water^ &c. Joh. iii. 5. feems to
*' have introduced Infant-baptifm into the
« Chriftian Church." But, with fubmif-
fion, as it does not appear that the antients
mifunderftood thofe words of Chrift, by
underftanding them oi hautifm-y fo, ir fol-
lows not, that Infant-baptifm was introdu-
ced into the Chriftian Church upon any

mijlakey

\h'\ Anfwer to Kujen^ P- 77-

C 3 )

tniflake^ merely becaufe a wrong notion of
baptirm was taken up ; fuppofing that to
.have been the cafe. For, people might ve-
ry eafily take up fbch a nodon, ajter they
had received Infant-baptilm, and though
they received it as a divine inftitution.
When any of the philolophers (e. g. Plato)
made ufe of weak arguments to prove the
immortality of the foul, it leems to be a juft
obfervation, that they muft have received
that dodrine before : otherwife they could
not have been induced, upon fuch flight,
infufficient grou?2cls, to embrace it at all [c].
In like manner, if wrong notions, and weak
reafons, of baptifm in general, or of In-
fant-baptifm in particular, prevailed in the
primitive church, it is eafy to conceive, that
the thing itfelf was in ufe, before any fuch
infufficient grounds of it were affigned.
And thus, according to this view of the
cafe, the pradice of Infant-baptifm was not
introduced^ (as is imagined) or originally
grounded upon thofe reafons ; but thofe
reafons were grounded and grafted upon the
practice of Infant-baptifm, already received
in the Chriftian Church. This being pre-
mifed, let us now attend to Dr., Gill's re-
marks upon Paedo- baptifm.

Mr. Bingham (a name of fo much note

for learning and fkill in ecclefiaftical mat-

B 2 ters,

[c] See Haliburtoni InfufRciency of Nat. Relig. ch. 14.
p. 45. 2

( 4 )

ters, that, If it (hould not fecjre a perfon
from error, it might very well fcreen him
from contempt with all men of candour)
was quoted \d'\ for this remark ^ *' The
" mofi: antient writer, that we have, is Cle-
" mem Romanus, who lived in the time of
*^ the Apoftlesi and he, though he doth
** not exprefsly mention Infant-baptifm,
** yet fays a thing, that by confequence
** proves it : For, he makes Infants liable
" to Original Sin, which in effedt is to fay,
** that they have need of baptifm,©'^." [^],
The paffage to which Mr. Bingham refers,
is a quotation from Job xiv. 4, 5. which, ac-
cording to the Greek verfion, Clemens reads
thus : No man is free from pollution, no not
thd' his life is but of one day. But, Dr.
Wall obferves [/], that in the next chap-
ter Clefnens brings in, to the fame pur*
pofe, the faying of David, Pf li. 5. /
wasJJ:apen in iniquity, &c. — Now, Dr. Gill
takes notice of the ibrmer paffage, but fays
not a word of the latter, paffing over it to
another, mentioned by Dr. WalL And all
that he has to urge, with reference to the
paffage in Job, is, that *' it might be brought
*' to prove Original Sin, but is not brought
*' by Clemens for any fuch purpofe'* [^].
However, it is as much brought in for fuch

a purpofe,

[/j Paedo-bsptifm, p. 92.

[0 Antiq. of theChr. Ch. B. 11. Ch. 4. S. 6.

[/] Hilt, of Inf. Bapt. P. i. Ch. i.

\g'\ Antipaedo-baptifm, p. 5.

( 5 )

a purpofe, as the faying of David ; and, as
both thefe paiTages are commonly alledged
by the primitive writers in proof of Origi-
nal Sin, fo, it is prefcmed, Dr. Gill him-
felf fuppofes, that Clemens alfo underftood
them in the fame light j therefore, he can-
not fliirly deny, that in this apojiolical fa-
ther we may trace one of the received
grounds of Infent-baptifm in the primitive
church, when he remembers his own ac-
count of Aujiiri^ f^yirig* " ^^^-^ ^^^ church
*' has always had, has always held." For,
fays he \h\ " it was the dodrine of Ori-
*' ginal Sin, and the Baptifm of Infants for
" the remiffion of it, he fpeaks of." And
indeed, of all men, one cannot but won-
der mofl at thofe^ that hold Original Sin,
and yet difown Infant-baptifm ; that look
upon all infants as lojl in Adam^ and left
deftitute, at the fame time, of any appoint-
ed Jign^ or token of their concern with
Chrift, under the clearefl re'-jelation, and
the brightefl difplay, of redeeming love
and grace. But, that any fuch perfons
exifted in the primitive church, does not
appear. It is to no purpofe then, for the
Dodor, to alledge any fuch in our days,
unlefs he had produced fome inflances of
this kind in the earlier ages of the church,
and particularly in the time of Clemens Ro-
manus.

The

ih] Argum. from A p. Trad. p. 26.

( 6 )

The fame learned Bingham was alfo ci-
ted [/] for this obfervation, '* Herman Paf-
*' tor lived about the fame time with Cle-
•' mens^ and hath feveral paflTages to (hew
*' the general fiece/Jity of water, that is, Bap-
" tijm, to fave men." Now, fays the Dr.
[k] " furely he could not mean real ma-
" terial water, £fff ." and yet, he does not
pretend to know, what Herman does mean.
But, whatever the true meaning be, the
words plainly allude^ at leaft, to Baptifm,
and that as neceflary to falvatlon : for,
there is no accounting for his way offpeak-
ing upon any other fuppofition, when that
author exprefles himfelf thus [/] : *' Hear
*' therefore, why the tower is built upon
*' the water : becaufe your life is, and
*' fhall be faved by water*. And again,
\m] " before a man receives the name of
*' the Son of God, he is ordained unto
*' death ; but when he receives the feal,
" he is freed from death, and delivered un-
" to life. Now, that feal is water ^ into
*' which men go down under the obliga-
*' tion of death, but come up appointed
** unto life" [n\. Therefore, we have here
the general ground and foundation of In-
fant-baptifm, as received in the primitive
church, either clearly exprefied, or plainly

referred

'/■] Ibid. [k] Antipaedo, p. 6.

7] Lib. I. Vlfion 3. Sea. ^,

'm'] Lib, 3. Simil. g. S. 16.

'«] '^cQWair^ Defence, p. 237. ^c.

( 7 )

referred to, viz, the necejfity of Baptifin
to life and falvation. And this is all that
Hermas Pajior was cited for.

Now, fays Dr. Gill [(?], " our author
*' upon the above paffages concludes after
" this manner; '* Thus — we have traced
" up the praBice of Infant-baptifm to the
*' time of the Apoftles ;" when thofe wri-
" ters give not the leaft hint of Infant-
" baptifm, or have any reference to it, or
** the practice of it ;" and then adds, " It
** is amazing what a face fome men have !"
which is really very true ; otherwife, how
could the dodor deal fo unfairly, as to
quote the author's words imperfedly, by
leaving out the alternative^ viz. " either ex-
" prefsly^ or in refpedi to the common grounds
'' of it/' Befides, he has removed the
words out of their proper place ; for, they
came in as they were cited above, upon a
review of the connedied evidence for In-
fant-baptifm, from the beginning of the
fifth century, backward to the firft ages of
all. " In all which period, (as it is added)
** \p\ the Antipsedo-baptifts cannot produce
** one fingle author to difprove the fad."
Nor has Dr. Gill himfelf yet produced a-
ny fuch author, as will appear by the fe-
quel. Therefore, the preponderating evi-
dence, whether more or lefs, does flill lie
on the fide of Infant-baptifm. It is true,

the

W Pag. 7. [f\ Psdo baptifm, p. 94.

( 8 )

the teftimonies from Clemens Romanm, and
Her mas Pajlor^ are not direct and exprefs
proofs, nor are they alledged as fuch, but
only as proving Infant-baptifm by confe^
quence ; (even upon the principles of its op-
pofers, by pointing out the acknowledged
grounds of it in the primitive church). It
was thus that the argument was ftated, in
the words of the learned Bingham \ and
the Dodlor, if he pleafes, may wonder at
his face: But, as Dr. Wall obferves [j'J,
" Proofs by confequence iov 2iX\y a^r mat ive^
*^ do give that the advantage againfl: a nega-
" tive^ of which there are no proofs at all."
Dr. Gill fays [r], " nothing out of Bar*
*' nabas, Polycarp^ and Ignatius^ in favour
^* of Infant-baptifm, is pretended to." But,
if that had been thought neceflary, or con-
fiftent with ftudied brevity, the hnit grounds
of Infant-baptifm might have been pointed
out in thefe writers alfo. Ignatius men-
tions Original Sin [i], as the learned Voffius
underftands his words [/]. And Barnabas
fpeaks more than once of the ufe and effica-
cy of Baptifm to cleanfe from fin [ii\ As
for Polycarp^ I do not find, upon a curfo-
ry review, that he fays any thing of Bap-
tifm at all. And this alfo (to note that by
the way) is the cafe with fome other antient

writers,

[q] Defence, p. 281. [r] Pag. 4, 5.

[j] Ep. ad Trallian.

[t] Hift. Pelag. lib. i . P. i. Th. 6. [«j Seft. 1 1 .

(.9 )

writers, that are fometimes mentioned, as
having nothing in favour of Infant-baptifm :
[x] but their fcheme might therefore be as
pertinently^ and properly alledged, to dif-

prove all baptifm in the fame period.

But, fpeaking of Barnabas and Herman
upon another occafion f}'], the Docftor ob-
ferves, " the learned Mr, Stennet \z] has
" cited fome pafTages out of them, and af-
" ter him Mr. David Rees [/^], which are
** manifeft proofs of Adult-baptifm, and
" that as performed by immerfion." And
what Pcedo'baptiji doubts of either ? The
only queftion is, whether Adult-baptifm
was the only Baptifm, and immerfion the
only mode of baptifm ? As to the latter^ we
{hall fay no more of it at prefent : but, in
relation to the former^ it is acknowledged,
that Adult-baptifms were very frequent and
common in the ^firjl^ and fome following
ages, by reafon of the great number oinew
converts to the Chriftian faith. But this
concludes nothing at all againft Infant-bap-
tifm ; becaufe, as plain inflances^ and as
clear defcriptions, of Adult-baptifm may
be produced from thofe very writers who
were Paedo-baptifts themfelves, and lived at
that time when Paedo-baptifm prevailed,
by the confeffion of it's mod fanguine op-
C pofers J

[a-] DivineRight of Inf. Bap. p. 22.
. [>]Ibid. p. 20. [2] Anf. loRuffen, p. 142, 1 43,

[a] Anfwer tp Walker,^, i^j.

( tt )

pofers ; as will be (hewn in a proper placed
At prefent I muft obferve, that Mr. Ste?i^
nef, and Mr. Rees, as referred to by Dr.
Gill himfelf, underftood the words of Bar*
nabas, which have been confidered, of Bap-
tifmy and confequently as fpoken oi real ma-
terial water-, though the Do6tor would
now fhufHe them off to fomething elfe, he
knows not what. Before^ they were ma~
nifeft proofs of Adult-baptifm, &c, but
now the Doftor can properly fee no Baptifm
at all in them, no real material water ^
fomething myftical muft furely be defigned j
and what it is, he leaves to thofe who bet-
ter underftand thefe vifionary things ! Thus
Dodlors differ ! And thus can the fame
Dodor differ from himfelf! underftand the
fame paffages different ways ; or affedi not
to underftand them at all, juft as it ferves
a prefent turn ; and ftill keep his counte*
nance ! Proceed we now with him to

The fecond century.

Of the Recognitions, fays Mr. Bifigham,
[i] *' it is an antient writing of the fame
** age with Juftin Martyr^ mentioned by
*^ Origen in his Philocalia^ and by fome
** afcribed to Bardejanes Syrtis, who lived
" about the middle of the fecond century.
** This author fpeaks of the necejjity of

** Baptifm^

[h] UbI fupra, Seft. 8.

( «I )

** Baptifm, in the fame ftile, as "Jujiin
" Martyr did, ^c^ {c\ Dr. Gill here re-
plies, with fome warmth, faying [J],
" whenever this 'wretched tenet, this falfe
" notion of the abfolute neceffity of Bap-
*' tifm to falvation is met with, the P<^-
*' do'baptijis prefently fmell out Infant-
*' baptifm, &c" And why fhould they
not? vfhQxuiho, Antipado-baptijis themfelves
have lent us their nofes, to fmell it out ?
But fome people have a wonderful faculty,
and a ftrange command over their fenfes.
(happy for them, and others, if they had
the fame over their paflions !) They can u^^
derjiandy or not underftand ; fmell, or not
fmell, juft as it fuits their prefent occafi-
on ; otherwife, what imaginable reafon
can be affigned, why thofe, who believed
the abfolute neceffity of Baptifm to falva-
tion, (hould defer one moment, to admini-
fter it to Infants, at leaft in cafe of dan-
ger ? — In refpect to the notion itfelf, whe-
ther it was true, or falfe, is not the quef-
tion ; but whether fuch a notion did really
obtain in the mod primitive times: and
that it adually did, we have feen before ia
Barnabas and Hermas, Therefore this is
none of the dotages peculiar to the Recogni-
tions J nor was Bardejanes Syrus^ (if he
was the author, and the contrary is not
proved) ever charged wirh herefy for hold- •
C a ing

lc'\ See P«do-bap. p. cj2. \d\ Antipaedo, p. 9.

( 12 )

ing this tenet : fo that all, the Dodlor fug-i
gefts upon this head, is nothing to the pur-

pofe.- But, he has one falvo yet ; he

fays, " the myftery of iniquity worked by
** degrees, Gfc." v/hich is very true, in re-
fpeft to the general corruption of reHgion :
but, if by the my fiery of miquity he means
Infant haptifm^ v/e deny his fuppofition,
and defpife the calumny. However, *« true
" it is, t^as he fays) that one error leads on
*' to another;" and this may account for
the introduction of Autipado-baptifm, which
upon enquiry Vv ill be found to be a myfiery^
which worked by very foiv degrees. I
Ihall only add, Bardefanes Syrus was a wri-
ter of great note ; as appears from ferome*^
account [^] : Eifcbius has given us fa large
extra(5t fromfome of his writings [f'\', and
if he was not wholly free from herejy^ even
to the laft, Dr. Gill (hould not bear too
hard upon him on that account, for the
fake of his favourite author, Tertullian.
But, if Antipcedo-baptifm may be upheld ;
no matter by what weak arguments it is
fupported,

Pafs we on now to Jujlin Martyr^ from
whom a paffage was alledged [^], to con-
front the Dodor's affertion [/?], (fpeaking of
the time of Irenaus^ junior to fujlin) viz.

**thac

>] Catalog, de Script. Ecclef.

'/] De Praep. Evangel, lib. 6. num. lo.

j;] Paedo-baptifm, p. 84.

h\ Argum. from Apoll. Trad. p. 14.

< 13 )

•* that it had not as yet obtained among the
*^ antients to ufe the words, regenerated^
" and rege?ieration, for baptized^ and Bap-
^* tifm." The paffage is this ; *' We bring
" them (/. e. the new converts) to fome place,
^' where there is water, and they are regene*
" rated by the fame way of regeneration, by
*' which we were regenerated: for they
" are , aihed with WMter in the name of
*' God, the Father, ^c. becaufe Chrift
*' fays [/], unlefs you be regenerated, you
** cannot enter into the kingdom of hea-
'' ven, ^cr\k\ Obferve now, (i.) Jujlin
fays of the new converts^ {after they were
made fuch) " we bring them to fome place,
^* where there is water, and they are rege-^
^^ nerated, &c." (2.) In proof hereof he
adds, ^' for they are waflied with water,
*' £^c" Thus he deferibes the way of re-
generation. And then, (3.) he affigns the
reafon of this pradlice : '* For, or becaufe,
" Chrift fays, Unlefs you be regenerated, Gfr ."
Can any thing in the world be plainer; than
that Jiiftin here ufes the term, regenerati-
on, and alfo underftands thofe words of
Chrift, of baptifm ? How then could Dr.
Gi/l have thQ face to fay [/], ** thar the per-
** fons fujlin fpeaks of are not reprefented
*' by him as regenerated by baptifm !" and
v/ho can but wonder at the reafon he gives
2 for '

[z] Joh. iii. 3. 5. \k\ Apol. z.

( H )

for it? vtz. " becaufe they are fpoken of
" before, as converted perfons, and belie-
"vers!" Before what? v^hy, before they
are fpoken of as regenerated by Baptifm ;
therefore, they were not regenerated by
baptifm! excellent logic! This is the /irong^
and riervous reafoning of the Antipado-bap'
tift I In vain would the Dodlor avail him-
felf here of the modern ufe of the word re-
generation, as implying the fame thing
with converjion : but that word had no fuch
ufe among the antients^ without a refer-
ence to Baptifm [?;;]. In vain alfo would
he burlefque the fenfe given of Jujii?is
words, by pretending, that it makes him
fay, *^ they were baptized, becaufe they
" were baptized." — For, the prefent ques-
tion is not about the thingy but the ufe of
the word^ regeneration. And we do not
fay, that regeneration, and baptifm, are
identically the fame 5 but that the former
word is fo ufed, as to connote baptifm, and
refer to it, 'diz, as the way^ and mean of
regeneration. So fays Jnftin, " we bring
" them to the w^ater, and they are rege-
" nerated by the fame way of regeneration,
" by which we were regenerated ; for
*' they are walhed with water, Gf^." —
When Dr. Gale had quibbled upon the
words of JiijUn Martyr ^ in the fame man-
ner, as his brother Doilor now doth ; Dr

Wall

[%: XVaWi Hill. P. I. ch. a.

( X5 )

TVall faid [;2], '' I muft declare, and I do
" it in cold blood, I never met with any
'* one of fo finifhed effrontery, to deny
."things, that are plain, and vifible/' — In
ftiort : Jupn puts the very fame conftruc-
tion upon our Saviour's words, Job, iii. 3. 5.
as the author of the Recognitions did [0]:
therefore " that then no fuch conftrudti-
" on of the words obtained, that baptifm is
*^ neceflary to falvation," is a groundlefs pre-
cence, and a manifeft error. — Before we
difmils this paffage, it is proper to confider,
what Dr. Gill has fuggefted from it, (after
Dr. Gale) in disfavour of Infant-baptifm.
It is very plain, that Jujiin is fpeaking of
new converts from heatbenijhry and it is al-
lowed, on all fides, that fuch perfons muft
be baptized at adult-age. But this makes
nothing againfl Infant- baptifm. However,
let us hear what is offered upon this head.
It is alledged [p], that '* if Infant-baptifm
** had been pradifed in thofe days, it is
*' not confiftent with that fincerity, which
*' Jujiin fets out with, when he propofed
*' to give the Roman Emperor an account of
" Chriftian Baptifm, not to make any men-
" tion of it, ©c.*' — To which I reply, there
was no iniincerity, or unfair dealing in the
cafe, if Jujiin faid fo much of baptifm,
and the other Chriftian rites, as was fuffici-

ent.

[»^ Defence, p. 325. [<?] Lib. 6. num,9.

Antipsedo, p. lo.

{ i6 )

cnt, to anfwer the Emperor's expedation,
and the proper dclign of writing his apology 5
which was to fljew, that the Chriftians
were not fuch vile, and feditious perfons,
as their enemies reprefented them, but wor-
thy men, and good fubjedls, and that there
was nothing in their religion, which had a
tendency to make them other wife. It was
therefore quite impertinent for Jiijiin to fay
any thing of infants; who could lie under
no fufpicions of that kind [q], Befides, as
the Romans had a folemn form of luftration
for infants [r], the Roman Emperor, with-
out being told of it, might naturally con-
clude the fame of the Chriftians. It is

further urged from the fame quarter, that,
** he had occafion to fpeak of it — had it
*' been ufed; fince the Chriftians were
<' charged with ufing their infants barbar-
" oufly, &cj* But this is a far-fetched
imagination \ as Dr. Wall properly enough
calls it \s\ : befides, that calumny, among
others, Jujlin refutes in another part of his
apology ; and fo had no occafion to recur to
it again \t\ To which let me add, if, as
thefe writers are wont to contend, immer^
Jion was the only 7node of baptifm ; had "Juf-
iin told the Emperor, that they plunged their
infants, this might rather have confirmed,

than

[j] See Cobbet\ Juft Vindication, P. 3. ch. 4. p. i.

[r] Vid. Macrob. Saturn, lib. i. c. 16.

[/] Ibid. p. 275. [/] P. 70. E. Colon.

( '7 )

than removed the fufpicion of ujtng the?n
barbaroujly : and for my part, I cannot con-
ceive, how fuch a notion fhould get among
the Heathens concerning the Chriftians, if
their Infants had nothing to do with their

facred rites. In reply to what is further

recited from Jujiin Martyr^ after Dr. Gale-^
it will "be futficient for me, if I tranfcribe
Dr. Walls anfwer, (of which Dr. Gill isik^s
not the leaft notice ; an endlefs way of writ-
ing controverfy !) [u] " what he obferves of
" Jujlins faying, that our firfl: generation
*' is without our knowledge^ or choice ; but
" that a heathen man (for of fuch he there
" fpeaks) comes to this Baptifm (which i^
*' his regeneration, or fecond birth) of his
^- o'-ion will and choice ; is no more than he
*' would have fdid of any profelytes^ entring
*' into God's covenant by circumcifion,
*' (which the yews, as I (hewed, did alfo
** call regeneration). The adult profdyte
** did partake of this regeneration by hi*
** own choice. This is no proof, but that
*' his Infant-children had the fam.e circum-
*' cifion, and regeneration, by their parentis
*' dedicating them, and God's gracious ac-
** ceptance."

In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jev^, it

was obferved [w] there is a paflage, ** where

** Jujiin Martyr fays, that concerning the

** influence and efFed: of Adam^s fin upon

D mankind,

[a] Defence, p. 276. f«iv] P«do-Bap. p ^5

( i8 )

" mankind, which the antient writers re-
** prefent as the ground and reafon of In-
" fant-baptifm;' '' Now (lays Dr. Gill) [x]
" aiiowing that this is fpoken of Original
*' Sin, as it ftems to be, what is this to In-
** fant-baptifm ?" — To which I anfwer, if
Original Sin is any thing to Infants ; why
fliould not the words of yu/iin make for
Infant-baptifm, when the antient writers
reprefent the former, as the ground and rea-
fon cf the latter? But fays the Doctor, '' I
*' have already expofed the folly of arguing
" from perfons holding the one, to the prac-
*' tice of the other." — Has he fo indeed !
But how ? Why, by telling us of fome mo-
derns that hold Original Sin without prac-
tifing Infant-baptifm ! And could not I tell
him of many others, that both hold the one,
and pradife the other? But, what is this to
the antients ? And let it be remembered,
that it is not the reafon of the thing, much
lefs any modern opinions about it^ but the
fenfe of the antients concerning the matter
in queftion, which is the fubjedt of this pre-
fent difquiCtion. — ^Again, in the fame bock
another paffage was referred to, as pointing
out fome analogy between baptifm, and cir-
cumcifion. This the Dodor will not al-
low, though Jufiin fpeaks of Chriftians
receiving ihtjpiritual circumcifion 1)y bap-
tifm 5 but from hence he infers, *' that it

**muft
[x] Antipasdo, p. li.

( ^9 )
** muft be different from baptifm :'* which
is juft fuch another cavil, as he made be-
fore in dlflinguifliing between baptifm^ and
f^egeneration. But it is plain, that, as ac-
cording to Jiijiin^ regeneration was per*
formed, or effedted injirumentally by bap-
tifm ; fo, when he fays of the fpiritual cir-
CLimcifion, '* we have received it by bap-
*' tifm," (in whatever way others had re-
ceived it) he refers to what was done for
Chrijliam in their baptifm. But, for a
more particular anfwer lo the Dodor's ex-
ceptions, I refer the reader to Dr. WaU\y'\,

Says Juftin Martyr [2;], (as was alfo ob-
ferved [^]) " Several perfons among us of
** both fexes, of fixty or feventy years of
" age, 01 iK ttoclScjov 6[/.cc^rjT£uB7j(rciv Tu XP^^?i
** who were difcipled to Chrift /?2, or Jrom^
** their childhood, £?<;." — Dr. G/7/ contends,
it (hould be read inJIruBed in Chrift : but
this was (hewn to be an improper way of
Ipeaking ; as it would be to fay, that jinti-
fhon, the fon of Sophilas^ was inJlruBed in
his Father [b]. The phrafe, as the Dodor
thinks, might better be rendered, inJiruB-
ed by his father ; which is indeed agreeable
to the Englijhy if it would fuit the Greek
idiom ; but fome good critics are of another
opinion [c], and judge it more proper to
D 2 fay,

[y] Defence, p. 267. t^c, [z] Apol. 2.

[«] Pacdo-bap. p. 86. [b"] See P^do-bap. p. 860

[c] See Walker^ Modeft Plea, p. 207.

( 20 )

fay, Antiphon was a difcipk to his fathep.
Difcipled^ or (which is the Doctors phrafe,
though of the fame import) profelyted^ tp
his father, I think, is not fo well expreffed.
However, I could fee no impropriety in it, if
Sophilas had fet up for the head of a religi-
ous fed: ; and it is only in the facred, or
Chriftian fenfe, that we affix the idea of
profelyting to the verb in queftion. Now,
what we urge is this, that the perfons de-
fcribed by yujiin muft have been baptized
in their childhood, or Infancy ; becaufe the
word, difcipling, in the Chriftiaa notion,
includes baptifm: for which an authority
was produced, that Dr. Gill cannot well
objefl: againft, viz, his own [d']. Nor doth
he yet retradl what he faid j only, he tells
us, what his meaning was, which was clear
enough before, as expreffed in his comment y
but, leaving him to enjoy his own fenfe, we
accept of his conceffion, that the word, dif
cipling, includes baptifm. And tnis notion
was confirmed by A^s xiv. 21. But here.
the Doctor would have the word, difcipling^
to fignify only an effedl (not an adt) where-
in, I fancy, he is very Angular, And yet,
if he would honeftly tell us, what that ef-
fecfl was, (provided he may enjoy his own
fenfe) he would undoubtedly fay, it includ-
ed baptifm ; which is the thing we contend
for. This conftrudlion of the word was

further

[/) His Commentary on J(^sx\x. i. 3.

( 21 )

further fupported by Mat. xxviii. 19, 20 [e\
^' Go ye, therefore, and difciple all nations,
^^ &cy where the word, difciple^ is mani-
feftly a general term^ which includes bap»
tiz'mgy as well as teaching. But of this,
the Dodor takes no notice, nor makes any
attempt, to juftify his former criticifms on
the text [/]. Admit then the notion, we
advance, is juft; the perfons, abovemen-
tioned, muft have been baptized in their in-
fancy, as they were dlfcipled to Chrift in^
or from, their childhood : for, as was ob-
ferved [g\ baptlfm not being a continued^
but a tranjient ad:, to fay they were baptized
from their infancy, would be improper;
as Dr. Wall had hinted before \h\ Bur,
Dr Gill (p. 14.) would turn this off with a
-laugh, by faying, this '* reafon — is merry
5' indeed ; when Jujiin is not fpeaking of
" the baptifm of any perfon at all." How-
ever, he mull not think, to efcape thus ;
for, if baptifm is included in the notion of
difciplingy (which the Dodor cannot deny
without contradiding himfclf) when Jujiin
/peaks of certain perfons being difcipled to
Chrift, he muft confequently fpeak of their
baptifm. Therefore he muft give us, or
we fhall take leave, to conclude, that *^ in
*' the paflages of Jujiin quoted, if there is

*'no

[e] Psdo-bap. p. 89.

