[79]. Vid. Just. Martyr, Quest. & Resp. Quest. CII. & ejusd. Apol. II.
[80]. Vid. Cyp. in Epist. ad Fid. Lib. iii. Epi. viii.
[81]. Vid. Iren. Lib. ii. xxxix.
[82]. Vid. Ejusd. Orat. xl.
[83]. Vid. Augustin. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Lib. i. Cap. xxviii. parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt qui contra autoritatem universæ ecclesiæ proculdubio per dominum, & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt; and in Sermon. x. de verbis Apostol, speaking concerning infant-baptism, he says, Nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc ecclesia semper habuit. semper tenuit; hoc a majorum fide percepit: hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit.
[84]. Vid. Tertul. Lib. de Baptism, Cap. xviii.
[85]. It is very remarkable, that in those ages and countries, where the mode of dipping has been, or still is, the most prevalent, there infant-baptism has been the most generally practised, and there the mode of baptizing has not been deemed essential. Instead, therefore, of finding all these people Baptists, but very few, if any, of that denomination, are to be found among them. Dr. Wall, who was himself an advocate for dipping, tells us, “that all christians in the world, who never owned the pope’s authority, do now, and ever did, dip their infants, in the ordinary use.” They always baptized their infants; and, ordinarily, by dipping, but not universally, for they, occasionally, sprinkled them. The mode of dipping was of ordinary use; but the practice of infant-baptism, in those churches who were never under the influence of popery, appears to have been universal, both in ancient and modern times.
We do not pretend to rest the proof of infants’ right to baptism upon historical evidence, relative to the ancient practice of the church in this respect. However, if it should appear, that the churches, soon after the apostles, did admit the infant children of believing parents to baptism—if no account can be produced, of any church that rejected them—if no individual can be named, who pretended that the practice was unlawful, or an innovation—these facts will certainly furnish a very weighty argument in favour of the aforesaid doctrine.
Baptism is an important transaction of a public nature. Those christians, who lived and wrote in the earliest times after the apostles, must have known what their practice was, with reference to the infant children of believers. The testimony of these ancient writers, as historians or witnesses, respecting this plain matter of fact, justly claims our most impartial and attentive consideration. It is not, however, my intention to write a complete history of infant-baptism. A history of this kind has been written a century ago, by Dr. Wall, a very correct and judicious historian. This history is highly approved and recommended by the best judges, being a work of great merit, candour and impartiality.
On February 9th, 1705, the clergy of England, assembled in general convention, “ordered, that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, vicar of Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written concerning infant-baptism; and that a committee be appointed to acquaint him with the same.” Dr. Atterbury, a leading member in said convention, says, “that the history of infant-baptism was a book, for which the author deserved the thanks, not of the English clergy alone, but of all the Christian churches.” Mr. Whiston also, a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers of the four first centuries, and a professed Baptist, in his address to the people of that denomination, declares to them, “that Dr. Wall’s history of infant-baptism, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately done, and might be depended on by the Baptists themselves.” Mem. of his life, part 2, page 461.