course of the first three 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 respect to the introduction of 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 centuries, 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 heresies 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 Moses, about the personal reign of Christ on earth, about the baptism of heretics, and about universal salvation, were carried on, in the first four 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. Disputes about doctrines, or points of speculation, may rise high and continue long, without throwing churches into tumults and divisions; but these unhappy consequences naturally flow from

disputes about practical subjects. This may be clearly illustrated by a dispute very near akin to infant baptism; I mean the dispute about the rebaptizing of heretics. This dispute arose in the third century, in the church of Rome, by the means of Novatian, a presbyter of uncommon learning, eloquence, and apparent sanctity; it occasioned the calling of an ecclesiastical council; and it finally produced a separation in the Christian church, which continued two hundred years. Now, if infant baptism had been an innovation, introduced by some such aspiring heretic, would it not have raised as warm and long disputes as this practical error of rebaptizing heretics, and produced as great confusions and divisions in the church of Christ? And if such discords and contentions had arisen, can we suppose they would not have made as conspicuous a figure on the page of history, as the animosity and bustle about a far more trifling error? But what history informs us of a single controversy, commotion, or separation in the Christian church, in the first and purest ages of it, with respect to the rise, progress, or effects, of infant baptism? Or what history tells us when, or where, or by whom, infant baptism was palmed upon the Christian world? 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 first three 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. Abraham, the father of the faithful, circumcised infants; his descendants continued in the practice ✔ to the gospel day; then they made no complaint that their children were injured by the introduction of baptism; the apostles baptized believers and their households; and the practice of household baptism has continued, through all the ages and changes of the Christian church, from the apostles' days to the present time. These are plain and consistent facts, which carry the most unexceptionable evidence in favor of infant baptism. 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 practice, 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.

It is extremely difficult for me to conceive, how any person

can bring himself to believe that all the churches planted by the apostles were originally Baptist churches, and continued so, during the lives of the apostles; and yet within one, or two, or three hundred years, all departed from the faith and practice of the apostles, without causing any disputes, or divisions; or even leaving a single trait of such a great, practical and important innovation in the Christian world.

Thus I have endeavored to exhibit the strongest arguments, in my mind, in favor of infant baptism. I have purposely passed over several considerations which have been urged in support of this doctrine, because there appears to be no occasion for calling in the aid of doubtful texts, and fine spun reasonings upon this subject. The whole current of scripture, and the whole current of history must, in time to come, as in time past, carry general conviction to the Christian world, of the duty and importance of infant baptism.

It may be proper now to close this discourse, with a few practical reflections.

1. Every person who wishes to know the truth respecting the subject which we have been considering, ought to examine it with a good degree of candor. This amiable disposition will exclude prejudice, prepossession, and every affection which tends to blind the understanding and warp the judgment. In reasoning upon mathematical, philosophical and metaphysical subjects, we have no occasion for candor; but in reasoning upon moral subjects, we have great occasion for candor, in order to compare circumstances, and weigh arguments, with impartiality. Christ has given us his own express testimony that he instituted baptism as a standing ordinance in his church; but he has not given us the same plain and simple evidence respecting the proper mode and the proper subjects of this religious ceremony. Here we are left to form our opinion and regulate our practice, by such evidence as may be fairly collected from the combined force of moral arguments. We find no express precept in favor of sprinkling, nor any express prohibition against it. We find no express precept for baptizing infants, nor any express prohibition against it. We find no express declaration, that the apostles baptized infants, nor any express declaration that they did not. On the other hand, we find many circumstances in favor of sprinkling; but none in favor of plunging. We find many things which naturally imply that infants were to be baptized, and that the apostles actually baptized them; but none that imply the contrary. And besides all this, we find the analogy of divine dispensations and the current of history wholly on the side of infant baptism. Here is ample room for the exercise of candor; nor

