by Pastor Peter Edwards
A SHORT
METHOD
WITH THE BAPTISTS
It is a certain fact, that when any sentiment is false, it will appear the more glaringly so, the more it is examined, and the farther it is drawn out. I have been very attentive to the tendency of Mr. Booth’s reasoning, and have pledged myself more than once to take some notice of it. When a writer does not wish to be prolix in answering a large work, it is best, if he think the work erroneous, to pitch upon some prominent parts, in which the fallacy of the author is sufficiently palpable to run down and ruin his whole system. I will adopt this method with Mr. Booth’s performance, wherein he expresses the sentiments, and pursues the reasoning of the Baptists in general. It is his second edition of Paedobaptism Examined, to which my attention will be chiefly directed, as that subject on which I shall more directly animadvert, is not handled in the answer to Dr. Williams; the Doctor, in his piece, having urged nothing upon it: and indeed it does not signify which of Mr. Booth’s books is quoted, so far as I shall notice him.
The sentiment of the Baptists, respecting a fit subject of the baptismal ordinance, divides itself into two parts: they affirm that believing adults are fit subjects of baptism;—they deny that baptism should be administered to infants. When supporting what they affirm, the subject runs very smoothly; and no man that I know, except perhaps a Quaker, will deny the conclusion. For my own part, I am as well persuaded that a believing adult is a fit subject for baptism, as ever I was in my life; and I neither have, nor mean to say, one word against it. This is the common sentiment of Baptists and Paedobaptists, and is not, as Mr. Booth falsely and boastingly calls it, the Baptists’ side. As far, therefore, as the proof of adult baptism goes, it is all very well, and exceedingly plain from Scripture, and is admitted, without dispute, by both parties.
But when the Baptists are brought to answer for their negative part, viz. infants are not to be baptized, their difficulties instantly commence, and the mode they adopt of conducting the debate, drives them into such extremities, as ruin the cause they mean to carry, e.g. Is an infant to be baptized? No, says a Baptist. Why? Because baptism, says he, being a positive ordinance, no one can be deemed a proper subject of it, but by virtue of some plain, express command of God. This idea of express command, they raise so excessively high, that, sure enough, they have done the business of infants in cutting them off from baptism; but, at the same time, and by the same process, a breach is made in female communion, and women are cut off from the Lord’s table. This is the first thing that rises out of their system, and which will cooperate with others to ruin it. I undertake to prove, that, according to the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord’s supper.
Again, the Baptists, in order to patch their system, and give it the appearance of consistency, are under the necessity of maintaining the right of females to the Lord’s table, upon the same principle on which they oppose infant baptism; but when they set about this, they make a shift to lose their principle, are transformed into Paedobaptists, reason by analogy and inference, and fall into prevarication and self-contradiction, the most miserable. This is the second thing. I, therefore, undertake to show, that the Baptists, in proving against infants, and in defending female communion, do shift their ground, contradict themselves, and prevaricate most pitifully.
Further, when an argument is urged against the Baptists from the membership of infants in the ancient church, and their being, all infants as they were, the subjects of a religious rite, the Baptists do not deny the fact of their membership; but, in order to evade the consequence, they lay violent hands on the church, the membership, and the instituted religious rite, and in this way they endeavour to effect their escape. This is the third thing. I, therefore, undertake to prove, that, according to their principles and reasonings, the ever-blessed God had no church in this world for at least fifteen hundred years.
There is another thing I thought of introducing against the Baptists in this way; but as I know not how they will answer it, (since Mr. Booth has said nothing about it, though it was in a work which he himself has noticed) I intend now to put it in another part, in the form of a query, which I shall submit to any Baptist who may think proper to write on the subject.
Here are, therefore, three things that arise out of the Baptist system, and which, if fairly evinced, are sufficient to ruin that system out of which they arise.
1. That, according to the principles and reasoning of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord’s table.
2. That the Baptists, in opposing infant baptism, and defending female communion, do shift their ground, contradict themselves, and prevaricate most pitifully.
3. That according to their principles and mode of reasoning, God had no church in this world for at least fifteen hundred years.
These things I undertake to make out from the works of that venerable champion on the Baptist side, the Rev. Abraham Booth.
I will begin with the first of these, viz. That, according to the principles, &c. of the Baptists, no woman, however qualified, can have any right to the Lord’s table. But before I proceed to the proof, it will be necessary to observe to the reader, that baptism and the Lord’s supper are both considered by Mr. Booth as positive ordinances, which I will not dispute with him, but do grant them to be such. The reader, therefore, will remark, that as Mr. Booth’s reasoning, by which he opposes infant baptism, is founded upon this, that baptism is a positive institution; the same reasoning is also applicable to the Lord’s supper, because that is likewise a positive rite. This Mr. Booth will not deny, nor can he deny it, without overturning his own system. Then, as the institutions are both positive, and the same reasoning will apply to both, I undertake to prove:
1. That, according to the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord’s Supper.
That I may make this matter as plain as possible to the reader, it will be needful to set down various topics from which female right to the Lord’s supper may be, or is at any time evinced. I say then, if women have a right to the Lord’s table, that right must be proved from some or all of the following considerations: viz. From their being in the favour of God—from their fitness for such an ordinance, as godly persons—from the benefit it may be to them—from their church-membership—from their baptism—or, lastly, from some express precept or example in the word of God. Let us form each of these into a question.
Question 1. Can the right of a woman to the Lord’s table be proved from their interest in God’s favour?
Answer. Mr. Booth says, No.—
Vol. ii. p.227. “But supposing it were clearly evinced that all the children of believers are interested in the covenant of grace, it would not certainly follow that they are entitled to baptism. For baptism, being a branch of positive worship, [and so the Lord’s supper] depends entirely on the sovereign will of its Author, which will, revealed in positive precepts, or by apostolic examples, is the only rule of its administration”—“So far it is from being a fact, that an interest in the new covenant, and a title to positive institutions [baptism and the Lord’s supper] may be inferred the one from the other.” Page 228. “All reasoning from data of a mortal kind, is wide of the mark.”
