by Pastor Peter Edwards
INFANT BAPTISM
CHAPTER I.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM.
ARGUMENT I.
A
person who has a right to a positive institution must be expressly mentioned as
having that right; but infants are not so mentioned, therefore they have not
that right.
As the whole force of this argument turns upon the words express and explicit, which Baptist writers commonly use, the reader, in order to form a just opinion upon the subject, should clearly understand their import. And since I shall often have occasion to use them, the reader will meet with an explanation of the term explicit in another place. At present it will be sufficient to say, that both these terms stand opposed to inference, analogy, and implication. And when the Baptists say there is no express command for infant baptism, they mean there is no command “in so many words,” as “thou shalt baptize infants,” or something equivalent. This being premised, I say of the argument, it is assuming, contracted, false. It is very assuming, because it seems to dictate to the ever-blessed God in what manner he ought to speak to his creatures. Since it is so where contained in his word, and he knows best how to communicate his mind to men, it little becomes such creatures as we are, to lay down rules by which he shall proceed. To such who thus assume, it may properly be said, “Who hath known the mind of the Lord” or who hath been his counselor? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
It is very contracted, because it supposes we cannot understand what God says, but when he speaks to us in one particular way. Certain it is that the most important things are set forth in Scripture, in many different ways; and we may come at the truth by an indirect, as certainly as by a direct expression: e.g. When the apostle says he was “caught up into the third heaven,” I certainly know, there is a first and a second, though I no where had read expressly of any such thing. But what is most material, I affirm that:
It is very false, because (to wave other instance, and fix on one only) a subject is admitted to a positive institution, and that admission is according to truth, and so held and practiced by all, who use Christian rites; when yet there is no express law or example to support it, in all the word of God. It is the case of women, to which I allude, and their admission to the Lord’s table.
I acknowledge it is right to admit them, and so do all, who use the Lord’s Supper, but as to express law or example, there is no such thing in Scirpture. If it be said, that women are fit subjects of baptism – that they are capable of religious advantages – that they have a right to church-membership, and therefore a right to the Lord’s Supper, I grant it – And then the argument is false; for if women are admitted because they are fit subjects of baptism, &c. they are admitted by something, which is not express law or example. But the argument I am opposing says, “A person who has a right to positive institutions, must be expressly mentioned as having that right.” Now, if women are not so mentioned with respect to the Supper, the practice of admitting them is wrong, or this argument is false. This argument indeed is false; the practice is by no means wrong. And to show the fallacy of the Baptist system at large, I will undertake, in the sequel, to prove that, upon the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right whatever to the Lord’s table.
“There is no express command or example for infant baptism!” This being a favourite argument with Baptists, and the case of women, in this respect, being the same as that of infants, they will not suffer and instance, so fatal to their system, to pass by without making an effort to overturn it. They know very well, I mean the thinking part, especially those who write, that they cannot maintain this argument against infants, without producing an explicit warrant for female communion. They therefore affirm, that the Scriptures afford such a warrant, and that it is found in 1 Cor. Xi. 28. “Let a man [Anthropos] examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, &c.” It is certainly here, or nowhere. I have known many who took this for an express word for women. I did so myself for some years, till Mr. Booth’s attempt to prove it convinced me of the contrary.
An express word, in the present case, must be one that specifies the sex; as Acts viii. 12, “they were baptized, both men and women.” [Andres kai gunaikes.] But I ask, is Anthropos an express word for a woman? Mr. Booth affirms it is. Take it in his own words, vol. ii. p. 73:
“In regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we reply by demanding, does not Paul, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper? Does not the term Anthropos, there used, often stand as a name of our species, without regard to sex? Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that passage? When the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not Anthropos, but Aneer.”
This is all about the word, except a quotation, which is not material.
The reader is desired to observe, that, as Mr. B. has undertaken to produce an explicit warrant for female communion, he can derive no help from analogy, or inference, or any thing of that kind. The words he brings for proof must contain their own unequivocal evidence, independent of every other consideration. If this be not the case, his explicit warrant is a mere fiction.
