that our Lord Jefus was baptifed, who could have
neither, the dilemma therefore will be this ; either
the baptifm of Chrift was wrong, or elfe this argu-
ment is falfe. It is impoffibre to fuppofe the firft, that
the baptifm of Clirift was wrong; we muft therefore
adirm the laft, that this argument is falfe : bccaufe
that argument mull be falfe, which proves againft an
evident truth.
Again, when it is faid in the argument, that tlie
fcriptures require faith and repentance, in order to
baptifm ; I alk. Do they require them of all, or of
fome only ? If it is faid, they are required of all ; then,
as before noted, it proves againft the b;iptifm of J
fus Chrift. If it befaid, they require thrui of fonv
only ; then the argument has no force ; for, in that
eafc, it would run thus — Faith and repentance arc
28 ^ ARGUMENTS AGAINST
required only of fome, in order to baptifm : And now
the confequent will be, that fc^me may be baptifecl
without them. And nothing would remain then, but
that it be dttermincd, who llioulJ be baptifed with-
o^it faidi, and who with.
. View it which way we will, the argument is mife-
rably bad. The Baptifls, however, in this cafe, fly
to its relief by faying, " that Jefus Chrill, on account
of the dignity of Ills perfon, was exempted from this
rul^." Kow this will mend the n-atter, I fee not ;
for now it is acknowledged to be a rule which will ad-
mit of exception. And then I have only to afl-i, How
many exceptions does it admit, and what are they ?
Neither would it be better to fay, that Chrift was
baptifed, to fet an example. For then we fliould have
an example of one, who, being incapable of faith and
repentance, v/as baptifed without them^. And in this
view", his example will weigh in favour of infant bap-
tifm. I will try it again,
3. On the fiilvation of infants. That infants may
be the fubjeccs of falvation is univerfally admitted ;
that thofe, wdio die in infiincy, are a6lually glorified,
is alfo granted ; and yet there is fomething faid con-
cerning falvation. which will by no means agree to in-
fants — " He that believeth (liall be favedj he that be-
lieveth not ihall be damned." &c.
What ViVdll v/e fay in this cafs ? Why, the fame as
before. If infants mud not be baptifed, becaufe fome-
thing is faid of baptifm, which does not agree to in-
fants ; then,, by the fame rule, infants muit not be fa-
ved, becaufe fomething is faid of falvation, which
does not agree to infants. And then, the fame con-
fequence again follows, that this argument, by pro-
ving againit an acknowledged truth, proves itfelf tb
be fallacious.
And now, fmce it falls in with my prefent defign,
and may ferve to relieve and inform the reader, I
will prefent him with two fpecimens of reafoning on
the fame text J one of which concludes againll infant
INFANT BAPTISM. 29
baptirm, and the other for it. The reader mav adopt
that which pleafes him bed.
The firft fpecimen fliall be that of Prir. B. vol. ii.
page 309, where he adopts the remark of Mr. Cham-
bers : " What ther [die German Baptills] chieflv
fupported their great do(5lrine on, was thofe words of
our Saviour; * He that believeth, and is baptifcd,
fhall be faved.' As none but adults are capable of be-
lieving, they argued, " that no others are capable of
baptifm." If thefe had gone one ftep farther, their
argument would have been lod : e. g. As none but
adults are capable of believing, none but adults arc
capable of being faved. This with the baptiits is «,
favourite text ; and they argue upon it from the or-
der of the words. If, fay thev, faith goes before
baptifm ; then infants mull not be baptifed, becaufe
they have no faith.
The other is that of Dr. Walker, out of his Modeft
Plea, page 179. His words are thefe : "-If none
muft be baptifed but he that believes, becaufe believ-
ing is fet iirfl ; then none mud be faved but he that is
baptifed, becaufe baptiling is fet firO:. And then,
what better argument can be made for infant baptifm ?
