the church ; for that law it is, that followeth the fates
of the prieflhood." Very well. That law v/as chang-
ed, which Avas a rule of vrorfhip'and obedience to
the cl.urch ; bat v.hat has this to do with rhanging the
churcii ? Is a chiircli changed, l}ecaure the rule, which
directed its worfliip, is changed r I wonder miich
why Dr. Owen is here introduced, unlcfsitbe topafs
offr.i- abfurdity imder the f\in6lion of a great name ;
as ! c^'iing can be more contrary to what Mr.«^B. i?
go'ui'^, to fay, than this quotutiosi from the Do6lor.
Now ire Mr. B's. curious reafoning. " We may
therefore adopt (he fliould have faid, corrupt the fa-
cred writer's principle of reafoning, and fay, \ e con-
fiitution of the vifible church being manifcAly and ef-
i'entially altered, the law. relatingto qualifications for
communion in it, mufl of neceifjty be (banged. Con-
fequently, no valid inference can be drawn from the
memberfhip of infants, under the former difj)enfati-
on, to a fi milarity of external privilege under the
new covenant." Now in whi*t v/ay could the confti-
lution of the church be elTentially altered by a change
in the law of ordinances, unlefs upon that abfurd idea,
that the ordinances and members were fo compound-
ed and incorporated wiih each other, as to form, in
this incorporated ftate, the very effence ofthe church?
ON INl'-ANT BAPTiS:>l. 89
One thing we may remark in this quotation, whkh
is, that Mr. B. grants infants to have been cliurch-
members under the former dirpenfatlon. This is
granting my firfl argument for infant baptifni ; there
is only one more to be maintained, viz. That the
memberihip of infants has never been annulled ; and
this being evinced, the oppofition of a Baptift is at
an end, fince he cannot by any means deny the con-
cluiion. And now the whole debate is brought into
this narrow limit — Has the church memberfliip of in-
fants at any time been fet afide, or has it not ? I have
advanced five arguments to prove it never has been
fet afide. Mr. B. fays it has. If you aik him to,
prove it, he tells you, *' the conftitution of the viiible
church is.manifeftly and eflentially altered." If yon
afk him how he proves this effential alteration ? he
tells you, that tithes, and purifications, and prieft-
hood, and other tilings of this kind belonging to the
Mofaic code, are changed or taken away ; and-th'^n
mofl abfurdly infers, that infant mpmberlhip is taken
away too : As if a member of a church and. a Mo!
ic rite had been the fame ; as if infant membtrihip,
which was long before Mofes, had been nothing more
than a Mofaic rite. But let us obferve how grandly
he reafons down infant m.emijerdiip.
*' We may, therefore," fays he, "adopt the 1:
cred writer's principle ®f reafoning, and fay." m.
have been at fome pains to inform myfelf refpecSling
this fentence — whether Mr. B, meant to imitate the
apodle's phrafeology, or to reafon after the, fame
method, or to reafon from the apoflle's datum or
principle, viz, " the prieflhood being clianged." I
was at length inclined to view the latter as his mean-
ing ; becaufe it feemed too trivial to tell the reuden
in that pompous way, " We may adopt tlie facr^d'
writer's principle of reafoning," when nothing mO'
was meant but imitation of phrafeology. For ih
fume reafon I thought he could not mean an imitatiou
of the apoftlc's method ; for that would be only
H 2
€^Q s ^n ;: M E 01 iii e c ont r o v e r s y
fayii^g, he ftnould lay down a datum as the apoftlc
lad done, and then draw an inference as the apoftle
did. All tliis is very well, and secundum artem ;
but then he might as well have told the render, that
he would p.dopt Ariflotle's principle of reafoning, as
the facred writer's. For if P^lir. B. only meant that
he v/ould lay down a datum or principle to begin
v/ith, and then proceed to infer, it can fignify nothing
to any man living, unlefs his datum be a true one.
