them into'fuch extremities, as ruin the caufe they
mean to carry, e. g. Is an infant to be baptiied t
No, fays a Baptift. Why ? Becaufe baptiim, lays
he, being a polkive ordinance, no one can be deem-
ed'a proper fubjea of it, but by virtue of fome plain,
exprefs command of God. this idea of exprefs
command, they raife fo exceOively high, that, lure
enough, they have done the bufmefs ot infants in
cutting them off from baptifm ; but, at the iame
time, and by the fame procefs, a breach is mac^e in
female communion, and women are cut off from the
Lord's table. This is the firff thing that rifcs out
of their fyltem, and which will co-operate with o-
thers to ruin it. I undertake to prove, that, ac-
aording to the principles and reafonings of the Bap-
tifts, a woman, however qualified, can have no right
at all to the Lord's Supper.
Again, the Baptifts, in order to patch their fy f-
tetn, - and give it the appearance o*f confiftcncy,. ar«
under the neceffity of maintaining the right of fe-
males to the Lord's table, upon the fn.re principle
on which they oppofe inlant baptifm ; but whei-i they
i^t about this, they make a ihift to loie their priuci-
12
102 A SHORT METHOD
pie, are trjinhformed into Pasdobaptilts, rcafon l^y
analvjgy and initrcnce, and fall into prevarication
and fclf-contradiclion, the molt miicrable. /rhis is
the fecond thing. I, therefore, undert ike to fliow,
that the Baptiils, in proving agajnft infants, and in
defending female communion, do fhift tlieirground,
contradict themfeives, and prevaricate molt piti-
fully. '
Further, when an argument is urged againft ^he
Baptifts i?om the memberfliip of infants in the an-
cient church, and their being, all infants as they
were, the fubjecls of a religious rite, the Baptifts
do not deny th^ facl of their memberfliip ^ hut, in
order to evade the confequence, they lay violent
ha»ds on the church, the memberfliip, and the in-
ftituted religious rite, and in this way they endea-
vour to effe{!;l their efcape. This is the third thing.
I, therefore, undertake to prove, rhat, according to
their principles and reafonings, the ever-bleffed
God had no church in the world for at leaft: fifteen
hundred yc'jrs.
There is another thing I thought of introducing
againft the Baptifts in this way ; but as I know not
how they will anfwer it, (fmce P/Ir. B. has faid no-
thing about it, though it was in a work which he
himfelf has noticed) I intend now to put it in ano-
ther part, in the form of a query, which I fhall fub-
mit to anv B?.ptift who may think proper to write
on the fubjcci.
Here are, ih^refore, three things that arife out of
the Baptift fv (lem, and which, if ialriy evinced, are
fufficient to ruin that fyftem out of which they arife :
1. That, according to the principles and rcafon-
ing of the Bapiills, a v/ou.an, however qualified,
can have no right at all to the Lord's table.
2. That the Baptifts^ in oppofing infant baptifm,
and defending fen^.ale communion, do fliift their
ground, contradi;;! themfeives, and prevaricate moft:
pitifully.
WITH THE BAPTISTS. 103
3. That, according to their principles and mode
of reafoiiing, God had no church in this world lor
at leail fifteen hundred years.
Theie things 1 undertake to make out from the
works of that venerable champion on the Baptifc
fide, the Rev. Mr. Abraham Booth.
I will begin with the fiift of thefe, viz. That, ac-
cording to ihe principles, h^^. of the Baptills, no wo-
man, however qualified, can have any ri^ht to the
Lord's table. But. be tore I proceed to the proof,
it will be necefTary to ol-ferve to the reader, that
baptifm and the Lord's fupper are both confidered
by Mr. B. as poutive ordinances, which I will not
difpuie with him, but do grant them to be fuch.
'^i'he reader, therefore, will remark, that as Mr.
