cates that the reception wa.s to be of the fame kind
as that which mljjht be claimed by his own difci,.
pies ; and that receiving them, as vifibly related to
himfelf, /. e. in his name, was Ihowing a proper ref-
pe6l to him, and to his Father v>^ho fent him:
*' Whofoever fliall receive this child in my name^,
receiveth me ; and whofoever ihall receive me,
receiveth him that fent me," &c. In Mark x.
14. our Lord explicitly declares v.'hat was the
ground of tlrtit reception, by expreiTmg their
vifible relation to the church, and fo to him-
ielf: — '' Of fuch is the kingdom of God;" as
fuch they were to be brought to him, and no one
was to forbid them to come. In Acts ii. 38, 39. in-
fants are placed in the fame relation to baptifm as
they were before to circumcifion. The apoftle
unites them with their parents in the promife, and
connects that promife with baptifm ; thereby copy-
ing the divine pat-tern in Genefis xvii. and allotting
them the fame ftation, with refpect to baptifm, as
they had before with regard to circumcifion.
In each of thefe cafes infants arefpoken of agree-
able to that coniiltution of God, by which they
were admitted to church-memberihip, and to a re-
iigious ordinance. And this being all that my ar-
gument requires, I fliail proceed to notice one thing
more, viz.
IV. The hiflorical account of the baptifm of
houfcholds, as recorded in the Scripture.
The inilances of this kind are three : The fami-
ly of Lydia, A^ls xvi. 15 ; the family of the jailer,
A6ls xvi. 33 ; and that of Stephanus, 1 Cor. i. 16.
The cafe of the jailer and his family is thus defcri-
bcil : *^ And he took them the fame hour of the
night, and waflicd their flripes, and was baptifed,
he and all his, flraight-way. And when he had
brought them into his houfe, he fet meat before
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 77
them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his
houfe, eegaUlasato panoiki pepisteiikos to Tlieeo,^''
He rejoiced do me (lie ally, believing in God ; /. e,
he^ believing in God, rejoiced over his family.
Now, as the houfehold of the jailer is expreffed by
the phrafe, " aJl his, or all of his," it explains the
term Oikos^ houfehold, or family, which is ufed in
the two other inftances : So then, to baptife a man's
houfehold is to baptife all his. This may ferve as
a pattern of priniitive practice — he and all his were
baptifed. But whether all believed, or were capa-
ble of believing, is not faid, no mention being made
of any one's faith but his own. And though I do
not confider this hiftoric account as having force e-
enough of itfelf to evince the baptifm of infants, yet
there are two confiderations v/hich give it weight
on that fide.
(1.) Its agreement with that pra(?cicc, in v»hich
we are fare infants were included : I mean the
pra6lice of Abraham, and the Jews, with rcfpedl; to
circumcifion. This agreement m.ay be coniidercd,
1. In the principle which led to the pra6lice. Cir-
cumciiion was founded on this promife of God, " I
will — be a God unto thee, and to thy feed," Bap-
tifm proceeds on this, that the promife is to you and
to yojar children : And in this they are both alike.
2. In the practice itfelf.- When Abraham received
circumcifion, his houfehold were circumcifed with
him: So the jailer, when he'Vas baptifed, idl his
were baptifed likev/ifc. Nov/, v/hen v/e difcern
two cafes alike in principle and pra6lice, and are
fure that infants were included in the one, we then
very naturally are led to conclude, that infants mufl
be incended in the other.
