itself, and had the same foundation, i. e. the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ being the corner stone. This is another fact of great importance upon which you ought to insist. You know that the baptism of infants has been classed with the most absurd and hurtful errors of the Roman Catholic Church, with Purgatory, the worshiping of saints, the adoration of relics, extreme unction, &c. Indeed, you are told that no error of man, has had a more pernicious influence on the prosperity of the church than this. But if this be an error of such magnitude and of such dangerous tendency, is it not unaccountable that no writer, during all the period when it is said to have been introduced, can be found who lifted up his voice against it? Where were the guardians of the church's purity? How could such an overshadowing heresy as this is said to be, grow up in the church, without a blow from the zealous supporters of apostolic institutions? We know when and where the other errors alluded to, originated. We hear of the controversies respecting them which rent the church. They have come down to us with the stamp of heresy deeply fixed upon them. But no one can be found who opposed Infant Baptism on the ground that it was erroneous, for many centuries after the organization of the church. No one calls it an innovation. No account has come down to us from the twelve first centuries, of any controversy respecting its apostolic origin.

3. There is positive and undeniable evidence that this practice was not introduced at any period between the apostolic age and our own.

After the close of the fourth century, it is admitted by all that Infant Baptism was the universal practice of the church. Did it commence in the fourth century? I answer no, for during that century it was universal. This fact we learn from ecclesiastical writers of that period. Of these I shall adduce but two, viz. Augustine and Pelagius.

He

Augustine was born about A. D. 354, and died in 430. He is a competent witness in regard to this subject. testifies, that in his day the "whole church practised Infant Baptism." "It was not," he says, "instituted, but was always in use," i. e. it was not an innovation of man, but had come down with the sanction of the apostles. VOL. III. 1*

He says, moreover, that he never read, or heard of any person, whether Catholic or heretic, who maintained that baptism ought to be denied to infants. And surely if the propriety of this practice had been questioned, much more, had it been a gross, and most pernicious heresy, Augustine Iwould have known it.

Pelagius was cotemporary with Augustine. About the year 405, he published his opinion respecting original sin. He believed that infants are not originally depraved, but that they are born in the same moral condition as that in which Adam was created. Against this doctrine, Augustine, among other arguments, used one drawn from the universal practice of Infant Baptism. "If infants have no original sin," says Augustine, "why are they baptised? why is it not said to those who bring them, take these innocents hence, the whole need not a physician, but they who are sick. But this was never said."

Now, how did Pelagius meet this argument drawn from Infant Baptism? He was embarrassed by it, no doubt, but did he deny the fact that the practice was universal, as Augustine had asserted? Did he say that it was a recent innovation, or that it was a practice unknown to the apostles? No. He not only acknowledges the truth of Augustine's assertion, but contends srtenuously for the propriety of the practice, and complains that some had slandered him in reporting that he had renounced it. He declares that he had never heard of any one, not even the most impious heretic, who maintained that infants ought not to be baptised.' And he asks, "who can be so impious as to hinder the baptism of infants?"

The testimony of Pelagius to the fact that the practice of Infant Baptism was universal in his time, and the expression of his belief that it had apostolic authority are of great weight. 1st. Because he was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his age, and must have been perfectly acquainted with the history of the church from its origin to his own time. And 2d. Because his doctrine of infant purity required him to get rid of Augustine's argument drawn from Infant Baptism. He did get rid of this argument, but not by denying the fact upon which it was founded.

From these two unexceptionable witnesses then, we learn

that Infant Baptism did not originate in the fourth century. It was then universal. It was practiced by the whole church, under the belief that it was sanctioned by the apostles; and even the most obstinate heretics, while they endeavored to change the doctrines and customs of the church in respect to other subjects, never once presumed to lay their unhallowed hands on this.

N. B. It may be well to remark here, that I introduce these early writers, not to prove that Infant Baptism is right, or that we ought to practice it, but simply to sustain this proposition, viz., Infant Baptism was not introduced at any period, between the apostolic age and our own."

66

In my next I shall inquire whether this practice originated in the third century.

J. A. A.

For the Sabbath School Visiter.

HOW MAY YOU VIOLATE THE SABBATH DAY?

