propriety of infant baptism, differing from him only with respect to the reason of the practice, and what might be inferred from it.

With the same confident boldness, and on as little authority, he says, that the baptism of infants was merely an African custom, but that "it should seem" to have been "first practised by a small obscure sect of Gnostics, called Cainites, Caianites, or Gaianites." He says, however, “It is impossible to say any thing certain on the baptism of children among the Gnostics, when and where it originated, whether it was only proposed, or really practised, how far it extended, and by what means, or at what moment, it found its way into the Catholic church: but there is no hazard in affirming, that toward the close of the 4th century it was first brought into public by Gregory Nazianzen; that it became agreeable to the clergy, as a relief from the inconveniences of the catechumen-state; that it was the standing mode of baptizing for many centuries in both the Greek and Roman Catholic churches; and that it became popular only in proportion as fraud beguiled, or as civil power forced, the reluctant laity to yield to it."*

Thus may any man write who pays no regard to truth or probability. Here a solemn practice is said to have originated in the most enlightened age of the primitive church, an age the most abounding in writers, when nothing new was started without being controverted (for the numerous writings of that age are chiefly controversial), and to have become presently universal, nay instantly so (for Gregory Nazianzen was in part contemporary with Austin) without any objection or controversy at all. The laity are deceived, or compelled, to compliance, without leaving any trace of a complaint on the subject. And finally the whole Catholic church borrow an universal practice from an obsure set of Gnostics; when every branch of them are known to have been held in the greatest abhorence by all the Catholics.

Besides, it is well known that the only sect of Christians who rejected baptism and the eucharist were some of the Gnostics. It was the leading principle of those philosophising Christians, that matter owes its origin and formation to an evil being. They, therefore, wished to disengage the spiritual part of man from any connexion with it. This led them to reject the doctrine of a resurrection, and to maintain

* Hist. of Baptism, pp. 247–249. (P.)

+ Robinson, however, adduces " BASILII Orat. Exhort, ad baptis." as an authority, and quotes "GREG. NAZIANZ. Orat. xl." in the original. See Hist. pp. 249, 250.

that the soul, once delivered from the bondage of flesh, would never be united to it again, but go immediately to heaven. And on the same principle they might deny the use of any material elements for spiritual purposes, as of bread and wine in the eucharist, and water in baptism; and as the Quakers do now, they might say, that what is delivered conerning those rites in the New Testament is to be understood in a spiritual, or mystical sense. But none of the ancient sects of Christians denied infant baptism only, so as to confine baptism to adults. If they objected to baptism, as some did, it was to baptism with water universally, that of adults, as well as that of infants.

Mr. Robinson says, that "the Manicheans-did not baptize infants." But it is proved by Beausobre, who took more pains than any other person to investigate the history, the opinions, and the practices, of the Manicheans, that they did baptize infants. He says, that "their affection for the system of the Magians would incline them to it, since these also baptized; both presenting children to the sun, and to fire; and also plunging them into a large vessel of water."†

9. The practice of infant baptism in churches very remote from each other, and unquestionably of great antiquity, cannot be accounted for, but on the supposition of this having been the general, if not the universal, practice, when those churches were founded.

The Donatists baptized infants as well as the Catholics in Africa, and certainly would not borrow it from them, and the Donatists were prior to Constantine. Infant baptism, as well as infant communion, is the practice of the Greek church; and the Greeks would not adopt any thing from the Latins. The Waldenses also baptized infants, and said that their ancestors never practised otherwise. ¶

Infant baptism is practised by the Christians of St. Thomas

• Hist. of Baptism, p. 496. (P.) Robinson, whom Dr. Priestley has, I think, on this subject, allowed himself too hastily to censure, here quoted Mosheim, (" De Rebus Christianorum ante Constantin. Mag. Comment. Helmstadii, 1753, Sæc. iii. L. i.") where he says, "Hæc manifesta et supra omnem dubitationem posita erunt si docuero. 1. Infantes apud Manichæos non fuisse per baptismum in ecclesiam receptos," &c. See Hist. p. 496.

