m 
 
 9i^^ 
 
 ^0^p-'-^'$i^:^%j^2. 
 
 W ff-f 
 
*^ 
 
 
/ 
 
 
l\ 
 
I 
 
r^T^a^M^^^ rpT t:AAs\yV^un:j^/^^u4U^ 
 
 Jiiilt.<-i^ iy.MexIBityf^ 1 't( J'aerrnoj-Ur Jiow , jMir ty . //^-j. 
 
R E J O I N D ^^ 
 
 PRINCIPALLY CONTAINING 
 
 I. Some defenlive pleas for the Inftitutlons and 
 Minifters of the Church of England, illiberally 
 afperfed in two pamphlets lately publillied 
 by Mr. Samuel Medley,, of Livevpooli and 
 Mr. James Turner, of Birmingham, - 
 
 II. A more particular refutation of Mr. Medley's 
 falfe dofflrine of the essentiality of dipping. 
 
 III. The fcriptural mode of adminiftering 5^^^//)7z, 
 by POURING or sprinkling of water, farther 
 vindicated, from the moft capital objedions 
 of Dr. Stennett, and the other two Anabap- 
 tifis aforefaid. 
 
 By the Rev. RICHARD ^e COURCY ; 
 
 Vicar of St. Alkmond's, Shrewsbury. 
 
 " Res ipsa haptlfmt eji aspersio fanginnh Jefu Chrifii in rcmijficnem 
 " pcccatorujn;- qtix. vclut ociilis nojliis fuhjicitur externa aspeksIonis j^o-ho." 
 
 Beza. 
 
 " 1 readily allow that the word (haptize) does not tieccjfarily imply 
 *' a total imtnerlion. Let the word relate to a part of the body, I 
 " .ASK NO MORE." - Dr. Gale, the Analaptiji. 
 
 Part I 
 
 SHREV/SBURY: Printed and fold by T. Wood; fold 
 alfo by G. Robinfon, Paternofter-Row; J. Matthews, Strand; 
 E. and C. Dilly, in the Poultry, London; J. Gore, Liver- 
 pool ; M. Swinney, Birmingham ; S. Hazard, Bath ; T. Mills, 
 Briftol; and all other Bookfellers in Town and Country. 
 
 M, DCC, LXXVII. 
 
N. B. My anfwer to Mr. 'burner, begins at 
 Chap. viii. If the candid reader will take the 
 
 trouble to looJc over P. 316 322, he may, for 
 
 once, have a fair opportunity, from fome extra^^s 
 colle6led, there, out of Mr. TJs pamphlet, to fee 
 the genuine features of a certain warm phaeno- 
 menon, -which, I think, John Bunyan diftinguifhes 
 by the name of " the red-hot Jnabaptiji." The 
 extrads are really curious, and worthy a perufal. 
 
1 ^, 
 
 ,-';.^ 
 
 
 preface;. 
 
 r\HERE are three things, for which Irequefl 
 the indulgence of the candid reader, i / hope 
 he will -pardon me, for anfwering Mejf. Sandys 
 and Parnienas only in a curfory manner. "Thefe 
 two writers (writers! did 1 call thcmf) have fuck a 
 coft peculiar to themfelves, and arefo dijiinguijhable by 
 the groveling meanntjs of thtir ideas, as well as their 
 happy talent at perjonal invedive, that, to anfwer them 
 fully, in their ownjiyle, would be to recriminate by 
 fcolding. Omitting, therefore, a huge quantity of Mr. 
 S.'j pedantic fcraps of Latin and Greek, and of his and 
 V.'s abujive fquibs . 1 have conjidered the moji material 
 parts in both their performances, as they were fuggeji" 
 ed by the thread of my introdu(5lion, and the references 
 of my notes. I thought this would be a more eligible 
 mode of Unking together thefe twin-difputants, than to 
 give them a ferious or methodical reply. 
 
 2 As I found myfelf under a necejjity of giving a 
 little hijioric /ketch of the origin and progrefs of the 
 frefent controverfy, I have alfo been obliged to recapitu- 
 late Jome particulars, which 1 had touched upon in my 
 former trads. I hope, however, the candid reader will 
 pardon this unavoidable repetition, when he confiders, 
 (i) T'hat it is occaficned through the very nature of the 
 fubjed. For, when new fads Jiart up, that have a re- 
 ference to old ernes, the former cannot he well related 
 A 2 . without 
 
IV. 
 
 P^'R E F A C £. 
 
 W'thout an introdudiionyof the latter-, and an accurals 
 narrative cannot be formed, zvithout JJiewing the cir^ 
 cumfianftial connexion between both : (2) And that this 
 little recapitulation is only taken up in the Introduc- 
 tion j where it does not interrupt, or clog, any part of 
 the controverfy itfelf; but rather prepares the reader 
 for under ft anding fome particulars, which relate to my-, 
 /elf, and my brethren in controverfy, 
 
 3 It requires fome apology to my readers, that I 
 have iyiti oduced the name of Dr. Stennett, in the courfe 
 of my remarks. In taking that liberty, I mean not to 
 infinuate, that there fubfi (is the imalleji refemhlance be- 
 hetween the fpirit and fiylc of this pious and polite 
 writer, and thofe of m\ opponents, -r/ieir refpe^ive 
 performances exhibit a Jiriking contrafi. But, as Mr, 
 Medley is apparently a rambling and inconclufive rea- 
 foner, I have introduced Dr. S.'^ more powerful argu- 
 ments, as afupplyfor Mr, M's great deficiency. 
 
 I N T R O^ 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IT is with the utnioft reludance, I again take 
 up my pen, as a conlrovertift. , Were 1 to 
 indulge the natural inclination of ray heart, I 
 Ihould totally abftra6t myfelf from every branch 
 of polemic divinity; and, Ihould chufe rather to 
 glide Ulently along, in the placid flream of paro- 
 chial obfcurity, * than enter the troubled waters 
 of controversial debate ; where difputants, like 
 fhips in a ftorm, too violently dafli one againft 
 another; while the precious cargo oi truth is too 
 often loft in the vehement fcuffle. 
 
 However, I believe that controverfy, when pro- 
 perly managed, has its ufe; and that the bufmefs 
 of a controvertift and the fpirit of a true chriftian 
 are by no means incompatible. One of the moft 
 eminent chrilVians, and greateft apoftles, that ever 
 lived, was alfo one of the wifeft and mofl: earneft 
 difputants. Who ever brandillied the controverlial 
 fword in the caufe of truth, with greater lirmnefs 
 or fuccefs, than the great apoftle of the Gentiles? 
 yet, who ever Ihone a more illuftrious ornament to 
 chriftianity ? But what need I adduce the example of 
 Taul of 'Tarfus, when the great Apoftle and High- 
 prieft of our profeftion himfelf, condefcended to 
 grace the field of controverfy with his prefence ? 
 
 * — — B(ne qui Intuit, hsne vixit . Ovid. 
 
 I ^ ' Of 
 
VI. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Of what did our blefTed Lord's interviews, with 
 the difpiitatious Scribes and Pharifees frequently 
 confirt, but of a controverlial chain of Inimitable 
 argumentation ? With what wifdom did he anfwer 
 their objections ! What pains did he take to re- 
 •HI ov€ their prejadices! With what invincible firm- 
 nefs, plainnefs of fpeech, and cogency of reafon- 
 ing, did he controvert their moft favorite hypo- 
 thefes ! How eifeciually did he lilence their cavils, 
 and refute their fpecious fophiftry ! And, while 
 this divine Philanthropic was influenced by the mod 
 ardent atfeiflion to the fouls of his opponents, yet 
 with what fe verity does he hew in pieces every 
 j^^ag of error, v/ith that two-edged fword that pro- 
 ceedeth out of his mouth ! So that the very oil of 
 intenfe love to truth and fouls, which /moot hed the 
 edge of our Lord's controverfy with the caviling 
 yews, tended like wife to give it a proportionate 
 keennefsy penetration, and importance. As, there- 
 fore, we are indebted to controverfy, as an even- 
 tual caufe, for fome of the moft celebrated wri- 
 tings of that evangelic cafulft, St. Paul; fo, we 
 piuft refer to the fame fource, fome of the moft 
 glorious vindications of divine truth, that dropped 
 from the mouth of him, who '* fpake, as never 
 rnan fpake." 
 
 Nor has controverfy been without its ufe in later 
 ages. What important effe^^s it produced in our 
 land, to the dete^lion of error, and diflemination 
 of truth, let the writings of the illuftrious PViMiff 
 teftify ; whofe controverlial attack upon th-e popu- 
 lar errors of Rome, firfl rent the veil of darknefs 
 
 that 
 
INTRODUCTION, vli. 
 
 that Covered the eftabllllied church here, and ad^ 
 mitted that dawn of truth, which, by a gradual 
 and diffufive ilkiminatlon, fpread far and wide 
 throughout the continent, under the inftrumen- 
 tality of John Hufs, Jerom of Fragile, Luther, Cal- 
 liin, &c. and at laft arrived at a blelled meridian, 
 during the propitious reigns of our Englijh Jofiahy 
 King Edward VI. and our Britifti Deborah, Queen 
 Elizabeth i through the united labors of our emi- 
 nent Reformers, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, LIoop- 
 €r» &c. 
 
 The ftarting of error has always given room for 
 the more vigorous difplay of truth : This has a- 
 wakened controveriyj and the reciprocal attacks 
 of controvertifts, like the collilion of the fteel and 
 fKnt, have tended to extrad the latent fparks of 
 truth, and to difplay their luftre the more abun- 
 dantly. And, although the fparks, which iflue 
 from controverfial collilions, havefometimes, thro* 
 the improper heat of bigoted incendiaries, fet the 
 church in a flame ; yet, this is no more an argu- 
 ment againft the proper ufe of controverfy, than a 
 madman's burning a houfe, is an argument againfl 
 all ufe of fire. — Religious ccntroverfy is a guard 
 of revelation ; whofe double office is, to a61 offen- 
 lively in the reiiftence of error, and defenlively, 
 In the vindication of truth. The wespons of her 
 warfare are, fcripture and reajony which conftitute 
 a fort of two-edged fword, that cuts in pieces eve- 
 ry unfcriptural and irrational hypothefis. But, 
 when pofitive aflertions or dogmatic injunctions 
 arc fubftituted in the room of right reafon, and 
 
 fome 
 
vm. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fome dif-jolnted or mif-applied texts are made to 
 ufurp the place of the analogy of faith, and fcrip- 
 tural argumentation; it ceafes to be a wonder, 
 that fach fuppolitious artillery, in the hands of 
 ignorance and bigotry, lliould be attended with 
 the moft mifchievous confequences to the church, 
 of Chrift ; that warm bigots fhould be induced to 
 unchurch and even unchriftian their differing bre- 
 thren ; and that a favorite ceremony lliould be 
 dignified with a Thus faith the Lord, when its ge- 
 nuine lan6iIon is nothing more than l^hus faith . 
 Bigotry. But thus an old obfervation is verified. 
 In 7mmine Domini incipit omne malum. 
 
 In the management of religious controverfy, 
 there arc a few coniiderations, which feem to me 
 of real importance, i The caufe of God and the 
 eitabliniment of truth are fo intimately allied, that, 
 whatever injures the one, muft neceflarily affe(fl: 
 the other j and ev^ery controvertifl-, who would 
 wlih to ftrcngthen the combination of interefls 
 between both, ought to have a fingle eye to the 
 glory of God, and a zealous concern for the honor 
 of truth. 
 
 '2 When controverfy has religion for its fubjecfl', 
 and the vindication of truth for'its obje6f, it ought, 
 confequently, to take the facred fcriptures for its 
 guide. Thefe lliould be the divine arfenal, from 
 whence it Ihould borrow its principal artillery j 
 thefc, the rich mines, where truth lliould be in- 
 Veftigated, and from whence the precious jewel 
 Ihould be dugj and thefe, the infallible judges, 
 that lliouid end every controverlial firife. 
 
 3 2^^ 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ix» 
 
 3 But, as fcrlpture is the beft interpreter of 
 fcripture, we are no more to take it detached from 
 itfelf, than to make it the lacquey of corrupt rea- 
 fon. Therefore, in proving any point from the 
 word of God, where the fubjed is either objcurely^ 
 or not eviprejjiy revealed, our conclulions fhould be 
 determined by the general tenor of fcripture, or 
 by the connexion of one truth with another. 
 
 4 In order to inveftigate truth aright, we fhould 
 labor to fhake off all thofe prepoHellions, which 
 flow from a party-fpirit ; to relinquifh every pre- 
 judice, connetfed with a particular mode of edu- 
 cation ; and to be accefiible to the light of truth, 
 though it difcover the weaknefs of even a favorite 
 hypothelis* 
 
 5 In urging any truths which, in its confe- 
 quences, dependencies, or application, may bear 
 hard upon an opponent, the utmoft care fhould 
 be taken to preferve a diflindion between his 'per- 
 fon and his opinions ; and, while we level all the 
 feverity of fcriptural argument againft the one, 
 to retain every degree of chriftian charity and ten- 
 der benevolence towards the other. This rational 
 and fcriptural diftindtion will fave from timid fub- 
 miirion on the one hand, and from uncharitable 
 bigotry, on the other j and will make religious 
 controverfy, a happy blending of truth and love. 
 
 6 In the application of any particular truth, it 
 fliould be argumentum ad hominem, no farther, than 
 as it has a reference to the main queflion in de- 
 bate. Without attending to this, controvertifts 
 fbmetimcs load their produdions with fuch imper- 
 
 B tinent 
 
X. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tinent trifles, as merit no reply ; and with fach 
 heterogeneous fluff, as no judicious reader will 
 think worthy of a fcrious perufal. -if 
 
 7 Though fome truths are not of equal im- 
 portance v/ich others, they are not therefore to 
 be accounted abfolutely indifferent. Every por- 
 tion of truth is precious or important, in propor- 
 tion to its connexion with the grand fundamentals 
 of chrif^ianity. And, though there are fome 
 truths, which neither conftitute, nor are immedi- 
 ately connefled with the foundation of the gofpel : 
 yet, confidering them, as pofTefTmg a place in the 
 
 f If the reader chufe to examine a whole cargo of fuch trifles, he may 
 enjoy a plentiful rummaging in a fplenetic performance, lately publiflied 
 at Shreivjbury. The author of this anabaptiflic farrago, is one Mr. Sandys; 
 who, though but a Probationer for the Miniftry, yet writes in a flylc 
 as pompous as that of an Archbiiliop. This gentleman has thought 
 proper to (lyle his pamphlet " More Work for the Vicar of St. Alk- 
 niond's." Confidering the pompolity of the title, and the fpace of time 
 the author exhaufted in fabricating his performance, as well as the long 
 previous notice Parmenas gave us of its future publication, I really 
 thought we fhould have fomething great. RccoUccEting, that one of 
 Mr. Toplady's controverfial tracftates, was intitled " Alore Work, S<c." my 
 cxpedlatlons were prodigioufly railed by this fiimlarity of titles. But, 
 ex pede Herculcm. I could difcover the footfleps of the eminent Vicar of 
 Broad Hembury, no farther, than in the t'ltle-pi'ge of his poor imitator. 
 
 All befide, was vox & prsterea nihil. When Mr. S. is pleafed to (Ivle 
 
 In's pamphlet " More IFcrk;'" I acknowledge the propriety of his title. 
 It is more poor work indeed! ilich as has hitherto been the offspring of 
 his brother in learning andpoliteneis, good Mr. Parmenas the Deacon. — 
 It is work! Opus, I'HERiLiBus hiimeris formidandum ! The prodigious mul- 
 titude of Latin and Greek excerpla, Avjth which this bit of genuine 
 pedantry is overftocked, ■\\'ould alTord tremendous ivork indeed, to a 
 fchool-boy; while an intimation of the delicate phrafeology, might even 
 lliock the abilities of thofe who live within the purlieus of BillingjgaU'. 
 And if Mr. S. will only ranfack all the SjieHators, Tatlcrs, Guardi.vis, Sec. 
 and colleA together another good large budget of mottos ; and if, as 
 •"Tieretofore, he will fuperadd to this incoherent mafs, a little more pei^- 
 fonal inveiflivc, he may then publiili again, and very properly intitle 
 liis learned publication, " More alufive Work for the Vicar of St. 
 Alkmond's!" 
 
 word 
 
INTRODUCTION. xl. 
 
 word of God ; as declarative, either expreiHy or 
 implicitly, of the will of the great Legillator; as 
 including in their application, certain benefits, 
 privileges, and advantages, to the vifible church 
 of Chrirt 5 as-bearing fome diftantial, fymbollcal 
 reference to the covenant of grace ; as preferving 
 a lignificant commemoration of the moft impor- 
 tant blelFingsj and as fealing, to the people of 
 G&d, by a facramentary ratification, the great re- 
 -demption of the Lord Jesus Chr-i-st; — I fay, 
 conlidering certain inferior truths in thefe feveral 
 points of view, as they fland even dijiantially re- 
 lated to other more important ones, they feem to 
 drop their unimportance, and to demand our 
 mofl ferious fubmilfion. 
 
