PÆDO-BAPTISM DEFENDED, &c. I F Infant-baptifm fhould pafst for an innovation, or fuch a late and novel invention, as its oppofers pretend it to be, this might prejudice them, and others, against any argument that might be offered in fupport of its authority. Therefore, to prepare the way for proving its authority, it was judged a proper ftep, in the first place, to difcufs the point of its antiquity. And fo, this was the defign of the tract, entitled Pado-baptifm, which Dr. Gill has honoured with his remarks, beginning where it ends, and inverting the order of the whole árgument. ર Towards the clofe of Pado-baptifm [a] are these words: "Thus, from the begining of the fifth century backward, either exprefsly, or in refpect to the common B. "grounds [a] Page 93. grounds of it, (thofe very grounds, upon "which, the Antipado-baptifts themselves - fay, it was founded) we have traced up "the practice of Infant-baptifm to the "time of the Apoftles". Now, these grounds were the fuppofed neceffity of baptifm to falvation, either as a mean of cleanf ing from fin, particularly original fin, or of gaining admittance into the kingdom of God. These are acknowledged to be the commonly received grounds of Infant-baptism in the primitive church; whether right, or wrong, was no queftion with the author, who was only enquiring into the matter of fact: For, as he adds," it is only the fact "itfelf, as attefted by the antient writers, "not their reafonings about it, in which c we are concerned at prefent". - Says Mr. Stennet, [b] (one of the most ingenious and learned writers on that fide)" The opi"nion of the abfolute neceffity of baptifm "to falvation, from a misunderstanding of "those 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 fubmiffion, as it does not appear that the antients mifunderstood thofe words of Chrift, by understanding them of baptifm; fo, it follows not, that Infant-baptifm was introduced into the Chriftian Church upon any miftake, [6] Anfwer to Rufssen, p. 77. miftake, merely because a wrong notion of baptifm was taken up; fuppofing that to have been the cafe. For, people might very easily take up fuch a notion, after they had received Infant-baptifm, and though they received it as a divine inftitution. When any of the philofophers (e. g. Plato) made ufe of weak arguments to prove the immortality of the foul, it feems to be a just obfervation, that they must have received that doctrine before: otherwise they could not have been induced, upon fuch flight, infufficient grounds, to embrace it at all [c]. In like manner, if wrong notions, and weak reafons, of baptifm in general, or of Infant-baptifm in particular, prevailed in the primitive church, it is eafy to conceive, that the thing itself was in ufe, before any fuch infufficient grounds of it were affigned. And thus, according to this view of the cafe, the practice of Infant-baptism was not introduced, (as is imagined) or originally grounded upon those reasons; but those reasons were grounded and grafted upon the practice of Infant-baptifm, already received in the Chriftian Church. This being premifed, let us now attend to Dr. Gill's remarks upon Pædo-baptifm." Mr. Bingham (a name of fo much note for learning and skill in ecclefiaftical mat [c] See Haliburton's Infufficiency of Nat. Relig. ch. 14. P. 45. ters, that, if it should not fecure a perfon from error, it might very well fcreen him from contempt with all men of candour) was quoted [d] for this remark; "The "most antient writer, that we have, is Cle« mens Romanus, who lived in the time of the Apoftles; and he, though he doth ἐσ not expressly mention Infant-baptism, i yet fays a thing, that by confequence ἐσ proves it: For, he makes Infants liable મંદ to Original Sin, which in effect is to fay, "that they have need of baptifm, &c." [e]. The paffage to which Mr. Bingham refers, is a quotation from Job xiv. 4, 5. which, according to the Greek verfion, Clemens reads thus: No man is free from pollution, no not tho' his life is but of one day. But, Dr. Wall obferves [f], that in the next chapter Clemens brings in, to the fame purpofe, the faying of David, Pf. li. 5. I was fhapen in iniquity, &c.-Now, Dr. Gill takes notice of the former 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" [g]. However, it is as much brought in for fuch a purpose, [d] Pado-baptifm, p. 92. [e] Antiq. of the Chr. Ch. B. 11. Ch. 4. S. 6. a purpose, as the faying of David; and, as both thefe paffages are commonly alledged by the primitive writers in proof of Original Sin, fo, it is prefumed, Dr. Gill himfelf fuppofes, that Clemens alfo understood them in the fame light; therefore, he cannot fairly deny, that in this apoftolical father we may trace one of the received grounds of Infant-baptifm in the primitive church, when he remembers his own account of Austin's saying, "This the church "has always had, has always held." For, fays he [b], "it was the doctrine of Ori"ginal Sin, and the Baptifm of Infants for "the remiffion of it, he speaks of.” And indeed, of all men, one cannot but wonder most at thofe, that hold Original Sin, and yet difown Infant-baptifm; that look upon all infants as loft in Adam, and left deftitute, at the fame time, of any appointed fign, or token of their concern with Chrift, under the clearest revelation, and the brightest difplay, of redeeming love and grace. But, that any fuch perfons exifted in the primitive church, does not appear. It is to no purpose then, for the Doctor, to alledge any fuch in our days, unless he had produced fome inftances of this kind in the earlier ages of the church, and particularly in the time of Clemens Ro manus. [b] Argum. from Ap. Trad. p. 26. The |