(2.) Its concordance with the hypothefis of infant
baptifm. Such accounts as thefe, have a favoura-
ble alpe
caufe on their plan, provided they were placed ia
G 2
73 ARGUMENTS ©N THE SIDE
the fame circumftances as the apoftles wert, whofe
lot it was to preach the gofpel where Chriil had not
been named ; cafes of a like nature would very fre-
quently occur. Whereas, on the plan of the Baptifts,
if piaced in fimilar circumftances, though we might
hear of various perfons baptifed on a profeilion of
faith ; we fhould not expe6lto hear of the baptifmg
of houfeholds ; or, that any ma.n, and all his, were
baptifed ftraightway. And indeed, the very idea
of baptifmg houfeholds, and of a man, and all his,
being baptifed at the fame time, does fo naturally
fall in with the views of Paedobaptifts, that I am in-
clined to think it paffes with the common ptpple,
inflead of a hundred arguments. For though they
do not reafon by mood and figure, neither do thev
confine themfelves to logical accuracy, in any form ;
yet they have logic enough to fee, that the baptifmg
of a man, and all his, and likewife of this and the
the other houfehold, is by no means agreeable to
the plan, and that it has no refemblance to the prac-
tice of the Baptifts.
It is in this way, I confider thefe accounts of
baptifmg as ha,ving weight in the prefent inquiry.
Here are fa6ls recorded, relative to baptifmg; I
take thefe fa6ts, and compare them with the pro-
ceedings of different baptifers ; and I find they will
not agree to one clafs, but very well with the other:
I, therefore, am led to conclude, that that clafs of
baptifers agree befl: to the primitive pra6lice, to
whom thefe facets will be ft agree. For, as the prac-
tice of the apoftles has no affmity with that of the
Baptifts, it is very reafonable to infer, that their
views of the fubject could not be the fame.
This being the laft corroborating argument I
mean to bring, I will collect the force of the whole
into one view. The whole defence of infants refts
on two arguments ; — 1. That God did conilitute in
kis church the membership of infants, and admit-
OF INFANT BAPTISM. T9
ted them to it by a religious ordinance. 2. That
the right of infants to church-memberfliip was ne-
ver taken away : the confequence of which is, that
their right to memberfhip continues to the prefent
moment. The firft of thefe arguments is granted
by the Baptifts themfelves. The other I have evin-
ced from five topics : 1. From God's difpenfation
towards the Gentiles, in forming them into a church
flate. 2. That God never did by any law, take a-
way that right which had been before granted to
infants. 3. That none of the Jews had any appre-
henfion of the reje6lion of infants, which they muft
have had, if infswits had been reje6led. 4. That
Jefus Chrift fpake of them as vifibly belonging to
the church, and to himfelf, as the Head of the
church : and that the apoitle Peter placed them in
the f?me relation to baptifm, as they had been be-
fore to circumcifion. 5. That the apoflle Paul, in
baptinng whole families, a6led agreeable to, and fo
evinced the validity of, all the preceding argu-
ments.
The evident refult of the whole is, that infants,
according to divine appointment, have a right to
church-memberfhip, to the prefent hour. Then,
the only queftion that remains, and by anfwering of
which, I fhall be brought to the clofe of the inquiry,
is this : Have infants (any infants, for I take them
indefinitely) any right to Chrillian baptifm ? To this
I reply, 1. That thofe perfons who have a right to
be members, fliould certainly be admitted to mem-
berlhip ,• i. e, folemnly recognized. And the rea-
fon is, becaufe everyone fliould have his right. 2,
If perfons, who have a right to be members, fhould
be received to memberfhip ; then they are to be re-
ceived, either without baptifm, or with it. I fup-
pofe none will fay, they are to be received without
baptifm; for then, if one maybe fo received, lb'
may all, and tnus baptifm will be excluded. 1 e»-
80 ^ ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE, S
pedl no oppofition from aBapliil in this place. For
if the right of infants to memberlhip be once evin-
ced, the oppofition of a Baptifl is over. And there-
fore, if he be able to do any thing in this controver-
fy, it muft be done before it comes to this. On the
other hand, if no perfon is to be received to mem-
berihip without baptifm ; then every one, who
fliould be received, muft of neceifity be baptifed.