Note. No interest in the covenant of grace, or the new covenant, however clearly evinced, can give any right to a positive institution, i.e. either to baptism or the Lord’s supper. Then a woman, being in the covenant of grace, or in God’s favour, has no right on that account to the Lord’s supper; for all this depends only on positive precept or example.
Question 2. Can the right of females be proved from their suitableness to that ordinance as godly persons?
Answer. Mr. Booth affirms it cannot.
Vol. i. p.227. “But when our Divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a positive command, says, ‘It shall be so;’ or, when speaking by an apostolic example, he declares, ‘It is thus,’ all our own reasonings about fitness, expediency, or utility, must hide their impertinent heads.” Vol. ii. p. 228. “This being the case, we may safely conclude, that all reasoning from data of a moral kind, and the supposed fitness of things, is wide of the mark.” Vol. ii. p. 389. “But were we to admit the great Vitringa’s presumptions as facts, viz. That the infants of believing parents are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, p. 377, yet, while positive appointments are under the direction of positive laws, it would not follow that such children should be baptized.”
Note. Our being sanctified, and thereby possessing a fitness for a positive institution, gives us no right at all to that institution, be it what it may. No right to any institution, according to Mr. Booth, can be inferred from sanctification of the Spirit; and all our reasoning from fitness, or supposed fitness, is altogether impertinent, and must hide its impertinent head. So no woman, Mr. Booth being judge, has a right to the Lord’s table, on account of her being a sanctified our godly person.
Question 3. Can the right of females to the Lord’s table be proved from the benefit or usefulness of that ordinance to them?
Answer. Mr. Booth denies that it can.
Vol. i. p. 23. “Seeing baptism [and the Lord’s supper too] is as really and entirely a positive institution, as any that were given to the chosen tribes, we cannot with safety infer either the mode, or the subject of it, from any thing short of a precept, or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance.” Vol. i. p. 227. “When our divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a positive command, says, ‘It shall be so,’ or, when speaking by an apostolic example, he declares, ‘It is thus,’ all our own reasonings about fitness, expediency, or utility, must hide their impertinent heads.”
Note. To reason from the utility or benefit of an institution, is quite an impertinent thing; so that we cannot say, the Lord’s supper may be useful to females; therefore females should be admitted to the Lord’s supper: for, as Mr. Booth affirms, we cannot with safety infer either mode or subject from any thing short of precept, or precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to the very ordinance.
Question 4. Can this right of females be proved from their church-membership?
Answer. Mr. Booth says it cannot.
Vol. i. p.22. “Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Testament, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritual worship, he left either the subjects of it, or the mode of administration, to be inferred by the people, from the relation in which they stood to himself, or from general moral precepts, or from any branch of moral worship.”
In the answer to Dr. Williams, p. 441, Mr. Booth says,
“But had our author proved that infants are born members of the visible church, it would not thence have been inferable, independent of a divine precept, or an apostolic example, that it is our duty to baptize them. For as baptism is a positive institution,” &c.
Note. Mr. Booth says, we cannot infer the right of a subject to a positive ordinance from the relation he stands in to God, not even from church-membership; consequently the membership of a female gives her no right to the Lord’s table.
Question 5. Can the right of females to the supper, be proved from their baptism?
Answer. No, says Mr. Booth,
Vol. i. p.22. “Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Testament, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritual worship, he left either the subjects of it, or the mode of administration, to be inferred by the people, from the relation in which they stood to himself, or from general moral precepts, nor yet from any other well-known positive rite.” Page 23. “We cannot with safety infer either the mode or the subject of it, [a positive ordinance] from any thing short of a precept or a precedent recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance.”
This is the burden of Mr.
Note. Baptism is a well-known positive rite; and Mr. Booth denies that the mode or the subject of one rite could be inferred from another; consequently baptism can infer no right to the Lord’s supper: for, upon Mr.Booth’s word, we cannot infer either mode or subject from any thing short of precept or example relating to that very ordinance. Now, as the right of females to the Lord’s table cannot, upon the principles of the Baptists, be proved from any of the preceding topics, there remains nothing to screen them from that consequence which I am now fastening upon them, but some express command or explicit example. I come in the last place, to inquire:
Question 6. Can the right of women to the Lord’s table be proved from any express law or example in Holy Scripture?
Answer. Here Mr. Booth affirms;—and I deny.
It will be necessary here to give the reader a complete view of Mr. Booth’s defence of female communion. This defence is very short; but, on his principles, it is the most curious, that, I think, was ever offered to the public. It is in vol. ii. pp. 73, 74, and is as follows:
“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?—1. Does not the term anthropos,
there used, often stand as a name of our species, without regard to sex?—2.
Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably more,
the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in this passage?—3.
When the sexes are distinguished, and opposed, the word for a man is not anthropos, but aneer. This distinction is very strongly marked in
that celebrated saying of Thales. The Grecian sage was thankful to fortune that
he was anthropos, one of the human
species, and not a beast—that he was aneer, a man, and not a woman.—4. Besides, when the apostle
delivered to the church at
—This is the whole of the defence, and I confess I have been often diverted in reading it; I thought it a curiousity, as it came from the pen of Mr. Booth, who is so great an enemy to all inference and analogy respecting positive institutions!
The whole of this defence I have divided into six parts, and these, for the sake of greater plainness, are distinguished by strokes and figures. Mr. Booth in these six parts, aims at three distinct arguments; the first is taken from the word anthropos, man, which includes the three first parts; the second is taken from Paul’s address to the church as a body, and takes in the fourth part; the third is from the condition and qualification of females, and comprehends the last two parts.
