ceremony of baptizing an infant? Suppose the innovators to have urged in support of their practice the same Scriptures which we now urge, would it not presently have been replied upon them with unanswerable strength, 'Did not the Apostles and first preachers of Christianity understand the true sense and force of these Scriptures? Yet we all perfectly know, and you.cannot but own, that not one of them ever baptized an infant. Look into all the churches throughout the earth, and you will find that there never was such a thing known or heard of before amongst Christians?'

What, under these circumstances, could the first baptizers of infants possibly reply? Could they think to justify themselves on the ground of Apostolic injunction and practice? But every Christian then living could have stepped forth, and borne witness to the falsehood of such a pretence. Or could they hope to establish this invention of their own, and was it actually established, in direct opposition to Apostolic authority? Impossible to imagine! What then, I ask again-(if all the churches in the world were constituted by the Apostles upon a directly opposite plan)-what could the first baptizers of infants urge in favor of their practice? And how was it possible it should be received and prevail, yea, so universally prevail, that the learned and acute Pelagius, about three hundred years after, had never heard of a church, amongst either Catholics or heretics, which did not administer baptism to infants?

"Could we suppose a few persons of so singular a disposition, as to run into this novel and unheard of practice, can it be imagined that whole churches would be led blindly away after them? Or if whole churches might be thus seduced, could whole nations be so too? Or if whole nations might, can it enter into the heart of any reasonable being, that all the nations of the Christian world

should, in the course of a few years, fall in entirely with this anti-Apostolic and newly invented ceremony of religion, and apostatize from the primitive and pure doctrine of Christ?

"The extravagance of the supposition is greatly increased, by remembering that the church was early divided into a number of sects, which were severe and watchful spies upon each other's conduct. If any of them had innovated in the matter of baptizing infants, how loudly would the rest have exclaimed upon the innovation! But so far, it seems, were they from this, that laying aside their prejudices and animosities, they all surprizingly agree, in respect to infant baptism, 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 mutual accusations, reproaches and complaints, we meet not, in all antiquity, with one upon this head!"

I could more easily account (unaccountable as it may be) for the introduction and universal spread of infant baptism in two or three centuries, than I could for its. prevalence without altercation and controversy among Christians. Large bodies of men never change either their sentiments or practice all at once, without disputes. "And if infant baptism had been an innovation, a corruption of one of the special ordinances of the gospel, it would not have been introduced in the early days of Christianity, without commotions, controversies, and divisions. But, strange to tell, the pen of history has not transmitted to us the least intimation of any controversy about it; though it has furnished us with catalogues of all the heresies, and has recorded a dispute of far less consequence, respecting the proper time of baptizing infants!"

The argument, therefore, comes to this: If infant hap

tism is an innovation, it confessedly entered the church soon after the canon of Scripture closed; and in a few years more, "without a single precept to warrant or an example to encourage it, yea, with the well known practice of the Apostles, and of all the churches they planted, directly, openly, palpably against it,-under all these disadvantages it so universally prevailed, that upon the face of the whole earth there was not a church found, where it was not practised!" Yea more, it entered the church, prevailed, and became universal, without a whisper of opposition, without a word of dispute,.all parties agreeing to connive at the error, to blot every trace of its origin from the page of history, and never to utter a single word from which it could be discovered that they were conscious of having departed from gospel rules! To him who believes this, what can be incredible!

Is it not, then, morally certain, that infant baptism is not an innovation in the church, but was sanctioned by the Apostles themselves? On this ground, and this only, "all sacred and profane history, relating to the subject, appears plain and consistent, from Abraham to Christ,. and from Christ to this day."

I make this assertion, with a perfect recollection of the testimony of Tertullian. He did not consider infant baptism as new or unauthorized, but merely advised to delay it, as he did that of unmarried persons, on the ground of expediency.

PART III.

ON THE IMPORT, DESIGN, AND USES OF INFANT BAPTISM.

In the foregoing pages, I have endeavored to vindicate the propriety of Infant Baptism, and to show that it is of divine institution. But if this rite is of divine institution, it doubtless has a meaning,-which may be gathered from the Scriptures, and which ought to be distinctly understood. Until it is understood, the duties growing out of it will not be discovered, and consequently will not be performed.

Besides; the covenants of our churches often require, not only that parents bring their children to baptism, but that they "instruct them in the nature, use, and end of that ordinance." But how shall parents perform this duty, and fulfil this important part of their covenant engagements, unless they are themselves instructed, as to "the nature, use, and end" of the ordinance in question?

This subject assumes additional importance from the manner in which it has been hitherto treated. I speak according to my most sincere convictions when I say, that no subject of equal claims, within the whole circle of Christian theology, has been so much neglected as this. And when it has been discussed, it has not been, in all instances, in the most happy manner. The labors of some have tended rather to involve it in mystery, and thus guard it against the exceptions of Baptists, than to open the real sense of Scripture, and afford satisfaction to impartial minds.

IMPORT, DESIGN, and uses oF INFANT BAPTISM. 117

It may be remarked further, by way of introduction, that this subject is one in which Pedobaptists alone are directly interested. Until our brethren of other denominations admit the propriety of administering baptism to children, they can have no particular interest in ascertaining the import of the transaction, or the relation of baptized children to the church of Christ.

It has been observed, in a former part of this work, that baptism, like circumcision, is both a sign and a scal.* As a sign it is significant of important truths. As a seal, it is connected with a covenant, involving duties to be performed, and promising important blessings. This is true of baptism generally; and it is equally true of baptism when applied to children.

It will be necessary to contemplate infant baptism in the twofold view which has been here presented.

And, first, as a sign. What is signified in the baptism of children? What facts, what truths, is the ordinance calculated to teach and impress?

1. It plainly teaches that infants are moral beings, and capable of receiving spiritual blessings.-Some there are, who regard infants as mere animals, without intellectual immortal souls, and having no moral capacities more than the brutes. But if infants are without intellectual and moral capacities, without souls; why are they

**"He (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith," &c. Rom. iv. 11. Lightfoot says, that the Jews have always considered circumcision as both a sign and a seal; and that when in the act of circumcising a child, the administrator was instructed to say, "Blessed be he who hath sanctified you, beloved from the womb, and hath placed the sign in your flesh, and hath sealed our sons with the seal of his holy covenant." Horae Hebraicae on Matt. xxviii. 19.

The Christian Fathers were accustomed to represent baptism as a seal Hermas, speaking of "the seal of the Son of God," says, (illud autem sigillum aqua est) "but that seal is water." Gregory Nazianzen, reproving a mother for delaying to baptize her child, says: "Thou art afraid of giving him the seal." Wall's Hist. of In. Baptism, Part i. Chapters 1 and 11.