are; agreeably to the decisions of the most learned Pedobaptists as well as Baptists, the only genuine works of those fathers whose names they bear.* The testimonies of these epistles, say the Pedo-baptists themselves, are, together with the holy scriptures of the New Testament, a complete collection of the most primitive antiquity for 150 years after Christ." But in the mean time, while I attend to other ecclesiastical authorities, Mr. W. may peruse this precious fragment of antiquity.

I now proceed to consider the testimony of Justin Martyr. John P. Campbell, Mr. W's authority, has these words of Justin Martyr "Several persons among us, of 60 and 70 years old, and of both sexes, who were discipled or made disciples to Christ in their childhood, do continue uncorrupted." Now what fondness must possess the mind of a man to support infant baptism, who can attempt to deduce from the above words, a testimony in its favor! The suppositions on which such an attempt is predicated, are both false. It is taken for granted that childhood and infancy, in the common sense of the word, are expressive of the same idea-and it is also supposed, that to become a disciple is equivalent to be baptised. An infant disciple is a contradiction in terms. Many persons amongst ancient and modern baptists, have, at the age of 10 or 12 years, been baptised, upon a profession of their faith; and if any persons had spoken of them, they would have said such persons were made disciples, and baptised in their childhood.-A disciple is a learner, a scholar, a student, a follower.To be made a disciple of Christ, implies faith in him as a prophet or teacher sent from God, which persuades the subject to put himself under his tuition. To think, or to say, that an infant is capable of this, shocks all common sense!

Justin, in his other works, says that " we are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision"-" And we have received it by baptism, and it is enjoined to all persons to receive it in the same way." From these words, too, Mr. W. can discover a testimony in favor of infant

* Mr. Walker, though he had never seen the book before that day, was pleased, after reading a few sentences here and there, modestly to pronounce it spurious, though of great antiquity. I asked him on what grounds did he so insinuate against the testimony of the most honorable and learned vouchers for its authenticity-he could only say, that he thought so himself!!!

baptism. How eagle-eyed is a pedo-baptist, intent on maintaining his ground!--Because Justin Martyr says

that it is enjoined upon all persons to receive the import of circumcision in baptism, (which, by the bye, is an opinion of his own) infants are enjoined to receive it too"-and they are capable of hearkening to and obeying the injunction! There is not, then, I affirm, the slightest ground to quote Justin Martyr, as a testimony in favor of infant baptism; for such an idea is not to be found in all his works. It was such violent efforts as these, of PedoDaptists, to maintain their cause, not only above, but contrary to, all reason, that first led me to suspect that it was a human invention. For strange as it may appear, the defences of infant baptism, and the defenders of it to which I had access, when investigating the subject, increased and deepened my convictions that it was a mere tradition of men.

Irenaeus is next summoned as evidence in favor of infant baptism; he is said to have flourished about the year 176. His "convincing" testimony in favor of infant baptism runs in these words-Christ came to save all persons by himself; all, I say, who are regenerated unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder persons." Does this prove that Irenaeus speaks of infant baptism in his time? Where is it in his testimony? O! say the Pedo-baptists, John P. Campbell and Mr. Walker, "regenerated unto God" meant baptized, and as infants are said to have been regenerated, it means that they were baptized. Irenaeus never used the word baptized at all! He substituted regeneration for baptism. Let us then do, as my opponent, by his quotation, says we should do, viz. substitute baptism instead of regeneration, and then the testimony of Irenaeus thus reads "Christ came to save all persons by himself; all, I who are baptized, infants, little ones, children, youths, say, and elder persons." The testimony of Irenaeus then, as his commentators make it, is no way honorable to his sentiments as a Christian. Will my opponent say that all baptized persons are saved-infants, &c. &c. then is infant baptism worth contending for!-So it appears that, according to Irenaeus, Christ saves all baptized personsand that the act of baptism was the act of regeneration! Perhaps some may think that I am offering violence to my opponent's quotation; to prevent this I shall quote

Mr. Campbell's comment: "The phrase regenerated unto God,' was, in the language of this father, and all other writers of that age, descriptive of the fact of having been baptized." "In no other sense did they ever use it.' Then the testimony of Irenaeus stands as I have stated it, namely, "Christ came to save all baptized persons, infants, little ones, children, and elder persons. Two conclusions from this are inevitable: first-no baptism no salvation. And second, salvation to all the baptized. This, then, was the opinion, this the faith, of not only Irenaus, but " of all other writers of that age." Certainly, then, it was a suitable age to institute infant baptism!In shunning Scylla, Mr. W. you are wrecked on Charybdis.

Irenaeus suffered martyrdom in the year 202 or 203.So that now, having travelled down the page of sacred and ecclesiastical history, for nearly 200 years, we never meet once with a word on infant baptism, nor a solitary example of one infant baptized. But we are now arri ying at a proper time to expect its appearance. Whimsies and reveries are now becoming quite familiar; and Tertullian, the first writer that even mentions infant baptism, is about to make his appearance on the stage. Yes, Tertullian, the first of the Latin fathers, is the first writer that mentions infant baptism-though many pedo-baptists, have endeavoured to squeeze it out of Justin Martyr's and Irenaeus' words, they have utterly failed, and not one word can they find, until Tertullian appears, that they can bring to the test of criticism. This I am prepared to prove at much greater length than this opportunity will permit; but I am confident that what I have already suggested, is quite sufficient for the present purpose.