Since Mr. Booth offers this defence to the public as proving an explicit warrant for female communion; we must, therefore, first of all, lay down the precise idea of the term explicit. Explicit denotes that which immediately strikes the mind without reasoning upon it; e.g. Acts viii. 12, “They were baptized, both men and women.” Here the reader instantly discerns both sexes, without inferring from any other place. And hence the term explicit is opposed to implication, i.e. any thing included under a general word. And it is likewise opposed to inference, i.e. proof drawn from some other place. And explicit warrant, therefore, is such as strikes at once; and precludes the necessity of implication, reasoning, or inferring from some other topic. Such a warrant Mr. Booth insists upon for infant baptism; and this brings him under the necessity of producing the same for female communion. Which if he be unable to do, all he has said against infants will literally stand for nothing, and his books on that subject will be even worse than waste-paper.—Now for the explicit warrant for female communion.
1. We begin with the argument from the word anthropos, man, concerning which Mr. Booth says three things to evince an explicit warrant. And first, Does not the term anthropos, man, often stand as a name of our species without regard to sex? What a lame set-out towards an explicit warrant! often stand as a name of our species! That’s admirable on our side! This is what the learned call presumptive evidence, and this is what Mr. Booth produces towards an explicit warrant. Does he think presumptive and explicit are the same? Whatever advantage Mr. Booth may wish to take, yet I would not grant this, were I in his place, lest some Paedobaptist should take advantage of it too. This presumptive mode of arguing on a positive institution will not do Mr. Booth much credit; he must certainly put on a better appearance than this.
Well then, in the second place; “Have we not,” says Mr. Booth, “the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that passage?” 1 Cor. xi. 28. The authority of lexicographers! and common sense! Here is help for the learned, and the unlearned, that both may be able, after consultation had, to pick out an explicit warrant! For my own part, I do not much like the labour of turning over lexicographers at the best of times, and especially for an explicit warrant; i.e. a warrant that strikes the mind at once. I rather think Mr. Booth if he wished people to labour for that which should be had without any labour at all, should have sent his inquirers to commentators as well as to lexicographers, to know how the apostle used the word in question. But suppose we depend on the authority of these lexicographers, it may still be proper to ask, how it is they know in what manner the apostle used this word! Do they know by analogy, or by inferring from other premises? Ah! Mr. Booth! I fear these gentry would betray you. And to give you your due, you do not seem to place much confidence in them; for you say, that the authority of common sense is incomparably more.
Common sense! Hardly one in five hundred is able to consult a lexicographer, and therefore Mr. Booth in order to make his explicit warrant explicit, furnishes help to the unlearned. Well, common sense! since it pleases Mr. Booth, though you do not understand Greek, to submit to your determination, whether anthropos be an explicit word for a women, and so, whether there be any explicit warrant for female communion, I will take the liberty of asking a few questions. Do you know what Mr. Booth means to prove from 1 Cor. xi. 28. Let a man, anthropos, examine himself, &c.? Yes, he means to prove an explicit warrant for female communion. Very well. What is an explicit warrant? It is that, the sense of which you instantly perceive, without the necessity of reasoning upon it, or inferring it from some other part. Can a warrant be deemed explicit, if it be not founded on explicit words? Certainly not; for the words constitute the warrant. If the word anthropos, man, be used sometimes for a male infant of eight days old, John vii. 22, 23; and perhaps a hundred times in the New Testament for a male adult only; and nineteen times in the Septuagint and New Testament, to distinguish the male from the female, when both are named; would you, after all this, consider it as an explicit word for a woman? No, it is impossible. Mr. Booth says, he has your authority for understanding it as a name of our species, 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 women as well as men were baptized; that they were received into the church; and therefore must be implied in this word. You conclude it by analogy, implication, and inference! These are fine materials for an explicit warrant!
But if the authority of lexicographers and common sense will not bring the business home, Mr. Booth is determined to make use of this own authority. He has no other way of preserving the credit of his book; and, therefore, he will even risk his own reputation, rather than lose his explicit warrant. He ventures in the third part to say, that, “when the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not anthropos, but aneer.” This is Mr. Booth’s own, and he himself is accountable for it. The assertion is made use of, to give a colour to his explicit warrant; and it was, no doubt, the necessity of his case that drove him to this. He had pressed the Paedobaptists, through a great part of his eight hundred and seventy-five pages, to produce an explicit warrant for infant baptism; and having thereby forged a chain for himself, he is now entangled in his turn. It is sufficient for me in this place to say, that this assertion of Mr. Booth is unfounded. I have already presented the reader with nineteen instances out of the Septuagint and New Testament, which lie directly against him. Mr. Booth in order to pass off this assertion of his with a better grace, has given us a quotation, though not at all to the point, from Diogenes, out of his Life of Thales. What I have to say respecting the quotation, is this, that had Diogenes, or any one else, affirmed the same as Mr. Booth (which he has not, nor Thales either,) I would have linked them together as two false witnesses. And I say further, it seems a marvelous thing, that Mr. Booth should be so well acquainted with Thales, and his biographer Diogenes; and at the same time so ignorant of his own Bible.
This is Mr. Booth’s first argument to prove an explicit warrant; and the parts of which it is composed are three. It is said, indeed, “a threefold cord is not easily broken.” But Solomon did not mean such a cord as Mr. Booth’s; his is what people commonly call a rope of sand; which will by no means endure stretching. Here we have, in this part, a presumption to begin with; and next, implication and inference; and lastly, an unfounded declaration to close the whole. This is Mr. Booth’s method of making up an explicit warrant! And every one knows, that when presumption takes the lead, it is no wonder if falsehood should bring up the rear.
