DOUBTLESS the design of this text now appears to the greater part of this assembly. It is easy work to oppose enemies, but to oppose friends—to op­pose brethren and sisters, disciples of our glorious Lord, is one of the most difficult employments in the world: but every bible truth is precious, and plead for it we must, though opposed by a Calvin, a Flavel, an Ed­wards, or by all the saints on the earth. Let us then attend to the passage in view, and consider what bap­tism is, and who are the subjects of it.

The enquiry may be, 1. What is baptism? It is a sa­crament wherein our immersion in water represents our being buried with Christ to the world, and rising to newness of life; and also the burial of our bodies, and their resurrection at the last day. Chambers' dictiona­ry explains the word baptism, which the English read­er may peruse at his leisure. When baptism was per­formed in the apostolic age, we read of their repairing to places where there was much water. Philip and the Eunuch first came unto a certain water, and then we read, not that they went back and came to it again; but, that they went down into ^† the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. Hence believ­ers [Page 4]are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, and to be baptized for the dead. If the dead rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead? Why do they embrace an ordinance, the very design of which is to represent the resurrection when christians are buried in and rise out of the water. What a lively emblem it is of our being buried with Christ, and rising at the last day! This canons be said of sprinkling—and accordingly not sprinkling, but baptism was almost the universal prac­tice of the christian church for many centuries, and has bee [...] continued in the Greek church, down to the pre­ [...]ent moment. Baptism is a Greek word and if the Greek [...]ation do'nt know the meaning of their own words we may well enquire who does? But after all, it may be said, it is a needless, burdensome, foolish practice: We answer, perhaps this was one great reason, why it was [...]sated. Every follower of Christ must become a fool for his sake, and deny himself. Are you my dis­ciple, says Christ, if so, do you submit to this ordinance —this image of self-denial, which shall render you fool­ish in the view of the world.^* Must not that ordinance be wisely contrived, which serves to keep out of the church the proud, and those who are loth to expose themselves for the cause of Christ.^§ But,

2. Who are the subjects of baptism? The text is the answer—Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized— "and their infants too" faith the word of man; but what saith the word of the Lord? Where is the chapter, or verse, or sentence, or member of a sen­tence, which commands such a practice, or affords an [Page 5]example of it? To say it is not expressly forbidden will by no means excuse the practice. Beads, crosses, and a thousand other popish fooleries, are no where ex­pressly forbidden in scripture; but the question is are they commanded? Ancient Israel was reproved no [...] only for doing what was forbidden, but for doing what was not commanded. They did that which I commanded them not, saith the Lord, neither came it into my mind. 'But though there be no express command for the practice, you say, yet we have consequential evidence in its savor.' Let us then inquire for it. If there be such consequen­tial evidence, it must depend on the truth of three pro­positions. Infants are visibly in the new covenant— baptism is in the room of circumcision—there were three families in the apostolic age, one of which at least had an infant or some other person baptized on the ground of the faith of the head of the family. All the arguments which are esteemed conclusive by more than thirty authors who have written on the subject in Europe and America, depend on the truth of these three propositions: all that is said respecting the covenants, the olive-tree, the kingdom of heaven, the discipleship of infants and their interest in the promise, &c. rests on the truth of one or other of these three propositions^§ so that if these fail, all fails and the point must be sur­rendered. More might be said to manifest this, but probably it will not be denied. All we have to do then is to enquire whether these three propositions are true.