And if this be all, he n^d not have introduced it
vvith fuch pomp as the *' facred writer's principle of
reafoning;'"' for what other would any perfon adopt,
unlefs he v/ere an ideot? Tliis, as well as the other,
being too trifling to be Mr. B.'s meaning, I there-
fore concluded he meant to adopt the apofl:le''s da^v
turn, viz. " The prieflhood bein^ changed," and
from thence to drav.' an inference againft infants. I
was the more inclined to think he intended this, fmce
he had juft cited the apcfde's words, and Dr. Ow-
en's expUnation of them ; and this being done, he
immediately proceeds to adopt,
< The apoille does indeed fay, ^' The prieflhood be-
ing changed, there is made of necefiity a change alfo
C'f the lav/." The prieRhood implied fervants of the
church to minif er in holy things j the law was a com-
mandment contained in ordinances, and was, as Dr.
Owen faid, a rule of worlhip and obedience to the
church. The prieRs who v^ere to minifter, and the
law, v»hich was to regulate, were both changed : the
law was chai'ged in confequetice of a change in the
prieflbood. Well, and what then? Why, accord-
ing to Mr. B. the argument will run thus : The priefts
were chang d, and the rule of vrorfhip was changed,
therefore ;he church was efientially altered, there-
fore infants were e^icludcd. Is not this a good in-
ference. The priei\s were chargedj therefore in-
fants were excommunicated ? It might have been fo,
if the priefls had all been infants; but even then it
would only have concluded againft infant prieits.
Kvery argument Mr. B. has brought againft tb<'
ON INFx\NT BAPTISM. 91
continuance of infant church-membeifliip is of the
fame kind — tithes, purifications, holy places, &c.
and of thefe the reader may take which he pleafes,
and infei accordingly. Tithes are abrogated, there-
fore infants are excluded. Purifications are fet afide,
therefore infants are £iut out. Holy places, &c. are
no more, therefore— hot fo fail — If Mr. B. is to
make good his conclufion againft the perpetuity of
infant memberfliip from that datum of the apoftle,
" The prie flood being changed," let him have th^
liberty of wording his own argument — I have no ob-
je6lion to this— let him proceed.
" The conftitution of the vifible church being ef-
fentially altered" — Stop— Pray, Sir, is tjiis the
apoflle's pi'inciple of reafoning ? Do you, by that
fenteuce, mean the fame as is exprefled by the
apoftle, " The priefthood being changed ?'' If you do,
I v/ill not contend for a word. Proceed — " The
conftitution of the vifible church [that is, the prieft-
hood] being effentiallj altered or changed, the law,
relating to qualifications for communion in it, [that
is, in the priefthood] muft of neceffity be changedi.
Confequently [becaufe the priefthood is changed] no
^•alid inference can'be dravv^n from the memberfhip
of infants [that is, in the priefthood] under the for-
mer difpenfation, to a fimilarity of external privi-
lege under the new covenant." Bene conclusum est
a dato scriptorls sacri! And an excellent argument
it is againft all thofe who mean to bring up their in-
fants to be Jewifli priefts.
Ah^ allqiih error latet ! Mr. B. did not mean to
conclude f o : He is difputing againft infant baptifm,
and not againft infant priefthood. Very well; but
then lie muft have a very different datum. He is
certainly at liberty to difpute and conclude as he
jileafes, only let him do it fairly. I certainly fup-
pofed he was reafoning from the facred writer's
piinciple— " The priefthood being changed ;" he
had juft quoted it, and fet Dr. Owen to explain it,
and fiid, '^ We. may adopt it:" But that principle,
92 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY
as to infants, only concludes againft an infant priell-
hood, which was not the thing he intended.