2. I come now to take notice of his second argument, taken from Paul’s address to the church as a body; and which taken in the fourth part of his defence of female communion. His words are these: “besides, when the apostle 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, consisting of women as well as men? When he further says, “We being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread; does he not speak of women as well as men?” This is Mr. Booth’s way of producing an explicit warrant; did he not deliver a command to the whole church, consisting of women as well as men? and did he not speak of women as well as men? It was Mr. Booth’s place to show by explicit words, that he did speak of women as well as men; but since he has only proposed his questions, and has not himself affirmed any thing, he seems willing to throw the work of inferring off from himself upon the reader. Mr. Booth is an artful disputant; he knew that reasoning by inference, which he had so often exploded, would be highly unbecoming in him; and therefore, to avoid that, he puts it into the form of a question, as if he would say, I leave you, my reader, to draw the inference.
If by the command in this argument Mr. Booth means these words, “Let a man examine himself, &c.” he had spoken upon it in his way before: and if it had contained any explicit warrant for female communion, it was certainly in his power to show it: there could, therefore, be no necessity to produce it again, and especially in the obscure manner he has done. But if that be the command he intends, I defy him to show one explicit word for female communion in any part of it. He has, indeed, in what he thought fit to advance upon it, ventured a presumption, an inference, and an unfounded declaration; of all which I have spoken sufficiently already.
But I rather think he means some other command, because he introduces it with the word “besides,” as if intending some fresh matter. And if so, I know no more than the pen in my hand, what command it is he drives at. But be it what it may, he asks, whether it was not to women as well as men? And I, on the other hand, declare I neither know what it was, nor to whom it was directed. It certainly was his duty to have specified what the command was; and if it was a command to receive the Lord’s supper, he should then have proved that females were as explicitly named therein as males. Does Mr. Booth think that, after all he has said about express commands, he himself is to take any thing for granted, or to form a conclusion by a guess? It must be absurd in a man like him, who, when he pretends to produce an explicit warrant, talks to his reader about some unknown command; and then, instead of specifying what this command was, and showing that women were expressly named therein, leaves him, in the best way he can, to conjecture the whole.
Mr. Booth having expressed himself plainly on the first argument, did thereby lay himself open to detection, and it became an easy business to expose him for his presumptive argument, his inference, and his assertion: but he has saved himself from that, in his second argument, merely by the obscurity of his language. Saved himself, did I say, by the obscurity of his language? No, far from it. A man renders himself sufficiently ridiculous, who comes full of his explicit warrant for female communion, and then says to his reader, Did not the Apostle deliver a command to women, as well as to men? and did he not speak to women, as well as to men? When it was his business to show that he did, and to bring explicit words to prove it.
3. I advert, lastly, to Mr. Booth’s third argument, which is taken from the condition and qualification of females, and comprehends the last two parts. Thus he expresses himself: “again, are there any pre-requisites for the holy supper, of which women are not equally capable as men? And are not male and female one in Christ?—I have no reason to complain of the ambiguity of this argument, any more than that of the first; it is sufficiently plain, that even he that runs may read it. I shall, therefore, only briefly observe upon it, that:
The mode of reasoning, which Mr. Booth has openly adopted in this place, is that of analogy. The analogy lies between the male and the female, thus: that the one has the same pre-requisites for the Lord’s table as the other, and both the one and the other are in Jesus Christ. From hence arises an inference: if both have the same relation to Christ, and the same pre-requisites for the holy supper, then the female must, by just consequence, have the same right to the holy supper as the male.
Well said, Mr. Booth! This is so neat, that I could almost find in my heart to forget that explicit warrant, which you had spoken of some time ago. Now you talk like a logical man, and a generous man too; for your last is better by far than your first. It must be much better to be thus open, than to hazard your reputation by any thing forced, or any thing false. You see what a good thing it is to have analogy and inference ready at hand, and how admirably adapted they are to help at a dead life. We should not despise any help, as we know not how soon we may need it; and, to give you your due, you have been neither too proud nor too stubborn to make use of this. You may be the more easily excused for what you have said against analogy and inference, for, as you are a Baptist, what you have said was a matter of consistency; but now, you are become a patron of female communion, the case is altered, and you are altered with it. But, at the same time, this is no more than what all the Baptists, with whom I have ever conversed on the subject, have done; and if it will be any comfort to you in this case, I can tell you, with great certainty, that I have met with many of your fraternity who have been as great changelings in this business as yourself. At present I only blame you for this, that, under the colour of explicit proof, you should introduce, and endeavour to pass off, nothing better, but something far worse, than inferential reasoning.
I would just remark on what Mr. Booth has advanced in support of his explicit warrant, that the defence he has set up carries in it its own conviction. I mean with respect to the number of particulars—the manner in which they are proposed—and the matter of which they consist.
Now it is the nature of an explicit warrant to show itself instantly to the mind of the reader; and its own evidence is the strongest it can have; the consequence is that he who really produces one, neither can, nor does need, to strengthen it by any reasons he can advance; e.g. Were I called upon to produce an explicit warrant for female baptism, I would only allege those words in Acts viii. 12. “They were baptized both men and women.” These words strike the mind at once, and no reasoning whatever can add any thing to their strength or evidence; but Mr. Booth, by introducing six particulars, shows plainly that neither of them is explicit, and that it is not in his power to produce any explicit warrant at all; for had any one of these been explicit for female communion, he might very well have thrown away all the rest.
In this view there is another thing remarkable in his defence, and that is, that every sentence but one runs in the form of a question to the reader. Instead of advancing his explicit proof, Mr. Booth comes to the reader in forma pauperis, with his petition in his mouth, as if he would say, O generous reader, grant me what I ask, or—my cause is ruined! I have been driving against infant baptism with all my might, crying out, No explicit warrant, no explicit warrant for infant baptism in all the Word of God! And now, as I am called upon myself to give an explicit warrant for female communion, I beseech thee, indulgent reader, to admit my presumption, implication, inference, and analogy, for explicit proof. I said that every sentence in this defence but one what put in the form of a question. Now what is still more remarkable is this, that that one sentence, which is the only affirmative in the whole defence, should be the very false assertion against which I have already produced nineteen instances.