 In this light I look upon the facraments in ge- 
 neral, and infant-baptifni in particular. Far be it 
 from me to fuppofe, however, that the admillioa 
 of this ordinance, is a fundamental truth, or the 
 rejedion of it, a fundamental error. Though I 
 poflefs a firm perfuaiion in my own mind, that 
 the church-membtrjhip of infants, and their confe- 
 quent right of introdudion into the vilible church 
 by the initiatory facrament of baptifm, are found- 
 ed upon the unanimous evidence of fcripture, 
 reafon, and antiquity ; yet I dare not infinuate, 
 without a grofs violation of the laws of truth and 
 chriftian charity, that our Anabaptifl brethren, 
 who dillent from us on this fubje6l, are guilty of 
 a fundamental miflake, § no more than we would 
 B 2 conliga 
 
 § When perfons are hurried on by an inordinate attachment to a fa^ 
 vorite ceremony, their precipitancy is fometimcs fo very great, as ta 
 
 make 
 
Xii. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 conlign to perdition, the whole body of the peo* 
 pie, called fakers, becaufe they difcountenance 
 both the facraments. Yet, in oppofition to the 
 one, as total rejediors, and to the others, as glaring 
 mutilators of the inftitutions ofChrift, we deem it 
 a matter of indifpenfable obligation to defend the 
 whole truth, on this fubjecSt, againft each mode of 
 innovation. 
 
 And we have an additional reafon for maintain- 
 ing a fteady oppofition to the advocates for Ana- 
 baptifm, becaufe bigotry is interwoven with their 
 very fentiments. If Anabaptifts were content with 
 candidly adhering to their peculiarities, without 
 animadverting feverely on their differing bre- 
 thren ; I am certain that no Poedobaptift would 
 ever take up his pen againft them. But, when we 
 licar one among them, bringing the charge of 
 1)lindnejs againft Ibme of the brighteft ftars of the 
 church J and, when the fame perfon aggrandizes 
 
 make them drop fentiments, grofsly deviating from the laws of chriflian 
 charity; and which, in their cooler moments, they would probably reject 
 •with horror. This lias been the cafe with fome warm Anabaptifls. 
 Impelled by the force of bigotry, and adtuated by a delire of eftablifli- 
 ing a party, they have labored fo to enhance the importance of their 
 diftingiiifhing rite, as to make fubmiffion to it a fundamental duty, and 
 to affix implicit damnation to its rejeAors. Of this Mr. Tombes was no- 
 torioufly guilty, in an unguarded Addrefs to the inhabitants of BciviUcy ; 
 wherein, belides afierting, that " it was hyfocrijy that hindered them 
 •' from receiving the truth, he went fcill farther, and charged their 
 ** BLOOD ON THEIR OWN HEADS; as if (as Mr. jBax/fr fays) their damno- 
 " iion were like to folIoAv, if they were not re-baptized. He told them 
 " alfo that Infant-Baptifm pleaded from circumcifwn , is a herejy." Thus, ac- 
 cording to Mr. Tomhes, the pious members of Mr. Baxter's church were 
 hypocrites, heretics, and in danger of damnation, only becaufe they would 
 not bow down to the great Diana of Anabaptlfm. — See this unchari- 
 table bigotry, together with all the other concomitant errors of Ana- 
 baptifls, expofed in Mr. Baxter's Flaiii Scripture-proof of Infants' Church- 
 I4(^'ii"'^fi''P oni Baptifm. 
 
 dipping, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xm. 
 
 dipping, under the pompous title of an effrntial; "f- 
 — when another has the vanity to reprefent Poedo- 
 baptifts as " not fleering clear of the general cor- 
 ruption;"* — when a third has the boldnefs to 
 allert, that " there are no people right in all the 
 world, but Anabaptifts;" X — when a fourth will 
 injurioufly reprefent Infant-Baptifm as " a pillar 
 of Popery-,"^ — when a fifth will maintain, while 
 pleading for immeriion, that " he contends not 
 for a particular /Koc/i? of baptifm, but for baptifm 
 itfelf:" II even though fach an unfcriptural po- 
 fition implicitly unchurch thoufands of eminent 
 Chriftians, and reprefent us all as a fet of unbap- 
 tized Gentiles, without any church order, without 
 any regular miniftry, and without any real facra- 
 ments; — when a lixth will throw out an unchrif^ 
 tian infinuation, that " there is the higheft rcafon 
 to Jhun every fcheme of worlhip," (a contemptuous 
 word ior Fcedobaptiji Communion) " however pioufly 
 intended j" and that "the forfaking the alTem- 
 blies of the (Anabaptift) churches, is hurtful and 
 deftrudi ive oiiocidX religion; that uniting with other 
 congregations, is favoring the defign of diforderly 
 men; and that every religious alTociation, that h 
 
 \ This Mr. Medley has repeatedly done. 
 • Parmenas has inlinuated this, in his curious Addrefs. 
 I The modefl declaration of Mr. Timer, of Blnn'mgham. 
 § If the reader can mufter up patience, fufHcient to read a book, car- 
 rying a bluftering title-page, but totally void of argument, he may 
 peruie a traA of Dr. Gill's, intitled, Infant-Baptifm a Part and Pillar of 
 Popery. 
 
 II Thefe are the very words of Dr. Steanet, in the Preface of the firft 
 part of his Remarks on Mr. Addingion's excellent treatile, intiiied, The 
 (hrijiian Minifrer's reafons for laptizing infa;:ts, end for admiiiifcring the ordi- 
 nance by fprinkling or pouring of -water. 
 
 not 
 
xlv. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 not fdbf-rvient to the communion of faints, in the 
 orJer of the gofpel," (by which, I fuppofe, is meant 
 the gofprl-orJer of Anabaptiftsj " tends to the 
 Jubverfi'm of the Redeemer's kingdom;" -^ — when 
 a fcventh roundly affirms, '' We refufe to commu- 
 nicate^ with the Church of £72^/<3?Z(:/, for the fame 
 reafon that fhe refufes to communicate with per- 
 
 f If the rea ler chufe tffl fee a fpecimen of genuine church-bigotry, I 
 •would have him. by all means look into a little tradt, from which I have 
 taken the above quotations ; intitled, A Hmnble Addrcfs to the Churches of 
 .Chrij},&c, The author, Mr- Benjamin IFallu, is a pious minifter among 
 the Anabiptifts ; and I bear him record, that he has a prodigious zeal 
 for the pe -uliar interefts of the people with whom he is conne(£ted: but 
 whether his zeal be according to knowledge, charity, truth, or candor, 
 I fancy a few excerpta will eafily determine. — Our zealous Author intro- 
 duces his Addreft, with a lamentaiion that " godlinefs, and confequently 
 the glory of the churches is daily decaying." If by the " decay of godlinefs" 
 Mr. fF. means, a declenfion from the principles and pradlice of the 
 truth which is after godlinefs, I muft take the liberty to charge his ob- 
 fervation with a m inifeft miftake. For at the time the fecoiid edition 
 of his Addrefs was publiflied, (A. D. 1761), true godlinefs was exceed- 
 ingly upon the increafe, and, bleffed be God I ftill is; if the multipli- 
 cation of gofpel minifters and gofpel profeiTors be any proof. How 
 therefore, a rapid increafe of true godlinefs fhould occafion, what Mr. 
 W. calls a " decay of the glory of the churches," fo as (Pref. p. 6) •' to 
 reduce the vifible interefl of Jefus very loxu" I confefs I am at a lofs to 
 find out ; unlefs by the ^^ glory of the churches" be intended, the glory of 
 Anahapiifm, and by a " reducing of the viflble intereft of Jefus," he 
 mean, the non-attendance of Anabaptifts on their refpective Minifters. 
 And indeed, I Ibrewdly conjeiSture this to be Mr. Ws meaning. For, 
 although (in p. 19,) he introduces a perfon, as urging a plea for occa- 
 fional abfence from his ftated minifler, founded on the poflibility of 
 " fitting down with (other) children of God under a found gofpel- 
 miniftry;" yet this reafonable, this catholic, this pious plea he rejects, 
 by wildly fuppofing it to be fuggefted by the devil himfelf, and by alking 
 him, (p. 20,) the following queftion : " Why do thefe perfons, by a 
 Iblemn a<£t of union and fellowfliip with it, fupport and countenance, in 
 the church of God, a form of human invention ?" Here the fecret is all 
 out; and the real Englifli of Mr. JV.'s whole Addreft is, " Hear none, 
 but us. Communicate with none but us; for the temple of the Lord, the 
 tetnple of the Lord are we!" O bigotry ! hadft thou ever more trufty 
 friends, or more zealous dovotees, than the Anabaptifts in general, 
 :»nd Mr. Benjamlt} IVallin in particular ? 
 
 fons 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XV. 
 
 fons, Jlie cannot e/ieem baptized." * — When another 
 Anabaptlft gives the iinilhlng ftroke to the whole, 
 by '* charging their blood upon the heads" of thole, 
 who could not fee with his eyes, and who difre- 
 garded the thunder of his uncharitable anathema §; 
 
 1 fay, when men thus glaringly violate the 
 
 laws of charity, tranfgrefs the rules of chriftian mo- 
 deration, burft the facred bonds of catholic com- 
 munion, and make a fort of monopoly of the 
 church J is it to be wondered that the advocates 
 for truth Ihould rife up againft fuch men, and op- 
 pofe their fpirit and principles? 
 
 For my own part, 1 look upon an oppofitlon 
 to the fpirit of ancient and modern Anabaptifm, 
 as a very important and ncceflary part of minifte- 
 rial duty. When Anabaptifts enclofe themfelves 
 w'ithin the flrong-holds of bigotry ; look down 
 from their lofty ramparts, with fovereign con- 
 tempt upon their differing brethren; and flioot 
 their arrows of uncharitablenefs, againft the chil- 
 dren of God; what can we do, but object to their 
 bigoted peculiarities the feven-fold Ihield of fcrip- 
 ture, reafon, antiquity, moderation, candor, cha- 
 rity and truth ? 
 
 * So Dr. Gfl/efays, in p. 28, oi hh—ReJlexions ! on Dr. WaWs Hifton of 
 Jnf.int-'BapUfm. In anfwer to which, the PoedobaptiftDodlor fraartly replies, 
 in his excellent D(r/"e»cf of his own Hiftory, "This" (the above declaration) 
 " is indeed fliort, full and open. But then it is a delperaie uncharitable 
 tenet ; like to that of the Donatijls and Papifts: None faved, no Chriftians 
 but themfelves : None baptized for many hundred years, but a few of 
 the Alhlgenfus, at the year iioo, and a few draggling people in Holland 
 and Enghnd fmce 152a. Even thofe in Holland are moft, or many of 
 them cut off; for they do commonly life afufionJ" He (Dr. Gak) in this 
 point, forfakes molt of thofe of his own " communion."— See Dr. Hail's 
 Defencf, p. 86. 
 
 § See tfee note for page vlii. 
 
 As 
 
xvi. INTRODUCTION- 
 
 As Anabaptifts uyichurch their brethren; muft 
 not the perfons fo unchurched, attempt a vindica- 
 tion of their common right to church-member- 
 inip ? If we are looked upon as unhaptized-, is it 
 not our duty to remove the groundlefs infinua- 
 tion? When bigotry vents its anathemas, and 
 ■ fchifm multipHes diviHons in the church; do not 
 fcripture and reafon fuggeft the necefTity of ex- 
 poling the cruel claims of the one, and of admi- 
 niftcring a healing balm for the wounds occalioned 
 by the other? Shall Anabaptlfm, rampant with 
 party-zeal, obtrude its peculiarities upon the 
 church of Chrifi, to the great diilurbance of unit- 
 ed congregations ? and fhall no fcriptural expe- 
 dient be adopted, in order to flop the progrefs of 
 the fchifmatic intruder ? Shall we tamely hear 
 men, declaring from the prefs, as Mr. JVallin has 
 done, that " uniting with other congregations is 
 favoring the delign of dijhrderly men?" Shall bigot- 
 ry thus ufurp the place of chriftian charity? and 
 Ihall not the hand of fcripture argument pulh the 
 monfter from her ufurped throne? Muft this 
 lame montter fcatter abroad the coals of difcord ? 
 and Ihall we fit by as filent fpedators, and attempt 
 no cxtin61ion of the bickering fire, that has waft- 
 ed, and ftill continues to wafte, the vineyard of the 
 Lord? Is it a matter of no importance, whether 
 we are united in peace and truth; or whether we 
 are perpetually to be difturbed with the clamors 
 of bigotry? Shall warm Anabaptifts make dipping 
 an ejjhitial badge of diJcipUJIiip, and an ejjential in- 
 gredient in the obrdlence of faith ? and Ihall we 
 
 not 
 
INTRODUCTION, xvli, 
 
 t]OtYemoni\Y3Lte ^gRin{\{\.ichjud ai'zing tenets f Shall ' 
 we not plainly tell them that a particular quantity 
 of cold zvater, no more conftitutes the communion' 
 of faints, than meats and drinks do, the Kingdom 
 of God ? but that " we are all the children of God 
 by faith in Christ Jesus?" that all the water in 
 Jordan will not warm the heart, if faith and love 
 be not relident there? that poor bigoted people 
 may have prodigious faith in dipping <, and yet none 
 in Chkist? and that fome Anabaptifts may fo 
 effectually bury in their " watery grave" every 
 fpark of good delire and brotherly love, as to 
 commence frozen profeflbrs, fiery bigots, and un- 
 charitable anathematizers ? * — Shall we not tell 
 them all this? Yes we will, even though, like Mr. 
 'Tombes, they fhou'd " charge our blood upon our 
 heads'' For, '* fay I thefe things as a man ? or 
 faith not the law the fame r" 
 
 It is an excellent obfervation, that error is ealily ,' 
 difcoverable, by the fleam oi bigotry, that proceeds ' 
 from the monger's mouth. And when it pollutes 
 the air of the church, with its infedious breath, 
 is it not our duty, to level a ferious blov/ at the 
 hideous monfter? and to point out its deformity, ; 
 left others fuck in the foul taint, and become pro-- 
 felytes, not to truth, but to bigotry? -^l believe Ana- . _ 
 baptifm to be founded in error j and in that kind \ 
 of error, which is calculated to interrupt the har- 
 mony of the church of Christ : and that as once-^ 
 it was the parent of civil diilenlions in Germany^ 
 it now, under an angelic form ^ is the nurfe of con- 
 
 * When I fay, this may be the cafe of fomt, I am far from infi- 
 nuating, it is fo with all. 
 
 C tinual 
 
5£vui. INTRODUCTION 
 
 tinual religious animolities among the^eople of 
 God. I am convinced therefore, thaT, with a view- 
 to the profperity of Zion, the progrefs of the gof- 
 pel, and the welfare of fouls, truth ought to buc- 
 kle on her armor, and not be afraid to meet tiws 
 huge Goliak, that defies and difturbs the armies of 
 Jfrael. In doing this, a degree of plainnefs and 
 fcriptural feverity will be unavoidable. I fay, fcrip- 
 t ur al {everlty; by which I mean, fuch a feverity, 
 as fcripture warrants j which is, a firm oppofition 
 to error, founded on argument, ftrengthened by 
 matter of facSl, and tempered by brotherly love. 
 I know, when error is hard pullied by forcible 
 reafoning, and bigotry is hunted out of all its mi- 
 ferable fubterfuges, that their miftaken advocates 
 are ready to publifli a hue-and-cry againft their 
 opponents, by charging that upon their fpirlt, 
 which is nothing more than the feverity of folid 
 truth. Thus the blame caft upon the fpirit, is 
 often but an evafive apology for a defed of argu- 
 ment. 
 
 This kind of blame generally proceeds, like- 
 wife from the very nature of error; which, like a 
 difordered limb, cannot bear a fearching remedy. 
 As the gentleft application of the furgeon's inftru- 
 ment to a fore place, will give pain ; fo the tender- 
 eft manner of treating error will be often ccnfured 
 as fevere, when the fault is in the morbid part, 
 and not in the hand, that fearches it. And, if 
 there fhould be an additional forenefs through the 
 latent gangrene oi bigotry ^ the pain, and the cla- 
 mor of feverity, will increafe, in proportion as 
 
 the 
 
INTRODUCTION, xlx, 
 
 the penetrating probe attempts a radical cure. 
 Hence good Mr. Baxter fays, in his admirable 
 Vindication of Infants' Church-memberjliip and Bap^ 
 tifnit " I find it is the excoriation and exulceration 
 of men's fpirits, that ufually caufeth ihe fmart, and 
 maketh words (and arguments) to feem intolera- 
 ble ; which are either but a duty, or wholly blame- 
 lefsj or at leaft 2^ found mind would never hzxefclt 
 them." 
 