Priefls, we faid, were fervants to minifter to the
church in holy things ; and if fo, there is a wide
difference between the prieflhood being changed,
and the conftitution of the vifible church (namely,
the members who conftitute it) being effentially al-
tered. The fame may be faid of all the inftances ,
mentioned by Mr. B.; thefe might all be changed or
abrogated, and yet no effential alteration take place
in the church, that is, in the members of it. I am
very fufpicious that Mr. B. to make out a better con-
clufion, meant to pafs it upon the reader, that the
apoltle's exprefiicn, " the priesthood being changed^'''*
and that of his, " the constitution of the visible
church bei?ig essentially altered,^'' were of the fame
import, and conveyed precifely the fame idea. If
this v/as really his defign, it is not much to his ho-
nour ; it muft proceed from a greater iove to hypo-
thecs than to truth, or, as I rather think, it arofe
from that abfurd idea v/hich he feems to entertain —
that the prieflhood, rites, and ordinances, which
were given to the church, were eifentially the fame
with that church to which they were given. And it
is on this abfurd principle that his oppofition to the
continuance of infant memberfliip is carried on : he
tarns the prieflhood into a church, and every inftitute
into an infant, and then contemplates the change of
the one, anS. the removal of the other. In the
change cf prieflhood he fees nothing but an eiTential
change in the church, and fancies the removal of in-
flitutes to be the removal of infants. And now he
will adopt the principle of the facred vrriter :— The
prieflhood is changed, therefore the church is effen-
tially altered ; this inflitute is taken away, there
goes an in^nt; that inflitute is abrogated, there goes
another infant ; and now all the inflitutes are gone,
and now all the infants are gone ; and then, fays he,
" no valid inference can be drawn from the member-
fhip of infants under the former difpenfation, to a
ON INFANT BAPTISM. 93
limllarity of external privilege under tliQ new cove-
nant."— We M'ill now leave Mr. B. in poffeffion of
11 is abfurdity, and take notice of,
II. A very material error in point of chronology.
With refpecl to chronology, moft perfons know, that
from the time of Abraham to that of infiituting the
prielthood, the Mofaic rites, &c. we may reckon a-
boiit four hundred years. During this fpace of time,
tlie church, in which infants were members, was not
national ; it had no levitical prieflhood, there was no
inOitution of tithes, nor was the Mofaic code of rites
vet formed. All we know of the church is, that its
members coniifted of adults and infants, who were
initiated by the fame rite ; that facrifices were offered ;
and, it is probable, that the father of the family, or
(bnie refpt(51able perfons, did officiate in their affem-
blies as a prieft. Here is a congregational church, a
fimple worlliip, and fome creditable officiating prielt.
If we carr}' oiir views forward, we flTiall fee that
thurch, which at ftrfl was congregational, become a
national church ; the worfliip that was once fimple,
under the direction of the Mofaic code ; and inflead
of a prieft chofen by ttie pople, a regular prieflhood is
ordained of God. Now, whether we view the con-
gregational or national form, the fimple or complex
worihip, the irregular or regular prieflhood, we fee
no alteration in the coaflitution of the church, much
I'-fs an effential one, as it refpecled the members of
which it W:i3 compofed. If, therefore, the paffing
from congregational to national, from a fimple to a
tomplex worihip, from an irregular to a regular prieft-
liood, produced no effential alteration in the church
members, then fliould all this be reverfed, fliould
there be a change from national to congregational,
from a complex to a fimple worfliip, from a regular to
an irregular prieflhood? Every man in his fenfes
mufl fee th.U this can no more alter the effence of the
church, than the other did.
All this is plain enough to any man except Mr. B. ;
for, according to his mode of reafoning, there mufl
94- SCHEME OP THE COKTROVKRS"/*.
have been, from the begining, I know not how many
elTential alterations in the conftitution of the vifiljlc
church : For if, as he will have it, a change of priePt-
hood made one efiential change, then the inflitution
of the fame prieflhood muft have made another — fo
thsre were two changes. And, not to fay any thing of
the changes from Adam to Abraham, what became
o{ the effence of the church when the fan6lions of this
prieflhood, during the captivity, were fufpended?
For if the changing of prieflhood did eAentially alter
the church, the inflitution of prieflhood muft have
done the fame ; and then its fufnenfion during the
captivity, and its refloration at the clofe of it, muft
have made two more ; becaufe, according to Mr. B's.
view of things, a change of prieflhood eflfentially al-
ters the church. Such is the abfurd idea he enter-
tains concerning the church of the living God !