And fo the conclufion of the whole 'will be this:
Since infants, therefore, have a right to member-
iliip, and all who have fuch right muft be recieved
as members, and none fhould be received without
being baptifed : then it follows, that as infants have
a right to be received, they muft alfo have a right to
be baptifed ; becaufe they cannot be received with-
out baptifm. • "
CHAPTER III,
HAVING advanced v/hat I judged eflential on
both fides, I will nov/, agreeable to my de-
fign, give the reader afcheme of the wKole. Bj^this
icheme the reader will be able to difcpver what
is common to both fides, and what is the neat force
of each. It was in this way, the fubject prefented
itfelf to my mind, when I was led a fecond time to
take it under confideration. And I perfuiide my-
felf, that, by adopting this method, the reader will
be more capable of judging, in this controverted
question, which fide of the (wo is the ftronger, and
confequcntly which is the true one. I will place
the whole on one page, that the reader may have it
at once under his eye. I fliall place thofe Scrip-
tures, that weigh equal on both fides, at the top of
the page ; and the arguments againil: infant' baptifm
in one column, and thofe for their baptifm in the o~
ther. I do this, becaufe I know of no method more
fair, or more calcula'ted to lead to the truth as it is in
Jesus.
A Scheme of tbe Controverfy on Baptifm.
I, Those places of Scripture wbicli are common to botK
sides, x'iz. Baptists and Paedobaptists. Matt. iii. 6. " And
Ycre baptised of him in Jordan, confessing- their sins." Mark
,\vi. If). " He that belie veth and is I^aptiscd shall be sraed."
Acts ii. 41. " Then they that gladly recieved bis word, were
ba]>tised."_ Acts viii. 27. " And Philip said, Ii thou believest
Avith all thine heart, thou mayst," &c.
N. B. The places^ and others of the £amc kind, as they
prove the bapthm of an adult to be right, are expressive of
ike sentiment cf Baptists and P adobaptiar,, tviih respect to
an adult subject : For both think it right to baptise an adult.
And as they prove equally on both aides, they cannot be ur^
ged by either party again*:t the other.
II. Those arguments which are peculiar to each, compar-
ed.
N. B. The question is not of adults ; in thi^ both ar^
agreed : But, " Jre infants to be baptised ?'*
Argumerits for Infant Baptism.
1. God has constituted in his
church the membership of Infants>
and admitted tiiem to it by a religious
rite.
2. The church-membership cf
Infants was never set aside by God
or man ; and cfnsequently conti-
nues in i^crce to the presftnt dav.
N. B. The Laniiits admit till' frst:
The other is, by a variety of evi-
dence, clearly evinced.
"Coroll. — . y,v God has constitutedin-
fants church 7ncmb.rr.s^, thty t.kjuld
be received to membership, because
God has constituted it.
Dilemma. — ^iince infants must b^
received to membership, they must
be received ivithout bafitism, or vjitA
it: But now must be received
without baptism,' and, there/ore, a*
infants must be received, they mus$
of necessity be la/itised.
Arguments againfl
Infant Baptifm.
1. Whoever has a
right to a positive or-
dinance must be cx-
presly mentioned, as
having that right ; but
itifants are not so men-
tioned, with respect to
baptism : Therefore
Infants are^ not to be
baptised.
2. I'he Scriptures
require faith and re-
pentance in order to
bapti-m ; but infants
have not faith or re-
pentance : Tiierefore
infants arc not proper
subjects of baj^tism.
I fliall now onl}^ make- a few remarks on thi»
fclieme of the controverfy, and fo conclude this part
of the fubject.