1. Are infants visibly in the new covenant? No! for this plain reason—they cannot appear to be in it, and they are not visibly such as they cannot appear to be. I will make a new covenant with the house of Is­rael, [Page 6](saith the Lord) not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt: for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Is­rael after those days, faith the Lord, I will put my laws in their mind, and write them in their hearts: and— they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord: for all shall know me, i. e. all with whom I make this new covenant shall know me, from the least to the greatest: for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. How plain­ly this shews that none can be really in the new cove­nant but really gracious persons. All shall know me, (spiritually) for I will be merciful to their unrighteous­ness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. And as none can be really in the new covenant but really gracious persons, so none can appear to be in the new covenant, but those who appear to be gracious, and, as appearance and visibility are of the same import, whatever appears is visible, and whatever is visible can appear. There cannot be a visible object, which can­not appear; and no person can be visibly in any con­dition, while he cannot appear to be in that condition. Therefore if the infants of believers, as such, are visibly in the new covenant, then they appear to be really in it. If infants are really in the new covenant, they are real­ly born again; and consequently if they are visibly in the new covenant, they are visibly born again; and if they are visibly born again, then they can appear to be born again, certainly. There may be visibility of that of which there is no existence, but there cannot be visi­bility of that which there can be no appearance.^* 'There [Page 7]cannot be a more harsh catachresis, than to say that any creature is visibly such as he cannot appear to be. When the almanac predicts a visible eclipse, it does not mean an eclipse which cannot appear. Therefore if the in­fants [Page 8]of believers as such, are visibly in the new cove­nant, visibly in the kingdom of heaven, visibly holy in the new covenant sense, and visible disciples, then they can appear to be such really: And so we are come to this plain question; do infants appear to be really in the new covenant? or in other words do they appear to be real­ly born again—do they appear to be born and new born at the same time? Does that which is born of the flesh appear to be spirit in the eye of christians, judging ac­cording to the rules of the gospel?—no; saith the scrip­ture; "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit." That which is born of the flesh, even of believers, is flesh; for, "neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, (says Paul) but in Isaac shall thy seed be called—that is, they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God. True, the child of a believer is in a sense holy to him, and so is the unbe­lieving consort. The unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. i. e. The believer has a lawful and sanctified injoyment of his wife and child. They are holy to him as all things are which he has occasion to enjoy: for to the pure, all things are pure; and nothing to be refused, if it be re­received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. The gospel has removed the ceremonial uncleanness of Ezra's time. But neither the unbelieving wife, nor child of a believer is holy in the [Page 9]new covenant sense: if they were, their hearts would be holy; or if they were visibly holy in this sense, their hearts would be visibly holy in the sense already explain­ed—and to confirm this sense, hear president Edwards: "Visibility is a relative thing, and has relation to an eye that beholds.' Real saints are those who are so in the eye of God, visible saints are those who are so in the eye of man—that is, in the eye of man's mind, which is his judgment or esteem; and nothing short of apparent pro­bability or probable exhibition can amount to visibility in the eye of man's reason or judgment. God has given to man the eye of reason and the eye of a christian, which is reason sanctified and enlightened by a princi­ple of love.—But it implies a contradiction to say that that is visible to the eye of reason, which does not ap­pear probable to reason. And if there be a person who is in this sense a visible saint, he is in the eye of a ratio­nal judgment a real saint. Without dispute some in­fants are real saints; but it is visible saintship which the church is concerned with, and of this it is shewn no in­fant is capable. The sum of the reasoning is this:— The new covenant really contains none but gracious persons—therefore, none but those who appear to be gracious, appear to be in it. The infants of believers,^‖ [Page 10]as such, cannot appear to be gracious in the eye of a church, judging by proper rules—and therefore cannot appear to be in the new covenant; that is, they are not visibly in it, which is the same thing.^† Some inferen­ces must close this part of the subject.

1. To what purpose then are all the mighty argu­ments from the covenant of Abraham and other scrip­tures, but eventually to cast a mist before the eyes of the mind, and keep the truth always out of view. What­ever the covenant of Abraham is, and whatever those other scriptures mean which are used in favor of infant membership, they cannot mean that infants or any other creatures are visibly such as they cannot appear to be; they cannot prove a proposition which is a contradic­tion in itself.—If they can, the bible is no more, and Hume and Voltaire may be our guides in future.^¶ The covenant of Abraham promised a land to a particular [Page 11]family, as such, but in the new covenant we find no such promise. Therefore the covenant of Abraham, in this [Page 12]respect, is really different from the new,—and if it dif­fers in one respect it may in another, it may differ with respect to the temporal seed, as well as the temporal land.

