CANDID REASONS

I shall now only make a few remarks on the scheme of the controversy, and so conclude this part of the subject.

1. At the top of the page, I have cited some passages of Scripture, which support the sentiment of both parties, what is, the propriety of baptizing an adult professing faith, &c. These, and such like Scriptures, which for want of room I have not set down, prove as much on one side as on the other; and, therefore, I have said they are common to both parties. My design in placing them at the head of the scheme, is to detect an error incident to Baptists in general; namely, a supposition that such texts prove only on their side, and against the sentiments of Paedobaptists. I have observed this error, in every Baptist with whom I have conversed, both before and since my present sentiments have been known. I once asked a worthy Baptist minister, what he thought were the strongest arguments against Paedobaptists? He immediately had recourse to such passages as are set down in the scheme. I told him, that these were so far from being the strongest, that they were no arguments at all against Paedobaptists; but rather proved on their side, in common with Baptists. My friend wondering at this, I observed, that Paedobaptists as well as Baptists held adult baptism; and as these passages only prove adult baptism, they prove nothing more than what is held by both. When I had made the matter sufficiently plain, our conversation on this subject ended. He, however, called on me the next day, and said, “I am really surprised at what you said yesterday, and could hardly sleep for thinking of it.”

The error I am guarding against, is that of claiming an exclusive right to those Scriptures, which do not exclusively belong to them. It is by means of this common error, that the Baptist cause is maintained; for it gives the appearance of strength, when in reality it has none. Mr. Booth shall come forward as an example, since he is as deeply tinctured with this error as any of his brethren. In vol. ii. p. 415, he says, “That Baptists have no need of subterfuge to evade the force of any argument formed upon it, [1 Cor. vii. 14,] is plain, I humbly conceive, from the preceding reflections. No, while they have both precept and example on their side,” &c.—Both precept and example on their side! This looks very formidable indeed: but let us examine the phrase. Pray, Mr. Booth, what do you mean by the Baptists’ side? Do you mean adult baptism? If you mean this, it is only passing a deception upon the reader; for you must know that Paedobaptists have no dispute with you upon that subject. You certainly know that they both hold and practice adult baptism as well as you, and that what you call your side is no more yours than it is theirs. But do you mean the denial of infant baptism? This you should mean, when you distinguish your side from theirs; for herein is, that you and Paedobaptists take different sides, seeing they affirm, and you deny, that infants are fit subjects of baptism. If so, then you affirm that Baptists have both precept and example for the denial of infant baptism, which is indeed properly your side. No, sir, very far from it; you have neither precept nor example, on your side, in all the word of God. You have nothing in the world on your side, as you are pleased to call it, but two poor sophisms, i.e. a pair of bad, very bad arguments, which I have placed together in one column.

But the truth is, when you speak in so lofty a tone of the Baptists’ side, as having both precept and example, you only mean that adult baptism has these. Pray, sir, do you and Paedobaptists take opposite sides on the article of adult baptism? If no, why is it your side so peculiarly? You have said in this quotation, that the Baptists have no need of subterfuge. God sir, what is a subterfuge? Is it an evasion—a deception? Why do you call that your side exclusively, which is no more your side than it is the side of the Paedobaptists? Was it because your own real side, the denial of infant baptism, was weak? And did you wish by a dexterous shift, to make it pass for strong? Pray, Mr. Booth, is not this a subterfuge? It is very extraordinary that you should fly to a subterfuge, and in that very place too, where you say the Baptists do not need any. And whereas most disputants make use of subterfuges only when they actually need them, it is extraordinary that you should make use of a subterfuge, when, as you yourself say, there is in reality no need of any such thing.

By this the reader may perceive how necessary it is to keep these things clear in his own mind, if he wishes to form a judgment on this subject according to truth; for though the Baptist side has in reality no strength at all, yet it acquires the appearance of it from the misrepresentation which I have endeavoured to expose. I have, therefore, been the more desirous of placing this matter in a fair light, because, though frequently called to speak on the subject, I was not for some years aware of the deception. Let the reader keep in view those Scriptures at the top of the scheme, which weigh equally on both sides, while I pass to the two columns, where the arguments of both are placed in opposition to each other; and by comparing these, we shall see which is the stronger, and, therefore, which is the true side of the question.

