speaking, that household baptism went through the whole Church at Corinth, the evidence for infant baptism, seems, even from this single source of argument, nearly conclusive. And the argument will appear the stronger when it is considered, how necessary it was, upon the opposite supposition, that there should be some cautionary notices to keep the reader from drawing such a conclusion. If a baptist had been to detail to us the facts respecting these several cases, is it to be imagined, he would not have been careful somewhere to insert a clause, or a word, to let his reader know, that there was here no baptism but upon the ground of personal faith? If he professed to be under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, his carelessness, in omitting every thing of his kind, would have been an objection, which it would have been difficult to ob viate.

6. Historical testimony is corroborative of the evidence which the Gospel furnishes. This informs us, that infant baptism was received from the hands of the apostles, by the primitive Church; was in general practice in the first and purest ages; and has been uninterruptedly transmitted, through successive periods, to the Reformation; was not then rejected as a corruption of Rome, but adopted, as an important institution of God; and we know that it has been in the practice of incomparably the largest, and most enlightened part of the reformed Churches, to the present day.* Let us take a short survey of this evidence. Hallet, a learned and respectable writer, in his Notes, Vol. 3. page 338, makes this declaration, and appeals to the learned world for the truth of it. "Now it is a certain fact, as many of the primitive Christians have testified; and those who deny infant baptism acknowledge; that the baptism of infants is as ancient as the second century."

* I believe this assertion is not assuming. Let candor judge. We know that many late Baptists have distinguished themselves as men of parts and learn. ing. We remember the names of Gale, Wall, Stennet, Fuller, Pearce, Rippon, and Ryland, with veneration. Many baptist teachers in our own Country have honored themselves by their literary attainments, and more by their piety; among whom I cheerfully rank the brethren, on whose publications I have been led to make some free remarks.

He remarks of Dr. Gale, the most accomplished of the opposers of infant baptism who have appeared, that "he does not attempt to name any one instance in those first ages, of a person born of, or belonging to Christians, whose baptism was deferred till he became of age, sufficient to be deemed a moral agent; and yet, he as good as owns that we have a right to demand such an instance.”

Dr. Wall has searched with particular care into antiquity, to ascertain the fact respecting the primitive practice on this head. He is singularly learned on the subject, and writes with great candour. Those who would have an extended, and just view of this portion of evidence will consult his History of baptism, Dr. Gale's Reflections upon it, and Wall's Defence of his History against those Reflections. The chief of the his toric evidence I shall produce will be taken from Wall, and rest upon his authority. It will not be worth while to produce here the quotations he has made from Hermas, Clement, Ireneus, or Tertullian; the earliest farthers of the Church; or the copious comments he has made upon them. The quotations from the three first of these fathers, are pretty clearly in favor of infant baptism. Tertullian, the baptists claim to themselves; but it is only on the ground of his advising to defer the baptizing of infants, except in cases of danger, till they arrive to years of discretion.* No advice like this is to be found in the writings of the other Fathers. At the same time he speaks of it, as a generally prevailing principle, that baptism is essential to salvation. This opinion certainly implies the prevalence, in the Church, of the practice of baptizing infants. His advice implies it also. For, why should this advice be given, if infant baptism were not in practice?

* Dr. Baldwin, if I apprehend him rightly, does as good as relinquish this pretended opposing evidence from Tertullian. He says, "It is evident beyond a doubt that the infants, whose baptism Tertullian opposed, were not babes; but probably children of seven or eight years old." Then they might be children in an entirely different predicament. They might be young converts to Christianity. Or, at least, they might not come under that description of infants for whose baptism we contend.

I I

After all, there is reason to suspect, that this work, which is ascribed to Tertullian is really the production of a more modern writer. For neither Pelagius, nor his adherents produce this opinion of Tertullian, in their controversies with the Orthodox, which they could hardly have failed to do, if it had existed as an authentic, and acknowledged work of this Father.

