Jewish dispensation, as the mean of admission to the benefit of it.

In consequence of this circumstance it may be affirmed, that water baptism, as practised by Jesus Christ and by his forerunner, was not in compliance with ancient habits. It was even in contrariety to them; being administered to all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. The single circumstance of its not being of legal imposition, would have rendered it the more easily dispensed with in relation to converts from heathenism, than was the sabbath, circumcision, and various other institutions: a yoke however, from which the Gentile converts were pronounced to be exempt, in the very infancy of the Church; while the new rite of baptism was supported in its full vigour, without any question raised relative to its being obligatory.

Further, it was remarked in the lecture, that had divine wisdom contemplated the limiting of the ordinance to the apostolick age, there might have been expected an intimation of the discontinuance of it: whereas nothing of this sort is alleged. But to show how much the contrary is a manifest fact; it may be well to advert to some testimonies, in the few documents which have been handed down of the very early ages of the Church.

There is a well known book, called "The Pastor," written by Hermas; supposed to be the person of that name, mentioned in Rom. xvi. 14; and there saluted by St. Paul. The book here mentioned has a fanciful passage,* in which the apostles are supposed to have gone after death, to baptize saints of the Old Testament dispensation, in order to their admission into the kingdom of heaven. Hermas is here quoted, not for the weight of his opinion; but to give ground to remark the prevalent sentiment which it manifests, of the obligation of the ordinance. Justin Martyr, who wrote within half of a

* Similitude ninth.

century of the last of the apostles, speaks in his larger Apology* of baptism, as a rite in which converts to Christianity dedicated themselves to God. He gives an account of their being brought to a place of water, and of the praying and the fasting accompanying the transaction; which he calls the regeneration of the person so baptized.

Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, must have been born about the time of the decease of St. John; and had been a disciple of Polycarp, who had been a disciple of that apostle. The said good bishop speaks very particularly of baptism, in testimonies which it will be proper to reserve to the other section of the dissertation; as they extend to the matter to be in that established.

age

There are none but very early authorities here adverted to, because they are the most pertinent to the present purpose; which is simply to show, that if the ordinance had been designed to die with the of the apostles, the ages immediately following discover no traces of information of such design. And it is remarkable, that of those hereticks who denied the obligation of baptism, the errour in this respect was the necessary consequence of other errours, still wider of the doctrine of the gospel. Thus the Valentians, who were a branch of the sect of the Gnosticks, so stigmatized in the writings of St. John, were naturally led by their notions of the necessary dependence of sin on matter, to reject an ordinance, the element of which was material. It was probably on a similar principle, that baptism was rejected by the Manichees, who arose in the third century: for they held all matter to be the work of a malevolent being, and therefore to be abhorred. Tertullian, who wrote in the beginning of the said century, speaks† of a woman named Quintilla, who had assumed the office of a preacher; and, in that character pronounced baptism to be useless, + De Baptismo.

Thirlby, p. 89.

on the ground of the sufficiency of faith. But it does not appear, that this plea gave occasion to a lasting sect; unaccompanied as it was by any whimsical philosophy the more likely to gain converts, because of its being little understood. For this was the case, with the sects above referred to.

The result is, that if baptism, confessedly practised by the disciples of our Lord under his immediate notice, and afterwards by his apostles in the founding of his church, were at the time designated to die away gradually, or with the age of those its first administrators; never was there less intimation given of a design, or fewer circumstances from which it could have been inferred.

SECTION II.

OF INFANT BAPTISM.

The most prominent passage respecting baptism generally, is that already referred to in Matt. xxviii. 19, containing the commission of the great head of the Church. A strict translation of the passage would confessedly be-" Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Accordingly, the present question depends much on the circumstance of the time of life, at which discipleship may properly commence. It would seem, that no time of life can be too early, in a science having respect to the regulating of the heart, and the forming of the manners; which is unquestionably the principal end of Christian discipline. It is not uncommonly found a dogma of infidel philosophy, that no religious instruction should be given to young people, until their judgments are sufficiently matured to inquire, and to form opinions for themselves: as if the same mistaken principle would not apply to

prohibit the instructing of them in civil and even in domestick duties; there being, in each department, room for much curious investigation, and for much difference in opinion, as to the grounds on which the duties rest, and the limits beyond which they do not extend. It is here supposed, in regard to those religious persons who reject infant baptism, that they do not act on the infidel dogma now noticed; and that on the contrary, they instruct their children in what they conceive to be the constituent principles of Christianity. But herein they seem to act with an happy inconsistency; because, if there be any argument for forbidding the bringing of persons of unmatured judgments within the pale of the Church, it applies equally against the exertion of parental influence, for the inclining of them to this or to that opinion. It may be said that errour, afterwards detected by them, may be renounced. The reply is, that so may the obligations of baptism; when found on self acquired light, to be the offspring of superstition. Such renunciation being supposed; the question of propriety will arise, not as to the right of being disengaged from a covenant erroneously consented to by others, without the participation of the party principally interested; but how far it be consistent with responsibility to God, to reject the benefits of the covenant, rather than submit to its obligations. In short, if the system here objected to were consistent, it would forbid all interference with the faith of young persons; at least until they were of a competent age, for the transacting of the concerns of the present life.

Still, there is thrown on the advocates of infant baptism the burthen of proof, either of precept or of example in the New Testament. But the burthen of proof ought to lie on the other side: and a general precept being shown, it rests with those who conceive of an exception, to produce it. This may be illustrated by a reference to the Eucharist. There is not alleged to be any precept, for the ad

ministering of it to women; nor any recorded instance in scripture, of its having been received by one of that sex. Doubtless the reason of the thing applies. But it is precisely what is contended for, by the favourers of infant baptism, relatively to that subject. And although this is a privilege denied to them, and will be discussed hereafter; yet it puts the question into a different shape, from that of the requisition of a definite precept or example.

The only place in scripture, in which the baptizing of any female is mentioned, is Acts viii. 12; which says..." They were baptized, both men and women." As to any precept on the subject, it will not be alleged. Neither will it be contended, that in the passage now quoted, the author of the book had it directly within his view to speak of the baptism of females, as a point which might be brought into question in times to come. It is generally agreed, that however the writers of the Scriptures were under the influence of inspiration, in regard to whatever touched, the essence of Christian doctrine, they were left to their several peculiarities, as to whatever comes under the head of phraseology. If under this latitude, it had been merely said- they were baptized," omitting the incidental expression of..." both men and women," which does not appear to have been essential to the fact to be recorded; scripture would have been as barren of record of the baptism of women in particular, as it is of infants in particular.

Why infants are not specially named, will be accounted for hereafter. In the mean time, the ground of argument is to be now taken, that they were designed by divine wisdom to be members of the Christian Church, and that therefore, they are suitable subjects of the rite of baptism. This goes to the very essence of the argument on the other side; it being contended, that since infants are incapable of re pentance and faith, they cannot be members of the Christian Church. Were it admitted, that this is a character which may apply to them; it would not be