Before I dismiss Justin Martyr and his friend Irenaeus, I must introduce a few of the whimsies of these two renow-ned fathers, to prepare your minds for what we are about to read from Tertullian. Justin Martyr, like many of the Grecian converts, incorporated many of their Pagan notions with their Christian tenets. It is owing to this, that the Church of Rome, and some protestant Churches to this day, retain so much of Judaism and Pagan Philosophy. The following are a few of the reveries of Justin Martyr, that are found in his works-" That the just, after the resurrection, shall remain for a 1000 years in the city of Jerusalem, where they shall enjoy all

Lawful pleasures-that the souls of the wicked shall become capable of dying, though at some times he thought their punishment would be eternal. He thought that the souls of the righteous, before the coming of Christ, were under the power of the Devil-that the Devils were ignorant of their damnation until the coming of Christ. He despaired not of the salvation of those who lived virtuously among the Gentiles, who had not the knowledge of Jesus Christ." Such were some of the notions of this eminent father, in the most of which Irenaeus concurred with him. Irenaeus had, however, a few more eccentric opinions, as he was a few years later. In addition to those mentioned, ❝he imagined that Christ lived 50 years on earth, and that after death he went down to hell, and preached the faith there unto the patriarchs and to the ancient just men, as well Jews as Gentiles; and that they that believed at his preaching, should be reckoned in the number of his saints. He imagined also, that the angels were corporeal and that God sent Enoch to them. * That souls are immortal, only, through grace, and that the souls of men will assume the form of their bodies."

These are the men who are so often called the successors of the Apostles, or of their immediate successors. I have to ask but one question on these data-I shall leave you to think of it, viz. Suppose these very men, themselves, had taught and practised infant baptism, (which, however, with all their errrors they did not) would it have been further from the doctrine taught in the New Testament, than the notions they entertained; and how much is their testimony worth, upon any doctrinal subject, not clearly revealed in the New Testament?

1 come now to hearken to Tertullian, and I will frankly own he mentions infant baptism. Whether boys or babes, is, however, controverted; but with this dispute I shall not intermeddle-Tertullian flourished from the year 194 till 216, he is ranked among the writers of the third century From the quotation read out of Mr. J. P. Campbell, it is obvious he was no friend of infant baptism, though he has the honor of first mentioning it in history, sacred or

See the following works of Justin-his Dialogue, pages 223, 306. See his Apology, page 71; 2d Apology, page 83. Irenaeus' works lib. 2, c. 51, 59, 61, 64-lib. 3, c. 18, 20; lib. 4. chap. 78; lib. 1, c. 40; lib. 4, c. 30. See, also, Eusebius and Du Pin on the lives of Justin and Irenaeus.

ecclesiastical-he appears like one opposing an innovation of recent date, not an established custom. As soon as we hear of infant baptism, są soon do we hear of Godfathers-they seem to be coetaneous. As soon as men depart from the scripture in one respect, they must depart from it in others, to make out their system. Ilis words are what necessity is there, to expose Godfathers to answering for those at the fonts-(not at the bason as our modern paido-baptists would say)-since they may be prevented by death from being able to perform the promises which they have made for the children.” Again, he says, "that they should come to baptism, as soon as they are advanced in years, as soon as they have learnt their religion, when they may be taught whither they are going, when they are become Christians, when they began to be able to know Jesus Christ. What is there that should compel this innocent age to receive baptism ?" Who will not perceive, from these words of Tertullian, without any comment, that he was inimical to infant baptism, at its first appearance. Mr. Campbell, in commenting on this testimony, endeavours to shew that it was orphan children Tertullian had in view, but this will not stand the test, seeing he speaks of infants as such, and not a particular class of infants. Infant baptism, when it first made its appearance, had an epithet attached to it which Presbyterians have, by some strange revolution, lost; it was sponsor infant baptism Tertullian spoke of; he knew of no other; nay, it is obvious, from the above quotation, that he could not conceive of any other-for his first remonstrance against infant baptism, was the risk to which it exposed the sponsor or God-father. As it was sponsor infant baptism Tertullian wrote of, I cannot see, with what consistency, any body of Presbyterians can quote him in defence of their sponsorless infant baptism. The Romanists and Episcopalians might, with more propriety, quote Tertullian, had it not been that Tertullian spoke of fonts for immersion; and now all that a Roman Chapel or an Episcopalian Church can afford, in this dry and parched land, is a bason, and that often not deep enough to baptize one's fingers. Sponsors and infant baptism have the same divine authority to sanction them, that is, not any; they have the same antiquity-that is Tertullian's age; and the same ecclesiastical authority, that is the testimony of Tertullian and his successors. They

K