They muit be baptifed if we will liave them faved j
becaufe they cannot be faved without being baptifed ;
for baptifmg goes before faving. And yet from the
fame text, and by the fame way of arguing, it may
be proved, that no infants are faved, but thofe that
believe ; becaufe believing is fet before faving : Ancl-
not only fo, but whereas it is not faid, he that belie v*
eth not fliall not be baptifed ; it is faid, he that be-
lieveth not (hall be damned."
The difference between the reafoning of thefe two,
lies in this : The Baptifts reafon on a part of the text
only, and the Do(5lor reafoned on the whole. And to
fliow how mifcrably fallacious the reafoning of the Bap-
tifts is, I will lay down a plan of their logic on this
text, which will produce more conclufions than there
are principal words in that part of the vcrfe. Ths;
C 2
30 ARGUMENTS AGAINST
place is, Mark xvi. 16. " He that believeth, and is
baptifed, fliall be faved.'' Now as the Baptifts feafon
from the order of the words, I will mark them with
figures — believeth — baptifed — faved. ,
The logic is as follows : Take the firfl and fecond
-—believeth — baptifed — and fay with the Baptifls —
1. None are to be baptifed but fuch as believe, be-
caufe believing muft be before baptifmg. — " Be-
lieveth"—" baptifed."
This will conclude againft infant baptifm.
Next take the tirfc and third — believeth — faved —
and fay in the fame way :
2. None' are to be faved, but fuch as believe, be-
1
caufe believing mufl be before faving. — " Believeth"
— " faved "
This concludes againft infant falvation.
Now take the fecond and third — baptifed — faved
— and argue in the fame manner :
3* None are to be faved, but fuch as are baptifed,
2
becaufe baptifmg muft go before faving. " Baptifed"
—" faved."
This will conclude on the fide of infant baptifm,
they muft be baptifed, or they cannot be faved. As
Dr. Walker, reafons.
Laftly, take all three — believeth — baptifed — faved
— and fay :
4. None are to be faved but fuch as believe and
are baptifed, becaufe believing and baptifmg muft be
before faving.—'^ Believeth"— '-baptifi^d" - " faved."
This concludes againft the falvationof believers in
Jefur. Chrift, if they have not been bapcifed. And fo
upon the principle of the Baptifts, it concludes againft
the falvation of all Paedobaptifts.
All thefe concluhons, arifmg from the fame way of
reafoning, may ferve as a fpecimen to ftiowthe falla-^
iNf ANT BAPTISM. 31
cious mode of arguing againft infant baptifm, adopt-
ed by the Baptifls,
Let it be tried once more,
4. On the temporal fubfiftence of in£ants. As the
reiider may perceive the drift of the reafoning, on
thefe in (lances, I will ufe but few words on the pre-
feat one. Now that infants fhould be fupported, not
only fcripture, but nature itfelf teaches. And yet, if
we form the Baptift argument, on a few places of
Scripture, it may be proved, in oppofition to nature
and Scripture both, that infants lliould a6lually be
left to flarve.
We have nothing to do but mention the texts, and
apply their reafoning to them. Ifaiah i. 19. " If ye be
willing and obedient, ye ih all eat the good of the
land." 2 ThefF. iii. 10. 'â– ' If any would not work, nei-
ther fhould he cat." Take the firfl, and fay with the
Baptift in another cafe : willingnefs and obedience are
required of thofe who are to eat the good of the land ;
but fmce infants can neither will nor obey, they muft
not eat the good of the land. In the fame way let the
other be taken : He that will not work, neither fhall he^
eat ; infants cannot will to work, then infants muft
not eat.
. This argument, in whatever way It is viewed,
proves againft the truth. Is it a truth, that infants
Ihould fubfift ? This argument proves againft it. Is
it a truth, that infants may be faved ? This argument
will prove the contrary. Was Chrift rightly baptifed?
According to this argument it could not be. Were
infants proper fubjecls of circumcifion? This argu-
ment will prove they were not. Then, if it invariably
fupport a falfehood, we are compelled to fay it is a
falfe argument.