The Jewish infants seem to have been really in cove­nant in some sense or other; or else how could the un­circumcised man child be said to break it. And Deut. xxix. 11. the little ones are expressly mentioned as en­tering [Page 13]into covenant. But the new testament speaks [...] such matters of the new covenant. Infants being once in covenant, say some, when were they ever cut off? This question must be answered by another. Infants being once in the covenant of Sinai, when were they ever cut off? Infants were as really in the covenant of Sinai, as in that of Abraham, but no scripture has expressly cancelled that article of the Sinai covenant which admitted them. But 'the Sinai covenant was abolished' you may say,—so it was, as far as it respected the temporal seed, the tempo­ral land, and temporal rights, and so was the covenant of Abraham, and neither of them was abolished or dis­annulled by the law or gospel, as far as they had refer­ence to Christ and spiritual blessings. The spirituality of both these covenants, is everlasting. The Abraha­mic covenant, was included in the covenant of Sinai; as the learned Grotius has justly observed. Every pro­mise, every command, every blessing of the covenant of Abraham, is found in the covenant of Sinai. Cir­cumcision in particular, was considered by Christ as ap­pertaining to the law of Moses—'Ye on the sabbath-day circumcise a man that the law of Moses might not be broken.' And the covenant of Sinai was no more con­fined to the native Hebrews than the covenant of A­braham. Therefore the latter being included in the former, both waxed old and vanished away together; while the spiritual blessings which they both promised, were more clearly exhibited than ever by the new cove­nant. The atonement of Jewish priests typified and promised the atonement of Christ and spiritual blessings: and the covenant of Abraham typified and promised the new covenant and its spiritual blessings.—Yet the atone­ment of Jewish priests was one thing, and the atone­ment of Christ was another—and the covenant of Abra­ham was one thing, and the new covenant was another. The covenant of Abraham had a two-fold aspect; to the natural seed promising temporal blessings, and to the [Page 14]spiritual feed promising spiritual blessings. When the Lord says to Abraham, 'I will be a God to thee & to thy feed,' &c. the meaning is I will be a God to thee and to thy natural seed in a temporal sense, and a God to thee and thy spiritual seed in a spiritual sense—giving cana­an to the former, and heaven to the latter. Of the same nature are the covenants of Levi and David. There­fore all these covenants are so many different covenants of promise, to which no doubt the apostle refers, when he tells the Ephesians that they had been aliens from this commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. But the new covenant has no such double aspect—and here again is a wide difference between the latter and the former.

2. Hence it appears that an infant may belong to Christ's kingdom on the earth, and yet not belong to his visible kingdom. Christ in reality, has but one gos­pel kingdom, into which none enter but they who are born again; and this real kingdom is partly in heaven, and partly on the earth—'of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.' Christ's real church does not really consist of two sorts of persons, the one his friends and the other his enemies. His real church is really one bread and one body, and so his visible church is visibly one bread and one body:—consequently no one can be properly of his visible kingdom, who is not vi­sibly of his real kingdom. But of this visibility infants are incapable, as already shewn, and therefore cannot properly belong to Christ's visible kingdom:—yet some of them doubtless belong to his real kingdom.— For 'of such is the kingdom of heaven' saith our Lord. q. d. There are some infants who belong to my real kingdom; they are born again, which shows that all in­fants are capable of receiving my blessing. Therefore suf­fer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them [Page 15]not.' The text is plain enough, if we do not make dif­ficulties where there are none.