If we pass from the number of parts which are contained in this defence, and the manner in which they are presented to the reader, and come to the matter of it, we may say of that, that there is not a single article in it, but what is either false, or presumptive, or inference, or analogy, or implication. Every part is reducible to one or other of these; and there is not one explicit word for female communion throughout the whole. Such a defence as this would not have done very well in the hands of a Paedobaptist; but when adopted by a Baptist, it is ridiculous in himself, and an insufferable abuse of, and a burlesque upon, his reader. In short, there is no explicit warrant to be had.
Now to the point. I was to prove that, according to the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord’s supper. We have seen on the one hand, that it is not possible to produce an explicit warrant for female communion, and, on the other, Mr. Booth affirms that they should not be admitted without one; the result, therefore, is, that, according to Mr. Booth’s mode of reasoning, no woman has any right at all to communicate at the Lord’s Table; and as Mr. Booth agrees with Baptists in general in this point, the same is true of the principles and reasonings of them all.—This is the first consequence which I undertook to make good among the Baptists, and from which they have only two ways of clearing themselves. They must either give up their mode of reasoning against infants, or, if they do not choose this, they must produce the same express proof for female communion as they require for infant baptism.
As Mr. Booth has plainly asserted that there can be no argument for female communion but such as is founded on positive precept or example, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance, it lies upon him to come forward and produce his warrant, or give up female communion. If I were to answer his book, I would turn the inquiry from infant baptism to female communion, and then put it upon him to make good his conclusion for the right of females upon the very same principles which he employs against infants. And I do now in good earnest put this upon him, and heartily invite him to the task, being verily persuaded that if this subject were thoroughly sifted, it would be the speediest method of adjusting the debate.
When I had compared what Mr. Booth has said against infants with what he has said in defence of women, I have been ready to suspect that he designed his book should operate on the Paedobaptist side; for, when speaking against infant baptism, he carries his demand of express, unequivocal, and explicit proof so high, and enlarges upon it so much, as if, by making it exceedingly remarkable, he wished some one to compare the whole with his defence of female communion, and perceived that the moment this was done, the cause of the Baptists would fall. And had Mr. Booth been a person whose character for integrity was not known, it would have been a matter of some difficulty with me to determine whether he did not design, in a covert way, to run down the Baptists’ side. But knowing him to be a man of good reputation, I readily acquit him of this; yet I think, at the same time, that his book, though written on the Baptist side, will do more towards overturning the Baptist sentiment than any one that has been written for many centuries.
Thus much for the first consequence, viz. that, according to the reasonings of the Baptists, no woman has any more right to the Lord’s supper than an infant has to baptism. But they, not liking this consequence, are induced to set up a defence of female communion on the ground of express warrant; and in doing this, they prevaricate, discard their own principle, reason by analogy and inference, and fall into self-contradiction: this is the second consequence I have before mentioned, and which I will no plainly evince.
Mr. Booth, in vol.l ii. p.509, expresses his surprise at the inconsistency of Paedobaptists with each other.
“But is it not,” says he, “I appeal to the reader; is it not a very singular phenomenon in the religious world, that so many denominations of protestants should all agree in one general conclusion, and yet differ to such an extreme about the premises whence it should be inferred?”
To this I only say, if it be a very singular phenomenon for a number of persons to be inconsistent with each other, it must be a more singular one still for one man to differ from himself. We will take a view of Mr. Booth in a double capacity—as a patron of female communion, and as an opposer of infant baptism.
Mr. Booth’s defence of female communion does not take up one clear page; the erroneous statement, and the quotation made use of to set it off, make up more than one third of the defence; so there are only nineteen lines remaining: I will, therefore, select some passages from his opposition to infant baptism, and place them against what he had advanced, in these nineteen lines, in defence of female communion. I do this to show that a Baptist cannot maintain that ground on which he opposes infant baptism—that he is compelled to desert his own principle, and does actually prevaricate, and contradict himself; from which, as well as from other topics, it will appear, that the cause of the Baptists is a lost cause. I shall now introduce Mr. Booth in his double capacity.
I. When Mr. Booth is an opposer of infant baptism, he speaketh on this wise: Vol. ii. p.228. “This being the case, we may safely conclude that all reasoning from data of a moral kind, and the supposed fitness of things, is wide of the mark.” Vol. i. p.227. “But when our divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a positive command, says, ‘It shall be so,’ or when, speaking by an apostolic example, he declares, ‘It is thus,’ all our own reasonings about fitness, expediency, or utility, must hide their impertinent heads.”
But when Mr. Booth becomes a defender of female communion, he expresseth himself thus:
The reader is desired to observe, that Mr. Booth in opposing infant baptism, will admit of no reasoning from moral data, or the supposed fitness of things, and says that all such reasoning is wide of the mark. And he likewise says, “that all our reasonings about fitness—must hide their impertinent heads.” But, in defending female communion, he asks, “Are there any pre-requisites for the holy supper, of which women are not equally capable as men?” Here Mr. Booth, the patron of female communion, adopts the same reasoning which Mr. Booth, the opposer of infant baptism, had declared to be wide of the mark. As the patron of females, he will reason from the fitness of things—“are there any pre-requisites for the holy supper, of which women are not equally capable as men?” As the opposer of infants, he insisted that all such reasonings should hide their impertinent heads. If the patron of females and the opposer of infants be the same person, he must be guilty of gross inconsistency; for he attempts to pass off that reasoning upon others, which he himself declares to be wide of the mark; and will needs bring those heads of reasoning to light, which he brands with the name of impertinent, and says that their impertinent heads must be hid. This in and out proceeding of the patron of females and opposer of infants I submit to the judgment of the reader, and leave the patron and opposer to settle the matter the best way he can.