Lardner, on the contrary, says, "they practised infant baptism;" and sustains his opinion by questions "from Faustus, and Mani himself." Works, III. p. 490. + Histoire de Manichée et du Manichéisme, 1739. II. p. 719. (P.) "Manichée -se conformoit en cela à la pratique des Mages, dont il ne s'éloignoit que le moins qu'il lui étoit possible. C'étoit le moyen de leur faire goûter sa Religion. Les anciens Persans portoient leurs Enfans au Temple, peu de jours après qu'ils étoient nez, et les présentoient au prêtre devant le soleil, et devant le feu, qui en étoit le symbole." Ibid.

↑ Vol. VIII. pp. 259–261.

See Wall, (ed. S,) I. pp. 182—192. See Vol. II. p. 338, Note; V. p. 238, Note; Wall, (ed. S,) 11. pp. 258, 259. ¶ Wall's History of Infant Baptism, I. p. 162. (P.) Ed. S. II. pp. 227-245.

in the East, and though they are said to be Nestorians, they were, no doubt, prior to Nestorius. It is, however, the practice of all the professed Nestorians, as well as of their opponents the Eutychians or Jacobites, wherever situated, as of the Armenians, Copts, and Abyssinians.

The Christians of Abyssinia are probably as ancient as the time of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, whose eunuch was converted by Philip. But the lowest opinion concerning the origin of Christianity in Abyssinia is the time of Athanasius, who was prior to the Council of Chalcedon, or any mention of Nestorianism or Eutychianism. And since the Abyssinians have not much learning, it is probable that their opinions and customs are the same that they were in the earliest times. Their custom is to baptize forty days after the birth. La Croze thinks that the Abyssinians received Christianity from the old Nazarenes, who were Jews. Hence he thinks they had the rite of circumcision. All their customs, he says, point to this origin, and no other.*

The Mingrelians and Georgians, who retain little more than the name of Christians, † baptize, according to Chardin, at a very early age, at least before the children are able to answer for themselves, though they generally defer the ceremony till they can afford to make an entertainment on the occasion. The Maronites also baptize infants. ||

• Histoire du Christianisme d' Ethiopé, 1789, p. 79. (P.) "Je crois que les Abissius, qui, comme tous les Savans en conviennent, ont passé d'Arabie en Afrique, ont reçu leur Religion des Chrétiens Nazaréens, dont peut-être même ils sont les descendans. En effet, toutes leurs coutumes se rapportent-là et ne paroissent pas susceptibles d' une autre origine." Ibid.

+"Sir John Chardin says, (p. 85,) I could never discover any religion in any Mengrelian: Having not found any that know what religion, or law, or sin, or a sacrament, or divine service, is." This, Chardin adds, "is no less true of the people of Georgia," Wall, (ed. 3,) II. pp. 263, 265.

Chardin says, 66 They anoint infants as soon as they are born, on the forehead. -The oil for this anointing is called myrone. The baptism is not administered till a long time after." Ibid. p. 264.

§ Wall's History of Infant Baptism, II. p. 125. (P.) “Hence,” Chardin adds, "it comes to pass that many infants die without receiving baptism." Ed. 3, II. p. 264. "There is not one priest among them that understands the form of baptism: so their baptism is utterly invalid. On this regard the fathers of the Theatines baptize as many infants as they can. They give them baptism under pretence of applying some medicine, &c.-A priest that is called to see a sick child, calls for a bason of water, as it were to wash his hands: then before his hands be dry, he touches the forehead of the child with a wet finger, as if he observed something concerning his distemper; or by shaking his hand causes some drops of water to fly in the face of a child that stands by, as it were in sport: saying the form of baptism either mentally, or with a muttering voice.-Sir John was invited to two christenings there. The priest read, but talked at the same time, to those that came in and out. The people went irreverently to and fro in the room: and so did the boy that was to be baptized, chewing a piece of pig the while. He was, he says, a little boy of five years old." Ibid. pp. 264, 265.

Who, according to Ross, "receive the Eucharist as soon as baptized." View of all Religions, (ed. 6,) 1696, p. 349.