2. If the reader will turn to the scheme, he will see, on the left column, what is the real strength of the Baptist side, and what arguments they produce against the baptism of infants. I have there set down two arguments which are urged by Baptists: the one taken from a want of express precept or example to baptize infants; the other from their want of capacity to believe and repent, &c. These two are the only arguments they can produce; and if they are not good, they have nothing good to urge. With respect to the first, that there is no express command or example for baptizing infants, the same is true respecting female communion; and so this argument, if it were good, would have a double effect: it would exclude infants from baptism, and females from the Lord’s supper. And then the Baptists would be right in refusing to baptize infants; but, at the same 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 express law or example for their admission, then the argument is good for nothing. I shall say more upon this, when I come to examine Mr. Booth’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 sophism. I have discovered its fallacy by applying it to different cases; and in the same way that it proved against infant baptism, it would have proved against infant circumcision—against the baptism of Christ—against the temporal subsistence of infants—and, lastly, against their eternal salvation. I have likewise shown wherein its fallacy consisted, viz. in bringing more into the conclusion than was in the premises: all this the reader may observe by recurring to the place where it is examined. The consequence is that the Baptists have nothing to place against infant baptism, but two unsound, sophistical, deceitful arguments. This is the sum total of the Baptist side; but if any Baptist think he is able either to maintain these two arguments, or to produce any thing better, I seriously invite him to the task.

1. On the opposite column I have placed the arguments for infant baptism. Their order is the most simple, and the whole consists of three parts: 1. That God formed a church on earth, and constituted infants members of that church:—2. That the membership of infants, from that time to this, has never been set aside by any order of God; consequently it still remains:—3. That as infants have a divine right to membership, they must be received as members; and as they must not be received without being baptized, they must be baptized in order to be received.

These are the arguments in one column, which are to be compared with those two on the Baptist side in the other; and by comparing them together, the reader may see on which side the evidence preponderates, and consequently on which side the truth actually lies. There are three parts on the right column, which link into each other, and form a strong chain of evidence, to be placed in opposition to two false sophistical arguments, which constitute the whole force on the Baptist side; that is, there is something to be placed against nothing—substantial evidence against a pair of sophisms: and this is to be done, that the reader may see which has the stronger side, and which the true. As far as concerns myself, I only say, I have, after many supplications for the best teaching, examined, compared, and decided, and am well satisfied with the decision: the reader, if he be a man fearing God, will go and do likewise. So much for the comparison; a few words on the evidence, by itself, will finish this part of the business.

The nature of this proof, on the side of infants, is such, that Baptists can only attack it in one part. If I affirm, as in the first part, that God did constitute infants members of his church, the Baptists 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 baptized, they are compelled to grant that too. So there remains but one point on which a Baptist can form an attack, and that is the second part, wherein I say, that the church-membership of infants having been once an institution of God, was never set aside either by God immediately, or by any man acting under the authority of God. This is the point then that decides the question. I will spend a few words in vindicating this turning point against the argumentum ad hominem made use of by Mr. Booth.

In support of this I have argued from five topics: God’s method of acting in bringing the Gentiles into a church state; there never was a law of God to set their membership aside; the Jews, in Christ’s time, had no apprehension of any such thing; Christ spoke of infants as actually belonging to the church, and his apostle placed them in the same relation to baptism as they had been in to circumcision; and Paul, in conformity to this scheme, baptized families, particularly the jailer, and all his, straightway. Each of these is already set forth, and evinced in its proper place.

But what do the Baptists place against this evidence? Mr. Booth, in answering Dr. Williams on this subject, does neither produce one Scripture to prove that the church-membership of infants, which he grants to have existed once, was ever set aside; nor does he answer those Scriptures which the Doctor had alleged to evince the continuance of their membership. What then does Mr. Booth do? Whoever will be at the pains to read his books, will find his mode of reasoning to be of this kind. He instances a variety of things belonging to the Jewish church, such as its being national—its priesthood—its tithes—it various purifications—its holy places, holy garments, &c.; and then argues most erroneously, that as these things are done away, the membership of infants must be done away too. This, I say, is the mode of his arguing, and indeed the only argument he brings, as may be seen by any one who reads his works with care. Now this reasoning of his involves a very egregious absurdity, and a very material error in point of chronology.

