norant or mistaken as to this fact. They could not be in the least doubt, How their fathers had receiv ed and learnt from the Apostles, and practised as to this matter. For whether Infants were, or were not, then baptifed; was fo notorious and plain a fact, a fact of fo public and confpicuous a nature, as could not poffibly efcape the knowledge of EVERY PARTICULAR CHRISTIAN, then living upon earth (0). Now if ALL the churches throughout the world, were really established by the Apostles upon the plan of only ADULT Baptifm; and they every where rejected INFANTS, and forbid them to be baptifed; it will appear a thing abfolutely inconceivable, and even a moral IMPOSSIBILITY, that the Baptifm of Infants fhould fo early, fo widely, fo univerfally prevail, throughout the whole world, as we have now feen it, to have done. For if the Baptifm of Infants was not an AposTOLIC inftitution and practice, how muft the perfons, who first attempted to introduce it, be received? Would not all their neighbour Chriftians immediately cry out upon the innovation, and demand, By what authority do you presume to perform this quite NEW, this unheard of and "Strange ceremony of baptifing an Infant !". Suppose them to have urged, in fupport of their practice, the fame fcriptures with us; would it not have t (0) With whatever credulity as to MIRACLES, faid to be wrought in their days, thefe early writers may be charged; it cannot at all affect their evidence as to the fact, here, in debate. For, as there was no poffibility of their being themselves deceived as to this matter; fo neither could they be under temptation to falfifie in their accounts of it. Nor indeed, had the temptation been ever fo ftrong, could they have ventured to falfifie in a fact notorious to all the world; and when every Chriftian then living could have ftepped forth, and born witnefs to the falfhood of their account. have presently been replied upon them with unanswerable ftrength?" But did not the Apoftles " and first preachers of chriftianity understand the "true fenfe and force of thefe fcriptures? Yet not "one of them all, nor any one of their followers, "ever baptifed an Infant, as we all perfectly know, "and as you cannot but own. Look into all the "churches throughout the whole earth, into Syria, "Palestine, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Africk, Spain, &c. " and you will find there never was such a thing "known, nor heard of amongst Chriftians, as bap"tising an Infant." WHAT! I greatly wonder, could the first baptifers of Infants poffibly reply? Could they urge that it was an apoftolic injunction and practice? No: the whole Chriftian world would have rose up against them, and born witness to the falfhood of fuch a pretence. Could they hope then to establish this invention of their own; yea, was it actually established, in direct oppofition to the APOSTLES authority, and to their then perfectly well-known. inftitution and practice?-Impoffible to imagine! What then! I afk again, could the first baptifers of Infants urge in favour of their practice? Or how was it poffible, it should be received, yea prevail, yea fo univerfally prevail, that the very learned and acute Pelagius about three hundred years after, never heard of a church amongst either Catholics or Heretics, who did not baptife Infants, if ALL the churches in the world were conftituted by the Apostles upon the directly oppofite plan? Yea, and when the perfons who firft began this practice could not but own, that the authority and example of ALL the Apostles, and of ALL the primitive Chrif tians, and of ALL the churches in the world were abfolutely against them? Well; but fuppofe a few perfons were of fo odd a turn of mind, as to run into this quite novel and unheard unheard of practice, of baptifing INFANTS; can it be imagined that whole churches would be led blindly away after them? Or, if whole churches might be thus feduced; could whole nations be fo too? Yea, if whole nations might; can it enter into the heart of any reasonable man, that ALL THE NATIONS of the Christian world, both the eastern and the western churches, in the space of about two bundred years, univerfally fell in with this anti-apoftolic and new-invented rite of worship: and fo ftrangely apoftatifed from the primitive and pure doctrine of CHRIST as to this matter! It were the height of abfurdity even to furmife fuch a thing. The extravagance of the fuppofition is moveover, mightily increased, by remembring-that a vaft number of fects and berefies fprung up, and the Chriftian church was rent into many angry and contending parties, during thefe times (p). In the fecond