[/] Divine Right of Inf-bap. examined, p. 79.

Irr] P^edo bap. 87, 88. [^] Defence, p. 280.

( 22 )

*^ no exprefs mention of Infant-baptifm ;
^* yet there is 2ihint given of it, and fome re-
^^ ference unto it;" contrary to what the
Do(ftor afferts. — But he would willingly
warp himfelf off, by fuggefting, that ytif-
fin ufed the word, difcipling^ in a different
fenfe from the fcripture notion of the thing.
** From whom (fays he p. 13.) can we bet-
** ter learn his meaning than from him-
'' felf ?" and complains of his opponent^ that
he takes no notice of feveral paffages in yuf-
tin^ which the Dodior had alledged, to con-
firm his 72ew fenfe of the word under con-
fideration. Therefore, to eafe him of his
complaint, we will now examine all thofe
paffages, and ihew, that the Greek word for
difcipUng^ admits the fenfe, contended for,
there affo. Let us begin with that paffage
[i] where Jufiin fpeaks, (as it is cited and
exprefled by the Dodor [/^]) '' of Chrift's
'* fending his difciples to the Gentiles^ who
" by them iiJLOL^'f\ri\j(roLv (it fhouid be, g^a-
*' 3-)frgu(7£v) inftrnBed them." — Now, who
does not fee, that yu/iin here alludes to the
words of the commijfion^ Mat, xxviii. 19,
20. where, as has been fliewed, the word,
[jLc&^y}Te\j(roiT6j difcip/e, includes baptifm. Thus
then, Juftin Ipeaks not any peculiar dialedt
of his own, but the language of the New
Te/iament 'y and fo from thence we are to
2 learn

[/] Dialog, cum Try ph. p. 272,. Colon.
[A-J Argum. from Apoft. Trad. p. 12.J

( 23 )

Jearn his meanings which is this, viz. that
Chrift by his difcipies, lending to the Gen-
tiles, difcipled them. And how did they
difciple the Gentiles-, but l^y baptilm, and i^y
teaching them ; according to Chrift's di-
reftion [/]? — Again, in another paffage a-l-
ledged [m], Jii/iin Ipeaks of perlbns ** being
*' fyLcc^rjrevofzscvo'jg, i7i[lruBed in the name
" (perfon, or dodtrine) of Chrift, and leav-
" ing the way of error ;" as the Dodlor gives
the words. But here alfo fA^x^i^Tsvof/Avovg slg
TO ovo[A,oc Tov x^^^^^ (whichis y^^/?/Vsphrare)
aptly fignihes their being dijcipled to Chrift,
fo as to be baptized in his name 3 agreeably
to thefe words, ABs xix. 5. slSccTTTia-BrjO-otv
tig TO ovof^oc Tov Kv^iov Itjcov, /. e, they were bap-
tized in (or into) the name of the Lord Jefus.
This notion is confirmed by what jujlin
adds of their leaving the way of error 5
which implies their renouncing the Pagan,
and embracing the Chriftian religion : and
when they left their old church (into which
they, and their children had been initiated
before) furely they would carry their chil-
dren along with them. Once more -,

yuftin *' fpeaks [ti] of perfons {jLocByjTBvBr.vui,
*' inJlruSed into divine dodrines." ' So the
Dodor renders the words; but methinks,
injlruSled into divine doBrines, is an harfh
expreffion. I {hould rather read it, initiated

into

[/] See Psedo-bap. p. 89. \m\ Ibid. p. 258,

[?/] Apolog. I. p. 43.

( 24 )

into divine doftrines, /. e. the Chrijlian reli^
giotu And thus, baptifm, the Chriftian
rite of initiation, may be referred to in this
place, as well as in the two foregoing. — ■
After all ; '* we grant, the word, difciple^
*' has a reference to teachings and inftruc-
*' tion :" and that new converts from hea-
tbenifm were (and ought to be) inftrudled
firft, before their admiffion to baptifm. But,
this concludes nothing againft the baptifm of
infants, nor difproves the notion that chil-
dren were (and {hould bej baptized, ^' and
" fo far made difciples to Chrift, in order
*' to be taught ; as (Difcipulus) a fcholar is
*' put to fchool, that he may learn" [<?].

We now attend the Do5lor to the next
writer in this century, viz. Irenceiiu

Irenaus fays [p] of Chrift, '' that he
** came to fave all by himfelf; all, I fay,
** that by him are born again unto God, in-
" fants, and little children, young men, and
*' old men/' Upon which paflage (it was
obferved) [^], ** the learned Fenar dentins has
** this remark, that by the name of re gene-
** ration^ according to the phrafe of Chrift,
*^ and of his Apoftles, he underftands bap-
'' tifm, ^cr Now here Dr. Gill is out of
patience ; he will not allow this monk (as he
calls him in contempt, p. 1 5.) to be a man
of learning ; though all the proof, he gives

of

[0] See Paedo-bap. p. 88. \jf\ Lib, 2. p. 39.

\j\ Paedo-bap. p. 76.

( ^s )

of it, IS, that he was a great bigot to a party *
a 77tafi of large ajfurance^ and uncommon bold--
nefs, &c. But, if this is the peculiar cha-
rad:er of a tnonk^ and the fign of an unlearn-
ed man j one might perhaps, find more
monks, and fewer fcholars, in the world,
than is imagined ; yea, fome famous Doc-
tors themfelves might be in danger of being
undubbed, and put on the hood. 'Tis pre-
fumed, however, that Dr. Grabe will be
allowed, to be a man of learning, and mo-
deration: and yet, he thought the obferva-
tion of Fenardentim aforefaid, worth retain-
ing in his edition of Irencem [r]. Nor is
it, I think, a falfe glofsy as Dr. Gill pre-
tends, but much truer than his own affer-*
tion, " that Chrift and his Apoftles no where
*' call baptifm by the name of the new
^' birth j" if his meaning be, that they no
where have reference to baptifm, when
they fpeak of regeneration. The words of
Chrift, Joh/\u, 3.5. moft plainly, and //-
terally, refer to baptifm. Accordingly, y5,
we have proved, beyond all rational contra-
didion, Jujiin Martyr underflood them :
and he muft be a man of monkijij aflurance,
that can fay, without fome equivocation,
" the paffage in Jujiin before-mentioned,
" falls fliort of proving, — that in Irenaits's
E ** time,

[r] P. 161. wher6 Dr. Grahe not only efpoufes the
opinion oi FeuardentiuSt but confirms it, by fome remarks

of his own.

( 26 )

** time, it had obtained among the antienfs,
*' to ufe the words regenerate d^ or re genera^
" tion, for baptized^ or baptifmr [i]— Tis
pretended (ibid) " the paffages in TtrtuUian,
** and Clemens of Alexandria^ concerning
*' being ^or;2 in wafer, and begotten of the
** -z^j^zw^ ^ w^/^r [/], are too late*" Bat
how can they be too late ; when both thefe
writers, though younger men, Hved at the
fame time with Irenceus? — The Do^or
goes on ; *' befide, the one is to be interpret-
*' ed of the grace of God compared to vva-
" ter; this is clearly Tert ulli an ^itnit -, for,
** he adds, " nor ai'fe we otherwife fafe, or
** faved, than by remaining in water, which
" furely can never be underftood Hterally of
" the water of baptifm." But if he had
not been in too much hade, to confider the
fenfe, and defign of the words, the Dodlor
might have clearly perceived his own mif-
take. For, Tertullian is there exprefsly
treating oi water- baptifm, which fome per-
fons, as he fays, were for laying afide [u].
This was the cafe of one ^jntilla, who, as
he tells UF, ** deftroyed baptifm according
*^ to her nature y for he calls her a venomous
*' viper ; and obferves, that fuch kind of
*' creatures frequent dry imwatery places."
Then follow the words before us j ""^ But

" we

[i] Antipsedo, p. iij, [/] See Psedo-bap. p. 79,

[«] Tertul. de baptifmo, which book begins thus, Felix
iacramentum aquae, ^c.

( 27 )

" we are horn in the water like little Jijhes,
" after the example of Jefus Chrift, &cJ'
Therefore, by remaining in the v/ater, is
plainly meant retaining the falutary ufe of
water baptifm in the church. Accordingly
Pamelius obferves, " that thefe words are
** to be chiefly remarked againft thofe, who
** deny iho^neceffify of water in baptifm," [le;]
To the fame purpoie fays De la Cerda \x\
*' Obferve the neceffity of water in baptifm
" againft the Panliciansy This laft writer
refers to a parallel place \^y\ where 'TertuU
lian fays, *' There is one kind of flefh of
*' birds, that is, the martyrs^ who foar to
" the higher regions; another o{ fijhes^ that
** is, thofe, whom the water of baptifm
" fuffices." But there are other paflages,
which plainly flievv, that Tertidlian confi-
dered baptifm as a kind, or mean, of rege-
neration ; and fo made ufe of this word to
exprefs baptifm. Says he [z]^ '* the law
*' of baptizing is enjoined, and the form
** prefcribed. Go (fays he) teach all nati--
** ons^ baptizing them in the name of the Fa-
^^ ther, and of the Son ^ and of the Holy Ghoji.
** Parallel to this law is that definition, Ex-
** cept a man be born of water ^ and o/' the
** Spirit^ he Jhall not enter into the kingdom
*' of heaven!' And again \a\ ** Blefled
E 2 ** are

[w] Pamel. Not. inloc. [*•] Not. ibid,

[j'] De Refurreft. Carnis, Cap, 52.
[«] De Baptifmo. [^] I bid. fub f«n.

( 28 )

** are ye whom the favour of God attends,
*' when you afcend out of the moft holy

" laver of the new birth, [novi natalisY •

Dr. Gill is as far wide of the truth, in fay-
ing, (p. i6.) "as for Ch/iem [b'], he is
" fpeaking not of regeneration, but of the
** natural generation of man, as he comes
^' out of his mother's womb, G?c." For,
Clemem h allegorizing^ in his way, upon the
words of ^ob \c\ Naked came I out of 7ny
mother s womb -, and naked JJjall I return,
'* Not naked (fays he) of poffefTions, for
'* that is a fmall and common thing ; but,
** as a juft man, he returns naked of vice,
*' and wickednefs, &c. For this is what is
'* faid, Unlefs ye be co?iverted as little chil"
*• dren^ pure in bodj^ and holy in foul, by
** abftaining from evil works j (hewing that
^* he would have us to be fuch, as he begot
^^^ us of the womb of water. For, generation
*^fucceeding to generation^ will advance us
*' to immortality." Now, in this allegcri-
cal difcourfe, the womb of wat^r phinly an-
fwers to the mother s womb ; and fo, thefe
cannot fignify one, and the fame thing,
without deftroying the allegory^ and loiing
the yshoh fpirit of the difcourfe. There-
fore, when Clemens fpeaks of Chriftians be-
ing begotten^ or born, of the womb of wa--
ter-^ he muft intend fomething elfe, thaa
the natural generation of man \ and what

caa

[^] Strom, lib. 4. [<:] Job. i. 21.

( 29 )

can that be, but baptifm ? that generation
Jpirifual^ which fucceeded the generation
naturaL And what muft that generation
be, which fucceeded another ; but a regene-
ration ? — Befides, there are other paflages
in Clemens^ which may be feen in Dr. Wall^
\d\ where he fpeaks ot baptifm under the no-
tion of regeneration. Thus, e,g, he fpeaks
of Chrifl: himfelf being regenerated^ in dif-
couriing of his baptifm [e\ This may per-
haps feem a very odd notion ; bat Cyprian
alfo fays[yi, " the mafter himlelf fubmit-
** ted to be baptized by his fervant; and
" he, who was to confer upon us the re-
" miffion of fins, vouchfafed to be waflied
" in the laver of regeneration,'* All which
agrees v/ith Tertidlians faying before, ** IVe
*' are born in the water like little fiihes, af-
*' ter the example of, or conformably unto,
*' Jefus Chrift." [g'] And in what other
kn^Q could Chrift be faid to be born in the
watery or regenerated 3 but with a reference
to his baptifm?

It was obferved [/:?], " a like notion Ter-
" tulUan mentions [/], as maintained by the
*' heathens^ no doubt long before the time of
" IrencFusr Upon this, fays the IkBor, p.
16. '* To have recourfe to heathens^ to af-
^^ certain the name of chriftian baptifm, is

*' monftrous.'*

\^d'] Defence. Appendix, p. 7.

[4 Psdagog. lib. i . c. 6 [f] De Bono Patiently.

[^] Secundum 'I'/piv noitrum Jdum C.'iriilum.

Ih] P«do-bap. p". 79. \i] De baptifmo.

( 30 )

" monftrous/' But, where is the wonder,^
if perfons, juft converted from Faganifm^
did not immediately change their language
with their reh'gion, but ftill retained fome
of their old terms, (if not their tenets) and
applied them to the Chriftian myjieries?
Priejis^ facrtfices^ altars^ Sec, are words ve-
ry familiar with the antient writers, when
they fpeak e.g. of the other Sacrament of
the Lord*s Supper. — If the Doctor had as
much of a diffojition^ as he had reafon to
retrad, what he faid about the cuftom men-
tioned by BarnabaSy of giving milk and ho-
ney to perfons juft baptized > he would at
leaft have dropped that matter. For, as
this ceremony was ufed by the antients in
token of fuch perfons being new-born-, [ki]
it is plain, they confidered baptifm as a
new-birth, and a kind, or way of regenera-
tion. It is therefore perfed trifling, to in-
fert, " that the words regeneration, and re^
ct generated, are neither of them mentioned
" by Barnabas ','' nor can it anfwer any
other end, but to difcover, how well fome
perfons are Ikilled in the ingenious art of
equivocation or evafion. The queftion is
not, whether Barnabas ufeth thofe words -,
but, whether in Irenaus's time it had ob-
tained among the antients to ufe them for
baptized, and baptifm. Now, if fo much
earlier than Ireiiceus, as the time of Bar-
nabas^

[k] See Paedobap. p. 80.

( 3t )

nabas, the notion of baptifmal regeneration
obtained among the antients ; does not this
over-throw the foundation of the Doctor's
hypothefis ? He had better fuppofe with
Voffius [/], that the words oi Barnabas hsLWQ
no reference to the antient cuftom aforefaid :
and fo withdraw his former plea for the
high antiquity of that cuftom [m] ; if he
can prevail Vv'ith himfelf to retra6i any
thing. But even this will not help him
much J fince the faid cuftom of giving milk
and honey to new-baptized perfons, is men-
tioned by feme of Irenceus's cotemporaries,
particularly, Tertullian [72], and Clemens A-
kxandrinus \o\

Irenaus was alfo cited for this paffage [^],
** giving the power of rege?2eration unto God,
*' to his difciples, he faid unto them, G(?,
" and teach alt nations, baptizing them in the
*' name of the Father, &c." [f], '' By which
" power or commiflion (fays the Dcdtor^ p.
" 16.) is meant not the commiflion of bap-
" tizing, ^c." Aftoniftiing ! he might as
well fay, with equal modefty and truth,
that baptizing is not in their commiffion
at all. But fmce it is 2^part of their com-
miffion, it muft be one branch -of their
power of regenerating perfons unto God, ac-
cording to Irenaus. — It was alfo obferved, [r]

'' that

[/] Not. in B^rnab.

[«] Argum. from ap. irad. p. 57.

[»] De Corona milit. [0] Paedagog. lib. r.

(/] Lib. 3, c. 19. [qr'] F^dobap. p. 81.

C '32 )

*' that Irenam mentions by name the
*' bapiifm of regeneration unto God'' [i]
Here the Dodor only repeats (p. 17.) Dr.
Gale's quibbles \t], which have been fuffici-
ently obviated before, by obferving, that we
do not take baptifm and regeneration to be
identically the fame thing $ but that, ac-
cording to the fenfe of the antients, the latter
has a reference to the former, as the way
and mean of regeneration, it is evidently
thus, that 7r^;7(^^/i explains himfelf [u]^ when
he exprefles the fame thing by the (aver of
regeneration^ and regeneration by the laver.
Says Dr. Wall [w], '* Mr. Gale comes here
*' again with his quiddity ; and fays, rege-
" neration, which is by the laver, is different
^"^ from the laver ; not minding that the force
*' of his objedlion is equally taken off by
*' it's fo accompanying the laver, as never
" to be without it in the fenfe of the an-
" tients/' — And yet this is one of the two
places, to which Dr. Gill refers, as where
" Irenceus ufes the word regeneration in a
" different fenfe from baptifm :'* he fliould
have faid, without any reference to baptifm ;
if he would have fpoke to the purpofe. In
the other paffage \x\ (where the fenfe is
obferved to be imperfed. [y]) Irenceus hints,
*^ that a man cannot leave the generation of

" death,

[j] Lib. I. c. 18. f/] Refleaions, p. 487.

[u] Lib. 5. cap. 15. [nv] Defence, 34.3.

Ix] Lib. 4, cap. 51. , [7] Vid. Grabe in loc.

( 33 )

*' death, but by a new generation^ Now,
this is fo far from contradidting the fenfe of
the word, regeneration^ for which we con-
tend, as that it really confirms it. For,
we have here generation fucceeding generati-
en, as Clemens Alexandrinus fpeaks, with
an eye to Chriftians being begotten of the
womb of water : which, as we have {hewed
before, fignifies baptifm. And Tertullian
[z] calls baptifm " the blefled facrament of
*' water, becaufe, the fins of our former
** blindnefs being waftied away, we are de-
*' iivered unto life eternal^ Here then we
have the new generation, whereby a man
is delivered from the generation of death ;
as mentioned by Jrenaus. 'Tis true; he
reprefents the thing as effed:ed by the povv-
er of God : but ftitl his account is confident
with the notion of baptifm, as being refer-
red to by him. For (to mention that ones
for all) the antients diftinguilhed between
the injirumental and efficient caufe of rege-
neration ; and fo, betwixt the material and
the Jpi ritual p2iTt of baptifm [a], '* Rege-
*' neration is by the water, and the fpirit,
*' even as all generation. For the fpirit of
*^ God ?noved upon the face of the deep \b'\,
** And for this reafon our Saviour was bap-
** tized, not that he needed baptifm, but
F ' ** that

[«] De baptifmo.

[^] Gem. Alex. Epitom, p. 802. Edit. Paris.

mGen.i. A.

C 34 )
*' that he might fandify all water to the
" regenerated. Hereby we are purified not
" only in bod\\ but in foul, &c. — For, bap'
*' tifm is by watery and by thefpirit^ Agree-
ably to this account, Clemens Alexandrinus
reprefents Chriftians as pure in body, and
holy in foul, when he fpeaks of Go.d!% beget-
ting them of the womb of water: as we
have ktn before. Now, all this confirms
the notion, that in the time of Irenceus, it
did obtain among the antients, to ufe the
words regenerated, and regeneration^ for
baptized, and baptifm.

But to return to the firft quotation from
Jrenceus, upon which the chief ftrefs is laid
in the prefent controverfy. Says Dr. G/7/,
(who is as capable of faying very furpriz-
ing things, as moft men) \c'\ ** Irencem —
" moft clearly ufes it (viz. the word, regene-
*' ration) in another fenfe in this very paf-
** fage ; fince he fays, Chrift came to lave
*' all, who by him are born again unto God,
*' who are regenerated by Chrift, and not
" by baptifm ; and which is explained both
** before and after by \\\%fanBifying all forts
*' of perfons, infants, little ones, young men,
"and old men j which cannot be under-
" ftood of his baptizing them, for he bap-
" tized none, ©'r.'* Moft admirable rea-
foning ! as if Chrift might not be properly
faid to do that^ which is done by the virtue

and
. [f ] Antipzdp, p. 1 7. *

C 35 )
and influence of his ordinances, and ap-
pointments! y] Thus, what is done by
baptifm, may be faid to be done by Chriii
himfelf. As for his falsifying all forts of
perfons, &c, this aUo (if, as the Dodor
fuppofes, it relates to the fame thing,) cor-
refponds with the nature, and defign of bap-
tifm, as a facred rite of dedicatiofi^ or con-
fecration, to the fervice of God; which is
a proper notion of fandifying perfons^ and
things. Accordingly, the Apoftle makes
mention of Chrifl's fanBifying his church
by the waflnng of water^ &c. [e]. And
the antient chriftian writers often fpeak of
baptifm by the name oi fan5lification\f'\
But, it is the Dodor's misfortune to con-
found the antient, eccleJiaflicaU with the

modern, fyjiematical fenfe of words. .

He goes on in his own way thus: " And I
" fay it again, to underftand Irenceus as
" fpeaking of baptifm, is to make him
" fpeak what is abfolutely falfe ; that Chrift
" came to fave all^ and only fuch, who are
'' baptized unto God, £fc." Well ! and
what if Ircnceus was not more infallible in
points of dodrine than the reft of his bre-^
threuy called Fathers ? Here the good Doc-
tor breaks forth into declamation, and ex-
preffes an extraordinary concern for the re-

F 2 putatipu

[rf] Joh. iv. I, 2.

[^] Eph. V. 26.

[/] See Walker'^ Modeft Plea, ch. 28, 29.

( 36 )

putation of this good old Father [^]. But ife
is no breach of charity to fay, it is all gri-
mace. For, why (hould he be fo very fo-
licitous to advance the charader of IrencJdm
fo much above many other of the good old
Fathers^ who held the necejjtty^ and efficacy
of baptifm to falvation as ftiongly, as lrence_^
m can be fuppofed to do upon our hypothe-
fiS ? No, no ; take my word for it, it is a
zeal, a flaming, though difguifed zeal for
his ov^n fyftem^ fo nearly interefted in the
cafe, that has infpired him upon this occafi-
on with fuch a mighty regard for the rules
of honour^ j^fiice^ truth ^ 2ind^^^harity, (tho*
taken out of that fphere of attradlion^ I
make no queftion, but the Dodor is a very
worthy Gentleman). However, he feems
to have taken a falfe alarm, from his own
miftaking the fenfe oi Irenceus, He fays,
** to underftand Irenaus as fpeaking of bap-
** tim, is to make him fpeak what is abfo-
*' lutely falfe ; that Chrift came to fave ally
" and only fuch, £fr." Now, it happens,
that the exclufive w^ord, only^ is an addition
of the Dodor's 5 who would call this, ma^
nagemcnt^ in another. And then, as for
the word, all, it does not ftridly refer to
individuals^ but to all forts of ferjom^ (to ufe
the Doctor's phrafe, p. 1 7.) that is, perfons
of all ages, infant Sy little ones, young men^
and old men 5 as Irenaus himfelf explains

it.

[£] Antlpaedo, p. i8, 19.

( 37 )
it.. — It was obferved [/6], that Chrlft fpeaks
the fame kind of language, that we fuppofe
Irencem to fpeak, fo far as relates to bap-
tifm [/]. And his words plainly include
this propofition, *' He^ that is baptized^
^^ Jhallbe favedy But this /'^r^/W difpleafes
the Dodtor : he calls it mean and Jlupid\ a
plain fign it pricked him : but, he (hould
have (hewed, wherein it fails ; inftead of
which, he has only involved himfelf in
frefh difficulties. He fays of Chrift's words,
" they need no qualifying fenfe ; the mean-
*' ing is plain and eafy; that every bap-
" tized believer jQiall be faved, and leave
'* no room to fuggeft, that unbaptized be-
*' lievers (hall not." But do not the words
of Chrift as much fugged this, as the words
of Irenceus, according to the fenfe, we put
upon them? Let the Do6lor lend us his
hand, to flip in the exclufive word, (only)
here, as he did in the other cafe ; and the
thing is plain to be feen by every body.
Eefides, his affertion, that every baptized
believer Jhall be faved ^ (which he lays down,
as the plain and eafy meaning of our Sa-
viour's words) mufl be underflood with
fome re/iriBion, by his own accou'nt. For,
Simon Magus he gives up for loft. And
yet was he a baptized believer ; for the fa-
cred hiftory fays exprefsly [^], that *' Si-

[h'] Paedobap. p. 83. [/] Mark. xvi. 16,

[ij Aas viii, *J3.

( 38 )

** mon himfelf alfo believed, and was bap"
*^ tizedr Such inconfiftencies will men
fall into, when their prejudices, and paf-
lions, get the better of their reafon 1 Here
one might return the Docflor fome of his
fine rhetoric^ and fay, *' what a wretched
** caufe muft the caufe of Antipcedo-bap-
" tijm be, which requires fuch managing
" (I add fuch blundering too) as this, to
" maintain it ?" I fay, what a wretched
caufe muft this be, which is attended with
fuch a complication of ignorance, fraud,
and diffimulation ?

The paflage cited from Clemens Alexan-^
drinus [/], where he makes mention of an
Apoftle drawing children out of the water \rn\
yet flicks in the Dolor's teeth \ he chews it,
and criticifes upon it, but can make nothing
of it, after all, without ahering the text up-
on his own authority. '* However, (fays
" he, p. 2iOif thisinftance is continued to
*^ be urged, I hope it will be allowed, that
" baptifm in thofe early times (he might
** have added in thofe warm climates) was
" performed by immerfion." Thus, what
he lofes one way, he hopes to gain in an-
other; nor ought vy^e to grudge him fo fmall
an advantage after his other loffes. Let us
then compromife the matter with him, and
allow, that Infants were not the only jubr
jecls of baptifm i provided he will grant,

that

[/] Psedobap. p. 76. [w] Psdagog. lib. 3. cap. \ u

( 39 )

that immerfion was not the only mode of
baptifm, in thofe early tinges. For neither
fide can pretend to more from this particu-
lar inftance. But, the Dodtor feems to have
forgot one thing, viz, that Chrift made
his Apoftles fijhers of nien {p^ ; and why
not of children ? particularly thofe under
their parent's command ; unlefs, when the
parents were received into the chriftian
church, their children were to be of ano-
ther^ or of no church. Befides, it mult
not be forgot, that Tertullian compares bap-
tized perfons to little Jifies ; which confirms
the notion that Clemem alludes to the bap-
tifm of children. This may fatisfy the
Dodtor without his infijlirtg upon any fur-
ther account of the matter. But, ** that be
'* fhould believe, that Infant- baptifm is here
" referred to ;" this, to be fure, is more
than can be expedkd from a man of his
temperate brain, cool imagination, and un-
prepojfejfed mind ! However, to infer fi-om
fuch lame premiffes, as he has laid down
for the two firfi: centuries, that Infant-bap-
tifm muft be an innovation 5 (p. 21.) is ve-
ry extraordinary. It is amazing to think,
that any man of charadter could propofe fuch
forced, and unfair confirudtions, as he has
put upon many paflages, that have occurred
in the courfe of this debate. But, that he
fliould lay anyy?rg/i on them, and pertend .

to

[»] Mat, iv« 19.

