Infant baptism very naturally grew out of the doctrines which obtained even amongst the most orthodox. To support and illustrate this, I have but to attend to the testimonies that have been adduced from the fathers, quoted in favor of infant baptism. The proposition which is necessary to establish this, is the following, viz. That it was the belief of the orthodox, that baptism washed away all the guilt of the subject, whether imputed, or contracted by actual transgression.' This opinion constrained Tertullian to admit the baptism of infants, to use his own words, “in cases of urgent necessity," though he opposed the common and universal baptism of infants. These cases of urgent necessity were those which threatened the immediate death of the minor or infant; and, in order to wash away its guilt previous to death, Tertullian and others, his immediate successors, admitted them to baptism. If, then, I can shew that this notion prevailed in those times, and in the times immediately succeeding, I have gained all that is necessary to account for the origination of infant baptism. The counterpart of the above proposition is that sins committed after baptism were almost, if not altogether impardonable. This opinion operated very much against the practice of infant baptism, except in "the cases of urgent necessity," and it even operated against the immediate baptism of believers. "Hence virgins,"" young men," and "young widows," were dissuaded, by Tertullian, from this ordinance, until they had arrived at a state of confirmed continency.". Hence we read of Constantine and many others deferring baptism until they came to their death-bed, least they should sin after it. I mention these two opinions as prevailing in those days, and as having a powerful bearing on the doctrine and practice of baptism. Tertullian has confessed the one and the other of these opinions.

Origen, the most famous of the fathers for the multiplicity and variety of his works, flourished from the year 215 till 252. His views of infant baptism, and of the use of baptism, have been given in the extracts inade by Mr. W. from Mr. Campbell, from which I will quote one sentence declarative of his views of the import of baptism-" None is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day upon the earth, and it is for that reason becausé, by the sacrament of baptism, the pollutions of our birth are taleen away, that infants are baptised"-Origen's test

mony to infant baptism, as quoted by my opponent, equally proves that he viewed baptism as purgative of all previous guilt. Why, then, does not Mr. W. teach and old infant baptism in the same light, as the authorities he quotes in support of it?

Cyprian's testimony exhibits the same views of baptisin; his words are, or rather the decision of the 66 bishops is, "that, if from baptism and grace no person is to be excluded, by how much the more should the infant be exempt from prohibition, who being but just born, has never sinned, otherwise than as sprung by a carnal birth from Adam, be has contracted, in the earliest moments of his nativity, the contagion of death originally threatened; and who, for this very reason, attains more easily the remission of sins, because they are not his own, but others' sins that are remitted unto him." "He adds, in the conclusion of his letter to Fidus- Therefore, very dear brother, this has been our decision in council, that from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and benign and affectionate to all, po person is to be prohibited by us." What need have we of further witness ? If Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian, and the 66 bishops, the council of Carthage, have all believed and determined that baptism washes away all sins, and renders infants pure and innocent as Adam before he sinned, is it to be marvelled at, that they first thought of applying it to infants? Nay, verily, for who would be so cruel as to prohibit a dying infant, or even one that might die, from the remission of all its sins, from a little scrupulosity of conscience!

Although enough has been said to establish the proposition already stated, I will, to gratify the curiosity of some, present Augustine's explanation of this mysteryIt is in these words: "And as the thief, who by neces sity went without baptism, was saved, because by his piety he had it spiritually: so where baptism is had, though the party, by necessity go without that faith which the thief had, yet he is saved." This, says he, "the whole body of the church holds as delivered to them (from the council of Carthage) in the case of little infants baptised." So, then, the faith of all the first advocates of infant baptism is briefly expressed in these words faith, without baptism, was saved, so all tism, without faith are saved." Such are quoted by the paido-baptists themselves, their practice!!!

As the thief by infants by bapthe testimonies in support of

I am now authorised to say that infant baptism origi nated in the above mistakes of the true nature and use of baptism-that infant baptism is, and was, the natural and obvious consequence of the aforementioned perversion of a sacred ordinance-I challenge all Christendom to disprove it.

That which for some time retarded the prevalence of infant baptism, and in thousands of instances altogether prevented it, was the counterpart of the aforesaid proposition, viz. that sins committed after baptism were almost impardonable. This opinion operated against the practice of the former, as action and re-action in mechanics destroy each other. But, as the opinion of the difficulty of obtaining remission of sins after baptism declined, the practice became the more general.

This idea also led to the introduction of sprinkling instead of immersion; for as many who had postponed baptism until a sick-bed, could not then endure the difficulties of transportation to some suitable place, or even the action of immersion itself; they were obliged to substitute pouring or sprinkling in lieu of baptism. This I will prove from Eusebius, when we come to discuss the action or mode of baptism.

