African bishop, to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in which he takes for granted the custom and propriety of baptizing infants, and only desires to know whether they may be baptized before the eighth day after their birth, that being the day on which circumcision was performed by the law of Moses. This question was considered in an African synod, held A. D. 254, at which sixty-six bishops were present, and it was unanimously decreed, that "it was not necessary to defer baptism to that day; and that the grace of God, or baptism, should be given to all, and especially to infants." This decision was communicated in a letter from Cyprian to Fidus (p), In the fourth century Ambrose says, that infants, who are baptized, are reformed from wickedness to the primitive state of their nature (q); and at the end of that century the famous controversy took place between Augustine and Pelagius concerning original sin; in which the uniform practice of baptizing infants from the days of the Apostles was admitted by both parties, although they assigned different reasons for it; and Cælestius, a follower of Pelagius, when examined before the Council of Carthage, A. D. 412, D. 412, acknowledged that infants stand in need of baptism, and that they ought

to

(p) Cyp. Ep. 59. (q) Comment. in Lucam, c. 10.

to be baptized. Tertullian is the only antient author (r) who objects to infant baptism; and his manner of opposing it shews evidently that it was the general practice in his time; but even he contends that infants ought to be baptized if their lives be in danger, which is in fact allowing the principle upon which infant-baptism is founded. His opinion was so little regarded, that Augustine says, he never heard of any Christian, catholic or sectary, who taught any other doctrine than that infants are to be baptized (s). Infant-baptism is not mentioned in the canons of any council, general or provincial, nor is it inserted as an object of faith in any creed; and thence we infer that it was a point not controverted at any period of the antient church; and we know that it was the practice in all established national churches. Wall says, that Peter Bruis, a Frenchman, who lived about the year 1030 (whose followers were called Petrobrussians) was the first Anti-pædobaptist

teacher

(r) Gregory Nazianzen gave it as his opinion, that children ought not to be baptized till they were three years old; but as children of that age are certainly incapable of answering for themselves, we are scarcely to consider him as an enemy to the principles of infant-baptism.

(s) De Pecc. Mor, cap, 6.

teacher who had a regular congregation (t). The Anabaptists of Germany took their rise in the beginning of the fifteenth century, but it does not appear that there was any congregation of Anabaptists in England till the year 1640.

Upon these grounds we conclude that THE

BAPTISM OF YOUNG CHILDREN IS IN ANYWISE TO BE RETAINED IN THE CHURCH AS MOST AGREEABLE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF

CHRIST.

It is to be observed, that it is not here asserted that the baptism of young children is itself commanded in the Gospel, for there certainly is no such command; it is only declared to be

MOST AGREEABLE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF

CHRIST; that is, it is more conformable to the general tenor and principles of the Christian religion, that infants should be baptized, than that baptism should be deferred till they arrive at an age of maturity.

The Papists admit of the baptism of infants by midwives, or any layman, upon the unauthorized principle that no person whatever can be saved who has not been baptized. Lay-baptism was also allowed in our church for a few years after the Reformation; but in the year 1575, by which time the Scriptures were more examined,

(t) Part 2. c. 7.

examined, and the nature of Sacraments was better understood, it was unanimously decreed in convocation, that baptism should be administered by none but lawful ministers. The papists also mix oil and balsam with the water; but water only is mentioned in the New Testament.

ARTICLE THE TWENTY-EIGHTH.

Of the Lord's Supper.

THE SUPPER OF THE LORD IS NOT ONLY A SIGN

OF THE LOVE THAT CHRISTIANS OUGHT ΤΟ HAVE

AMONG

THEMSELVES ONE TO

ANOTHER; BUT RATHER IS A SACRAMENT OF OUR REDEMPTION BY CHRIST'S DEATH: INSOMUCH THAT TO SUCH AS RIGHTLY, WORTHILY, AND WITH FAITH RECEIVE THE SAME, THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK IS A PARTAKING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, AND LIKEWISE THE CUP OF BLESSING IS A PARTAKING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION (OR THE CHANGE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF BREAD AND WINE) IN

THE

SUPPER OF THE LORD CANNOT BE PROVED BY HOLY WRIT, BUT IS REPUGNANT TO THE PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE, OVERTHROWETH THE NATURE OF A SACRAMENT, AND

HATH GIVEN OCCASION TO

MANY SUPERSTITIONS.

THE BODY OF CHRIST IS GIVEN, TAKEN, AND EATEN IN THE SUPPER, ONLY AFTER A HEAVENLY AND SPIRITUAL MANNER. AND THE MEAN, WHEREBY THE BODY OF CHRIST IS RECEIVED AND EATEN IN THE SUPPER, IS FAITH.

THE