It being the univerfal custom, therefore, for the mafter of a family to circumcife, and probably, alfo, to baptize his children and flaves, as well as himfelf, upon his making profeffion of Judaifin; and the propriety of the thing being exceedingly obvious to all people in the Eaft, it would be taken for granted, that baptifm, if it was ufed at all, was to be administered in the fame undiftinguished manner, when a perfon made profeffion of christianity; and the command to baptize all nations would neceffarily have been understood in this fenfe, unlefs our Lord had added fome exprefs reftriation.

Accordingly we find, that when the jailor, who had the custody of Paul, was converted, both himfelf was baptized, and all his. Acts xvi. 33. Alfo when Lydia was converted, it is faid, that fhe was baptized, and her boufhold. Acts xvi. 15. Now, by this phrafe, a Jew, and even a Roman, would neceffarily understand, that both the principal perfon himself, and all who were under his immediate power, either as a parent or a mafter, were included.

What the Jews did with refpect to young men, grown up to years of understanding, but living with their parents, when they were converted to Judaism, is not faid; but it is probable, that they were not circumcifed without their own confent, as in general it must have been the cafe with flaves. And fince chriftianity is evidently more of a perfonal concern, and men are chicfly interested in it as individuals, and not as members of focieties, or even of families, it may be taken for granted, that only young children were required to be baptized along with their believing parents.

As flaves, we find, were often converted without their mafters, and christianity made no diftinction between bond or free, as being of the fame value in the eye of God, it will hardly be thought probable, that flaves were ever baptized without their own confent. At leaft, the custom did not continue long, efpecially as flaves were about that time growing more independent of their mafters, acquiring civil as well as religious privileges; till at length, through

the

f

the influence of maxims which chriftianity greatly countenanced, they were universally manumitted in Europe.

The baptifm of children, therefore, is to be confidered as one part of a man's own profeffion of chriftianity, and confequently an obligation upon him to educate his children in the principles of the chriftian religion. If a child have no parents, or none who will engage for his religious inftruction, other perfons, who will undertake this kind office, are fo far its parents, and therefore may baptize it, as they would do their own children.

Laftly, I would obferve, that it is an argument in favour of the baptizing of infants, to which I do not fee how any fatiffactory reply can be made, that it appears, from the hiftory of the chriftian church, to have been the conftant practice from the time of the apoftles. The first mention that is made of it is as of an uncontroverted practice, and it is even argued from, as an univerfally received cuftom, againft very intelligent

telligent perfons, to whofe cause it would have been of the greatest advantage to have proved it to be novel, or of no authority. This was more efpecially the cafe with Pelagius; for, though Auftin, in fupport of his doctrine of original fin, appeals to the practice of infant baptifm, as being neceffary to do it away, his antagonist does not pretend to difpute the fact, but only denies that this was the use of it.

Now it is certainly highly improbable, that such a custom as that of infant-baptifm should have been established fo early as it appears to have been, contrary to the apoftolical practice, and no trace be left of the innovation; especially when every thing belonging to christianity, about which all perfons were not entirely agreed, became fo foon the fubject of the most eager contention and debate. And it does not appear to be of any confequence by what argument we can infer, that any opinion or practice was apoftolical, whether by their own writing, or any other fufficient evidence. They could not themselves be mistaken in a cafe

of

of this nature, and their practice is an authoritative rule for us.

$5. Of the Lord's Supper.

HE Lord's fupper, confifting of eating

THE

bread, and drinking wine, is a religious rite inftituted by Chrift, in commemoration of his death; the breaking of the bread more efpecially reprefenting the wounding of the body of Chrift, and the pouring out of the wine, the fhedding of his blood; and this rite is to continue to be celebrated by the difciples of Chrift till his fecond coming.

The defign of this inftitution being to ferve as a memorial, or record, of that important fact of the death of Chrift, it may be confidered as one monument of the truth of the chriftian religion, as was obferved in a preceding part of this work.

Being more especially a memorial of the death of Christ, in which he chiefly mani

fefted