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-'Aлò тоû '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-baptism— The 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 Taidov 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.

The first passage our author cites, is out of the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which he says is 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

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

St. Justin's assertion. He is to prove, that St. Justin and the church in his time thought so, and not to suppose they did; nor is it sufficient to say the Scripture teaches it, for the question here immediately is, not what the Scriptures teach, but what St. Justin teaches; though by the way the Scripture no more teaches that our Saviour's merits are to be applied to any persons by baptism, than it does that his merits must be applied by faith or by the supper in which the cup is the new covenant in his blood. St. Justin's expressions therefore are of no force, unless he had gone upon our author's principle, which he does not appear to have done.

All that can be urged from his mentioning original sin, I have fully answered before. Besides, it is much to be questioned, whether St. Justin, and most of the ancients of the first centuries, believed the notion. Mr. Wall has very much perverted the words of this passage, to make them speak to his purpose, and given such a translation of them as no schoolboy would have made. Whether he did it out of ignorance or inadvertency, I shall not determine.

6

The place, I think, should be rendered thus: As also, neither did he submit to be born and crucified, as being under any necessity to do it; but 'he did this for mankind, which from (not by) Adam was fallen under death and the guile of the serpent, by their own act and deed, every one having done wickedly. This makes the passage

b Page 424, &c.

• Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 315, 316. Ωσπερ οὐδὲ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν καὶ σταυρωθῆναι, ὡς ἐνδεὴς τούτων, ὑπέμεινεν, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπὲρ τοῦ γένους τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ̓Αδὰμ ὑπὸ θάνατον καὶ πλάνην

rather opposite to the doctrine of original sin, than in favour of it. Mr. Wall's translation is hardly intelligible; But he did this for mankind, which

6

by Adam was fallen under death, and the guile of 'the serpent, beside the particular cause which each man had of sinning.'

6

6

<

But you see, as I have rendered it, the sense is very natural and easy. And that St. Justin meant as I understand him, appears from the words immediately following those already transcribed: For God willing that all angels and men should be 'free agents, and that their actions should be determined by their own free choice-that if they did what was pleasing to him, they might be kept 'incorruptible and free from punishment; but if they did wickedly, he might punish every one according to his pleasured. Now to say here, that every man was designed by God to stand upon his own bottom, and to connect this by the illative particle for, to another sentence wherein he says all fell in Adam, is so great an absurdity, that we cannot, with any good manners, suppose St. Justin to be guilty of it: for nothing can be more contradictory, than to say all are sinners, in or by Adam, and yet that none are sinners but by their own free choice and action.

Besides, it is necessary to understand St. Justin as I have done, even from the propriety of the τὴν τοῦ ὄφεως ἐπεπτώκει, παρὰ τὴν ἰδίαν αἰτίαν ἑκάστου αὐτῶν πονηρευ oapévov. [Sect. 88. edit. Benedict.]

« Ibid. p. 316. Α. Βουλόμενος γὰρ τούτους ἐν ἐλευθέρᾳ προαιρέσει, καὶ αὐτεξουσίους γενομένους, τούς τε ἀγγέλους καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὁ Θεὸς πράττειν ὅσα ἕκαστον ἐνεδυνάμωσε δύνασθαι ποιεῖν, ἐποίησεν· εἰ μὲν τὰ εὐάρεστα αὐτῷ αἱροῖντο, καὶ ἀφθάρτους καὶ ἀτιμωρήτους αὐτοὺς τηρῆσαι· ἐὰν δὲ πονηρεύσωνται, ὡς αὐτῷ δοκεῖ ἕκαστον κολάζειν. [ibid.]