from the eleventh to the fourth century; not being able, in the space of more than 600 years, to find one instance of an opposer of infant baptism.??

These direct testimonies on the one hand; the im. possibility of finding contrary testimony on the other; and the full concessions of the most learned opposers of infant baptism, which have been quoted, furnish historic proof that we rightly construct the scripture in this article. If the christian church was established upon the antipodobaptist principle, an entire change must have taken place through the whole extent of it; a change great indeed; against authority, example, conscience, and every sentiment of piety. But is this credible? Is it credible, that in a matter of such practical moment, so great a change should take place in so short a period, throughout the christian world; and yet the most learned opposers of infant baptism, by ransacking all antiquity for the purpose, be able to produce no traces of such a change, to point out no individual who lifted his voice against it, and scarce a symptom of opposition to the thing itself? Could such a change possibly take place, in ages so near the scene of apostolic instruction, and against authoritative precepts, (and such precepts there must have been, as we have seen, upon the supposition infant membership were revoked, and that infant baptism was not to be practised,) and yet not a whisper be heard from all Ecclesiastical history, respecting the commotion it must have raised, and the disputes there must have been on the subject ?

I shall here take the liberty to introduce a quotation from Dr. Emmons's Sermon on Infant Baptism, in which this argument is justly illustrated. Page 37. "And now it is time to observe, that as there is no evidence to prove, that infant baptism was actually introduced, in either the first, second, or third century; so there is no evidence that it was even so much as attempted. This is remarkable indeed! Though we might suppose it possible to have introduced infant baptism into all the churches, in the course of the

three first centuries; yet we cannot suppose it was possible to have introduced it, without raising any controversy, or dispute about it among christians. If it was an innovation, and error, it must have been introduced gradually, and by means of preaching, conversing, and disputing. All innovations, errors, and heresies, are always introduced by some of these methods. No body, or bodies of men ever changed either their political, or religious sentiments all at once, without warm and lengthy disputes. This however we know was the case with the errors and heresies which corrupted and disturbed the churches, in the early ages of christianity. The errors introduced by Sabellius, Arius, and Pelagius, excited great commotions, as well as long and warm disputes in the churches of Christ. And if infant baptism had been an innovation, and a corruption of one of the peculiar ordinances of the Gospel, it could not have been introduced, in those early times among christians, without raising similar disputes, commotions, and divisions. But strange to say! The pen of history has not transmitted to us the least intimation of any public dispute about the doctrine of infant baptism; though it has recorded a dispute of far less consequence, respecting the proper. time of baptizing infants. Dr. Mosheim has not only mentioned the principal errors and heresies which prevailed in the first, second, and third century; but even given us the names of the most noted heretics, and of their most noted antagonists. He has related the times when, and the places where those errors and here. sies took their rise; and in several instances, marked the times, and means of their decline, and extinction, In particular he tells us when,and where, and by whom, the disputes about the Trinity, about the law of Moşes, about the personal reign of Christ on earth, about the baptism of heretics, and about universal salvation, were carried on in the four first centuries, the very period when our brethren say, infant baptism must have been introduced, if it were not of divine original. But yet this same judicious and faithful historian, never

tells us when, nor where, nor by whom infant baptism was introduced into the church of Christ after the days of his apostles; nor says a single word about the cause, or consequences of such a great and interesting innovation. Interesting I say, because, if infant baptism had been an innovation, it would have had a greater tendency to disturb the peace and unity of the churches, than any other innovation which took place in the primitive days of christianity.-The silence of all history upon these points, amounts to a moral certainty, that infant baptism was not introduced into the church of Christ, in any period of the three first centuries after the apostles; and of consequence that it was derived from the opinion and practice of the apostles themselves. If we derive the origin of infant baptism from this pure source, all sacred and profane history, respecting this subject, will appear plain and consistent, from Abraham to Christ, and from Christ to this day. A standing ordinance is calculated to carry its own evidence with it, as long as it exists. If the apostles were enjoined by Christ to baptize infants, their practice in baptizing them, was calculated to perpetuate the prac tice, from time to time, and from age to age, to the end of the world. This uninterrupted practice of infant baptism, therefore, carries its own evidence, of its divine original.”