3. Hence learn the inconsistency occasioned by infant membership. If infants are members of the church, they should be treated as such. They must receive the Lord's supper, as once they really did, from the third to the twelfth century.^‖ When they arrive to years of discre­tion they have a right to a suffrage in the church, in short, to all the privileges of church members. When they offend, they must suffer the discipline and censure of the church; all these things are necessary to render our practice conformable to infant membership. But, as the state of mankind is and has been, who cannot foresee the invincible difficulties which this consistency would introduce. Many excommunications must take place yearly, or else the church would be very soon cor­rupted; yea, the best of discipline would not prevent this corruption. Mere moralists are not christians, and the children of the flesh being more numerous, would naturally prevail and carry the suffrage against the chil­dren of the spirit. Ishmael and Isaac lived together in the same family, through all the ages of the Jewish dis­pensation, but not very peaceably. The child of the flesh mocked and persecuted the child of the spirit, 'till wrath came on him to the uttermost. But what saith the scripture 'cast out the bond-woman and her son;" and keep them out too; if not, if we re-admit them, a quarrel in the family or the corruption of it, will be the certain consequence. Therefore infant membership. Instead of being a great privilege, as many would have us believe, is a great disadvantage to the church—con­sequently [Page 16]to these infants themselves, when they come to years: and one great reason why this disadvantage don't now appear plainly, is because they who practice infant membership, proceed in a constant course of in­consistency. Infants are received into the church, and as they grow in years, they grow out of it again. One part of their practice contradicts the other, and so all goes on in peace and quietness.

4. Hence it appears that the Jewish church was not in all respects the same with the gospel church. There seems to have been a sort of persons in the Jewish church, which must not be received into the gospel church—Such are infants, who were in covenant and were an holy seed, but they must not be received into the gospel church, as already has been shewn. And there is a sort of per­sons admitted by the gospel church, which were not ad­mitted by the Jewish church, such are eunuchs, who were never circumcised, nor allowed to enter into the congregation of the Lord. The olive tree (Rom. xi.) so often opposed to what is now advanced, is thus natu­rally explained by Mr. Glass—'seeing Israel after the flesh became a people by virtue of the promise of Christ to their fathers, as their seed, Christ that seed, as he stood in that promise, was the root from whence they grew; and so they became a holy people, according to their natural and fleshly connection with that root. This, the same root into which the Gentiles are grafted. The Jews could no more have place in the root, but by faith now the promised seed was come to bless the nation, through faith.' Therefore all, who now really stand in the root, stand there by real faith; and all who are vi­sibly in it, are there by visible faith; of which, as now proved, infants are incapable. We have further confir­mation of this inference from a passage in the genuine epistle of St. Barnabas, written in the apostolic age. 'But let us go yet further (says he) and inquire whether this people (the gospel church) be the heir, or the [...]rmer [Page 17](the Jews); and whether the covenant be made with us or with them:' and then he proceeds to shew how Esau and Jacob, Manasseh and Ephraim, typified two sorts of people, with respect to a covenant relation to God, and covenant blessings.