B.'s rrafoning, bv which he oppofes infant baptifm,
is founded upon this, that baptifm is a polidve infti-
tute ; the fame reafoning is alio applicable to the
Lord's fuppi r, becaufe that is iikew^ife a pofitive
rite. This Mr. B. will not deny, nor can he deny
it, without overiurning his own fyfcem. Then, as
the infritutcs arc both pofitive, and the fame reafon-
ing will apply to both, I undertake to prove,
1. That, according to the principles and rtafon-
ings of the Baptii'.s, a woman, hov/ever qualified,
can have no right at all to the Lord's fupper.
That I ma.y make this niiitter as plain as pofi'ble
to the reader, it will be needful to fet do^n various
topics from which female right to the Lord's fupper
may be, or is at any time evinced. I fay then, if
v/omen have a right to the Lt>rd's table, that right
mull be proved from foine or all of the following
confiderations : viz. From their being in the favour
of God — from their fitnelV; for fiich an ordinance, as
godly perfons — from the benefit it may be to them
— from their church-memberfliip — ^irom their bap-
tifm — or, laftly, from lb mc exprefs precept or ex-
ample in the word of God. Let us form each of
thefc*into a quellion.
104- A SHORT METHOD
^iestlo7i 1. Can the right of a woman to the
Lord'^s table be proved from their intereft in God's
favour ?
Aiisxver, Mr. Booth fays, No. Vol. ii. p. 227.
'' But fiippofmg it were clearly evinced that all the
children of believers are interefted ir- the covenant
of grace, it would not certainly follow that they are
entitled to baptifm. For baptifm, being a branch
of pofitive. worlhip, [and fo the Lord's fupper] de-
pends entirelij on the fovereign will of its Author,
which will, revealed in pofitive precepts, or by apof-
tolic examples, is the only rule of its adminiftra-
tion." " So far is it from being a fa6l, that an
intereft in the new covenant, and a title to pofitive
inftitutes [baptifm and the Lord's fupper] may be
inferred the one from the other." Page 228. " All
reafoning from data of a mora.1 kind, is wide of the
mark."
Note, No interefl in the covenant of grace, or
the new covenant, however clearly evinced, can
give any right to a pofitive inilitute, /. e, either to
baptifm or the Lord's Supper. Then a woman, be-
ing in the covenant of grace, or in God's favour,
has no right on that account to the Lord's fupper ;
for all this depends only on pofitive precept or ex-
ample.
^>.estion 2. Can the right of females be proved
from their fuitablenefs to that ordinance, as god-
ly perfons I
Anszver. Mr. Booth affirms it cannot. Vol. i.
p. 227. " But when our divine Lord, addrefiing his
ciifciples in a pofitive command, fays, ' It fhall be
fo :' or, when fpeaking by an apollolic example,
he declares, ' It is thus,' all our own reafonings a-
'rA)utjit7iesSy expediency, or utility, muft hide their
impertinent heads." Vol ii. p. 228. " This being
the cafe, we may fafely conclude, that all reafon-
ing from data of a moral kind, and the fuppofed fit-
WITH THE BAPTISTS. 105
neia of things, is wide of the mark." Vol. ii. p. 389.
" But were we to admit the great Vitringa's pre-
fumptions as fa6ls, viz. That the infants of believ-
ing parents are lan6lifted by the Holy Spirit, p. 377,
yet, wkiVe pofitive appointments are under the di-
re6lion of pofitive laws, it would not follow that
fuch children fhould be baptifed."
Note, Our being fan6liiied, and thereby pofiVffing
a fitnefs for a poUtive inltitnte, gives us no right at
all to that inftitute, be it what it may. No right to
any inftitute, according to Mr. B. can be inferred
from fa notification of the Spirit ; and all our rea-
foning from fitnefs, or fuppofed fitnefs, is altogether
impertinent, and muft hide its impertinent head.
So no v/oman, Mr. B. being judge, has a right to
the Lord's table; on account of her being a fan6li-
fied or godly perfon.
^M-estion 3. Can the right of females to the
Lord's table be proved from the benefit or ufeful-
nefs of that ordinance to them ?
A?iszvt\r. Mr. Booth denies that it can. Vol. i. p.