I obferve that Mr. B. in oppofing the continuance
of infant meniberOiip, takes care not to go too far
back ; the period of Mofaic rites fuits him befl, and
there he fixes: For this era, as he vainlj' fuppofes,
fur'iirties him with weapons which he does not fpar-
ingiy ufe, efpecially againfl a difienting miniiler.
Here he finds not only infant memberfliip, but a na-
tional church, a prieflhood, tithes, and inflitutes of va-
rious kinds. Novv, fays Mr. B. w len reafoning with
a (iiiTenting miniver (for we mud know that thefe
v/eapons of hi^s would be efleemed by a clergyman as
rotten wood ;) now, fays he, " If yor. will plead for
the continuance of infant memberfliip, which I grant
to haveexifted, you mull alfo admit a national church ;
you mufl call yourfelf a priefl, and wear holy gar-
ments, and turn your communion-table inta an altar,
and demand tithes, and call your meeting a holy
place." But why all this ? Becaufe, fays he, all thefe
things belonged to the fame difpenfation as infant'
memberfliip did ; and fo, if you take one^ you muft e-
ven take all, and then ;/ou will have a tolerable body
of Judaifm.
ON INT ANT 3APTISM. 9 J
Nov/, before we rob Mr. B. of this miferable
\vt£ipon, I would juft obfeive, that this argument of
his, which is the only one he has got, is v/hatis call-
eci argumentuni adhominem; and, though often ufcd,
it is one of the weakeft that can be adopted. It is
calculated to make an imprefiion onfomemen, whofe
fentiments may be of a peculiar cafl ; but if the fame
be turned againfl: others who are of a different fenti-
ment, it is of no force at all: — e. g, Mr. B.'s argu-
ment has the appearance of ftrength, if ufed againlt
a diiTenting minifter ; becaufe he may reje<5lthe idea
of a national church, prieflhood, the Tight of tithes,
&c. ; but if the fame be urged againft a clergyman
who adm.its thefe, all its force is gone— it is even
good for nothing. I'his argument derires all its
force from the fentiments of the perfon againft whom
it is ufed ; it may be very ftrong againft one man,
and very weak againft another ; it will ferve to fup-
port error as well as truth ; and therefore, when it is
a folitary argument, no dependence whatever can be
placed upon it. I do not mean to difcard the ufe of
it in all cafes— I grant it may anfvver a good purpofe,
if prudently managed ; but this 1 fay, it ihould never
be a man's only argument ; for that man's caufe muft
be miferably poor indeed, which depends on one fo-
litary argument, that will either protect truth or falfe-
hood. Juft fuch is the cafe of Mr. B. in oppofmg
the" continuance of infant memberfhip ; and I wifh
him to confider ferioufly, whether fuch kind of rca-
foning is fit to ftand againft a plan of God.
Now, weak as this argument is in itfelf, there is
one thing, in Mr. B.'s cafe, which makes it ftill
worfe ; he is indebted for the ufe of it to a very ca-
pital abfurdity. As he is not able to prove an eiTen-
tial alteration in the conftitution of the church, he
moft abfurdly fuppofes, or feems to fuppofe, that
members and religious inftitutes do belong to, and
equally conftitute the eflence of the ^hurch of God ;
for what elfe but fuch an abfurd idea could induce
him to affirm, that the church was effentially altered,
96 SCHEJIE OF THE CONTROVERSY".
and fo infants cut off, merely becaufe the inftitiucs
of the church were abrogated? Now, though this
argument of his is fo exceedingly weak, and the
principle on which it is built fo very abfurd, that no
one need be under any apprehcnfion, fliould it re-
main quietly in his poffefiion, I mean, notv/ithftand-
ing, to take the liberty of changing his place, and
fixing him in that ftation, where he ihall feel himfelf
totally deprived of its affiftance.
