purge it away? there is not; it is the blood of Chrift, and that only, that purges away fin, whether original or actual. Should it be faid that this was the fenfe of the ancients in fome after-ages, who did ascribe such a virtue to baptifm, and did affirm it was neceffary to be administered, and did administer it to infants. for that purpose, what is this to Clemens? what, because fome perfons in fome after-ages gave into this ftupid notion, that baptism took away original fin, and was neceffary to infants, and ought to be given them for that reason, does it follow that Clemens was of that mind? or is there the leaft hint of it in his letter? What though he held the doctrine of original fin, does it follow therefore that he was for infant-baptifm? how many Antipædobaptifts are there who profess the fame doctrine? will any man from hence conclude that they are for and in the practice of infant-baptifm? It follows in the words of the fame writer; "Hermes paftor (Hermas I fuppose it should be) lived about the same time with "Clemens; and hath feveral paffages to fhew the general neceffity of water, "that is, baptifm, to fave men:" the paffages referred to are thofe Dr Wall has produced. Hermas had a vifion of a tower built on water; inquiring the reafon of it, he is told, it was " because your life is, and will be faved by water:" and in another place, "before any one receives the name of the Son of God, "he is liable to death; but when he receives that feal, he is delivered from "death, and is affigned to life; and that feal is water." Now by water Hermas is fuppofed to mean baptifm; but furely he could not mean real material water, or the proper ordinance of water-baptifm, fince he speaks of the patriarchs coming up through this water, and being fealed with this feal after they were dead, and fo entering into the kingdom of God: but how difembodied fpirits could be baptized in real water, is not eafy to conceive; it must furely defign fomething myftical; and what it is, I muft leave to thofe who better understand thefe vifionary things: but be it fo, that baptifm in water is meant, falvation. by it may be understood in the fame fenfe as the apostle Peter afcribes falvation to it, when he says, that baptifm faves by the refurrection of Chrift from the dead; that is, by directing the baptized perfon to Chrift for falvation, who was delivered for his offences, and rofe again for his juftification; of which refurrection baptifin by immerfion is a lively emblem; and Hermas is only speaking of adult perfons, and not of infants, or of their baptism, or of the neceffity of it to their dalvation in another place indeed he speaks of fome that were as infants without malice, and fo more honourable than others; and, adds he, all infants, are honoured with the Lord, and accounted of first of all; that is, all fuch infants as before defcribed: but be it that infants in age are meant, they may be valued and loved by the Lord; he may fhew mercy to them, chufe, redeem, regenerate, and fave them, and yet not order them to be baptized; nor has he ordered

it however Hermas has not a word about the baptifm of them, and therefore these paffages are impertinently referred to.

Now these are all the paffages of the writers of the first century brought into this controversy; in which there is fo far from being any exprefs mention of infant-baptifm, that it is not in the leaft hinted at, nor referred unto; nor is any thing of this kind pretended to, till we come to the middle of the next age; and yet our author upon the above paffages concludes after this manner: "thus we have traced up the practice of infant baptifm to the time of the apostles;" when those writers give not the leaft hint of infant-baptifm, or have any reference to it, or the practice of it. It is amazing what a face fome men have proceed we now to

The fecond century. The book of Recognitions, this writer feems to be at a lofs where to place it, whether after or before Justin; however, Mr Bingham tells him," it is an antient writing of the fame age with Justin Martyr, men"tioned by Origen in his Philocalia, and by fome afcribed to Bardefanes Syrus, "who lived about the middle of the second century." It is indeed mentioned by Origen, though not under that name, and is by him afcribed to Clemens, as it has been commonly done; and if fo, might have been placed among the tef timonies of the first century; but this Gentleman's author fays it is afcribed by fome to Bardefanes Syrus: it is true, there is inferted in it a fragment out of a dialogue of his concerning fate, against Abydas an aftrologer; but then it should rather be concluded from hence, as Fabricius obferves, that the author of the Recognitions, is a later writer than Bardefanes: but be it fo that it is him, who is this Bardefanes? an arch-heretic, one that first fell into the Valentinian herefy; and though he seemed afterwards to change his mind, he was not wholly free, as Eufebius fays, from his old heresy; and he became the author of a new sect, called after his name Bardefanifts; who held that the devil was not a creature of God; that Chrift did not affume human flesh; and that the body rifes not ". The book of Recognitions, afcribed to him, is urged by the Papifts, as Mr James obferves, to prove the power of exorcifts, free-will, faith alone insufficient, the chryfm in baptism, and Peter's fucceffion; though the better fort of writers among them are ashamed of it. Sixtus Senenfis fays, that "molt things in "it are uncertain, many fabulous, and fome contrary to doctrines generally "received." And Baronius has these words concerning it: "Away with fuch monstrous lies and mad-dotages, which are brought out of the faid filthy "ditch

VOL. II.