( 40 )

to draw a conclufion, fuch a conclufion from
them : this furpaffes all wonder! On the
other hand, let the impartial reader review
the inconteftable evidence, that has been
produced, that in Irenceuss time, the an-
cients ufed the word regeneratiojz^ fo as tO
connote baptifm thereby 3 and his teftimony
alone is a fufficient proof of Infant- baptifm
in that age. Befides, the remarkable tefti-
mony that was bore to the univerfal, and
immemorial pradice of Infant-baptifm, in
the Pelagian controverfy, when a much
greater number of primitive writers were
extant ; is fach a corroborating circumftance
as furniflies us with an unanfwerable argu-
ment for it's antiquity. But if, notwith-
ftanding this, any one will conclude that
Infant' baptifm is an inncoation j becaufe
there is no more faid of it in this period :
we may fay with Dr. V/all\o'\\ "what
" then will become of Antipcedo^baptifm^
*' which does not appear to have been prac-
" tifed 'till after the middle of the eleventh
'^ century ?" Proceed we now to

The third century,

" At the beginning of which Tertidlian

'' lived 'f according to the Dodlor, p. 22.

And if, as he pretends, Tertullian is the

firft perfoHj that ever mentioned Infant-bap-

2 tifm >

{pi Defence, 281,

( 4t )

tifm ; he muft alfo be the firft perfon, that
ever fpoke againft it. Therefore, by the
Doftor'sconfeffion, there is no evidence for
Antipcedo-baptifm in the two firft centuries.
Thus, his own argument turns againft hioi.
But, it does not appear, that Tertullia?i did
fo fpeak againft Infant-baptifm, as abfolufe^
ly to oppofe it ; on the contrary, he allowed
of it in cafes of neceffity \p\. And though the
Dodtor would make nonfenfe (p. 23.) of that
exceptive claufe ; *' what neceffity is there,
if it be not however necejfary :'* the turn of
expreffion is very agreeable to Terfullians
ftile and manner. For, the like exception
he makes about haj-meii^ adminiftring bap-
tifm, which he allows of only in cafes of
neceffity [^]. He fays [r], " If thou haft
*' the right of priefthood in thyfelf; thou
" mayft have it when (or where) it is ne-
*' ceffary," But then he alfo obferves [j],
*« No neceffity may be excufed, which may
*' be no neceffity." Is there not as much
nonfenfe in this^ as in the other claufe? and
does it not imply the fame fentiment that is
there expreffed, viz. that it is not neceflary,
except in cafes of fr^^// neceffity. — Befides,

G - this

f^] See Psedobap. p. 73.
q] SufRciat fcilicet in necejjitatihus, ut utarls. De bap-
tifmo*

[r] Si habes jus facerdotis in temet ipfo, uhi necejfe eft
habeas. Exhort, ad Caftitatem.

[j] Nulla neceffitas excufetur, quse poteft non €0e necef-
ficas. Ibidem,

( 42 )

this IS the olde/i reading we know of ; and
Rigaltius^ who fir ft dropt it, is not always
the happieft critic \t'] : but fometimes alter-
ed the reading for the worfe. And though
the Antip^do'haptijis catch at his needlefs
corredion here, (for, I hope we fliall now
hear no more of the pretended nonfenfe^
and impertinence of the reading) Rigaltius is
deferted, and the older reading of Gaig?iaus
is preferred, not only by Pameiius, but others.
[u] It is a further confirniation of the ge-
nuinenefs of this reading, that Tertullian \w'\
afferts the necejjity of baptifm to falvation,
from thofe words of Chiift, Except any one
he born of water ^ Izq.[w\ And though be
fays, " true faith is fecure of falvation," as
the Do6lor obferves; (p. 24.) this does not
deftroy his other aflertion : however diffi-
cult it may feem to reconcile them [.r] ;
nor can the difficulty reach the cafe of In-
fants, unlefs the Do(ftor will fuppofe them
to have true faith. — It was obferved [^j,
that the words of ^Tertidlian^ in what he lays
of Infant- baptifm, imply, that it was adu-
ally praciifed in his time. But this the Doc-
tor denies; (p. 23.) and fays, " Tertullian
** might fay all that he does^ though as yet
** not one Infant had ever been baptized,

M See WalPs Hift. P. i. "ch. 4. S. 8.
[«] Vid. De la Cerda in loc.
[ti;] De baptlfmo.
Cat] See Wa!l\ Hift. ibid. Sed. 7.
[y] Psedobap, p. 71.

C 43 )
*' £fr/' Now, what a ftrong imagination
may poflibly do in this cafe, I cannot fay.
One may indeed, by the help of a lively
fancy, fuppofe, that Tertitllian was prefent
upon the fpot, when the firft child, (as well
as the firft Virgin^ and the firft Widow^ was
converted from Paganifm ; for he advifes
the delay of baptifm in all thefe ; and, as
himfelf fays, for equal reafon [2;],) came to
be baptized \ and that he delivered his dif-
courfe about baptifm on that occafion. This
is the imaginary fenfe, which the Dodlor
paints before his reader's eyes, by the cafe
he fuppofes. But, can any man of cool
thought and reflexion conceive, that T^er-
tullian (as mad a Montanifl as he became af-
terwards) would fit him down to inTite a
hook^ or in a book deliver a grave dilcourfe
about a jion-entits ? a thing that was not !
— Befides, there is fome reafon to inter-
pret his words of Infants of Injideh, though
he makes no diftindlion -, becaufe, he is dif-
cou^rfing of new converts from heathenilm.
And he not only fays, that the children of
believers are holy, as they are defighed for
holinefs ; but that holinefs he explains of
baptifm [^]. Now, if fuch children could
not be admitted to baptilm without previ-
ous inftrudiion 3 where was their preroga-
tive^ T^er tullian fpeaks of, above the chil-
dren of Heathens ? Nor is this contradided
G 2 by

[^] Non minor! de caufa. ]/] De anima.

( 44 )

by his faying, " Men are not bortty but
'' made chriftians :*' [i] bccaufe baptifm is d,
mean of making chriftians 5 a mean of their
regeneration, according to Tertullian : and
thus, they are not born, but born again, or
made, Chriftians. So, when he fays, fiant
ChrijUani, cum Chriftum nojfe potuerint, &c.
let them be made Chrijiiam.^ &c. his mean-^
ing plainly is, let them be baptized.

It was obferved [^], that Tertullian does
not mention Infant-baptifm among the un^
written cuftoms in a book, which was
wrote after his book of baptifm, where we
have difcovered plain evidence of the praCf'
tice of baptizing Infants. From whence it
is is inferred, tijat he looked upon Infant-
baptifm as a written ciifom, &c. But the
Dodor*s account of the matter is, (p. 24.)
that " as yet no fuch cuftom had obtained,
" (£?^." agreeably enough to his own hypo-
thefis, but contrary to fad, in our humblq
opinion. And perhaps his bretdren will
not thank him, for making the Antipcedo-
baptifs or Non-psdo-baptifts, the authors of
all thofe innovations in religion, mentioned
by Tertullian there {dl, as they muft be up-
on the Doctor's fuppofition : tho* at ether
times [^], thefe confiftent writers can re-
prefent Infant-baptifm as the leading mif-.

chievous

[h] Apolog. [t] P^dobap. p. 74.

[^3 De Corona milit.

[^] D*Anvers's Treatife of Bapt. p. 1 1 1.

( 45 )

ciiievous caufe of thefe very corruptions,
and what introduced them into the Church.
Concerning Origen j the Dodior takes a
great deal of pains, (p. 25, Gf^.) to prove
what no-body denies, viz, that his works
^re interpolated in the Latin tranflations;
though the charge feems to be too much ex-
aggerated [/] : and what is quoted from
Ruffinus'% peroration, at the end of his tranf-
lation of Origen on the epiftle to the Ro^
manSy '' was not meant by him for any fe-
" rious account of what he had done in that
*' work ; but for a jeer on St. "Jerome,^ &c"
as Dr. Wall obferves \g\. So that " the
" quotation from Marjhall \h\ is ftill good
^^for fomething'* But the Dodlor having
made the moft of thefe interpolations, (and
perhaps more^ than the matter will well
bear) very gravely asks, (p. 27.) *^ and
** now, where's his probability^ and moral
** certainty^ that there are no additions, and
" interpolations in Origen ?" No additions,
and interpolations! But who faid fo ? This
is grofs mifreprefentation. The words, here
referred to, were fpoken of the particular
paiTages in queftion. And that they could
be no interpolations of Rufinus's, was
proved by feveral arguments [/]. (i.) " Ruf-
'''' Jinus could have no temptation, or occafi-

"on,

[/] See Walls Defence, p. ^74.

\g\ Ibid. p. 379. {hi Psgdgbap. p. 62.

[/■] Psdobap. p. $4, 65.

( 46 )

" on, to coin any paffages for him to that
*' purpofe, fince it was never made any part
" of Origens accufations, that he was a-
*^ gainil: Infant baptifm." [k] (2.) It is ab-
fard to fiippofe, and ridiculous to fuggeft,
that Rujinus would coin any fuch paflages
for Origen, as imported that original Jin was
the ground and reafon of Infant-baptifm, di^
redly contrary to his own private opinion ;
as Ruffinus was inclined to the Pelagians, ac-
cording to the doctor's quotation from Vof-
Jms [/]. If then it was not unlucky for his
hypothcfis, that he ftarted fuch a notion in
his reiidci *s way ; he muft: be one of the
luckieft men alive. But, fays he, '' it is
" luclij on my fide, that Voffius a Padohap^
*' tift ihould fuggeft, that this palTage is in-
" terpolated, &c" Now here, I fufpedl,
the Dodor*s good fortune fails him : for,
VcJJius feems not to fuggeft any fuch thing.
The words, referred to (as I fuppofe) are
tbefe [w] ; (fpeaking of Original Sin as the
ground of Infant- baptifm) " Origen truly
'' has mentioned it, in his eighth Homily
** on Leviticus^ and he, whofe authority
** fhould be of greater weight in this parf^
'* becaufe of Origens books being interpo-
** lated by Rujimis.'" Now, if VoJJius fup-

pofed,

\k'] S-e MarJ^airsCyprhn, P. i. p. 120. Notes.

[/] Hift. Pelag. lib. 2. P. I. Thef. 5.

[m\ Meminere fane ejus Origines Homil 8. in Levit. ^t
is, cujds, o\t interpolatos a Rufino Origenis libros, major
eciam iiac pajte effe debetautoritas, p. 155. 4to.

( 47 )
pofed, that the paffage itfelf was an inter-
polation ; how could he refer to it as Ori^
gens ? But it is not worth one's while to
contend about this point ; as the private opi-
nion of a particular perfon is of little con-
fequence either way. (3.) Jerome -dnd Rt/f-
Jinus^ though at great difference among them-
felves, perfedly agreed in giving the fame
fenfe of Origen upon the point, in their La^
tin tranflations. The Dodor fays, (p. 26.)
" the paflage in Jerome's tranflation of Ori-
** gens homilies on Ltike^ fpeaks indeed of
*' the baptifm of Infants, and the neceflity
'* of it, (he (hould have added, for cleanfing
^^ from original fm) but not a word of it's
*' being a cuilom of the church, and an
" apoitolical tradition/' — However, it fpeaks
of Infant- baptifm as the praBice of the
church ; and founds it upon the words of
Chrift, Except any one be born of water ^ &cc,
which is, in effedl, the fame as making
it an apoftolical tradition, or inftitution.
Therefore, thefe parts of the Latin tranfla-
tions of Origen may well pafs for genuine ^
and confequently be admitted an evidence in
any courts fit to wy fuch a caufe, and where
queftions oi fadl are determined by fuch
moral proof, as the nature of the cafe ad-
mits. But, if the Dodlor is for proceeding
by the civil forms of judicature in deciding
the point of Infant-baptifm ; this rule will
do him little fervice upon the whole 3 when

it

C 48 )

It fiiall be remembered, that parents cari
contraB for their children in civil affairs.
— Cyprian^ a cotemporary of Origen^ fpeaks
the fame language with thefe Latin tranf-
lations of his books, fo as to fuggeft, that
Original Sin is a ground of Infant-baptifm ;
and if he does not exprefsly fay, that it was
a cujiom of the churchy or an apoftolical tra-
dition^ the nature of his difcourfe implies^
and fuppofes it \n\ Nor had he any occa-
fion to refer to Origen^ 2& faying thefe things ;
becaufe they were no matter of debate in
his time ; a plain fign that Origen, as bis
fenfe is given by his Latin tranflators, fpeaks
the common fentiments of that age. As
little neceffity was there for Aujlin^ if ^^he
*' made a blufter about Infant baptifm being
*^ an apoftolical tradition^' (though it was
not the thing itfelf, but the reafon of it,
that came intoqueftion [(?]) to appeal to Ori-
gens teftimony of it ; and for the fame reafon
alfo. But, how does the Dodor's injinu-
ationy (p. 28.) that there was no fuch
teftimony in Auftin^ time, agree with his
former fuggeft ion [^], that Auftin might
take up his notion [viz. " that Infant- bap-
*' tifm wa& an antient and conftant ufage of
** the church, and an apoftolical tradition)
*' from the Latin tranflations of Origen by
*^ Jerome and Ruffinus ?"

2 Dr.

[«] See Pasdobap. p. 63.

[0] Argum. from Ap. trad. p. 20. [^] Ibid, p. 26*

( 49 )

Dr. Gill having faid [y], (fpeaking of the
Greek of OrigenJ '' that many things may
*' be obferved from thence in favour of
«* adult- baptifm :" fomebody had the cou-
rage to tell him [r], the affertion was either
fil/e^ or impertinent: the latter, if it was
not meant ey:cliifively of Infant-baptifm ;
and the former, if this %vai the Dodtor's
meaning; and he was challenged to make
good his affertion. This was a bold ftroke ;
and if it was a With Jmart upon the Dodlor,
he fhould make fome allowance to the au-
thor, as a junior, (fuch as the Dodtor takes
him to be, p. 15.) confidering the manners
bi youth [s]: efpecially as it becomes them
to imitate their feniors ; and the Do(flor
(who by his way of fpeaking feems to have an
indifputable claim to that charader) mud
know, who is the perfon, that firfl: heSlored
moft manfully upon this occafion, by giving
out words of defiance \t\ But, the good
Dodtor is highly affronted, (though, as
Plato fays \ii\ No man jloould be offended at
the truth) and, as revenge is fweet, he gra-
tifies his fpleen in fo mean a manner, as
himfelf thought flood in need of an apolo-
gy, (p. 28.) He knows well enough, fo
much has been faid in this argument on
H both

\q'\ Ibid. p. 17. [>•] P^dobap. p. 66.

[j] ^iKoTifAQi fy.iv UiTif y.uWo') J'i ^i\QViKoi. Arift. Rh*
lib. 2. cap. 12. [/] See PaedolDap. p 49.

[«] T^ ^rtp fiiA;7-3-S ;/a.\€T;4lvs/{' 5v-3-4^/§. Plato de Re-
pub, lib. 5.

c so J

both fides the queftion, that no one, fetllot
or junior, can now write upon the fubjedt
with any propriety, without recurring to
many te/iimomes, already alledged by Dr.
Wall, and ethers. But, if by taking quota-*
iions at fecond hand^ (which he imputes to
the writer, he is oppofing, and abujing) the
Doftor means, taking them upon trufl alto-
gether, without having recourfe to the ori-
ginal authors ; I can affure him upon very
good grounds, that he unhappily trefpafles
at once upon the laws of candour and truth.
Befides, what is all this to the purpofe of the
argument 5 if the paffages produced from
the antients are truly and properly alledg-
ed ? But to be fure, the Dodlor cannot be
impertinent ! However, he cannot but be
confcious to himfeJf oi one thing, viz. that he
has repeated many things, that were faid
before by Dr. Gale, and others. What then ?
fhall we fuppofe, or injinuate, that he has
not examined with his own eyes both Greek
originals, and Latin tranflations ? By no
means ; on the contrary, we will allow that
he has read them all j and from hence he
will permit us to conclude, that he has
picked, and culled out the ftrongeft />^7^^^j,
he thought to his purpofe. Now, if upon
enquiry, thefe very paffages (hall prove no-
thing to his purpofe j how fimple muft the
grave Dodlor look, after all thefe big words,
(p. 28.) " to (top the mouth of this fwag-

goring

( S^ )

^^ gering blade^ whoever he is, Til give him
^' an inftance or two out of the Greek of
*• Origetty in favour of adult-baptifm, to the
" ^a:^/;^^« of Infant- baptifm, and as mani-
" feftly againft it." — This is doing fome-
thing : and if the Doftor is as good as his
word ; he will be the braveft man that ever
appeared upon the ftage of this controverfy.
But, though he fays it with champion-like
aiTurance 5 it will prove a mere flourifli
after all. He did well *' not to infift upon
■' Origens interpretation of Mat. xix. 14,
" as not of Infants literally, but metapho-
" rically." For, he muft have read Origen
to very little purpofe, if he does not know,
that in his allegorizing way Origen put a
double fenfe upon the fcripturej and fo, by
the allegorical^ he did not deftroy the lite^
ral fenfe. Therefore ;his metaphorical fenfe
of that text does not dejiroy the argument
of the Pcedo'baptijis from thence, (as is pre-
tended) becaufe it does not deftroy the li-
teral fenfe, upon which their argument is
founded {w)» Befides, it were eafy to make
reprifals upon the Dodlor, by reminding
him, that the author, on whom he would
lay fo much ftrefs, 172;. Tertulliany under-
flands St. Patih words, (i Cor. vii. 14.)
elfe "were your children unclean^ but now are ,
they holy : in a different fenfe from what the
H 2 Anti"

[w] See Divine Oracles, p. 60. and 80.

( 52 )

Anttpado'baptljis put upon it \x\ — -The
Dodtor proceeds thus: '' It is to be obferved,
*' fays Origen, that the four Evangelifts
*^ faying, that yohn cciifefied he came to
^^ baptize in (it might be read, as ulual,
*' with) water, only Mathew adds, unto re-
^^ pentance\ teaching that he has the profit
"of baptifm^ who is baptized of his own
** will and choice J' [v] Now here, it is ac-
knowledged, we have a defcription of adult-
baptifm, and an account of the proper qua-
lifications for it : but not a fingle word ex*
clujive of Infant- baptifm, or manifeftly a^
gainjl it (which is the point the Dodtor had
to prove). For, in like terms the Apoftle
teaches us \^z\ who has the profit of cir-
cumcifion ; and will the Do6tor pretend that
the profit of circumcifion is fo tied there-
by to the adult, as to exclude Infant-cvL"
cumcifion ? But he goes on, (p. 29.) " and
" a little after he fays, '' the laver by the
" water is a fymbol of the purification of
** the foul, waihed from all the filth of wick-
*' ednefs; neverthelefs, alfo of itfelf it is
** the beginning and fountain of divine gifts,
*' becaufe of the power of the invocation
** of the adorable Trinity, to him that given
** up hi mf elf to God " which lad clauie ex-
*' eludes Infants, c:fj-."~Does it fo indeed!

but

[x] See Psdobap. p. 72.

[y] Orig. Comment, in Joan. p. 124. Edit. Amil.

[it] Rom. ii. 25.

( S3 )

but how ? juft as the other paffage exclud-
ed Infants ; when neither there, nor here^
is the leafl: fyllable, nor fo much as the
little word, only^ to exclude them, without
fome of the Doftor's legerdemain to flip it
in here alfo, as he did upon a former occa-
fion.

If the honeft reader is not yet convinced
how much Dr. Gill has trifled with him, in
putting him off with^fuch pafTages as thefe,
after fuch large promifes ; let him attend to
the following obfervations already made by
Dr. Wall [a\ *' It is ufual with the Anti-
" paedo-baptift writers, to colled: a number
" of thefe fayings, concerning the neceffity
" of faith^ &c. as there are thoulands of
*' them. Thofe of the faid writers, who
*' are cautious not to difcover the weaknefs
" of their plea, pick them out of fuch Fa-
'' thers, in whole books there is not any
** mention of the cafe of Infants ; and they
" would have an unlearned man conclude
** from them, that thofe Fathers muft have
'^ thought the baptifm of Infants impradi-
^* cable, becaufe they do in thofe geiieral feii-
** tences fpeak oi faith, and repentance^ as re-
*' quifite to baptifm. Now, all fi^hrarguings
*' are fhewed to be inconclufive by this one
" obfervation, viz. That thofe Fith^is, who
" were unconteftedly Fcedo-bavttjls^ and in
^'' whofe time the praditce is notorioufly

'* known,
[«] Defence, p. 399. &c.

( 54 )
^* known, do, when they fpeak of baptiim
^^ in general, fpeak in the fame language^
" and irifift upon the fame qualijicatiomr — ..
" St. Cypriatiy who lived in the 150th year
** after the Apoftles, is now well known to
*'' the Antipaedo-baptifts, as one maintaining
*^ the do(flrine of Paedo-baptifm ; and yet
^' he, when he is difcourfing of baptifm in
^* general, has fentences concerning the ne-
^^ ceffity of faith ^ repentance^ &c. to bap-
** tifm, as pofitive as can be found in any
^* father whatfoever. As for example, £r

" Qui cum Noem. Sc. They, who were
" with Noah in the ark, obtained no pur-
*' gation or cleanfing by the water, but even
** periflied by that flood. So alfo, whoever
*' they are, that are not with Chrift in the
" church, will perifli as men out of it ; un-
" lefs they come with repentance to that
" only falutary facrament of the church, ^c.

" Gregory Nyffen lived in thofe times and
^^ places, when and where the Antipasdo-
** baptifts themfelves now do not deny,
" that Infint-baptifm was in ufe, viz> more
*' than an hundred years after St. Cyprian.
*' He mentions faith and prayer among the
" things, that compleat the facrament of
*' baptifm. Or at. Catechet, c 33.

" Evxvi TTpoV Tov Beov, &c. /. e. Prayer to
*' God^ and the imploring of the heavenly
" ^race^ and the, water ^ and faith, are the,.

^* things^

( 55 )

^' things, that make up the facrnment of re^
** generation, St. Cyril^ St. Chryfojlom, St.
** Auftin himfelf, when they fpeak of bap-
•' tifm in general, ufe fayings like to thefe.
*' Yet we are fure from other places in their
*' books, that they underftood the cafe of
*' Infants to be a particular, and excepted
*' cafe 5 and that they were to be baptized,
*^ though they had not at prefent thofe qua-
ntifications 5 but that they were by bap-
*' tifm dedicated to that religion, which
*' would teach them, and which did require
^^ of them, thefe things, as they grew up,
\' &cr [a].

Where now are the inflames^ which Dr.
Gill promifed from the Greek of Origen,
in favour of adult-baptifm, to the excliijion
of Infant-baptifm ZSc. ? Or, what has he
yet done, to Jlop the mouth of the fwagger-
ing blade, (as he called his antagonift) and
to take down his mettle ? Here a fair op-
portunity offers, to rally the Doctor up-
on his fuperior acquaintance with originals,
and tranflations. But, as he feems to think
himfelf too roughly handled already, it
jfhall fufHce for the prefent to mention Dr.
Walh anfwer to Dr. Gale upon a like occa-
fion [b\ " I have read fo much of them,
*' that I am fure of one of thefe things j
** that either he has not read them any other
[^ way than by indexes ; or elfe does not tm-

" derjiand

[a] Defence, p. 399. &c. [^] Ibid. p. 335.

( 56 )

" derfland them ; or elfe againft his con-
** fcience faces but a fenfe contrary to what
** i6^/<?^j in them."— But I muft advertiie
the reader of a certain fallacy, which lies iti
this phrafe, the Greek of Origen, and in ap-
pealing to it in oppofition to the Latin tranf-
lations of his works. If we had iiow thofe
Commejits of Ongen in Greei ; the Latin
trandations whereof, by yerome dnd Ruffinm^
are alledged in favour of Infant baptifm ^
(viz, on Leviticus^ Luke^ and the Romans)
and found, that the paffages, cited from the
latter, were not in the fornier ; this would
be a ftrong proof of their being interpolations.
But this is not the cafe ! Therefore, the
Dodlor's way of arguing from the Greek of
Origen, againft the faid Latin tranflations,
proceeds upon this principle, that if Origen
did not make mention of Infant baptifm as
an apoftolical tradition,^. ^. in his Com-
ments on Maihew and John ; he could not
mention it in his Comments on Leviticus^
hiike^ and the Romans, A plain inconfe-
quence! as \i Origen muft: always fay the
lame things in every Comment, or book,
he wrote. However, Dr. Wall has refer-
red [c], to fome paffages in the Greek of
Origen, very agreeable to what is cited froni
the Latin tranflations 5 and though the bap-
tifm of Infants is not there particularly and
exprefsly mentioned, there feems to be a re-
I ferenee

[<:] Ibid. Appendix, p. 11. — 13.

( 57 )

ference to it, as a thing necejfary for theai j
if Ori^en fuppofed they had an equal con-
cern with others in Original Si?t ; and a re-
furre6tion j for, he reprefents baptifm^ as
ftanding in connexion with thefe things.
I fliall only add one thing more, viz. that
in fonie of the Latin tranflations of Origen^
there are as flrong defcriptions of adu!t-bap-
tifm, as thofe produced by Dr. Gill from
the Greek of Origen [^d]. From whence it
appears, that his tranjlators did not confi-
der fuch paffages as exclujive of Infant-bap-
tifm 5 fince they alfo mention the latter as
an apoftolical inftitution. Therefore, for
any thing the Dodor has faid to prove the
contrary, *' we have the clear teftimony of
*' the great Origen for Infant-baptifm, as
" pradtifed in his time, and that too under
** the notion of an apoftolical tradition,

*' Of Cyprian the Dodlor fays, (p. 29.)
'* that he is the firfl: pleader for it (i. e. In^
^^ fant'baptifm) that we know of." But he
widely miftakes, or grofsly reprefents the
cafe. For, Cyprian was no pleader for In-
fant-baptifm, a^ fuch \ nor had he any oc-
cafion to plead for it ; becaufe no body had
any doubt about it, and much lefs' oppofed
it : the onlv queftion in debate being, (oc-
cafioned by the doubt of Fidus^ an African
bifhop) Whether Infants fhould be baptized
before the eighth day, according to the time

I of

\d'\ Vid. Origen. Homil S. in Exod. Homil 21. in Luc.