WE are now come to the second proposition. Bap­tism is in the room of circumcision. How does this appear? The text commonly made use of to prove it, is that in Col. ii. 11. "In whom also ye are circum­cised with the circumcision made without hands, in put­ting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circum­cision of Christ." The circumcision of Christ, some say, means here the water baptism of Christians; but why so? Is there no other way to explain it?—Yes, there is, and without tautology too. The circumcision of Christ rendered him a debtor to keep the whole law. By it he freely obligated himself to become the end of the law for righteousness to very one who believeth. Therefore it may be properly said that we receive the spiritual circumcision, by the circumcision of Christ. Paul here first tells us what the christian circumcision is, [Page 19]made without hands; then he describes it more fully, "in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh'; and then he tells us by whose means it is, "by the circum­cision of Christ." Now we find no tautology in all this. The verse is plain enough, quite easy to under­stand. It speaks of circumcision, not of water-baptism; and we had better let it stand as it is, and speak for it­self. The Bible don't so often speak one thing and mean another, as our errors naturally lead us to ima­gine. But it is said that christians are called 'the cir­cumcision'. Go then and offer sacrifice or something in the room of it, for christians are called the priesthood too. If it could be only proved that baptism succeeds circumcision in all respects the inference would be un­deniable that baptism should be applied to some infants. But how far is this from being the case. Circumcision rendered them debtors to keep the whole ceremonial law; it was not performed till the eigth day: it was not applied to female children, nor to eunuch children, if their parents were ever so pious. It was the token of a different covenant from that of baptism, as already has been shewn. Circumcision was the seal of Abra­ham's faith—a sure testimony from God that his faith was counted for righteousness; that he was a fit person to be a father of the faithful, circumcised or uncircum­cised. But baptism is not thus the seal of Abraham's faith, nor of any other man's faith. Now what shall we think of circumcision and baptism—do they look alike? do they resemble one another very much? Sup­pose for a minute that baptism does succeed circumci­sion in some respects, what warrant have you to baptize infants till the eighth day? What warrant have you to baptize female children? What warrant have you to baptize eunuch children? If baptism be in the room of circumcision, why did the apostles never make use of it as an argument for the abolition of circumcision? [Page 20]At the council of Jerusalem, mentioned Acts xv. in [...]hich the question was so particularly examined, whe­ [...]r circumcision must not continue under the gospel, why did they not angue and say, there is no n [...]ed of cir­cumcision now, for baptism has come in the room of it. But they don't appear even to have thought of this ar­gument. S [...]rely our divines would have thought of it had the [...] been members of that council. The same ar­gument is wholly omitted by Paul, in all his reasoning against circumcision. He don't say that circumcision is abolished because baptism is come in the room of it. No [...] he treats circumcision as he does other Jewish in­stitutions, the continuance of which he opposed. In reasoning upon them, he don't lead us from one exter­nal ceremony to another—from Jewish ceremonies to christian ceremonies answering in their room, as so ma­ny teachers have done since, to give Judaism a new vamp to destroy its name and retain its nature (which has been one great source of superstition in the church of Rome)—but he leads us from the shadow to the sub­stance—from the priesthood to Christ, from sacrifice to sincere prayer, and from the circumcision of the flesh to the circumcision of the heart: We are the circum­cision who worship God in the spirit'; circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter whose p [...]ise is not of men, but of God. It may be proper [...] to examine the third proposition. There were three families in the apostolic age, one of which, at least, had an infant or some other person baptized on the ground of the faith of the head of the family. The frequent mention of these th [...] families, on that side of the question, proves nothing so much as the want of better arguments. Suppose it were demonstrated that there were [...]aned in all these families of Lydia, the jailo [...] and Stephanus, compleat, evidence that [Page 21]these infants were baptized would be still wanting; for by a common figure of speech, the prevailing part of a family is called the family, and what is done to them is said to be done to the family^‖; but what is worse, there is not the least solid evidence that there was an infant in all these families. Lydia was [...]a [...]ried for any thing which appears to the contrary, and the brethren in her house were comforted. The house of the jailor belie­ved, but infants cannot believe—for faith comes by hearing; and the house of Stephanus addicted them­selves to the ministry of the saints, but infants cannot addict themselves to the ministry of the saints. In short their argument amounts to this;—there were three fa­mities baptized, and there were infants among them:—Why? because infants are apt to be in-houses. Also the characters of these families now mentioned, admit that no person in them was baptized, but on the ground of his own faith. And after all, the argument from these families proves too much, and therefore not e­nough—It proves that, when the head of a family be­lieves, the whole house must be baptized, old or young virtuous or profane.

Thus it is manifest, that neither of the three propo­sitions appears to be true.—Infants are not visibly in the new covenant: baptism is not in room of circumci­sion: and there appears not to have been one family in the apostolic age, which had an infant or any other person baptized on the ground of the faith of the head of the family. Some inferences must now finish the subject.