11. I will point out wherein this fallacy confifts.
As this argument, aotwithftanding it is falfe, is ufed
by the BaptiRs in general, both learned and unlearn-
ed,! will attempt to lay open its fallacy ; and thereby
put thofe perfons upon their guard, who may be in
danger of being feduced by it. The judicious reader
52 ARGITMEKTS AGAINST.
may have obferved, that I (lightly hinted, at the out-
fet, wherein its fault confifted ; but to make it yet
more evident vv^iiat that fault is, of which it is guilty,
I will tak« the liberty of faying a few words more.
That particular rule, againlt which this argument
oiTends, is this : " Non debet plus esse in conclusione
quam eratln premissis. Ratio manifestaest^quia coU'
chcsio- edncenda est ex premissisy That is, " There
iliould not be more in the conclufion than was in the
premifes. The reafon is plain, becaufe the c-onclu-
fion is to be drawn from the premifes." We will try
to make this plain, by examples both of true and falfc
reafoning.
1. In the Baptifl v/ay of reafoning. When the
Scriptures fay, '* Repent and l)e baptifed ;" and, " If
thou believed thou mayeft,'' &c. they addrefs only
fmful adults; and then, an argument formed upon
them fliould reach no farther than adults ot the fame
defcription. But the Baptifls from their fallacious
argument on thefe paiTages, by bringing infants into
the conclufion, who, as they are not addreif.d, are
not at all concerned in the premifes. This will ap-
pear plain by three inilances on the Baptift plan.
The Baptifl argument runs thus: The Scrip-
tures require faith and repentance in order to bap-
t'lfm; but infants have not faith and repentance j
iherefore they are net to be baptifed. Now as the
Scriptures require faith and repentance only of a-
adults, we mull place that word in the argument,
and then it will (land in this form : The Scriptures
require faith and repentance of adults in order to
baptifm ; but infants cannot have thefe : 'I'heiibre
infants are not fit fubjeds of bapiifm. In the fame
way, we may form the two following inflances, "Dit,
The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults
In order to falvation ; but infants cannot have thefe ;
Therfore infants cannot be faved. Again, He [an
adult] who will not work, neither fliould he eat ; but
ai infant cannot will to work, therefore an infant
ihould not eat. The reader may perceive, that bv
INFANT BAPTISM. SS
placing the word adults in one propofition, and infants
in tlie other, (which makes it a fophifm] there are
three things proved in the fame way, viz* That infants
cannot be faved — that infants fliould not eat — that
infants ftiould not be baptifed. And fo, for the fame
reafon, that an infant cannot be faved, that an infant
fnould not eat; it will follow, that an infant ihould
not be baptifed. For all thefe are equally true, and
fupported'by the fame reafoning. And it is in the
fame way, thattliis argument proves againft the bap-
tifm of Chrift, and the circumcifion of infants. ' We
will now view thefe three inllances,
2. In the Pjedobaptift way of reafoning. We will
place the fame word in each propofition, thus : The
Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in
order to baptifm ; but fome adults have no faith, no
repentance ; therefore fome adults are not to be bap-
tifed. Again, The Scriptures require faith and re-
pentance of adults in order to falvation ; but fome
adults do not believe nor repent ; therefore fome
adults will not be faved. Once more-^He [an adult]
who will not work, neither Ihould he eat ; but fome
adult will not work ; therefore fome adult (hould not
eat. Now by placing the word adult in each propo-
rtion, without which it would be a fophiftical argu-
ment, the reader may fee, that as infants can have no
place in either, there is nothing to forbid their fupport,
their falvation, or their baptifm. They only prove,
that an idle adult fnould not be fupported ; that an
impenitent adult will not be faved: and, that he hai
no right at all to baptifm.