Now for the explicit warrant. Mr. B. says, “Does not Paul, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper?” True. “Does not the term Anthropos, there used, often stand as the name of our species, without regard to sex?” True again. Observe this, often stand! Not always. Does Mr. B. take this for an explicit warrant? What a demonstration! And how full to the point! But Mr. B. says it stands so in the text. How does he know it? Why he has two evidences of this; a lexicographer, i.e. a dictionary maker, and common sense. Common sense, he says, is the best of the two. However, I will take them together, and proceed to ask, How do they know that the term Anthropos stands in this text as a name of our species? They must know it either from the word itself, or from some other ground. That they cannot know it from the word itself, it evident by this singe consideration, that a boy, who reads his Greek Testament, may meet with the word a hundred times, where the female sex can by no means be intended; nay, he may find it used several times, though Mr. B. could not, to distinguish the male from the female. Where then is its explicitness? He says it is often used as a name of our species. And is not our English word “man” used in the same way? Would Mr. B. take that to be an explicit word for a woman? If the word “man” be often used for a name of our species, as well as Anthropos, then one is just as explicit a word for a woman as the other; and so Mr. B. might as well have fixed on the English word for an explicit one, ans the Greek. But had he done this, it would have ruined his book; and he has only escaped under the cover of a Greek term. If then, it cannot be known from the word itself, that females are intended, it matters not, in what other way we may know it, the Baptist argument is entirely ruined and lost.
But Mr. B. in the next sentence, will urge the matter further, and boldly affirm, that, “When the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not Anthropos, but Aneer.” I know not what Mr. B. expected to prove by this assertion; for if it were true, I see not how it is to help him in respect to his explicit warrant; but as it is false, it cannot help him in any form, except it be to make him more cautious in future. This assertion, if it proceeded from ignorance, is, in a reader and writer like Mr. B. far too bad; if it did not proceed from ignorance, it is far worse. I am willing to suppose the former, and acquit him of the latter.
Against this assertion of Mr. B. I will now place nineteen instances; in every one of which there is a distinction and opposition of the sexes, and the word for a man is not Aneer, but Anthropos. Some of these are in te Septuagint, and others in the New Testament. Gen. ii. 24, “Therefore shall a man [Anthropos] leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife,” Gen. xxvi. 11. “And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man [Anthropou] or his wife, shall surely be put to death.” Gen. xxxiv. 14. “And Simeon and Levi, the brethren of Dinah, said, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one [Anthropo] that is uncircumcised.” Deut. xx. 7, “And what man [Anthropos] is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her?” Deut. xvii. 5. “Then shalt thou bring forth that man, [Anthropon] or that woman.” Jer. xliv. 7. “Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls, to cut off from you man [Anthropon] and woman, child and suckling?” For other instances in the Septuagint, see Gen. ii. 18; Lev. xix. 20; Num. xxv. 8; Deut. xxi 15 – xxii. 30; Esther iv. 11.
Matt. xix. 10. “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man [Anthropou] be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” Matt. xix. 3. “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man [Anthropo] to put away his wife for every cause?” Mark x. 7. “For this cause shall a man [Anthropos] leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.” 1 Cor. vii. 1. “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man [Anthropo] not to touch a woman.” Matt. xix. 5. “For this cause shall a man [Anthropos] leave his father and mother, and vleave to his wife.” Rev. ix. 7,8. “And their faces were as the faces of men [Anthropon;] and they had hair as the hair of women.” Eph. v. 31. “For this cause shall a man [Anthropos] leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife.”
After I had collected some of these instances, which I have here set down, I mentioned the sentence of Mr. B. and likewise the instances which lay against it, to a Baptist minister, who happened to be at my house. He thereupon took the Greek Testament, and read those places to which I directed him. When he had done this, he was greatly surprised at the incautiousness of Mr. B., and at the same time, made the best apology for him, which the case would admit of. I then observed, that, had Mr. B. affirmed that Aneer was more commonly used to distinguish the sexes, than Anthropos, he would have been right. Yes, said he, but that would not have answered Mr. B.’s purpose. Which indeed was very true; for he, having all through his book insisted that infants should not be baptized, because there was no express warrant for it, was compelled, by his own reasoning, to bring forward and explicit warrant for female communion. And when he comes to prove that there is such a warrant in Scripture for female right to the Lord’s Supper, he first of all falls upon presumptive proof, “Does not the term Anthropos often stand as a name of our species?” As if he had said, If this word often stands as a name of our species, I presume it is possible it may so stand in this text. In the next place he falls upon inferential proof, and sets a lexicographer and common sense to infer (for they could do no other) that so it must mean in the text. And lastly, to make it still worse, he makes an evident mistake, when he says, that, when the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not Anthropos but Aneer. This is all Mr. B. is pleased to give the reader, instead of an explicit warrant – presumption, inference, and mistake; and if either he, or any of his readers, can satisfy themselves with such an explicit warrant as this, they can neither of them be esteemed very nice in this article.
