the word of God. Let us form each of these into a question.

Q. 1. Can the right of a woman to the Lord's table be proved from their interest in God's favour?

A. 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 is it

from being a fact, that an interest in the new covenant, and a title to positive institutes [haptism and the Lord's supper] may be inferred the one from the other" p. 228. "All reasoning from data of a moral 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 institute, 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.

Q. 2. Can the right of females be proved from their suitableness to that ordinance, as godly persons?

Vol. i. p.

A. Mr. Booth affirms it cannot. 227. "But when our divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a positive command, says, shall be so: or, when speaking by an apostolic

'It

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 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 institute, gives us no right at all to that institute, be it what it may. No right to any institute, according to Mr. B. 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. B. being judge, has a right to the Lord's table; on account of her being a sanctified or godly person.

Q. 3. Can the right of females to the Lord's table be proved from the benefit or usefulness of that ordinance to them?

A. Mr. Booth denies that it can. Vol. i. p. 23. 66 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 institute, 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. B. 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.

Q. 4. Can this right of females be proved from their church-membership?

A. Mr. B. says it cannot. Vol. i. p. 22. “Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Tes tament, 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. B. says, "But had our author proved that infants are born members of the visible church, it would not thence have been inferible, independent of a divine precept, or an apostolic example, that it is our duty to baptize them.For as baptism is as a positive institute," &c.

Note. Mr. Booth says, we cannot infer the right of a subject to a positive ordinance from

the relation he stand in to God, not even from church-membership; consequently the membership of a female gives her no right to the Lord's table?

Q. 5. Can the right of females to the supper, be proved from their baptism?

A. 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."-p. 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 burthen

of Mr. B.'s song.

Note. Baptism is a well-known positive rite; and Mr. B. denies that the mode or subject of one rite could be inferred from another; consequently baptism can infer no right to the Lord's supper: For, upon Mr. B.'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,

Q. 6. Can the right of woman to the Lord's table be proved from any express law or example in Holy Scripture?

A. Here Mr. B. affirms ;--and I deny.

It will be necessary here to give the reader a complete view of Mr. B.'s defence of female communion. This defence is very short; but on his principles it is the most curious, most diverting, most mean, that (I think) was ever of fered to the public. It is in vol. ii. p. 73, 74. and is as follows:

"In regard of the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy tas ble, 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 authropos, one of the human species, and not a beast-that he was ancer, a man, and not a woman-4. 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