Origen flourished about one hundred and ten years after the Apostles, or in the beginning of the third century. The quotations which Dr. Wall produces from this Father, even upon the confession of his adversary, Dr. Gale, decisively prove the prevalence of infant baptism at that time. The words of Gale are these, Reflections, page 5. 19. "And here indeed the passages cited, we confess, are full and plain testimonies for infant baptism; for, a Mr. Wall says, The plainness is such as needs nothing to be said of it, or needs any thing to be said against it. The only way he attempts to "get rid of the proof, is by depreciating the translation,

The next father of note is Cyprian. He was bishop of Carthage, and flourished in the third century. Dr. Gale concedes, that the testimony of this Father to the prevalence of infant baptism in his time is full. And he admits that infant baptism was then practised in the Churches of Africa. Indeed he implicitly con cedes, that after the year 250, infant baptism was in general practice throughout Christendom. For he does not attempt to invalidate the testimonies which Dr. Wall produces from following writers in regard to their times.

"As for infants," said Celestius, when under públic examination on the subject of Original sin, anno 210. or thereabout, "I always said they stand in need of baptism, and ought to be baptized. Wall, page 62.

The Council convened in Carthage, anno 253, ac cording to a quotation of Dr. Wall from Cyprian, Ib, page 76, say, in reply to the interrogatories of Fidus, a Country bishop, "But as to the case of infants, where, as you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule

of circumcision is to be observed, so that none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born, we are all in our Assembly of a contrary opinion." This unanimous contrary opinion, that children born of Christian parents ought to be baptized, without any such delay, most plainly involves the fact, that infant baptism was very generally practised as an indispensable duty in those days.

Austin, a father of great authority in the Church, flourished in the latter part of the fourth Century. His testimony to infant baptism, as a usage of the Church, received from the Apostles, is as express as it well could be. Wall, Vol. 1. page 187. "And if any one do ask for divine authority in this matter (the baptism of infants); though that which the whole Church practices, and which has not been instituted by Councils; but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the Authority of the Apostles." Again he says, Ib. page 213. "But the custom of our mother, the church, in baptizing infants, must not be disregarded, nor be accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the Apostles."

Page 227, he says, Original sin is so plain by the scriptures, and that it is forgiven to infants in the laver of regeneration, (he means baptism) is so confirmed by the antiquity and authority of the Catholic faith; so notorious by the practice of the church,

&c.

He says again (page 284.) "Now then since they generally grant, that infants must be baptized, as not being able to oppose the authority of the whole church, which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and his apostles.

Page 302. "For my part, I do not remember to have heard any thing from any christians, that received the Old and New Testament; neither from such as belonged to the Catholic church; nor from such as belonged to any sect or schism. I do not remember that I ever read otherways in any writer, that I could ev

er find, treating of these matters, that followed the Canonical scriptures; or did mean, or did pretend to do From whence it is that this trouble is started upon us I know not. But a little while ago, when I was there at Carthage, I just cursorily heard some transient discourse of some people that were talking, that infants are not baptized for that reason that they may receive remission of sins; but that they may be sanctified in Christ."

It is to be remembered, that Austin is writing, not professedly in defence of infant baptism, but of original sin; that he is not opposing baptists, but the Pelagians. The fact, of the universal practice of the church in baptizing infants, he introduces as an argument to prove original sin. This practice he speaks of as handed down by tradition from the apostles, and as having been uninterrupted. He says that the whole church has declared that infants must be baptized. As but about 300 years intervened between the apostles and Austin; and as he was a bishop, and a man of uncommon learning, it seems impossible he should not know how the matter of fact was. Is it not easy for any man. to ascertain, without hazard of mistake, what has been the public practice of the church in this article for the three last centuries? Could Austin be so imprudent as to appeal, in the face of the whole Christian world, and in a disputation with a subtil antagonist, to a thing, as a matter of fact, which fact was generally known to contradict?

No opposing testimony can be produced. Dr. Gale pretends to produce none prior to the letter of Polycrates, which is the feeblest imaginable; so feeble, that the Dr. gets it out of his hands as soon as possible. The proof amounts, according to him, only to a probability, that though Polycrates was born of Christian parents, he was not baptized till he came of adult years. What is produced from Tertullian we see is nothing. And with respect to the seven centuries succeeding the fourth, Dr. Gill thus concedes, "It is to be observed, that a large stride is taken by me