1. At the top of the page, I have cited fome paf-
82 SCHEME or THS CONTROVERSY
fages of Scripture, which fupp'ort the fentlmentof
both parties, that is, the propriety of baptifing an
r.dult profeiTmg faith, &:c. Thefie, and fuch like
fcriptares, which for want of room I have not fet
dovvm, prove as much on one n:le as on the other ;
and, therefore, I have faid they are common to
both parties. My dffign in placing them at the
head of the Scheme, is to detect an error incident
to Baptifts in general ; namely, a fuppofition that
Uich texts prove only on their fide, and againft the
fentiment of Psedobaptifts. I have obferved this
error, in every Baptift with whom I have con-
verfed, both before andfmce my prefent fentiments
have been knov/n. I once allied a wonhy Baptift
minifter, what he thought v/ere the ftrongeft argu-
ments againft Piedobaptifts ? He immediately had
recourfe to fuch paiTages as are fet do#n in the
Scheme. I told him, that thefe were fo far from
being the ftrongeft, that they were no arguments at
all againft Paedobaptifts; but ratherproved on their
fide, in common with Baptifts. My friend won-
dering at this, 1 obferved, that Paedobaptifts as well
as Baptifts held adultbaptifm ; and as thefe paffages
only prove adult baplifm, they prove nothing more
than what is held by both. When I had made the
matter fufiiciently plain, our converfation on this
fubje6l ended. He, however, called on me the
next day, and faid, I am really furprifed at what
you faid yefterday, and could hardly lieep for think-
ing of it.
The error I am gaurdingagainft, is that of claim-
ing an exclufive right to thofc Scriptures, which do
not exclufively belong to them. It is by means of
this common error, that the Baptift caufe is main-
tained ; for it gives it the appearance of ftrength,
when in reality it has none. Mr. Booth Ihall come
forward as an example, fince he is as deeply tinc-
tured with this error as any of his brethren. In
eN 1N?AN^ BAPTISM. 88
Vol. il. p. 315, he fays, " The Baptifts have no need
of fi4)terfiige to evade the force of any argument
formed upon it, [i Cor. vii. 14.] is plain, I humbly
conceive, from the preceding reflc6lions. No,
while they have both precept and example on their
fide," &c. — Both precept and example on their
fide ! This looks very formidable indeed : But let
us examine the phrafe. Pray, Mr. -Booth, what do
you mean by the Baptifts' fide? Do you mean
adult baptifm ? If you mean this, it is only paf-
fing a deception upon the reader; for you mull
know that Fsedobaptifls have no difpute with you
upon that fubJe61. You certainly know that they
both hold and pra6life adult baptifm as well as
you, and that what you call your fide is no more
your's than it is their's. But do you mean the de-
nial of infant baptifm ? I'his you fliould mean,
when you diftinguifn your fide from their's ; for
herein it is, that you and PsedobaptiRs take differ-
ent fides, feeing they affirm, and you deny, that in-
fants are lit fubje6ts of baptifm. If fo, then you af-
firm that BaptiiU have both precept and example
for the denial of infant baptifm, which is indeed
properly your fide. No, Sir, very far from it; you
have neither precept nor example, on your iide, in
all the word of God. You have nothing in the
world on your fide, as you are pleafed to call it, but
two poor fophifms, /. e, a pair of bad, very bad ar- .
■grments, which I have placed together in one co-
lumn.
But the truth is, when you fpeak in fo lofty a
tone of the Baptifls' fide, as having both precept
and example, you only mean that adult baptifm has
thefe. Pray, Sir, do you and Paedobaptills take
oppofite fides on the article of adult baptifm ? If
not, why is it your fide fo peculiarly ? You Kcj,^-
faid in this quotation, that the Baptif^s h.he molt
need of fubterfugc : Good Sir, what is a fub* ^ • That
Is it an evafion — a deception ? Why d-ii-ituted in-
€4 SCHEME or THE CONTROVERSY
that your fide exclufively, which is no morfryour
fide than it is the fide of the Paedobaptifts ? Was it
becaufe vour own real fide [the denial of infant bap-
tifm] was weak? And did you wiih by a dexterous
(hift, to make it pafs for Rrong ? Pray, Mr. B. is
not this a fubterfiige? It is very extraordinary that
youlhould flv to a fubterfiige, and in that very place
too, where you fay the Baptifts do not need any.
And whereas moft difputants make ufe of fabter-
fuges only when they actually need them, you muft
be a genius of a very peculiar cafl indeed, to make
ufe of a fabterfuge, when, as .yourfelf fay, there is
in reality no need of any fuch thing.
