Marcion, Montanus; and the whole church was rent into two furious and angry sects, the eastern and the western, by the controversy about Easter. In the third century there arose Novatian, Sabellius, Paulus Samosatensis, Manes, &c. with their followers. In the fourth, the Maletians, Arians, Athanasians, &c. Now these several inflamed parties, into which by divine permission, the church was then divided, were watchful and severe spies upon each others conduct: so that if any of them had innovated in this matter, of baptising infants, how readily would the rest have entered their protest against it, and exclaimed loudly upon the innovation? But, it seems, so far were they from this; that however mutually inflamed and angry as to other points; yet, laying aside their animosity, they all surprisingly agree, in the affair of baptising infants, to depart from the apostolic practice; and by an unaccountable confederacy connive at one another in this dangerous superstition. Strange! beyond all belief!-That amidst their many mutual accusations, reproaches, complaints, we meet not, in all antiquity, with one upon this head; and not a man, catholic nor heretic, dropping a single word against this gross innovation; except, perhaps, Tertullian; and he not absolutely, (if at all) censuring it; and supporting his dislike of it, by reasons which are no strength but a dishonour to any cause.

For an hundred years after the death of the apostles, their authority was sufficient, our brethren acknowledge, to keep such an innovation from entering the church. They therefore usually place the introduction of this practice about the beginning of the third century. But behold in the short space of about two hundred years more, without a single precept to warrant, or a single example to encourage it, yea with the well-known

practice of the apostles themselves, and of all the churches they ever planted throughout the whole world, confessedly, openly, directly against it; under all these disavantages, the baptism of infants, it seems, so every where prevailed, that upon the face of the whole earth there was not a church found where it was not performed !-To him that believes this, what can be incredible?

Some, perhaps, to evade the force of the foregoing argument, may object-" There have been "other great corruptions, such as image-worship, "transubstantiation &c. which have alike univer

sally prevailed in the church." But the answer is extremely obvious. 1. This is far from being true; nay it is entirely without foundation. Nei ther image-worship, nor transubstantiation ever universally prevailed. The latter has by the greater part of the christian church been in all times rejected as it is at this day; and though the former, since, the seventh century, has spread itself wide, and too generally prevailed, yet it was not without mighty struggles and oppositions in the church; numerous synods of bishops zealously declared against it: solemn decrees of councils, not one kingdom or church only, but in diverse regions of the earth, publicly condemned it: the arm both of civil and military power was strenuously exerted to establish and support it: grievous per, secutions were raised upon its account; and many testified their abhorrence of it by bitter sufferings, and death itself. And is this a case at all parallel to that of infant baptism, which we have now been considering? The most prejudiced judgment must confess it is not. Besides

2. Had these corruptions, indeed, as universally prevailed, as infant baptism ever did; yet would this, by no means, have put them upon an equal foot with that; or have made the cases at all paral

lel. For, when the bishop of Rome had claimed and was acknowledged to be the infallible head, the supreme pastor of the church, the vicar of Christ, &c. when emperors and kings took upon them to convene councils to explain doctrines, and establish faith by dint of civil authority; cherishing and upholding one party by worldly honours and preferments; but terrifying and crushing others by banishment, confiscations, imprisonment and death: finally; when the clergy had both the terrors and the riches of this world, much at their disposal; and the spirit of true piety, fortitude and faith began to languish in the church, (as it miserably languished, in the times when image worship and transubstantiation were brought in) and a spirit of pride and domination, of sensuality and sloth sprung up in its room :-When this, I say, was the case, such an universal departure from the apostles' doctrine and practice may seem easily to be accounted for, and has nothing in it so strange. But-when the circumstances of the church were the very reverse of all this; harrassed and severely pressed by persecutions from without; split into various sects and angry parties within; destitute of worldly honours to recommend, and of worldly terrors to enforce any doctrine or practice; and acknowledging no visible, supreme, infallible head, as having dominion over its faith; when this was the case (as in the three first centuries, when infant baptism has been shewn universally to prevail, it manifestly was,) every one sees the wide, the vast difference; and must confess the impossibility of so universally corrupting the apostolic doctrine and practice of baptising only the adult, if any such there had been; and of foisting in, throughout the whole world, infant baptism in its stead.

So that, upon the whole, it appears a clear and

a very strongly attested fact:-That the practice, of baptising infants was primitive and apostolic; and that the first christian churches were every where formed and established upon this scheme.

But the examples of scripture-baptism, our brethren are wont to urge, are all on their side.→ This is confidently, indeed, asserted; but upon a closer examination will be found a manifest mistake. There being not, in the whole scripture, one single instance of the baptism for which they plead, and which is practised amongst them; viz. That those who are born of christian parents, are to be suffered to become adult before they are baptised. This, it is to be observed carefully, is the point in question betwixt us. As for the case of adult proselytes, or converts to christianity, these, we all agree, are not to be baptised till they personally profess faith. The scripture instances therefore of such proselytes, baptised upon such profession, are of no pertinence nor weight at all in the controversy before us: for these are exactly consonant to our sentiments and practice. The only point in debate is what is to be done with the infants of these proselytes? Are they to be baptised with their parents?--Or; are they to be let alone till they become adult, and then be baptised upon their personal profession? This latter, our brethren say; but have not in the whole scripture, I again affirm it, one instance of such practice; no, nor any shadow or appearance of it. Their boasts, therefore, of scripture instances, precedents, examples, are meer sound, and nothing else. Whereas the instance of Lydia, ACTS, xvi. 14, 15. (not to mention Stephanas and the Jaylor) strongly favours our practice; whose faith alone is mentioned, and, immediately it is added, her household were baptised.

The RELIGIOUS or MORAL purposes of

Infant-Baptism.

IF it be asked-what are the moral purposes of this Baptism of Infants? or, of what real benefit or use in religion? It were sufficient to reply-of the same benefit and use as infant-circumcision was; which is acknowledged to have been enjoined by God, and practised by his church, for more than two thousand years.-But I add; it is of great moral benefit; as it is both a solemn vow or dedication on our part, and a gracious condescension and promise on God's.

FIRST. It is a solemn vow or dedication on our part. For, herein, the religious parent publickly recognises his own covenant with God: binds himself by a sacred promise to watch over the immortal soul now committed to his charge, and to train it up in a religious manner; and devotes first himself, and then his helpless infant, to the divine patronage and care. By being baptised into the name, the child is solemnly given up to the dominion and favour, and is received as the peculiar property, the subject and charge, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.* And to one who well considers into what a world of various difficulties, temptations and sins, his infants are born; how every age and path of life is beset with dangers and snares; and what consequences, of awful moment, depend upon the manner in which they pass the present state:-to him that considers this, it cannot but appear an inestimable privilege to be permitted to give them up, in this

* Baptising in (or unto) the name-signifies, commending a person to the peculiar blessing and patronage of him, or them, in whose name he is taptised. Thus, when the form of solemn benediction is described, Numb. vi. 23.-The Lord bless thee, and keep thee, &c. It is added--And they shall PUT MY NAME upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.