( 58 )

of cii'cumcifion [e]. As for the Doftor's
pretence, (p. 30.) '' that though Infant-bap-
** tifm now iegan to be pradlifed, it appears
** to be a novel -bu fin efs (a?2d novel- bujinefs
*' it quejiionlefs was, if it then began to be
** pradiifed) from the time of it's adminiftra-
" tion being undetermined :'* the weaknefs
of this argument was fo fully expofed \ that
he is in danger to expofe himfelf by repeat-
ing it [/']. The Dodor further urges, that
*' the exceeding weaknefs of the arguments
** then made ufe of for baptizing new-born
** Infants, of which the prefent Paedo-bap-
*' ti/ls muft be afhamed, {hew that Pado-
** baptifm was then in it's infant Jl ate J' By
this fort of reafoning one would be lead to
fufped: that thofe, who ufe it, are not far
from iheirfecond infancy. Why are not the
u4?itip^do-baptiJis afhamed, to confound two
fuch different, and diftincS queftions, as.
Whether new-born infants were to be bap-
tized ? and, Whether Infants (hould be bap-
tized at all ? If Cyprian argued weakly for
the former 5 in the name of good fenfe,
what has this to do with the latter ? There-
fore, the long citation from Cyprian, (p. 30.
— 32.) is mere parade, and nothing to the
purpofe, but only as it ferved to introduce a
iiiofl: curious remark of the Doctor's, viz.
" Every one that compares what Cyprian
** and his collegues fay for Infant- baptifm,

(here

[^] Pxdobap. p. 57. [/] See Paedobap. ibid.

( 59 )

(here he falls again into an ignoratio eknchi;
he fliould have faid, for baptizing Infants
at any time under eight days old) *^ and
" what TertuUian faid againft it as before
*' related, will eafily fee a difference between
'' them, between Tertullian^ the Antipce-
^^ do'baptijl^ 2inA Cyprian^ th^ Pado-baptijl y
*' how manly and nervous the one ! how
*' mean, and weak the other!" — A very
good jeft ! When Cyprian neither argued
for, nor TertulUa?i argued againjl Infant-
baptifm, abfolutely, and as fuch ! Here I
cannot but congratulate the Dodor upon
the felicity of \\\% genius , and the dexterity
of his addrefs. Infant-baptifm, according
to him, muft be a novelty in Cyprian^ time,
becaufe he is the firjl pleader for it, that
we know of 1 And it muft be a novelty, or
nori' entity y in Tertidlian^ time, becaufe he
is the firft, that was ever known to fpeak
againjl it 1 However, the Dodor doth not
deny, (p. 24.) that ^\^ flrong and fieriwin
reafoner " might have feme odd notions,
*' and Angular opinions 5 about which he
'' talked wrong, and weakly :" and it is
pretty plain, that he had fomeodd, and fuper-
ititious notions of baptifm itfelf. — ^The Doc-
tor owns at laft, *' that no doubt was raifed
** about Infant-baptifm at this time :" which
utterly fpoils all, he had faid before, of Cypri^
an\ pleading for it. And this is a clear evi-,
dence, that the pradice of baptizing Infants
1 2 was.

( 6o )

was, at leaft, a thing of fome (landing in
the church, and fo did not then firft begin^
as is pretended. But this, fays the Dodor,
" does not prove it then to be an antient
" cuftom ; fince the fame obfervation, which
" may be made, would prove Infant com'
*^ miinion to be equally the fame/' — Well :
fuppofing that ; what follows from it ?
(though, perhaps, there may not be the
fame ground, to make the obfervation of
Infant-communion, if nothing relating to it
was not upon the carpet) The higher it can
be traced ; fo much the more it makes for
the antiquity of Infant-baptifm \ none being
admitted to that ordinance, but thofe that
were baptized j as we learn from Jujiin Mar-^
tyr [g] : (who fays not, however, that ally
who were baptized, had admittance to it).
The incidental way of mentioning a particu-
lar inftance of Infant-communion, in Cy^
prian [Z^], is an argument that it was not
xhtjirft of the kind. And if Infant- com-
munion itfelf was at that time a thing of
fome (landing; Infant-baptifm could not
then bs a novcltv : as it mult be the older
of the two.

Tlhe fourth Century,

Here the Doftor makes the Pasdo-bap-
tifts welcome to the greateft lights of the

church
\£\ -Apol. 2. \h'\ Cyprian, De Lapfis.

( 6i )

church in this century, as vouchers for In-
fant-baptifm ; (he fhould have added, as
pracflifed not only in their- time, but under
the notion of an apojiolical tradition [/']) for,
fays he, (p. 33.) *' they have need of them
" to enlighten them in this dark affair, G?r."
Nov^, this is a mere flafh of fancy, where
we have a little wit, but no argument. Be-
fides ; he was told [^], (and be does not
now gainfay it) that " he has in effedt given
" us all the reft : for, he has not been able,
" to produce one fmgle author in this peri-
*^ od on the other Tide of the queftion."
Whata^jr^ a fair then muft that be, which
has no light at all on it's fide ? but clouds
injiead, and e^ver during dark. In relation
to the teftimony of Pelagius, that he never
heard of any Chriftian whatfoever, that
denied Infant-baptifm [/] : nothing farther
needs be faid upon that head, iince about
this the Dodlor will not contend \ which is
fairly giving up the point. But he would
impute it to the ignorance of Pelagius^
without any (hadow of proof ; nor has the
Dodlor proved himfelf a more knowing man,
by producing any fuch inftances ; which ic
was his bufinefs to have done ;' and not
content himfelf with calling Pelagius an arch
heretic ; as if giving him a nick-name were
fufiicient to deiiroy the weight of his tefti-
mony :

[t] See Paedobap, p. <3.

Wibid. [/] Ibid. p. 24, ef..

( 62 )

mony : an artifice unworthy of a dignified
Proteftant Divine. Says Dr. Wall [pi\ «* if
" there had ever been any church in any
'' time, or any part of the v^orld, that de-
" nied Infant-baptifm ; he (i. e. Pelagim)
*' muft have heard of them. For he was a
" learned man ^ and had lived in the mofl:
*' noted churches oi Europe^ jifia^ and A^
^^ fricaficzr — What a wild imagination then
muft it be, to fuppofe, that Infant-baptifm
was an invention of the third century ! —
The Dodtor does what he can, (p. 34, ^c)
to fupport the reafons he had alledged [«],
to prove, that Aiiftin muft have heard of
fome that denied Infant-baptifm. But, how
poorly he acquits himfelf upon this head,
any judicious reader will eafily perceive, by
comparing the critical examination of thofe
reafons [0], with his lame defence of them.
Therefore, to avoid prolixity, we fhall
only make here a few curfory remarks.
(i.) TertuUian did not contradict or op-
pofe Infant-baptifm in the fame feitfey as
Dr. Gill and his friends oppofe it : fo that
there is no arguing from the one cafe, to the
other. And whatever Dr, Wall thought ;
the author, Dr. Gill had to do with, did
not fubfcribe to his opinion, viz, that nei-
ther Aujlin^ nor Pelagim^ had kzw Tertul^
2 liati^

[;;/] Defence, p. 395.

[n'] Argum. from Ap. trad. p. 24, 7^-

[0] Paedobap. p. 27. — 38.

( 63 )

//Ws book of baptifm [p]. And indeed,
they might both have feen it, and yet have
faid what they did : the latter^ that he had
never heard of any Chriftian that denied In-
fant-baptifm -, for Terfidlian did not abfo-
lutely deny it ; and ih^ former^ that Infant-
baptifm v^as always adniiniftered in the
church, for original Jin: for Tertullian^
phrafe, innocem cetas^ as Dr. Gill himfelf
underftands it, (p. 22.) imports no more
than the comparatively innocent age of in-
fants. (2.) In refpedt to the controverted
canon^ made in the council of Carthage-,
the Dodlor had here another convincing
proof, that his antagonift w^as not a mere
copier of Dr. IVall -, but, following the di-
rection of Photiiis, pointed out a different
fenfe of the faid canon. And, after all his
(huffling, he cannot obfcure, much lefs ex-
punge, this felf-evident truth, that the ca-
non relates not to infants at large, but to
new-born Infants alone. Therefore, he at-
tempts to put a fallacy upon his readers, by
flipping into his conclujion another term^ and
faying, that Aujiin muft know of fome per-
fons that denied baptifm to babes. This is
pure equivocation. For, if Aujiin knew of
fome, that denied baptifm to new born In-
fants, does it therefore follow, that he knew
of any, that denied baptifm to babes indeji-
nitely ? that is, denied Infant- baptifm -, whicb

is

[/>] Ibid. p. 69.

( 64 )

is the point the Doftor v/as to prove. (3.)
It was only for argument's fake, that his ^.m--
thor fuppojid, that the perfons, who afl^ed the
queftion, about the reafon of baptizing In-
fants (becaufe many of them die youngs &c.)
were Chrfllam : and it was the Doctor's
bufinefs to h^vc proved them to be Chriflians,
in order to make the inftance pertinent to
his purpofe. But even this would not an-
fwer his end ; for, after all, thefe perfons
might be as good friends to Infant -baptifm^
as tiiofe were good friends to Infant-propa-
gation^ who afked the other queftion, men-
tioned by St. Auftin in the fame place, for
their own information, concerning the rea-
fon of thofe Infants being born^ that die
young. (4.) The Doftor is here put to his
gueffeSy and he gueffes wrong. For, his fup-
pofition of the Pelagians faying, " that the
" infants of believers unbaptized enter the
** kingdom,'* is a flat contradiction to what
St. Aifiin fays of the Pelagians in the very
paflage referred to [q\. But the Dodor is
loth to own himfelf in an errour ; however,
if he is miftaken, he is not ajlmmed of it,
becaufe it is in good com.pany ; a pretty ex-
cufe for being /^j<^ ^r^^. (5.) Sparing, as
he. is, of his conceffions, he is forced to
acknowledge, that the words quoted by hirn
out of Jerome^ are fpoken by way oifuppo^
fttion. *' But then (fays he) they fuppofe a

*^ cafe

[^] SeePaedobap. p. 23, 24.

( 65 )

*^ cafe that had been^ &c." Well ; but how
does that appear ? not merely from yeromes
fiippoling it : and the Dodlor offers no other
proof of this conteCted fadl, but a critic
upon the word miner int ; which, after all,
may import no more than a wilfiill ovcnGion
in refiifing to get their children baptized in
due time ; without implying that they de-
nied infant- baptifm. But, let the meaning
be as the Dodtor would have it ; yet ftill,
as mentioned by Jerome^ it is not a matter
oifaBy but a bare fuppofition. Neverthe-
lefs, the Dodor fettles his countenance, arid
gravely fays, (p. 38.) '* from all thefe in^
^^ Jtances put together, we cannot but con-
" elude, that there were fome perfons, that
" did oppofe, and rejeSf infant- baptifm in
" thofe times !*' But, if any one of his pre-
tended inftances proves any fuch thing, I
am much miftaken. The appeal lies before
the learned world [r], and let them judge.

' As to what he lubjoins from Mr. Mar--

Jhall^ concerning fome in thofe times that
queftioned it; Mr. Marfkall does not fay,
that there were any in thofe times that de^
nied and difufed it; for, he tells us, [i]
" that the firjl, that ever made head againft
*' it, or a divifion in the church about it,
" lived in a much later age." Nor do the
words of St, Auftin referred to, imply, that
any perfons in his time denied InfanU

K bap-

[r] Ibid. p. 39. \/\ Sermon on Inf. bap. p. 5.

( 66 )

bapiifm^ or fo much as doubted of it, but
the contrary : for he fays, that even thofe^
who contradiBed it in fome fort, did not
doubt of it. 'Tis true, in that difcourfe [^],
he fets up 2ifiBitious perfon to argue with
the Pelagians in their own way ; and then
afks them, how they would anfwer fuch a
Difputant, but from the Scripture : and fp
he exhorts them alfo to fubmit to Scripture
authority, and not truft to their own fubtile
reafonings upon the point in queftion. But
therefore his faying, " Let no one doubt ^
*' whether Infants are to be baptized, &c"
does not imply, that any one did really doubt
of it ; this was only a wife precaution,
which Aufiin thought proper to ufe in a po-
pular difcourfe concerniJig baptifm of Infants
again/i the Pelagians ; in order to avoid the
raifing of unneceflary fcruples in the minds
of the people, and to prevent \k\t\x fufpecling
that any body did doubt of it. This is the
plain and obvious fenfe of his words 5 nor
can we put any other conftrudion upon
them, without making Auflin contradiB
himfelf in the fame breath.

'' Aufliuy we allow, (fays the Dodor)
*' frequently fpeaks of infant- baptifm as an
** antient ufage of the church, and as an
" apoftolical tradition." Why did he not
add here, (what he urged upon a former oc-

cafion

\t'\ De Verb. ap. Serm. 14. Nefcio quis, &c.

[ (>7 )

cafion \u\) for original fin ? — To the Doc-
tors queftion then, *' What proof does he
*' give of it ?" I anfwer ; he appeals to the
authority and pradice of the univerfal
church in all pad ages. But, he had no
occafion to produce teflimoiiies for Infant -bap-
tifm itfelf : becaufe no one ever denied it ;
no, not the Pelagians themfelves, with
whom he was deeply engaged, not about
the fubjedls^ but the end of baptifm, by
the Dodor'sown confeflion [ic;]. The Doc-
tor afks again, (p. 39.) "Does he produce
*' any higher teftimony than Cyprian T' I
anfwer; for what? For infant-baptifm it-
felf, he does not produce the teftimony of
Cyprian at all ; having no occafion to do ir,
as was hinted before : but for the 7^eafon of
it. So that all, which the Dodor can con-
clude from hence, is this^ that the dodrine
of original Jin was a novelty in Cyprians
time : and if this dodrine gave rife to Li-
f ant baptifm \n Cyprians time, as the Dodor
fuggefts, (though we have deplumed him
of his infallibility) why was not the one as
much a novelty as ihz other? But, he all a-
long confounds two different and diftindt
queftions : for, it is one thing to- argue^ir
Infant-baptifm from original /in ; which is
the cafe, w^hich the Dodlor here fuppofes,
contrary to fa6i \ and another thing to ar-

K 2 ^ gue

[«3 Argum. from Ap, trad. 6'r» p. 26,
\^m\ Ibid. p. 20.

( 68 )

gue for original Jin from Infant -b apt ifm :
which was really the flare of the qaeftioa
between St. Auftin^ and his opponents.
Thus Infant- baptifoi was a common data^

a thing agreed on by both fides. The

fame obfervation may be made of Cyprian
and his collegues : and therefore he had no
occafion to urge it, as an apofiolical traditi-
on: hov/ever, what he fays about it, im^
plies fo much ; as has been remarked be-
fore.— In (hort : Auflin appeals to Cyprian^
and St. Paid, Rom, v. i8. for one, and the
fame thing, viz, original fin^ as the reafon
of Infant-baptifm : for, as he undeiflands
that text of orio^inal fin, fo he refers to it as
exhibiting the ground and reafon of Infant-
baptifm ; for, according to him, it is by
haptifm, that Infants are made partakers of
the grace of Chriji M. But, obferve ! nei-
ther was Infant-baptifm, the thing itfelf
nor original fin, as the reajon of it, any
matter of doubt, or debate in Cyprians
time. Tloii is the very thing, that St. Au-
Jiin hinges upon; and from hence he draws
his obfervation, '' That bltfled Cyprian did
" not make any 7iew decree ; but only pre-
" ferved the e/labliffoedhlih of fne church :"
[^'] that is, with reipedl to the reafon of
baptizing hifants, which foppofes the tiiing

itfelf.

[A:]Ep. adHieronyni: Ep. i8. DeVerb. A port, Serm. 14.

[j'j See P£edobap. p. 42. Nam de originc pecc^n nulla
erat quasitio ; et ideo, ex ea re, unde nulla erat c^u^Itio,
&c. Augullin ibid.

( 69 )

itfelf. ■ Our worthy Dodor feems not to
be aware, that his way of arguing will con-
clude too far ; unkfs he is turned as arch a
heretic as Pelaghis. For, if the main de-
fign of St. Auflin is to fupport the dodrine
of original fin by i\\teflabiiJJ:ed faith of the
church 'y and yet '' he produces i'/^i^r tefti-
" niony than Cyprian:'' let the Dodlor look
to the confequtnce, if there is any force
in his way of reafoning upon the head of
appeals. And here the difficulty, he ftarts
about Aufiin\ not appealing to Grigen^ and
the argument he v/ould draw from this
circumftance, to prove that Origen muft
have been unfairly dealt with, — returns
home upon himfelf. For, if any one (hould
argue, that, becaufe Auftin never appeals to
Origen^ nor to any other antient writer be-
fore Cyprian in proof of original Jin 5 there-
fore thofe writers mujl have been unfairly
dealt with^ and the paffages interpolated^
where they fpeak of original fin : What an-
fwer would the Doctor (hape to this argu-
ment ? Perhaps he would think it fufficient
to (ay, Cyprians authority alone, at the head
of a whole council of bilhops, was of weight
enough, to decide a quefliion of this nature,
witboui any other teftimonies. And as for
Origen, he lay under fome reproach for his
hete-cdox opinions, on which account he
is cenfured by St. Auftin himfelf [2;] : and

there-
[i:j] i)e Civitate Dei. lib. 2. cap. 23. lib. zt.cap. 17. &c.

( yo )

therefore this good bifhop of Hippo might
judge it improper to appeal to his obnoxious
books for any thing at all. Now, the lame
anfwer will ferve our turn ; without fur-
ther animadverting upon the Doctor's incofi-
Jijlencyy \n formerly fuppofing, that Aufiin
might take up his notion that Infant-baptifm
was an apoftolical tradition, from the Latin
tranflations of Jerome and Rufinm\ and
now fuggefting, that the pafTiges in Origen
relating to this point are interpolated fince
the time of St. Aufiin, Thus the Dodtor
founders himfelf, and his argument at once.

The pretence, " that there is equally as
"/^//, and as early evidence of apoiiolic
" tradition for Infant-communion^ &c." was
{hewn to be without foundation \a'\ : a little
further wants to be faid upon that point,
as the Dodor has ytijiated the cafe; and
it was only to the ftate of the cafe, as he
had put it, that the reply v^as made.

(i.) As to infant-communion : " it was,
*' (as the Doctor fays p. 4o.)inufe beyond
" all contradiction, " in Cyprians time ; but
fuch clear evidence has been produced, that
Infant-baptifm was pradtifed before Cyprians
time, as that none can rejedt it, but thofe,
who have a peculiar faculty of denying
things plain and vifible, — If St. Auftin ar-
gues for Infant-communion from the Scrip-
ture, as the rule and ftandard of the Chrif

tian^

[/?] Pacdobap. p. 47.-53.

( 71 )

tian^ and cathoUck faith j he does not teftl-
fy of itj as he does of infant-baptifm, that
it was the antient and iiniverfal practice of
the Chriftian church. Whether the Funi-
ci Chriftiani be the chriftlans of Carthage^ or
6f Africa ; Auftin fays not (as he was re-
prefented by the Doftor) that they took it to
be an antient apoftohc tradition : nor does
he pofitively fay, that Infant-communion (if
that was the thing intended, and not the
particular ;^;?^i^ oi fpeech ufed concerning the
Eiicbariji) was fuch a tradition 3 but only
fuppofed it ; which, as every one muft per-
ceive, is a more cautiow^ and referved way
of fpeaking, than he ufes, when he fpeaks
of infant-baptifm under that notion [b\

(2.) The other particulars were taken no-
tice of in the grofs, as mentioned by St.
Bajil^ under the notion of unwritten tra-
ditions. But it was obferved [c], that In-
fant-baptifm is not ranked in that number;
and confequently, the antients looked upon
it as having a better foundation in the Scrips
ture, than any of thofe other Rites, Now
here the Dod:or rejoyns, (p. 41.) *' neither
" are infant^communion, fponfors at bap-
** tifm, exorcifm in it, and giving' milk and
** honey at that time, mentioned by Baftl
** among them, &c'' — To which the reply
is, {!,) K^io Infant'Communiony the objedti-

on'

[b'] Paedobap. p. 47.-49,
[^ Ibid. p. 51.

( 72 )

on was allowed, and confidered [d], (2.)
Spo?ifors at baptifm, in one (bape or other,
being a natural circumjlance of Infant- bap-
tifm, are prefumed to be an apoftolical ap-
pointment, conformably to the pradlice of
the Jewifh church in the like cafe \e\
Thefe fponfors, among other things, gave
names to children \f^ ; a cuftom transferred
from the Jewifh to the Chriftian church.
(3.) Forms oi exorcifm are as antient as the
Apoftles time ; but exorcifm in baptifm is
not called an apojlolic tradition^ nor an un-
written tradition by Aiiflin, to whom the
DocStor refers \g\. He fpeaks of it indeed,
as an antient tradition \ and might properly
enough appeal to it for the general fenfe of
the church 3 but he does not urge , it as of
apoftolical authority-, fo far as yet appears.
The fame remark may be made on the paf-
fages cited from the other antient writers,
mentioned by the Dodor. (4.) If Bafil
does not, yet (which is the fame thing in
this argument) Tertullian does mention the

[^j Pasdobap. p. 52.

\e] — Minorum vero nomine idem ipfum profitebatur
pvaefedura ipfa, uti m Chn[\i?im{mo fufcepiores minorenni-
um, feuparvulorum, &c. Seldeu de Synedriity i^c. lib. i.
cap. 3.

[/] Luk. i, 59. Sec. u. z\. a like cuftom obtained a-
m.ong the antient Perfians, of giving names to their chil-
dren at baptifm. Hyde Relig, Vet. i'erf. cap. 18. Other
nations alio made a ceremony of impofmg names. Vid.
Ariftoph. Aves. Polyaen. Stratagem, lib. 6. cap. i. S. 6.
Lucian. Contemplantes, &c.

U] Argument from Apoil. trad. p. 32.

C 73 )
givi77g milk aJid honey to the baptized per-
fons among the unwritten cuftoms ar.d tra-
ditions \h\

(3.) It was obferved [/], that, *' it does
*' not appear, that the unwritten traditions
" were ever put to the fame teji of iheir
*^ Apoftolical authority, as Infant- be: ptifrn
'* was, and flood the trial as it did." By
which was obvioufiy meant, it's obtaining
the jlrongeji and mod exprefs teftimony of it's
immemorial, and univerfal ufe in the Chriiii-
an church, even from thofe very perfons,
that were urged with an argument from ir*
Therefore, there is htile force in the cbfer-
vation, that the Pelagians were a!fo preffed
with an argument from the exorcifms, and
exfuffiatiom ufed in baptifm. For, as thefe
are not called apojloiical tradiiiom, (v^hich
was not noted before) fo there is no evidence
produced, that the Pelagians bore the fame
teftimony in favour of them, as they did of
Infant-baptifm. What the Dcdtor fays
there about any particular rite, (landing the
left of all ages, in refpedl of continued ufe^
is not to the purpofe ; unlefs it were attend-
ed with a declaration of it's apojhlic autbo^
rity \ which is not the cafe.

'* Upon the whole then it is clear, there

** is no exprefs mention of Antipado-baptijm in

'' the two Jirji centuries, no nor any plain

'^ hint of it, nor any manifefl reference to

' L " it J

xJtI De Corona M litis, [r] Psedcbsp. p. H-

( 74 )

*^ it ; and that there is no evidence of it*s
** being praBifed in the third, or in the
^^ fourth centnrvj C?^/* On the other fide,
we have traced 'jp the acknowledged grounds;
oi Pcedo-bjptijm to the times of the Apoftles.
In the next age we read of Infants (con-
flrucaively) made difciples to Chrift, and re-
generated, that is by baptifm. In the third
century that Infant-baptifm was praBifed^
and prevailed in the fourth, is confeffed by
it*s greareft oppofers. And Jo rejls the fate
of the controverfy.

The Public will now judge, what ground
Dr. Gill h^d for his candid infin nation, (p. 3.)
that the namelefs author, or anonymous writer,
with whom he is engaged, was a(han::ked of
his caule, or Name, becaufe he appeared un-
der that charader; as fome Writers on his
own fide have had the modefiy, or pru-
dence to do, without blame or cenfure.
And perhaps it may occafion fome fpecula-
tion, that the Dod:or likewife was not an
anonymous Writer upon this fubjedl, either
on his own account, or for the fake of his
friends ; many of whom may be fo much
influenced by the authority of his name, as
imphcitly to believe any thing he fays, how
remote foever from truth, and fadt. It
fliould feem, that he himfelf hath no great
confidence in his argument, though he en-
deavours to put a good face on't 3 fince he

hints

( 75 )

hints fo often at the uncertaifity of tradition :
as if he wanted to fecure his retreat^ in cafe
of any difafter. But the inftance he refers
to, mz, the obfervation of Eajler^ is not
parallel. For, if two contrary traditions were
pleaded in that cafe, (which might affedt
the credit of both) no fuch thing can be pre-
tended in this cafe ; as one uniform tradition
carries it for Pado-baptifm^y and not a fingle
teftimony can be produced from the antient
writers in favour of a tradition for An-
tipcedo-baptifm^ Originals^ or tranjlatiom.
Therefore, upon a fair fumming up of the
hijlorical evidence, it appears, that not Pae-
do-baptifm, but Antipasdo-baptifm is an
innovation.

Haec Hadenus.

FINIS.

BOOKS Printed for J. WATJG It,

at the Tu rk's-He AD, in Lombard- Street.

ADifTent from the Church of England
fully juilified: And proved the genu-
ine and juft Conlequence of the Allegiance
due to Chrift, the only Lawgiver in the
Church. Being the diflenting Gentleman's
three Letters and Poftfcript, in Anfwer to
Mr. John Whites on that Subject. Pr. 2s. 6d*

The Baptifm of Infants, a reafonable Ser^
vice ; founded upon Scripture, and undoubt-
ed Apoftolic Tradition : In which its mo-
ral Purpofes and Ufe in Religion are fhewn*
Price 8d.

Dipping not the only Scriptural and Pri-
mitive Manner of Baptizing. And fuppo*
fing it were, yet a ftridl Adherence not ob-
ligatory on us. Price 6 d.

Paedo-baptifm : Or, a Defence of Infant-
baptifm in Point of Antiquity. Againft
the Exceptions of Dr. John Gilly and others.
Price I s.

P^DO-BAPTISM:

THE

Second PART.

O R, A

DEFENCE

OF THE

Authority of Infant -Baptifm.

In ANSWER to the

Common Objections againft it.

Suffer little Children to come unto mc, and forbid them
not: for of fuch is the Kingdom of God. Luke xviii. i6.

Nam Deus ut perfonam non accipit, fic nee atatem^ cum fe
omnibus ad coeleftis gratias confecutionem aequalitate li-
brata praebeat Patrem, Cyprian, Ep. adFidum,

LONDON:

Printed and fold by J. Waugh and W. Fenner, at the

Turk'i Heady in Lombard-Street,

M. D C C. LV.

./

INTRODUCTION.

