་་

JUST BORN, who deferve our help and the divine mercy (i)."

Hence, then, it inconteftibly appears, that the Baptifm of Infants was the constant, established practice of the church at this time: inafmuch, as neither the person who propofed the doubt, nor any one of the fixty-fix bishops who answer it, made the leaft queftion of the Baptifm of Infants, but fpeak of it as a thing univerfally acknowledged and practifed in the church.

Now, as this was but an hundred and fifty years after the Apostles; and fome of these bishops may reafonably be fuppofed feventy or eighty years old; if they were baptifed in their infancy (which can with no reafon be doubted) it carries up the practice to within eighty years of the Apoftles themfelves. And at the time of their infancy, there were many alive who were born within the very age of the Apostles, and could not but certainly and infallibly know what the APOSTOLIC practice and appointment was to this matter.

The CLEMENTINE CONSTITUTIONS (a book thought by fome to be of very great antiquity; and by all acknowledged to be extant in the fourth or fifth century, and so contain a good account of the antient difcipline and practice) have this exprefs admonition « Βαπτίσετε δε υμών κ) τα νηπια.

"And BAPTISE YOUR INFANTS, and bring them "up in the nurture and admonition of GoD:" for he fais, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not."

There are feveral other teftimonies, from Clemens Alexandrinus ; queft. & refpon. apud Just. Martyr; Greg. Nazian; Bafil; Ambrofe; Chryfoftom; and Ferom, most full to this purpose, to be seen in

(i) Cyprian Epift. ad Fidum. Epift. 64.

Dr.

Dr. Wall's Hiftory of Infant Baptifm, too long to be here inferted; I fhall further infift, only, upon a very remarkable and decifive one, from the writings of AUSTIN and PELAGIUS; about three hundred and ten years after the Apostles. I bring it not to prove Baptifm of INFANTS to have been the undoubted, univerfal practice of the church in their days 3 (this would be quite needlefs, after the much earlier, and the indifputable evidence already produced from the council at Carthage, &c.) but, to fhew it to have been the conftant and immemorial practice from the very beginning of Chriftianity.

In his controverfie with PELAGIUS, about original fin; to prove Infants to be tainted with it, AUSTIN frequently and with great triumph urges their BAPTISM; demanding- "Why Infants are baptifed for the remiffion of fin, if they have none ?" PELAGIUS feems exceedingly embarraffed by this argument (k); and every one fees, how much it concerned

(k) It is furprifing, to fee the fhifts by which Pelagius, Celefius, and their followers, endeavour to evade the force of this argument. Sometimes they acknowledged Infants to have actual fin, and that their peevifhnefs and froward temper is to be confidered as fuch. Sometimes, they urged, that Infants had pre exifled; and it was for fins done in some former state, that they were brought to the baptifmal laver. Sometimes, they faid, that they were not baptifed for the forgiveness of fin; but that they may be made heirs of the kingdom. Sometimes, that they were baptifed for forgiveness; not that they had any fin, but that the uniformity of the words might be kept: or, becaufe they were baptifed into the church, where forgiveness was to be had; and with a facrament, which had the means of forgiveness for thofe who wanted it. Vid. Wall's hiftory, Vol. I. pag. 280.

-

To fuch extreme difficulties they thought themfelves reduced, to reconcile their opinion with the Baptifm of Infants. But, thefe had been all inftantly removed, and the battery which fo annoyed them been demolished at once, by only denying that Infants were to be baptifed. Yet, fo far are they from this,

that

concerned him to DENY the Baptifm of Infants, had there been any poffible ground for it; and to do all that in him lay, to invalidate and difprove it. Had it been an innovation, a departure from the APOSTOLIC practice; it is impoffible but fo very learned and acute a perfon as Pelagius, who lived fo near the Apostles, and had been perfonally converfant in fome of the moft noted churches of Europe, Afia, and Africa, muft have been able to difcover it, and both to have and to give at least some strong fufpicion of it. But does the very fagacious Pelagius attempt any thing like this? No: fo far from it, that fome of his adverfaries having drawn as a confequence of his opinion, that Infants are not to be baptifed. He warmly difclaims it, and with indignation complains." Se ab hominibus infamari quod "neget parvulis Baptifmi facramentum. That be "bad been flanderously reprefented by men, as denying "the facrament of Baptifm to Infants." And adds Nunquam fe, vel impium aliquem hæreticum, "audiffe qui hoc quod propofuit de parvulis di"ceret."