century, or the age immediately following the apostles, there were thofe who took their names from Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Carpocrates, Marcion, Montanus; and the whole church was rent into two furious and angry fects, the eastern and the western, by the controverfie about eafter. In the third century there arose Novatian, Sabellius, Paulus Samofatenfis, Manes, &c. with their followers. In the fourth, the Meletians, Arians, Athanafians, &c. Now these feveral inflamed parties, into which by divine permiffion, the church was then divided, were watchful and fevere Spies upon each others. conduct fo that if any of them had innovated in this matter, of baptifing Infants, how readily would the reft have entered their protest against it, and exclaimed loudly upon the innovation? But, it seems, fo far were they from this; that however mutually in (p) No less than NINETY different herefies are faid to have fprung up in the three first centuries. Inflamed and angry as to other points; yet, laying afide their animofity, they all furprisingly agree, in the affair of baptifing Infants, to depart from the apoftolic practice; and by an unaccountable confederacy connive at one another in this dangerous fuperftition. Strange! beyond all belief! That amidst their many mutual accufations, reproaches, complaints, we meet not, in all antiquity, with one upon this head; and not a man, Catholic nor Heretic, dropping a fingle word against this grofs innovation; except, perhaps, Tertullian; and he not abfolutely, (if at all) cenfuring it; and fupporting his diflike of it, by reafons which are no ftrength, but a difhonour to any cause. For an hundred years after the death of the Apos TLES, their authority was fufficient, our brethren acknowledge, to keep fuch an innovation from entering the church. They therefore ufually place the introduction of this practice about the beginning of the third century. But behold! in the fhort fpace of about two hundred years more; without a fingle precept to warrant, or a fingle example to encourage it, yea with the well-known practice of the APOSTLES themselves, and of ALL the churches they ever planted throughout the whole world, confeffedly, openly, directly against it; under all thefe disadvantages, the Baptism of Infants, it feems, fo EVERY WHERE prevailed, that upon the face of the whole earth there was not a church found where it was not performed!-To him that believes this, what can be incredible! Some, perhaps, to evade the force of the foregoing argument, may object-" There have been "other great corruptions, fuch as image-worship, "transubstantiation, &c. which have alike univerfally "prevailed in the church." But the answer is extremely obvious. 1. This is far from being trues; nay nay it is entirely without foundation. Neither imageworship, nor tranfubftantiation, ever univerfally prevailed. The latter has by the greater part of the Chriftian church been in all times rejected as it is at this day and though the former, since the feventh century, has spread itself wide, and too generally prevailed; yet it was not without mighty Struggles and oppofitions in the church: numerous fynods of bifhops zealously declared against it: folemn decrees of councils, not in one kingdom or church only, but in diverse regions of the earth, publickly condemned it: the arm both of civil and military power was ftrenuously exerted to establish and fupport it: grievous perfecutions were raised upon its account: and many teftified their abhorrence of it by bitter fufferings, and death itself.And is this a cafe at all parallel to that of Infant-Baptifm, which we have now been cofidering? The most prejudiced judgment must confefs it is not. Befides 2. Had thefe corruptions, indeed, as univerfally prevailed, as Infant-Baptifm ever did; yet would this, by no means, have put them upon an equal foot with that; or have made the cases at all parallel. For, when the Bishop of Rome had claimed and was acknowledged to be the infallible bead, the fupreme paftor of the church, the vicar of CHRIST, &c. when emperors and kings took upon them to convene councils, to explain doctrines, and establish faith by dint of civil authority; cherishing and upholding one party by worldly honours and preferments; but terrifying and crushing others by banishment, confifcations, imprisonment and death: finally; when the clergy had both the terrors and the riches of this world, much at their difpofal; and the spirit of true piety, fortitude, and faith began to languish in the church (as it miferably languished, in the times when image-worship and tranfubftantiation were brought |