LTHOUGH the authority of
Infant-baptifm doth not formally
depend upon it's antiquity \ yet
a due conlideration of the latter
may be fubfervient to the former, fo far as
to difpofe an enquirer after truth, to examine
the Queftion with more freedom and candor,
than could be expedted from any perfons al-
ready prepoffeffed with a groundlefs notion
of the novelty of the thing. Such a notion,
built upon a few miflaken paffages in fome
of the antient writers, feems to have laid the
foundation of this whole controverfy at the
iirft, and ever fince determined fome con-
fcientious people, who had a laudable zeal
for tliC Bible, as the rule oH faith and prac-
tice^ to difpute every inch of ground with
fo much pertinacity, and to try all the
methods of evafion to elude the force of e-

very

( iv )

very Jcnpfure-^iYgumcnt. Therefore a former
attempt having been made to remove this
unhappy prejudice by maintaining the anti-
qiiity of Infant- baptifm \ji\ -, we fhall now
endeavor to defend it's authority againft the

chief and common objeBions, By the

authority of Infant-baptifm every Protejiant
reader will under (land fuch ground and
reafon for it in the Scriptures ^ as is fufEcient
to jullify the thing, and fo render any
further baptifm unneceffary and fuperfiuous,
in a regular adminiftration of gofpel-ordi-
nances, to thofe, who were baptized in their
Infancy. The point, then, which we now
propofe to maintain, is this^ viz. the law-
fidnefs, or validity of Infant- baptifm. For,
though baptifm, in the generaly is a pofi-
tive and plain inftitution of Chrift 5 yet, as
the particular time of adminiftring it is no
where precifely fixed : ^hen therefore, or at
what age perfons ordinarily fhall be bap-
tized, thiS:, we prefume, is a circumftance
left undetermined. Confequently, they may
be rightly baptized at any age, even in their
earlieft infancy, and the children, fo bapti-
zed,

\ci\ See Paedo-baptifm, and Pado- baptifm defended in
anfwex to Dr. Gill's Reply,

( V )

xed, have lawful and ^alid baptifm : Ee-
caufe they are admitted to baptifm accord-
ing to the liberty and latitude allowed in the

Gofpel. As this appears to have been

the general fenfe of antiquity [^] ^ fo, this
view^ of the Queftion eafily accounts for the
different opinions, that occafionally arofe in
the primitive church, about the moft pro-
per and convenient time of adminiftring
baptifm : Some fuppofing, that children
ought not to be baptized before the eighth
day, e, g. Fidus^ an African bifhop (though
he had no doubt whether they fhould be
baptized at all) [r]; others, that they might
be baptized on any day after their birth, e,g.
Cyprian^ and a whole council of bifhops [^J ;
and others, that their baptifm might be
more conveniently deferred till they were
three years old, e, g, Gregory Nazianzen [^],
and perhaps Tertullian [/]. However, it
was the prevailing opinion, that baptifm
was fo neceffary for all, as that none (hould
be fuffered to die without it. And upon
this ground it is no difficult taik, to recon-
cile the two laft named writers with them-

felves,

[h] See Blake, anfwer to Tombes. Sec. 2.
[c] Cyprian. Ep. ad Fidum. [^J Ibid.

CO Oi-at. 40. [/] Lib. de Baptifmo,

( vi )

felves, when they advife the delay of chil-
dren's baptifm, and yet allow, yea required,
them to be baptized in cafe oi danger [^]*
Thus, it appears, they fuppofed, that a dif-
cretlonary power was left with chriftians, to
order and determine the time of baptifm, as
they faw occafion. So that, if they did not
look upon the baptifm of children in their
carlieft infancy to be necefjary^ or expedient^
in ordinary cafes ; yet they held it lawful,
and valid', nor, N. B. did they ever per-
fuade any perfons to be re baptized^ who,
( or becaufe they ) had been baptized in
their infancy. Tertidlian himfelf fays, that
baptifm is to be but once adminiftred [^j.

It

[g] Uhifupra. This plainly is the meaning of that ex-
ceptive claufe in Tertullii'M, li non tani (or tamen) necefle.
The not obferving with a critical exaclnefs how the word,
itecejje, varies it's fignification in this part of the fentence,
hath led fome perfons to make mnjenfe of the paffage.
But, to fay, " what neceflity is there, except in cafe of
** danger," (z, e. of death) is very intelligible.

\h'\ Denuo ablui non licet. Tertnlhan de Pudecitia. In
the fame book, he difcovers it to be his opinion, that fins,
committed after baptifm, are unpardonable. Which, by
the v/ay, eafily accounts for his advifmg the delay of
baptifm, not only in children, but in ^virgins, and ^idonxjs^
without fuppoling the baptifm of any fuch perfons to be
a no'velty in his days : and indeed there is as much reafon
to fuppofe it of the one as the other.

( vii )

— ^It may poffibly be alledged that, if In-
fant baptifni is commanded^ it muft be riecef-
fary ; and if it is not commanded, it muft be
unlawful. But this dilemma can give us no
pain ; for it is a mere fophifm. And the
argument would prove too much, if any
thing at all, viz. that every thing, every
circumjiance in religion muft be either necef-
fary, or unlawful. For a foiution, we judge
it fufficient to fay, That the particular and
precife Wne of baptifm is not the matter of
any divine precept or appointment, (though
baptifm itfelf is fo) but a circumjiance left
undetermined in the chriftian code. Should
any one apply this reafoning to the ordi-
nance of the Lord's Supper y the confequencc
will not afFecl our argument, 'till the reafons
for Infant-communion are difproved [/']. But
the two cafes do not feem to us exaftly
parallel : Becaufe the nature of the folem-
nities is different. For in the adminiftra-
tion of baptifm the baptizer is the agent,
and the party baptized is pajjroe. But, in
the celebration of the Lord's Supper, not
only the adminiftrator, but the recipient alfo

is

JO See Mr. James Peirce's Effay on this fubjed.

( vlii )

is aBlve, For, as he eats and drinks, what
Infants cannot digeft ; fo, according tp
the very nature and defign of that comme-
morative Rite, he is to exercife his under-
ftanding, and memory, in dijcerning the
Lords body, &c. \k'\ aftions, which Infants
cannot perform. As to the Jewifli faffbver^
which was alfo a memorial of another kind,
if Infants partook of it (though this is mat-
ter of difpute) no argument can be urged
from thence in favour of Infant -communion^
but what will conclude more flrongly for
Infant- baptiffn.

[^] 1 Cor. xi. 29. See Mr, Baxter. Plain Scripture-
jproof. ^c. P. 2. ch. 4. •

Section

P^DO-BAP TISM

THE

SECOND PART,

SECTION I,

The previous ^eftion, concerning the perpetui-
ty of Chrijiian-baptifm^ conjidered,

HOUGH Pcedobaptip and
Antipado-bapiifts . both are
generally agreed, that bap-
tifni is 2i Jianding ordinance
of Chrift ; yet^ becaufe feme

^. perfons have raifed a fcruple

upon this head, it is not foreign to the fub-
jedt in hand, to take that matter into confi-
deration. " For, if baptifm, that is to fay,
\\ water-baptifm be ceafed^ then furely bap-
B " tizing

( 10 )

«' tizing of Infants is unwarrantable ;** fays
Mr. Barclay [/].

It is the opinion of thefe people, called
fakers, that water- bapfifm only typified the
baptifm of the Spirit ^ apd fo, as they will
have it, was fuperfeded by it. But accord-
ing to this notion (for which there is not the
leaft foundation, in fcripture, reafon, or fad)
water-baptifm^ which is plainly intended in
XhQ commifficn [;;?], ceafed in the Chriftian
church before it began^ which is very abfurd.
For, as the Chriftian church did not com-
mence till after the death &c. of Chrift [«] ;
fo his Apoftles were not to execute their com-
miffion, before they had received the Holy
Ghojl, which was the baptifm of the Spirit [o].
Nor could they with any propriety baptize
perfons in the name of — the Holy Ghofly be-
fore the Holy Ghoft was adtually given. For,
this form of baptifm was a plain and public
acknowledgment of that divine donation [p].
Hence that queftion, which St. Paul put to
certain perfons, who faid " they had not
" heard that there was a Holy Ghoft : " \c[\
** unto what then were ye baptized V \r'\ Im-
plying,

[/] Apology. Prop. 12. fub fin.

[wj Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. This muft fignify baptizing
with nvater^ not with the Holy Ghoft.

;;/] Vid. Pearfon. Led. i. in Aft Apoft. Op. Pofthum.
0] See Luk.xxiv. 49. Afts i. 8. Mat. iii. 11. Adls i. ^.

P\ in quern enim tingeret ? infpiritum fanclum ?

<^ui nondum a Patre defcenderat in ecclefiam. 'Teriullian de
bapti ''mo.

tf] Aftsxix. 2. [r] ibid. ver. 3.

( II )

plying, that they muft have heard, that
there was a Holy Ghoft^ (viz. " poured forth
'• in his extraordinary gifts,'') [j] if they had
received Chrijtian baptifm : becaufe in the
very form of this baptifm the gift of the Ho-
ly Ghoft was recognized by the naming of Him.
When therefore it is afterwards faid of the
fame perfons, " that they were baptized in the
" name of the Lord Jefm 5" [r] the plain
meaning is, that they received Chrift's bap-
tifm, as contradiftinguifhed from Johns bap-
tifm, which they had received before [«].
But, it feems reafonable to fuppofe, that
they were baptized according to the folemn
form of baptifm, prefcribed by Our Saviour,
and referred to in the Apoftle's qiieftion a-
forefaid ; the fame form of baptifm, that
Juftin Martyr alfo defcribes in his account of
the primitive worfhip [w"]. However, 'tis
very evident, that the baptifm of the Spirit
was adually received, before water-baptifm
really began in the Chriftian church: and
therefore the former could not fuperfede the
latter, as is pretended. — Befides, did not St.
Peter exprefsly order and dired: thofe very
perfons themfelves to be baptized with water,
B 2 ' who

[j] Vid. Dr. J. Owen. Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 6. Rees.
anfwerto Walker, p. 104.

[/] A£lsxix. 5.

[«] Of the difFerence betwixt John's baptifm, and' the
baptifm of Chrift, fee Bp- Burnet on article 27.

\jw] i'j ivofASiTo^ yoo TQVTTc^lfoi KTK* J, Martyr. Apol. 2.

( 12 )

who had received the Holy Ghoft already [^]?
Nay, did he not openly appeal to the com-
mon fenfe and reafon of all men for the juft-
nefs and propriety of the thing? ** Can any
** man (fays he [^],) Jorbidwater^ that thefe
** Jhould not be baptized^ who have received
*' the Holy Ghoi\, as well as weT' Thus
then, the having received the baptifm of the
Spirity was fo far from being thought any ob-
jedlion againd: the ufe or application of water-
baptifm^ that, on the contrary, it is urged
as an unanfwerable argument for it, particu-
larly in the cafe of certain gentiles^ and fo (to
obviate that pretence) not in compliance with
any yewijh prejudices. Therefore, watcr-
baptifm v/as not fuperfeded by the baptifm
of the Spirit, in the courfe and order of gof-
pel miniftrations. For, we fee, the Apoftle
Peter, (who had the honour to receive the
keys of the kingdom of heaven [z], or of the
Gofpel ftate of the church, that he might
firft open the door of faith, both to Jevi's and
Gentiles) admitted fome perfons to baptifm,
who were already baptized with the Holy
Ghoft ; as upon a former occafion alfo he
had directed others to be baptized^ in order
that they might receive the Holy Ghoft [^z].
All which things are fo clear and convincing
to men of candor and fenfe, that it is need-

lefa

[^] Acl. X. 44.48. [)'] ibid. ver. 47.

[»J Mat.xvi. 19. Confer. Luk.xi. 52.. Mat. xxlii. ij.
A^. xiv. 27. [«] A^. ii, 38,

( '3 )

lefs to trouble the Reader with a particular
confutation of the (hallow and fuperficial
reafons, with which Mr. Barclay vainly en-
deavours to fupport his groundlefs hypo-
thefis.

This herefy of the Antiwater-baptifts ap-
pears to be more antient, than the Apohgift
himfelf fuppofed. For, befides the perfons,
'* who (as he fays [^]) teflified againft wa-
*' ter-baptifm in the darkeft times of popery j'*
Tertullian mentions [r] one ^intillay who
declared againft it in his time. — But, there is
another hypothefis, of a much later date and
ftanding, fet up by Socinus, and efpoufed by
fome others, that feem fond of novelties,
(though novelties in religion are the word
kind of rarities, and feldom attended with
the be ft confequences.) Thefe men fuppofe,
that Chrift took the rite of baptifm from the
yews, who are faid to have had a cuftom of
baptizing ProfelyteSy with their children aU
ready born, at their admiffion into the Jew-
iOi church, as being unclean Gentiles : but
their childpen, born afterwards, were not
baptized ^ becaufe they were looked upon as
holy, like native Jews themfelyes. Now,
upon this ground it is concluded, that though
Chrift inftituted baptifm, as the rite of /«/-
tiation into his church for all Chrijtian Pro-
felytes and their children at the beginning; yec
he did not intend it for the ufe of their pofte-

rity,

[^] Barclay Apol. Prop, i2» Seft. lo. M Debaptifma.

( H )

rity, ^s a {landing ordinance. — To which it
may be replied, (i) In relation to Projelyte-
baptifm among the Jews ; this is a point a-
bout which the learned are not agreed, at
leaft as to the antiquity of it. Not only P<^-
do-baptifls^ but Antipado-baptijis differ a-
mongft themfelves, and are divided in their
opinions upon this head [J], It feems there-
fore improper and imprudent, to lay fo much
flrefs, as to build an hypothefis upon fo un-
certain a foundation. (2.) Granting, there
was fuch a pradice among the Jews ; it does
not certainly follow, that Chrift took the
Rite of baptifm from them. For, the Gen-
tiles alfo had their initiatory Rites, and forms
of Luftration^ both for children and others [e'].
And, as the Chriftian religion was framed and
calculated for all nations^ in it*s original con-
ftitution and defign ; It feems a more ration-
al prefumption, that he would adopt his
inftitutions to the rites and ufages of the bulk
of mankind, than to fuppofe that he fuited
them to the cuftoms of the one, fmall, and
defpifed nation of the Jews alone. But (3.)
fuppofe, Chrift did take the rite of baptifm
from the Jews ; it follows not, that he ex-

aaiy

[</J Mr. Tombes, z learned Antipasdo baptift, contended
for it. Examen. p 89. But others on the fame fide of the
queftion have ftrongly oppofed it. See Gale's Relleftions,
&c. Let. 9.

[^] Vid. Clem. Alexand. Strom. 5. Tertullian. de bap-
tifmo. Macrob. Saturnal. Jib. i, cap. 16. Alex, ab Alex.
Genial. Dier. lib. 2. cap. 25.

( ^5 )

aftly conformed to their ufe of baptifm in all
points [f]» On the contrary, it is manifeft,
that he varied from it in one material circum-
ftance, viz, by ordering native yews them-
felves, as well as Gentiles, to be baptized at
their admiffion into the Chriftian church [g].
Thus, Chrift clearly took av/ay the ground
of that partial diftindion, which the Jews
made in their manner of adminiftring bap-
tifm ; as mentioned before. And is it rati-
onal to think, that what he difcountenanced
in thefjjy he would make a pattern, or prece-
dent to his own church in the adminiftration
of baptifm ? Were not the Jews formerly an
holy people, and the true church of God, as
well as the Chriftlans are now, under a diffe-
rent difpenfation ? If then no prerogative of
birth, or defcent, exempted t\\Q former from
Ghriftian baptifm j what ground can there be to
pi ead fuch an exemption for the pofterity of the
latter ; Chrift having plainly fixed this ordi-
nance upon fuch a footing as is common to per-
fons of all pedigrees and defcents, even all the
children oi Adam ? (4.)Though the after-born
children of Jewijh profelytes were not baptiz-
ed, they were circumcifed after the manner
of the Jews'y conformably whereunto the
children of Chriftian parents are to be baptiz-

. ed

[/] See Dr. Benfon's Anfwer to Mr. Emlyn. Eflay on
the public worfhipof Chrillians, chap. 5. feft. 2. edit. 2d.
[g] See Wall's hiltory of Infant-baptifm, Introduftion,

( i6 )

ed through all generations. For, in the or-
der of the divine ceconomy, where the Jew-
ifli circumcifion ended, Chriftian baptifm
began as the facred rite of initiation into God's
{reformed) [h'] Church : but with this Diffe-
rence in the SiibjeSis^ that baptifm is of a lar-
ger extent in its ufe and application : For^
*^ in Chrift Jefus there is neither male norfe^
** male [/]." (5.) There is not the lead: inti-
mation given, that baptifm was only a tempo-
rary inftitution ; nor is there any ground to
fuppofe it from the nature and reafon of the
thing, fince the moral ends of baptifm ftill
remain [k\ no lefs than thofe of the Lorcfs
Supper^ v/hich is acknowledged to be a {land-
ing ordinance in the church of Chrift [/].
The pretencCj that baptifm was only a tem^
porary inftitution, becaufe the commiffion to
baptize was given by Chrift to his Apoftles,
at the firft dtfcipling of the nations^ is without
any foundation. For the fame Commiffion
had been given to them, who were to be em-
ployed in firft planting the Chriftian church,
even fuppofing that baptizing as well as teach-
ings was to be a ftanding ordinance. And
indeed there is the fame reafon to pretend,
that teaching alfo was a temporary inftitution;
becaufe it is included in the fame commiffi-
on

[h'^ Heb. ix. 10. [/] Gal. iii. 28.

\k'] Vid. Limborch. Theolog. Chrift. lib. 5, cap. 6^..

Sta. 5.

[/] I Cor. xj. 23.-26.

( 17 )

on [///] : But the Apoftles, who received this
commiflion, did not underftand, that the full
and final execution of it was confined to them-
felves. For, as in the clofe of it Chrift pro-
mi fed to be with them alway\ even to the end
of the world \n\ ; (a promife v/hicb could
not be verified in their own perfons abftradt-
ly) foj they provided for a fucceflion of gof-
pel-minifters, by fixing flated paftors in every
church {p\ (6.) Xw^^vno^ primitive times
none were admitted to the Lord's Supper^ but
thofe that wxre baptized [/]. But, furely,
the defcendents of Chriflians were admitted
to the Lord's Supper, aud confequently were
baptized [jr], (7.) The novelty of this noti-
on is no fmail prejudice againft it in a juft and
reafonable account. For, fo far as we can
learn, it was never heard of in the Chriftiaa
world before the time of SocinuSy that is, above
1500 years after Chrid, and appears to be a
fond invention of his own. Whatever it wa?,
that fwayed him into this ?7ew opinion, and
fome others after him ; whether it was a de-
fire of aboHfljing the dodrine of the Trinity^
as Dr. PFall guelTed [r] : or, fome diflike to
the dodrine of original Sin, as others may
fufped ', we (liall not take upon us to dettr-
C mine^

C»z] Mat. xxviii. 1 9, 70. [«] Ibid.

[0] A61. xiv. 23. [/»] Vid. J. Martyr, apol. 2.

[q] See Wall's Anfvver to Einl)n, Defence, &c. p. 34. and
Penfon, ubi fupra.
[r] Hift. of Infant-taptifm, Introduftion, fe£l. ^.

( i8 )

mine. But this we pre fume to fay, that fof
any perfons to be prejudiced again (1 the conti-
nuance of baptifm on any fuch accounts is
very abfurd 5 whether baptifm, which is ac*-
knowledged an inftitution of Chrlfl:, hath, or
hath not, any real connexion with the faid
doctrines. For, in the latter cafe, they be-
tray great weaknefs 5 and in the former, they
convid: themfelves of herefy. — Upon the
whole then, the authority of baptifm, and
confequently of Infant- baptifm (fuppofing it
was pradifed at the beginning, which thefe
writers allow according to their own hypo-
thefis) as a perpetual and {landing rite in the
Chriftian church, apparently refts upon a fuf-
ficiently firm and folid foundation-

SECTION II.

No jufl objeBion againft Infant -baptfm from
the nature of the thing, but the contrary.

BY the contemptuous names and epithetSy
which are fometimes given to Infant-
baptifm, (^^ g. baby-baptifra^ childijh baptifm^
cbildijh bufinfs, &c,) it(hould feem that cer-
tain perfons fuppofe, and would infinuate,
that the thing is too ridiculous^ and abfurd in
itfelfto have any place in a religious inftituti-
on. But why Infant'baptifm fliould be more
unworthy of this honour than Infant- circum^

cifm^

( 19 )

cifton, we cannot imagine. And yet the lat-
ter muft be allowed to be a divine ordi-
nance [i]. Will they fay, (as they have fome-
times unadviledly done [^], that Infant-
C 2 church-

[j] Gen. xvii. lo, &c. A<^. vii. 8. Isl. B. It does not ap-
pear, th^t God appointed circumcifion in cotnpliance with any
fuch cikOp. amongft the nations. 'Tis true; the P^y^^;/ writ-
ers pretend that iat f e~MS dtnved.\iiYcmt\iQ Egyptians. (Vid.
Herodot. lib. z. Diodor. Sicul. lib. i. Strabo, Hb. 17. Celfus,
in Origen, lib, i ) And this notion is fo far fc^voured by fomc
mcdern authors, as that they fuppofr^ Circumcifion wasprac-
tifed in Ecypt before it was ufed in Jbraham's family. (Vid.
Mariham, Canon, chronic, p. 72, 207 Edit Lipf. J Cleric,
comment, in Gen. xvii. Bp. Cumberland Sanchoniatho,
p. 150,) But other learned men think with more reafon that
Abraham was the firft pcrfon in the world that was circumcifed.
(Vid Eufeb, de Prsp. evangelic, lib. 7. cap. 8 G. J. VoiT.
Hilt, idolat. lib. 1. cap. 30. Huet Quseu. Ainetan. lib. i.
cap. 12.. fed. 17. Bp. Patrick's Comment, m Gen. xvii. 11,
<&c.) For, it is eafy to conceive that the Egyptians themfelves
might derive circumcifion from one branch or other of his fa-
mily. (See Revelation examined witn candour) Nor is it hard
toguefs from what branch it was fo derived, if the Egyptians
circumcifed their children at 1 4 years of ag.-, according to the
teftimony of St. Amhrofe, (de Abrahamo, lib 2.) alledged by
fundry authors, and not controverted by any, fo far as wc have
feen. (Vid.Marlham. can. chronic, p. 175, &c. Bochart op.
vol.111, eol. 1(22. Spencer de legib. Hebr. p. 59 edit, fol.)
For this was near the Age, that the poilerity of 2/^wW cir-
cumcifed their children. (Vid. Jofeph. J. Antiq. lib. i. Ori-
gen. Philocilia, cap. 23.) And as they fettled upon the borders
of Egypt t Gen. xxv. 18. this might give them an opportunity
to introduce circumcifion amonglt the Egyptians, efpeciaily if
they were the famous Shepherds that invaded them : (Vid.
Jofeph. cont, Apion, lib. i.) and fometook them ior Arabians,
This hint may be of fome ufe in chronology. But the chief de-
fign of this note is to fupport the dignity of circumcifion, as
originally from heaven ; which will excufe the length of it
with every curious and candid reader.

[/] See Keach.anfwer to Owen, p. 84. Burroughs's tWQ
difcourfes relating to pofitive iniiitations, p. 42.

( 20 )

church- member/hip^ and confequently Infant-
baptifm, is too carnal a thing, to fuit thtfpi^
ritual nature of the Chriftian church ? Then,
according to their principles, either the church
of Chrift upon earth is more fpiritual, pure,
and perfed:, in its frame and conftitution,
than the church in heaven ; or infants are no
members of the latter! — Circumcifion indeed
left a mark in the flefh of an infant, which
baptifm does not j and good reafon there is
why it fhould not. For, '' as circumcifion
** w^as a mark in the fefi, it appears to have
** been of a political nature, and defigned as
*' a token to mark and diftinguifli the yews
" from all other nations. But under the
" gofpel fuch a national diftindion is remov-
*^ ed, and therefore it is neither neceffary,
nor proper that there (hould be any lading
mark in the flefh to diftinguifh a peculiar
people, when the gofpel is to be preached
** unto all nations, &c,'' Accordingly, nei-
ther doth Adult -baptifm leave any mark in the
flefh ; and yet who will cenfure or revile it on
this account? — Befides, when the Ifraelites
grew up J that the mark of circumcifion was
not 72atural but artificial, and applied as
a religious rite, how did they know ? By the
information of others only, confirmed by
their own obfervation in feeing infants circum-
cifed every day. Now, the fame fatisfadion
may any Chrifl:ian-man have of his own bap-
tifm,

<c

ct

( 21 )

tifm, though adminiftred in his infancy [v^. —
Moreover, is baptifm a figmficant rite ? So
was circumcifion \w\ And yet a Jewi(h in-
fant knew no more of its fignification, than
any Chriftian infant underflands of his baptifm.
— Further yet ; is baptifm a profejjioit of the
Chrtjiian rehgion, or a rite of initiation into
it ? So was circumcifion a rite of initiation
into the Jewifh reHgion : and yet it was ad-
miniftred not only to the adult, but to infants
by divine appointment. If baptifm be, as
fome reprefent it, an engaging iign ; there
can be no abfurdity in applying it to infants:
for fuch a fign alfo was circumcifion [x].
Therefore the baptifm of Infants, confidered
abllractly in itielf, appears noway? unworthy
to have a place in a religious inftitution. — If
it be faid, the fame thing may be urged in
behalf of Chrifm^ &c. the aniwer is, that it
is not fair to put thefe things upon a levehy
for the cafes are not parallel, *' In the one
" cafe, only ih^fubjedi is the matter in quef-
" tion ; in the other the very things chem-
'* felvesf^']." The ufe of baptifm is allowed
to be a divine appointment. And when it
ihall be proved that the ufe of -Cbrijm^ &c.
alfo is appointed, u g, for the adult, as the

Anti-

\fv\ See Holling worth, Catechifl catechized, p. 43. Wills,
Anfwer to Danverfe, chap. 3 p. 240.
[w] Rom. ii. z8, 29 iv. if.
[^] Gal. V. 3. See Keach, ubi fupra, p. 831 %^,
\y\ See Faedo baptifm, p. S^f 5i'

( 22 )

Antipsedo-baptills acknowledge baptlfm to
be ; then, and not before, may they argue
from the one to the other.

Thus far we have reafoned the cafe from
the nature of the two religious rites, circum-
cifton and baptijm^ compared together j with-
out infixing at prefent, that^ or enquiring
boWy the one fucceeded in the room of the
other. But, laying afide this comparifon, let
us now take a view of Chriftian- baptlfm by
itfelf ; and fee whether there is any thing in
its true and proper notion, which can render
it unapplicable to infants. What then is bap-
tifm as to (h^fulje^ but an ordinance o^ de-
dication ? as Mr. David Rees, an eminent an-
ti-psedo-bapti(l, acknowledges [2:]. This
notion oi ChriJiiaJi-hz^ixim (which is the mat-
ter under confideration) naturally arifes from
the manner of St. Pauh putting that queftion
to the fad;ious Corinthians^ fplit into different
parties [a] Were ye baptized in the name of
Paul? The fame notion is confirmed by his
faying [i], / thank God that I baptized none oj
youy but Crifpus, ^WGaius, left any Jhouldfay
that I had baptized in my own name. This
he faid, not in difparagement of baptifm, but
becaufethey had accidentally made fuch an ill
life of it i and fome amongft them had fet him
up for the head of a party. Since therefore
things had fallen out fo perverfely ; St. Paul

was

[s] Anfwer to Walker, &c. p. 226.

[fi] I Cor. i. 12, 13. [^3 Ibid. ver. 15.