Once more — As I have nothing in view, fo much
as truth, I have a great defire to make this matter
plain to the meaneft capacity. For if I am clearly
underftood in this part, my end, on the prefent ar-
gument, is attained ; and what I have before advanced
upon it will be, in agreatmeafure, ufelefs. The rea-
der, therefore, is defired toobferve, that the defigiiof
this argument is to conclude againft the baptifm ol in-
fants. Then, as infants are to be in the conclufion,
34 ARGUMENTS AGAlx^ST
they muft alfo be in the premifes ; for the rule fays,
^' thc?-e fliould not be more in the concliifion than was
in th? premifes ;becaure the conclufionis to be drawn
from the premifes."
Now to make the argument of the Baptifl-s confift-
ent with itfelf, we mud place infants in the premifes
as well as in the conclufion ; and th^n the argument
will (land thus : The Scriptures require faith and re-
pentance of infants in order to baptifm ; but infants
have not faith, &c. ; therefore infants are not to be
baptifed* The reader may difcern aa agreement, in
in tiie parts of the argument, with each other ; it has
infants in each part, as well in the premifes, as in the
conclufion. But, then, the fallacy of it is more Itrik-
ingly evident than before : for the error, which before
cjept into the middle, does here (land in front ; it is
in this proportion, the Scriptures require fiiith and
repentance of inafnts in order to baptifm, which is
not true ; for infants are never required to repent or
believe, in order either to baptifin or falvation.
Vv^hereas before, when it was faid the Scriptures re-
quire faith and repentance of adults in order to bap-
tifm ; but infants have not faith, &c. the error confill-
ed in putting in the word ' infants,' who have no con-
cern at all in the requirement.
By placing one thing in the premifes, and another
in the conclufion, which is done by the Baptills, in
this argument, we may be able to evince any abfurdi-
ty, however glaring. This being the manner of the
Baptift argument, nothing more is neceffary to take
off its force againft infants, but to make the premifes
and conclufion to correfpond with each other. That
is, while it continues to be afophifm, it proves againft
infants ; but it ceafes to prove againft them asfoon aa
it is made a good argument, e. g. Faith and repen-
tance are required of adults in order to baptifm ; but
infants have not thefe ; Therefore infants are not to
be baptifed. This is nothing more than a pure fo])hifm,
and, as fuch, it concludes againft infants ; but all its
Corce againft infants is let afide by making it ^ood,
INFANT BAPTisM. 35
thus: Faith n.nd repentance are required in adults in
order to baptinn ; but Ibme adults have not faith and
repentance : Therefore fome adults are not to be bap-
tifed. The reader may fee, that now it is a fair argu-
ment, all its force againll: infants is gone.
Having faid thus much on the fallacy of this ar-
gurrent, Illiallonly add one fpecimen of its mode of
operation ; and that is a fpecimen, in which it will
conclude two contrary ways, on one place of Scripture,
Rom. ii. 25. " For circumcifion verily profiteth, if
thou keep the law , but if thou be a breaker of the law,
thy circumcifion is made uncircumfion."
Now the Baptift argument, on the firfl member of
t) is text, will operate thus : Circumcifion verily pro-
fiteth, if thou keep the law ; but infants could not keep
the law : Therefore their circumcifion muft be unpro-
fitable, that is, as no circumcifion, a mere nullity ;
and this refie6\s on the wifdom of God. But if we
form the fame argument on the other member, it will
be no nullity neither, for thus it will run : If thou be
a breaker of the law, thy circumcifion is made unclr-
cumcifion : But infants could not break the law ;
therefore their circumcifion could not be made uncir-
tumcifion, /. e. a nullitv. Such is this Baptift argu-
ment, that it will prove infant circumcifion to be fome-
thing or nothing, according to that part of the text on
which it is formed ; and it is therefore evidently no
more than a fophifm.