Mr. B. mull certainly know that the national form
of the church, the inftitution of priefthood, tithes,
and other Mofaic ordinances, were of a much later
date than infant chuch-memberfliip. I take the li-
berty, therefore, of changing Mr. B.'s ftanding, and
putting him as far back as the patriarchal age, the
times of Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob. And now
having placed Mr. B. among the patriarchs, I wifli
him to take a view of their ecclefuiftical affairs, and
t6 indulge me at the fame time with a little f^ree con-
'verfation on that fubje6t.
Now, Sir, what do you perceive in this age of the
church ? Here you fee the venerable patriarchs, obe-
dient to the divine order, admitting infants to
church-memberlhip. But on the other hand, you fee
here no national church, no inflituted priefthood, no
law of tithes, nor indeed any Mofaic rites. Your fa-
vourite argument againft the continuance of infant
memberlhip, derived from a national church, the le-
vitical priefthood, tithes, &c. is, by falling back about
the fpace of three hundred years, fairly and irrecove-
rably loft. You had formed fo clofe a conne6\ion be-
tween infant memberfliip, a national church, a prieft-
hood, tithes, and Mofaic rites ; as if they allrofe into
exiftence at the fanae time, and were all to expire to-
gether. But here they ftand entirely apart ; infant
memberftiip i* in no alliance with a national church,
is totally unconnected with le'vitical priefthood, and
has nothing at all to do wfth Mofaic inftitutes. The
clofe union you fancied exifted between thefe does
here vanifli away. And now, Sir, what will you do
ON INJANT BAPTISM. 97
^ith a diffenting minifter in this cafe ? Your argu-
meiitum ad homlnem^ the only argument you had, is
ioit. V
Loft, did I fay ? — Nay, now I think of it, it ivS
not loft neither. Oh no ! fo far from it, that I be-
lieve I can put you in a way whereby you may ma-
nage your matters to far greater advantage. For
though, by putting you back to the patriarchal age,
I deprive you of thofe topics v/ith which you have
been able to combat a diflentiiig mii\iilcr, viz. a na-
tional church, an inflituted priefthood, Mofaic rites,
&:c. ; yet all is not loft ; you will here find topics,
which, if managed with dexterity, will ma.ke no in-
conliderable impreiT.on on a clergyman. You ob-
ferve. Sir., that infant memberihip has nothing to
do with a national church, T>rieflbood, tithes, &c. ;
and then, lliould any clergyman rife to defend the
continuance oF ipfant memberihip, you may fay to
him. My good Sir, if you infift upon infant church-
memberihip now-, which I myfelf grant to have ex-
ifted in the times of Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob ;
pray obferve the confcquence; you muft relinquifli
the idea of a national church, you muft ceafe to call
yourfelf a prieft, you muft lay afide your holy gar-
ments, and finally, you muft give up all your tithes.
For, if you will be a patriarchal profefior in infant
memberihip, you muft be fo in every thing elfe. If
you will conform to the patriarchs in one particu-
lar ; in the name of conOftency and common hone'"-
ty, I afk, why are you not a conformift in ever,
particular ?
You fee, Xvir. B. thiit this is argumcnlinn ad ho-
rdlnem againft a clergyman with a v/itnefs, and will
rpake him feci according to its importance ; for^
certainly it vill bring him into as great a diilicultv
as your other argument of the fame kind brought
Dr. Williams. Vfeil, v^hVt h happy iiivenvion !
Here is an expedient, by 'â– 'â– â– '' -.ie to
98 -SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY
annoy either a clerical, or a non-con opponent. Be-
fore, when you fixed your flation among- the Mofaic
rites, you could only a6l with advantage againft a
no7i'Con ; but now, ifyou only flep back three hun-
dred years, you may employ your artillery as fuc-
cefsfCilly againft a clerical antagonift. And thus,
by flepping backward or forward, according to the
call of your adverfary, which is a thing eafiiy done,
you will have it in your power to urge fomething
againft all comers. This is one of the beft inven-
tions in the world for your caufe; for as you ftand
forth as a great difputant againft infant-memberfnip,
it is jSrobable you will meet with antagonifts of all
kinds. This expedient — like the two edges of a
fword, or the two horns of a dilemma — will enable
you to meet an adverfary at all points. Should you
attack a diifenting minifter, be fure you fix upon
Mofaic rites : but if a clergyman ftiould prove an
antagonift, you know your cue ; quit that ftation,
and fall back to the patriarchal age ; and fo, bv hu-
mouring the bufinefs, you will be a match for both.