Mr. Robinson says, "At what time the baptism of little children began to be tolerated in the Nestorian church is uncertain: the most likely opinion is, that it was introduced in the seventh century, by the patriarch Jesujabus III., who was a monk of great address, and who raised himself to the patriarchate by a singular effort." He adds, "It may very fairly be doubted whether the baptism of natural infants be practised by any Nestorians, except a few whom the missionaries have latinized. They are constantly censured for delaying to baptize their children till they are three, four, six, eight, ten, or eighteen years of age." *

Thus writes Mr. Robinson, without mentioning a single. circumstance to make his bold conjecture so much as probable. For any thing that is certainly known, infant baptism might with as much probability be said to have been introduced among these Nestorians by any other person as this Jesujabus. † And what Mr. Robinson says is probable, is contrary to all ecclesiastical history. If the Catholic missionaries may be credited, they found infant baptism practised by the Nestorians when they arrived among them; and they appear to have practised it time immemorial. As to some of them deferring baptism till the age that Mr. Robinson mentions, it was evidently from neglect, and not from principle. He might with equal reason maintain that the majority of the people of England, and of America too, are no Christians, or that they deny the obligation and use of the Lord's supper, because they never attend upon that Christian ordinance. But who does not see the inconclusiveness of that inference from the fact?

Simon says, that "there were many of them, chiefly the poor, who lived in the woods, and who had never been baptized, because it took money; yet they went to church and received the communion. Besides, they often enough delayed baptism for several months, and even years."‡ Has this the appearance of any fixed principle, or allowed practice? This writer adds, that, "according to the ancient practice of the eastern church, the Nestorians administered

• Hist. of Baptism, p. 487. (P.) "Ils different le baptême des enfans jusqu'à trois, quatre, cinq, six, dix et dixhuit ans;" quoted from "Le Sieur de Moni, (P. Simon,) Hist. Critiq. de la Créance et des Coutumes des Nations de Levant. Franckf. 1684, p. 5." Ibid.

This charge against Robinson appears to be unfounded. He quotes Ebedjesu, (in Asseman, Tom. III. Pt. i. p. 139,) who says "Jesujabus, Adjabenus-Nestorianis præfuit ab anno Christi 650, ad annum 660." Then immediately follows (from Ordo Baptismi Chaldæor. Tom. I. p. 584) " Ordinavit totum circulis et baptismum, id est, ritum administrandi hoc sacramentum." Hist. of Baptism, p. 487, Note 9. History of the Religions of the Eastern Nations, p. 94. (P.)

to children confirmation, and the eucharist, together with baptism."

That the Nestorians deferred baptism so many years as Mr. Robinson says, is constantly objected to them: it is only the charge of a single person, who was interested in representing their opinions and practices as absurd as possible. Simon, after enumerating sixteen articles in which they were said to differ from the Church of Rome, says, "These are a part of the errors Archbishop Menezes pretended to have found among the Christians of St. Thomas, which the compiler of that history exaggerates, to shew that extraordinary labour was necessary to gain these people." + Is it not evident too from this, that these errors and abuses, real or pretended, existed among these Christians before the arrival of the missionaries among them, and were not, as Mr. Robinson thought probable, introduced by them?

SECTION III.

Objections to the preceding Arguments.

1. To these reasons for the general practice of infant baptism by Christian parents, I do not find more than one objection grounded on a fact, and that is the case of Gregory Nazianzen, who was not baptized till he was of adult age, though his father was a Christian and a bishop. ‡ But not to observe that no general conclusion can be drawn from the opinion or practice of a single person, since it might be peculiar to himself, the father of Gregory was a Heathen till after he was married, as were his parents before him, § though he was ordained priest soon after his marriage; and it depends, Mr. Wall says, upon an obscure point of chronology whether he was born before his father's baptism or not. || If he was born before his father's baptism he certainly would not be baptized till afterwards. Or, if he was born after his father's baptism, it might be his particular opinion, as it was that of his son, that it was more adviseable to defer it till the child was of reasonable age, except in case of sickness with danger of

History of the Religions of the Eastern Nations, p. 101. (P.)

+ Ibid. p. 97. (P.)

A few other similar cases are alleged by the Antipædobaptists, but they are all considered, and I think satisfactorily accounted for, by Mr. Wall. (P.) See Wall, (ed. 3,) II. pp. 44-70.

§ Wall's History of Infant Baptism, II. pp. 20, 53. (P.) Ed. S, II. pp. 70-82. See Gale, pp. 29, 30; Wall's Defence, pp. 65, 66.

Hist. II. p. 34. (P.) Ed. 3, pp. 72—74.