 However, throughout the courfe of my obfer-t 
 vations, I hope my heart will, be influenced by 
 that brotherly love, which is the genuine charac- 
 teriftic of a difclple of Christ, and which is ever 
 ready to propofe, and admit, terms of reconcili- 
 ation between ditFering brethren j more efpecially, 
 where the differences do not refpe(5t the funda- 
 mentals of chrifiianity. While bigots dip their pen 
 in the gall of bitter invecflive and party-rancor; 
 iinay mine diftil with the penetrating juice of folid 
 truth, and the balfamic oil of chriftian affe(fl;Ion I 
 May the diftillation of this double fluid, make my 
 pen, the happy inftrument, of carrying conviction 
 to my opponent's mind> of detecting the monfter 
 bigotry, and of healing every wound that the con- 
 troverlial fword may occalion! If one part of the 
 mingled juice Ibould at any time adminifler a {eur 
 fation of acrimony ; may It be abundantly cor- 
 reded through the foftening powers of the other ! 
 And may my pen, thus guided by truth, and love, 
 fubferve the two-fold purpofe, of being a conofive 
 to bigotry and error, and a promoter of brotherly- 
 ^indnefs and charity ! And, as long as my oppo- 
 
 C 2 nei^t% 
 
XX, INTRODUCTION* 
 
 ponents chufe to continue the debate, may our 
 hearts be engaged in prayer to God ! that no root 
 cf bitlernefs may fpring up, to darken our views 
 of truth, or interrupt the exercife of mutual affec- 
 tion ! 
 
 Although the field of controverfy, hke the bar- 
 i ren mountains of Gilboa, is too often deftitute of the 
 I <ffw of real edification, or the tj^/tz of divine bene- 
 i dicflion; yet I believe, this arifes, not fo much from 
 ' the thing itjelf, as, eventually, from the fpirit of 
 the difputants. Controverfy is, or ought to be, one 
 mode of inveftigating ^rz^M: and as no invefiiga- 
 tion can be fo important, as that which hcLsfa-ip- 
 ! . tural truth for its obje6f j we have certainly reafon 
 to expect the blefling of God, in our pious re- 
 fearches, provided they are guided by his word, 
 influenced by his Spirit, ref^rained by his law, fub- 
 ordinate to his will, and conducive to the good of 
 his church. 
 ! Ever fince my mind has been roufed from its 
 native indolence, and awakened to a ferious foli- 
 citude about things of infinite moment, I have 
 had an infatiate thirfi: after truth j which has been 
 heightened, in proportion to the real importance 
 cf any particular truth, and the earneftnefs, with 
 which it has been controverted. As a minifter of 
 '" the gofpel, and a member 'of the church of Eng- 
 land, I have been led to examine the peculiar {cn-^ 
 timents of our church, refpetling doSirines and dif- 
 cipUne. As to the former^ I can truly fay, they 
 appear to me, in their general import, perfe6lly 
 to harmonize with that form of found words, deli- 
 vered 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxl; 
 
 vcred by Christ and his apoftlesj and as to the 
 latter, although candor obHgcs me to acknow- 
 ledge, that fome inferior parts of it may not be 
 abfolutely defenfible', * and that the whole of it 
 iulfers too great a degree of relaxation, in the prc- 
 fent day of degeneracy j yet taking it altogether, ia 
 its general conliftency with itftlf, I believe the dif- 
 cipUne, in conjunction with the excellent doctrinal 
 fyftem of our church, is calculated to preferve it 
 from the inconveniences of confujion and diJordeVy 
 as v/ell as from the audacious alFaults of herejy: 
 and yet I am far from being offended v/ith any. 
 chriftian friend, who is of a contrary opinion. As 
 the practice of Infant-Baptifm is eftablilhed in the- 
 church of England, and indeed, in every national 
 reformed church throut^hout the world; and as 
 this primitive inlHtutjon has always been warmly 
 
 * When I fay, fome inferior parts, I mean fuch as do not immediately 
 affccSt the ejeiice of our church-ilifcipline. I mofl: heartily approve of 
 the formuhiry and offices of the Church of England, ii\ general ; and tho' 
 there are fome modes of expreffion, in fome parts of them, which may 
 not be ftridtly defenfible ; yet even thefe, when taken in connexion with 
 the whole, and viewed through the medium of candor, feem to drop their 
 exceptionable appearance. After this declaration, the reader will be fur- 
 prized at Mr. Sandys' 9, confident interrogatory, in p. lo, of his Letter to 
 . " Will the V. deny, that there are a great many errors, re- 
 tained in the formiilary and offices of the Church of England? If he 
 denies this, I beg leave to obferve, he has greatly altei'ed his opinion." 
 — A ^^ great many errors" in our formulary 1 And this " o;/ce my opi- 
 nion!" In anfwer to the polite gentleman, who fo humbly " legs Icave'^ 
 to make this " obfervation," I certify all whom it may concern, that I 
 am here confronted with a falfe accufation; and that I never infinuated, 
 afierted, or thought, that there was any tiling in our formulary, that 
 merited the ferious title of real errors ; much lefs that they were cither 
 "great" or " many" On the contrary, I beheve our excellent fcrviccs 
 £.bound with truths ; and thcfe too, ^iiany in number! &xid great in impor- 
 tance ! 
 
 oppofe4 
 
 
xxii. introduction: 
 
 oppofed by Anahaptijis, from the mad reign of 
 'John of Leyden, down to the Interregnum oi Crom- 
 well^s ufurpation and from that hakyon Mra of 
 Anabaptifm to the pnfent ddy; I have been na- 
 turally led to Inquire into the ground of an oppo- 
 iitlon, which originated from German ranter ifm, 
 and is flill ventilated by fome miftaken pious bre- 
 thren in Great-Britain. The refult of this inquiry 
 has been, a full convidion of the apoftolic, pri- 
 mitive, fcriptural, and rational validity of Infant- 
 Eaptlfm, and of the novelty and evil tendency of 
 Anabaptifm, whether German or Britijh, 
 
 Since the commencement of the prefent contro- 
 ^verfy, my mind has been neceffarily turned to- 
 wards the iubjecSl, io as to enter more deeply Into 
 it, than before : and, I declare, that, whatever 
 doubts 1 may have formerly entertained, refpe6l- 
 ing Jcime of the arguments of Pcedodaptlfls, the 
 more I deliberate upon thefe arguments, and upon 
 thofe on the cppolite fide of the queftion, the 
 more I am convinced of the firength of the one, 
 and of the weaknefs and fallacy of the other. This 
 convidlicn has greatly increafed, lince I have had 
 an opportunity of reviewing the publications of 
 my opponents. — As for Mr. Sandys^ and his bro- 
 ther, Mr. Farmenas the Deacon, I fancy every 
 perfon of candor and tafte will acknowledge, that 
 a brace of difputants, were never better paired, 
 than in the happy coalition of this duumvirate i and 
 that for learning and politenefe, they are fach exa^l 
 twins, one would be apt to imagine, like the fam'd 
 Cajior and Pollux, ex o'co procedcre eodem: and, if 
 mabpertncfs and fpleen are convertible terms for 
 
 argument 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxiii. 
 
 argument and brotherly love, England cannot pro- 
 duce a like couple of controvertifts.— As for poor 
 Mr, Turner, of Birmingham, he has written in ^o 
 much hafte, as to obfcrve neither method, nor ar- 
 gument : and, like a perfon that has outrun his 
 firength, before he has advanced half way in the 
 race, Mr. T. pants for breath, where he fhouid be 
 cool to examine his fubje(5l. — High as our expec- 
 tations were raifed, by the advertifed frontifpiece 
 of Mr. Medley's publication, I cannot help faying, 
 that the title-page is an abfolute burlefque upon the 
 contents i and that one might ahiioft look upon the 
 title, " Chriftian Baptijm defended,'' as an ironical 
 fubftitute for Anabaptifm deferted and Infant -B apt if nz 
 defended. For, abftradled from a few fallies of vul- 
 gar wittlcifm ; an uncouth arrangement of fome 
 trite obfervations ; not a little perfonal abufe; 
 fome borrowed notes-, and a prodigious flock of 
 wordy tautology j — I fay, abflracfled from thefe, Mr. 
 M's pamphlet contains nothing truly formidable. 
 And, howfoever this performance may be aggran- 
 dized in the Imagination of his admiring friends, 
 fo, as like fome huge figure to fetch a haughty ftridc 
 over my "puny letter-, yet 1 think a fewjfones of ar- 
 gument levelled from ihe fling of God's word, will 
 eaiily lliock this great Cclofjus ; and bring it, toge- 
 ther with all its brazen pomp, to the ground. And 
 inethinks,"if ever the tantus hiatus was literally il- 
 luftrated, it was, when Mr. M.'s produdion came 
 forth, after a long previous pompous advertife- 
 rnent. f When 
 
 f To the bcft of my recolledHon, the advertlfcment, declaring that 
 Mr. Medlcfi pamphlet wou'd be fiwrth publifhed, was lafcrted in the 
 
xxlr. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 When I mention, above, fome doubts, refpecl- 
 ing the arguments of Poedobaptifts, none, I hope, 
 will be fo deftitute of candor, as to infer, I ever 
 doubted of the validity of the ordinance itfelf. 
 And, yet if I had entertained fuch a doubt, the 
 circumftance would not have been lingular : for 
 the great ZuingUus himfelf, and good Mr. Baxter, 
 labored under fuch an embarraflment ; infomuch 
 that the former at one time denied Infant-Baptifm 
 altogether, and the latter defered his entering up- 
 on a full minifterial charge, bccaufe of his latent 
 fcrupies refpecling the validity of the ordinrnce. 
 And, it is exceedingly remarkable, that thefe two 
 doubters^ were afterwards, two of the moft zealous 
 and able defenders of the controverted rite. * 
 
 As 
 
 Shrewjbury Paper, Saturday, May ajth ; and yet the advertifement in the 
 fame Paper announcing its atStual publication, did not appear till July zoth. 
 So that here was an interval of very near t'Mo months between the firfi: 
 and fecond notice ; and this is called shortly. Our Anabaptift friends 
 are in fuch a prodigious hurry to let the world know what is conaiiig, 
 that they advertife the future birth, probably, before a great part of 
 the expeded prodigy is conceived. This looks like a fpccimen of Mr. 
 P-annenas'& precipitancy. 
 
 * Take Mr. Baxter's own words, in p. 3, of his Apology, prefixed to 
 his Plain Scripture Proof of Infants' Church-Memhcrjhip, &c. — " Theie dif- 
 coveries did quickly ftay me. And the feparathig, dividing, fcandalous 
 ccurfes of all the ylnahaplifls that I was acquainted with, with their igno- 
 rance and proud felf-ejkem, and defpifuig the precioulefl: minifters of Chrift, 
 deter me from affociating with them. Yet did I remain doubtful fome 
 time after. I relblved therefore, filently to forbear the pradticc, while 
 1 further ftudied the point. And I admired to find, that learned holy 
 Reformer, Zuinglius, (afterwards the maul of the Anahaptifts) to deliver 
 his experience in the very like kind, and that his cafe and mine were fo 
 near the fame, that by arguments giving too much to" (that is, laying too 
 great a ftrefs on the outv/ard and vifible fign of) " baptifm, he was dri- 
 ven quite to deny Infant-Baptifm (there he went beyond me;) but then, 
 fo he did alfo afterward in his po-iVcrful oppoftion to that erforj as you may 
 fee in Tcin. 2, p. 63. And why lliuuU not I as freely confcfs my infir- 
 mities, 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxv. 
 
 As the matter in debate, betwixt us and the 
 Anabaptirts, is not of a fundamental nature, and 
 thofe things, wherein we agree, are much more 
 important, than thofe, wherein we differ; I delire, 
 throughout this controverfy, to keep in mind the 
 neceilary diftindlons of the following celebrated 
 maxim; In neceffariis unitas; in non nscejfariis 
 LTBERTAS; in omnibus CHARiTAs. f That the 
 reader may fee, how far myfelf and my opponents 
 have adhered to, or fwerved from, this three-fold 
 diftin6^ion,l will lay before him a little hllioricfketch 
 of the prefent difputatlon, from its iirfi: rife to the 
 prefent moment. And I fhall the rather do this, 
 becaufe it will enable me to make fome curfory 
 remarks on the refpeifflve produdllons of the twin- 
 difputants, MelTrs. Parmenas and Sandys ; and to re- 
 move fome of the dirt of failhood and mifrepre- 
 fentation, wherewith, the pamphlets of thefe re- 
 doubtable Gemelli are overflocked. 1 fay, fome; 
 becaufe, to remove all, would be an Herculean 
 labor-, like clcanfing the accumulated filth, from 
 the polluted ftables of Jugaas. 
 
 Sometime, I think, m December I'j-]^, Mr. Medley, 
 an Anabaptift Minifler, reiident in Liverpool, made 
 a vifit to Shrewjhury. The principal intent of this 
 vilit, was, to adminliter immerlion to certain 
 members among the Anabaptifis, who were deem- 
 ed qualified for that ceremony. Left the reader 
 fiiould fuppofe, that Mr. A^.'s journey was occa- 
 
 mlties, as he ? who yet afterwards fpoke more Jharply againfl their 
 doiflrines, practices, &c. as alfo did Lulhcr, Calvin, BuUinger, Rbegluj, 
 Wigandits, with the reft of thofe holy, learned Reformers." 
 
 j- In ejfaiiiah unity; in mn-eJJ'ei:tiah liberty; in all tilings, charity. 
 
 D fioned^ 
 
xxvl. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 iioned, through the abfcnct, indifpjition, or abfo- 
 ]ate irant of a Baptift Minlfter in Shreui/hury, I 
 think it ncceffiiry to inform him, that there is one 
 in town, equally qualified with Mr. M. for difpen- 
 fmg baptifm; who, ac the time the candidates re- 
 quired immeriion, was neither abfent, nor indif- 
 pofed. But an unhappy divifion, fublifting be- 
 tween this minifter and one part of the people 
 here, (in which divilion, it feems, Farmenas, whofe 
 real name is Phillips, took a very active part; and 
 the immeriion taking place on Parmenas's lide of 
 the queftion,) a commiffion extraordinary was 
 fent to Mr. M. appointing him adminiftrator, in 
 preference to his brother in difgrace. Thus Par- 
 maias in fending, and Mr. M. in coming, united 
 in a virtual fomentation of the prefcnt divilion. X 
 As I was not unacquainted with the dt^ign of 
 Mr. M.'^ viiit, {o neither was I ignorant, that it 
 was ufual for Anabaptift-Minifters to expatiate on 
 their favorite ceremony; and in all their bapti- 
 zations, to produce whatever pittance of argu- 
 ment they are flocked with, in recommendation 
 
 \ Let none fuppofe I triumph in this divifion. Indeed I do not. On 
 the contrary, that perfons in the fame town, of the fame denomination, and 
 of the fame opinion too in the grand efientials of the gofpel, fliould not 
 luiite in one and the fame cimrch-comniunion, is a circumftance, that gives 
 r.iC real concern. And,' if Parmencis, otherwife Mr. Pkillips, otherwife 
 liic " Deacon of the Baptifi-Chtirch meeting, in Hlgh-fireet, Shrrui/liury ," will 
 l.ut mufter up humility enough, to make a proper fubmiffion to the 
 rainifler, in whofe expuifson he had fuch an adtive hand; and if, in con- 
 lequencf of fuch humble fnbmifiion, a re-uniou fliould take place between 
 the prefent difagreeing parties ; I moft ferioully declare, that fuch an 
 event would affijrd me real pleafure ; not only as it would rcftore peace 
 to a divided clafs of pious Auahaptifts, but, as it would likewife indicate, 
 that poor, precipitate, inflammable Farmenas, was at lafl converted into 
 the humble and paciiic Mr. P'rAlUps. 
 
 of 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxvlu 
 
 -of their diftinguiHiing moeie. Taking this for 
 granted, and feehng not the fmalleft diicompofure 
 on the occalion (though I muft own, I was a httle 
 furprifed, that one who affe<5ls to lay fo Httle ftrels 
 on water-baptifm, lliould dip his candidates in a 
 cold bath in the depth of winter,) * I entertained 
 Mr. M. at my houfe ; and gave him that friendly 
 reception, which I would, to any man of any de- 
 nomination, where our differences in judgment 
 did not x&i^t£t ejfentiah : And, in the courfe of 
 converfation, I even aflured Mr. M. that " if it 
 were not for thofe partition-walls, which differ- 
 ences in exterior matters had unavoidably reared 
 between particular churches, I Ihould have been 
 glad to introduce him into my pulpit; becaufe we 
 v/ere agreed in matters of greater importance." -j^ 
 
 * If it be aflceJ, " Eut what muft be done ? Since Mr. S. is not qua- 
 lified for dipping ; and the Minifter, whom P. -and his party expelled 
 from among them, is not tolerated to perform the ceremony ; how iliall 
 the candidates be immerfed?" I anfwer ; if they will not accept of im- 
 merfion from the Rlinifter they ftill hold in difgxace, let them apply anv 
 where but to Liverpool. Mr. M. is by no means a proper perfon to be 
 appointed adm'mil^rator. His conftitution is too injlammalk, ever to be 
 trufted with an occalion of expatiating ou cold ivater. And, if I raav 
 judge from the pompoilty and vaunting nature of his late harangue*, as 
 v,-ell as from the uncommon bigotry of his fpirlt, I never knev/ an And- 
 baptift, lels qualified to be a heakr of church-breaches, or a promoter of 
 peace. My vote then is; — any man for the dipper, hut Mr- M. unlefs he 
 iliould make a more humble, candid, and modeft: appearance, than he 
 has done in his late villt to Shr£wjimj. 
 
