A. D. 390. We also have a number of writers through the whole of this century, who speak of infant-baptifm, but fay nothing of its introduction. As Siricius, A. D. 384, St. Ambrose 374, Greg. Nazianzen 360, Optatus 306, the Council of Eliberius 305, and many others, mention infant-baptifm as a thing in common ufe in the church. Thus, we fee, it was not firft introduced in the fourth century.*

In the third century, there are feveral remarkable teftimonies concerning infant baptism, which make it very evident that it was not first introduced in that day. About the middle of this century Cyprian called a council of fixty fix minifters or bishops on this question, "Whether infants might be baptized before they were eight days old?" This council unanimoufly agreed, there was no neceffity for fuch a delay. In confequence of this, a letter, which was figned by Cyprian, was written to the churches, to notify to them the refult of their deliberation.

Origen, who was born lefs than an hundred years after the apoftles, and flourished in the beginning of this century, fpeaks often of infant baptifm in his homilies on Original Sin, as an eftablifhed practice in the church. In one place he exprefsly fays, that the church had a traditional order from the apoftles to give baptifm to infants. This clearly fhews, that infant baptism was then an ufage in the church. Tertullian alfo, who lived about the fame time, mentions infant baptifm as no novelty in his day. He pleads for the delaying of the baptifm of infants on account only of the danger

* History of Infant Baptism, part 1, chap. 7, 8, to the 23d. Dr. Fors bafius Hist, Theology.

which might attend the introduction of fponfors. This can properly apply only in those cafes, where parents were unbelievers, or were fick. Jacob Pamelius obferves, in his Annotations on this place, that Tertullian had reference to fuch.* From these observations, it is clear that infant baptifm was not first introduced either in the third or fourth century. It certainly was not introduced in the fourth, because we find it in the third-neither in the third, because it is there fpoken of as a common undifputed practice. Our inquiry is now reduced to the limits only of two centuries, and it is clear to me, that infant baptism must have been introduced into the chriftian church in one or the other. Let us now carefully examine the matter with respect to the fecond century, the age that immediately followed the apoftles and first ministers of Jefus Chrift.

All the immediate fucceffors of the apoftles must personally know, what was the practice of the apostles themfelves. The churches alfo must know whether their infants were baptized or not. If the ministers and churches knew that infant baptifm had never been practized by the apostles, it is utterly impoffible that it fhould then have been introduced into the church without making great disturbance. It must have met with the greatest oppofition, both from the minifters and churches, of primitive zeal and purity. Were that fact, is it credible that we fhould not have heard fomething of it, when fome of the writings of thofe Fathers have come down to us?-Two of them are frequently mentioned on this fubject, but not a word that there was any controverfy in the * Dr. Forbefius' Hift. Theology,

K

church respecting infant baptifm. Ireneus, who flourished about the middle of this century, was acquainted with Polycarp, St. John's disciple, and alfo faw and converfed with thofe who had feen Jefus Chrift. He mentioned infant baptifm as no matter of difpute. Reckoning up several forts of perfons who were born again unto God, he exprefsly mentioned infants among them. It is naturally supposed that he there must mean their being born of the water, or baptized, as many of the Fathers used the word in this fenfe, as infants could give evidence of no other regeneration.

*

Justin Martyr, who is fuppofed to have been born about thirty years after the death of our bleffed Saviour, in his Apology, written in the year 140, mentions perfons who were difcipled to Christ in infancy. He also speaks of baptifms being to us inftead of circumcifion. Ignatius lived in the end of the first century. He converfed with the apostles, and fuffered martyrdom under Trajan, A. D. 107. But from none of these have we a word refpecting the first rise of infant baptifm in their day. Since we have now purfued our inquiry back to the first century without fuc cefs, I would juft make one remark here on the whole. If infant baptifm is fuch a grofs error and corruption-if its introduction destroys the very being of the church, it is utterly incredible, if not impoffible, that the practice of it could have obtained, either in the fecond, third, or fourth centuries, without its rife and progress being mentioned, or even that there were ever fuch heretics in the world. This remark obtains great weight when we confider that St. Auftin, in the close of

* Dr. Ferbefus' Hift. Theology.

the fourth century, wrote a book, giving a particular account of all fects that were, or ever had been in the church-(he enumerates eighty-eight with their feveral tenets.)-And when we find, in the writings of the Fathers, an account of all the particular errors, and smallest departures from the faith and practice once established in the church, we are reduced to this dilemina, either that infant baptifm was introduced into the church in the first century by the apoftles themselves, or that it never has been practifed in any age of the world. -The latter is contrary to known fact. The former is the truth, and it is the very doctrine proposed to be illuftrated and established by this difcourfe. I fhall now conclude with a few remarks.

1. We have both fcripture command and example, for receiving infants of believers into the visible church with their parents, and for adminif tering to them the feal of the righteousness of faith. This command and this example from Abraham the father of the faithful, evidently run through the whole of the Old and New Teftaments. When Christ came and fulfilled the law and the prophets, he confirmed the covenant of promife, he enlarged it with greater privileges, and he continued it to believers under the glorious gefpel, as examples of infant baptifm. We also have the evident practice of all the churches of Chrift in ages of the greatest zeal and purity. Those who deny that there is either command or example for this practice,ought first to point out from authentic hiftory, a church or fociety of chriftians, within twelve hundred years of the apostles, who did not practise infant baptifm.

2. Those who deny infant baptifm have no just ground for breaking off from all the churches of Christ on this account; and much lefs for esteeming themselves the only true church in the world.. For though they hold this to be an error, yet it is not fuch as to fubvert the foundation, nor indeed has it always been their fentiments, as appears by a confeffion of the faith of a hundred churches of their communion.* Awful have been the confequences of this feparation, and, perhaps, nothing tarnished the glory of the reformation from Popery more than the conduct of its first founders. Thofe, therefore, who, in the present day would break off from other churches of Christ and join this separate communion, ought firft well to confider the nature of the action, left they be involved in the awful guilt of many generations. On the whole, it is high time that all party zeal was banifhed from the church of Chrift, and that all denominations were united in the common caufe. The day of the Lord is at hand. In the mean time, let us give up ourfelves and all ours to God and to his difpofal-let us take hold of the covenant through Jefus Chrift, and thankfully enjoy the privileges-let us plead the promises for ourfelves and our children-and finally, let us wait patiently for his coming and kingdom, who will then reveal his righteous judgment, and reward every man according to his works.

* Printed in London, 1699.