The superintendent in for some time past, has been in the habit of giving out to the school particular subjects to be proved by texts of scripture. On the last Sabbath in August, he said to his school, 'you have heretofore proved that God requires all men to keep holy the Sabbath day; now I want you to bring me next Sabbath four ways by which you may violate it. And I want you to think much about it, during the week; think how many ways men trample on that holy day of rest.' On the next Sabbath, among many others, he received the following answers, from different scholars, which he has communicated for the Visiter.

I VIOLATE the Sabbath when I play on that day-When I do any unnecessary work-When I am idle, or when I sleep-When I spend it without reading the Bible-When I play, whisper, laugh, sleep, or do any bad thing in meeting-When I stay away from meeting and am not sickWhen I am late at meeting-When I ride for pleasure or business-When I go visiting; or ask any one to visit me -When I go with bad company-When I write letters of business or friendship-When I read bad books-When

I

go

to the Post Office-When I am restless or inattentive to my teacher-When I do not get good lessons-When I do not pray for my teacher--When I make calls or take a walk--When I black my shoes or boots on that dayWhen I converse about the minister or the sermonWhen I rise later or retire earlier to be better prepared for work on Monday-When I stand at the glass to curl my hair-When I offer to take care of the sick to save time-When I go to meeting to show my dress—When I spend unnecessary hours in dressing for meeting-When I take medicine to save time, &c. &c.

For the Sabbath School Visiter.

PUBLIC WORSHIP, AND SABBATH SCHOOLS. The following communication from a friend in the central part of Maine, contains a statement of facts which, we hope, will aid in the efforts now making to call attention to the subject of Public Worship. Such facts as these, should be spread out before the churches, that ministers, Christians, and teachers may see wherein they have neglected duty in this matter; and that all may see that there is something to do at their very doors, would they assist in increasing the number of those who come under the influence of religious instruction on the Sabbath. We would call on the friends of Sabbath Schools especially, in this State and in Maine, to enlist heartily in exploring the high ways and hedges' in their own neighborhoods, and in compelling the poor, the ignorant, and the neglected to come with them to the sanctuary and the place of holy instruction.

6

Ir grieves and distresses me when I think of the great numbers of children who are growing up in ignorance, in this christian land; yes, even in the highly favored county of; I may say, in those towns favored above all others with religious privileges and religious teachers. Allow me here to mention some facts which have come under my observation the past summer. And I must confess I feel much mortified in doing it, for it shows that Christians, for years, have been permitting children to grow up and parents to remain in a state of dreadful heathenism. Between this village and about one hundred rods from

the road on the banks of the river, there is a small neighborhood of three or four families consisting of six or eight parents and ten or twelve children. During the past summer they were visited by two or three of our female teachers, for the purpose of getting the children to attend the S. S. After two visits, six of the children made their appearance. I paid very particular attention to them, talked with them about the school and the Bible, as familiarly as I could, and put them under teachers who would be particularly attentive in giving them Library books, &c., so that, if possible, they might receive a favorable impression of S. S. and be induced to attend constantly. I found them exceedingly ignorant; the oldest, a boy about 13 years of age, after I had dismissed the school, came to me holding out a small book which the teacher had given him, and wished me to exchange it, and give him one that had B-A-R in it, as he wanted one that he could read. In the course of the next week, I visited this neighborhood for the purpose of establishing a school among them, could a place be had to keep it in. There were eleven children of suitable age to attend, if a school could be kept there. When I proposed the subject to one of the mothers, she said 'she should be dreadful glad to have one, and would be willing to have it in her house, she thought.' While conversing with her, she told me she had once been a professor, but had not enjoyed religion for many years. She said, 'she was the only person in the neighborhood who attended meeting? I asked her if the ministers of -or

ever come to see them?" She said they had not for many years.' I asked her if she talked with her husband and her neighbors about religion or meeting; and if she ever made any effort to get them to go? She said, 'she never did, for she thought it would be of no use to talk to the heathen that knew nothing.' This woman had a Bible, but she could not read it, as she had no spectacles; and none of her neighbours could read. I left her and called at the other houses, and it was truly painful to see the ignorance, and to think that these people should be so wickedly neglected as they had been for years. I thought, 'is it possible that, between two villages not three miles apart, and in which there are not less than six ministers of the gospel, five hundred Christians, and more than one hundred Sab