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.