is it possible to compare these circumstances, and balance these arguments with impartiality, without it. Candor, in this case, will teach every person to be satisfied with that kind of evidence which the nature of this subject affords, and with that degree of evidence which results from the united influence of these moral arguments. It is impossible to give a mathematical or metaphysical demonstration that our forefathers, who first subdued the natives of New England, were Europeans; but yet it is easy to give the highest moral evidence of it, and such as no candid mind can possibly resist. So it is impossible to give a strict demonstration that infants are proper subjects of baptism, or that sprinkling is the proper mode of administering it; but yet it appears from this discourse, and from larger and better discourses upon this subject,* that it is easy to give such moral evidence in favor of both these points, as is sufficient to convince a candid and impartial mind. Those who lived in the fourth century, when, our brethren grant, the practice of infant baptism generally prevailed, had no more warrant for it, either from scripture precept, or scripture example, than we now have. But yet this practice has generally prevailed in the Christian. church, from their day to ours. How is this consistent with what our brethren so often plead, that the bare want of scripture precept and example for infant baptism, is a clear and sufficient evidence against it? What is the conclusion of candor in this case? Shall we suppose the greatest and best of men, for more than fourteen hundred years, have been so devoid of candor, and so deeply involved in prejudice, as not to look for that kind and degree of evidence in favor of this practice, which the nature of the case fairly required? Or shall we rather conclude that the disbelief and disuse of infant baptism, among a small proportion of christians, in some part of this long period, has been partly owing to their want of candor, in demanding such a kind and degree of evidence as the nature of the case never fairly required? This last is certainly the most fair and candid supposition. It is true, indeed, some individuals have renounced infant baptism, contrary to the bias of tradition, and the prejudices of education; but candor even here must allow that there has been but a very small number who have done this, without apparent motives of personal disaffection or private interest. Where can a Baptist congregation be found, in this part of the world, which did not originate from some contention or disaffection among some other denomination of christians? And do not the dissensions and divisions among other denomina

Among all the late publications upon this subject, Dr. Lathrop's Sermons, with Mr. Perkins' Letters, are especially worthy of perusal.

tions now serve to increase the number of Baptists, faster than any other cause that can be assigned? If we may, in this case, judge of the weight of evidence, by the degree of conviction which it affords unprejudiced and impartial persons, we must conclude that the evidence in favor of infant baptism is much stronger than the evidence against it, and sufficient to gain the belief of those who examine the subject with a proper degree of fairness and candor.

2. If infant baptism be a Bible doctrine, then those who deny it are in a great practical error. They look upon all churches who practice infant baptism, as unfit for their communion in divine ordinances. And this leads them to take every proper, not to say improper, method, to build up their own churches, and to pull down those of all other denominations. Such conduct is directly calculated to create animosities, contentions and divisions, among those who ought to be united in their affections and exertions to build up the Redeemer's kingdom. Christians may err in many points of speculation, without being necessarily led to oppose each other in practice. But the denial of infant baptism is of a practical nature, and constrains all who are sincere in the denial, to oppose all the rest of the Christian world in the order and discipline of the church. The error in sentiment appears small, when compared with the fruit of it in practice. But it ought to be viewed in its full length and breadth; that is, in its nature and consequences. And it is to be hoped that none will embrace a sentiment which draws after it such great and disagreeable consequences, without the most candid deliberation, and the most irresistible conviction of its being founded on the word of God.

3. It appears from what has been said, that those who believe the doctrine of infant baptism, cannot act consistently in doing any thing which tends to destroy the belief and practice of it. If it be the duty of believers to baptize their infant seed, and if they believe this to be their duty, they ought to use all their influence to maintain and promote their sentiment and practice in the world in general, and especially in their own churches and congregations. They have no right, therefore, either in the sight of God, or of their own consciences, unnecessarily to aid, assist or countenance those, who appear to be aiming to discredit and overthrow the belief and practice of infant baptism. And we have reason to believe that those who deny this doctrine always aim to do all they can to overthrow it. We certainly have reason to believe this, if they are honest in their sentiments, and really seek to promote the cause of truth. For, one of the most effectual ways of promoting truth, is to oppose and destroy error. They ought, therefore, to desire and to