3 D

b Eccl. Hift. 1. 4. C. 30.

a Bibliothec. Græc. 1. 5. c. 1. f. 12. p. 36. Ittigius de Herefiarchis, fect. 2. c. 6. p. 133. Vid. Epiphan. Hæref. 56. Auguft, de Hæref. c. 35. ◄ Corruption of the Fathers, part 1.

e

Apud Rivet. Critic, Sacr. 1. 1. c. 7. p. 130.

P.

6.

f Ibid.

"ditch of the Recognitions, which go under the name of Clemens" but all this is no matter, if infant-baptifm can be proved out it; but how?" This "author fpeaks of the neceffity of baptifm in the fame ftile as Justin Martyr "did was undeniably an affertor of the general neceffity of baptifm to falva"tion:" wherever this wretched tenet, this falfe notion of the abfolute neceffity of baptifm to falvation is met with, the Pedobaptifts prefently fmell out infantbaptifm, one falfhood following upon another; and true it is, that one error leads on to another; and this falfe doctrine paved the way for infant-baptifm; but then the mystery of iniquity worked by degrees; as foon as it was broached infant-baptifm did not immediately commence: it does not follow, because that heretic afferted this notion, that therefore he was for or in the practice of infantbaptifm; befides this book, be the author of it who will, is not made mention of before the third century, if fo foon; for the work referred to by Origen has > another title, and was in another form; he calls it the circuits of Peter, an apocryphal, fabulous and romantic writing; and though the paffage he quotes is in the Recognitions, which makes fome learned men conclude it to be the fame with that; yet fo it might be, and not be the fame with it. But I país on to a more authentic and approved writer of the fecond century:

Justin Martyr, who lived about the year 150; and the first paffage produced from him is this: "We bring them (namely, 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 washed with water "in the name of God the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jefus Chrift, and of the holy Spirit." In this paffage, it is owned, “Justin "is defcribing the manner of adult baptifm only; having no occafion to de"fcend to any farther particulars; nor is it alledged, it is faid, as a proof of infant-baptifm directly; but only to fhew, that this ancient writer ufed the "word regeneration fo as to connote baptifm-yet his words cannot be thought "to exclude the baptifm of infants in these days: " but if infant-baptism had been practifed in thofe days, it is not confiftent with that fincerity and impartiality which Justin fets out with, when he proposed to give the Roman Emperor an account of chriftian baptifm, not to make any mention of that; for he introduces it thus: "We will declare after what manner, when we were "renewed by Chrift, we devoted ourselves unto God, left omitting this we "fhould feem to act a bad part (prevaricate or deal unfairly) in this declara"tion," whereas it was not dealing fairly with the Emperor, and not giving him a full and fair account of the administration of the ordinance of baptifm to all its proper fubjects, if infants had ufed to be baptized; which he could eafily

Apolog. 2. p. 93, 94.