By this the reader may perceive how neceffary
it is to keep thefe things clear in his own mind, if
he wiihes to form a judgment on this fuhje(5l accor-
ding to truth ; for though the Baptift fide has in re-
ality no itrengch at all, yet it acquires the appear-
ance of it from the mifreprefentation which I have
■endeavoured to expofe. I have, therefore, been
the more defirous of placing this matter in a fair
light ; becaufe, though frequently called to fpeak
on the fub}e6l, I was not for fome years aware of
the deception. Let the reader keep in view thofe
Scriptures at the top of the Scheme, which weigh
equally on both fides, while I pafs to the two co-
lumns, where the arguments of both are placed in
oppofition to each other ; and by comparing thefe,
we Ihall fee which is the ftronger, and, therefore,
which is the true fide of the queftion.
2. If the reader will turn to the Scheme, he will
fee, on the left coiumn, what is the neat ftrength
of the Baptift fide, and what arguments they pro-
duce againft the ba'ptifm of infants. I have there
ftt down two arguments which are urged by Bap-
wht\\ i. the one taken from a want of exprefs precept
forwarr i^ple to baptife infants ; the other from their
tured wKP^pacity to believe and repent, &c. Thefc
ON INFANT BAPTISM. 8o
two ane the only arguments they can produce ; and
if they are not good, they have nothing good to
urge. With refpe6l to the firll, that there is no ex-
prefs comnia.id or example for baptiiing infants, the
fame is-true refpe6ling female communion ; and fo
this argument, if it v/ere good, would have a double
clfe
females from the Lord's Supper. And then the Bap-
tills would be right inrefufingto baptife infants ; but,
at the fame time, they would be wrong in admitting
females to the Lord's Supper; but, on the contrary,
if women have a right to the Lord's table, though
there be no exprefs law or example for their admiln-
on, then the argument is good for nothing. I ihall
fay more upon this, v/hen I come to examine Mr.
B.'s defence of female communion.
As to the other argument, I mean that taken from
the incapacity of infants to believe and repent, it is
nothing more than a fophifm. I have difcovered its
fallacy by applying it to dilferent cafes ; and in the
fame way that it proved againll infant baptifm, it
would have proved againft infant circumcifion — a-
gainll the baptifm of Chrift — againft the temporal
fubfiftence of infants — and, lalily, againft their eter-
nal falvation. 1 have likewife iliown wherein its fal-
lacy confifted, viz* in bringing more into the conclu-
fion than was in the premifes : All this the reader
may obferve by recurring to the place where it is ex-
amined. The confequencc is that the Baptifts have
nothing to place againft iniant baptifm, but two un-
found, fophiftical, deceitful arguments. '1 his is the
fum total of the Baptift fide ; but if any Baptift think
he is able either to maintain thefe two arguments,- or
to produce any thing better, I ferioully invite hi in to
the talk.
3. On the oppofite column I have placed the argu-
ments for infant baptifm. Their order is the molt
fimple, and the whole confifts ol three parts : 1. That
God formed a church on earth, and coniUtuted in-
H
oo .-iCH£?iE OF THE CONTROVERSY
fants members of that church: — 2. That the mem-
i^erihip of irifants, from that time to this, has never
been fet afide by any order of God ; confcquently it
llill remains : — 3; 1 hat as infants have a divine right
to membei Oiip, they rnufl be receii^ed as members ,
and as they muft not be received with(.)Ut being bap-
t'fedj they mui^ be baplifed in order to be received.
Thefe are the argiimcnts in one column, -which ar^
to be compared with thofe tvro on the Baptift fide in
the other ; and by comparing- ther» together, the read-
er may fee on which fide the evidence preponderates,
and confequently on which fide the truth a6lually lies.