66

G

that they seem not to have raised the leaft doubt of this kind. Pelagius owns, as above cited. And Celeftius confeffes, that Infants are to be baptifed according to the rule of the UNIVER SAL church.

Note. Pelagius and Celeftius were born, one in Britain, the other in Ireland; they lived a long time in Rome, the then center of the world, and reputed head of the church: they were both, for fome time, at Carthage, in Africa; then, the one fettled at Jerufalem; the other travelled through all the noted Greek and Eastern churches, in Europe and Afia. If there had, then, been any church, or number of churches, throughout the whole world, not only in that, but in the two preceeding ages, who denied the Baptifm of Infants; it is impoffible, but thefe two very learned and fagacious perfons must have known, or heard of it: and that they would not have failed to take mighty advantage from it, to check the triumphs of their opponents; and to wreft from them this argument, by which, of all others, they were moft grievously preffed.

"ceret."" That he never heard, no not even any "impious Heretic, who would fay that which he had "mentioned, viz. that unbaptifed Infants are not "liable to the condemnation of the firft man, and "that they are not to be cleanfed by the regene"ration of Baptifm." And then proceeds-" Quis

enim ita evangelicæ lectionis ignarus eft, &c. "For who is fo ignorant of that which is read in the gospel as I do not fay boldy to affirm, but even lightly "to fuggeft, or even to imagine fuch a thing? In a "word, who can be fo impious, as to hinder INFANTS from being BAPTISED and born again in CHRIST ; "and fo make them mifs of the kingdom of GOD?"

And having cited thefe words of our Saviour John iii. 5. no one can enter into the kingdom of God, except he is born again of water and of the fpirit, he goes on" Quis ille tam impius eft qui cujuflibet "ætatis parvulo."-" Who is there fo impious as to

refufe to an INFANT, of what age foever, the com"mon redemption of mankind (1)." AUSTIN alfo, reciting the above-mentioned decifion of the council at Carthage, which determines that Infants are in no wife to be denied Baptifm, adds," Non folum in

catholicâ ecclefiâ, verum etiam in qualibet he"refi vel fchifmate conftitutis, non memini me

aliud legiffe."-" That neither from fuch as were "of the catholic church, nor of fuch as belonged to any "fect or fchifm, whatfoever, he remembered not to "bave read otherwife in any writer (m)." i. e. of any who denied, that Infants were baptifed upon the account of original fin. "This the church has ALWAYS bad, has ALWAYS beld (n).”

THESE, now, are the evidence, on which we reft the ANTIQUITY of this fact; and by which we prove

(1) Auftin. de peccato Origen, cap. 17, 18. (m) Ibid. de nat. & gratiâ. cap. 6. (n) Ibid. Serm. x. de verb. Apoft.

prove the Baptifm of Infants to have been the practice of the Chriftian church, from the very beginning. Justin Martyr about forty years; Ireneus about fixtyJeven; and Tertullian about an hundred years after the APOSTLES, give plain intimations of its being the Chriftian practice in their times. From Origen an bundred and ten years; and from Cyprian and the fynod of fixty fix bishops, one hundred and fifty years from the above date, we have indifputable proof of its being then the established and standing ufage of the church. And Austin and Pelagius, about three bundred and ten years after the Apostles (though the latter was under the ftrongeft temptation, and even neceffity to deny the Baptifm of Infants, had there been any poffible ground for it) acknowledge, that they never heard, nor read of any, whether true Chriftian, Heretic, or Schifmatic, who denied Baptifm to Infants. This is the evidence: let us now argue from it.

I. ALL the churches, throughout the whole Chrif tian world, were in the age of the Apofiles, formed and established upon ONE and the SAME plan. That is to fay, they ALL either baptifed Infants; or elfe they ALL rejected them from Baptifm. What the opinion, and the practice, of the Apostles was in this matter, (who were fent out into all the world to preach and establish churches) must be perfectly, univerfally, infallibly known; nor could it poffibly be mistaken, by any one fingle church throughout the whole earth, during the Apoftlic age. The Corinthians, for inftance, the Galatians, the Theffalonians, &c. all perfectly knew, whether Paul and his companions, when they baptifed and formed them into a church, baptifed their INFANTS alfo ; or elfe rejected them from Baptifm. And

2. As to the age, immediately following the Apoftles; it is impoffible that THEY could be igG 2

norant