66

eafily have introduced the mention of, and one would think could not have omitted it befides, as Dr Gale obferves, he had an occafion to speak of it, and to defcend to this particular, had it been used; fince the chriftians were charged with ufing their infants barbarously; which he might have removed, had this been the cafe, by obferving the great regard they had to them in devoting them to God in baptism, and thereby initiating them into their religion, and providing for the salvation of their fouls: but Justin is so far from faying any thing of this kind, that he leaves the Emperor and every body else to conclude that infants were not the fubjects of baptifm in this early age; for as the above writer obferves, immediately follow fuch words as directly oppofe infant-baptifm; they are these: "And we have been taught by the apostles this reafon for this thing; because we being ignorant of our first birth, were generated by neceffity, &c. that we should not continue children of that "neceffity and ignorance, but of will (or choice) and knowledge; and fhould "obtain forgivenfs of the fins in which we have lived, by water: " fo that in order to obtain these things by water or baptifm, which Juftin fpeaks of, there must be free choice and knowledge, which infants are not capable of: but it feems the main thing this paffage is brought to prove, is, that the words regenerated and regeneration are used for baptized and baptifm; and this agreeing with the words of Chrift in John iii. 5. fhews that this conftruction of them then obtained, that baptifm is neceffary to falvation. Now, it fhould be observed, that the perfons Justin speaks of are not reprefented by him as regenerated by baptifm, because they are spoken of before as converted perfons and believers; and it is as clear and plain that their baptism is distinguished from their regeneration, and is not the fame thing; for Justin ufes the former as an argument of the latter; which if the fame, his fenfe must be, they were baptized because they were baptized; whereas his sense, confiftent with himself, and the practice of the primitive churches, is; that these perfons, when brought to the water, having made a profeffion of their regeneration, were owned and declared regenerated perfons; as was manifeft from their being admitted to the ordinance of water-baptism; and from hence it appears, that, then no such construction of John iii. 5. obtained, that baptism is neceffary to falvation: and this now seems to be the paffage referred to, in which Justin is faid to speak of the neceffity of baptifm, in a ftile the author of the Recognitions agreed with him in; but without any reason.

"

The next paffage out of Juftin is in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; where he fays that concerning the influence and effect of Adam's fin upon mankind, "which the ancient writers represent as the ground and reafon of infant

66

66

baptifm" The words, as cited by Dr Wall, to whom our author refers us, are these Justin, speaking of the birth, baptism, and crucifixion of Christ, fays," he did this for mankind, which by Adam was fallen under death, and "under the guile of the serpent; beside the particular cause which each man "had of finning." Now, allowing that this is fpoken of original fin, as it seems to be, what is this to infant-baptifm? I have already exposed the folly of arguing from perfons holding the one, to the practice of the other. It is added by our author, " in the fame book, he (Justin) speaks of baptism being "to chriftians in the room of circumcifion, and fo points out the analogy be"tween those two initiatory rites." The paffage referred to is this: "We "alfo who by him have had access to God, have not received this carnal circumcifion, but the fpiritual circumcifion, which Enoch, and thofe like him, "have observed; and we have received it by baptifin by the mercy of God, "because we were finners; and it is enjoined to all perfons to receive it the fame way." Now let be observed, that this spiritual circumcifion, whatever Justin means by it, can never defign baptifm; fince the patriarch Enoch, and others like him, obferved it: and fince chriftians are faid to receive it by baptism, and therefore must be different from baptifm itself: nor does Justin fay any thing of the analogy between baptifm and circumcifion, or of the one being in the room of the other; but opposes the fpiritual circumcifion to carnal circumcifion; and speaks not one word of infants, only of the duty of adult perfons, as he suppofes it to be. The laft paffage, and on which this Gentleman intends to dwell awhile, is this *; "Several perfons (fays Justin) among us of both sexes, of fixty and feventy years of age, οι εκ παίδων εμαθητεύθησαν το Χριςω, σε who were difcipled to Chrift in their childhood, &c." which I have obferved should be rendered," who from their childhood were inftructed in Chrift;" and which I have confirmed by feveral paffages in Juftin, in which he uses the word in the fense of instruction; and from whom can we better learn his meaning than from himself? all which this author takes no notice of; but puts me off with a paffage out of Plutarch, where Antiphon the fon of Sophilus, according to his verfion, is faid to be difcipled or profelyted to his father: I leave him to enjoy his own sense; for I do not understand it; and fhould have thought that Main Terous dono male, might have been rendered more intelligibly, as well as more truly, "inftructed by his father;" fince, as it follows, his father was an orator. He thinks he has catched me off of my guard, and that I fuppofe the word disciple includes baptifm; because in my commentary on As xix. 3. I say, "the apostle takes it for granted that they were baptized, fince they were not only believers, but difciples;" but had he read on, or transcribed what follows, ! Ib. p. 261. * Ib. Apolog. p. 62.

66

Dialog. cum Trypho p, 316. Ed. Paris.