II. Again, Mr. Booth when opposing infant baptism, says,
vol. i. p.23. “Seeing baptism is really and entirely a positive institution, we cannot with safety infer either the mode or the subject of it from any thing short of a precept, or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance.” Vol. ii. p.227. “Baptism, being a branch of positive worship, depends entirely on the sovereign will of its Author; which will, revealed in positive precepts, or by apostolic examples, is the only rule of its administration.” And in vol. ii. p.44, he says, “The inquirer has nothing to do but open the New Testament, and consult a few express commands and plain examples, and consider the natural and proper sense of the words, and then, without the aid of commentators, or the help of critical acumen, he may decide on the question before him.”
A little after he speaks of express commands and express examples, which is his uniform mode of expression when opposing infants.
But when Mr. Booth comes to defend female communion, he expresses himself thus:
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 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.”
The reader is requested to notice, that Mr. Booth, as an opposer of infant baptism, contends for precept, positive precept, express commands, or express examples, and says, in his index, that the law of institutions must be express, &c. but, as a defender of female communion, he takes up with an ambiguous word, a mere presumptive proof—“Does not,” says he, “the term anthropos often stand as a name of our species?” and this presumption he attempts to strengthen by an error, of which I have already spoken. As an opposer of infants he says the inquirer may decide the question without the aid of commentators, or the help of critical acumen; but as a patron of females, he first furnishes his reader with an ambiguous word, and then sends him, to lexicographers to have it manufactured into a positive one. Since it was not in Mr. Booth’s power to form a positive precept out of an ambiguous word, without the aid of a little inference, he very artfully throws it into the hands of lexicographers and common sense to effect this business for him. And one cannot sufficiently admire how tenacious he is of express precept when an opposer of infants, while at the same time, as the patron of females, he is so very complying, that he can even admit presumptive evidence to pass for an explicit warrant.
III. Further, Mr. Booth, in opposing infant baptism, expresses himself thus:
Vol. i. p.22, “Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Testament, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritual worship, he left either the subjects of it, or the mode of administration, to be inferred by the people from the relation in which they stood to himself, or from general moral precepts, or from any branch of his moral worship, nor yet from any other well-known positive rite; but he gave them special directions relating to the very case.”
In vol. ii. p. 227, he says,
“But supposing it were clearly evinced that all the children of believers are interested in the covenant of grace, it would not certainly follow that they are entitled to baptism; for baptism being a branch of positive worship, depends entirely on the sovereign will of its Author, which will, revealed in positive precepts, or by apostolic examples, is the only rule of its administration.”
And in the same page he says,
“So far is it from being a fact, that an interest in the new covenant, and a title to positive institutions may be inferred the one from the other.”
But in proving the right of women to the Lord’s table, he says,
vol. ii. pp. 73, 74. “In regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we reply by demanding—Are not male and female one in Christ?”
As if he should say, if a female be in Christ, which is the same as being in the covenant of grace, she must have a right to a positive institution. Here is art and inference together! The art appears in this, that Mr. Booth would not be seen to draw the inference himself, but leaves that to a Paedobaptist, who is more accustomed to that kind of work.
But leaving Mr. Booth’s art in shunning to draw the inference, I would desire the reader to attend him once more in his double capacity. In that of an opposer of infants, he affirms, that a right to a positive ordinance is not to be inferred from the relation we stand in to God; when a patron of females, he will infer their right to the Lord’s supper from their being one in Christ with males. As an opposer of infants, he insists that an interest in the covenant of grace, though clearly evinced, gives no claim to an instituted right; as a patron of females, he contends that if a woman be interested in Christ, she has therefore a right to such an institution. As an opposer, he declares it is far from being a fact, that an interest in the new covenant, and a title to positive institutions, may be inferred the one from the other; as a patron, he will do that which is so far from being a fact. He infers the one from the other, the right from the interest—“are not male and female one in Christ?” He is very inflexible as an opposer, and very pliant as a patron. So that, however the opposer of infants may differ in his mode of reasoning from Paedobaptists, the patron of females find it necessary to reason in the same way. It is a pity the patron and opposer do not agree, as it would certainly be for the credit of both to settle on some uniform mode of logic.
Before I turn from this, I would just glance at Mr. Booth’s defence of female communion by itself. Mr. Booth should have made this a distinct chapter, and should have placed a title at the head of it; but as he has not done this, I will take the liberty of doing it for him; and the reader may observe, in the mean time, how the chapter and title will agree. Mr. Booth begins his defence in these words: “in regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we reply,” &c. This will furnish with a title, which will run thus:
The
right of Women to the Lord’s Table, founded on explicit warrant.
N.B. An explicit
warrant for females is one wherein their sex is specified, and is opposed to
all implication, analogy, and inference……Now for the Chapter.
“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?”
[This is presumptive proof.]
“Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably
more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that
passage?” [This is inference.] “When the sexes are distinguished and
opposed, the word for a man is not anthropos,
but aneer.” [This is an error.] “When the apostle delivered to the church at
The reader will observe that the Title promises an explicit warrant, that is, a warrant in which the sex is specified, and which stands opposed to implication, analogy, and inference; but the chapter produces nothing explicit, the whole being nothing more than a compound of presumption, implication, analogy, and inference.
The whole of Mr. Booth’s conduct in this affair brings to mind a passage of Mr. Alsop, which Mr. Booth has quoted in vol. ii. p.507.
