tists on the question of baptizing infants, and, that "after Infant Baptism was introduced, many opposed it!"

But let us go on with the testimony. Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin, and was pressed with the absurdity of Infant Baptism on his principles. Could he have denied Infant Baptism, or shown it to be a corruption, it would have relieved him from his difficulties and given him a signal triumph. He was a man of great abilities and great learning, and had travelled the Christian world over. He and his coadjutor, Celestius, used every means to relieve themselves from the pressure of the question, "Why are infants baptized for the remission of sins, if they have none?" With this argument, says Dr. Pond,* "Pelagius and his abettors were much embarrassed, and had recourse to a variety of evasions in order to escape from it." But they never denied infant baptism. They never pretended that it was a corruption or innovation. On the contrary, Pelagius says, "Baptism ought to be administered to infants with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adults." "Men slander me," said he, " as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants ;" and again, “ I NEVER HEARD OF ANY, not even the most impious heretic, wнO DENIED BAPTISM TO INFANTS.†

It is easy to see, from these extracts, that the Christian Church early slid away from purity in doctrine, and that many of the old Fathers were not very sound theologians. I adduce them not to prove a point in theology by their opinion, I adduce them, not to build Infant Baptism on their authority; I adduce them as witnesses to a matter of fact:-that from the time of the Apostles, Infant Baptism * Dr. Pond on Baptism, p. 107. † Dr. Pond on Baptism, p. 108,

was everywhere practised, and understood to have been received from the Apostles, with no man anywhere to lisp a breath in favor of a contrary supposition; but with the unbroken and uniform belief that its authority rested on a foundation none other than the practice of apostles who were inspired of God.

If it had ever been a corrupt innovation, would there not have been somewhere some controversy about it? Would all, everywhere, have so unanimously agreed to receive it? Would every trace of such innovation or such controversy have perished from history; so that men living near the apostolic age, though under the strongest inducement to seek out such history, had it existed, could never be able to find the least trace or fragment of it, or even to suspect its existence! Could these things be so? Can you believe them to be so? Can you stretch your credulity to that point with ever so great an effort? But unless what is so improbable and incredible be certainly true, then Infant Baptism was practised by the Apostles, and rests for its authority upon the authority of God. Now we know how to interpret the command, "Go and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them;"-it means, "Baptize believers and their infant children. It means, to observe the order of the ancient covenant: which made God the God of believers and of their seed after them. A flood of light is thrown upon the interpretation of such passages as represent Christ as taking little children in his arms, and saying, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." It corroborates our understanding of those narratives which speak of the baptism of households. It corroborates the natural interpretation of that passage which says, "The

unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." One by one, we have taken up these stones fitted by the chisel. They match together. We build on. They grow into an arch, as if formed by the Great Master Builder with that design. Not a stone is wanting. The keystone is driven. Each stone lends its aid to strengthen the whole. The work is complete. It stands; it will stand eternally; and round its circling brow is graven as in letters sunk deep in the enduring rock, and illumined by the rays of heaven :—“ THE BAPTISM OF THE INFANT CHILDREN OF BELIEVING PARENTS, RESTS FOR ITS FOUNDATION UPON NO LESS A BASIS THAN THE AUTHORity of God."

V.

INFANT BAPTISM.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED ITS UTILITY VINDICATED.

ROMANS 111. 1-3.

What advantage, then, hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

THE authority of Infant Baptism we have already considered. I shall now proceed to answer some objections which have been urged against the practice, and to vindicate its utility.

Before I proceed to these points, however, I desire to say a little more with regard to the History of Infant Baptism. I proved, I trust to your satisfaction, that Infant Baptism was practised from the times of the Apostles, with not a man to lift up his voice against the Divine authority of the practice, for the first four hundred years after Christ.

But our Baptist brethren claim that the Waldenses maintained their views and rejected Infant Baptism.

Now, granting that they did, we cannot trace the

Waldenses up to the period of four hundred years after Christ, and their testimony cannot at all affect the matters already in proof.

. But the Waldenses are venerable witnesses; and though no testimony of theirs can affect the truth which we have already proved, and which rests upon ground to which their testimony does not reach; still we are willing and desirous to hear what these venerable witnesses, the Waldenses, say.

And here I quote from Dr. Miller.* He says, "It is worthy of particular notice that those far-famed witnesses for the truth, the Waldenses, did undoubtedly hold the doctrine of Infant Baptism, and practise accordingly."

What proof does Dr Miller bring for this assertion? The best possible proof: their own "confessions of faith," and other of their writings drawn up between the 12th century and the period of the Reformation. "In which," says Dr. Miller, " they represent their creeds and usages as handed down from father to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation."

"And for this cause," say the Waldenses, "it is, that we present our children in baptism, which ought to be done by those to whom the children are most nearly related, such as parents," &c. Again, " The things which are not necessary in baptism are exorcisms, the breathings-the sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of THE INFANT-the salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and nostrils," &c.

Understanding that their Popish neighbors charged them with denying the baptism of infants, they acquit

* On Baptism, pp. 33 and 40.