But, to set Mr. B. and his explicit warrant in a clear point of light, the reader has only to contemplate those two facts which have just passed under his eye; namely, that Anthropos is often used as a name of our species, as Mr. B. affirms; and likewise that it is often used to distinguish one sex from the other. Now with these two facts in view [viz. Anthropos is often used as a name of our species, and often it is not so used,] if a question be started concerning its meaning in any text, let it be 1 Cor. xi. 28, the reader will see at once that it is no explicit word, because he will stand in need of a third thing, to determine in what sense it is used there; whereas, if the word were explicit, nothing else would be necessary to fix the sense. Now as the facts weigh on both sides, often against often, and as the reader wants a third thing to settle the import of the word in this text, I ask, what is this third thing? Lexicographers and common sense, says Mr. B. Nay, no ambiguity, sir, we are now talking of explicitness. Why did you not say, analogy and inference? Shocking! What! give up the cause at once! But what, I say again, is this third thing? Is Mr. B. afraid of telling? I wish, however, he would write again, and say in plain terms what it is. Is it what you speak of in the latter part of the defence, viz. “that women have the same pre-requisites as men, and that male and female are one in Christ?” Very good. – Proceed. – Therefore – I say, go on, do not be afraid, this wil bring you safe to your conclusion; for it is only analogy and inference. Inference and analogy! and upon a positive institution too! I cannot bear the terms; I would much rather call them lexicographers and common sense; for were I to call them inference and analogy, it would ruin my whole book. It is very true, Mr. B.; but at the same time, is it not better your book should be ruined by plain dealing, than that your reputation should seem to be stained by acting an artful part? But after all, here is a third thing wanting to settle the meaning of this ambiguous word. And what does it signify by what name we call this third thing? For whether we name it analogy, or inference, or lexicographer, or common sense (which two last are Mr. B.’s names, as he could not bear the others on a positive institution,) it comes still to the same thing; it shows that this is no explicit word for females, and consequently, as there is no other, this argument is ruined.
What I have now animadverted upon is all Mr. B. says, that can even pretend to evince an explicit warrant. But since the whole of it, upon his principles, is a curious a defence of female right to the Lord’s table as ever was presented to the public, I will pay him the compliment of surveying it, and taking it to pieces, in due time and place. In the mean time I do not blame Mr. B. for not being able to produce and explicit warrant for women; it is what no man is able to do; but I do blame him for using such reasoning as he has done, and then passing it upon the public under the colour of explicit proof.
It is a common opinion that Baptists and Paedobaptists do reason differently on positive institutions; that the former invariable insist upon express proof, while the latter admit the force of inferential reasoning. It is true they profess to reason differently, and they actually do sometimes; but then it is only according to the mood they may be in, and the matter they may have in hand. Let the matter of debate be a little varied, and they reason on positive institutions precisely in the same way.
I have taken the liberty in time past, to ask Paedobaptists why they baptized their infants? One has told me, that infants were circumcised, and therefore should now be baptized; inferring their baptism from circumcision. Antoher has told me, that our Lord took infants into him arms, and blessed them, and said they were of the kingdom of heaven; so inferring their baptism from the language and conduct of Christ. At hearing this, the Baptists smile, and think it very foolish reasoning.
I have also taken the liberty to ask Baptists, why they admitted women to the Lord’s table? One informed me that women were partakers of the grace of God; inferring their right to communicate from their grace. Another told me, that women had been baptized; and inferred their right to the supper from their baptism. A third gave me to understand, that women did eat of the paschal lamb, and from thence inferred their right to the Lord’s table. A fourth told me that women were creatures of God as well as men; and so inferred their right from their creation. These Baptists did all infer, and, as Mr. B. says of Paedobaptists, not feeling the ground on which they stood, they agreed in one conclusion, but did not agree in the premises from which it should be drawn.