I. A very egregious absurdity. Mr. Booth seems to consider the various rites, &c. of the Jewish church as being so incorporated and interwoven with the members of that church, that the rites and they become essentially the same; and then, if the rites be taken away, he fancies that the very essence of the church is so destroyed or altered, that infant membership is gone of course. Let any one weigh Mr. Booth’s reasoning in vol. ii. p. 37, and understand him on any other than this absurd principle if he can.

“An apostle,” says he, “has taught us, that the ancient priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also in the law. That is, as Dr. Owen explains it, the whole law of commandments contained in ordinances, of the whole law of Moses, so far as it was a rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is, that followeth the fates of the priesthood.”

Very well. That law was changed, which was a rule of worship and obedience to the church; but what has this to do with changing the church? Is a church changed, because the rule, which directed its worship, is changed? I wonder much why Dr. Owen is here introduced, unless it be to pass off an absurdity under the sanction of a great name; as nothing can be more contrary to what Mr. Booth is going to say, than this quotation from the Doctor.

Now see Mr. Booth’s curious reasoning.

“We may therefore adopt the sacred writer’s principle of reasoning, and say, the constitution of the visible church being manifestly and essentially altered, the law, relating to qualifications for communion in it, must of necessity be changed. Consequently, no valid inference can be drawn from the membership of infants, under the former dispensation, to a similarity of external privilege under the new covenant.”

Now in what way could the constitution of the church be essentially altered by a change in the law of ordinances, unless upon that absurd idea, that the ordinances and members were so compounded and incorporated with each other, as to form, in this incorporated state, the very essence of the church?

One thing we may remark in this quotation, which is, that Mr. Booth grants infants to have been church members under the former dispensation. This is granting my first argument for infant baptism; there is only one more to be maintained, viz. That the membership of infants has never been annulled; and this being evinced, the opposition of a Baptist is at an end, since he cannot by any means deny the conclusion. And now the whole debate is brought into this narrow limit—Has the church membership of infants at any time been set aside, or has it not? I have advanced five arguments to prove it never has been set aside. Mr. Booth says it has. If you ask him to prove it, he tells you, “the constitution of the visible church is manifestly and essentially altered.” If you ask him how he proves this essential alteration? He tells you, that tithes, and purifications, and priesthood, and other things of this kind belonging to the Mosaic code, are changed or taken away; and then most absurdly infers, that infant membership is taken away too: as if a member of a church and a Mosaic rite had been the same; as if infant membership, which was long before Moses, had been nothing more than a Mosaic rite. But let us observe how grandly he reasons down infant membership.

“We may therefore,” says he, “adopt the sacred writer’s principle of reasoning, and say.”—I have been at some pains to inform myself respecting this sentence—whether Mr. Booth meant to imitate the apostle’s phraseology, or to reason after the same method, or to reason from the apostle’s datum or principles, viz. “the priesthood being changed.” I was at length inclined to view the latter as his meaning; because it seemed too trivial to tell the reader in that pompous way, “We may adopt the sacred writer’s principle of reasoning,” when nothing more was meant but imitation of phraseology. For the same reason I thought he could not mean an imitation of the apostle’s method; for that would be only saying, he should lay down a datum as the apostle had done, and then draw an inference as the apostle did. All this is very well, and secundum artem; but then he might as well have told the reader, that he would adopt Aristotle’s principle of reasoning, as the sacred writer’s. For if Mr. Booth only meant that he would lay down a datum or principle to begin with, and then proceed to infer, it can signify nothing to any man living, unless his datum be a true one. And if this be all, he need not have introduced it with such pomp as the “sacred writer’s principle of reasoning;” for what other would any person adopt, unless he were an idiot? This, as well as the other, being too trifling to be Mr. Booth’s meaning, I therefore concluded he meant to adopt the apostle’s datum, viz. “The priesthood being changed,” and from thence to draw an inference against infants. I was the more inclined to think he intended this, since he had just cited the apostle’s words, and Dr. Owen’s explanation of them; and this being done, he immediately proceeds to adopt.