 •\^ This friendly declaration, Mr. Parmenas has mentioned in his thir4 
 production, intitled, " Ecclefmftlcal Zeal,'" (or more properly Duuonal 
 Fury,) but with what intent, I am at a lofs to find out; unlels it be, to 
 iijfinuate a contraft between this declaration and my fublequent Lcttev 
 to Mr. hi. But the force of this infmuation is repelled, by confidering, 
 that when it was made, I was totally ignorant of Mr. AL's falfe doiftrinc 
 orf the CiTentiality of dipping. 'Till he recants thiit, I revoke my decla- 
 ration. 
 
 P 2 An^ 
 
xxvill. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 And the evening after this vifit, I went to hear 
 Mr. M: preach. 
 
 All this time I heard none of the exceptionable 
 paiTages in Mr. ikf.'s exhortations on the neceffity 
 of dipping. But, after his departure, hearing from 
 one and another, that his animadverlions were fall 
 of ridicule, and feverity ; and, that, belides main- 
 taining his favorite point with much dogmatic po- 
 iitivenefs, he made fubmillion to believers' dipping 
 " EssENT . AL to the obedlencc of faith-,'* perceiving, 
 that fuch do6lrine, favored lirongly of the Galatian 
 leaven-, tended to corrupt the gofpel of Christ ; 
 and was calculated to embarrafs the minds of th*e 
 limple J I thought, a few falutary hints on the fub- 
 jeci:, would not be altogether ufelefs or unfeafon- 
 able. Accordingly, as the beft mode of calling 
 this poiitive gentleman to an account, and of ref- 
 cuing the minds of fome of my hearers from 
 any degree of embarraffment, I tranfmitted my 
 thoughts to the prefs. 
 
 As I v/ilhed to proceed with a degree of caution, 
 I wrote to Mr. Phillips, acquainting him frankly 
 with my defign, and requefting his information 
 with refpe6l to Mr. A/.'s dodrine oi baptifmal effen- 
 iiality. Poor P. was immediately thrown into luch 
 a pannic and agitation of mind, that he fcts about 
 an Address to the Baptift -Church meeting, in High- 
 Jireet, Shrew/bury-, which was both finifhed, pub- 
 liihcd, and read by his reverend auxiliary in the 
 meeting, before my pamphlet faw the light. As 
 this little fcrap of fplenetic divinity, contained the 
 moft glaring mifreprefentations of the ftate, fpirit, 
 
 and 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxix. 
 
 and condud of Poedobaptifts, I thought a Word to 
 Parmenas might reprels the im pertinencies of his 
 pen; check the bigotry cf his fpirit ; and ferve as 
 a Uttle rereward to my Letter to a Baptiji-Mijiifier. 
 I hoped alio, that a hint to Parmenas, refpeding 
 his difquahtication, as an author, might fave the 
 public from the lumber of his future produ(Stions : 
 But I was mill:aken. The fame Parmtnas writes 
 again. His fecond performance is worfe than the 
 firfl: ; for this fills in every refpe61:. Having dif- 
 covered a piece of lliameful dilingenuity, patro- 
 nized by Mr. Sandys under the roje, 1 gave a Reply to 
 my wordy antagonift, in which I detected and ex- 
 pofed the ignorance and flynefs of his reverend 
 aid-de-camp; and held forth both to public view, as 
 pretenders to divinity and learning. 
 
 I really thought, after the iiril admonition, Par- 
 menas would take the friendly hint ; but more ef- 
 pecially after I had n:iade him Ji.ck of his elTorts in 
 criticijm, logic, and tranfiatlon. Eut 1 was too fan- 
 guine in my expe6lations ; and a judicious note of 
 the refpedable London Reviewers, proves what a 
 very incompetent judge 1 am of the fpirlt and ge- 
 nius of bad writers. * However, could I fuppofe 
 it poffible, after wrefting out of Par menas's hand 
 every weapon of low chicanery, paraloglfm, and 
 faife criticifm, with which he vapored, that he 
 would take up the gauntlet the third time? Could 
 
 * " Had Mr. R. D. half the experience of us, Reviewers, he would 
 know, that there is not an animal on the earth, fo indocile, untrnBdk, 
 
 and felf-fiifficient, as a bad -writer. He mi^jht, jiift as foon make a filken 
 
 purfe of a fow's ear, as make i i:zd -writer lay down his pen, on a full 
 convitStion he is not a good one." Excellent obfervatioa! I e>:irneltiy 
 recommend it to Pannenas, and the other learned Duumvir. 
 
 the 
 
XXX. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the world believe It, that a poor illiterate man, 
 would thrice defert his proper bufincf^, and lliew his 
 face in the field of controverfy ? Strange and un- 
 accountable as it may feem, it is ftricftly true. But 
 mark the cunning of our Salopian Deacon : Hav- 
 ing 'Tiade him ailiamed of his pompous fignature, 
 Parmenas, he intirely drops it, and fends forth his 
 ;?^/r<^ publication, without a na.me ; probably, that 
 as an a7io7iymous fcribbler, he might give full fcope 
 to the overflowings of his abufive pen, which might 
 be otherwife reflrained under the ufe of a venera- 
 ble fcrlpture namej and that people might not 
 fuppofe that Mr. Anonymous was Mr. Parmenas; 
 though but a peep into the Dialogue might foon 
 convince one of the fmalleft difcernmeiit, that as 
 face anfwercth to face in a glafs, fo do the features 
 of the Diakgifi to thofe of the wordy JddreJJer. 
 
 Whoever reads Parmenas's late Dialogue, will nar 
 turally fuppofe, that he has now " brought forth'* 
 all his " little" ftock " of knowledge;" and that, 
 having got to the very zenith of paffion, he has at 
 laft arrived at his ne-phn-ultra of abufe. And yet, 
 luch is the fertility of the ingenious Parmenas's 
 imagination, and fo flrongly does he feem affected 
 with a certain diforder, peculiar to bad writers, 
 called cacosthes fcribendi the itch of fcribbling; that I 
 Ihould not be at all furprifed, if, after having ex- 
 hibited himfelf, as an addreffer, a critic, a logician, 
 a tranjlator, a dialogue-writer, a deacon, he Ihiould 
 make one grand effort more; ft rain all the nerves 
 of his foaring genius; and, to the aftonilhment of 
 the whole world of pamphleteers, produce ^fourth 
 
 tra<^. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxL 
 
 tra(5l, that might merit a place in the records of 
 the famed Martinus Scribkrus. I really think he 
 will be dabbling at the prefs again: and, my prog- 
 noflications are ftrengthened, not only by the ob- 
 fervation of the Reviewers, but likewife by the fol- 
 lowing opinion of the Poet-, 
 
 *' Who fhames zfcribblerf Break ^Wi? cobweb thro' 
 ** He fpins the {['u^\\t.^ fe!f-pleafing thread a-new : 
 " Deftroy h\s fib ox fophijiry j in vain; 
 ** The creature's at his dirty work again; 
 *' Tliron'd on the centre of his thin defign?, 
 *' Proud of his poor extent of flimzy lines." 
 
 If Farmenas, and his reverend coadjutor Mr. 
 Sandys, have not intirely exhaufled their quiver of 
 malevolence ; and if there be ever a remaining 
 arrow of inve(5iive which they have not as yet 
 lliot; I give them this public notice, that the field 
 is open for them ; that they may enter as foon as 
 they pleafe; that they may vapor away, by the 
 hour, undifturbed, for me-, that I fhall never once 
 more interrupt them, in their tranflation of mottos, 
 their formation oi fyUogifms, or even in the impor- 
 tant work of their efforts 'mjyllabiccritipjm;^ and 
 
 that, 
 
 •}■ Alluding to the difingenuous condudl of thefe two critics, in a cafe 
 mentioned in my Reply to Parnienas, p. 26. Although I have there, witii 
 a little mild irony, expofed the fact, yet Mr. S. in his late performance, 
 attempts to vindicate himfelf. But his vindication only proves, that 
 impertinence, ■when detedtcd, will fly to the pitiful fubterfuges of eva- 
 fion and chicanery, rather than to the light of open confeflion. The 
 favfl is fimply this. — When P. and S. anlniad%'erted on the cmifricn of a 
 fyllable in imitatores, the Printer took my manujcript, without my know- 
 ledge, to prove the error to be really net mine, but that of the prefs. 
 They nevcrthelefs fufFered the paultry animadverfion to ftand. And now 
 that I have expofed them for it, our jyllahic critic flies ofF, and fliufflcs, 
 like a right pedant, by faying " I fent back ray proof-llieet, uncorrefrvd " 
 
 What 
 
xxxu. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that. If they lliould {ally forth into the field of con- 
 troverfy again, in order to make d redoubled at- 
 tack on the " battery of the learned Vicar," 1 lliall 
 not take a fingle f^ep out of my parochial retire- 
 ment, lo much as to fee what they are about, for 
 the reafon fuggefted in the following lines j 
 
 *' Pains, reading, ftudy, are their juft pretence, 
 
 " And all they want is, truths good mannzrs^ fenfe : 
 
 *' Csmmas anJ poind they fet exa6lly right, 
 
 " And 'twere a /in to rob them of their ?r.ite!" *,,. 
 
 •^ Here 
 
 What then ? Does that prove I vjrote falfe Latin ? Beiides, if publica- 
 tions are to be canvafled by fuch impertinent criticifms, where is the 
 author that will ftand exempt from the imputation of writing, not only 
 bad Latin, but bad Englip too ? Yea, what will become of the critical 
 ■word-catcher himfelf? For, if I were to imitate his impertinence, I could 
 point out two blunders in p. i6, 17, of his pamphlet ; and blunders, not 
 mentioned in his lift of errata too ; one of which turns an epic patch of 
 this gentleman's into down-right nonfcnfe, and the other deftroys the 
 fenfe, frofody znd gram-mar of a Latin line. But fliall I fay to this gentle- 
 man, " Sir, you fliould have taken better care of your Latin and Greek 
 fentences." Or {hall I fliulRe v/ith the blunderer himfelf, and fay, " I 
 Lelieve none will helitate to fay" thefe two errors " were iiJt'miateh the 
 quoter'sT' No. I leave fch criticifms to the couple of" word-catchers that 
 
 live on JyUabks." O but I " criticized on P.'s inaccuracies." So I did. 
 
 But the cafe is not parallel. He I'jrcte his nonfenfe : he puj'lijhed and re- 
 fubliji.'ed his nonfenfe : and, what is worfe, his fyllabic auxiliary once 
 abetted and now defends his nonfcnfe. — O but I mif-tranflatcd " Dixit adhnc 
 
 aliquid nil fane." I did not. The accurate word-catchers left out the 
 
 note of interrogation, and I conftriied their Latin accordingly. So that, if 
 they -write nonfen.'e, am I to be bla.Tied for confTruing their nonfcnfe. The 
 truth is, I thought they purpofeJy omitted the interrogation, in order to 
 qualify their calling niv Vindication a mere nothing, g. d. " He has laid 
 
 formthing but upon the whole, this fomcthing is, in reality, nclhh'.g.'" 
 
 This was a juft tranP.ation, exhibited fenfe, and contained a more mcdefi 
 reflexion on my 'pamphlet, than when decorated with an infolent vote of 
 hrterrogation ; which infinuates, that I have ahjolntely faid nothing. So that, 
 our fabricators of nonfenfe have here, only the moderate triumph of * 
 nonfenfical critlcifm. But, whoever remembers how they blundered in 
 the tranflation of my 7notto, will think that their triumph, in qu:'.lity of 
 tranflators is for ever fullied, by that never-to-be-forgotten fau.x pas. 
 
 * So far am I from being difpofed to rcl> the worthy tvAn-difputants of 
 their prctenfioiis to a likrdry mite, that, on the contrary, 1 wi/li to be 
 
 inftnuneni^i 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxiH. 
 
 Here I lliould drop MefTrs. P. and 5". and fz- 
 lute theie fyllabic-leRYned adelphi with a longumvale, 
 were it not that dire neceffity obliges me to defer 
 my long farewell, 'till I have expofed the fallhood 
 of their reprefentations, and the futility of fome 
 of their arguments. And before I do this, I muft 
 beg leave to premife, that of the two. I look upon 
 Mr. 5» as the lefs formidable in point of clofe ar- 
 guing; but in point of illiberal abufe, Parmenas 
 himfelf is but a dwarf to his reverend auxiliary. 
 Though P. is really a better Engliih writer f* and 
 a htiitx reajoner (tho' bad is the beft) than S. yet 
 E he 
 
 infttumental in adding to the flock, by affording them a frefli opportu- 
 nity of difplaying their genius, and exhibiting their (what Mr. S. calls) 
 " immenle ftores of clalilcal treafure " As this pamphlet is likely to be 
 pretty large, it will give them locus ad agendum ampl'tffimus. And, if they 
 think proper to review all the little errata, in commas, fyllables, punc- 
 tuation, letters, &c. they fliall be dubbed emendaton laureat, correftorS' 
 general of the prefs ; and fliall have my full conlent, for receiving an 
 annual tributary panegyric, from thofe renowned Literati, the worthy 
 Society 
 
 " Of Ward-catchers, that live on SyllaMcs." 
 
 f In order, once for all, to fli^me P.'s auxiliary, out of his pedantry 
 and impertinence, I need only remark, that when a correcfl Englilli fen- 
 tence is laid before him, he cannot difcover its correctnefs ; and by 
 attempting to find fault, he gives an additional manifeflation of his ig- 
 norance. In my Reply to Parmenas, I drop the following concelTion, 
 " — Upon the walls of this battery (of fcripture and reafon) I fliould 
 never have prefumed to appear, when I confidered that it" (battery, the 
 immediate antecedent) " furniilies many more able and experienced 
 foldiers than myfelf." Is it any deviation from grammar, to make it 
 refer to battery? Or from fenfe, to fay, a " battery" of fcripture and rea- 
 Ibn " furnifies,"' or exhibits, foldiers? Our pedantic word-catcher dog- 
 matizes in an inftant, and, without informing us why, pronounces the 
 fentence " neither fenfe nor grammar." But, in fo doing, he reminds 
 me of the fable of the viper and file. Offendit folido. The fentence is too 
 hard for our criticifing viper's teeth. — But " it contains a solIcism!" As 
 I never met with fuch a word in the Englllli language, I turned back to 
 our critic's table oi errata; and, though he has marked feveral words 
 
 there, 
 
jcxxlv. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 he labors under the difadvantage, of not being^ 
 able to fcold fo profulely in Latin and Greek. 
 P. abufes in plain Englilh ; but 5". in " immenfe 
 fiores of clajjicaltreafure." The one talks big, but 
 flill retains his Liliputian gait. Whereas the other 
 takes gigantic ftrides in invedive; and ftruts tanto 
 molimine, that you would imagine it was yack the 
 Giant-killer himfelf; fliakes his polemic tegis, and 
 informs his opponent that ** he lets him go this 
 time with a gentle chaftifemcnt;" confronts you 
 with the high founding names oi Agamemnon, Pf- 
 Icides, with whom I conje<?lure (by the bye) he has 
 a very fuperficial acquaintance ; and vapors away 
 iipon the Ihoulders of Homer, Horace, &c. as a n^ 
 \jiiyocg. * But 
 
 there, that are defedlive only in a letter, I perceive he has taken no 
 rtotice of this. Upon turning back to p. 37, I find, at the bottom of the 
 page, the fame word a yjfonrf time, written " fihcifm." Now, this is to 
 certify our blundering -word-catcher, that, if he intended to give us a fpe- 
 cimen of his critical knowledge of Englijli, or of the derivation of EngKfTi 
 •words, he fliould have written fohcifm, or more properly folcccifm 
 €t a-oXonnl^tiv filoectfare; a word derived from Sohe a city of CiVtcia, the in- 
 habitants of which were remarkable for their barbarifms. Would not 
 any perfon imagine our Salopian Solxcift had once breathed the air of the 
 Silkian Soloe? I am fo convinced that his whole genius is one grand 
 compound oi folaecifm, that, from this day forth, 
 