It may perhaps be said, that these persons did not possess logical exactness; that they were not aware of the impropriety of demanding plain, express, unequivocal proof; and then, as it suited their convenience, flying directly to inference, implication, and analogy; and that too on a positive ordinance. I grant they were plain persons, and did not see the inconsistency of this conduct. Well, we will betake ourselves to men of skill, to those who are acquainted with logical precision; and then let us see how they act in this business. What think you of Mr. Booth, as a man of erudition and logical attainment? Does Mr. B., say you, employ inferential reasoning on a positive institution? Nothing in the world more certain. What! Mr. B.; he who has written so many hundred pages with a view to expose it? Yes, that identical Mr. B. to the reproach of all consistency, does, in that very work, when sad necessity compels, even deal in this same inferential reasoning. I will not evidence this now, since I have promised to notice his whole defence of women in a more proper place.
All I am concerned to do in this place, is to show that this argument of the Baptists is false. The argument is this: “A person who has a right to a positive institution, must be expressly mentioned as having that right; but infants are not so mentioned, &c.” That the argument if false, appears from these facts:
I. The scriptures do not countenance it. For as it is not proved by any part of the word of God, being neither set down in the words, nor yet in the sense of holy writ, and therefore a fiction, invented by men to support a particular opinion; so it stands directly against God’s holy word. And this is evident from hence; that though women are expressly said to have been baptized, they are never said to have received the Lord’s supper. The Scriptures, therefore, in plain opposition to this false argument, leave us to conclude their right to the Lord’s supper from their baptism, together with other grounds. Thus it has no support from Scripture.
II. The Baptists themselves do not countenance it; for though they have written whole books on the strength of it, they are compelled to desert it, and do desert it, the moment the subject is varied. For after they have vapoured ever so long, and ever so loud, about “no express law – no express warrant for infant baptism – infant baptism is no where mentioned in Scripture;” let any one put it upon them to prove the right of women to the supper, and I will answer for it he will hear no more of express law on that head. He will find that all this hollow sound which signifies nothing, will die away, and each will shift for himself the best way he can, and fly for aid to analogy and inference. Women, say they, may be gracious – Women were baptized – Women did eat of the paschal lamb – Women are creatures of God, as well as men and therefore – Therefore what? Why therefore they should receive the Lord’s supper. What now has become of their express law? It is deserted, completely deserted; nor will they adopt it again till infant baptism is resumed. The Baptists, therefore, do not countenance it.
III. Mr. Booth himself does not countenance it; I mean, not always countenance it. For though he has demanded explicit proof for infant baptism, and has contended that if such proof cannot be adduced, the baptism of infants must be wrong, yet, when he comes to produce and explicit warrant for female commuion, he is content, nay stop, I cannot say he is content, but he is compelled to fly to presuming, to implication, to analogy, to inference, to make out an explicit warrant! All this we engage to prove, and to make a proper use of it in the sequel. And I cannot help observing, that if female communion cannot be supported on the principle of this argument, how idle a thing it is to forge a rule to operate against infants only.
Finally, as this argument militates against female communion, as well as infant baptism, they must either both be wrong, or the argument itself must be false. That the argument is false, is sufficiently evident, as it not only has no support from Scripture, but lies directly against it; and from what I have observed, in many recent conversations, I do not suppose there is a single Baptist in the kingdom that will even dare to stick to it. For after they had urged this argument upon me, I have turned the question from infant baptism to female communion, and I do not recollect one, either minister or private person, but has, in little more than a quarter of an hour, entirely given up the argument. And if Mr. B. should think proper to take up his pen once more on this subject, I have not a doubt but I should be able to compel even him, as well as many of his brethren, to relinquish it as a false argument; and I hope he will take up his pen once again, and vindicate his defence of female communion.
I have been the longer on this argument, because as it is very frequently urged, so it contains precisely one half of the Baptist strength. This argument, therefore, being destroyed, just half their strength is gone. And if any one should be inclined to cry out, “There is no explicit example – there is no express law for infant baptism,” &c. any person has it in his power to quiet him almost in an instant, should he only ask him to produce his explicit law, for female communion. Thus much for this bad argument; and I pass to the other.