Our brethren, the baptists, cannot, at best, trace their history any higher than the eleventh century.They imagine that their predecessors are to be found in the witnesses, commonly called Albigenses, and Waldenses, who at this time, resisted with a noble in. dependence of mind, the corruptions of Rome. It is not improbable that some of them called in question the right of infant baptism. But it is not made evident. that they did generally. Indeed there is much evi dence that they did not. As much as the character of this people is to be appreciated, their opinions are not to be received as authority. They were a sect, and sects are ever prone to run into extremes. By opposing perversions of truth, they are apt to become per

verters of it themselves, in a contrary extreme. By re sisting the abuses of an institution, they are liable to go into the denial of the institution itself. They sel dom stop at the exact boundaries of truth. These remarks apply to this people. Dr. Mosheim, who certainly had no prejudices against them, observes thus respecting them. Eccles. History, Volume III. page 545. "It must indeed be acknowledged, that they who undertook, with such zeal and ardor, the reformation of the Church, were not, for the most part, equal to this arduous and important enterprize; and that by avoiding, with more vehemence than circumspection, certain abuses, and defects, they rushed unhappily into the opposite extremes. Hence their attempts of reformation, even where they were successful, were extremely imperfect, and produced little more than a motley mixture of truth and falsehood, of wisdom and indiscretion, of which we might allege a multitude of examples. They treated with the utmost contempt, all the external parts of religious worship; and aimed at nothing less than the total suppression of sacraments, churches, religious assemblies of every kind, and christian ministers of every order." I suspect that this picture is drawn in too unfavorable colors; but it shews that the opinions of these reformers are to be received with caution, and by no means as of authoriity.

The Doctor's idea of the origin of the baptists, he has expressed freely, in the following terms. Vol. IV.. page 439. "The true origin of that sect, which acquired the denomination of the Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism, to those who came over to their communion, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is of consequence extremely difficult to be ascertained." If thus hidden, and unascertainable, is it to be imagined, that the primitive christian church was of this description? This testimony of Dr. Mosheim, has been produced as proof, that antipodobaptism was taught and transmitted by the apostles, and was the practice of the church in the

first

ages.

But surely it proves just the opposite, as far as it proves at all. And it is evident he himself meant to convey an opposite idea.

When the reformation broke out, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, no organized denomination, by the name of anabaptists, was to be heard of. After Luther had stepped forward to resist the corruptions of the hierarchy, a few ventured out from their hiding places, in Bohemia, and parts adjacent. But they ran into licentious opinions and great extravagance of conduct, so that instead of aiding, they very much obstructed, and came near to subverting the Reformation.

It is an indisputable fact, that the Reformation, the most glorious triumph of truth over error, and religion over imposture, which the church has experienced since the days of the apostles, took place, not upon antipodobaptist, but upon podobaptist principles. God interposed in signal favor to effectuate this event. The great promoters of it were men of eminent talents, learning, and piety; with whom the enthusiastic chiefs of anabaptism, the levellers of Munster, could bear no comparison. If therefore we are to consider prescription as proof, it will even in regard to modern times, be very much in favor of infant baptism.

It now presents itself as a question of great practical moment, How are the infant children of the. church to be treated, by the officers and adult members of it? I shall take leave here, before the question is directly answered, to make two or thee remarks, which it is hoped will not be without their advantage. As a general principle, it ought to be understood of the children of the church, that they are the offspring of a matrimonial alliance wholly in the Lord. Such an alliance only is religious, is formed in faith, and is in agreement with the plan of salvation by Jesus Christ. Primitive Israel were forbidden to make any intermarriages with the idolatrous people around them. Their marriages were to be confined entirely to themselves, Deuteronomy vii. 3, 4. "Neither shalt thou make

KK