( 23 )

was very glad, and thankful, that he had
given his enemies fo little handle to accufe him
oi making a party to himfelf^ and devoted to
his ov/n intereft. This he calls baptizing in
bis own name. And thus his v^ords plainly
reprefent baptifm, as an ordinance of dedica-
tion. This notion of Chriftlan- baptifm he
fuggefts alfo upon another occafion [c] ; vv^hen
he fpeaks of Chrift ^' fandifying his church
'* by the wajhijig cf 'water ^ &c." ¥ or y fane-
tification commonly fignifies, in fcripture, a
dedication, or con fecration of perfons or things
to a facred ufe. Thus, v, g. the altar is faid
to fanBify the gift [c/] : Becaufe the gift, by-
being laid upon the altar, became a facred
oblation, and fo v/as a thing dedicated to God.
In like manner baptized perfons are properly
faid to be (andtified by the water of baptifm,
in as much as they are dedicated to God by this
facred and folemn rite. Now, according to
this notion of baptifm, and confidering it as
an ordinance of dedication [^], there is nothing
in the nature of the thing to render the baptifm
of infants an unreafonable fervice^ much lefs
ridiculous and ablurd ; if infants are capable
of being dedicated to God, which, we pre-
fume, none will deny. And in truth, -what
is the proper meaning and import of that fo-
lemn

[f] Eph. V. 26. [^/] Mat. xxiii. 19.

[^] This notion of baptifm is £xed on, as being not only
fcriptural, but applicable to all forts of perfons, whether the
cefcendents of Chrifaans, or new convert?.

( 24 )

Itmnform of baptiCm prefcribed byChrift [y ],
(and pradtifed in the primitive church, as was
noted before) viz. " Baptizing them in the
" name of the Father, and of the Son, and
** of the Holy Ghoft?" What doth this
mean or fignify, according to St. Paul's no-
tion of being baptized in the name of any one ?
but a folemn dedication of the party baptized
to the fervice of God, under that religious in-
iiitution, which God the Father publifhed to
the world by Chrift his Son^ and which was
divinely confirmed by the Holy Ghoji. There-
fore, as baptifm is a facred rite oi dedication y
and infants are capable of being dedicated to
God, there is nothing in the nature of the
thing to render it improper for infants 5 efpe-
cially if Infant baptifm hath an apt tendency
to anfwer any valuable ends and purpofes of
religion.

It is taken for granted, that in the nature
and reafon of things there is juft ground for di-
ftingui(l:iing httwixt pofitive and ;;;^r^/ duties.
For, even thofe, that \vould refolve^// moral
obligation into the will of God, add this re-
ftridion, as determined by his moral ferfedli--
ons^^g]. Thus, they iwyp^^ok. moral perfect -
ons^ and moral properties, difiiiiB from the
will of God, independent on it; what deter-
mine it, and fo are not determined by it.

But

[/] Mat. xxviii. 19.

\g) See Dr. Gill's refleaions on Mr. S. Chandler's Refor^
mation Sermon,

( 25 )

But then, as all divine inftitutions are the ap-
pointments of divine wifdom; it is moft ra-
tional to think, that they are well chofen, and
wifely calculated, to anfwer feme excellent
and ufeful ends. Therefore Chriftian-baptifm
itfelf, though a pofitive rite, muft be fuppof-
ed to have its moral ends and ufes. Let us
then modeftly enquire whether baptifm, as
applied to infants, hath not an apparent fit-
nefs, aptitude and tendency to ferve fome
worthy purpofes of religion. Now, that it
hath fo, feems very eafy to conceive in the
following viewSj without indulging an extra-
vagant fancy.

(i.) With refped to G^^ himfelf ;. as aa
aptly expreffive fign and token^ not only of his
claim ^ but of K\s favour to infants. And con-
fidering the human race, as related to a firjly
and a fecond Adam, according to St. PauN
account [Id], which we cannot but prefer to
any modern hypothefes ; fuch a token and
fignification of the divine regards to poor in-
fants, and of their concern with a Redeemer,
appears very worthy the Father of mercies ^
v/ho hath made the moft ample difcoveries
of his love and grace to the children of men
under the Chriftian difpenfation*

(2.) With relation to Chriftian parents*
Doth it not minifter great comfort to them,
when they fee fo much notice taken of their
dear infants, living or dying, in a difpenfa*

D tion

[b1 Rom.v. 12—19. I Cor.xv.2i5 2«,

( 26 )

tion of mercy to a lapfed world ? Befides, by
confenting to their children's baptifm, and con-
curring in it, they make that folemn profef-
,iion of Chriftianity, and lay themfelves un-
der thofe voluntary engagements, which have
a happy tendency to imprefs their own fouls
with a more lively fenfe of religion, and there-
by excite them to adt a part worthy of the
Chriftian name and charadler, particularly
towards their children.

(3.) In reference to their children^ who
may be benefited by their baptifm. That
Chrift hath a blejjing for infants, we may af-
furedly conclude from his taking them up in
his arms, and blefjing them^ upon a certain
occafion [/]. And if it is rational to recom-
mend infants to God by prayer; why is it im-
proper, in the nature of the thing, to dedi-
cate them to God by baptifm ? And why may
not a divine bleffing be as likely to attend the
one adion, as the other; though the infants
themfelves are equally ignorant of both ; and
can no more join in the pious recommendation,
than concur in the baptifmal dedication ? Be-
fides, the part, which the parents are fup-
pofed to adt in this affair, hath a tenden-
cy to fecure their bed affediions and regards
to their children, ftrongly prompting them to
bring them up in the nurture and admonition cj
the Lord, For after fuch a folemn tran fac-
tion, they muft look upon the young crea-
tures,

[0 Markx. I5f i6r Luke xviii. 15.'

( 27 )

tiires, as devoted things, as confecrated things,
whom they themfelves, by defiring their
baptifm, have given up to God And there-
fore^ (not to mention here the particular en-
gagements which the fponfors enter into up-
on the occafion,) they can no more negled:
the religious education of their children,
than a perfon could alienate a facrcd ob-
lation from God, without being guilty of
facriledge. — To which add, as children grow
up, the frequent y?^/;?^ of other Infants bap-
tized, hath an apt tendency to afFed their
tender minds, in the refledion, with the
folemnity of their own baptifmal dedication
to Goil, and fo infpire them with an early
(<d\\k of religion, and a proper concern ,to
a6l fuitably to the divine deftination in cart-
ing their lot under the facred miniftrations
of the Gofpel.

(4.) With regard to the honour and credit
of chrijlianity. It is the glory of the Gof-
pel, that it is a full and final revelation of
the grace of God. If then the grace of
God at all extends to Infants ; it feems very
congruous and agreeable to the nature and
genius of this falutary difpenfation, that there
Ihould be fome appointed ftgn and token of
it in the chriflian church. And what fo
proper as baptifm ? Befides, as other re-
ligions had their facred rites for Infants j
would not the chriftian religion, without
fqme thing of that kind, have appeared in
D 2 the

(C

( 28)

the eyes of the world an imperfect inftltu-
tion r Nay, would not chriflianity have
been thought an unnatural religion, if it had
caufed fo great a feparation betwixt parents
and children, as only to admit the former
into^ and excommunicate the latter from,
the vifible church of God ? '' Nature, (fays
'" Mr. Baxter [/^] ) hath adually taught moft
people on earth, fo far as I can learn, to
repute their Infants in the fame religous
" fociety with themfelves, as well as in the
" fame cixtl fociety." — There is one circum-
fiance which may defer ve fome little notice,
iHz. That as the Jews named their children
at the time of their circumcijion [/j ; fo the
Heathens gave n;.mes to their children at
the time of their lufiration [w] ; in hke
manner as it is ufual with chriftians to men-
tion the names of their children at the time
of baptifm. This conformity of cuftoms is
fomewhat remarkable, and feems to have a
language, that fpeaks in favour of the com-
mon

l^k] More proofs of Infants church -niemberfhip, &c.
P. 112.

[/] See Luk. i. 59, — 63. ii. 21.

l^m] Eft autem dies lujiricusy qua infantes luftrantur, et
jwmen accipiunt. Macrob. Satumal, lib. i. cap. 16. Mari-
bus qui nono die poftquam in lucejn editi fuiifent, feminis
vero odavo, nomina imponerent, nonnunquam feptimo, qui
dies lujirkus nomen habet. — Ab Athenienfihus vero, et omni
fere Gracia, decimo a natali die infanti nomen imponere fer-
vatum eft. JJlex ah. Jlex. Genial. Dier. lib. 2. cap. 25.
In prime infantum baptifmate imponitur nomen. Hyde,
Rtlig, Vet, Perjarum. Cap. zS. Confer, iv?/', 34.

( 29 )

mon pradice in baptizing Infants, as a thing
agreeable to the common notions and appre-
henfions of mankind ; fince there is fuch
a general agreement in a circum fiance fo
minute.

Upon the whole then it is manifeft, that
no reafonable objecftion lieth againft Infant-
baptifm from the iiatiire of the thing itfelf ^
hut the contrary. For, it plainly is fuch a
Rite as Hcbreivs^ Greeks^ aiid Komans^ even
all the world, would naturally approve, as
a proper religious ceremony.

SECTION III.

The Objeclion from ivant of an Example
confidered,

TH I S is one popular plea of the Anti-
paedo-baptifts, ^72;. '* That there is
" no ijiftancCy or example^ in Scripture, of
'^ baptizing Infants ; but frequent mention
^* is made of baptizing Believers, or the
*' Adult." To which the anfvver is as
follows.

(i.) Believers, or Adult perfons were of
courfe to be baptized at the lirft adminiftra-
tion of baptifm, as a rite of the chrijiian
church ; fuppoling, that Infants alfo were
to be, and actually were admitted to bap-
tifm. For, as circumcifion was introduced
into Abrahafn'% family upon the ground of

his

(30)

K\s faith [;;] : (o chriftian-baptifm could not
be regularly introduced into any families
without being firfl: adminiftred to their be-
lieving heads and governors ; at the time of
the firft inftitution and admSniftration of
thefe different rites refpedively. Therefore
how numerous foever the examples of Be-
lievers, or Adult- baptifm, are in the hiftory
of the firji planting of the chrifiian church,
when chriftian-baptifm was a 72ew thing ;
this is no difproof at all of Infant-baptifm
in thofe days, (though it may look very
plaufible in the eyes of the vulgar, and is
apt enough to impofe upon their weak un-
derflandings from a partial view of things,
^nd not attending to all the circumftances of
the cafe). For, thofe examples of Adult-
baptifm had been as numerous, as they are,
for the reafon aforefaid, even upon the fup-
polition, that Infants alfo were baptized at
that time ; and fo can be no proof of the
contrary. And though fome people would
lay fo much ftrefs upon that circumftance,
as if it was little lefs than demonftration j it
fhould be confidered, that not one of all thofe
indances relates to perfons, whofe parents
were chriJiianSy or - members of the chriftian
church, at the time of their birth. Con-
fequently their being baptized at Adult age
is no argument, that the Infants of baptized
chriftians were not baptized thernfelves. But

of

[«] See Paedo-baptifm, p. i .

( 31 )

of all the examples of Adult-baptifm reeord-
ed in the New Teftament, none is common-
ly produced with greater pomp, nor yet any
one urged with more impertinency, than
that of the Eunuch [c]. As if the baptizing
not only of a newy but a childlefs convert, an
Eunuch, was any proof that the Infants of
chriftian converts and believers vt'ere not
baptized in thofe days !

(2.) The Scripture fpeaks oi whole houfe-
holds being baptized together [/>]. Therefore
the children, Infants and others, were bap-
tized along with the reft, if any fuch vi^ere
in thofe families ^ and the contrary cannot
be proved. But, we are told by a dignified
writer [5^], " They ought not to put it upon
*' us to prove the negative y to prove that
*' there were none, this is unfair." Well,
we will then be fo fair, as only to put it up-
on them to prove, if they can, this affinna^
iivey viz. That all the members of thofe
baptized houfeholds were Adult -perfons.
And this we may demand, without any un-
fairnefs, from them, who lay the whole
flrefs of their argument upon it; and there-
fore ought not to take the thing for granted
without proof; fuch /)Az/;; proof, as they arc
wont to infift upon themfelves. In thefe
baptized houfeholds it is pojjibky there might

be

[b] A61. viii. 27 — 39.

[^] Aft. xvi. 15, 34. xviii, 8, i^c.

\q\ Dr. Giil. Divine Right of Infant baptifm examined,
d'r. p. 83.

( 32 )

be feme Infants, or young children 5 and
therefore no man can be certain of the con-
trary. Nay, more ; it feems highly probable^
as to fome of thefe families ; as well as in
the families of the Shechemites^ when all
their males were circumcifed [r], and con-
fequently their male-:nfants 5 although In-
fants are exprefsly named in neither cafe.
For it is obfervable, that in fome of the in-
ftances referred to, the whole houfe is faid
to believe [s]. But in others, nothing is faid,
or hinted, that the whole houfe believed,
but that the head of the family believing,
they were all baptized [/]. This diftindtion
deferves fome attention in an argument^
formed upon plain fcripture language. For,
as it is very fuppofable, that there might be
young children and minors in fome families,
and none but grcw7i perfons in others , fo, if
there was not this difference in thofe bap-
tized houfeholds ; let them, that fay fo, ac-
count for the different manner of expreffion,
ufed by the facred Fliftorian in fpeaking of
them. Will they affirm, that all the mem-
bers, e, g. of Lydias family were Adult-
perfons, and believers ^ though the hillory
is Jilent about it ? Let them judge then of"
the force of their own argument from the
Jilence of Scripture concerning the baptifm

of

[r] Gen. xxxiv. 22«— 24.
[j] A<a. xvi. 34. xviii. 8.
\t'\ Adt. xvi. 15.

( 33 )
of Infants, particularly in the inftaaces un-
der confideration. Have not we as much
right to affert this facSl, as they can have to
maintain the other, without any exprefs
mention of it in Scripture [i;] ? But, it is
urged [w]j '^ As for Lydia^ it is not certain,
" in what flate of life fhe was, &cJ* Now,
if fo, (to join iiTue here) then fhe might be
a wije^ or a widow, and (he might have
children, yea little children. Nor is it rational
to think, that fhe would have kept hgufe, as
fhe did, at Philippi [x\ where flie had her
family with her [^j 5 and leave her childrea
at Thyatira, from whence fhe came 5 but
not as a travelling pedlar to fell her purple
at the fair, which is ail fidtion ; for, could'
fhe not be a feller of purple y and yet a fhop"
keeper, as fhe plainly was an houfe- keeper ?
It is faid indeed, that fhe was a woman of
Thyatira, But, to argue and conclude from
hence, *^ that this city, and not Philippic
*' was now the place of her ufual refidence,
*' and ftated abode ;" This wtiy of reafon-
ing, which many have ufed \z], is falfe
criticifin. For, perfons are faid in Scripture
to be oi fuch, ov fuch a place, to- denote the
place where they were born, or brought up

[fu\ See Walker's modeftPlea, ^c ch. 30, §. 27.

[w] Dr, Gill, ubi fupra.

[;r] Aa. xvi. 15. [j] Ibid.

[%\ See Keach, anfwer to Burkit, p. 125. Stennet,
anfwer to RuiTen, p. 31. Rees, aufwer to Walker, p.
35, ^c,

E the

( 34)
the place from whence they came, and to
which they originally belonged ; though
they had removed their habitation from
thence, and fettled in fome other town or
country. Thus e. g, Mijafon^ an old Dif-
ciple, is faid to be of Cyprus -, and yet he
lived, and kept houfe at yernjalem [a]. And
thus again (to mention a moft illuftrious
inftance) our bleffed Saviour himfelf is com-
monly called Jefus of Nazareth -, (the very
infcription upon his crofs [I?] !) though, leav-
ing Nazareth, where he had been brought up
\c]y he ca?ne and dwelt at Capenmum [^}.
Therefore, laying all circumftances together^
there is not the leaft ground to conclude any
other, but that Philippi was the place of
her fettled habitation, at the time oi Lydids.
embracing the Chriftian faith in that city ;
in confequence of which not only (he her-
felf, but her houfehold alfo was baptized,
though not a fyllable is faid of her houfehold
believing. As {he is called a worfiipper oj
God \_e']y (he appears to have been a devout
Gentik ; and, knowing it to be the cuftom
of the Jewifli church to receive Profelytes
together with their children, this eafily ac-
counts for it, that (he defired her houfehold
might be baptized with herfelf, and had her
defire grar^ted. After all> though we infift

upon

{a'\ A£l. xxi. 1 6. Vid, Knatchbull. in loc.
{b\ Joh. xix. 19. [<:] Luk. iv. 16.

\d\ Mat, iv, 15, \t\ A(^»xvi. 14.

( 35 )

upon It, that there is no evidence, and juftly
demand a proof, that all the members of
her family were Adult-perfons, or believers;
yet, that there vs^ere none fuch befides herfelf,
we neither prefume to fay, nor are obliged
by our argument to maintain.

(3.) There are fome texts of Scripture,
that feem to prove, diredtly or confequential-
ly, that Infants were baptized in the Apoiiles
days. St. Paul was blamed for *' teaching
* ' the jfewsy which were among the Gentiles^
** that they ought not to circumcife their chil-
" dren*' [/]. And would he not have been
blamed ftili more, if he had not ordered their
children to be baptized^ but left them entire-
ly detlimte of any thing to fupply the room
of circumcifion ? As *' circumclfion ceafed to
*' be an ordinance of God at the death of
*' Chrift," according to Mr. Rees\g\\ So,
Chrijiian baptifm (that is, baptifm as admi-
niftered in the Chriftian church, which com-
menced ajtcr the death of Chrift) fucceeded
the Jewijh circumcifion in the order of the
divine oeconomy. And it is matter of fpecial
obfervation, ihzt one main ground of St. Paul's
oppofing the continuaJice of circumcifion was
the fufficiency of baptifm without it. For,
fpeaking of Chrift, he tells the ColoJJiam \h\
*' And ye are complete in hinty which is the
" head of all frijicipality and power. In
E 2 ** niohom

[/] Aft. xxi. 21. [^] Anfwer to Walker, p. 70.

\]}\ Coloff. 14. xo,— 12.

(36 )

^^ whom alfoye are circcmcifed mth the citr
" cumcijion made without hands ^ in putting off
*' the body of thejins rf the Jlefij by the circum-
*' cifion of Chrift: Buried with him in ba-p-
'* tifm, &c/' In thefe words. He is the
head of all principality and power ^ there is a
plain allufion, or at leaft an apt correfponden-
cy to that declaration of Chrift, which he
made at the very time, when he inftituted the
ordinance of Chriftian-baptifm [/]: ** AUpow-
** er is given unto me in heaven^ and in earthy
And thus, the Apoftle's difcourfe implies, that
fince Chrift by the fulnefs of his authority did
not appoint circumcifion, but baptijm to be ufed
in his church ; therefore, by having the lat--
ter Chriftians were complete^ without theyir-
mer. It is plain then, that St, Paul oppofed
the continuance of circumcifion upon this
ground and foundation, viz. That baptifm
Mvz.^ fufficiefit without it, as was hinted before;
and fo rendered itunneceffary for the difciples
of Chrift to be circumcifed after the manner
of Mofes [k\ Therefore thofe, whom St.
Paul was not for having circumcifed^ were
baptized. But, it is faid, he was not for hav-
ing the children of the convert fews among
the Gentiles circumcifed : Therefore fuch
children (and by parity of reafon others alfo)
were baptized ; and baptized in their infancy :
Otherwife, they had nothing to fupply the
want of circumcifion, nothing to render if

fuperflijious

[?] Mat. xxviii. i8. [hi] Afts xv. i.

( 37 )

faperfluous to them, or to make them complete
Without it, according to his own argument,
r — Again. In order to perfuade Ch'ijlian men
and women to cohabit with their unbelieving
husbands and wives, the Apoftle makes ufe of
this argument [/] ; *' For^ the unbelieving
** husband is fan5iijied by the wife^ and the unbe^
*' lieving wife is fanBtfied by the husband ; elfe
*' loere your children unclean, but now are they
" hohr " An invincible argument (fays
" a worthy man [wj, for Pcedo-boptifmy
And fuch probably it would appear ^/j^/^y^fo
tQ any one, that viewed it with an unprejudiced
eye. For, what can be more namral, thaa
the learned KnatcbbuWs account of this paf-
fage? " Elfe, unlefs one of the parents were
'* a believer, your children vvcre unclean,
" that is, remain heathen, as the children of
" that parent, that v/as KXviTog uytog, called a
*' faint y or reputed a believer, were reputed
*' faints, and holy alfo, and confequently
*' admitted to the participation of baptifm, as
** the fon of a profelyte was capable of cir-
** cumcifion, ^c. [n'].' Thus, their children
were holy not merely in a civil , but in an ec-
clefiaftical icnk ; and if by this term the Apo-
i!le had meant the fame with legitimate ^ he
might have ufed a more proper word to ex-

prefs

[/] I Cor. vii. i^.

[m] Increafe Mather. Difcourfe concerning the fubjed of
baptifm. p. 18.

[«] Sir N. Knatchbull in loc. confer. Dr. Hammond.
Quxre4.fec. 3! 37.

( 38 )

prefs that Idea [o]. Indeed by underftanding
this holinels of believers children to denote
their legitimacy, the Antipcedo baptijls involve
themfelves in inextricable difficulties; as fun-
dry writers have {hewed [/>]. As for that
Rabbinical phrafe of a woman ^fanEl if ying her-
felf to a marly to fignify her becoming hi%
wife [q\ ; this is not parallel to the Apoftle's
expreffion, when he fpeaks of an unbeliever
being fandtified by (or in) the believer. For,
he plainly intends fuch a fandification, as doth
not refult from the relation betwixt husband
and wife as fuch-, but only as the one is a be-
liever, and fo the injlrument oi i:a.n(X\iy\ngt\\Q
other, to the end of producing an holy feed,
Befides, if the word, fajiBifiedy here fignifies
the being ejpoufed or married j St. Paul told
them nothing, but what they knew before.
For, this is the very cafe fuppofed in calling
them husband 2ind wife ',a.nd fo they could have
no doubt about it, nor therefore could they quef-
tion the legitimacy of their iffue. On the other
hand, if they were fatisfied of the legitimacy of
their children(as the form of the Apoftle's argu-
ment would imply, according to this conltruc-
tion of his words) how could they doubt, or
want to be refolved about (the rm/jlawfulnefs
of thdrown marriage or cohabitation? In fiiort;

if

[o] See Whitby in loc.

^] SeeMarfhalPs AnfwertoTombes, p. 14^, «fC. Blake's
ditto, chap. 7. Wills. Anfwer to Danverfc, P. 2, 162, &c.
Dr. Fcatlcy's Dippers dipped, p. 36, 57.

[^] See Dr. Gill, comment, in loc.

( 39 )

if the marriage-union, vjhcxthy twain became
one feJJoy be fuppofed the remote ground of
th\s faiiBification, the Apoftle fpeaks of; yet
the proximate caufe, and the formal reafon of
it manifeftly is, one of the parcies being a
chrijlian believtr. For, \i lawful wedlock were
all that is intended by it; xh^ believer might
as well have been faid to be fandified by the
unbeliever y as vice verjdx as hath been often
alledged, but to no purpofe, for the convidti-
on of thofe good men, who having once im-
bibed a falfe notion of the novelty of Infant-
baptifm, think themfelves obliged (as they
certainly are, fo long as that is their notion)
to ftrain any text to any fenfe, and to embrace
^ny interpretation, however forced and unna-
tural, rather than admit fuch a conftrudion,
as militates with thpir own preconceived opi-
nion. But to us, who labour under no fuch
prejudice, and can with an unbiafled mind
attend to the current fenfe, and the native
force of fcripture-langu^ige, the words of St.
Paul before us appear to imply the church-
fnemberjhip, and confequently the baptifm of
believers children fo ilrongly, as that we are
entirely fatisfied with this proof of xh^ fadt^
without further enquiry [r],

(4.) The

[r] By the holinefs of believer's children fome think the
ApoUle meant their baptifm itfelf. ^ertullian gloffing upon
his words underflands, a holinefs by the prerogativi oi birth,
and by the difciplim of injUtutiQn, He reprefents the children

of

( 40 )

(4.) The moft fanguine oppofers of Infant-
baptifm are called upon to produce an example
from Scripture oithoxi'own pradice in waving
the baptilni of believers children^ 'till they are
of age ; or a fmgle inftance of any fuch children
being baptised at riper years upon a perfonai
profeffion of their own faith. If they can
produce fuch an example j why have they ne-
ver yet done it? And if they cannot; then
they muft be obliged either to grant them-
felves, that the children of believers were not
baptized at all, and fo yield the point to the
Socima?2Sy or take it for granted that they were
baptized feme time, though the Scripture is
Jiknt about it. Now, if they fuppofe the
filence of fcripture to be no difproof of their
own way ; with what confiftency can they ar-
gue from the filence of Scripture againft our
way? And with what prudence can they infift
upon an argument, which, if ic had a better
foundation than it really hath, maybefoea-
fily retorted upon them ? Poffibly, lome

injudicious

of helu^vers as candidates for holrnefs hy birth ; and JTiade holy
hy bapti/jn^ ?.s he explains himfelfai'terwards, faying, *' He
•* (viz. St, Paul) remembered our Lord's definition,. Except
•* a man be born of 'water and of the Spirit i he Jh all not enter
'* into the kingdom of God ; that is, he (hall not ht holy.'*''
This baptifmal holinefs plainly is what he refers to by the dif-
cipllne ofinjiitution, which he oppofes to itiQ fuperjiitious rites
ufed about the children of heathens y in like manner as he
m2ik&i>i\iQ cWAdixtnoibeli elvers candidates for holinefs by birth,
hy way of contrail to the children of Infidels, whom he ftiles
candidates of demons^ to which they were early dedicattd, lib.
de anima, cap. 39,

( 41 )

injudicious people may imagine, that the adult-
perfons, baptized by the Apoftles, were ^^w/-
ed baptifm in their infancy ; otherwife they
had been baptized before. But, they widely
miftake the cafes : for, in the ifjfancy of thofe
perfons, their parents were not Chri/lians, that
is, members of the Chrijlian church 5 but Jews
or heathens. The Chriftian church was not
then in being, nor confequently was baptifm,
as a Chrijlian ordinance, adminiftred at that
time. — Here, by the way, one may juftly
Vvonder what a certain anonymous writer (for
fome fuch have appeared on the other fide of
the queftion, it is likely without being ap^med
of their name or caufe) had in his head, when
he asked that wife queftion 5 *' If any might
*' be baptized in infancy, why not Chriji him-
" felf, whofe example was to be a pattern to
** his followers, even to tlie end of the
" world [5] ?" Alas ! when Chrift was born,
yohn Baptiji^ his immediate forerunner, and
the perfon appointed to adminifter baptifm to
the Jews (not to Chriftians) was himfelf but
Jix months old [/]. How then could Chrift^
according to that difpenfation, have been bap-
tized in his infancy ; unlefs an infant was to
be his baptizer ? But it is certain, that (as he
was baptized without a confeffiony fo) he was
drcumcifed in his infancy ["jjj and in this

F view,

[j] Platn account of the facred ordinance of baptifm, p. 52.
confer. Keach Anfwer to Owen, p. 2 3 2.
[/] Lukei. 56. M Lukeii. 21,

( 42 )

view, mutatis mutandis ; his example may be
confidcred as a pattern to his followers. Be-
fides, John's baptil'm was only preparatory^
not initiatory : for, if Chrift himfelf *' did
** not fet up in his own days on earth a vi-
•' fible church, difcipline, and worship di-
*' jflina from the Jewifh" as Mr. Tombes
corJefeth [w] ; much lefs did John enter per-
ions into any new church-relation. And tho'
** he was the greateft of prophets ; yet he,
*' that is the kaft in the kingdom of heaven
" is greater than he [x]^ Therefore, if it
fhould be allowed that John baptized none
but aduk perfons ; this is nothing to the pre-
fent purpofe, nor any way afFeds our argu-
ment; efpecially, when the oppofers of In-
fant-baptifm reafon in fuch a manner from
his adminiftration, as would equally exclude
infants frcm haptifm ^nA fahation. An ab-
furdity, that flicks fo clofe to their hypothefig,
as that they can fcare avoid faUing into it almofl
upon all occafions [y\ — But to proceed. It
is faid of the Samaritans [^], *^ When they
** believed Philips preaching the things con-
*^ cerning the kingdom of God, and the name
** of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized both
" ?nen and women'' Now, as this was the
Jirjt planting of the Chriftian church \n Sama-
ria, that believerSy both men and women^ were

baptized,

[iv] Examen. p. 88. \_x] Mat. xi. 1 1,

\_y'] See Dr. Giirs comment, in Mat. iii. g.
[«] A^. viiju 12.