1. Hence it appears that infant baptism must have been the invention of man, some time o [...] other, having no command, no example, nor the [...] conclusive im­plication, [Page 22]in its favor.^¶ But I hear a question, "When was it the invention of man? who was the inventer; and who his opponents? Austin says that the baptism of infants is what the church has always had, has al­ways held. Pelagius his opponent did not deny it; be­ing very fond of this practice himself, and declares 'that he never heard of the most impious heretic who deni­ed infant baptism.' Strange! did he never hear of Ternillian? did he never hear of the Manichees? And as for Austin, we hear he maintained it to be lawful to tell lies for the good of the church. But granting he meant the truth, he might take it only from Origen, who, nearly in the middle of the third century, says, 'the church received a tradition from the apostles to admi­nister baptism to infants.' But exorcism, sufflation, trine, immersion, bowing to the east, and the observa­tion of easter, all existed in that day, and some of them by tradition from the apostles, as evidently, if not more so, than infant baptism. It may be well known how exceedingly inclined superstition was in that day to shelter itself under the wing of apostolic tradition. Therefore, if that early account of tradition in favor of infant baptism will warrant the practice of it, the same will warrant other superstitions also. Easter stands in history [...]f a century higher than infant baptism, and [Page 23]supported by apostolic tradition, but what spoil'd all was this—The eastern churches said they were ordered by the apostle John to keep it on the 14th, of the moon of March—the western churches said they were order­ed by Peter and Paul to keep it the Lord's day after. The contention was furious, and the effect was the ex­communication of the eastern churches. Now if it was so difficult within twenty years from the apostles to de­termine what tradition was truly received from them, how are we to find out at this day what tradition was truly apostolical? Ireneus, in the second century says, 'Christ came to save all who by him a [...] regenerated un­to God: infants, little children, and women,' &c. re­generated they say, means baptized; but why so? did Ireneus always use the word in this sense? No; not e­ven in the passage produced by our opponents to prove that he so used it.^* Did Ireneus believe that Christ came to save Simon Magus, the Nicolai [...], the Mar­cionites, and all those who baptized heretics, against whom he so earnestly cont [...]ded? No, saith his trea­tise on heresies. Justin Martyr about forty years after the apostles, says 'several persons among us sixty or seventy years of age, who were made disciples to Christ from children have continued uncorrupt.' Children, it is said means infants^§; but every child is not an infant, and Timothy from a child knew the holy scriptures. Thus it appears that not a word of infant baptism is [...]und in these two last testimonies. And, as these two are the [Page 24] only testimonies which can even with the appearance of reason favor the cause of our opponents, in the two first centuries, the inference is, that we have no account of infant baptism till the third century, and then we own that this practice and godfathers both appeared toge­ther; and, as if they were bargaining with their maker they employed these sponsors and bondsmen, to be bound for them. It seems they knew that some previous pro­fession was necessary in the person baptized,—infants could not speak for themselves, therefore godfathers were employed to speak for them. The very image of this now appears in the English and Romish church: for it is asked of the infant, 'wilt thou be baptized? for whom the godfathers answer, I will.^‡ Now if in­fant baptism had all along been universally practiced before the third century, why all this continual, uni­versal silence about the matter, for so many years both [Page 25]in history and scripture? Why was the scripture so si­lent? Why don't we find in all the epistles one ex­hortation, at least, to children to remember their bap­tismal vows, their covenant obligations.^¶ Such excel­lent advice is common among us. Why did the apos­tles neglect it? why did Ignatins neglect it, in all his seven devout epistles? why was this useful exhortation, and every thing else which can even imply infant bap­tism, wholly omitted by Polycarp, Clement, Barnabas Hermas, Justin, and in all that large volume of Irene­us against heresies. In short, by every christian writer of the two first centuries. They mention the baptism of adults very frequently, but of the other there is not a word, not a whisper in any author of those times Jew­ish, christian, heathen, sacred or profane: all is silence profound, not only in the bible, but every where else (except now and then something which strongly inti­mates the contrary) till the third century; and then it was a long time before the practice can be proved to have been universal, if it ever became so at all. Con­stantine, son of Helena, a zealous christian, was not bap­tized till he was thirty years old; and Gregory Nazian­zen, son of a christian minister and educated by him, was not baptized till he came to years. He himself once entirely opposed the practice, asserting expressly that children should not be baptized till they are three years old.' And, as both he and his father were influ­ential characters in the church, it is utterly improbable that they should be alone in this affair; the presump­tion is violent that there were whole societies in that [Page 26]day of the same opinion. The council of Carthage however decreed the practice (it existed before, but was never decreed by a council till that time) as well as the time of it, as appears from the testimony of Strabo, con­firmed by their own result.