 Difcipuhrum inter jubco plorare cathedrasi 
 
 * It feems a very fortunate circumftance for Mr. S. that I happened, 
 in my Reply to Parmenas, to give him a little check for his difmgenuity in 
 criticifm, (from which he has not yet exculpated himfelf,) and for his 
 ignorance of common Latin. This gentle touch of my controverfial 
 wand, which, I hoped, like the famed Caduceus, would have eifedtually 
 lulled to profound reft this gentleman's " polemic acumen," had a con- 
 trary effedl : it roufed his fleeping genius ; and, like the happy blow of 
 Vulcan's hatchet, that extradted front Jove's pate the martial and fapient 
 Goddefs M'tnerva, it turned out of Mr. S.'s fraitten pericranium, fuch 
 *' immenfe Jlores ofclajpcal treafure," as might otherwife have lain dormant 
 •within the teeming womb of his pregnant undcrftanding. Happy there- 
 fore 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxx^t^ 
 
 But to return to P. — Ever lince I have engaged 
 in this controverfy, 1 have obferved, that all my 
 opponents (except Mr. 'Turner) have accofted me 
 with perfonal abufe, in the very titles of their re- 
 ipe^live pubUcations ; and none more fo, than the 
 author of *' Ecclefiaftical Zealt' or Dlaconal Rage. 
 I had, in my '^ Reply to Far menas," declared, that 
 ** I was forry to make any (controverfial) attack. 
 ** upon (the Anab^ptifts, whom I efteemed as) 
 ** chrijlian brethren-, of whofe piety I had a conii- 
 ** derable opinion, &cc." This candid declaration, 
 i*. introduces in his title-page, and contrafts it 
 with a text of fcripture, which, in the hand of 
 poor enraged Parmenas, charges me with uttering 
 an untruth. The judicious reader will ealily fee, 
 that this is an indirect method of publicly caUing- 
 a man a fyar-, and, when he confiders, that this is 
 done, through the lliameful abufe of a friendly de- 
 claration, and through the perverted appUcation ■ 
 of God's word j muft not his pity be excited for a, 
 poor man, who thus advertifes his prophane irre- 
 verence in handling fcripture? overlooks themoft 
 
 fore for Mr. S..' happy for the public! and thrice happy for me! that 
 I happened to giv^ the fortunate blow ! otherwiie we might have loft 
 " immenfi treafure" indeed ! But if my pen, has hitherto turned out fuch 
 a Capital midwife to Mr. 5.'s noddle ; what may we not expedt from this 
 mere energetic blow, and the fecond produdtion it is little to bring 
 forth? Inftead of a tyro, armed cap-a-pec, with all the martial imple- 
 ments of bigotry, and decorated with fliining patches of heroic verfe; 
 m*y we not expeiSb fome demi-reverend poedagogue, .accoutred in old 
 Scmblcrtis's coat-of-mail new-furbilbed ? keeping the world in awe with • 
 his critical conundiums, brilliant mottos, theological fcraps ; and dif- 
 fuling terror through the whole circle of the literati, with the thunder- 
 ing panoply of his 
 
 Bomhalio, Jlrldor, clangor, taratantara, murmur ? 
 
 E 2 fanguine 
 
xxxvl. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fanguine expreffions of candor? and even affumes 
 the divine prerogative of knowing what is in my 
 heart? I declare, fuch advertifed impiety fliocks 
 me. And I take this method of acquainting Mr. P. 
 that if he makes no better improvement in genuine 
 piety, while fitting at the feet of his Anabaptift 
 Gamaliel^ the Deacon will be no more a credit to 
 the Paftor, than the Paflor has hitherto Ihewn 
 himfelf to the Deacon. 
 
 1 wifh, when my expreffions of candor were to 
 be foifted into P 's ridiculous title-page, he had not 
 mangled them. I fay, in my Reply to Parmenas, " Of 
 ** whofe piety I have, upon the whole, a confidera- 
 ^' ble opinion, &CC. The words ** upon the whoky* 
 P. leaves out ; and, by fo doing, deflroys, not on- 
 ly the emphajis of my declaration, but alfo the 
 reftri6i:ive claufe, which determines my precife 
 meaning. For, when I declare " I have a confi- 
 *' derablc opinion of the piety of Anabaptifts, upon 
 *' the whole" my obvious meaning, is j that al- 
 though, fome Anabaptifts have no piety at all, and 
 the piety of others may be difgraced with excep- 
 tionable condu6i J yet, that, taking them altoge- 
 ther as a profelling community, they are " Chrif- 
 ** tian brethren, people upon the zvhok, of conlide- 
 *' rable piety, and conftitute a refpedable body of 
 *' Proteftant DilTenters." UP. does not as yet un- 
 derftand my meaning, I will exemplify it for him, 
 in an obfervation ad hominem, viz. Though I 
 efleem the Anabaptifts to be perfons of conftdera- 
 ble piety, upon the whole-, yet this implies an excep- 
 tionj as to fome individuals j lb, as that I can re- 
 tain 
 
INTRODUCTION, xxxvli. 
 
 tain my candid opinion inviolate ; even though I 
 fliould efteem Farmenas, a man of no piety at ail. 
 P. aided bj^ the prodigious fertility of his imagi- 
 nation, and impelled through the violent paroxyfni 
 of a malignant diforder, under which he labors, 
 called the fpleen, has thrown his laft produdion into 
 the form of 3. Dialogue; to which he has annexed a 
 delicate little tail-piece, called an Addrefs. Our cu- 
 rious Dialogi/i has taken care, that, of the parties, 
 which compofe his fcurrilous drama, there Ihould 
 be a majority for his iide of the queftion -, and that 
 the trialogue Ihould end in the praife and exalta- 
 tion of Anabaptifm. This unfair method of crow- 
 ing over an opponent, reminds me of the manner, 
 in which the Papijis in Ireland frequently manage a 
 private oppoiition to the principles of Protejiantifm. 
 It is cuftomary with thefe deluded people, to hold 
 meetings, for the purpofe of confidering the ground 
 oixhtProttJiant religion. Into thele meetings a r^^j/ 
 Proteflant can never procure admiffion, except he 
 enter in difguife; and even in that cafe, he muft 
 lie incog, without prefuming to open his lips. 
 The fcene, upon thofe occafions, generally opens, 
 vvith fome feeble anathemas againft Protejiantifm, 
 and fome high-flown praifes in commendation of 
 Popery. A controverfy then begins, in the form 
 of a Dialogue, between two real Papijis, one of 
 whom is made to perfonatc a Prctejiant ; while the 
 other, pleads the caufe of his mother, the Church, 
 in propria perfond. But, as it fometimes happens, 
 that the perfonated Protejiant flarts fomething, which 
 his adverfary cannot cleverly refutej care is taken 
 
 in 
 
xxxvm. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in fuch a cafe, that a fort of corps-de-re ferve, or 
 VcpiJJi fecond Ihoald attend, fomewhat like P.'s te^ 
 haliah, who might iirengthen the hands of his 
 tottering brother. By this means, the argumen- 
 tation is fo conduced, that poor Proteftantifm is 
 left deftitute of a fingle prop for its fupport j its 
 advocates are reprefented as " blind, not of the 
 fhurch, not Jieering clear of the general corruption ;" 
 Y/hile 2l fourth perfon fuftains the office of a fort of 
 Fopijk Moderator ; and in his official capacity, re- 
 fcmbles Parmenas, the Deacon, fumming up the 
 evidence in favor oi Anabaptifm. Thus the argu- 
 ments in favor of Popery preponderate^ the poor 
 Trotejiant is vanquiflied j the vidorious Papiji trl- 
 Bmphsj his affiliing lebaliah, blufters, like Mr. 
 Sandys, with his " immenfe fiores of clajjical treafure^* 
 while I can conceive the Popijh Moderator, with 
 dogmatic face, and triumphant eclat, giving his 
 verdid in the following manner, viz. *•' There are 
 no people right in all the world, but Koman-CathQ-^ 
 licsr 
 
 Who fees not, from this method of condu(51ing 
 controverlies, in the Dialogue form, that the drama" 
 tis perfon^ in P.'s argumentative burlefque, exactly 
 refemble the parties in a Roman-Catholic circle of 
 difputants? And, who does not alfo fee, that, 
 under this arbitrary mode of writing, truth may 
 be kept intirely out of view, and palpable bigotry 
 lie artfully concealed ? — As for P.'s elegant tail- 
 piece, intitled, '* A congratulatory Addrefs, &c." it 
 fparkles with fo much wit ; difplays fuch an un- 
 common brilliancy of imagination j exhibits fuch 
 
 a clulicr 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxIk. 
 
 a, clufter of elegant ideas ; and lays open fuch 
 an immenfe ftock of good manners and good 
 fenfe ; that, if the fabrication of this fame Jddrcjs 
 does not immortalize the name of the illuftrious 
 *' Deacon oi \.\it" (Ana) *■' baptiJr-Church, meeting in 
 ** High-ftreet, Shrewjhury" 1 know not whit will. 
 A difciple of Pythagoras, who believed the doilrine 
 of the tranfmigration of fouls, would, without the 
 fmalleft helitation, conclude, that the foul of 
 fome necromantic hero, had, by a moft fortunate 
 metempfychofis, tranfmigrated into the body oi Par- 
 menas -, and would, therefore, heartily felicitate 
 the Anabaptifts upon fo important a tranfmigra- 
 tion. And, whereas fome perfons have hitherto 
 fuppofed, he was nothing more than an illiterate 
 rebus-writer, I beg fuch would read the fag-end 
 of his dialogue, and then judge, whether they 
 fhould not alter an opinion, which tends to the 
 degradation of one, who pries {q deeply into the 
 regions oithe dead. By fummoning, into the field 
 of controverfy, the ghoft of a departed heathen, 
 to airift our Deacon's tottering caufe, the reader 
 will eafily obferve, that P. very dexteroully pro- 
 cedes according to the old infernal maxim : 
 
 Vincere fi nequeo fuperos, ACHERONTA moveho!^ 
 
 And whereas he hath difplayed his genius in 
 forming addrejes, m criticifm, logic, tranjlation, 
 dialogue-writing, ghoft-raifmg, &c. ihould not his 
 f)rethren in thefe feveral departments of fcience, 
 
 Tranflation. 
 * If heaven refufe my earnerc fuit t' attend, 
 
 I'll ranfack hell, and malcc tb.e Dc'U r.iy friend! 
 
 precede 
 
A I N T R O D U C T I O N. 
 
 precede with all poiTible cxpcdiiion, to a iblemn 
 enrolment of their learned brother among the li- 
 terati r I know none fo proper to prcfide at fo 
 important a ceremony, as his reverend auxiliary ; 
 becaufe no perfon leems fo cxa6^ a counter-part 
 to him, in delicate invention. Witnefs this re- 
 verend gentleman's taking cccafion to infult his 
 opponent, by comparing his " looks, to ihofe of 
 " Pharaoh's lean kine" As I have no difpolition 
 to -retaliate fuch polite affimilation, I leave it to 
 the deciiion of any c'onnoilTeur in phyliognomy, 
 \vho underftands the — tetrum cnle omnia I'ultumi 
 whether an appeal to people's *' looks,'* comes 
 with any tolerable grace from Mr. Savdys. 
 
 But, before PJs enrolment, let me addrefs him 
 upon two particulars, which, J fear will do no 
 credit to his Dcaconfnip, — i P. fays, in p. lo, ii, 
 of his Dialogue, " I have no doubt but the Vicar 
 *' had laid the platform ; ereifted the out-works ; 
 '* arjd planted the cannon, fometime before j 
 " only catchcd at the late opportunity, to fire away 
 " upon his opponents, for tis much if he ever 
 " bore a real good wiil to that party." Alas 1 
 for poor Y>'r ccipii^xtc Par mtnas ! U his confidence 
 refpeciing his falvation, refted upon as flight a 
 hiiih, as the above inlinuations, I Hiould really 
 tremble for Jilin. For, I alfurc thee, gentle reader. 
 they are founded upon two indireil: fallhoods. 
 (i) When lie fays, " It is much if I ever bore 
 " a (^ccd ivili to his party," he fillly accufes me. 
 For I always did, and, 1 truft, always Ihall bear a 
 
 £Oo4 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlL 
 
 gGod-will, not only to Anabaptifls, but to eVery 
 other denomination of chriftlans, upon the face of 
 the earth. And though I difapprove of, and expli- 
 citly reprehend, the bigotry and pofitivencfs of 
 fome Anabaptifts; yet I think, good-'JuiU to ihtw per- 
 fons is perfectly compatible with a difapprobation 
 of their diftinguilliing principles; and in this point 
 of view, my good-will extends even to Parmenas 
 lilmfelf, though he is in many refpeds an obje6t 
 of my pity and contempt. (2) It is an equally 
 falfe infmuation, that " 1 had laid the platform'* 
 of my late publication, '' fome time before." Sj far 
 from it, that I never wrote a lingle line upon the 
 fubject, nor thought deeply upon it, antecedently 
 to my late publication. 1 had intended, indeed, 
 while I was Curate of Shawbury, to have repub- 
 lilhed Bcjiwick's Findication, with a recommenda- 
 tory Preface : but, as there was not a lingle Ana- 
 baptift within the limits of my Curacy, and I was 
 unwilling to adopt even this indired and gentle 
 method of oppoUng a people, for feveral of whom 
 I entertained, and do flill entertain a lincere 
 efteemj 1 therefore wholly defiftcd from my de- 
 fign, and never v/rote a line of my intended re- 
 commendation of Bc/iivick. And 1 Ihould have 
 flill obferved the fame pacific lilencc, had not the 
 Anabaptift Champion from Liverpool, difturbed 
 our neighbourhood, with his ill-timed, ludicrous 
 harangues, in favor of dipping; and virtually call- 
 ed us into the field of controvcrfy, to check his 
 bigotry, and pofitivenefs. 
 
 2 But the finifhing ftroke of fallhood, and Invi- 
 dious infinuation, which P. has given us in his 
 
 F Dialogue, 
 
xlli. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Dialogue, is in p. 8. *' What reafon have the Ana- 
 baptifts to exped quarters, when, (if common 
 report may be credited) the fame learned comba- 
 tant is preparing to attack one of his reverend 
 brethren of the Chm'ch of England; whofe affabi- 
 lity, candor, and moderation towards Dijfenters, 
 has for a long time been as confpicuous, as the 
 Vicar's intemperate zeal." 
 
 To this inlinuation, I might give no other reply, 
 than that it is as replete with falthood, as it is big 
 with calumny. However, for the fake of the pub- 
 lic, to whom I owe an explanatory anfwer, I will 
 take a little pains, to exculpate myfelf from the- 
 invidious accufation. (i) When P. contrafts the 
 ** affability, candor, and moderation^' of fome ano- 
 nymous Churchman, to my *' intemperate zeal" to- 
 wards ** DiJJenfers," mark, with what invidious 
 cunning, he changes the fubjedi from a contro- 
 verfial debate with jinahaptijis in particular, to a 
 charge of '* intemperate zeal" towards Dijfenters 
 m general. As to P.'s brethren, let it be remem- 
 bered once for all that I attack them, not becaufe 
 they are Dijfejiters, but becaufe they are Anabap- 
 tijis or re-baptizers ; and becaufe, under this cha- 
 ratfter, they dijfeni from all the other DiJJenters and 
 Church-men in the world. Therefore, whether my 
 zeal be temperate or intemperate, it never medi- 
 tated an attack upon Dijfenters, as fuch. So far 
 from it, that I wifli to cultivate the utmoft peace, 
 friendlhip, and catholic familiarity, with that very 
 numerous, and very refpe6lable body, as long as I 
 live. And I dare affirm, that the anonymous Cler- 
 gyman, 
 
rNTRODUCTioN. xllU. 
 
 gyman, to whom P. refers, does not entertain (en- 
 timents of greater moderation towards Dijfenters, 
 than myfelf. But he has not attacked Anabaptifm; and 
 I have. Hinc ilU lachryma I However, if this fame 
 anonymous Clergyman, will but take up his pen, 
 in defence of a divine inftitution, which Anahap- 
 tijis rejed; he will probably foon find, that his 
 moderation, at prefent fo much applauded, will in- 
 jftantly be changed (as far as mifreprefentation can 
 change It) into zeal as intemperate, as my own; 
 and that the applauding P. can currifavor and ca- 
 lumniate alternis incibus, whoever be the opponent, 
 when Anabaptifm is the thing oppofed. (2) That 
 ** I am preparing to attack one of my reverend 
 brethren in the Church of England," is an abfolute 
 miftake. I fometime ago, began a treatlfe, which 
 I intend as A tejiimony to foine important dodrines of 
 the Reformation', in which the name of any particu- 
 lar Clergyman, will not be once introduced. For, 
 although the pamphlet, when completed, will wear 
 leather a controverfial form, yet the public will fee, 
 that its objeifl is not any individual in particular, 
 but all, who, in my opinion, notoriously depart 
 from the great dodrines, they have folemnly fab- 
 fcribed. That there are fome fuch inconfiftent 
 characters in the Church oi England, I am neither 
 alliamed nor afraid to declare ; and this, I would 
 hope, even the currifa'voring P. himfelf mufi: inge- 
 nuoufly acknowledge. To oppofe fuch, I deem an 
 indifpenfable duty : and, while I think the truth of 
 God and the Articles of our excellent Church, will 
 bear me out in fuch an oppolition, I am equally 
 F 2 regardleis 
 
xllv. INlRODUCTION- 
 
 regardlefs of the flandering innuendos of a pert 
 Anabaptift, as of the favor of any Socman or Arian 
 Eccleiiaflic in the world. — Now, can a pamphlet, 
 which does not oppofe any Clergyman in particu- 
 lar, and which will not once mention the name of 
 the gentleman to whom P. refers, be called an 
 *^ attack' VL^onh'an} May not a man explicitly 
 publilh his fentimcnts on the great do6lrines of his 
 own church, and as explicitly oppofe the contra- 
 ry opinions, without an imputation of " intempe- 
 rate zeal?" 
 