ARGUMENT II.
The
Scriptures require faith and repentance as requisite to baptism; but as infants
cannot have these, they are not proper subjects of baptism. Infants, say the Baptists, cannot believe,
cannot repent; and none should be baptized without faith, &c.
The most expeditious way of destroying this argument, would be this. They say the Scriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptism. I ask, Of whom? The answer must be, Of adults; for the Scriptures never require them of infants, in order to any thing. Then frame the argument thus: – The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in order to baptism; but as infants cannot have these, they are unfit subjects of that ordinance. Now it is a glaring sophism; with adults in one proposition, and infants in the other. Were I only to leave the argument thus, and say no more upon it, it would not be possible to save it from destruction; but since it is the only remaining half of the Baptist strength, I will examine it more at large.
In order to judge of the real worth of an argument, I lay down this rule: “Every argument that will prove against an evident truth; or, which is the same thing, every argument which will support a falsehood, is clearly a bad argument.” This rule is self-evident; for that must needs be false, which tends to prove a falsehood.
I will proceed by this rule, and attempt to show, I. That this argument is entirely fallactious. II. Point out wherein its fallacy consists.
1. On the circumcision of infants. That infants were circumcised, is a fact. That they were circumcised by the express command of God, is a proof of right. They were actually circumcised, and it was right they should be so. Therefore, that they were proper subjects of that institution, is an evident truth. Now on this truth I mean to try the argument, to see if it will prove for or against it.
Circumcision, as it was a solemn
entering into the
Now I ask, Did it agree to an infant to become a debtor? Did it agree to an infant to break or keep the law? Mr. Booth shall answer both. To the first he says, vol. ii. page 151, “Infants are not capable of contracting either with God or man; – that, to suppose any such thing, insults the understanding and feelings of mankind. For, as Bishop Sanderson observes, In personal obligations no man is bound without his own consent.” To the others he answers, “The minds of mere infants are not capable of comparing their own conduct with the rule of duty: they have, properly speaking, no conscience at all.” Infants therefore could not become debtors; they could not keep the law. Very well. Then it is clear there was something said of circumcision, which did no more agree to infants, than if it had been said, Repent, and be baptized.
In this respect, baptism and circumcision are upon a level; for there is something said concerning both, which will by no means agree to infants. Infants, on the one hand, can neither believe nor repent; and these are connected with baptism; and, on the other hand, infants cannot become debtors, they cannot keep the law; and because these are connected with circumcision, they must not be circumcised. And then it follows, that this argument, by proving against a known truth, appears a fallacious argument.
But it may be said, circumcision of
infants was commanded of God, and was therefore certainly right. To this I answer, that that is the very
principle on which I proceed, and it is that very thing which proves fatal to
this argument; for the circumcision of infants being an evident truth, and the
argument before us proving against it, it is a plain demonstration of its
absurdity and fallacy. Now if this
argument be such, that had it been used by a Jew in the
2. On the baptism of Jesus Christ. The baptism of Christ is a known fact; and that he was a fit subject, is an acknowledged truth. It is likewise certain, that, as he was no sinner, he could have no repentance; and since he needed no salvation from sin, he could not have the faith of God’s elect; that is, he could not have that faith which the Scriptures require for baptism.
Now the tendency of this argument being to prove, that those who cannot have faith and repentance are unfit subjects of baptism; and Scripture informing us that our Lord Jesus was baptized, who could have neither, the dilemma therefore will be this; either the baptism of Christ was wrong, or else this argument is false. It is impossible to suppose the first, that the baptism of Christ was wrong; we must therefore affirm the last, that this argument is false: because that argument must be false which proves against an evident truth.
Again, when it is said in the argument, that the Scriptures require faith and repentance, in order to baptism; I ask, Do they require them of all, or of some only? If it be said, they are required of all; then, as before noted, it proves against the baptism of Jesus Christ. If it be said, they require them of some only; then the argument has no force: for, in that case, it would run thus – Faith and repentance are required only of some, in order to baptism; and now the consequence will be, that some may be baptized without them. And nothing would remain then, but that it be determined, who should be baptized without faith, and who with.
