of magicians, as themselves assert, &c. p. 367. They have en-

deavoured to corrupt the Scriptures, ibid. All learned men

give the same character of the Jews, and their writings, p. 368.

So Mr. Le Clerc, ibid. Mr. Du Pin, p. 369. Mr. Dodwell,

ibid. Scaliger, ibid.
Nauclerus, p. 370. Buxtorf, ibid.

Lightfoot, p. 371. And the same character is given of them by

Christ himself too, who censures them more particularly on

account of their washings, p. 372. Their traditions were many
and mischievous, ibid. All these things applied to the present
dispute, p. 373.

LETTER X.

From Arrian himself, p. 379.

Arrian, from whom Mr. Wall next argues, too late to determine

the matter, p. 375. He may perhaps only speak of the purifica-

tions for pollutions, ibid. The pagans frequently confounded

the Jews and Christians together, as appears from Themistius,

P. 377.

From Lucian, p. 381.

From Tacitus, ibid. From Suetonius, p. 382. And Rigaltius un-

derstands Arrian's words so too, ibid. As do also Petavius, Lip-

sius, and Barthius, ibid. Mr. Wall's argument from Gregory

Nazianzen examined, p. 384. This Father lived too late to de-

termine our dispute; and does not speak of an initiatory bap-

tism, ibid. The Scripture makes no mention of an initiatory

baptism in use among the Jews, p. 386. Exod. xix. 10. makes

nothing to the purpose, ibid. Maimonides, his rule of interpre-

tation false, p. 388. The rabbins very bad interpreters, ibid.

Sanctify does not necessarily imply washing, p. 389. Nothing

in the words which so much as intimates the body was to be

washed, p. 390. There is no mention of an initiatory baptism

in any authentic ancient history; even though they had the

fairest occasions, and ought not to have omitted it, if there had

been any such usage, p. 391. This illustrated by some instances

from Josephus and Ganz, ibid. and 392. It is on many accounts

very improbable that the Jews had any such ceremony, p. 392.

Proved from St. Paul's words, ibid. From Gregory Nazianzen,

P. 393. From St. Peter, ibid. Several authors of reputation,

and especially the ancients, do in effect deny they knew of any

initiatory baptism among the Jews, ibid. Thus St. Barnabas,

P. 394. Justin Martyr, p. 395. Tertullian, p. 397. Origen,

P. 398. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, ibid. Many writers say our

baptism came instead (not of baptism among the Jews, but) of

ments our adversaries make use of be allowed all the force they

are pretended to have, ibid. It is probable, the earliest churches

practised only what they received from the apostles, p. 420.

Mr. Wall takes no notice of St. Barnabas, because he makes

against infant-baptism in several places, p. 421. The passages

from St. Clement examined, p. 423. Mr. Wall's argument from

them stated, p. 423, 424. The main point on which it turns a

groundless mistake, viz. that baptism is necessary universally to

all that shall be saved, p. 424. Baptism does not appear to have

been designed to wash away original sin, p. 425. By this same

argument it might as certainly be proved, that all the antipædo-

baptists now are for infant-baptism, p. 426. The passages from

Hermas considered, ibid. In the passages cited, this Father

speaks only of adult persons, p. 427. John iii. 5. considered,

p. 430. Kingdom of God does not necessarily mean the king-

dom of glory, p. 432. The words cannot be taken universally,

P. 434. Tis has no relation to infants in any place of Scripture,

P. 435. And here relates only to the subjects of whom our

Lord speaks, p. 436. Who are only adult persons who have

heard the word preached, ibid. As appears, 1. Because such

only can be expected to comply with the institution, to whom

only it is truly given, p. 437. 2. Because such only can be saved

by it, according to St. Peter, p. 438. Whose words the pædo-

baptists have never yet fairly interpreted, p. 439. Dr. Whitby's

evasion considered, ibid. 3. The same form of speech usual,

when infants are not included, p. 440. As they seem not to be

in this place, by our Saviour's words in the context, p. 442.

4. The words under consideration cannot be true of infants,

p. 443. 5. Something in the words themselves limits them to

adult persons, p. 444. What it is to be born of the Spirit, p. 445.

Dr. Whitby's judicious observations on the text, ibid. Another

passage of Hermas considered, p. 446. He only describes

visions, and therefore is not always to be taken literally, p. 447.

He cannot mean, that persons in their separate state were or

could be baptized with material water, p. 448. He says nothing.

however of infant-baptism; but rather excludes infants in this

very passage, p. 449. Besides, to give up all our adversaries

can reasonably desire here, it would only prove infants shall be

baptized in their separate estate after death, which is nothing to

our dispute, p. 450. Another passage of Hermas, ibid. That

infants åre esteemed of God, no argument they ought to be bap-

tized,
P. 451. This passage makes rather against infant bap-

tism, ibid. Hermas says several things inconsistent with it,

p. 452. Matt. xix. 14. considered, p. 453. It has no relation

to baptism, ibid. Dr. Whitby's improvement of the passage exa-

mined, ibid. It is probable the children were brought to be

healed, p. 454. It does not follow from these words, that they

are fit to be dedicated to Christ by baptism, ibid. The bishop

of Salisbury's assertion noted, and disproved, p. 456. Conclu-

sion, p. 457.

