committed in some former state that they were brought to baptism;-sometimes they, said that infants were not baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but that they might be sanctified;-and sometimes, that they were baptized for forgiveness, not that they had any sin, but because they were baptized into a church where forgiveness was to be had: To such straits were these learned heresiarchs reduced, in order to reconcile their opinions with the baptism of infants. How easily had all their difficulties been removed, and the battery which so much annoyed them been demolished at once, by simply denying that infants were to be baptized. So strong were their temptations to make such a denial, that Pelagius complained at one time of its being slanderously reported that he had made it. It is morally certain that he would have made it, if, with all his learning, and in his various travels, he had discovered the slightest evidence to justify him in such a course. Yet he never did make it. On the contrary, he asserts the right of infants to baptism in the strongest terms. "Baptism," says, he, "ought to be administered to infants with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons." Again: "Men slander me, as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants.” again : "I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants. For who can be so impious, as to hinder infants from being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make them miss of the kingdom of God?" And The language of Celestius, his coadjutor, is equally decisive. "As for infants, I always said they stand in need of baptism, and ought to be baptized." The testimony of these men, considering the circumstances under which it was given, is in the highest degree convincing and satisfactory. * See Wall's Hist. of In. Bap. Vol. i. pp. 62, 356-370. To these testimonies from the early Christian writers, it should be added, that Catalogues of all the different sects of professing Christians in the four first centuries (the very period when infant baptism must have been introduced, if it were not of divine original) were carefully written, and are still extant.* "In these catalogues, the differences of opinion which obtained in those respecting baptism are particularly recounted and minutely designated. Some sects are mentioned which made no use of water baptism; and the different ways in which baptism was administered by different sects are distinctly described. Yet there is no mention of any except those who denied water baptism altogether, who did not consider infant baptism as a divine institution." It would be useless to multiply testimonies from ancient writers, or to trace the history of infant baptism to a later period than that to which we have now arrived; as it is indisputable that, for the next five hundred years, this practice universally prevailed. Dr. Wall, who has so thoroughly investigated the subject as to leave little to be done by those who come after him, assures us, that the first body of men, of which he can find any account, who denied baptism to infants, were the Petrobrussians (the followers of Peter de Bruys) a sect of the Albigenses, who appeared in the former part of the twelfth century. And Milner says that,." a few instances excepted, the existence of anti-Pedobaptism seems scarcely to have taken place in the church of Christ, till a little after the beginning of the reformation."+ In opposition to the mass of testimony which has been given, as to the practice of the church in the first four centuries, it is idle to bring forward the opinions of eer *The authors of these Catalogues were Irenæus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and Theodoret. See Wall's Hist. P. i. Chap. xxi. See Appendix, Note J. We tain modern writers, that"in primitive times none were baptized but adults." Such opinions have no weight with us; and ought to have none with any person. have the means of examining the subject for ourselves; and have as much reason to believe, as we have to believe anything on the testimony of history, that in the early. ages of the Christian church, infant baptism, so far from being unknown, was a universally approved and established custom. age. It has been said, by way of objection, that there are instances of persons-as Jerome, Gregory, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Constantine the great-who were born of Christian parents, but wlio were not baptized but upon their own profession. It will appear, however," on examination, that not one of these instances is in point. "With respect to Jerome," says Dr. Wall, "there is no evidence that he was not baptized in his infancy." The father of Gregory was a determined and bitter enemy to Christianity, till his son, probably, had become of He belonged to a sect," says Milner,." most resembling the Samaritans, who professed a mixture of Judaism and Paganism. To this opinion he was extremely devoted," and was not converted to the Christian faith till many years subsequent to his marriage. He would, without doubt, prohibit the baptism of his son in infancy. As to Ambrose and Chrysostom, their parents, according. to Dr. Wall, were heathens, at the time of their birth, and for many years afterwards. That the father of Augustine was a Christian is not pretended; and that his mother was not a Christian by profession, till he had passed the period of childhood, is certain from his own words. For he says of her, that when he was learning oratory at Carthage," she had lately begun to feel God's holy * See Milner's Ecc. Hist. Vol. ii. pp. 272, 309. Hist. of In. Bap. Part ii. Chap. iii. * 66 "* Of love, and had been washed in the laver of baptism.’ Constantinę, Eusebius says, that he was the only one of all those that ever were emperors, who was perfected by baptism."+ Consequently, his father, though a friend to the Christians, could not have been by profession of their number. The case of infant communion is often brought forward, as completely invalidating the argument from history in favor of infant baptism.-It is true, that in some churches. infant communion has been practised, and by some persons it has been advocated, both in ancient and modern times. "In Cyprian's time," says Wall, "the people of the church of Carthage did oftentimes .bring their children younger than had been ordinary to the communion."‡ Or, as another expresses it, they were accustomed "to give a piece of the bread soaked in wine to children and the sick." In later periods, when, from a perversion of our Saviour's words, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," it was believed that a partaking of the supper was essential to salvation, infant communion more generally prevailed. It is mentioned by Photius, Augustine, and Paulinus, and continues to be practised among the Greeks to the present day. "They crumble the consecrated bread into the wine, take it out with a spoon," and put it into the mouths of infants. If infant baptism were founded on mere historical evidence; and if this evidence were as clear in favor of infant communion as of infant baptism; the two practices would then stand on equal ground. But neither of these suppositions is founded in truth. The baptism of infants *See Milner's Ecc. Hist. Vol. ii pp. 272, 309. Witsius' Econ. of Cov. Vol. iii. p. 432. say rests upon the Scriptures. The communion of infants, to the most of it, receives no countenance from Scripture. Nor is the argument from history, in the two cases, by any means equal. We have clear intimations of infant baptism in the Apostolic age. We have no intimations of infant communion, till the middle of the third century. It appears that infant baptism was universally practised in the Christian church. We have no evidence that infant communion ever was universal. The fathers speak confidently of infant baptism, that it came from the Apostles. Those who make mention of infant communion never speak of it, that I can learn, after this manner. In short, infant baptism bears decisive marks of a divine original. Infant communion is manifestly an innovation in the church. On what grounds, then, can infant communion be urged, as invalidating the argument in favor of infant baptism? Without doubt, all the churches planted by the Apostles were established upon the same plan. Either they all baptized infants, or they all rejected them. And the practice of the Apostles in this matter must have been universally and certainly known. All the Christians, among whom Paul travelled and preached, knew whether or not he and his companions baptized their children. And if the Apostles and their coadjutors did not .baptize children—if they established churches upon the plan of adult baptism only; at what period, I ask, was infant baptism introduced? And how must the persons who first attempted to introduce it have been received? "Would not all their brethren," says an eloquent writer,* whose language I shall freely use, "immediately cry out upon them, and demand, By what authority do you.presume to perform this new, this unheard of, and strange * Mr.. Towgood, |