kingdom did mean the church, how does it appear infants were to be admitted into it by baptism? Baptism is the only way of admitting adult persons, but is nowhere prescribed to infants. I should rather imagine from the words, that if infants are to be admitted at all, by any ceremony, it must be only by laying on of hands, and by prayer; for neither our Lord's words, nor his actions, give us room to think of any other.

And if this way of arguing be good, it may equally be urged, that infants ought to be communicated too; for if, because of such is the kingdom of heaven, they may therefore be admitted into the dispensation of the Messiah, and consequently have a right to the privileges and sacraments of it, they must have a right to the supper as well as to baptism. But his lordship, and our adversaries, do refuse them one; and we beg leave to refuse them the other for the very same reasons, viz. because they are not capable of it, nor of the conditions which the church of England itself confesses are required of persons to be baptized, viz. faith and repentance.

Since then there is nothing in Christ's words for the practice of the pædobaptists; the passage of St. Hermas, which our author compares with these words of Christ, cannot be thought to prove by any supposed affinity between them, that St. Hermas, or the church of that time, knew any thing of infantbaptism. Besides, I have not only shewn the arguments from the writings of the Fathers hitherto have no reference to it; but also, as far as things of this nature can be shewn, that all of them to this time, namely, for about a hundred years after

Christ's birth, believed nothing at all of it, for what they say is very inconsistent with that practice. In my next, I will also examine what is said from St. Justin and others, in the order in which Mr. Wall has placed them.

I am, Sir,

Yours, &c.

LETTER XII.

WHAT Mr. Wall produces from the writings of the second century examined-A passage in St. Justin considered-It makes nothing for infant-baptism-Neither does it speak of original sin, as our author pretends-Mr. Wall has perverted the words-His translation of them unintelligible-’Añò тoû ’Adàμ means from Adam-Another misconstruction noted-The phrase explained by a passage in Dionysius Halicarnassæus ; and another in Thucydides-Another passage from St. Justin considered-He does not call baptism circumcision - He could not mean baptism by the spiritual circumcision he speaks of What he understands by spiritual circumcisionOther writers of the primitive church talk in the same manner-Coloss. ii. 11, 12. considered-The Scripture nowhere calls baptism circumcision-The words in themselves are not capable of the sense our adversaries give them-The ancients did not call baptism the circumcision without hands, as Mr. Wall pretends-Mr. Wall's argument from the parallel between circumcision and baptism, shewn to be groundlessThe principle on which it is founded, evidently false-Some of the consequences of it: as that baptism must be administered only on the eighth day; that females must not be baptized-As the apostles did not make circumcision their rule in relation to baptism, so neither should we-Another passage from St. Justin-It is not to be imagined he should forbear to mention infant-baptism, if it had been then practised-Or however, he ought not to have spoken so as is inconsistent with that practice-The passage is directly against infant-baptism-The reason why Mr. Wall cites this passage, though he confesses it makes nothing for infant-baptismThe first reason makes against him-His next reason, that regeneration is put for baptism, groundless-St. Justin never understands regeneration so-Baptism not regeneration, but the symbol of it-The third reason contradicts his former assertion-Another passage from St. Justin Which Mr. Wall draws to his side by a very unfair translation-'Ek Taidшv signifies from their childhood-Illustrated by instances from Cicero; from Laertius; from Plato; from Plutarch; from

Origen; from Theophilus Antiochenus; from the Scriptures -Mr. Wall himself translates a passage of St. Basil thus on another occasion-The famous passage from St. Irenæus considered-It is not genuine-Cardinal Baronius observes, the latter part of the chapter contradicts the beginning— Petavius' answer to this proves nothing-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-Mr. Dodwell's pretence, that St. John, &c., judged of our Lord's age by his countenance, too weak and groundless-They could not but know the time of our Lord's birth more exactly-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-Nay, it appears from St. Irenæus' own words, that he was not in so gross an error-He fixes the time of the Lord's birth-The time of his passion computed; from the destruction of Jerusalem; from the time of Pontius Pilate's government, and Tiberius' reign-Mr. Dodwell's attempt to excuse the extravagance of this spurious passage, wholly useless-Besides, the passage is taken only from a very bad translation ; as learned men confess : viz. Scaliger; Du Pin; Mr. Dodwell; Dr. Grabe-This may also appear, by comparing it with the remaining fragments of the original-Again, the word regenerated in this passage does not mean baptized -The Jews did not give rise to this way of speaking-The Scripture notion of regeneration-John iii. 5. consideredThe regeneration there mentioned consists in the operations of the Spirit, of which baptism is the sign and seal-And this appears from our Lord's own words following-Titus iii. 5. considered-That the ancients never mean baptism, but an internal change by regeneration, shewn from Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Romanus, St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus nowhere uses the word, as our author pretends he always does-The inference from these observations-A contradiction of Mr. Wall's-Another exception to the passage cited from St. Irenæus, is, that infantes does not necessarily mean such young children as the pædobaptists admit to baptism-Omnis ætas does not always include

infants, as appears by an instance from St. Cyprian; the Recognitions; Dionysius of Alexandria-Nor does the enumeration of the several ages make it necessary to understand such infants as are not capable of reason-Infancy, according to St. Irenæus himself, reaches to ten years of age; as Mr. Dodwell also thinks-The inference-Persons under ten capable of instruction and baptism-Recapitulation and conclusion.

SIR,

THE first century of Christianity I have already dispatched, and am now to examine the second.

Mr. Wall begins with St. Justin the Martyr, who lived about anno Christi 140; but the pieces he cites of this Father were all writ after 150, so that he passes over half the second century without any attempt upon it, and therefore I conclude that at least for one hundred and fifty years after Christ infant-baptism was not known in the world, or however, that our adversaries are not able to prove it was.

6

The first passage our author cites, is out of the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which he says is I only to shew, that in these times so very near the apostles, they spake of original sin affecting all 'mankind descended of Adam; and understood that besides the actual sins of each particular person, 'there is in our nature itself, since the fall, something that needs redemption and forgiveness by 'the merits of Christa. But this does not concern the baptizing of infants, and therefore Mr. Wall adds of his own, And that is ordinarily [to be] ' applied to every particular person by baptism ;' which signifies nothing, unless he can shew it is

6

a Part i. p. 13. [64.]