The apostle does indeed say, “The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” The priesthood implied servants of the church to minister in holy things; the law was a commandment contained in ordinances, and was, as Dr. Owen said, a rule of worship and obedience to the church. The priests who were to minister, and the law, which was to regulate, were both changed: the law was changed in consequence of a change in the priesthood. Well, and what then? Why, according to Mr. Booth the argument will run thus: the priests were changed, and the role of worship was changed, therefore the church was essentially altered, therefore infants were excluded. Is not this a good inference, The priests were changed, therefore infants were excommunicated? It might have been so, if the priests had all been infants; but even then it would only have concluded against infant priests. Every argument Mr. Booth has brought against the continuance of infant church-membership is of the same kind—tithes, purifications, holy places, &c. and of these the reader may take which he pleases, and infer accordingly. Tithes are abrogated, therefore infants are excluded. Purifications are set aside, therefore infants are shut out. Holy places, &c. are no more, therefore—not so fast—If Mr. Booth is to make good his conclusion against the perpetuity of infant membership from that datum of the apostle, “the priesthood being changed,” let him have the liberty of wording his own argument—I have no objection to this—let him proceed.

“The constitution of the visible church being essentially altered”—Stop—pray, sir, is this the apostle’s principle of reasoning? Do you, by that sentence, mean the same as is expressed by the apostle, “The priesthood being changed?” If you do, I will not contend for a word.—Proceed—“The constitution of the visible church [that is, the priesthood] being essentially altered or changed, the law, relating to qualifications for communion in it, [that is, in the priesthood] must of necessity be changed; consequently [because the priesthood is changed] no valid inference can be drawn from the membership of infants [that is, in the priesthood] under the former dispensation, to a similarity of external privilege under the new covenant.” Bene conclusum est a dato scriptoris sacri! And an excellent argument it is against all those who mean to bring up their infants to be Jewish priests.

Ah, aliquis error latet! Mr. Booth did not mean to conclude so: he is disputing against infant baptism, and not against infant priesthood. Very well; but then he must have a very different datum. He is certainly at liberty to dispute and conclude as he pleases, only let him do it fairly. I certainly supposed he was reasoning from the sacred writer’s principle—“The priesthood being changed;” he had just quoted it, and set Dr. Owen to explain it, and said, “We may adopt it:” But that principle, as to infants, only concludes against an infant priesthood, which was not the thing he intended.

Priests, we said, were servants to minister to the church in holy things; and if so, there is a wide difference between the priesthood being changed, and the constitution of the visible church (namely, the members who constitute it) being essentially altered. The same may be said of all the instances mentioned by Mr. Booth; these might all be changed or abrogated, and yet no essential alteration take place in the church, that is, in the members of it. I am very suspicious that Mr. Booth to make out a better conclusion, meant to pass it upon the reader, that the apostle’s expression, “the priesthood being changed,” and that of his, “the constitution of the visible church being essentially altered,” were of the same import, and conveyed precisely the same idea. If this was really his design, it is not much to his honour; it must proceed from a greater love to hypothesis than to truth, or, as I rather think, it arose from that absurd idea which he seems to entertain—that the priesthood, rites, and ordinances, which were given to the church, were essentially the same with that church to which they were given. And it is on this absurd principle that his opposition to the continuance of infant membership is carried on: he turns the priesthood into a church, and every institution into an infant, and then contemplates the change of the one, and the removal of the other. In the change of priesthood he sees nothing but an essential change in the church, and fancies the removal of institutions to be the removal of infants. And now he will adopt the principle of the sacred writer:—the priesthood is changed, therefore the church is essentially altered; this institution is taken away, there goes an infant; that institution is abrogated, there goes another infant; and now all the institutions are gone, and now all the infants are gone; and then, says he, “no valid inference can be drawn from the membership of infants under the former dispensation, to a similarity of external privilege under the new covenant.”—We will now leave Mr. Booth in possession of his absurdity, and take notice of:

II. A very material error in point of chronology. With respect to chronology, most persons know, that from the time of Abraham to that of instituting the priesthood, the Mosaic rites, &c. we may reckon about four hundred years. During this space of time, the church, in which infants were members, was not national; it had no levitical priesthood, there was no institution of tithes, nor was the Mosaic code of rites yet formed. All we know of the church is, that its members consisted of adults and infants, who were initiated by the same rite; that sacrifices were offered; and, it is probable, that the father of the family, or some respectable person, did officiate in their assemblies as a priest. Here is a congregational church, a simple worship, and some creditable officiating priest.