“The reader will learn at least how impossible it is for error to be consonant to itself. As the two mill-stones grind one another as well as the grain, and as the extreme vices oppose each other as well as the intermediate virtue that lies between them, so have all errors this fat, (and it is the best quality they are guilty of,) that they duel one another with the same heat that they oppose the truth.”
Mr. Booth’s two mill-stones are his opposition to infant baptism, and his defence of female communion. These two militant parts, like the two mill-stones, do operate in hostile mode, and rub, and chafe, and grind each other, as well as infant baptism, which lies between. And it is certainly the best property Mr. Booth’s book is possessed of, that it exhibits the author in his double capacity, not only as militating against the baptism of infants, but as dueling and battering himself with the same heat with which he opposes that. Three short reflections on this conduct of Mr. Booth and one apology will finish this part of the subject.
I. There is something in this conduct very unfair. No man should bind a burden on others, which he himself would not touch with one of his fingers. Can it be deemed an upright proceeding in Mr. Booth to cry down all reasoning by analogy and inference on a positive institution, and after that use the same reasoning, and even worse; himself? Can in be considered fair to demand, repeatedly and loudly to demand, special, express, and explicit proof, and then put off, the reader with presumption, inference, and analogy? Certainly he should do as he would be done by; but if this conduct of his be fair, I know not what is otherwise.
II. There is something in this conduct very impolitic. After Mr. Both had demanded positive, express, and explicit proof, and had run down all proof by analogy and inference, he should, if he had but a little policy, have kept that defence of female communion entirely out of sight. It was not crafty in him, though there is a spice of it in the defence itself, to suffer that to go abroad, which, when set against what he had said in opposition to infant baptism, would run down and ruin the whole. Had I been he, and wished my other arguments to stand, I would have taken that defence, and thrown it into the fire.
III. There is something in this conduct very unfortunate. It is a sad case that a book should be so written, that one part shall rise up against and ruin the other. Mr. Booth, Samson-like, when opposing infant baptism, thinks he can carry away gates and bars, and every thing else away; but when he defends female communion, Samson-like again, he becomes like another man, that is, a Paedobaptist; for he reasons, infers, and proves, in the very same way. In one thing, however, he differs, and herein he is unfortunate, that instead of killing the Philistines, to wit, the arguments of Paedobaptists, he falls to combating himself, and destroys his own.
What shall we say to these things? I reply, that with respect to myself I say thus much: that as he is unfair, I would reprove him; as he is impolitic, I would excuse him; as he is unfortunate, I would pity him; and, under all these views, I would make the best apology for him which the nature of the case will admit.
Since it is evident that Mr. Booth demands express, positive, and explicit proof, with respect to the mode and subject of an instituted rite, and as it is equally evident that he himself reasons on such a rite by implication, analogy, and inference, the apology I make for him, and it is the best I can make, is this: that he understood explicit proof, which he had so much insisted on, and proof by inference, which he himself adopted, to mean precisely the same thing; so that when any thing was proved by inference, &c. that proof was considered by him as express and explicit. This, I say, is the best apology I can make for those repugnancies, or, (if this apology be admitted,) seeming repugnancies, I find in his book. But, methinks, I hear some Paedobaptist say, If this apology be good, it will indeed reconcile some of his inconsistencies, but then he will, at the same time, stand in need of another; for if express proof and proof by inference be the same thing, I should be glad to know why he wrote his book at all. To this I can only say, that I have no other apology to make; let him apologize for himself. Leaving Mr. Booth or any one else, to manage these incongruities the best way he can, I pass to the third consequence, namely:
That, according to the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, God had no church in this world at least for fifteen hundred years.
The way in which the Baptists are driven into this consequence is this: when it is urged against them that infants were constituted church members, and were, by the Lord himself, deemed fit subjects of a religious rite, they, in order to avoid a consequence which would bear hard on their arguments, endeavour to reduce this church into a mere civil society; and as they cannot deny the membership of infants, they try to escape by destroying the church. Now, as this is a necessary consequence of their principle, it will serve to discover the error of that principle of which it is a consequence.
Mr. Booth, in trying to effect his escape in
this way, has used a language, which, if true, will prove that God for many
centuries had no church at all in this world.
This is Mr. Booth’s expedient, but it is a desperate one. In vol. ii. p.252,
he calls the then existing church, an “ecclesiastico-political
constitution.” By this compound word he
seems to consider the church under the notion of an amphibious society; partly
civil, and partly religious. And he
might have likewise considered, that, as nothing in nature differs more than
policy among men and piety towards God, they must be viewed in all bodies of
men, whether large or small, as things totally and at all times distinct. But this Mr. Booth’s system would not
admit. Now in a large body, as the Jews
for instance, all laws pertaining to human society, as such, were civil laws;
and all laws, though in the same code with the others, relating to the worship
of God, were, properly speaking, ecclesiastical laws. So with respect to men, when they are united
in promoting order and mutual security, they are to be considered as a
political state; but if some, or all of these profess piety towards God, and
unite in his worship, they are to be viewed as a visible church. And though all the inhabitants of
Though Mr. Booth, by the phrase ecclesiastico-political
constitution, has confounded the church and state, the one being a kingdom of
this world, the other the
In vol. ii. p.251, Mr. Booth has these emphatic
words: “to be an obedient subject of their [the Jews’] civil government, and a
complete member in their church-state, were the same thing.” Every one knows, that a civil government, be
it where it may, is conversant about present things, it is a government among [cives] citizens
as such, and is designed to regulate their worldly concerns. An obedient subject of such a government, is one who quietly and cheerfully submits to its
regulations, and seeks the peace and security of that community to which he
belongs. Now Mr. Booth assures us that
such was the nature of things among the Jews, that “an
obedient subject of the civil government, and a complete member of the
church-state, were the same.” If
this were so, it must be because the civil government was nothing less than the
church; and the church was nothing more than the civil government; that is,
they were both the same thing. It
signifies othing by what name we call this community,
whether a national church, or an ecclesiastico-political
constitution; it means no more at last than a civil government: for, as Mr.