LETTER XII.

What Mr. Wall produces from the writings of the second

century examined, p. 461. A passage in St. Justin considered,

ibid. Which makes nothing for infant-baptism, ibid. Neither

does it speak of original sin, as our author pretends, 462. Mr.

Wall has perverted the words, ibid. His translation of them

unintelligible, ibid. 'Aπò тoû 'Adàμ means from Adam, ibid. An-

other misconstruction noted, p. 464. The phrase explained by a

passage in Dionysius Halicarnassæus, ibid. And another in Thu-

cydides, ibid. Another passage from St.Justin considered, p. 466.

He does not call baptism circumcision, ibid. He could not mean

baptism by the spiritual circumcision he speaks of, ibid. What

he understands by spiritual circumcision, ibid. Other writers of

the primitive church talk in the same manner, p. 469. Colos-

sians ii. 11, 12. considered, p. 471. The Scripture nowhere calls

baptism circumcision, ibid. The words in themselves are not

capable of the sense our adversaries give them, p. 472. The an-

cients did not call baptism the circumcision without hands, as

Mr. Wall pretends, p. 473. Mr. Wall's argument from the pa-

rallel between circumcision and baptism shewn to be groundless,

P. 474. The principle on which it is founded, evidently false,

p. 475. Some of the consequences of it; as that baptism must

be administered only on the eighth day, ibid. That females

must not be baptized, p. 476. As the apostles did not make

circumcision their rule in relation to baptism; so neither should

we, ibid. Another passage from St. Justin, p. 477. It is not

to be imagined he should forbear to mention infant-baptism, if

it had been then practised, ibid. Or however, he ought not to

have spoken so as is inconsistent with that practice, p. 478.

The passage is directly against infant-baptism, p. 479. The

reasons why Mr. Wall cites this passage; though he confesses it

makes nothing for infant-baptism, p. 480. The first reason

makes against him, ibid. His next reason, that regeneration is

put for baptism, groundless, p. 481. St. Justin never under-

stands regeneration so, ibid. Baptism not regeneration, but the

symbol of it, ibid. The third reason contradicts his former

assertion, p. 482. Another passage from St. Justin, ibid.

Which Mr. Wall draws to his side by a very unfair translation,

p. 485. 'Ek Taidov signifies from their childhood, ibid. Illus-

trated by instances from Cicero, ibid. From Laertius, ibid.

From Plato, p. 486. From Plutarch, ibid. From Origen, ibid.

From Theophilus Antiochenus, ibid. From the Scriptures,

p. 487. Mr. Wall himself translates a passage of St. Basil thus

on another occasion, ibid. The famous passage from St. Ire-

næus considered, p. 488. It is not genuine, p. 489. Cardinal

Baronius observes, the latter part of the chapter contradicts the

beginning, ibid. Petavius' answer to this proves nothing, ibid.

The author of the last part of the chapter attempts to confirm a

manifest falsehood, by the authority of the ancients from St.

John, which St. Irenæus could never have done, p. 491. Mr.

Dodwell's pretence, that St. John, &c. judged of our Lord's age

by his countenance, too weak, and groundless, ibid. They could

not but know the time of our Lord's birth more exactly, ibid. St.

Irenæus could not think Christ arrived to near so much as his

fortieth year; the contrary being so evident from the censual

rolls then in being, and from the disputes with the adversaries

of the Christian religion, p. 492. Nay, it appears from St. Ire-

næus' own words, that he was not in so gross an error, p. 495.

He fixes the time of the Lord's birth, ibid. The time of his

passion computed; from the time of Pontius Pilate's govern-

ment, and Tiberius' reign, ibid. From the destruction of Jeru-

salem, &c. p. 496. Mr. Dodwell's attempt to excuse the extra-

vagance of this spurious passage, wholly useless, p. 499. Be-

sides, the passage is taken only from a very bad translation, as

learned men confess, viz. Scaliger, p. 500. Du Pin, p. 501.

Mr. Dodwell, ibid. Dr. Grabe, ibid. This may also appear, by

comparing it with the remaining fragments of the original, ibid.

Again, the word regenerated in this passage does not mean bap-

tized, p. 504.
The Jews did not give rise to this way of speak-

ing, p. 505. The Scripture notion of regeneration, p. 506.

John iii. 5. considered, p. 507. The regeneration there men-

tioned consists in the operations of the Spirit, of which baptism

WALL, VOL. III.

C