If we carry our views forward, we shall see that church, which at first was congregational, became a national church; the worship that was once simple, under the direction of the Mosaic code; and instead of a priest chosen by the people, a regular priesthood is ordained of God. Now, whether we view the congregational or the national form, the simple or complex worship, the irregular or regular priesthood, we see no alteration in the constitution of the church, much less an essential one, as it respected the members of which it was composed. If, therefore, the passing from congregational to national, from a simple to a complex worship, from an irregular to a regular priesthood, produced no essential alteration in the church members, then should all this be reversed, should there be a change from national to congregational, from a complex to a simple worship, from a regular to an irregular priesthood, every man in his senses must see that this can no more alter the essence of the church, than the other did.

All this is plain enough to any man except Mr. Booth; for, according to his mode of reasoning, there must have been, from the beginning, I know not how many essential alterations in the constitution of the visible church: for if, as he will have it, a change of priesthood made one essential change, then the institution of the same priesthood must have made another—so there were two changes. And, not to say any thing of the changes from Adam to Abraham, what became of the essence of the church when the functions of this priesthood, during the captivity, were suspended? For if the changing of priesthood did essentially alter the church, the institution of priesthood must have done the same; and then its suspension during the captivity, and its restoration at the close of it, must have made two more; because, according to Mr. Booth’s view of things, a change of priesthood essentially alters the church.

I observe that Mr. Booth in opposing the continuance of infant membership, takes care not to go too far back; the period of Mosaic rites suits him best, and there he fixed; for this era, as he supposes, furnishes him with weapons which he does not sparingly use, especially against a dissenting minister. Here he finds not only infant membership, but a national church, a priesthood, tithes, and institutions of various kinds. Now, says Mr. Booth when reasoning with a dissenting minister,

“If you will plead for the continuance of infant membership, which I grant to have existed, you must also admit to a national church; you must call yourself a priest, and wear holy garments, and turn your communion-table into an altar, and demand tithes, and call your meeting a holy place.”

But why all this? Because, says he, all these things belonged to the same dispensation as infant membership did; and so, if you take one, you must even take all, and then you will have a tolerable body of Judaism.

Now, before we rob Mr. Booth of this miserable weapon, I would just observe, that this argument of his, which is the only one he has got, is what is called argumentum ad hominem; and, though often used, it is one of the weakest that can be adopted. It is calculated to make an impression on some men, whose sentiments may be of a peculiar cast; but if the same be turned against others who are of a different sentiment, it is of no force at all:—e.g. Mr. Booth’s argument has the appearance of strength, if used against a dissenting minister; because he may reject the idea of a national church, priesthood, the right of tithes, &c.; but if the same be urged against a clergyman of the establishment who admits these, all its force is gone—it is even good for nothing. This argument derives all its force from the sentiments of the person against whom it is used; it may be very strong against one man, and very weak against another; it will serve to support error as well as truth; and, therefore, when it is a solitary argument, no dependence whatever can be placed upon it. I do not mean to discard the use of it in all cases—I grant it may answer a good purpose, if prudently managed; but this I say, it should never be a man’s only argument; for that man’s cause must be miserably poor indeed, which depends on one solitary argument, that will either protect truth or falsehood. Just such is the case of Mr. Booth in opposing the continuance of infant membership; and I wish him to consider seriously, whether such kind of reasoning is fit to stand against a plan of God.

Now, weak as this argument is in itself, there is one thing in Mr. Booth’s case, which makes it still worse; he is indebted for the use of it to a very capital absurdity. As he is not able to prove an essential alteration in the constitution of the church, he supposes, or seems to suppose, that members and religious institutions do belong to, and equally constitute the essence of the church of God; for what else but such an absurd idea could induce him to affirm, that the church was essentially altered, and so infants cut off merely because the institutions of the church were abrogated? Now, though this argument of his is so exceedingly weak, and the principle on which it is built so very absurd, that no one need be under any apprehension, should it remain quietly in his possession, I mean, notwithstanding, to take the liberty of changing his place, and fixing him in that station, where he shall feel himself totally deprived of its assistance.