I have endeavoured to make the reader fee,
not only that this argument is falfe, but wherein
that fallacy confifts. That it is falfe, appears
in this, that in every inftance it oppofes a known
truth ; it oppofes the circumcifion of infants — the
baptifm of Jefus Chrift — the falvation of infants—
and, their temporal fubfiftence. The nature of the
fallacy is the placing of adults in the premifes, and in-
fants in the conclufion ; which any perfon, who has
the leaft knowledge of the art of reafoning, muft fee
inftantly to be repugnant to the laws of truth If the
method I have taken to Ihow wherein the fault con-
36 ARGUMENTS AGAINST
fifls, ftiould not be familiar to any reader, it is pof-v
fible he may not apprehend me ; if fo, I would advifc
him to read it repeatedly, and with fevious attention ;
for I am not without hope, that even the moft com-
mon capacity, with due attention, v;iU clearly com-
prehend my meaning. On the other hand I have no
doubt, but many will readily enter into the method,
and fee what a fallacious argument is made ufe of to
fupport an opinion, I am compelled to defc^rt.
Thefe two arguments being taken away, a Baptift
has nothing left to place againft infant baptifm. 1
have not met with a fmgle perfon, who^ when defired
to produce the ftrongeft arguments againfi infants,
coidd advance any thing more than what is contained
in thefe two-. While I thought it right to oppofe the
baptifm of infants, I made ufe of them againft it ; but
when they appeared, as they really are, very errone-
ous and bad, I gave them up ; and from that time
have never been able to preach a baptifm g fermon. I
faw that the whole ftrength of the Baptift was gone.
By the removal of thefe two arguments, thus much
is gained ; that whatever can be advanced, on the
part of infants, will ftand with undiminifhed force.
For it will now avail nothing to fay, with the firft ar-
gument, there is no exprefs law for infant baptifm ;
nor will it be of any ufe to affirm, according to the
fecond, that infants have no faith, no repentance :
Becaufe the arguments themfelves being fallacious,
whatever may be urged from them, will be entirely
devoid of force againft infant baptifm.
Having now^ finiflied what I intended on the argu-
ments, on one fide, I proceed to thofe on the other.
I am well perfnaded, that the fcripturcs cannot fa-
vour both fides ; and had the arguments againft infant
baptifm been good, I am convinced that nothing in
the word of God would have given it any counte-
nance. But fince the truth muft be either for or a-
gainft the baptifm of infants, and the arguments
againft being futile, it is certain the truth muft lie on
the otlier fide.
INFANT BAPTISM. ^t
CHAPTER II.
Containing arguments on the t:}de ofinfcaitla-jii^:^:.
INFANT baptifm is to be proved, in the fume
way, as female communion. In the cafe of female
communion, all the Baptiils I have ever converfcd
with, on thatfubje6l, make ufe of inference and anal-
ogy ; and, though in them it is ridiculous, they are
not able to prove it any other way. Andthis method
is even adopted by Mr. Booth, as I iliall more plain-
ly evince in another place ; though glaririgly incon-
fiilent with his own principles.
As I am now to advance proof in favour of infant
baptifm, the firaple method I mean to adopt will bo
the following. In the hrft place, it is a fa(51: acknovr-
ledged by the Baptifts themfelves, tiKit infants were
at an early period conftituted members of the church
of God. In the next place, I iliall produce proof,
that they have a right to be fo now ; and that the con-
llitution of God by v/hich they vvere made members,
has not been altered to this day. In the lail place, I
ihall lay down this dilemma, which will conclude the
whole bufmefs, namely : As infants by a divine and
unaltered conftitution have a right to be received as
church members, they mull be received eiiher with
baptiim or without it. If they are not to he recv^ived
without baptifm, then the confequent is, thut they
muft be baptifed, becaufe they mull Ce received.- —
I now requeft the reader's attention lo each of thefe
in their order.
ARGUMENT I.