View it which way we will, the argument is miserably bad. The Baptists, however, in this case, fly to its relief by saying, “that Jesus Christ, on account of the dignity of his person, was exempted from this rule.” How this will mend the matter, I see not; for now it is acknowledged to be a rule which will admit of exception. And then I have only to ask, How many exceptions does it admit, and what are they? Neither would it be better to say, that Christ was baptized, to set us an example. For then we should have an example of one, who, being incapable of faith and repentance, was baptized without them. And in this view, his example will weigh in favor of infant baptism. I will try it again:
3. On the salvation of infants. That infants may be the subjects of salvation is universally admitted; that those, who die in infancy, are actually glorified, is also granted; and yet there is something said concerning salvation, which will by no means agree to infants – “He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned,” &c.
What shall we say in this case? Why, the same as before. If infants must not be baptized, because something is said of baptism, which does not agree to infants; then, by the same rule, infants must not be saved, because something is said of salvation, which does not agree to infants. And then, the same consequence again follows, that this argument, by proving against an acknowledged truth, proves itself to be fallacious.
And now, since it falls in with my present design, and may serve to relieve and inform the reader, I will present him with two specimens of reasoning on the same text; one of which concludes against infant baptism, and the other for it. The reader may adopt that which pleases him best.
The first specimen shall be that of Mr. B. vol. ii. page 309, where he adopts the remark of Mr. Chambers: “What they [the German Baptists] chiefly supported their great doctrine on, was those words of our Saviour: ‘He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.’ As none but adults are capable of believing, they argued, ‘that no others are capable of baptism.’” If these had gone one step further, their argument would have been lost: e.g. As none but adults are capable of believing, none but adults are capable of being saved. This with the Baptists is a favourite text; and they argue upon it from the order of the words. If, say they, faith goes before baptism; then infants must not be baptized, because they have no faith.
The other is that of Dr. Walker, out of his Modest Plea, page 179. His words are these:
“If none must be baptized but he that believes, because believing is set first; then none must be saved but he that is baptized, because baptizing is set first. And then, what better argument can be made for infant baptism? They must be baptized if we will have them saved; because they cannot be saved without being baptized; for baptizing goes before saving. And yet from the same text, and by the same way of arguing, it may be proved, that no infants are saved, but those that believe; because believing is set before saving. And not only so, but whereas it is not said, he that believeth not shall not be baptized; it is said, he that believeth not shall be damned.”
The difference between the reasoning of these two, lies in this: The Baptists reason on a part of the text only, and the Doctor reasoned on the whole. And to show how miserably fallacious the reasoning of the Baptists is, I will lay down a plan of their logic on this text, which will produce more conclusions that there are principal words in that part of the verse. The place is Mark xvi. 16. “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” Now as the Baptists reason from the order of the words, I will mark them with figures, 1believeth – 2baptized – 3saved.
The logic is as follows: Take the first and second, believeth – baptized – and say with the Baptists –
1. None are to be baptized but such as believe, because believing must be before baptizing. – “1Believeth” – “2Baptized.”
This will conclude against infant baptism.
Next take the first and third – believeth – saved – and in the same way:
2. None are to be saved, but such as believe, because believing must be before saving. – “1Believeth” – “3Saved.”
This concludes against infant salvation.
Now take the second and third – baptized – saved – and argue in the same manner:
3. None are to be saved, but such as are baptized, because baptizing must go before saving. – “2Baptized.” – “3Saved.”
This will conclude on the side of infant baptism, they must be baptized,
or they cannot be saved. As Dr.
Lastly, take all three – believeth – baptized – saved – and say:
4. None are to be saved but such as believe and are baptized, because believing and baptizing must be before saving – “1Believeth” – “2Baptized.” – “3Saved.”
This concludes against the salvation of believers in Jesus Christ, if they have not been baptized. And so upon the principle of the Baptists, it concludes against the salvation of all Paedobaptists.
All these conclusions, arising from the same way of reasoning, may serve as a specimen to show the fallacious mode of arguing against infant baptism, adopted by the Baptists.
Let it be tried once more:
5. On the temporal subsistence of infants, As the reader may perceive the drift of the reasoning, on these instances, I will use but few words on the present one. Now that infants should be supported, not only Scripture, but nature itself teaches. And yet, if we form the Baptist argument, on a few places of Scripture, it may be proved, in opposition to Nature and Scripture both, that infants should actually be left to starve.
