it appear to have been the custom of the Jews at our Saviour's time to baptize proselytes and their children. I have also added several arguments which do with great probability evince the contrary. I have likewise shewn, that even supposing the fact could be demonstrated, it is no rule to us in the administration of a Christian sacrament, as being only a tradition of their elders, and not grounded on Scripture, nor derived from Moses. And this cuts off one great part of the pretended evidence for infant-baptism, and effectually everts what they call the main basis' of it. The other kind of evidence Mr. Wall produces, viz. the authority of the Fathers, is next to be considered. In the mean time, I am,

Sir, &c.

LETTER XI.

WHAT is to be the particular business of the following letters -The authority of the primitive Fathers more to be valued than Daillé and some others suppose-It would be easy to defend the credit of the Fathers from the cavils of these men -They were, doubtless, faithful in the relations they were well qualified to give of affairs in their own churches and times-And so far their authority is of consequence-But yet this is not sufficient to ground Mr. Wall's attempt upon, though they should afford ever so many full citations—They were sometimes in the wrong-The two only ways to prove infant-baptism, are insufficient, even though the arguments our adversaries make use of be allowed all the force they are pretended to have-It is probable the earliest churches practised only what they received from the apostlesMr. Wall takes no notice of St. Barnabas, because he makes against infant-baptism, in several places-The passages from St. Clement examined-Mr. Wall's argument from them stated -The main point on which it turns, a groundless mistake, viz. that baptism is necessary universally to all that shall be saved-Baptism does not appear to have been designed to wash away original sin-By this same argument, it might as certainly be proved, that all the antipædobaptists now are for infant-baptism-The passages from Hermas considered—In the passages cited, this Father speaks only of adult personsJohn iii. 5. considered-Kingdom of God does not necessarily mean the kingdom of glory-The words cannot be taken universally-Tis has no relation to infants in any place of Scripture And here relates only to the subjects of whom our Lord speaks-Who are only adult persons who have heard the word preached-As appears, 1. Because such only can be expected to comply with the institution, to whom only it is truly given-2. Because such only can be saved by it, according to St. Peter-Whose words the pædobaptists have never yet fairly interpreted-Dr. Whitby's evasion considered-3. The same form of speech usual, when infants are not included; as they seem not to be in this place by our

Saviour's words in the context-4. The words under consideration cannot be true of infants-5. Something in the words themselves limits them to adult persons-What it is to be born of the Spirit-Dr. Whitby's judicious observations on the text -Another passage of Hermas considered-He only describes visions, and therefore is not always to be taken literally-He cannot mean, that persons in their separate state were or could be baptized with material water-He says nothing however of infant-baptism; but rather excludes infants in this very passage – 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 disputeAnother passage of Hermas-That infants are esteemed of God, no argument they ought to be baptized-This passage makes rather against infant-baptism-Hermas says several things inconsistent with it-Matt. xix. 14. considered—It has no relation to baptism-Dr. Whitby's improvement of the passage examined-It is probable the children were brought to be healed-It does not follow from these words, that they are fit to be dedicated to Christ by baptism-The bishop of Salisbury's assertion noted, and disproved-Conclusion.

You may remember, sir, that Mr. Wall allows there are but two ways to establish the credit and divine authority of infant-baptism: viz. to ascertain the practice of the Jews in Christ's time; and of the primitive church immediately after.

The practice of the Jews, in relation to this point, was the subject of my last letter: all I have further to add, is to shew, that it does not appear that the Christians of the first ages did practise infantbaptism, and that the writings of the Fathers of those times do not countenance it in the least. And when this is done, Mr. Wall's concession gives up the cause, and the patrons of infant-baptism should

honestly renounce their error, or else produce some better arguments on their side.

To all that is usually built on the credit of the Fathers, some take the shortest way, and answer by rejecting their authority; and Daillé, who has observed no moderation towards those good men in another case, has lent such disputants a helping hand to destroy their reputation. It is an ill return for the great lessons and examples of piety they have given us, and for their having been so instrumental in transmitting to us the knowledge of our most holy religion. And there is yet a greater evil attends this method; for all the abuses and affronts put upon the Fathers of the first centuries, do in the end reflect on Christianity itself, which those great men have handed down, and which therefore must needs be, in some degree, of but doubtful authority if it depends on insufficient testimonies.

It would not be difficult to defend the writings of the Fathers from the reproaches cast on them by these men, and by Daillé their oracle, notwithstanding he has taken such pains in the matter, and pushed it with all the vigour he could. But it is a nice subject, and much too copious to be treated here at large. I shall therefore only say, that in many cases, the rejecting the authority of the Fathers is a very wild extreme; which men are driven to, only because they have nothing better to say for themselves, and cannot brook to see their opinions contradicted in their writings.

That the Fathers of the first churches were honest faithful men, and every way capable to acquaint us with the true posture of affairs in their own churches and times, and therefore are to be depended on as

far as they relate facts within their proper cognizance, must be allowed on all hands; and I do not see how their greatest enemies can have the face to deny this: and Mr. Wall pretends to make no further use of their authority in the present dispute, than to shew what was the opinion or practice of the churches where they presided, and of the times when they wrote.

However, Mr. Wall's argument from the Fathers turns upon a supposition which cannot easily be granted him; viz. that the primitive church believed and practised nothing but what they had received from the apostles themselves. For what can he mean by endeavouring to prove, the church of the first three centuries practised infant-baptism? unless at the same time he imagines their practice a sufficient argument of its divine institution. And if our author had ventured to lay down this principle so formally as I have expressed it; every one, though ever so little acquainted with ecclesiastical history, would have been able to judge of the weakness of it.

But, without any reflection on the honour and fidelity of the Fathers, their testimonies cannot support infant-baptism, though they should afford our author ever so many and full citations; for if the Fathers only prove fact in the church, and not right, and the church was not wholly pure from innovations; how does this prove the baptism of infants was no innovation, but an institution of Christ? And yet this is the thing our author should have done, though he takes no notice of it.

It is irksome to remember the instances of human frailty which even the most ancient church was