Mr. Booth must certainly know that the national form of the church, the institution of priesthood, tithes, and other Mosaic ordinances, were of a much later date than infant church-membership. I take the liberty, therefore, of changing Mr. Booth’s standing, and putting him as far back as the patriarchal age, the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And now having placed Mr. Booth among the patriarchs, I wish him to take a view of their ecclesiastical affairs, and to indulge me at the same time with a little free conversation on that subject.

Now, sir, what do you perceive in this age of the church? Here you see the venerable patriarchs, obedient to the divine order, admitting infants to church-membership. But on the other hand, you see here no national church, no instituted priesthood, no law of tithes, nor indeed any Mosaic rites. Your favourite argument against the continuance of infant membership, derived from a national church, the levitical priesthood, tithes, &c. is, by falling back about the space of three hundred years, fairly and irrecoverably lost. You had formed so close a connection between infant membership, a national church, a priesthood, tithes, and Mosaic rites; as if they all rose into existence at the same time, and were all to expire together. But here they stand entirely apart; infant membership is in no alliance with a national church, is totally unconnected with levitical priesthood, and has nothing at all to do with Mosaic institutions. The close union you fancied existed between these does here vanish away. And now, sir, what will you do with a dissenting minister in this case? Your argumentum ad hominem, the only argument you had, is lost.

Lost, did I say?—Nay, now I think of it, it is not lost neither. Oh no! so far from it, that I believe I can put you in a way whereby you may manage your matters to far greater advantage. For though, by putting you back to the patriarchal age, I deprive you of those topics with which you have been able to combat a dissenting minister, viz. a national church, an instituted priesthood, Mosaic rites, &c.; yet all is not lost: you will here find topics, which, if managed with dexterity, will make no inconsiderable impression on a clergyman of the establishment. You observe sir, that infant membership has nothing to do with a national church, priesthood, tithes, &c.; and then, should any clergyman of the establishment rise to defend the continuance of infant membership, you may say to him, My good sir, if you insist upon infant church membership now, which I myself grant to have existed in the times of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; pray observe the consequence; you must relinquish the idea of a national church, you must cease to call yourself a priest, you must lay aside your holy garments, and finally, you must give up all your tithes. For, if you will be a patriarchal professor in infant membership, you must be so in every thing else. If you will conform to the patriarchs in one particular; in the name of consistency and common honesty, I ask, why are you not a conformist in every particular?

You see, Mr. Booth, that this is argumentum ad hominem against a clergyman of the establishment with a witness, and will make him feel according to its importance; for certainly it will bring him into as great a difficulty as your other argument of the same kind brought Dr. Williams. Well, what a happy invention! Here is an expedient, by which you will be able to annoy on either hand. Before, when you fixed your station among the Mosaic rites, you could only act with advantage against a non-conformist; but now, if you only step back three hundred years, you may employ your artillery as successfully against an antagonist in the establishment. And thus by stepping backward and forward, according to the cast of your adversary, which is a thing easily done, you will have it in your power to urge something against all comers. This is one of the best inventions in the world for your cause; for as you stand forth as a great disputant against infant membership, it is probable you will meet with antagonists of all kinds. This expedient—like the two edges of a sword, or the two horns of a dilemma—will enable you to meet an adversary at all points. Should you attack a dissenting minister, be sure you fix upon Mosaic rites; but if a clergyman of the establishment should prove an antagonist, you know your cue; quit that station, and fall back to the patriarchal age; and so, by humouring the business, you will be a match for both. Excuse my officiousness in suggesting any thing, especially to you, who are so well versed in all the terms of disputation; I only do it, because this thought seemed to escape you.

Candid reader, I have now done with this part of the subject, and have only to say, that of all the miserable oppositions that were ever set up against an ordinance of God, I mean infant membership in its perpetuity, I think there never was a more miserable opposition than this. The Baptists grant infant church-membership to have existed once. I have affirmed that it still exists; and this being proved, the opposition of a Baptist is at an end. I have argued from five different topics, in proof of the perpetuity of infant membership. Mr. Booth who denies this, urges against it one solitary argument; and that even the weakest of all arguments, the argumentum ad hominem; and this same solitary, weak argument, is founded on a gross absurdity; and finally, by removing Mr. Booth from the Mosaic rites to the patriarchal age, this solitary, absurd argument, vanishes like a ghost, and utterly forsakes him.

NEXT CHAPTER

Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.

Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.

previous chapter

IV. A Scheme of the Controversy on Infant Baptism