Booth informs us, there was nothing more required in a complete member of what
he calls the church, than his being an obedient subject of the civil
government. Now as this, whatever it was, could be no
What a church destroyer is this same Mr. Booth! And when we consider that all this results
from principle, and is carried on by regular logical process; what a horrid
principle must that be which leads a man to destroy the very
As Mr. Booth to preserve his system, has laid violent hands on the
ancient
I will not now contend with Mr. Booth whether he has given a true account
of the ancient church, and its members; it is sufficient for my present purpose
to take notice of what he has affirmed.
Yet I could wish, should he write again upon the subject (as I hope he
will,) to see a fuller account of that church, the complete members of which
were only obedient subjects of the civil government. I have never, in my small reading, met with a
definition of a church like this; it is enough for me now that Mr. Booth
has. My business is not to dispute, but
to take it upon his word. I only say,
that if such a church did ever exist, whatever it was, it could be no
“An obedient subject of their civil government, and a complete member of their church state, were the same thing.” The same thing? If, then, the complete member was no more than an obedient subject; the church state could be no more than a civil government; for, according to Mr. Booth they were precisely the same thing. What might be the reason of all this? Mr. Booth shall inform us himself; it was, “because by treating Jehovah as their political sovereign, they avowed him as the true God.” As it is not my business in this place to oppose any thing Mr. Booth says; I shall only take the liberty to explain. What is a political sovereign? He is one who reigns over others in civil things; that is, he governs and regulates the affairs of this present world. This is the reason then, that an obedient subject of civil government, and a complete church member, were the same thing; because all that God had to do with them was, as a political sovereign, to regulate the affairs of the present world.
But where would have been the harm of supposing the ever-blessed Jehovah
to have been more, infinitely more, than a political sovereign? And that he gave his word and ordinances to
lead to the faith of Christ? That he
sent his prophets to bear witness, that through his name whosoever believed in
him should receive remission of sins? That he formed a people for himself, to show
forth his praise? Where, I say, would
have been the harm of supposing this?
None at all, in reality; the harm would only have been to Mr. Booth’s
system. For had Jehovah been a religious
sovereign, he would have had a religious community, and that community would
have been a religious church, i.e. a church professing godliness; and then, an
obedient subject of civil government would not have been a complete member; and
then, their institution would have been a religious institution; and the—what
then? And then Mr. Booth’s system would
have gone to ruin. But he wisely forseeing this, takes measures to secularize the
whole. He begins at the head, and goes
down to the institution. Jehovah must be
a political sovereign, that the church may be political; the church must be
political, that the membership may be so too; the
membership must be political, that the institution may be political also. So all was political; a political sovereign,
a political church, a political member, and a political institution. And now Mr. Booth has gained his point; for
sure enough, there can be no analogy between a church and no church; and
consequently no argument can be drawn in favour of
infant membership from a church which never was, to a church that now
exists. Yes, he has gained his point, he
has run down infant baptism; but, at the same time, he has eradicated the
These are the three consequences which rise out of the Baptist system, and which, I have said, will operate to ruin that system out of which they arise: namely:
1. That, according to the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right to the Lord’s table.
2. That the Baptists, in opposing infant baptism, and defending female communion, do vary their mode of reasoning, contradict themselves, and prevaricate most wretchedly.
3. That, according to their principles and reasoning, God had no church in this world for many centuries.
I shall now close the Appendix by an appeal to the reader; and this I mean to do in three questions.
1. Are these consequences real? To answer this question I need only appeal to the Appendix itself. There the reader may satisfy himself respecting their reality. As to the first, it is there evident, that there is no explicit command for female communion; and, according to the Baptist system, they are not to commune without: the consequence is, that they have no right to commune at all. With regard to the second, I have placed Mr. Booth’s defence of female communion against his opposition to infant baptism; and what repugnancy, prevarication, and self-contradiction, are discoverable in these two, I have presented to the reader. The third speaks openly for itself, that the best church in the world for many centuries, was nothing else but a civil government.
2. Do these consequences rise out of the Baptist system? For an answer to this I might refer the reader to the former part of the Appendix; where he may see in what way they actually do arise out of their system. Their system destroys the right of females to the Lord’s supper, by demanding explicit proof for infant baptism; because there is no such proof for female communion. Their attempt to prove the right of females to commune, involves them in the most mean prevarication and self-contradiction. And in overthrowing the argument for infant baptism taken from the membership of infants in God’s ancient church, they overthrow the very church itself. In this way, these horrid consequences owe their birth to that bad system.
3. Are such consequences as these
which rise out of the Baptist system, sufficient to ruin that system out of
which they rise? To this I answer, that
if any consequences are sufficient to ruin a system, these are they. It is a rule in reasoning, that that argument
which proves too much destroys itself.
The same is also true of a system; the system that proves too much must
follow the fate of its kindred argument, and prove its own destruction. This system, it is true, proves against
infant baptism; but there it does not stop, it carries its force still further;
it proves against female communion, and against the existence of God’s church;
and to complete the whole, it proves against the author who patronizes it. So that if infant baptism fall, they all fall
together; female communion falls, the
I call this a short method with the Baptists, because, whatever course
they may take, it will serve to ruin their scheme. If on the one hand, these consequences are
suffered to remain as they do no in Mr. Booth’s book, their scheme will be
ruined this way. For that system can
have no pretension at all to truth, which in its consequences militates against
female communion, and the very existence of the
This must I say at present concerning the Appendix; and shall now commit it into the hands of God, the eternal patron of truth, and to every reader’s judgment and conscience in his sight.
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.