 But J cannot dlfmifs this piece of fly calumny, 
 without a frw additional remarks, (i) The calum- 
 niator himfelf has been pleafed, in concert with his 
 reverend auxiliary, to flrip me of all pretenfions 
 to the two-fold chara6\er of the Chrijiian, and the 
 Gentleman, bccaufe 1 prcfumed, forfooth, to pre- 
 fent Mr. Medley with a icw Jtriciurest founded on a 
 report of the fevere and ludicrous things, he ad- 
 vanced in his public dlfcourfes. Yet the very 
 perfon, who abufes me for this fimple circum- 
 :ftance, is guilty of a more condemnable retaliation. 
 Por, he publillies a vague inlinuation, which I 
 never once dropped either from the pulpit, or the 
 frefs, and which my pamphlet. If ever publilhed, 
 will fufficiently refute. 1 leave the public, there- 
 fore, to determine, what name will beft fult the 
 author of fuch a groundlefs and malevolent report. 
 (2) But, even fuppofe, that 1 had intended a con- 
 troverlial attack upon any heterodox Clergyman, 
 would fuch a circumftance redound to my dif- 
 honor ? Muli Anti-trinitarians alTault the funda- 
 mental 
 
INTRODUCTION, xir. 
 
 mental docflrmcs of our Church, and publllli their 
 errors from the pulpit and from the prefs? And 
 fliall the friends of our excellent eftablifhment, 
 lilently and tamely behold fuch daring condu(5V, 
 and urge no remonftrance againfi: the innovators ? 
 — And fuppofe, that / llioiild humbly attempt to 
 obvia'e the evil tendency of fome popular errors, 
 which are too rampant in the Kingdom in general, 
 
 and are perhaps too prevalent in «S y^ will P. 
 
 loft to all refped for the glory of the gofpel, im- 
 prove fuch a circumftance againfi me? Does not 
 the limple declaration of truth itfelf, fabje6i: a man 
 to a fufficiency of odium? But muit P. make the 
 world anticipate that odium, by publiihing an in- 
 vidious rumor, which would reprefent me, not as 
 a friend to truth, but as a pragmatic zealot? And 
 even, if I ivas actually preparing an attack againft 
 an heterodox Clergyman of the Church cA Eng'and; 
 will P. who pretends to reverence truth, virtually 
 iide with the advocates for error, by publiiliing a 
 difapprobaticn of my conduct ? Will he thus cringe 
 to heterodoxy, in dired violation of the dicftates of 
 his confcience? The injury he docs to my charac- 
 ter, is tnflmg, when compared with the more 
 material affront he, hereby, virtually gives to truth 
 itfelf. And what Iball we think of a man, vv'ho can 
 thus fneakingly currifavor ? I believe, whenever 
 poor P. takes up his pen, his confcience Is forely 
 agitated by his old diforder, thefplesn: and I hope, 
 when fuch malignant agitation fublides, and a lu- 
 cid interval takes place, that his confcience will be 
 reftored to its former ftate of tendernefs. 
 
 When 
 
xlvl. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 When I refled what prodigious attempts the 
 renowned twin-difputanfs have made, in criticifmy 
 tranjlation, &c. I am not furpriled to find, that 
 they equally fucceed in argumentation. Take one 
 remarkable inftance in p. 19 of Mr. Sandys' s pam- 
 phlet. This Gentleman ! after difcharging a num- 
 ber of little claffical pop-guns, which he has loaded 
 with a parcel of Latin and Greek rags ;* and after al- 
 moft exhaufling the plentiful ftock of his pedantry 
 and abufe together, at laft draws breath, and con- 
 defcends to promife his readers, *' alTertion with 
 proof." After this ferious parade, we Ihould na- 
 turally expe^l, that P.'s plenipotentiary would give 
 \is logical premilTcs, and a logical conclulion. 
 For, thus this invincible reafbner prefaces his de- 
 nionflration. " Hold a Httle, and it fhall be alTer- 
 tion proved.*' And then, in a little ftring of bor- 
 rozved quatations, he tells us, what a few authors 
 merely affert concerning the mode of baptizing by 
 immerfion. But, do thefe authors prove any thing 
 upon the fubje6i ? No ! Not one lingle quotation, 
 he has brought, has the leaft Ihadow of a proof. 
 The whole faring coniills of nothing but naked 
 qfftrtlons ; fuch as " To be baptized, is to be dip- 
 ped into the water. — Baptifm, fignifies an immer- 
 lion or walhing of the whole body." Thefe are 
 this huge logician's /^roc/}/ Alas! majter, for they 
 are all borrowed too! Perhaps Mr. 5". miftook 
 ihe quantity for the quality of his quotations. Sup- 
 poling that ten afiertions were adequate to {o many 
 
 * Purpureas late qui fpkiideat unus ir alter, 
 AJfuitur pnnnus — — — — — — . HaR. 
 
 proofsy 
 
I NTRODUCTION. xWil 
 
 proofs, he draws his conclufion accordingly. But 
 he ought to know, that ten thoufand naked afler- 
 tlons are not tantamount to one demonftratlon. 
 What a pity, this mighty reafoner did not apply 
 to Parmenas, for a Httle of ^/^ logical aifirtance! i 
 can aflure him, (though perhaps the affurancc 
 may mortify his pedantic pride,) that P. could 
 have helped him out upon this occalion. For^ 
 however Mr. S. might have affifted P. to conftrue 
 a Laiin fentence, I declare P. is capable of being 
 his auxiliary in logic. However, that Mr. S, may 
 henceforward be able to diftinguilh between an 
 ajfertion and a proof, I will favor him with argumen- 
 turn ad homimm. Exempli gratia Suppofe I fay 
 that Mr. 5". does not underjiand the very firfi princi- 
 ples of logical reafoning. Does my bare afferting this, 
 prove that he is fo confummately Ignorant ? No 
 certainly. But fuppofe 1 bring the opinions oi ten 
 friends, who aflert the fame. Will not their ten af- 
 fertiom, fuperadded to mine, amount to a proofs 
 No. For the fame reafon that one bare aflertion 
 fails of a proof, ten thoufand would. Then it xQ' 
 mdJxn^ to he proved ; thus; 
 
 A man, who affirms that :he bare afferiions of 
 others are fo many proofs, cannot be acquainted 
 with the very firft principles of logical reafoning : 
 
 But Mr. Sandys has affirmed that the bare ajfer^ 
 tions of others are fo ma.ny proofs: 
 
 Therefore Mr. 5". cannot be acquainted with the 
 very firji principles of logical reafoning. Q^E. D. 
 
 Hov/- 
 
xlvlii. I N T R O D U C T I O R 
 
 However our pofitive alTerter fails In his modd 
 of arguing in favor oiimmerfion, his head Is fo full 
 of the darling topic, that his very abufiveftmilitudes 
 are drawn from the idea of dipping. Hence in 
 p. 1 8. " Give him a good iound dipping, and try 
 whether that will anfwer the end, &c." The dipper 
 here propofes to fome of his brethren, who chufe 
 to undertake thefcandalous office, that, like Mr. 5". 
 who has fet them the bright example, they would 
 imitate his delicate phrafeology. 1 muft do this po- 
 lilhed Gentleman the juftice to acknowledge, that, 
 *' in fpite that can creef he has not his fellow in the 
 Kingdom ; and that, if he is in future as fuccefsful 
 a practitioner in dipping, as he now proves himfelf 
 an adept in "vilifying, Anabaptifm could never boalt 
 of fuch a dipper. But I hope there are few Juch 
 Anabaptif^s. For, Mr. 5. feems fo totally given up 
 to all the blacknefs of malevolence, and darknefs 
 of bigotry, that, like another Pf/f/c/fr, one would 
 imagine he had been dipped in the gloomy waters 
 oi S'yx: only, with this difference, that, whereas 
 the Gracian Hero, was not totally immerfed, and 
 therefore not totally invulnerable, our Anabaptifl 
 Champion, feems to have been plunged in the 
 Stygian wave, from the heel to the head-, and this 
 bitter baptifm feems to have fpread fuch an uni- 
 verfal petrifa£lion throughout, that 1 know hardly 
 a fingle part in him that is vulnerable. Could I but 
 be fortunate enough, like the man who fo fuccefT- 
 fully dreiv his bow at a venture, to point an arrow 
 of keen argument, or mild irony, between the 
 joints of the harncfs, in which our adamantine 
 
 Hero 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3cilx'* 
 
 Hero is encafed, I might then hope to do fome 
 execution. But hie labor ! hoc opus e/i ! I am not ?' 
 markf-man fufficiently fkilful, to expetl fach ^ 
 phoenomenon. Who knows how far a re-bapti-- 
 zation might contribute towards dilTolving the 
 petrifacflion of bigotry, and effrontery ! Suppofe 
 Mr. S. would try ihat expedient, in that cafe 
 I need not fuggeft that, any thing Ihort of a " good 
 Jound dipping' all over, will be of any real utility. 
 And then, fhould he, like the fnake renewing 
 its fkin, caji his Jlough of ill-breeding, and drop 
 his impenetrable armor of matchlefs effrontery, 
 1 ihall be glad to addrefs him, as a vulnerable an- 
 tagonift ; while he himfelf will have reafon to 
 rejoice in the happy metamorpholis, produced 
 by fuch a hleji bathing-bout ! 
 
 Before this Gentleman ! concludes his polite 
 
 letter, which is big with mifreprefentations, "f 
 
 he takes care to recite a little anecdote, which 
 
 G comes 
 
 f As a proof of this, I cannot avoid noticing a piece of unparalleled 
 mifreprefcntation, by which in p. 35, of his renowned bit of patch-work, 
 he would refcue a brother of his from the charge of bigotry. In my Keply 
 to Parmenas, I mentioned the circumftance of an Anabaptift objedling 
 to the purchale of Calvin s IiiJUtutes, becaufc that great Reformer de- 
 fended Infant-Baptifm. S. prodigioufly enraged at the recital of a cir- 
 cumflance, which gave an additional fpecimen of that bigotry, for 
 which Anabaptifls in all their conduct are remarkable ; an 1 laboring to 
 evade the force of the charge, fays, that " the individual referred to 
 did not know that ever fuch a perfoa as Servetits had exifted." Nor did 
 I infinuate he did ; or that he refufcd to purchafe the book, becaufe 
 Calvin oppofed Scrvetus, as an Anabaptifl: individual. So that all S.'s 
 abufive complaints here, arife from my having called Calvin's Defence 
 of Infant-Baptifm, by a fort oi periphrafis, " his Oppofition to Servet!-s, 
 on the fubjecft of Anabaptifm." But S. denies the fadl altogether, and 
 fays his brother objedled to the purchafe " upon account of the price 
 only." And yet he introduces him as querying whether Calvin was oribp.' 
 y».v with refpedt to Infant-Baptifm. Without ftaying to conilder, how 
 
U INTRODUCTION. 
 
 comes, from his malevolent pen, like a fiab in 
 the dark. A Clergyman ! It feems, faid to him 
 (p. 46.) " Sir, you hurt the poor man, by 
 careiling him too much. 1 rejoice that from 
 the firft I neither bleffed him at all, nor curfed 
 him at all." In anfwer to this anonymous Cler- 
 gyman! who, It feems, is of the neuter gender, I 
 beg to know, (1) What he means by carejjing; 
 and whether he gave a toleration to Mr. S. as 
 to an officious fcribe, to publijli this bit of private 
 inve<^ive? If this fame Clergyman! has any thing 
 to fay to me, and will favor me with an open 
 addrefs, I will be his obedient fervant. But, if 
 he only chufe to fight in the dark, and to put 
 little fugitive fqulbs in the hand of Mr. 5. thereby 
 inanifeftly employing him as a fcribbling cat's- 
 paw, I fhall treat the paiv and the hand that ufes 
 it, with equal indltference. (2) When he fays, 
 *' that he neither bleffed me at all, nor curfed mc 
 at all," I am to be fure, much obliged to this 
 modeft Gentleman, for his fober neutrality. But 
 has he not overlhot himfelf here ? I am either 
 doing the work of the Lord in this place, or I 
 am not. If the former, then fiirely I have reafoii 
 
 far this ignorant qrKriJl or his equally-ignorant vindicator are capable of 
 arraigning the ortiiodoxy of ib great a Reformer as " the bright taper 
 of Geneva,'" I anfwer, the bookfeller informed me that the modeft gncn/i 
 " liad been looking at the book, but did not approve of Calvin's fcnti- 
 luents with refpect to Baptifm ; which he (the bookfcller) fuppofed was 
 the occafion of his not purchafing it." And, for the truth of this, we 
 appeal, not to the querift's " oath," but to his confiience. So that, con- 
 hdering this ignorant Anabaptift had never read Calvin on Infant-Eap- 
 tifm ; yet prefumed to arraign his orthodoxy ; and to refufe purchafing 
 the hifiits'tcs, though offered at a very moderate price ; it feems his grand 
 ■latent objection was C!7/i'i,;'G oppofition to i\\c greai I?i<i/7rt of Anabaptifls. 
 
 to 
 
INTRODUCTION. \u 
 
 to expert the divine bleffing. And If God blefs, 
 fo iliould the righteous. But the witholding a 
 bleffing, by obferving a neutrally, is according to 
 the determination of fcripture, equivalent to a 
 virtual curfe. Balaam was fo ft ruck with a fenfe 
 of this, that, when the king of Moab wanted him, 
 ** neither to curfe Ifrael at all, nor to blefs 
 them at all," the prophet durft not obferve fuch 
 a linful neutrality, but did emphatically blefs 
 them. So that from hence, it is plain, that the 
 declaration of Mr. 5'.*s anonymous Clergyman 
 refembles more the neutral Impiety of Balak king 
 of Moab, the anathematizing adverfary of God's 
 people, than the temporary uprightnefs of poor 
 Balaam; and I requeft this fame Gentleman and 
 the retailer of his neutral curfes, to go to Balaam, 
 and learn a little piety, even from the forced ho- 
 nefty of the man, whofe eyes were open. But, the 
 truth is, i Ihrewdly fufpe6l, that this neutral Gen- 
 tleman, is the very identical anathematizer, that 
 curfed the excellent fervices of our church : * and, 
 if I am not wrong in my conjedures, 1 am per- 
 fe6ily eafy about his ** careffings;" and beg Mr. 
 Retailer would inform his imitator of Balak, that 
 his curfes are, to me, juft as tremendous, as his 
 hlejfmgs are defirable. 
 
 1 would not, however, wifh to infinuate, that I 
 difregard the bleffings of God's people. So far 
 from it, that I lliall be thankful to the meaneft of 
 his fervants, for their prayers and pious benedic- 
 tions. But the blejjings of bigotry, which come from 
 
 * See p. 124, of mv Letter to a Ba^iijl-Mmjler. 
 