'God has constituted in hi.'i church the memher'^dup of in-
fants^ and admitted them to it hij a religions ritel ^
. IN this argument it is proper to take notice, pf
two parts. D
â– ^'^ ARGUiME>
I. The chuixk-mtmbcrflilp of infants. — A church
is a fociety^ that itancls in fpecial relation to God,
being inltituted for rtligious purpofts. When the
perfons compcfing this fcciety appear rpenly in fuch
relation to God, it is called a vifiblc church ; and of
fuch an one I now fpeak. The i ehition, between God
and this focicty, is formed by God himfdf, ov de-
claring he is, and will be their God. This declara-
tion of God v^iichconilituted thatrehuion, which in-
deed did exiil from the beginning, had an equal re-
gard to adults and infants ; " I will be a (iod unto
thee, and to thy feed after thee." And hence both
young and old, who had been duly entered, were
confidered as children of the covenant and the king-
dom, that is, of the church. The rite of circumcili-
on being performed, the circumcifed was prefented
to the Lord ; which is a mode of expreilion to hgnify
a public entering into church-fellowihip.
The cafe as now ftated, is, I fuppofe, commonly
admitted. It is granted by Baptifls, who are the n:oit
likely of any to deny it, that infants were membcis of
the Jev.ifli church. IMr. Booth grants it, vol, ii.
224. So does Mr. Keach, Gold refiiied, ])ngv 113.
^' That children were admitted members cl the Jew-
ifh church is granted.". And indeed it is not poff-ble
to deny this, without den) ing tlrat aduhs then felves
were members, which woidd be the fame as denying
that God had a church in the v/orld. Inlants, there-
fore, were confiituted by Geo iumfell, niembers of
his own vifible church.
II. Infants, in ord-er to- viiible memberfliip, were
the fubjei^^fi of a religious rite. That cir«.unicifion
was a religious rite, is as eafily proved, as that bap-
tifm and the Lord's Supper are fuch. Mr. Eoorh, in
this cafe, is in a lirait betwixt two ; he is not willing
fiady to deny it, nor yet can he prevail on himfclf to
acknov.'ledgc it. He is very tender upon the fvibjedc,
as if he faw ibme formidable confcquence lurking be-
neath it. See what he fa> s, vol. ii. 250. " Eaptifm
is- air appointment purely religious, and intended lor
OF INFANT BAPTISM. -i^
piirpofes entirely fpiritual : Buttircurncirion, befiJes
the fpiritual inflruclion faggelled by it, was a Sgn of
carnal defcent, a mark of national diftinclion, and a
token of interell in thofe temporal bleffmgs that were
promifed to -Abraham." Now can any living foul
tell from whence Mr. B. had all this ? Was it from
the Koran, or Talmud? To fliow he neyer took his
notion from the Bible, I will fet the Bible againft
him, and him againfl it.
Bib/e,
It was a token of the cove-
nant between God and Abra-
ham, to be a God to him and
his feed.
It was a fign of circumcifi-
Booth.
It was a token of
interefl in temporal
bleffings.
It wis a fign of car-
nal defcent.
It was a mai'k of
national diftinclicn.
Now CO nip are Mr.
Booth.
It w^as a token of
interefl in temporal
ble!lings.
It was a mark of
national din:in6lion.
It was a fign of car-
nal defcent.
en, t. e, of the heart and fpi-
I rit.
j It was a feal of the righte-
! oufnefs of faith.
B.'with fa^L.
Fact,
Many had the intertfl with-
out the token, and many had
the token withoatthe interefl.
Many o.hor nations hadtiie
fame mark. So it was a di (linc-
tion which did not diltinguilh.
All Abraham's m.ile i'cr-
yan's, and many profdvtcs,
vere circumciied. Either
hefe were dc;f. tended from
Abraham, or Mr. B's figii
was, as one calls it, . a fign of
a lie.
See what the loye of hypothelis can do ! Ccidd
any man haye giycn a poorer account of circumcifou
than Mr. B. has done?
But was it not, after all, a truly religious inflitute ?
Mr. B. is not willing to deny this altogeiher. He
feems to grant, at leaft by implication, that it was
40 ARGUMENTS OK THE SIDE
half a religious rite. " Baptifm," fays he, " is an ap-
pointment purely religious, for purpofes entirely fpi-