It matters not, saith he, whether those who are born of Christian parents and profess the Gospel, as did their parents, be baptized or not: equally indifferent is it whether their initiation if it must take place at all, date from infancy, or riper years. And why was this? Is it difficult to discern the enmity of that arch heretic's mind against the great doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, a doctrine, against which infidelity could hardly hope to succeed (as indeed the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,) so long as persons, whether infant or adult were baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The opponents of infant Baptism1 have themselves acknowledged that it was practised so early as at the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century: gaining ground, until near the end of the fourth century; when it continued the stated, settled, undeviating practice of the whole Church for eleven hundred years, and more, until the Anabaptists of Munster brought in their opinions; and with them the licence, pollutions, and horrors, that dis

1 Rev. C. Jerram on Secession from the Church of England, quoted in the Church of England Magazine, Part X., p. 131.

graced and impeded the Reformation in many parts of Germany. But if it can be shewn that there never were any limitations-that on the other hand, as it was an apostolic practice to baptize infants, so it was continued down from them, even to the day when Luther first hurled the thunders of the Bible against the abominations of Rome; it will equally appear, that they who object to the Church of England Baptism of infants have done so without a cause. Be it then supposed that Christians were now, as it is alleged they were, at the close of the second century, in the uniform habit of admitting only adults to the Sacrament of Baptism. Suppose an individual came forward to assert, that this universal assent of Christians is founded in error, unsupported by apostolical usage, directly in opposition to scriptural precedent; and should immediately and vehemently insist upon the right of infants to the blessings of this sacrament. Would such an extraordinary avowal, and consequent demand, gain immediate credit, and silence all objections? Would it be ushered in to the reception of the universal Church, with loud acclamation of consenting minds, as a Roman General to his triumph in the capitol, followed, welcomed, applauded by every in

habitant within the city walls? Or would not the announcement rather be treated with contempt, as the dreamings of one beside himself?

If however, contrary to all probability it should gain him proselytes, would not a host of antagonists start up, like the fabled combatants of old from the dragon's teeth, to oppose the strange thing thus brought to men's ears? Would not every advocate for apostolic usageevery zealot for scriptural Church membership, gird on his harness, and go forth to warfare with an enemy so unexpected, and so dangerous? Should it still spread (like the impure and baleful doctrines of Mahomet, over the surface of the Christian world) until amidst all opposition, it was embraced by every denomination of men who owned allegiance to the Gospel, would there be no record of an event so mighty, of a revolution so stupendous? And yet such a change is said to have taken place within the Church of Christ, at the end of the second century. At a period when the practice of the Apostles must have been familiar to the household of God, and their authority unchallenged, it is asserted that every Christian in every Church, in every nation where Christ is named, advocated the exclusive Baptism of

adults, without one solitary instance of exception in favour of infants. All, with one consent, without a murmur of opposition had thrust them from the pale of the covenant. But at this moment the unanimity was disturbed, the universal practice set at nought, and subverted. The new opinion for Infant Baptism made a proselyte of universal Christendom. By what art, by what power could this mighty change be achieved? By what name was the individual who commenced it known; to what nation did he belong? What were his arguments-by what overwhelming force did he silence objection, eradicate prejudice, subdue passion, and lead the whole Christian world bound to the car of this great triumph? We demand the recorded history of this alteration; but we ask in vain. An essential change hath passed upon the Church of the Redeemer. Apostolic usage has been abolished; a practice utterly unscriptural has been introduced; and nobody knows by whom. No record of the controversies wherein the Church was engaged relates that any such change was contemplated, still less that it was effected. To such difficulties are we reduced by the assumption that only adult Baptism was practised until the end of the

second century, and then the Church of God suffered in this respect an entire change of its constitution. We have on the other hand every proof, short of actual demonstration, that infants enjoyed the first blessed Sacrament of the Church in the days of her apostles, and agreeably to the express command of her gracious and glorious Founder.

I pass on to a few of the testimonies left by those fathers of the Church, who were the most competent witnesses of her practice, to whom we can refer, and who, on this ground at least, demand and deserve our reverence, as the best expositors of her practice. Justin Martyr wrote about forty years after the Apostles. He says, "Several persons among us of sixty or seventy years of age, who were made disciples to Christ. in their childhood, continue still uncorrupted, or virgins." The term made disciples,' is precisely that which has been used by our Lord in connexion with Baptism; and which our translators have rendered teaching'-a most forcible proof of infant initiation into the Christian covenant. Again, We also, who by Him (the alone Mediator) have had access to God, have not received carnal circumcision, but spiritual, and we have received it by Baptism,