Such was the state of this matter in the earliest times^‖ and accordingly a number of learned and pious poedo­baptists have ingenuously owned what is now advanced Dr. Taylor says, 'that there is a tradition to baptize in­fants, depends but on two witnesses, Origen and Austin, and the latter having received it from the former, it re­lies solely on a single testimony, which is but a pitiful [Page 27]argument to prove a tradition apostolieal.' Mr. Bax­ter, a warm advocate for the cause against M [...] Tombs, after the closest examination o [...] antiquity, was forced to this generous acknowledgment, 'I will confess (said he) that it was long before all were agreed, either as to the time or necessity of baptizing infants." Vives, one of the most learned men of his time, in his commentary on St. Austin's City of God, says 'None were baptized of old but those who not only knew what the mystical water meant, but desired the same.' Mr. Daille tells us, 'that in ancient times, they often deferred the bap­tism of infants, as appears (says he) from the history of Constantine, of Constantius, of Theodosius, and Valen­tinian, in Gratian, and also from the orations and homilies of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil on this subject, and some of the fathers too, have been of opinion that it is fit it should be deferred; whence it is that they (the papists) cannot endure the mention of it at this day, and would abhor the man who should attempt to lay a­side the practice.' Walifrid Strabo, who flourished a­bout the year 750, and made the history of the church his study, and who doubtless read ancient manuscripts, which are now lost, says 'In the first times the grace of baptism was wont to be given only to those who had ar­rived to that matority of mind and body, that they could know what were the benefits of baptism, but afterwards, christians understanding original sin, and least their chil­dren should perish without the means of grace, had them baptized by the decree of the council of Africa, for which purpose godfathers and godmothers were invented." The same is owned by Bohemeus, Ribera, Grotius, and several others. What could tempt all these le [...]rned and vir­tuous paedobaptists to till these falshoods, if they were such? And how plain is the inference, that history affords no such confirming evidence in favor of the practice now opposed, as so many have imagined.

[Page 28] 2. Hence learn the necessity of gratitude to God, and charity to our fellow christians. If what has been opposed be an error, it is certainly an error of the most learned and pious, if we may judge the tree by its fruit. Behold the infinite kindness of him who giveth to all li­berally who are upright in heart, and upbraideth us not with our follies. Let us beware then that we upbraid not each other: bear one another's burdens and so ful­fil the law of Christ.^¶ Labour to find out the very im­portant distinction between sentimental difference, and personal enmity. Take care how you open your lips [...] the terms hireling, priestcraft, scribes and pharisees, &c to please the charitable deists, and reproach the true servants of Jesus Christ. Beware of ridiculing or spea­king contemptuously of the practice, which has now been opposed, or of any thing else which any of our fellow christians esteem sacred. Considering our own frailty of mind, and how very common it is for men wandering in the wilderness of error to be full of vain confidence that the path of truth is before them. There is a wide difference between this vain confidence of the proud hypocrite, and that full, but humble persuasion of the truth, which disposes the true christian to contend [Page 29]earnestly for it. Therefore while we contend, let us stu­dy the things which make for peace, earnestly praying for that glorious day, when the bright beams of Imma­nuel's glory shall illuminate and harmonize the whole Israel of God, and there shall be no more a prickling bri­er or grieving [...]orn in his holy mountain forever.

AMEN.