There are three parts on the right column, which
link into each other, and form a ftrong chain of evi-
dence, to be placed in oppofition to two falfe fo-
phillical arguments, which conflitute the whole force
on the Baptill nde, that is, there is fomething to be
placed againft nothing — -fubftantial evidence againft
a pair of fophifms : And this is to be done, that the
reader may fee which has the llronger fide, and which
the true. As far as concerns myfelf, I onl; fay I have,
after many fupplications for the bell teaching, exa-
mined, compared, and decided, and am well fatisft-
ed -vrith the decifion : The reader, if he be a man
fearing God, will go and do likewife. — So much for
the comparifon ; a few words on the evidence, by it-
felf, will finifh this part of thebufinefs.
The nature of this proof, on the fide of infants, is
fuch, that Baptifls can only attack it in one part: 6> g.
If I affirm, as in the firfc part, tiiat God did conflitute
infants members of his church, the Baptifls grant they
were once church members. If I affirm as in the
third, that every one who has a right to be a church
member, has a right to be baptifed, they arc compel-
led to grant that too. So there remains but one point
on which a Baptifl can form an attack, and that is the
fecond part, wherein I fay, that the church-member-
fluip of infants having been once an inftitutionof God,
it was never fet afide either by God immediately, or
by any man ucling under the authority of God. This
ON iNFAN'T T5AP'^I;=^r.
js llie point then that deiklcs tVio qaeilion. 1 vrill
Ipend a few words in vindicating this turning po;:.^
agiiinfl the arguinentum ad homhiem vaxdi: ule Ox L -
Mr. Booth.
In fupport of this I have argued from five topics :
God's method of a6ling in bringing the Gentiles into
a church ft ate ; — there never was a law ot God to let
their memberfhip aude : — the Jews, in Ghrift's time,
had no apprehenfioii of any fuch thing ; — Chrift fpoke
of infants as a6lually belonging to the church, and his
apoftle placed them in the fame relation to baptifm a»
they had been in to circumcifion ; — and St. Paul, in-
conformity to this fcheme, baptifed families, partic-
ularly the jailer and all his, ilraightway. Each of
thefe is already fet forth, and evinced in its proper
place.
But what do the BaptlRs place againil this- evi-
dence? Mr. Booth, in anlVerivig Dr.. Y7iliiams Oft
this fubje61;, does neither produce ^' i^ Ti'-^^unrt to
prove that the church-memberlhi , . «H
he grants to hive exiiled once, vvas evcrtc, .i. - ;
nor does he anfvrer thofe fcriptures which the DoClor
had alledged to evince the continuance of their Biem-
berihip. What then does Mr. B. do? Whoever will
be at the pains to read his books, will find his mode
of reafoning to be of this kind. He inftances a vari-
ety of things belonging to the Jewifh chur. h, fuch as
its being national — its pric-flhood — its tithes — its va-
rious purifications— -it;, holy places, holy garments,
&c. and thcQ argues moft erroneoufly, that as tliefe
things are done away, the memberfliip of infdnts rnuft
be done away too. This, I fay, is the mode of^his ar-
guing, and indeed the only argument he brings, as
may be feen by any one who reads his v/orks Vt/ith
care. Now this reafoning of his is guilty of a ve-
ry egregious abfurdity, and a very material ^error in
point of chronologv.
I. A ver}' egregious abfurdity, Mr. B. feems to
confider the various rites, &c-. of die Jev/iih chui<
C8 £"crTE-wj: or t^£ control F.r.sY
as b^ing fo inrorporatcd nnd intevvrCvcn with the
members of that chnrch, that the rites and the)/ be-
come ciTe.ntiaUy the fame; and then, if the rites be
taken away, he fancies that the very efTeuce of the
church is fo dellroyed or altered, that infant meni-
berfiiip is gone cf coujfe. Let any one \vei;^h Mr.
B's. reafoning in voL ii. p. 57, and underftand hin\
on '
*' An apodle.." fays he, '' has taught us, that the an-
cient prielihood being changed, thtre is made of ne-
ceiTity a change alfo ir. the law. - That is, as Dr. Ow-
en explains it, the whole \^\v of conimavidments con-
tained i:i ordinances, or the v/hole law of Mofes,
fo far as it was a rule-of worihip and ol:ediciue nnto