We have nothing to do but mention the texts, and apply their reasoning to them. Isaiah i. 19. “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.” 2 Thess. iii. 10. “If any would not work, neither should he eat.” Take the first, and say with the Baptist in another case: Willingness and obedience are required of those who are to eat of the good of the land; but since infants can neither will nor obey, they must not eat the good of the land. In the same way let the other be taken: He that will not work, neither shall he eat; infants cannot will to work, then infants must not eat.
This argument, in whatever way it is viewed, proves against the truth. Is it a truth, that infants should subsist? This argument proves against it. Is it a truth, that infants should be saved? This argument will prove to the contrary. Was Christ rightly baptized? According to this argument it could not be. Were infants proper subjects of circumcision? This argument will prove they were not. Then, if it invariably support a falsehood, we are compelled to say it is a false argument.
II. I will point out wherein this fallacy consists. As this argument, notwithstanding it is false, is used by the Baptists in general, both learned and unlearned, I will attempt to lay open its fallacy; and thereby put those persons upon their guard, who may be in danger of being seduced by it. The judicious reader may have observed, that I slightly hinted at the outset, wherein its fault consisted; but to make it yet more evident what that fault is, of which it is guilty, I will take the liberty of saying a few words more.
That particular rule, against which this argument offends, is this: “Non debet plus esse in conclusione quam erat in praemissis. Ratio manifesta est, quia conclusion educenda est ex praemissis.” That is, “There should not be more in the conclusion than was in the premises. The reason is plain, because the conclusion is to be drawn from the preminses.” We will try to make this plain, by examples of both of true and false reasoning.
1. In the Baptist way of reasoning. When the Scriptures say, “Repent and be baptized;” and, “If thou believest thou mayest,” &c. they address only sinful adults; and then, an argument formed upon them should reach no further than adults of the same description. But the Baptists form their fallacious argument on these passages, by bringing infants into the conclusion, who as they are not addressed, are not at all concerned in the premises. This will appear plain by three instances on the Baptist plan.
The Baptist argument runs thus: The Scriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptism; but infants have not faith and repentance: therefore they are not to be baptized. Now as the Scriptures require faith and repentance only of adults, we must place that word in the argument, and then it will stand in this form: The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to baptism; but infants cannot have these: therefore infants are not fit subjects of baptism. In the same way, we may form the two following instances, viz. The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to salvation; but infants cannot have these: therefore infants cannot be saved. Again, He [an adult] who will not work, neither should he eat; but an infant cannot will to work, therefore an infant should not eat. The reader may perceive, that by placing the word adults in one proposition, and infants in the other, (which makes it a sophism,) there are three things proved in the same way, viz. That infants cannot be saved—that infants should not eat—that infants should not be baptized. And so, for the same reason, that an infant cannot be saved, that an infant should not eat, it will follow, that an infant should not be baptized. For all these are equally true, and supported by the same reasoning. And it is in the same way, that this agument proves against the baptism of Christ, and the circumcision of infants. We will now view these three instances:
2. In the Paedobaptist way of reasoning. We will place the same word in each proposition, thus: The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to baptism; but some adults have no faith, no repentance; therefore some adults are not to be baptized. Again, The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to salvation; but some adults do not believe nor repent; therefore some adults will not be saved. Once more—He [an adult] who will not work, neither should he eat; but some adults will not work; therefore some adults should not eat. Now by placing the word adult in each proposition, without which it would be a sophistical argument, the reader may see, that as infants can have no place in either, there is nothing to forbid their support, their salvation, or their baptism. They only prove that an idle adult should not be supported; that an impenitent adult will not be saved; and, that he has no right at all to baptism.
Once more—As I have nothing in view, so much as truth, I have a great desire to make this matter plain to the meanest capacity. For if I am clearly understood in this part, my end on the present argument is attained; and what I have before advanced upon it will be, in a great measure, useless. The reader, therefore, is desired to observe, that the design of this argument is to conclude against the baptism of infants. Then, as infants are to be in the conclusion, they must also be in the premises; for the rule says, “there should not be more in the conclusion than was in the premises; because the conclusion is to be drawn from the premises.”