 G 2 the 
 
Hi. INTRODUCTIO N. 
 
 the donor's lips cold as ict; and the curfes of un- 
 charitablenefs, which fly X\\it fparks from \\\tfire 
 of infernal zeal; are equally the objeds of my in- 
 diiference and contempt. If any perfons will hear- 
 tily blefs me in my minifterial work, I will as 
 heartily thank them. And if they will even curfe 
 me, politively, or neutrally, Balak-Uke ; I hope I 
 fhall be enabled to give them nothing but blejjings 
 in return. But, whether I am an obje(5l: of polx- 
 tive maledidlons, politive bleflings, or bigoted neu- 
 trality, I truft I fhall ftill undauntedly perfevere, 
 in the flrength of divine grace, to vindicate truth ; 
 and to approve myfelf in the eye of Him, who 
 judgeth not as manjudgeth. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 REJOINDER, &c. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 ^/le author inndl cafes himfelf and his friends, from 
 Mr. M.'s groundlefs charges and ilUberality of low 
 
 ahufe proves that the declaration, attefted 
 
 hy ten Anabaptijis, is tantamount to an indireU 
 CHALLENGE a7id cxpofiulates ivith the "se- 
 vere o p p o s E R " on his irreverent mode of attack^ 
 ing Infant-Baptifm from the pulpit, and on his 
 indelicate manner of abuftng certain " endowed'* 
 eccleftafiics from the prefs. 
 
 Kev. Sir, 
 
 I Am glad you have, at laft, condefcended to 
 favor me with an aniwer to my Vindication of 
 Infant- B apt if m-y as well' as to ihe StriJIuirs, I 
 took the Uberty of making on the occaiion and 
 circumftances of your late vlfit to Shrewjbury. 
 Hitherto, I have been engaged in feme flight fkir- 
 milhes, with a brace of controvertifts, whofe feeble 
 efforts refemble water fquirted againft the wind, 
 which returns upon the fquirter's own face, with 
 a more violent repercuffion. I rejoice therefore, 
 that you have taken the controverlial fword out 
 ef the hands, of Mcffrs. Parmenas and Sandys-, 
 
 whom, 
 
C 54 ) 
 
 whom, for dlftin>5lion-fake, I fiyle the twin-dif- 
 putants, becaufe of their prodigious refemblancc 
 to each other, in impotence of argument and pro- 
 fufion of low abufe; and, that having bid fare- 
 well to your two formidable feconds, I have now 
 a fair opportunity of entering the lifts with the 
 Champion himfelf. 
 
 Several circumftances concurred to raife my 
 expectations, antecedently to the a6\ual appear- 
 ance of your intended publication. The menacing 
 intimations of your private letter j * the compli- 
 mentary innuendos of your Salopian auxiliaries, 
 and of your warm friend in Birmingham ; added 
 to the promlilbry pomp of your long-advertifed 
 title-page ; all tended to excite my curiofity, and 
 to increafe my longings for a view of the formi- 
 dable y/zff^-^TZfZicr. A chriftian friend, had, more- 
 over, informed me, that you were determined to 
 *' give me a broad-fide T But, my difappointment 
 is fo great, that I hope I fhall never, in future, 
 pay the fmalleft ferious regard, to fuch prepara- 
 tory puffs. I have now ocular demonftration, that 
 
 * Such as; " Give the fword into the hand of your informant. And 
 
 •" if he, flie, or they, hioiv the hilt from th point , let them use it." 
 
 Language this, fuch as one might have expeiScd from a man bluflering 
 on a quarter-ded, or from a vaunting prize-fighter ; but fuch as come* 
 \vith no fort of gi'ace from one/ whcii; profeiEon is that of a Minifter 
 of the Prince of peace ; and, who, in various inflances, doa not himfelf 
 hiow the hilt of the controvcrdzlf ivord from the point. It were much to be 
 villied, that this vaunting Gentleman were better acquainted with th* 
 (Extent of his own abilities; and that he may, I earneflly recommend to 
 his ferious Audy, the fentiment contained in that celebrated adiige 
 y>(v9i a-etx,v]ov. 'Till he makes a confiderable improvement in the im- 
 portant ftudy, it is more than probable, he will never wholly relinquifli 
 his challenging dialed; which at prefent, feems fo familiar to him, almoft 
 ypoQ every occafion. 
 
 the 
 
the long-expe(5led piece of artillery, Is by no means 
 fo formidable, as my own imagination, or the 
 encomiums of others, might have reprefented it. 
 There is fo little, really terrific, In its whole ap- 
 pearance, that a very moderate adept in cafuiftry, 
 might look, imdifmayed, into the very mouth of 
 this controverlial cannon, and ftand, "unhurt, the 
 whole Ibock. of its difcharged contents. For, ab- 
 ftracfted from the widenefs of its orifice, and the 
 Joudnels of its roar, it is vox et praterea nihil! 
 And, if this be the tremendous piece of ordnance 
 that is to give a " a broad-fide" to Poedobaptifm, 
 and to do fuch prodigious execution amongfi: its 
 advocates; I'm afraid, the ifiue will prove, that 
 there is as wide a difierence between faying and 
 accompJiJliing this, as between the mere noife of 
 declamatory vociferation, and the powerful ener- 
 gy of clofe reafoning. And, as a fliip, by aiming 
 too precipitate and too vehement a broad-fide 
 againfi: an enemy, fometimes finks herfelf, by 
 that very ad which intended deftrucfllon to the 
 cjoritrary fide; fo, it may perhaps turn out, that 
 fome of Mr. M's " hroad-fides" have tended 
 eventually to Jink the caufe he meant to defend. 
 
 You will pardon me, if I take the liberty to 
 affirm, that, you are as unfortunate in the title, 
 as I hope it will be, ere long, proved, you have 
 been unfuccefsful, in the materials of your con- 
 troverfial ordnance; and that the very face of 
 your brazen mortar carries the imprefs of bigotry 
 and error. When you intltle your piece " Intern- 
 perate Zeal reproved, and Chrijiian Baptifm defended,'* 
 
 you 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 you fake two things for granted, which I am un- 
 willing to allow, and which you hav^e not proved. 
 For (i) that I have a " zeal'* againft Anabaptifm 
 and againft fome of its bigoted advocates, 1 rea- 
 dily acknowledge; but whether that zeal be " in- 
 temperate" or not, I think you cannot, under your 
 prefent feelings, be a competent judge. You will 
 pleafe to recolle<5t, that an author, whom you 
 very well know, obferves, in his definition of zeal 
 in general, that it is * a ftrong internal fire, which 
 makes a man burn with eagernefs, for the accom- 
 plilhment of whatever he is deeply interefted in/ 
 As 1 look upon myfelf, to be deeply interefted in 
 the caufe of truth, I therefore burn with a zeal 
 againft error, which, not all the floods of calumny, 
 I truft, Ihall ever be able to extinguilh, or even 
 damp. Now, Sir, as I verily believe you to be 
 under the influence of error; and of fuch a fpc- 
 cies of error too, as conftitutes one of the main 
 pillars of bigotry; my zeal therefore burned with 
 an ardent defire of ftriking a fcriptural blow at 
 Anabaptifm; in order, that, when the principal 
 prop was fliaken, the fabric, it fupported, might 
 receive a fhock too; and, as I obferved Mr. M. 
 to lean a little too confidently againft the pillar, 
 I therefore gave him a friendly alarm. In doing 
 this, 1 am confcious, I have touched a very fore 
 place. To attack Anabaptifm, is, in the eftiraa- 
 lion of fome of its warm devotees, the fame as to 
 touch the ark. And becaufe I have made ufe of 
 fcriptural zeal, as a fort of caufiic to eat away the 
 proud fungous flclb, which grows from the gan- 
 grene 
 
C 57 ) 
 
 grcnc of bigotry; and in the application, may 
 have touched a tender part in Mr. M; hence this 
 great out-cry againft the " intemperance" of my 
 zeal. * But, until you prove, which I am fure 
 you cannot, that it has not been tempered with 
 brotherly love towards you and the Anabaptifts in 
 general ; all your heavy charges, on this part of 
 the fubjec?^, fall to the ground, like darts, that as 
 foon as emitted, fnap in pieces, and never reach, 
 the mark. And as you have undertaken to " re- 
 prove" my zeal, permit me to obferve, that, 
 before you had engaged in the friendly office, 
 you fhould have waited a full year at leaft, 'till 
 your own zeal had cooled a little of its efiervef- 
 cence. For, I affure you, feme perfons think. It 
 has blazed away fo much in the comet~^y\t, that we 
 fhould not be furprifed, if another milder phaeno- 
 menon were to make its appearance, intitled by 
 Mr. A/.'s own pen, "• The reprover's intempe- 
 rance acknowledged, or an antidote to the fiery- 
 zeal of Anabaptifm." 
 
 (2) When you prefix to your publication, the 
 pompous title of " Chriftian-Baptifm Defended,'* 
 I can only regret, that your printer did not for 
 once commit a wilful erratum, and, for defended, 
 fubftitute deferted. In that cafe, although the- 
 mifiake might have adminiftered not a little mor- 
 
 * Mr. Baxter's excellent obfervation, refpedting the Anabaptifts of 
 his day, is flridlly applicable to Mr. M. " I found thefe men generally • 
 fo tender-eared, and impatient of any difcovery of their error, (though it be 
 done by mere argument, without any reproach,) that it did but hurt 
 them, and fill them with prejudice againfl: the fpeaker," (or writer;) 
 " for they took him for an tnemy, if not a perfecutar, that told them the 
 truth." 
 
 H tification 
 
( 5S ) 
 
 tificatlon to the defender, yet it would have com- 
 municated a real truth to the pubHc. For, to call 
 a weak Vindication of Anabaptifm, a " Defence 
 of Chriftian-Baptifm," is at once to beg the quef- 
 tion, and to exhibit a fpecimen of genuine bi- 
 gotry. What ! does Mr. M. ailert, that, to rejed 
 the Baptifm of Behevers' Infant-i^td, and to fub- 
 iiitute Adult-Dipping in its room, is to defend 
 Chriftian Baptifm? Docs he alfo inlinuate, that 
 tlie ordinance can be effectually adminiftered, 
 only by a total immerlion ? Will he thus make a 
 monopoly of Chriftian Baptifm, by confining it 
 to the limits of his own inconliderable party, to 
 the exclulion of all the reformed churches in the 
 world? And, does he fuppofe, that there are no 
 truly-baptized " Chriftians," and, confequently, 
 no real Chriftian Churches, but among Anabap- 
 tifts? Are all the numerous communities of goi- 
 pel profeflbrs to be unchurched and virtually un- 
 chrijiiamd, by Mr. M.'s uncharitable dogma? As 
 thefe inlinuatlons are difplayed in the very front 
 of his publication j it fliall be my buftnefs, to prove 
 them as deftltute of truth, as they are replete with 
 audacious bigotry. — As to the furreptitious mottOy 
 for which you are indebted to my trad: on true 
 and falfe %eal, I cannot help faying, that it is ex- 
 hibited in a notorious mifapplication. But, 1 dare 
 fay, fome judicious readers will know how to 
 apply it to Mr. Fervidus, from Liverpool; whofe 
 *' indignation'' is now moft dreadfully ''awakened,'* 
 becaufe his fervid " party has been touched in a 
 Under point -J' and I dare fay the ele(5irical fhock^ 
 
 which 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 which lias roufed his latent ire, will " fly like 
 lightning through the whole fraternity;" if I may 
 judge from the fpiric of three ele<5lrical gentle- 
 men, who have already favored me with addreffes. 
 To all fuch I earneftly recommend Jehu s Looking- 
 Glafs; hoping, that the hideous caricature of 
 bigotry reprefented In that little mirror, will deter 
 our modiQrnyehus from inliftingas volunteers under 
 her fiery banner : and, as I never met with an 
 individual, who outftrlps the furious drivers of all 
 denominations, fo completely, as Mr. M; I re- 
 queft, that he would not view his phyfiognomy 
 in the glafs, with a tranfient peep, left he fliould 
 ** ftralghtway forget, what manner of perfon 
 he is." 
 
 After forming a fort of poor parody on my In- 
 troduflion, you proceed to open the orifice of 
 your formidable piece of ordnance. It's firft dlf- 
 charge Is announced, by a tremendous roar of 
 fcvere abufe, at thofe pious friends, who brought 
 me fome minutes of your late exceptionable ha- 
 rangues on dipping. Thefe perfons you are pleaf- 
 ed to call p. 4, *' malevolent infidioiis tale-bearers i" 
 which epithet, according to your wonted abufivc 
 tautology, is twice repeated again in the fpace of 
 a few lines. The fame perfons you go on in the 
 fame page, to ftyle *' detejied informers, ftealers^* 
 me you rank among the " ready and greedy tale- 
 hearers, and tale-receivers y In p. 5, the vehement 
 roar is continued agalnft my friends, v/hom. In a 
 little variation of your tautological invecSfive, you 
 call " whining, religious bufy-bodies, backbiting tale- 
 bearers, religious firebrands, incendiaries, Salopian 
 H 2 budget" 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 hudgef-hearers of faljhoods and mifreprefenfations, p. 
 13 :" while to confummate the whole of this abu- 
 Jive fhock, you call me, " a precipitate, raJJi, hot- 
 headed young man," throwing out '* plenty of back- 
 hiti?2g falJliQodSy invidious reproaches, and malicious 
 fneers:' p. 10. 
 
 Now, Sir, what is it that can awaken your 
 indignation to fuch a pitch, as to infpire your pen 
 ivith all this crambe repetita, reiterated hotch-potch 
 of low abufe? Js it the limple circumftance of 
 fome perfons having brought me extrads from 
 your fermon, and of my having animadverted on 
 them before the public? If this be the principal 
 ground of your wrath, I will endeavor to mitigate 
 it a little, and to defend myfelf and friends, againft 
 its angry overflowings. 
 
 I. 1 cannot fee, that either the bearer or re- 
 ceiver of notes from a public difcourfe is juftly 
 reprehenfible, where there is no dclign of mifre- 
 prefentation. Upon looking over the prefatory 
 apology to Mr. Baxter s *' Plain Scripture-Proof of 
 Infants' Churclirmemberjliip and Baptifm," I find, that, 
 preparatory to his public difpute at Bewdley, with 
 'M.x.T'ombes, the Anabaptift, he commiilioned fome 
 perfons to take down notes of Mr. T.'s fermons ; 
 and yet I do not learn, that the preacher ever 
 abufed either Mr. Baxter or his friends for fo 
 doing, in the fcurrilous dialec^t Mr. M. has ac- 
 cofted us. Thus far the Anabaptift oi Liverpool 
 has excelled his brother of Bewdky -, but, whether 
 it be fuch afuperior excellence as redounds to the 
 credit of the former, the reader is to Judge* — If 
 
 it 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 it be a crime fo very heinous, to take down and 
 animadvert on public declamations j then what 
 fhall we ftyle the ?wiaries, that attend the houies 
 of parliament, and communicate either memoriter^ 
 or by lliort-hand notes, the principal excerpla 
 from the fpeeches of our declaiming Lords and 
 Commons ? Muft not they according to Mr. M.'s 
 exprobatory logic, be a fet of " detefted inform- 
 ers, ftealers, infidious tale-bearers, &c." And muft 
 not the public, who receive thefe extrads, (not 
 even Mr. M. himfelf excepted) be a vaft body of 
 " greedy tale-hearers and tale -receivers?" Thus 
 Mr. M.'s abufe of my friends, when applied uni- 
 verfally, will affe61: all the notaries of public decla- 
 mation in the world; while his complimentary 
 inventive againft me, ultimately falls on his own 
 head. — When heflyles my friends " ivjidious" tale- 
 bearers, he either does not underfland the mean- 
 ing of his own abufive phrafeology, or, if he does, 
 he inlinuates, that they had meditated a deligned 
 flot againft him, in which I might have had an 
 infidious hand; an infinuation, as falfe, as it is 
 injurious. They went 3.sferious, not infidious hear- 
 ers. But, being grievoufly difappointed, they could 
 jiot help expreffing their diiappointment; the 
 ground of which, 1 have animadverted on before 
 the public. 
 
 II. In a mifapplied note, p. 6, which you have 
 borrowed from my tra6l on true and falfe zeal, you 
 inlinuate, that " prejudice, envy,flander, pride, jea- 
 loufy, &c." aduated my friends in reporting, and 
 me, in publifhing the extrads from your fermon. 
 