I come now to read some extracts from a certain historian, on the character and writings of some of those fathers, whose testimonies you have heard. Hitherto, I have exhibited my own sentiments on the testimonies adduced, and I have admitted more than many eminent men have admitted from church history, in favor of the antiquity of infant baptism. For this author which I now hold in my hand, an eminent historian, will not admit that infant baptism was spoken of by Tertullian and Origen, in our sense of the word infant. He dates the origin of infant baptism half a century later than I have done and argues that the infants of Tertullian were boys, or infants in law. This he ably supports by many plain and convincing reasons. In the present debate I suppose it most expedient to admit the quotations, as read by my opponent, and answer them as genuine, in their own meaning of the words, feeling the greatest assurance that those very testimonies carried their own refutation in them, in as far as the establishment of the question at issue is concerned-and indeed the difference of a few years in fixing the era of infant baptism, or of

few years in the age of the infant subject, destitute of faith; appears to me unworthy of any elaborate discussion. This author makes the practice of infant baptism to commence with St. Cyprian and his associate bishops.

[Here I was asked the name of the author I held in my hand, by Mr. Findley, I replied that his name was Robert Robinson. Mr. Findley objected to my reading any thing from Robinson, a man that had spoken disrespectfully of the Saint Cyprian. I replied, that I considered Mr. Findley's interference, partial: that I had not objected to Mr. Walker's reading any thing he pleased to bring forward, knowing that I could easily refute it; and, that I had not even asked the name of the author he had just now read. Mr. F. still insisted that it should not be read, because Mr. Robinson had traduced characters that he deemed sacred: I replied that I knew of no characters so sacred since the Apostles died, but that might be scrutinized, when necessary; that I considered my own character as sacred as that of St. Cyprian, and that I would submit to investigation when it became necessary for any important purpose-that from a supposed sanctity of character, we should not fear to investigate the character of any man, whose testimony we were about to receive in relation to an ancient religious custom: but, continu ed I, I feel no necessity for the testimony of Mr. Robinson or any other man, in aid of the cause which I espouse, it was merely to edify the congregation I wished to bring him forward as an offset to balance John P. Campbell's book, which Mr. W. has just now read. Here there was a cry though the congregation, " read-read." I noved that it should be left to the congregation to decide whether the book should or should not be read. Mr. Findley then harangued the congregation for several minutes, and wound up his observations by saying, "all that are determined to have the character of the Saints, now dead, traduced-vote for having Robinson read." I im mediately replied, that was not the question. The question is, shall I read ? or shall I not read? The question first proposed was, shall I read? then when the vote was taken by uplifted hands-the question shall I not read? was proposed; an overwhelming majority being in favor of hearing Mr. Robinson-I proceeded to read.]

[I cannot now transcribe all that I read from Mr. Robinson, on the following accounts: First, because I have,

under this article of the debate, already advanced more than I spoke on this part of the subject. The reason of my so doing I will now submit to the good sense and candor of the reader. I had not read much from Mr. Robinson until my forty minutes were expired; I plead to have the twenty minutes of my time that was occupied in debating whether or not Robinson should be read, then allowed me, to go on with the subject. Mr. Findley utterly refused to grant this. I then thought it was unjust, as he had prevented me from applying them as I thought proper. I think so still, and therefore I have taken them now, in recording what I ought then to have said. In the next place, Robinson is so common an author, and so generally possessed by the citizens of this country, that the reader anxious to peruse his whole work for himself, may easily obtain an opportunity of so doing. In the last place, I had intended to have an article on the argument from ecclesiastical history in the appendix, but having gone so far into the merits of it now, I shall attempt to close this part of the subject with a short quotation from Robinson and a few general observations. The reader will pardon this long digression.]

I shall not now transcribe the censures that Robinson has pronounced on any of Mr. Findley's saints, I shall merely transcribe a part of his account of the council of Carthage, called by St. Cyprian, A. D. 257. Mr. Robinson's words are, page 188 Benedict's edition : " The council of 60 or 70 met. The solemn affairs came on. One was this. There was a bishop named Rogatian, who had in his church a contumelious deacon, against whom Rogatian complained that he treated him his bishop with contumacy, that is, disobedience. Nothing else was laid to his charge except that he was a younger man than his bishop. St. Cyprian took the opinions of his colleagues as learned in the law as himself, and wrote for answer to Rogatian: That the council was extremely shocked at the contents of his letter, which informed them that his deacon had treated him with contumacy: that he himself had power to vindicate the dignity of his office, by excommunicating such a refractory man; though in his great humility he had applied to his brother bishops in his council. God himself had decided the case in the 17th chap. of Deuteronomy, by saying the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the priest, that man shall die. And