53. " Seeing baptifm [and the Lord's fupper too]
is as really and entirely a pofitive inltitution, as any
that were given to the chofen tribes, we cannot with
fafety iufer either the mode, or the fubje6t of it,
from any thing Ihort of a precept, or a precedent,
recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very or-
dinance." Vol. i. po 227. "When our divine Lord,
addreffing his difciples in a pofitive command, fays.,
•• It fliail be fo,' or, when fpeaking by an apoftolic
example, he declares, ' It i«s thus,' all our own rea-
fonings about fitnefs, expediency, or utilitij^ mull
hide their impertinent heads."
Note. To reafon from the utility or benefit of an
inftitute, is quite an impertinent thing ; fo that we
cannot fay, the Lord's fupper may be ufeful to fe-
males ; therefore females ftiould be admitted to
the Lord's fupper : For, as Mr. B. afHrms, we can-
not with fafety infer either mode or fubjcOl from
106 A SHORT METHOD
anything fliort of precept, or precedent, recorded
in Scripture, and relating to the very ordinance,
^lestion 4. Can this right of females be proved
from their church-niejnberfhip?
Answer. Mr. B. faj^s it cannot. Vol. i. p. 22.
'^ Nor does it appear from the records of the Old
Teflament, that v/hen Jehovah appointed any
branch of ritual worihip, he left either the fubje6ls
of it, or the mode of adminiflration, to be inferred
by the people, from the relation in which they flood
to himfelf, or from general moral precepts, or from
any branch of moral worfhip." In the anfwer to
Dr. Williams, p. 441, Mr B. fays, " But had our
Author proved that infants are born members of
the vifible church, it would not thence have been
inferible, independent of a divine precept, or an
apoilolic example, that it is our duty to baptife
them* For as baptifm is as a pofitive -inftitute,"
&c.
Note. Mr. Booth fays, we cannot infer the right
ofafubje6lto a pofitive ordinance from the rela-
tion he Hands in to God, not even from church-
niemberfhip; confequently the memberfliip of a fe-
male gives her no right to the Lord's table.
Question 5. Can the right of females to the fup-
per, be proved from their baptifm ?
Answer, No, fays Mr. Booth. Vol. i. p. 22.
" Nor does it appear from the records of the Old
Teftament, that when Jehovah appointed any
branch of ritual worfliip, he left either the fubjecfts
of it, or the mode of adminiflration, to be inferred
by the people, from the relation in which they
flood to himfelf, or from general moral precepts,
nor yet from any other well-known positive rite.^'*
Page 23. " We cannot with fafety infer either
the mode, or the fubjedlof it, [apoiitive ordinance]
from any thing. fhort of a precept or a precedent re-
corded in Scripture, and relating to that very or-
dinance. '^ This is the burthen of Mr. B.'s fong.
WITH THE BAPTISTS. 107'
ISotc. Baptifm is a well-known pofitive rite ; and
Mr. B. denies th^.t the mode or fubje6l of one rite
could be inferred from another ; confequently bap-
tifm can infer no right to the Ivord's flipper : For, up-
on Mr. B. 'sword, wecannotinfereithermode orfub-
je6lfrom any thing fliort of precept or example re-
lating to that very ordinance. Now, as the right
of females tu the Lord's table cannot, upon the
principles of the Baptills, be proved from any of
the preceding topics, there remains nothing to
fcreen them from that confequence which I am now
faftening upon them, but fome exprefs command or
explicit example. I come in the lafl place, to in-
quire,
^lestion^ 6. Can the right of women to the
Lord's table be proved from any exprefs law or ex-
ample in holy Scripture ?
Ansrver. Here- Mr. B. affirms \ — and I deny.
It will be neceffary here to give the reader a
complete view of Mr. B's. defence of female com-
munion. This defence is very fliort ; but on his
principles, it is the molt curious, moft diverting,
moft mean, that (I think) was ever offered to the
public. It is in vol. ii. p. 7^^ 74. and is as follows :
"In regard of the fuppofed want of an explicit
warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we
reply by demanding : Does not Paul, when he fays,
Let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat, en-
join a reception of the facred fupper ? — 1. Does
not the term anthropOs^ there ufed, often (land as a
name of our fpecies, without regard to fex .'' — 2.
Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and,
which is incomparably more, the fan^lion of com-
mon fenfe, for underllanding it thus in this paflage ?
— 3. When the fexes are dillinguifhed and oppofed,
the word for a man is not anthropos^ but aneer.
This diilin^lion is very flrongly marked in that ce-
lebrated faying of Thales : the Graecian fage was
108 A SHORT METHOD
thankful to fortune that he was anthropos^ one of
the human fpecies, and not a bead — that he was
anecr^ a man, and not a woman. -^4. Befides, when
the apoftle delivered to the church at Corinth what
he had received of the Lord, did he not deliver a
command — a command to the whole church, con-
fiding of women as well as men ? When he further
fays, We, being many, are one bread and one body ;
for v/e are all partakers of that one bread ; does he
not fpeak of women as well as of men ?• — 5. Again,
are there any pre-requifites for the holy fupper, of
which women are not equally as capable as men ? —
6. And are not male and female one in Chrift ?"- —
This is the whole of the defence, and I confefs I
have been often diverted in reading it ; I thought
it a curiofity, as it came from the pen of Mr. B. who
is fo great an enemy to all inference and analogy
refpe6ling pofitive inflitutes.
The whole of this defence I have divided into
fix parts, and thefe, for the fake of greater plainnefs,
are dininguilhed by llrokes and figures. Mr. B.
in thefe fix parts, aims at three diilinfl arguments:
The fird is taken from the word anthropos^ man,
which includes the three fird parts ; the fecond is
taken from Paul's addrefs to the church as a bodj^,
and takes in the fourth part ; the third is from the
condition and qmilification of females,iand compre-
hends the two lad pra-ts.
Since Mr. B. offers this defence to the public as
proving an explicit warrant for female communion ;
v/e mud, therefore, fird of all, lay down the precife
idea of the term explicit. Explicit denotes that
which \9s direct, open and plain j and which imme-
diately drikes the mind v/ithout reafoning upon it;
e. g. A6I3 viii. 12. " Tiiey were baptifed, both men
and women," Her^e the reader inilantly difocrns
both fexes, wiLhout inferring from pny othor place.
And hence the term explicit is oppofed to impli-
WITH THE BAPTISTS. l^f^i
tation, /. e. any thing included under a general word*
And it is likewife oppofed to inference, /. e, proof
drawn from fome other place. An explicit warrant,
therefore, is fuch as ftrikes at once ; and precludes
the neceility of implication, reafoning, or inferring
from fome other topic. Such a warrant Mr. B. in-
fills upon for infant haptifm ; and this brings him un-
der the necefHty of producing the fame for female
communion. Which if he be unable to do, all he has
faid a^ainft infants will literally fland for nothing,
and his books on that fubjecl will be even worfe than
wafte-paper. — Now for the explicit warrant for fe-
male communion.
1. We begin with the argument from the word <7/i-
thrdpos, man, concerning which Mr. B. fays three
things to evince an explicit warrant. And firft, Does
no't the terra anthrojijos, man, often ftands as a name
pf our fpecies without regard to fex ? What a lame
fet out towards an explicit warrant! often Hand as
a name of our fpecies 1 That's admirable on our fide I
This is what the learned call prefumptive evidence,
and this is what Mr. B. produces towards an explicit
warrant. Does he think prefumptive and explicit
are the fame ? Whatever advantage Mr. B. may wifli
to take, yet I would not grant this, were I in his
place, left fome Pa^dobaptifts ihould take an advan-
tage of it too. This prefumptive mode of arguing on
a pofitive ihftitute will not do Mr. B. much credit ;
he muft certainly put on a better appearance than thi;;.
Well, then, in the fecond place ; " Hiwe we not,"
fays Mr. B. *' the authority of lexicographers, and,
which is incomparably more, the fon6lion of common
lenfe, for underllanding it thus in that paifage ?"
