But, strange to tell! the pen of history has not transmitted to us the least intimation of any controversy about it; though it has recorded a dispute of far less consequence-respecting the proper time of baptizing infants!"*

Add to this, that catalogues of all the sects of professing Christians in the four first centuries (the very period when infant baptism must have been introduced, if it were not of divine original) were early written, and are still extant.† "In these several catalogues, the differences of opin ion which obtained in those primitive times, respecting baptism, are particularly recounted, and minutely designated. Some sects are mentioned, who made no use of water baptism; and the different forms and ways in which baptism was administered by different sects, are distinctly de scribed. Yet there is not the least intimation of any, except those who denied water baptism altogether, who did not consider infant baptism a divine institution."

The argument, therefore is reduced to this;if infant baptism is an innovation, it confessedly entered the church very soon after the canon of scripture closed; and, in a few years more, "without a single precept to warrant, or a single example to encourage it, yea, with the well known practice of the apostles, and of all the churches they ever planted, directly, openly, palpably against it; under all these disadvantages, it so universally prevailed, that, upon the face of the whole earth, there was not a church found, where

* Dr. EMMONS' Serm. on Bap. p. 37.

+ The authors were IRENEUS, EPIPHANIUS, PHILASTRIUS, Aus TIN, and THEODORET. See WALL's Hist. of Inf. Bap. P. i. chap. xx Dr. WORCESTER's Letters, pp. 121, 122.

it was not performed!" Yea, more; it entered the church, it prevailed, it became universal, without a whisper of opposition,* without a word of dispute; all parties confederating to connive at the errour, to blot every trace of it from the page of history, and never to utter a single word, from which it could be discovered that they had departed from gospel rules !—"To him who believes this, what can be incredible!"

Is it not morally certain, that infant baptism was not an innovation in the church, but was sanctioned by the practice of the apostles themselves? On this ground, and this only, "all sacred and profane history, relating to the subject, will appear plain and consistent, from Abraham to Christ, and from Christ to this day."

CONCLUSION.

The Author wishes, in conclusion, to express his gratitude, that, amidst a multitude of parochial and domestick avocations, he has been enabled to bring this little Treatise to a close. He cordially commits it to the candour of the publick, and the blessing of Almighty God. It has not been his intention to excite a party spirit, but to defend, according to his real understanding of it, an institution of the gospel. On a review of his labours, he feels an increasing confidence in the conclusions he has endeavoured to establish, that IMMERSION IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO BAP

*This assertion is made with a perfect recollection of the whole testimony of TERTULLIAN. He did not consider infant baptism unauthorized, unlawful, or in many cases unimportant. He advised to delay it on the ground of expediency, and in view of reasons which would discredit any cause.

TISM, and that THE CHILDREN OF BELIEV. ING, COVENANTING PARENTS ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF THIS ORDINANCE. With those who honestly believe otherwise, he has no disposition to contend. Many of them, with whom he has the happiness to be acquainted, he respects and loves. With many of them he hopes to dwell forever in a brighter world.

Let those who peruse the preceding pages remember, that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither baptism, nor any other outward form, can, of itself, avail any thing. We must become new creatures. We must experience the baptism of the Holy Ghost. We must be born again-born of the Spirit—or we can never see the kingdom of God.

APPENDIX.

HAVING been solicited by a number of friends to take some notice, in this Edition of my work, of the late Mr. ROBINSON'S History of Baptism, I have concluded to present what I have to offer on this subject, in the form of an Appendix. I have perused Mr. ROBINSON'S History with some profit as well as pleasure. I consider it not altogether destitute of merit, though his rooted prepossessions in favour, not merely of the Baptist peculiarities, but a very lax theology, are apparent in almost every line. The publick will not expect me to eulogize this work; and some of the principal exceptions I have taken against it, will be briefly expressed in the following particulars.

1. It does not seem, in different parts of it, to be consistent with itself.-On one page we are told, that "the Mishna, written about the middle of the second century, says nothing on the subject" of Proselyte baptism. (P. 45.) On another, that the writers of the Mishna affirm that the Jews baptized their Proselytes." (P. 304.) On one page we are told, that the baptism of Proselytes came to light through the later rabbies, in the eleventh or twelfth century." (P. 45.) On another, it is admitted to be "highly probable, that in the time of ORIGEN, the Jews did initiate by dipping in water." (P. 305.) On one page we are told "that baptism was universally

66

performed by immersion, for the first 1300 years." (P. 137.) On another, that "sprinkling was" practised "in Africa in the third century." (P. 402.) On one page we are told, that "the Lutheran reformers continued" to practise immersion. (P. 393.) On another, we are presented with their "established rituals," which ordain that baptism shall be administered by pouring. (P. 483.) In various places, in the former part of the work, we are told of the aversion of the common people to the baptism of infants. "The reluctant laity were forced to yield to it." (P. 229.) Presently we are informed, that "the lower sort of the people, in all Christian countries, since the establishment of infant baptism, have always discovered a violent attachment to it." (P. 429.) In the first chapter of this work, the baptism of John is considered as belonging to the new dispensation-as being Christian baptism. Yet we are afterwards taught that Christ institu ted his baptism, subsequent to his resurrection. (Chap. vii.) Mr. R. represents the baptism of Christ to be that act, by which he regularly "entered on his publick ministry." (P. 33.) Yet in this act he set his disciples an example, that they should "follow his steps." (P. 58.)

2. In the work under consideration, there are many evident perversions, not to say contradic tions, of the sacred volume. Two or three instances will be noticed. The Evangelist affirms that "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, went out" to John, "and were baptized." (Matth. iii. 5, 6.) No, says Mr. R. there were but few baptized; the multitude went out "only as spectators." (P. 32.) The apos