all, who should obstinately and finally continue in unbelief.

P. What then do you think of absolute, unsonditional election and reprobation?

F. I think it cannot be found in holy writ, and that it is a plant which bears dismal fruit. An instance of which we have in Calvin himself; who confesses, that he procured the burning to death of Michael Servetus, purely for differing from him in opinion in matters of religion.

TRACT XII.

A SHORT METHOD WITH THE BAPTISTS, BY PE TER EDWARDS, SEVERAL YEARS PASTOR OF A BAPTIST CHURCH, AT PORTSEA, HANTS.

Ir 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 thinks 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. B.'s performance, wherein he expresses the sentiments, and pursues the reasoning of the

Baptists in general. It is his second edition of Pædobaptism 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. B.'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 as fit a 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 Pædobaptists, and is not, as Mr. B. 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 baptised? No, says a Baptist. Why? Be

cause 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 co-operate 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 Pædobaptists, 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 the 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. B. 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. Mr. 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. B. 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. B.'s reasoning, by which he opposes infant baptism, is founded upon this, that baptism is a positive institute; the same reasoning is also applicable to the Lord's supper, because that is likewise a positive rite. This Mr. B. will not deny, nor can he deny it, without overturning his own system. Then, as the institutes are both positive, and the same reasoning will apply to both, I undertake to prove,

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 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 personsfrom the benefit it may be to them-from their church-membership-from their baptism-or, lastly, from some express precept or example in