1 Cor. xi. 23« The authority of lexicographers 1 and
common fenfe 1 Here is help for the learned, and the
imlearned, that both ma^^ be able, after confultation
had, to pick out an explicit warrant ! For my own
part, I do not much like the labour of turning over
iexicQgrapUers at the beft of times, and efpccially for
110 â– A SHORT MLTHOD
an explicit warrant ; /. e. a warrant that ftrikes the
mind at once. I rather think Mr. B. if he w?fhed
people to labour for that which fliould be had without
anv liiirour at all, Ihould have fent his inquirers to
commentator's as well as to lexicographers, to know
how the apoflle ufed the vrord in queftion. Butfup-
pofe we depend on the authority of thefe lexicogra-
phers, it may ft ill be proper to afk, How it is they
know in Avhat manner the apoftle ufed this word ? Do
the^- know by analogy, orb}- inferringfrom other pre-
mifes ? Ah! Mr. B. ! I fear thefe gentry would be-
tray you. And to give you your due, you tIo not
feem to place much confidence in them ; for you fay,
that the authority of common fenfe is incomparably
more.
Common fenfe ! Hardly one in five hundred is able
to confult a lexicogra])her, and therefore Mr. B. in
order to make his explicit warrant explicit, furniflies
help to the unlearned. Well, common fenfe, fmre it
pleafes IVlr. B. though you do not underftand Greek,
to fubmit to }our determination, whether onthripos
be an explicit word for a womnn ; and fo, whether
there be any explicit warrant for female communion ;
I will take the liberty of ailving a few queftions. Do
vou know what Mr. B. means to prove from 1 Cor.
xi. 28. Let a man, anthrdpos^ examine himfelf, &c. ?
Yes, he means to prove an explicit warrant for female
communion. Very well, \^'hat is an explicit war-
rant ? It is that, the fenfe of which you inftantly per-
ceive, without th^ necellity of reafoning- upon it, or
inferring it from fome other part. Can a warrant be
deemed explicit, if it be not founded on explicit
words? Certainly not; for the words conftitute the
warrant. If the word cmthropos^ man, be ufed fometimes
for a mi.le infant of eight days old, John vii: 22, 25 ;
and perhaps a hundred times in the New Teftament
for a male adult only ; and nineteen times in the Sep-
tuagint and New Teftament, to diftinguifti the male
from the female, when both are named ; would you,
ai'ter all this, conlickr it an explicit word for a wo-
WITH THE BAPTISTS. Ill
man ? No, it Is impofTible. Mr. B. fays, he has your
authority for anderilanding it as a name of our fpe-
cies, i, e, comprehending male and female, in this
place ; but if this word be not an explicit word for a
woman, how do you know that women as well as men
are included in it ? I conclude it from this, that wo-
men as well as men were baptifed ; that they were re-
ceived into the church ; and therefore muft be* impli-
ed in this word. — So, fo ! You conclude it by analogy,
implication and inference ! Thefe are fine materials
for an explicit warrant. Cito in cellani ahi^ and take
your authority with you, left Mr. B. fliould Hog you
in his next publication for talking fo much like a P^-
dobciptift.
But if the authority of lexicographers and common
fenfe will not bring the bufinefs home, Mr. B. is de-
termined to make ufe of his own authority. He has
no other way of prefervingthe credit of his hook ; and,
therefore, he will even rilk his ovrn reputation, rather
than lofe his explicit warrant. He ventures in the
third part to fay, that, " when the fexes are difthi-
guilhed and oppofed, the wprd for a man is not an-
Phropos but ancer.^"* This is Mr. B's. own, and he
himfelf is accountable for it. The affertion is made
ufe of, to give a colour to his explicit warrant ; and it
was, no doubt, the neceffity of his cafe that drove him
to this. He had prelTed the Psedobapiifts, through a
great part of his 875 pages, to produce an explicit
warrant for infant baptifm ; and having thereby forg-
ed a chain for himfelf, he is now entangled in his
turn. It is fufucient for me in this place to fay, that
this affertion of Mr. B» is utterly falfe, I have al-
ready prclented the read^ r with nineteen inflances
out of the Septuagint and New Teftament, which lie
- dire<5lly againft him. Mr. B. in order to pafs off this,
aflertion of his with a better grace, has given us a que
tation, though not at all to the point, from Diogenes,
out of his Life of Thales. What I have to fay ref-
pedling the quotation, is this, that had Diogenes, oi
anyone clfe, affirmed the fame as Mr. B> (which he has
112 A SHORT METHOD
not, nor Thales neither) I would have linked thent
together as two falfe witneffes. And I fay farther, it
feems a marvellous thing, that Mr. B. (hould be fo
well acquainted with Thales, and his biographer Di-
ogenes ; and at the fame time fo exceflively ignorant
of his own bible.