< 43 )
baptizec^, was a thing of courfe, and what
muft have happened, even fuppofing that
their children alio were baptized. But there-
fore neither this, nor any other inftance of the
like nature, can be any difproof of Infant-
baptifoi; as is cooin^only pretended by its
oppofers. For, as thefe men and women
were not bornofC/^r/"/?/^;? parents themfelves;
fo, nothing at all being faid of their children,
whether they were, or were not then, or ever
after baptized ; no conclufion can be drawn
from the hiflory to prove the negative '^ be-
caufe, it fays not, that none but men and wo-
men, or that men and women ofily^ were
baptized. Befides, thefe terms, men and
women^ may chiefly denote here males^ and
females^ without refped: of age \_a\, ^' And
" there was a more fpecial reafon for men-
'' tioning the baptifm of females, than of
" children y as circumcijion had been limited
*^ to the males under th^ former difpenfati-
" on [by In fhort ; neither this, nor any
other paffage of Scripture, exhibits any inftance
or example of the pradlice followed by thofe,
who deny baptifm to believers children 'till
they are of age, and capable to make a pro-
feffion of their faith. Thus, their own objec-
tion returns home upon themfelves,

F 2 S E a

f/2] Vid. Levit. xili. 29— 38. Nam. v. 2, 3.
[^i See Blake, anfwer to Blackwood, p. 28. Hufle/. ai>-
fwer to Torabes, p. 5.

( 44 )

SECTION IV.

Tbe Obje5lio7i from the want of a Com-
mand C07tftdered,

IT is further objcded againft Infant-bap-
tifm that. There is no command for it
in Scripture. Now, to this it is replied,

(i.) There was no occafion for a particular
and exprefs command to baptize Infants,
even fuppofing, that they alfo, as well as
others, were to be baptized ; but a general
command to baptize was a fufBcient rule of
direction, to introduce and authorife this
practice. For, the Apoftles of Chrift, to
whom the great commiflion oi difcipling, or
profelyting, all nations by baptizing them,
&c. was immediately given, were members
of the Jewifli church and nation, and fo
muft have been well acquainted with the
Jewifli rites and cuftoms. Now (not to in-
iift upon what many learned men have faid
of a cuftom among the Jews to baptize the
children of Gentile profelytes together with
their parents) it is certain that the profelytes,
of right ecufnefs, and their children were cir-
cumcifed after the manner of the yews [^];
a cuflom, which the judaizing chriftians
were for maintaining iii the chriftian church
[d]* This matter, perhaps, is not confidered

with

H Vid. Corn. Tacit, hift. lib. 5. [^ Aft. xv. i.

{ 45 )
with proper attention. Thofe that ^vould
dijiinguijh away the right and title of be-
lievers children to the Abraham c^ or Gof-
pel-covenant \e\ both fign and things al-
ledge, that they are in no fenfe the feed of
Jlbraham-y not his natural feed ; becaufe not
lineally defcended from him : nor his fpiri-
fualfted', becaufe they want /^/Vi?, though
their believing parents, like Abraham^ have
it. But, in what ^/^i, w^ill they rank the
yewijh profelytes ? Jf in either, doubtlefs,
in that of K\% fpiritual feed ; to whom there-
fore the fpiritual part of the covenant be-
longed. And yet circumcifion was applied
to the children of thofe believers, as well as
to themfelves. And thus, the Apoftles had
a plain rule of diredion to proceed by in
admin iftring baptifm to chrtjiian profelytes
and their children, when this ordinance, as
the rite of initiation, came in the room of
circumcifion. For, had Chrift commanded
his Apoftles ta go and profelyte all nations
hy circumcifing them, £f^. What could they
have underftood by fuch a command, with-
out any other explication ; but that parents
and their children were both a like t(jlbe
Teceived into the chriftian church by cir-
cumcifion, according to the ufage of the
Jewifh church ? In like manner, when
circumcifion was laid afide, and that wall of
partition removed [y], as, the very order to

difciple

H See Gd. Hi. 17. ['/] F^h. ii. 14, 15.

C 46 )

iUfcipk all nations [g\ implied ^ when, upon
the abolition of this initiatory rite, baptifm
was appointed as the rite of initiation in the
chriftian church ; the Apoflles would na-
turally, and even necejffarily conclude, that
parents and their children were to be equally
received into the chriftian church by bap-
tifm; efpecially having been told before
with refpeft to Infants themfelves, that of
fuch is the kingdom of heaven \}j\ Therefore,
z general command to baptize, which is not
denied, was fufEcient to dired;, and authorife
the pra^^ice of baptizing Infants. Confe-
quently, there was no accafion for a parti-
cular and exprefs command to baptize themy
even fuppofing that Infants, as well as others,
were to be baptized. So that the want of
fuch a command is weakly urged as an ob-
jedion againft Infant-baptifm : efpecially, if
it be confidered on the other hand \

(2.) There was a real neceflity for o^plain^
and exprefs prohibition of Infant-baptifm^ at
the repeal of Infant -circumcif on, if Infants
were not to be baptized : but no fuch prohi-
bition appears, nor can be produced. This
is a matter of the utmoft confequence in the
prefent debate; and, as our writers think, is
the very hinge,, on which the controverfy

turns.

[g] Mat, xxviii. 19.

\h'] Mat. xix. 14. Luk. xvili. 15,16. " —The literal
" m(^^.nmg of thefenvords\s, that little children may be ad-
" mitted into the difpenfation of the Meffiah, and by con-
« fequence may be baptized." Bp, Burnet, on Artie. ?;.

( 47 )
tarns. For why ? Children, hifants and
others, had been admitted to the initiatory
rite before, at the reception of profelytes in-
to the church of God under the yewijh dif-
penfation ; as hath been already obferved.
If then, at the time of reformation [/] under
the Gofpel, when the church of God was-
new modelled, fo great an alteration was
intended in it's conftitution, as that Infants
fliould be wholly excommunicated, like aliens-
zndijir angers, without any facrament or fgn
of falvation ; had this been the cafe, there
was a plain neceffity for a pofitive and ex-
^xzk prohibition of their baptifm. But, we
fay it again, no fuch prohibition can be
found. Here the Scripture is profoundly
filent, where one might rationally have ex-
ped:ed it to fpeak clearly outj if Infant-
baptifm had not been agreeable to the mind
of Chrijl, and as fuitable to the nature of the
Chriftian-inffitution, as Infant-circumcifion
was to the Jewifh difpenfation ! Says the
great Stilling feet [/^], *' It is an evidence,
<' that Infants are not to be excluded from
*^ baptifm, becaufe there is no divine law,
" which doth prohibit their adfniflion into
** the church by it; for, this is the negative
" of a law ; and if it had been ChrilVs in-
" tention to have excluded any from ad-
*' miffion into the church, who v/ere ad-

«' mitted

[/] Heb. ix. lo.

£i] Irenicum, p. 7, 8. Edit. 2d.

(4S)
«* mitted before, as Infants vvere, there rniift
" have been fome toHtrce law, whereby
" fuch an intenlion of Chrift fhould have
" been expreffed : For, nothing can make
«* that unlawful, Vv^hich was a duty before,
'^ but a diredt and exprefs prohibition from
** the legiflator himfeif, who alone hath
** power to refcind, as well as eo make
** laws. And therefore Antipedo bapitiils
*^ muft, inftead of requiring a poiitive com^
*^ mand for baptizing Infants, themfelves
*^ produce an exprefs prohibition exluding
" them, &;c. [/]"' To all which add ; when
Chrift, upon a certain occafion, fpakc fo
favourably of Infants, and children in arms^
as to declare publickly, that of fuch is the
kingdom of God {m\ ; it had been highly pro-
per, in order to prevent any miftake upon
this head, to forbid the baptifm of Infants,
if Infants were not to have been baptized in
his church. Therefore, the remark, which
hath been made upon that cafe by fome
noted writers on the other fide [/z], may
be ftrongly retorted thiis\ *' Chrift*s intire
*^ filcnce about the txclnfon of Infants from
" baptifm at this time, when he had fuch
** an. opportunity of fpeaking of it to his

" difciples,

[/] See this point well argued by Mr. Baxter. Plam
Scripture-proof of Infants church -memberfhip, ^c. P. i,
ch. 5, esfr.

[m] Mark x. Luk. xviii. ubi fupra.

[»] Dr. Gill. Comment in Mai xix. 1 4. Rees, an-
fwer to Walker, p. ^6. •

(49)

^^ difciples, had it been his will, hath no
*^ favourable afpcd: on fuch a practice/'
But, if the filence of Chrift upon that oc-
cafion difcountenances fuch a practice ; how
much more \i\sfpcech? when he faid, " Siif-
'^ fer little children to come unto me \o\ and
*' forbid them not : for of fuch is the kingdom
" of heaven : " * that kingdom, which q, d.

* you are all expeding under the Meffah^

* purfuant to the antient prophecies [/>], and
' into which kingdom baptifm is to be the

* folemn rite of admiffion [y]/

(3.) After all J we feem to have a plain
command for baptizing children^ without any
limitation of age. And this command oc-
curs, where one might naturally exped: it,
i;/2;. at ihQ frf openi?ig of the Chrifian dif-
penfation on the day of Pentecoft by St.
Peter -, who upon that great and folemn oc-
cafion delivered, in the^ audience of a vaft
aflembly, the following words, amongft
others [r], '^ Repent, and be baptized, every
" one of you ^ in the name oiyefus Chrijl, for
" the remiffion of Sins, and ye fliall receive
*' the Holy Ghoji, For, the promije is unto
'* you, and to your children, and to all that
" are afar off, even as many as the Lord
*' our God fhall call." "- It is obfervable

\p\ 'EA-^fTy 'TT^Q^ fjLZi i. e. is to be p-^felyted to me. See
Joh. iii. 26. And Walker's modeft plea, p. 13,-15.
[/>] Paniel ii. 44. vii. 13, 14, (ffc.
[^J Joh. iii. 3, 5. [r] Aa. ii. 38, 39.

G (fays

(50)
^^ (fays a karned, and judicious friend) that
** when God made his covenant, or grant of
** bleffings, v/ith Abraham ^ he made him,
^' with refped: to that covenant, the father
*' of many nations \s\ even of us, and of as
*' many among the nations, who fl:iould be-
*' Heve in Chrift, who were to be juftified,
*' or interefted in the bleffings of the cove-
" nant 3 in the fame manner as Abraham
" was, namely by faith. Thus, the blef-
" fing of Abraham came on us Gentiles
«' through fefus Chrift [/], in whom that
*' Covenant, or Deed of gift was eilablifli-
*' ed, when made with ^/^r^^^/;^ [1;] . And
*' it is certain from St. FaiiH reafoning in
*' the third chapter to the Galatiam^ that the
" Gofpel-covenant, which our Lord came
" into the world to publith and explain in
*' it's extenfive grace, was no other than
" the Covenant with Abraham^ which was
" originally eftablifhed in Chrift. Therefore
** our Lord, when he gave his full and final
" commiffion to his Apoftles ['zo], Go ye
*' and teach, or dijciple^ all nations, bap-
*^ tizing them, &c. plainly commands them
*' to publifh the Abrahamic Covenant, which
" alone included all nations y and to baptize
*' according to the tenor, rule and conftitu-
" tion of thaty which exprefsly takes in

" Abraham

[j] Gen, xvii. 4. Rom. iv. 16, 17.
[/] Gal. iii. 14. \y\ Ibid. ver. 17.

;[w] Mat. xxviii, 19,

f >50

^^ Abraham and his children in the line of
*^ eledian; or which defcended from him
** by his fon IJaac^ or under the Gofpel be-
" came his children by faith in Chrift [x].
^* And that our Lord intended baptifrii
*' fhould be adminiilred according to this
" particular conftitution of the Covenant,
^' / will be a God to ilj€e^ and to thy feed after
** thee, (which certainly included the chil^
*' dren of thofe who (hould be taken into the
" Covenant,) appears from what the Holy
'' Gljofl in St. Peter faith, at the admini-
** ftration of the ordinance to the frjl chri-
'* ftian converts [^]. Repent^ and be baptized
<c every one of you, &c. For the promife is
* ' tmto you, and to your children^ and to all
** that are afar off] even as many as the Lord
** our God f jail c2l\\,'" How narrow anc^ im-
** perfed: foever St. Peters notions might be
*' (at prefent) concerning the calling of the
** Gentiles, or nations, it is certain, that
*' according to the fenfe of the Spirit, who
** fpake by him, by thofe that are afar off^
*' is meant the nations or Gentiles^ whom
** God fhould call into his church or king-
*^ dom under the Mefjiah. Therefore the
" promife^ both here, and in yoel referred
** to by St. Peter \%\ is plainly by this cha-
*' radter afcertalned to be the Abrahamic
'^ covenant, or promife, and the Apoftle in
G 2 " the

M Gal. iii. 29. [j^] Aa. ii. 38, 39.

[«] Joel. ii. 28,-32. Aa. ii. 16, &c.

( 52 )

^^ the Spirit, with the greateft juftnefs and
'' propriety, exhorts every one of themy even
" thetn and their children^ to be baptized, ac-
^^ cording to the conflitution of that promife
'^ or covenant. And thus it appears, that
*' our Lord did commiffion his difciples,
" both to preach and baptize according to
*^ the conflitution of the Ahrahamic cove-
" nant; becaufe at the firft folemn open-
*' ing of the church of God to the firfl:
*' Chrijlian converts, the Holy Gho/i did dl-
*^ red: them fo to preach, and fo to bap-
[' tize."

Now, if we view the matter in this hght ;
one may clearly difcern the meaning and
connexion of St. Peter ^ words, when he
faith, " Te fiall receive the Holy Ghoji : For
" the promife is unto you ^ and to your children^
'' &c." For, the gift of the HolyGhoJi was
a feal of their adoption into God's church
and family under the chriftian difpenfation
\a\ and fo a plain fign or token, that the
promife of Gofpel-bleffings belonged to them.
And thus, becaufe the promife was to them
and to their children ; therefore, as an evi~
dence thereof, they fhould receive the Holy
GhoJi, — But this text will bear a more criti-
cal examination. Let it then be obferved.
(i.) In this claufe, " Repent and be baptized
*' eve7y one of you" There is a remarkable

change

[a] Rom. viii. 15. Eph. i. 13, 14.

( 53 )
cliange of number and perfon in the 07''iginal
[b\ which literally runs thus, *' Repent
'^ ye^ and let every one of (or among) you be
** baptized,'' So that this command con-
cerning baptifm agrees in form with the
command that was given about circum-
cifion. 7here the command was [c], Every
male among you Jhall be circumcijed. And
here the commmand is, Let every one of or
among, you (/. e, you and all your's with*
out diiliindion oi fex, or age) be baptized.
This conftrudion of the Apoftle^s words
agrees to vvhat follows. " For the promife
" is unto you^ and to your children^ &c." For,
where was the pertinency or propriety of
naming their children in the reafon of the
command, if the command itfelf had no im-
mediaie reference to their children ? (though
* the command was not direded to the
children, but to the parents in relation to

their

[f] Gen. xvii. lo. TlipiTfjM'd-iK/iTa.i vfj.Zv 'Trav dpffivuov.
N. B. The difference of the two phrafes. v[acov 'ttuv, and
tKz^cg CiJ.Zv, is not material, as -rai? and l/.x^og are feveral
times joined together, vid. 2 Chron. xxiii. 10.

* Note : There is no impropriety in the notion of chil-
dren being fubjecls of a pofitive rite, without being fubjefls
of a pofitive command enjoining it, as we fee in the cafe of
circumcifion. And if it l)eca7?:e the Jews, who praftifed In-
fant-circumcifion, to fulfil all rightcufnefs i the like obligation
upon Chriftians may very well comport with the pra^lice
of Infant-baptifm. Nor can that obligation be urged, as
an argument to the contrary, without taking the thing for
granted, which ought to be proved, -viz, that Chriftian-

baptifm

( 54 ) '

their children, as well as to themrelves ; in
anrwer to that queftion [ti]. What fkall we
do? Which, by the way, naturally accounts
for the varied manner of the Apoftk's ex-
preflion taken notice of before). (2.) Thefe
words, *' And to all that are afar ^, even as
*' many as the Lord our God Jhall cally " evi-
dently refer to the Gentiles, or Heathens [e] ;
without excluding their children : for, it is
agreeable to the fcripture itile to fpeak of
children as called, when the call is diredly
given to their parents, to thofe that bring
them, or have the command over them[y].
But then, St. Peter himfelf can hardly be
fuppofed to have any reference here to the
general calling of the Gentiles : for it feems,
that this myftery had not yet been revealed
to him [^] : though the words of the pro-
phet,

baptifm is deligned only for the Adult-, a point, which can-
not be proved from the nature, or peculiar Jig72iJication of
baptifm, as a fymbolical rite. For, circumcifion had a
peculiar fignification, as it was a token of the co^^euant : and
yet the Jewifh infants knew nothing of the matter, much
lefs could they profefs any knowledge, ox faiths about it;
though others did in applying that rite to. them. In fhort,
if any primary ends of baptifm are not anfwered in the
baptifm of infants ; even this is no valid objection againft
it. For fome primary ends of John's baptifm were not
anfwered in the baptifm of Chrift : and yet baptifm was
rightly adminiilred to him. By this the reader may jndge
of the weight of Mr. Burroughs's jjrgument. See Tivo DiJ-
coifrfes relating to pofiti've InJiituticnSy and the J)ef£>ice.

{d^ A£l, ii. 37. [^] Eph. ii. 13, 17.

[/] Mat. ii. 13,-15, Luk. xviii. 16. Vid. Beza.
in loc.

[gl See Aft. Chap. ip. Pearfon. lefliones in A6t.
Apoft. p. 33.

( 55)

phetj Joely to which he alludes, are thought
to look that way. Therefore, it is humbly
offered to confideration, whether, in this
laft claufe, the Apoftle had not a direft
view to thofe Gentile fervants, wdiich were
incorporated into Jewifh families according
to the law [/:?]. This notion feems to be
favoured by his manner of quoting the
words of yoel^ where, together with So?is
and Daughters^ mention is made of Servants
and hand-maidens [/j : And if allowed, we
have here a plain command, given at the
firft foundation of the chriftian-church, to
believing parents and heads of families, to
get all the members of their houfe without
diftindion baptized^ in like manner as Abra-
ham v/as commanded to have all the males
of his houfe, of a certain age, circumctfed at
once [/^]. Thus, the words of St. Peter be-
fore us, will admit of this eafy paraphrafe,
*' Repent ye, and let every one among you
*' be baptized without delay, &c. For, the
'' promife is unto you, therefore be ye bap-
'' tized ^ and to your children, therefore let
'' them be baptized along with you \ and ta
" all that are afar off, even as many as the
*' Lord our God {hall call amongft the
'* Heathens, therefore let your Gentile fer-
*' vants alfo be baptized." The words view-
ed in this light appear with the greateft pro-
priety,

[>i I^yit. XXV. 44. [/] Aa. ii. ij^ 18.

\k'\ Gen. xvii. 12, 27,

(56)

priety and force ; and at the fame time
difcover the ground of the fubfequenC
pradtice of the Apoftles in baptizing whok
houfeholds.

But, as fome writers fuppofe, that the'
fromife mentioned by St. Feter is the pro-
mife of the Holy Ghojl himfelf ; which, they
think, invahdates the argument for Infant-
baptifm from this text : we will therefore
argue the point with them upon their own

fuppofition. Now, *' When it is faid,

" y oil Jhall receive the Holy Ghoft^ 'lis not in-
^' tended, that every one of them, upon their
*' baptifm, ihould be endued with the ex-
** traordinary gifts of tongues and prophecy.
" — But the meaning of St. Veter is, that
" he fhould fall upon fome of ail ranks of
" them, according to the true purport of
" the words of "Joel:'" fays Dr. Whitby,
And if he had attended to the force of his
own obfervation, the following note might
have been fpared, viz, '' That thefe words
" will not prove the right of Infants to re-
** ceive baptifm I /]. For, it follows from
^his own remark, that fome perfons might
have a right to receive baptifm, and yet not
receive the extraordinary gifts. If Infants
therefore did not receive the faid gifts, which
is the ground of the objedion, they might
neverthelefs have a right to receive baptifm.
And, as thofe divine gifts were not ordinarily

conferred

[/] See Whitby, Comment, in loc, ■

( 57 }
conferred l^efore baptifm ; as they were a
Jree donation, given to fomCy and not to
others ; fe. g. fome parents, fome children,
&c.) and as the command for baptifm is
univerfaly *' Let every one of you be bap-
** tized ;" fo the reafon given to enforce this
command, " for the promife is unto you, and
*' to your children^ &c/' feems plainly to
prove the right of children indefiiitely^ that
is, children of any age, and confequently
Infants, to receive baptifm. For, where
none are excluded, all muft be included,
and fo vice verjd. And, as the parents could
not tell, which of them, or of their children,
fhould receive the Holy Ghojl -, or in what
degree they fhould receive it ; or at what
particular time, whether immediately, upon
their baptifm, or fome time after it : So,
they had here an exprefs order and diredlion
to lay t he mf elves and all theirs in the way of
the promifed bleffing, by being baptized
with the baptifm of Chrijt. Had it not
been high prefumption in them to limit
the moft High by making any diftindion
in their children on account oiage? efpecially
confidering the promife that was -given with
relation to John Baptijl, viz, that he jl:oidd
befJled "u^ith the Holy Ghoji from his mother s
'womb\m'\. Language, which, doubtlefs, his
father, ZachariaSy to whom it was fpcken,
very well underilood. Seeing then the Jews
H had

[;»] Luk. i, 15,

( 58 )

had a notion of perfons being fxUed with the.
Holy Ghojiy even from their mother's womb,
they could have no ground to queflion their
Infants right to baptifm, from any fufpicion,
that the promife of the Holy Ghoji did in no
wife extend unto them, becaufe they were
Infants. Beiidcs, though the promife of the
Holy Ghojl in it's full extent comprehended
the extraordinary gifts ; what neceflity is
there for confining that promife to thefe gifts,
the Antipcedo'baptifis themfelves being judges.
For, when any of them pray over the bap-
tized perfon, that he may receive the Holy
Ghoft^ as fome of them are fuppofed to do
upon the foot of this very promife, furely
they do not expedl him to receive the extra-
ordinary gifts of tongues and prophecy I

After all ; it may poffibly remain a diffi-
culty with fome perfons, how the words of
St. Peter, " Let every one of you be bap-
*' tized in the name of Jefus Chrift for the
*^ rcmiffion of fins ^ can be applicable to the
'^ cafe of Infants." It may be faid upon this
occafion, "why fmdd the innocent age make
fuch hafle to the remifjion of fins f In anfwer
to which let it be obferved. {i.) As the
baptifm of water is a fymbolical reprefenta-
tion of wafiing away fin [;z] \ io^ that im-
precation of the Jews [/?], his Bloud be on usy
and on our children (meaning, no doubt, all
tlieir children, old and young) difcovers a

fignificant
[«] A£t. xxii. 1 6, [o] Mat. xxvii. 25.

( 59 )

ficrnlficant propriety in the Apoffle's exhort-
ing thefe Crucijiers of Chrill: \p], to repent
themfeheSy and to get both them and their
children baptized for the remijjhn of fins.
Accordingly, Mr. Tombes, that learned and
zealous Antipsedo-baptift, fuppofed (q)^ that
St. Peter might have an eye, in this place,
to that horrid imprecation. (2.) Befides this
confideration peculiar to the Jews, there is
another ground and reafon of the thing,
common both to Jews and Gentiles. For,
if all mankind, as defcended from Adam by
ordinary generation, are reputed Sinners^ at
leait as being fubjed: to death, th^ penalty of
fin (r)^ (and as "Job fays (s)^ who can bring
a clean thing out of an unclean) then muft
Infants alfo be confidered under this charac-
ter. Therefore, fince Chrift is the fecond
^danZy and the Redeemer of a loft world ;
it feems no ways improper, but rather very
fit and congruous, that Infants 'fliould be
baptized with Chriji\ baptifm for the re-
miffion of fin : in token that, ** as by one
'^ man's difobedience many were made fin-
" ners \ fo by the obedience of one fhould
" many be made righteous (t) : and that,
'^ as in Adam all die ; fo in Chrift fhall all
^^ be made alive (^1; J" Hence that remark
of Cyprian (w)^ ^' If remiflion of fins be

" granted

[/>] Aft. ii. 36, 37. [^] Examen p. 60. [r] Rom. v.
i^,(3^(r. [/] Job. xiv 4. [/J Rom, v. 19. [<u] I Corinth.
XV, 22. Vid. Limborch. Theol. Ch. lib. ^5. cap. 68.
Sec. 23. [w] Ep. ad Fidum.