Excufe my oihcioufnefs in fuggefting any thing, ef-
pecially to you, who are fo well verfed in all the
turns of difputation ; I onl)' do it, becaufe this
thought feemed to efcape you.
Candid Reader, I have now done with this part
of the fubjecSb, and have only to fay, that of all the
miferable oppofitions that were ever fet up againft
an ordinance of God, I mean infant memberlliip in
its perpetuity, I think there never was a more mif-
erable oppofition than this. The Baptifts grant in-
fant church-memberfliip to have exifted once. I
have affirmed diat it ftill exifts ; and this being pro-
red, the oppofition of a Baptift is at an end. I
have argued from five different topics, in proof of
the perpetuity of infant niemberlhip. Mr. B. who
denies this, urges againft it one foliiary argument ;
and that even the weakeft of all arguments, the ar-
ON INFANT BAPTISM. 9b
gumentum ad hominem ; an<;J this fame folitary, weak
argument, is founded on a grofs abfurdity ; and fi-
nally, by removing Mr. B. from the Mofaic rites
to the patriarchal age, this folitary, abfurd argu-
ment, vaniihes like a ghofl, and utterly forfakes
I7l
^-,?f?
APP]i,NDIX.
A^SEORT METHOD WITH THE BAPTISTS.
IT is a certain laCq that when any fentiment is
falie, it will appear the more glaringly lb, the
more it is examined, and the farther it is^ drawn
out. I have been very attentive to the tendency of
Mr. Booth's reafoning^ and have pledged myfelf
more than once to take fome notice of it. When a
writer does not wifa to be prolix in anfv.^ering a
large work, it is beft, if he t*:ink the work errone-
ous, to pitch upon fome prominent parts, in which
the fallacy of the author is faificienciy palpable to
run down and ruin his whole fyflem. I will adopt
this method with Mr. B.'s performance, wherein
he expreffes the fentiments, and purfues the rea-
fanliig of the Bciptilts in general. It is his fecond
edition of Psedobaptifm examined, to which my at-
tention will be chieSy dire6led, as that fubje6l: on
which I fiiail more directly animadvert, is not han-
dled in the anl\ver to Dr. Williams ; the I>t5(?.or, in
his piece, having urgt^d nothing upon it: And in-
deed it does not fignily which of Mr. JB.'s books is
quoted, fo far as 1 Ihail notice him.
The fentiment of the Baptilts, refpe(5ling a fit
fubje6l of the baptifmal ordinance, divides itfelf in-
to tv/o parts : They aiiirm that believing adults are
fit fubje6l5 of bi^ptifm ; — ihey deny that haptifm
fliould be adminiilered to infants. When fupport-
ing what they affirm, the fubje^l runs very imooth-
ly ; and no uiim that 1 know, except perhaps a
A SHORT METHOD, &C. 101
Quaker, will deny the conclufion. For my own
part, I am well perfuaded that a believing adult is
a fit fubjeafor baptifm, as ever I was iri my life ;
and I neither have, nor mean^to fay, one word a-
crainilit. This is the common fentiment of Bap.
tills and P^dobaptifts, and is not, as Mr. B. falfely
and boaftingly calls it, the Baptifts' fide. As tar,
therefore, as the proof of adult baptifm goes, it is
all very well, and exceedingly plain from Scrip^
ture, and is admitted, without difpute, by both
parties. , , r r'
But when the Baptifls are brought to anfwer lor
their negative part, viz. infants are not to be bap-
tifed, their difficulties inftantly commence, and the
mode thev adopt of conducing the debate, drives