This is Mr. B.'s iirfi; argument to prove an expli-
cit warrant; and the parts of which it is conipcfed
are three. It is faid, indeed, " a threefold cord is
not eafilv broken." But Solomon did not mean fuch
a cord as Mr. B.'s his is what people commonly call
a rope of fand, which will by no means endure ftretch-
ing. Here we have, in this part a prefurnption to be-
gin with ; next, implication and inference ; and laft-
ly, a broad falfehood to clofe the whole. This is Mr.
B's. method of making up an explicit warrant ! And
every one knows, that when prefurnption takes the
lead, it is no wonder if falfehood fhould bring up the
r«ar.
2. I come now to take notice of his fecond argu-
ment, taken from Paul's addrefs to the church as a
body ; and which takes in the fourth part of his de-
fence of female communion. His words are thefe :
** Befides, when the Apoflle delivered to the church
at Corinth what he had received of the Lord ; did he
not deliver a command — a command to the whole
church, confiding of women as well as men ?" When
he further fays, *' We being many, are one bread and
one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread ;
does he not fpeak of w^cmen as well as men ?" This
is Mr. B.'s way of producing an explicit w^arrant ; did
he not deliver a command to the whole church, con-
fifting of women as well as men ? and did he not fpeak
of women as well as men? It was Mr. B's. place to
ihow by explicit words, that he did fpeak of women
as well as men ; but fmce he has only propofed his
queflions, and has not himfelf affirmed any thing, he
feems willing to throw the work of inferring off from
himfelf upon the reader. Mr. B. is an artful dfpu-
taht ; he knew that reafoning by inference, v/hich he
WITH THE BAFTiS'I.S. 113
had fo often exploded, would be highly unbecoming
in him ; and therefore to avoid that, he puts it into
the form of a queftion, as if he would fay, I leave
you my reader, to draw the inference.
If by the command in this argument Mr. B. means
thefe words, '> Let a man examine hlmf^ilf, &c," he
had fpoken upon it in his way before : and if it had
contained any explicit warrant for female communion,
it was certainly in his power to Qiow it : There could,
therefore, be no necelTity to produce it again, and ef-
pecially in the obfcure m;inner he has done. But if
that be the command he intends, I defy him to ihow
one explicit word for female communion in any part
of it. He has, indeed, in what he thought fit to ad-
vance upon it, ventured a prefumption, an inference,
and a falfehood; of all which I have fpoken futlici-
ently already.
But I rather think he means fome other command,
becaufe he introduces it witl^.^the word,' " hv-1>ties,*'
as if intending fome frelli matter. And if fo, I knv'tw;
no more than the pen in my hand, what command it
is he drives at. But be it what it may, he adcs, whe-
ther it was not to women as well as men ? And I, on
the other hand, declare I neither knovv^ what it was,
nor to whom it was directed. It certainly was hii
duty to have fpeciiied what the command was ; and if
it was a command to receive the Lord's fupper. He
(hould then have proved that females were as expli-
citly named therein as males. Does Mr. B. think,
that, after all he has faid about exprefs commands,
he himfelfis to take any thing for granted; or to
form a conclufion by a guefs ? It muft be abfurd in a
jnan like him, who, when he pretends to prt^duce an