( 6o )

^ granted to thefe moft heinous ofTenders,

' who have long ago finned againfl God ;

' and if none of them be denied accefs to

* the grace of baptifm ; how much lefs

* reafon is there for denying it to Infants ?
' who being but newly born can be guilty
' of no fin, except that being derived from
' Adam J according to the flcili, their birth
' hath communicated to them the infedion

and punilliment of his offence 5 who
therefore are the more eafily 'admitted
to the pardon of their fin, becaufe it is
not fo properly their oumy as another s''
Upon the whole then, it feems very plain
to us, that the words of St. Peter under
confideration, exhibit a proper command to
chriftian believers to get all the members of
their refpedive families,and particularly, moft
exprefsly their children, together with them-
felves, baptized. And the true meaning of
this command, like that of any other law,
muft be fixed by the proper fignification of
the tennSy in which it is conceived and ex-
prefled, without any dependence upon what
follows in the facred hiftory. For, if not a
fingle perfon had been baptized on that oc-
cafion, this would not have altered the fen fe^
or deftroyed the authority .of the command,
tjowever, there is' nothing in the context,
that in the leaft militates with the given
{^nio. of the Apoftle's words. For, as this
was the Jirji opening of the Chrijiian dif-

penfation^

( 6. )

penfation, and fo the firft adminiftration of
Chriftian baptifm ; it was of coiirfe to be ad-
miniflred firft of all to Chriftian believers.
But this could be no impediment, it was in-
deed a neceffary leading (iep, to the baptizing
oi thek houfekoUs 'y becaufe, no perfons could
regularly have their families baptized, with-
out being firft baptized themfelves, in confe-
quence of their receiving the word gladly : ac-
cording to what is faid of the firft converts [;^],
When we read that fuch and fuch perfons
believed^ and- were added to the church [j].
This language is by no means exclufive of
their children : for^ it is no more than what
might be faid of any Jewifh Profelytes, when
they were received into the Jewlfh church,
without the excludon of their children from
the rite of initiation. Thus, e, g, it is faid of
Achior^ ** He believed in God greatly, and
** circumcifed the fkfli of his foreskin, and
*' ^2.% joined to the houfe of Ifrael [2;] ;" that
is, to the church of the Jews. We conclude
therefore, that St.Peter hath laid down a plain
command for baptizing children without limi-
tation of age. And though, as Mr. Stenne't
remarks [^], " there feems no^ neceffity to
** rejlrain t.hQ term [children] to infants- 1**
there appears to be no r:afon for limiting it fo^
as to exclude infants ; which is all we contendV
for [b], S E C

[x"] Adl. li. 41. [jv] TT^o^iii^MCAV. ibid.

[z] 'TrpaiTi^n eU rov otxov I^fa»l^. Judith xiv. lo,
\a] Anfwer to RufTen. p. 33.
[^] See Cragge's reply to Tombes. p. 208.

( 6a y

SECTION V.

The pretence of a virtual Prohibition examined.

THIS examination we fhall begin with
that text which perhaps is th^frjt^
that was ever diredlly alledged again ft the
pradice of baptizing infants by certain per-
jbns, who hved above a thoufand years after
Chrlft [<:] ; " He that believeth, and is bap-
" tized^pallbefavedyl>cc,\_d'y* From hence
it is inferred, that all perfons muft believe
before they are baptized ; and therefore in-
fants are not to be baptized, becaufe they do
not believe. In anfwer to which argument
it is replied (i.) Thefe words were fpoken by
Cbrift to his Apoftles with an immediate view
to the firft planting of the Chriftian church,
and confequently to the firft adminiftration
of Chriftian baptifm to convert Jews and
Heathens, For thus the words are introdu-
ced ; " Go ye unto all the world ^ and preach
*' the Gofpel to every creature. He that be-
*' lieveth and is baptized^fiall be faved, &c."
Now, in this cafe it is plain, that adult per-
fons of either fort (at leaft thofe, that were
fui juris) were to be firft inftruded in the

Chriftian

[r] See Pr, Allix. on the Piedmont churches, p. 143. and
Wall on the Waldenfes.
[0 Markxvi. 16.

( 63 )

Chriflian faith, before they were by baptlfm
received into the Chriftian church. Accord-
ingly (2.) we grant that all perfons in the fame
circumftances with thofe firfl: converts ought
to believe before they are baptized. Thus,
e, g. if a Jew, a Mahommedan, or an Indian
fhould now embrace the Chriftian religion,
we are not againft his being inftrudled in it,
before he is baptized. For, as the thing ap-
pears to be rational in itfelf ; fo it is conform-
able to the pradtice of the Jewifli church in
making Profdytes [e]. But (3.) the confe-
quence is denied with refpedt to infants. For,
though the Jews inftrudted new Profelytes in
the principles of their religion, before they
were admitted to circumcifion, (not to men-
tion the baptifm of Profelytes amongft them)
yet their children alfo were circumcifed toge-
ther with themfelves. In like manner, if
new converts to Chriftianity were firft in-
flrufled in it before their admiffion to bap-
tifm 5 yet, for all that, their children might
be baptized along with them : and certain it
is, the contrary can never be proved by fuch
an argument, as is here alledged. For (4.)
the text fays not, all perfons whatever mufl
believe before they are baptized. On the
contrary^ if one might argue from the order
of words^ (which is the way the Antipasdo-
baptifts take here) it would follow even from
this paffage of Scripture, that infants ought

by

[0 See Bilhop Patilck. comment, in Levit. xix. lO*

( 64 )

by all mea^^ to be baptized ; as hath been
frequently urged by the writers on our
fide [yj. For, if from this circumftance,
that beheveth is fet before baptized in the or-
der of words, it follows, that all perfons muft
believe before they are baptized ; by the fame
rule all perfons muft be baptized before they
can be faved : becaufe baptized is fet before
faved in the fame order of words. Again ;
in the latter claufe of the text it is added,
** He, that beheveth not^ jJmll be damned'*
And thus, by the words of Cbriji, believing
is made as necefiary at leaft to falvation, as
it is to baptifm. Therefore, the argument,
from this text againfl the baptifm of infants,
concludes as ftrongly againfl: their falvation;
which is reducing it to a plain and (liocking
abfurdity, Mr, Rees would evade all this, by
asking [^], *' Why they (/. e. infants) may
*' not be faved without baptifm ?" A quef-
tion little to the purpofe. For, if infants may
be faved at all ; why will he and his friends
infifl upon fuch an argument againfl their
baptifm, as v/ou!d equally conclude again ft
their falvation ?

Again ; it is pretended [/)] that the words of
the commifjion [/], " Go ye^ and teach all na*

" tiom^

[/] Marlhall, Serm. on baptizing Inf. p. 45. Wills.
, anfwer to Danverf. p. 10. Walker. Modell Pica, &c. chap,
xxiii. fee. 14.

Cjs-] Anfwer to Walker, p. 36.

\h\ See Gale. Reflexions, &c, Let. 7,'

\t\ Mat. xxviii. 19, ao.

( 65 )

*' tions^ baptizing tbem, Sec" contain a vir-
tual prohibition of Infant-baptlfm. For, fay
they, teaching is fet before baptizing, ergo,
&c. And fo indeed it may feem to an Eiig-
li/h reader ; but baptizing is fet before teach-
ing in the exprefs order of the words accord-
ing to the original^ which ought to be render-
ed thus, " Go ye, and dijciple all nations,
" baptizing them in the name of the Father,
V* &c. teaching them, &c/* Obferve here
(i.) The ge?2eral matter of the commiffion is
exprefled by difcipling\ which is a compre-
henfive term, including both teaching and
baptizing, by the confeflion of fome of our
moft learned oppofers [/^], (2.) Then foU
lows the particular method of executing this
commiffion laid down in two diredlons, ^72;.
by baptizi?7g^ and by teaching, agreeably to
the Greek idiom of fpeech [/]. It is plain
therefore, that in the exprefs order and feries
of the words in the commiffion, teaching is
not fet before, but after baptizing. But,
fuppofe the contrary were true -, this would
prove no more againfl: Infant- bap tifm, than
the text in St. Mark, already confidered ; and
how much that proves again ft it, is left to the
judgment of common fenfe.

Again ; St. P^/// makes mention oi one bap^
iifm \m\ Now, by this one baptifm Mr.^

I Barclay

[^] Dr. Gill, comment, in A61. ix. i, 2.

[/] See Psdo-baptifm, p. ^(), &c.

[«] Eph. iv. 5. confer, i Cor. i. 12—15.

( 66 )

Barclay under Hands the haptifm of the Spirit^
in oppoiition to water-baptifm [?z]. On the
other hand Mr. Keach underilandj it n^ {ihlt'-
baptifm in exclufion of lnfai:t-bapt:fm[ ]. But
both accounts are ivide erouah oi the pof-
tle*s meaning. St. PW is there recommend-
ing unity^ peace and love t ) fcllow-ciTifti-
ans. And fo, by one baptifm, he p!ai' Jy in-
tends one moral end a d deilgn of baptif'n,
as it is a facred rite of dedicaticn to oise and
the fame religicus fervice, the fervice of one
common Lord, v/ho is the head of one fpiri-
tual fociety . ** One Lord, one faith ^ one baptfm^
** one God and Father of all, one body, one Spirit^
*' one hope, one heaven:' And what! are infants
excluded from all thefe? God fcrbid. — Be-
lides ; Chriflian baptifm may be ofie baptifm,
and yet of a complex natare in relation to tl>e
fubje^s of it. For, was net circumcifon un-
der the law one circumcifion, as a rite of dedi-
cation, or engagement to the fervice of God
[/)]? And yet it was adminiftred to different
iubjedts, particularly to adult-profelytes and
their children.

Again ; St. Paul fays [j], " Henceforth
** know ive no man after the fifi^ &c." q. d.
•' I have no regard to any one, accordifig to
" the flefb, &c. for being circumcifed, or a
*' Jew [r]." The dilliridion , of Jew and

Gentile

[»] Apology, prop, i 2.
[0] Anfwer to Owen. p. 241, &c.
[p] Gal. V. 3. ' [f] i Cor. v. 16.

[r] Mr. Locke in loc.

( 67 )

Gentile was fet afide under the Gofpel, by
the i^all of partition being removed, and
broken down [j]. Surely thofe perfons are at
alcfd for arguments, who alledge this text as
a difproof of Infant- baptifm [/] . Tacitus fays
a muc!\ llronger thing of the Jewip Profe-
lytcd \y'\y viz. '' That they were taught to
*' dejjyife their parents, children, brethren."
And would any one conclude from hence,that
no infants of Profelytes were circumcifed ? It
is abufing the reader's patience to take notice
of fuch fimple and trifling cavils ; we (hall
therefore only mention one text more, which
may feem to be urged with a little better
grace.

St. Peter fays [«:£;], " The like figure where^
*' unto baptifm doth alfo fave us^ (not the put-
** tifig away the fdth of the fieJJj, but the an-
* ' fiver of a good confcience towards God) by
" the refurreBion of ChriftT — But infants
cannot make this anfwer of a good confcience,
Ergo^ iSc, To which argument it will be.
fufficient to reply in the words of Dr. Whit-
by [at], viz, " That St. Paul alfo fays, that
** the true circumcifion before God is not the
** outward circumcifion of the fiefJo^ but the
" internal circumcifion of the heart and fpi-
** rit [y]. But will any one here ar^ue,
I 2 ** That

'j] Rom.x. 12. Eph. ii. 14. Col. iii. 11.

7] See Keach. ubi fupra, p. 208,

'jv] Corn. Tacit, hift. lib 5. [to] i Pet. iii. 21.

>] Comment, in loc. {j"] Rom, ii. 29.

( 68 )

That the Jewifli infants for want of this
were not to be admitted into covenant with
God by circumcifion ? And yet the argu-
ment is plainly parallel: The anfwer of a
good confcience is required, that the bap-
tifm may be falutary ; therefore they only
are to be baptized, who can make this an-
fwer : and the inward circumcifion of the
heart is required, as the only acceptable
circumcifion in the fight of God : therefore
they only are to be circumcifed, who have
this inward circumcifion of the heart. The
Jews did not admit profelytes to circumci-
fion without the anfwer of a good confci-
ePiCe j but they admitted their infants with-
out any fuch thing. Why therefore may
we not allow the Chriftian church in the
adminiflration of baptifm, to obferve the
fame cuftom, in admitting the children of
theirPr^/)'^^i to baptifm; as they admitted
them to circumcifion and baptifm." — It is
plain then, that there is nothing in what St.
Peter fays oi baptifm, which can amount to
a prohibition, or exclufion of baptizing infants
in the Chriftian church. For, St. Faul fays
the fame thing in eflfeft of circumcifion ;
and yet, it is undeniably certain, that infants
were circumcifed in the Jewifli church.

In relation to what Dr. Wkitby fays of the
Jews admitting the children of profelytes to
circumcifion and baptifm \ he proceeds upon
the notion of Profelyte- baptifm obtaining

amongft

( 69 )

amongft them. But, as learned men are not
agreed in this pointy we have laid litde or no
ftrefs upon it ; the argument from Profelyte-
circumcijion being clear and ftrong enough
without it. However, it is pleafant enough
to obferve, that fome authors, who very much
depreciate the authority of the Jewifh writers
upon this head, fcruple not to make ufe of
their authority in deciding any point in their
own favour, e,g, about the antient mode of
baptifm ; concerning which we (hall offer a
few remarks, and fo conclude this argument.
Now — that the word, baptize^ doth not al-
ways^ or neceffarily lignify, dipping the body
all ever ; even Dr. Gale^ after all his pains to
prove the contrary, was forced to acknow-
ledge in as plain terms as he durft. This
point hath been fet in a good light by Mr.
Perronet [_z]. And Dr. Wall brought the
matter to a fair ifltie in a fhort dialogue be-
tween an AntipaedO'baptift, and a church-
man [^]. The truth is, much of the time and
labour might have besn fpared, which hath
been fpent in rummaging authors, to fix the
; original fenfe of the Greek words, l3cc7f]co, and
(iocTTrl^o). For the learned Critics know, that
ih^firji and primitive, is not always the true
and proper fenfe of words. Becaufe in the
flux of language the fignification of words al-
ters at different times and places, and amongtl

different

[«] Defence of Infant-baptifm, fee. 2.
[«] Defence, &c. p. 96.

( 70 )

difFerent people. And as words are but ar-
bitrary figns of ideas, or thoughts j cuftom is
the rule to fix their current fenfe. Suppofe
then, that the words in queflion primarily,
and originally fignified to dipy or immerfe a
body all over ; it follows not, that this is their
real and precife meaning in the New Tefta-
ment. Fcr, in the time of Cbrift and his
Apoftles, thefe vords, as beinq tlicn parts of
a living lai^guage, might have acquired a
more lax and genera! lignification amongfl: the
Hellenijisy importing to njuajlj^ not only by
dippin;^', but other ways. And that this was
the ca(^: in fadf, appears pretty plain from fun-
dry paffages in the Greek writers among the
Je-jos, E. g. It is faid oi Nebuchadnezzar [^],
" that his body was wet [c] v/ith the dew of
*' heaven." Now, can this mean, that his
body was dipped in the dew of heaven ; and
not rather that his body was wet with the
dew, falling or fprinkled upon it ? — Again :
it is related of Judith [^], " that flie went
*' out in the night into the valley of Bet hu/ia^
** and w^^^herfelf [^] in {or at [/]) a foun-
*' tain, by (or in [g]) the camp." But the
circumdances of the cafe render it very im-
probable, that (he ftripped herfelf, and im-
merfed her whole body in the water.—

Again,

[^] Dan. iv. 33. [f] 'E^rf'(pM from ^a.'Trla.

[d] Judith xii. 7. W 'E/Sa-arT/^STo, literally baptized.

[/] 'E'3r/ T«? 'srw^'Wj. See Walker. Dodrine of baptifms,
chap. 3. ^

[g1 'E^ T/> '3rtffJS/>i^Ay.

( 70

Again, when the Apoftles were baptized with
the Holy Gkojl according to Chrift's pro-
mife [h] ; this was not by immerfion, but ef-
fufion. For, upon that occafion, St. Peter
told the multitude [/], " Chrift being by the
" right hand of God exalted^ and having re^
" ceivedof the Father the promife of the Holy
" Ghojiy hath flied forth this [k], 'which
** ye no\'o fee and hear'* This ex'preflion,
hath ped forth ^ or poured out ^ this (meaning
the Holy Ghoft i;i ito extraordi^^iary gifts) is of
more force than Caufabonz criticifm in Ad:, i.
5. upon wbic!.* more iirefs is hid than it will
bear, to make cut fom^.t^ ing like a proper
immerfion in the prefcnt cafj. Fc r (i.) it is
not (aid, as ^^e mider^lnnd: it, tV-at the houfe
WAS filed -jitb the Holy Ghofl (^ hich w^uld
make the houfe i:fpircd) but tb^t iho, found ^
which came from heaven, a.i of a rufiiing
mJghty wind, filled the houfe [/]. (2.) This
found, or ;;<?//}, filled all the honfs, and not
only the particular room where they v/ere
fitting. But, were all the people in the
houfe baptized with the Holy Ghoft, as
well ai the Apofcle. r (3-) ^^ fi ^^1^^
all i\\z houfe, as to be heard by all that
were in it; and fo great was the alarm, as
that it occafioned the multitude to come to-
gether [?;;]. Thub then, tlie Apoftles were

baptized

[^'] Aa.i. 5. [/•] Aft ii. 33.

[*] 't:J4'/«;. [/] Ad. ii. 2.

[w] Ver. 6. Vid. Dan. Heinfius. Sacr. Exercit. in loc.

( 72 )

baptized with the Holy Ghoft^ not in the way
of immerfwn^ but of effufwn. For, they were
not dipped into the Holy Ghoft, but the Ho-
ly Ghoft was poured out upon them. — Once
more ;' we read \n], that a certain Pharifee,
wI>o invited Chrift to dine with him, " mar--
*^ veiled that he hadnot firjt walbed [r?] before
** dinner y Surely, /i?/j v/afhing cannot mean
immerfing his body all over; as there is no
room here to pretend, '* that Chrijt was now
" come from market^ or any court of judi-
" cature^ which might render it neceffary
** to immerfe himfelf in water according to
** the fuperftition of the Phari fees [/>]." And
yet in the original it is the very fame word for
wajhed, thdX is ufed in fpeaking of Chrift be-
ing baptized by fohn. How then doth it ap-
pear, that Chrift himfelf was dipped ? Why,
we are told [^], " Chrift, w^hen he was bap-
*' tized by John in the river Jordan, went
'^ M^ ftraitway out of the water, £:?6\" From
whence it is inferred [r], " that fince it is
** faid, that he came out of the water, he
" muft firft have gone down into it; muft
** have been in it, and was baptized in it; a
** circumftance ftrongly in favour of baptifm
** by immerfion, 6V.'* Doth not this look
wonderful plain and clear? And yet, it is all
grounded upon a miftake, and the inaccuracy

of

[«] Luk. ii. 38. [0] *F./3i'Zs-7''&»> literally, baptized,

[/.] See Dr. Gill. Divine Right of Infant-baptifm exa-
mined, &c, p. 96.

[q] Mat. iii. 16. [/-] Dr. Gill, comment, in loc.

( 73 )

of our EfigUpo verfion. Let us only hear
what Mr. Henry fays upon the place; '* Chrift
** having no fins to confefs wentup immedi-
" ately out of the water ; fo we render it, but
** not right ; for, it is aVo roZ uSxrog, i. e.from
** the water, from the brink of the river, to
*^ which he went down to be wafhed with wa-
" ter, /. e. to have his head, ox face waflied ;
" {John xiii. 9 ) for, here is no mention of
** the putting off, or putting on his cloaths,
** which circumftance would not have been
*' omitted, if he had been baptized naked [j]."
If this remark on the Greek phrafe is not quite
new^ it was worth repeating ; for it feems to
be a fair Critic fm, and not any wretched
fhifty as Mr. Rees is pleafed to call it. But
it is really a wretched conftru^ion^ which
he and others \t'\ put upon the words of St.

Mark,

[j] Mr. Henry *s Expofition on Mat. iii. 16.

[^] Rees. anfwer to Walker, p. 127. Keach. anfwer to
Owen, p. 23, 320. Plain account of the facred ordin. of bap-
tifm, p. 31. Burroughs's two difcourfes on p:fitive inftituti-
ons, p. 28. This laft named author fays (Defence of two
difcourfes, &c. p. 31.) *• If «/? tcv lo^i'a.mv does not meani«-

** t9 yordartf what is the meaning of Si^ to u/iyf, when

** applied to Philip, and the Eunuch ?" Why, if it mean /«/#
the ivater, this will neither determine the meaning of that
other phrafe, nor neceffarily conclude for dipping. Bat, fays
he (ib, p. 26.) " There is no acco.jnting for fuch words as
*' thefe, {^oittg do'vun both into the nvtitertbaptizinc there ^ and
** then coming up out of the ivaterV Afts viii 38, 39. ] that is,
upon any other fuppofition, either of fprinkling or r;oi]ring.
And yet, qnlefs the word baptizi, of itfeif necelTurily means

IQ dipping.

( 74 )

Mark [v\ when they make him fay, that
John baptized Chrift into Jordan [w]. For,
in the ftile of Scripture, this would fignify,
that John made him a difciple of Jordan [a:];
The proper meaning of the Greek phrafe is at
Jordan-, expreffing the place, where John was
baptizing [;'], by way of diftindion from the
place, whence Chrifl: came to be baptized of
him. It is the very fame phrafe, that is ufed
by the Greek interpreters, where Z)^i;/V tells
Solomon [%\y that Sbimei came down to meet

him

dipping, (which is denied} thefe mere circumllances of going
down into the water, and coming up out of the water, will not
prove a dipping in that cafe : for, was Solomon dipped, when
they went down with him, \tc ih Ticcf, to (or be it into) Gihon,
and after anointing him in Gihon, came up from thence, iKLings,
i. 38, 45. Nor will thofe circumllances, confidered in con-
nexion with the aft of baptizing, fo certainly fix it for immer-
fion, as is conceived. For one may eafily conceive, that for
want of other conveniences, in that defart place, Pkilip might
go down with the Eunuch into the water to a certain depth,
that fo he might the more commodioufly take up vv^ater with
the hand, and pour it on the Eunuch's head. ** But why did
*• pkilip go donvn into the Kvater himfelf, and take the Eunuch
** along with him ? Why did he not fetch a little water, to
** fpr inkle f or to pour upon him ?" To whichitis anfwered.
Where could Philip have in fuch a place any 'vejfel ^ro^ev for
thepurpofe ? Befides, if the Eunuch was dipped, it muft either
be naked, or with V\^ clothes on-, neither of which feems pro-
bable in his prefent circumllances. After all, how will it prove,
that dipping was pradlifed in all cafes, and particularly, that
'^ohn in baptizing him, dipped Jefi2s,even fuppofing thatPi'j-
lip dipped the Eunuch ? A fuppofition fo precarious, as that up-
on a diftind view of the cafe, Mr. Walker fays, (Doclrine of
baptifms, chap. 14. fee. 1 2.) '* What's all the noKeofPhilip^s
•* dipping the Eunuch come to? To nothing elfe but mere
** noife."

[1;] Mark i. 9. [.xy] gj? to// lofdTotW.

[x] See I Cor. x. 2. Gal. iii. 27.

\j) Joh.i. 28. [z] I Kings ii. 8.

( n )

him at Jordanla], — As It is only by the by
that we here take notice of the ?72oJe of bap-
tifm ; we (hall not examine all the texts, that
are commonly alledged in favour of immer-
/ion ; but refer the reader to thofe treatifes,
which have been profeffedly writ upon that
fubjedl [6], Let it fuffice for the prefent to
obferve, that there is hardly a ftronger paflage
to be found, than thofe words of St Pau/lc]^
" We are buried with him by haptifm into
*' deaths &c." And yet fays an ingenious
writer, " I queftion whether we can certain-
*' ly from this paffage infer the outward mode
** of adminiftring baptifm. For, in the next
** verfe, our beiijg incorporated into Chrijl
*' by baptifm is alfo denoted by our being
planted, or rather grafted together in the
likenefs of his deatis : and Noah^s ark, float-
ing upon the water, is a figure correfpond-
** ing to baptifm, i. Pet. iii. 20, 21. But
*' neither of thefe give us the fame idea of
*^ the outward form, as buryi?7g [^d]" But,
fuppofe it were proper to preferve fome ana-
logy between the mode of baptifm^ and that
of a burial \ it (hould be confidered, that the
K 2 ' modes

[«] y-dLti^'A — s},' Th lopJ^av'iiv. By this expreflion we fee,
that Chrift migbf go doi'jn to Jordan, and fo come up from Jor-
dan afcer he was baptized by John at Jordan ; and yet never
have been fo much as in Jordan.

[^3 See Phmging, a fubjeft of bigotry, when made effential,
&c. Dipping not the only Scripture and primitive mode, &c.

[fjRom. vi. 4, [^] Taylor in loc.

c<

cc

( 76 )

modes of burial differ in different countries 5
and fo would require different modes of bap-
tifm to reprefent and exprefs them truly.
Confequently, no one particular mode could
be proper in all cafes. And thus the very
argument, which is commonly urged for the
univerfal propriety and even neceffity of im-
merfmt, proves quite the contrary »-*-In fliort,
from the examples already produced, (to
which more might be added [e'], the word
baptifm appears to have acquired in common
ufe among the Hellenijlsy fo large and gene-
ral a kv)iQ^ as to comprehend other modes
and ways of wa(hing, befides that of immer-
fion. Hence Origen calls pouring water upon
the ivood^ baptizing it \_J ]. Therefore the
command to baptize fcems to be only a com-
mand to wajh^ without prefcribing the parti-
cular mode [^^]. And therefore, as no one
particular mode can be neceflary, exclufive of
another ; fo, different modes of baptifm
might be ufed from the beginning. We are
not pleafed to find any grave authors fpeak
lightly of baptifm by immerlion : for this
might be one mode of baptizing amongft the
ancients. But yet, fuppofing it to be fo, this

is

\/\ See Walker. Do<51rine of b^.ptifms, chap. 4 6.

[/] See I King, xviii. 33. Wall's Defence, Appendix,
p. 19.

\g\ The Hebrew word, 'Tahal, and the Syriac, Amad^
are obferved to admit the fame large conflru^ion. See Wal-
ker, ubi fupra, cJi. 7.

{ 77 )

is no proof, that it was anciently the only
mode. Let immerfion then be allowed, but
not abfolutely required : it fliould neither be
defpifed nor idolized^ in our humble opini-
on. Since baptifm doth not fave by the
wafhing, ox putting away the filth oftheflejh
[A], is there not danger of owr-^o/;2fg" here,
by laying fo much ftrefs upon the external
mode of adminiftration, as borders too near
upon fuoerftition? In a word, if the falutary
nature of baptifm confifts not in the out-
ward rite itfelf, how much lefs in the par-
ticular mode !

[y] I Pet. iii. 21.

FINIS.

BOOKS

PRINTED FOR

J. WAUGH and W. F E N N E R,
At the Turk's-Head, in Lombard- Street,

THE

BAPTISM of INFANTS

A Reasonable Service;
Founded upon So ripture, and undoubted

Apostolic Tradition?

In which its moral Purpofes and Ufe in Religion afe Ihevvn,

Price Eight Pence.

DIPPING:

Not the only Scriptural and Primitive

Manner of Baptizing,

And fuppofing it were, yet a flridl Adherence.

not obligatory on us.

Price Six-pence,

P iE D O . B A P T I S M :

Or, A Defence of Infant- baptifm in Point

of Antiquity.

Againft the Exceptions of Dr. John Gill,

and others.

Price One Shilling.

PiEDO-BAPTISM DEFENDED:

Or, The Antiquity of Infant-baptifm further

maintained.

In Anfwer to Dr. Gill's Reply, entitled, Antipasdo-

baptifm, (Jc.

Price One Shilling.

/ '■'