Now to make the argument of the Baptists consistent with itself, we must place infants in the premises as well as in the conclusion; and then the argument will stand thus: The Scriptures require faith and repentance of infants in order to baptism; but infants have not faith, &c.; therefore infants are not to be baptized. The reader may discern an agreement, in the parts of the argument, with each other; it has infants in each part, as well in the premises, as in the conclusion. But then, the fallacy of it is more strikingly evident than before: for the error, which before crept into the middle, does here stand in front; it is in this proposition, the Scriptures require faith and repentance of infants in order to baptism, which is not true; for infants are never required to repent or believe, in order either to baptism or salvation. Whereas before, when it was said the Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to baptism; but infants have not faith, &c., the error consisted in putting the word “infants,” who have no concern at all in the requirement.
By placing one thing in the premises, and another in the conclusion, which is done by the Baptists, in this argument, we may be able to evince any absurdity, however glaring. This being the manner of the Baptist argument, nothing more is necessary to take off its force against infants, but to make the premises and conclusion to correspond with each other. That is, while it continues to be a sophism, it proves against infants; but it ceases to prove against them, as soon as it is made a good argument. e.g. Faith and repentance are required of adults in order to baptism; but infants have not there: therefore infants are not to be baptized. This is nothing more than a pure sophism, and, as such, it concludes against infants; but all its force against infants is set aside by making it good, thus: Faith and repentance are required in adults in order to baptism; but some adults have not faith and repentance: therefore some adults are not to be baptized. The reader may see, that now it is a fair argument, all its force against infants is gone.
Having said thus much on the fallacy
of this argument, I shall only add one specimen of its mode of operation; and
that is a specimen, in which it will conclude two contrary ways, on one place
of
Now the Baptist argument, on the first member of this text, will operate thus: Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but infants could not keep the law: therefore their circumcision must be unprofitable, that is, is no circumcision, a mere nullity; and this reflects on the wisdom of God. But if we form the same 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 circumcision is made uncircumcision: But infants could not break the law; therefore their circumcision could not be made uncircumcision, i.e. a nullity. Such is this Baptist argument, that it will prove infant circumcision to be something or nothing, according to that part of the text on which it is formed; and it is therefore evidently no more than a sophism.
I have endeavored to make the reader see, not only that this argument is false, but wherein that fallacy consists. That it is false, appears in this, that in every instance it opposes a known truth; it opposes the circumcision of infants—the baptism of Jesus Christ—the salvation of infants—and, their temporal subsistence. The nature of the fallacy is the placing of adults in the premises, and infants in the conclusion; which any person, who has the least knowledge of the art of reasoning, must see instantly to be repugnant to the laws of truth. If the method I have taken to show wherein the fault consists, should not be familiar to any reader, it is possible he may not apprehend me; if so, I would advise him to read it repeatedly, and with serious attention; for I am not without hope, that even the most common capacity, with due attention, will clearly comprehend my meaning. On the other hand, I have no doubt, but many will readily enter into the method, and see what a fallacious argument is made use of to support an opinion, I am compelled to desert.
These two arguments being taken away, a Baptist has nothing left to place against infant baptism. I have not met with a single person, who, when desired to produce the strongest arguments against infants, could advance any thing more than what is contained in these two. While I thought it right to oppose the baptism of infants, I made use of them against it; but when they appeared, as they really are, very erroneous and bad, I gave them up; and from that time have never been able to preach a baptizing sermon. I saw that the whole strength of a Baptist was gone.
By the removal of these two arguments, thus much is gained; that whatever can be advanced, on the part of infants, will stand with undiminished force. For it will now avail nothing to say, with the first argument, there is no express law for infants baptism; nor will it be of any use to affirm, according to the second, that infants have no faith, no repentance; because the arguments themselves being fallacious, whatever may be urged from them, will be entirely devoid of force against infant baptism.
Having now finished what I intended on the arguments, on one side, I proceed to those on the other. I am well persuaded, that the Scriptures cannot favor both sides; and had the arguments against infant baptism been good, I am concinced that nothing in the word of God would have given it any countenance. But since the truth must be either for or against the baptism of infants, and the arguments against being futile, it is certain the truth must lie on the other side.
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.