 But 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 But here permit me, to obfervc, that the h£i 
 which I condemn in your quotation, refpecfis ei- 
 ther *' inoffenfive exprejjiom^" or the private " mif- 
 carriage" of an individual, and the uncharitable 
 mode of exagerating all the circumftances of fuch 
 a misfortune, fo as to unchrijiian the unhappy 
 fubjed. Bat, this, fo far from admitting a paral- 
 lel in the prefent cafe, exhibits a glaring contraft. 
 For (O your exprejjions on thefubje(n: of Anabap- 
 tifm, were not " inojffnfive ;" they offended sig^'mil 
 the laws of modefty, candor, and chriftian mode- 
 ration. Therefore, to animadvert on thefe oflen- 
 live effulions, does not in the leaft come under 
 the predicament of, what you call " the enve- 
 nomed bitings of a ferpent." (2) The cenfure in 
 your quotation refpe^ts the private mifcarriage of 
 an individual. But my reprehenfions concern the 
 violations of truth, and candor, published in 
 the prefence of hundreds. (3) The cafe in my 
 yehu fuppofes, that the fcene was contrived in the 
 dark: but, my frank declarations in a letter to 
 Parmenas, which was immediately tranfmitted to 
 Liverpool antecedent to my publication, prove, 
 that my flri61ures were managed and publifliei 
 with much lefs fecrecy, than pamphlets in gene- 
 ral are laid before the public. So that, when your 
 borrowed note fays, that the culprit " hears not 
 a word" of the intended reprehenfion, you are 
 confcious, that it contains a manifefl: failure in the 
 accommodation of circumflances : for you did 
 *' hear a word" about the matter, both from mv 
 letter to P. and from another to yourfclf. (4) The 
 
 *• fe?2tencc 
 
( 6^ ) 
 
 ** feyitence of condemnation'' blamed In the note, h 
 fuch, as does not " flop in its career, till it un- 
 chriflian the man," who is the objeft of a judging 
 temper. This laft claufe you have fludloully 
 omitted, that you might give an air of plaufiblllty 
 to your borrowed reprefentatlon j and, by thus 
 mangling the pailage, you keep the principal 
 point out of view, which I condemn j and which, 
 you know, I never applied to Mr. M, There- 
 fore, until you can prove that my friends and I 
 have iffued out fuch a "^^ fentence of condemnation* 
 as abfolutely ^'■judges" and " unchrijiians" you; 
 the whole of this borrowed fcene, fails in the prin- 
 cipal parts of its accommodation, while the mif- 
 appllcation of it exhibits the dllingenuity and im- 
 pertinence of the applier. 
 
 III. You urge, as a ground for feveral com- 
 plaints, that I never '* heard'' the exceptionable 
 parts of your late harangues. I wilh 1 had been 
 an ear-witnefs to them, if it were for no other 
 reafon, than that I might thereby have faved my 
 friends that fuperabundance of vulgar invedlve, 
 wherewith you have loaded them. However, as 
 your auxiliary in Birmingham has infinuated, that 
 I was *' too ftifF" to be one of your auditors, and 
 others may fuppofe the iniinuation to be ground- 
 ed on fa(5tj I take this opportunity of informing 
 that gentleman, that I am not reftrained by fuch 
 a tight rein of church-bigotry, as to fhun hearing 
 any man of any denomination, who preaches the 
 gofpel ; and I gave a proof of this in going to 
 hear Mr. M, It happened not to be the evening 
 
 of 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 of famous memory, on which he exhibited all the 
 artillery of his witticifms, ridicule, and logic, 
 againft Infant-baptifm. But from the obfervations 
 I then made on the preacher's peculiar addrefs, I 
 can ealily conje6lure, what a rapid flood of un- 
 meaning declamation he poured forth, when his 
 heart was warmed with his favorite topic on cold 
 water. For, when the preacher could indulge 
 fuch frequent fallies of ridiculous wit, on fub- 
 jc61s of the moft folemn nature ; how exuberant, 
 thought I, muft this indulgence have been, when 
 he expatiated on points of lefler moment ! For 
 my own part, whether water-baptifm or baptifm 
 of the Holy Ghoft be the fubjed, I think the mat- 
 ter and manner of the fpeaker ought always to 
 betray the mofi: profound reverence, if he would 
 witli to excite devotional ferioufnefs in his audi- 
 ence. But, when little vulgarifms, " wit that can 
 creep," ridiculous flights of fancy, jocular fimlles, 
 are interfperfed with truths of infinite impor- 
 tance; can we be furprifed that an auditory 
 fhould be thrown into an unferious titter? that 
 the truly-pious Ihould go away chagrined and 
 difappointed ? that fcoffers fliould be eventually 
 hardened in their impiety ? and that the gofpel of 
 of the blefled God fhould fuifer additional con- 
 tempt and difefteem, from fuch irreverent jocu- 
 larity ? And can we fuppofe, that ordinances 
 condu(?ted fo irreverently, will be crowned with a 
 divine blelling, or tend to real edification ? Exa- 
 mine the character of Him, who " fpake as never 
 manfpake;" review the writings of his infpired 
 
 apofllesj 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 apoflles; and then judge, whether the difcour/es 
 of the one, or the epiftolary exhortations of the 
 other, are in any parts of them calculated to pro- 
 mote levity. Whenever J^n M. afccnds the pul- 
 pit, in order to deliver the truths of the gofpcl, 
 or to harangue on liis fiivorite topic ; 1 would 
 advife him to preferve in his mind the idea of the 
 companionate Jesus v/eeping over bloody Jeru- 
 falem-, — oi Abraham, importunately pleading in all 
 the reverence and pathos of fervent prayer, in be- 
 half of Sodom and Gomorrah j — of Alofes, in a folemn 
 appeal to heaven and earth, calling God, angds 
 and men to record againfl a rebellious people j— 
 of yonah, crying to the impenitent NineviteSy with 
 all the earnertnefs of a man, who preaches for eter- 
 nity; — oi John the Baptift, lifting up his voice Hke 
 a trumpet in the wildernefs, and, in language, 
 rough as his clothing, iliarp as the piercings of a 
 fword, and folemn as the grave, warning a proud 
 and bigoted people to flee from the wrath to 
 come; — of the intrepid Faul, delivering himielf 
 with fuch cogency of perfualive argument, and 
 folemnity of faithful addrefs, as to make even 
 Agrippa himfelf an almoji-chriftian, and to excite 
 horror in the feared confcience of an avaritious 
 and adulterous Felix i — I fay, if h%r.'M. will but 
 preferve in his mind, the idea of thcfe perfonages, 
 thus engaged in their refpedlive excrcifes of reve- 
 rential prayer, compaffionate addrefs, and folemn 
 declamation, I dare fay it will tend greatly to 
 prevent the intrufion of every light and irrc V2- 
 rent thought ; confequently will reicue his diction 
 
 1 from 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 irom the froth of jocular phrafeologyj will In'-' 
 tfoduce a becoming awe Into his fermons and 
 prayersj and will preferve the ordinances of God 
 from that levity, which makes them fometimes 
 rcfemble a comic entertainment more than an 
 awful intercourfe with heaven, -f 
 
 Thus, Sir, you have virtually neceflitated me to 
 drop a few falutary hints, that very intimately 
 Concern you, as a preacher of the gofpel. This f 
 fhould have avoided out of tendernefs to yourfelf, 
 had you not by a variety of bold interrogatories, 
 virtually called upon me to declare, that, though 
 I did not hear you on dipping, I did on other fub- 
 jeds: and, that from the fpecimen I then had of 
 your ma7incr, I can conceive, the half was not told 
 me refpe61ing your humorous declamations on 
 your darling topic. However, from the Informa- 
 tion of my friends, I take the liberty to expofl:ulate 
 with you before the public, as I did, in a private 
 letter you received from me. *' You feem cx- 
 
 •j "Jcrom gives an admirable piece of advice to thofe who minifler in 
 holy things. Docenie hi ecckfia tc, «(?« clamor popul't, fed gemitus fiijci- 
 tettir^- i.achrym;e auaitorum laiidcs tux funt. On whicii, the words of 
 good Mr. Baxter, twWMoYxa a fort of excellent paraphrafe. " I know 
 not how it is with other perfons, but the moft reverent preacher, who 
 fpeaks as though he fa'M the face of God, does more aflcdl my heart, than 
 an irreverent man, with the mofl accurate preparations, though he 
 hawl it out with much feeming etinieftnefs. If reverence be not equal to 
 fervency, it has but little cfFcift. Of all preaching in the world, I hate 
 that mofl, which tends to make the hearers laugh ; or to afledl their 
 minds, with fuch levity, as flnge-flr.ys io, inflead of afFedting them with 
 an holy reverence of the name of God. We fliould fuppofe, (as it 
 xvere) when we draw near him in holy things, that we faw the throne 
 of God, and the millions of glorious angels attending him, that wc 
 maybe awfd with his w^t/^J'; left we />ro^/'aKf his fervicc, and take ins 
 tisme in ViVii." B^ixiirs Rcfofnied Paflor, abridged, pmSj. 
 
 ceedingly 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 ceedlngly warm, from a fappofitlon that I have 
 mifreprefented you ; becaufe in my letter to Mr. 
 P. (as well as in my Letter to a Baptiji-Minijier.) I 
 fay you " held up t/wfe miniflers who differ' from you, 
 in a ludicrous' point of view." And I fay fo iVill, 
 Sir. Let your own ludicrous animadverfions tef- 
 tify. Did you not afk your audience (with a 
 dcfign to ridicule the dlfpenfers of baptifm by 
 afFulion) whether " the fprinkling their pots and 
 cups would ckanfe them ?" Did you not fay, that 
 thofe who do not pradife immerfion, " only bap- 
 tize the ends oi xhtir fingers f" Did you not ridi- 
 cule the cuftom offending for a minifter to bap- 
 tize a lick child ? And did not the cenfare, which 
 affe61s the parents, confequently aiTecSl the officiat- 
 ing minifter? Did you not even defcend fo low, 
 as to ridicule thofe prints^ which reprefent the 
 Jjaptifl: cLS pouring the baptifmal water on Christ? 
 Did you not feverely animadvert on a part of the 
 office for baptifm in the Church of England? — 
 Now, Sir, although, in thefe witticifms, you 
 mentioned no minifter's 72^/??^, yet farely you ri- 
 diculed their office. So that, when you repre- 
 iented baptifm by affulion, as Umilar to the 
 " fprinkling of pots," or as nothing more than 
 " baptizing the ends of the fingers," did you not 
 Indirectly " hold up, in a ludicrous point of view, 
 thofe minifters, who diifer from you?" Indeed 
 you did. Sir. And I appeal to your own candor, 
 whether all your loud complaints of mifrepr efen- 
 tation are not Iheltered under an evaiive diftinc- 
 tionj between ridiculing minifters' perjons^ and 
 1 2 bantering 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 bantering their mode of difpenfing baptlfm, I 
 fancy, if 1 had introduced your peculiarities into 
 the pulpit, and had ludlcroufly expatiated on the 
 fcene exhibited at the Abbey-Foregate Bath; you 
 would have thought yourfelf *' held up in a lu^ 
 dicrous point of view," though I never mentioned 
 the name of Mr. M. or the word miniftcr at all. 
 
 V. In the fame letter, in which I prefented 
 Mr. M, with thefe expoftulatory queries, I alfo 
 told him, *' I was informed, he gave a challenge to 
 the advocates for Infant-Baptifm, and would en- 
 gage to anfwer all that Ihould be faid on the 
 fubje(?l." As he favored me with no reply to my 
 letter, 1 looked upon his lilence as a fort of tacit 
 acknowledgment of the declaration ; and, in my 
 Reply to ParmenaSj took the liberty to expofe this 
 pompous mode of introducing virtual challenges 
 into the facred defk. His friends, zealous for the 
 honor of their champion, and looking upon my 
 flri(5lures as a dreadful mifreprefentation, feem to 
 have called a ferious meeting, in order to vindi-. 
 Gate their friend, and to attefi: his innocence. 
 Accordingly, his poflfcript exhibits a lift of ten, 
 Anabaptlfts, with the important Mr. Sandys at the 
 head, who declare Mr. M. never gavefuch a chal- 
 lenge, and fubfcribe their names to this attefted 
 declaration. 
 
 Now, although the pompous poftfcrlpt is authen- 
 ticated by the names of thefe jinahaptiji. Decemviriy 
 and particularly graced with the lignature of a Re~ 
 "verend Decemvir; yet I will take upon me to prove, 
 even from the acknowledgments of the attejiing 
 
 juntOi 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 junto, that Mr. M. did give a virtual challenge to 
 Poedobaptifts j and that the flyle of it is tanta- 
 mount to a declaration, that '' he would anfvver 
 whatever fhould be faid on the fubjed of Infant- 
 Baptifm." Let us take an attentive view of ths 
 
 ATTESTED CHALLENGE. 
 
 *' If the Poedobaptifts will prove their pradlce 
 <« from the word of God, (.which in my humble 
 ** opinion they never yet have done,) I will atten- 
 <* tively and impartially read, whatever they 
 <* (N.B.) may produce : and if they convince me 
 ** from the fcripture, that Infant-Sprinkling is 
 *' Gofpel-Baptifm, 1! Samuel Medley! do 
 ♦' pledge myftif to make a public rcca7ita:ion of my 
 *' prefent opinion, from the pulpit and the prefs, 
 *' and to become a zealous defender of Ii^fant-Bap- 
 ^' tifm, wherever 1 am, and as long as I live," 
 Witncfs, &c. 
 
 Now, in oppofition to this, I mi;|ht urge, the 
 declaration of a refpe61able Dijfenter,._ whole iingle 
 teftimony, both in point of veracity and recollec- 
 tion, I deem more than a counter-lDallance to the 
 attcfted acknowledgment of the /inabaptift De- 
 cemviri. The perfon referred to, declares, thit 
 to the befi: of his recolleilion (and; he thinks his 
 recolle<51:ion could not fail him, fx?r he liftened 
 with uncommon attention to the whole of this' 
 vaunting hiatus) Mr, M. did totidem verbis " pledge 
 himfelf to anfwer all that Ihould be faid on the 
 iubjed of Infant-Baptifni." 
 
 But, waving his teftimony, though I think it 
 equally authentic with that of i[it:attejiers them- 
 
 felves. 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 fdves, I am willing to abide by the %Ie of the 
 declaration itfelf. i That it is to all intents, a 
 challenge, will, I believe, appear obvious at the iiril: 
 light, to any perfon of candor and difcernment ; 
 but more fo, if we conlider the exa6t analogy be- 
 tween the tenor of the declaration and Dr. yohn- 
 fons definition of the word challenge, *' To challenge" 
 (fays the eminent lexicographer) "is to call ano- 
 ther to anjwer for an offence by combat." Mr. A4. 
 thinks Infant-Baptifm an " offence" ag:i'm{i fcrip- 
 ture : He " calW on modern Poedobaptifls from 
 ithe pulpit *' to anfwer" for this offence, as he inti- 
 juates that their brethren, in former times, '* ne-'jer 
 have proved their pradice from the word of God :" 
 and he virtually calls upon them to do this in 
 controverlial ''combat" by ''producing" their 
 defenfive proofs; which can pnly be done from 
 the pulpit or the prefs. I leave the reader to 
 judge, from this correfpondence between the lexi- 
 cographer's definition and Mr. M.'s declaration, 
 whether the latter does npt carry with it the ap- 
 pearance of a pulpit-challenge. 
 
 2 That Mr. M. did virtually pledge himfelf to 
 anfwer whatever Ihould be faid by Poedobaptifts, 
 \vill appear, if we conlider (i) That heafferts they 
 *' never have" hitherto " proved their pradice 
 from the word of God/' confequently that thofe, 
 who have never done this, may be eafily anfwered: 
 (2) That, as they have hitherto failed, he calls 
 upon them, to prove their pra(?l;ice now ; which, 
 by a fneering inlinuation, implies, (notwithftand- 
 ing his atleded pretenlions to impartiality,) that 
 
 they 
 
C 71 ) 
 they would be as fuccefsful in future as hereto? 
 fore; and therefore as e^iily anfwered. (3) That 
 ** whatever they may produce" (another mode 
 of challenging them to do it) he would condefcend 
 to " KEAD." Is not this a virtual calling upon 
 them to PUBLISH? (4) That, if '' convinced" by 
 their arguments, he " pledges" himfelf to make a 
 public recantation, from the pulpit and the prefs; 
 although, by the fpecimen he has already given 
 us, we may ealily judge, how acceffible he is to 
 conviifllon, and how much difpofed to make a 
 public recantation. , 
 
 Now, I only afk any perfon of candor and im- 
 partiality, if for a pulpit-orator to throw out in- 
 nuendos concerning " whatever" Pocdobap- 
 tifts " MAY produce" be not a virtual fummons, 
 or a fpecles of challenge to the field of controverfy. 
 And, if this fame perfon, declares, by a folemn 
 pledging of his important I! S. Ad'! that, if con- 
 vinced, he will publilh his recantation ; I fhould 
 be glad to know, what we are to fuppofe he would 
 do, when all our arguments are loji upon him. 
 Does his declaration imply, that he would only 
 *' read whatever we may produced and that he 
 would never attempt^ at leaft, any anfwer to our 
 publications ? Does it not rather, plainly inli- 
 nuate, that, as he would publilh his recantation 
 from the pulpit and the prefs, if convinced of the 
 fcripture-ground of Infant-Baptifm; fo, U not con- 
 vinced, he would adopt fome public mode oi de- 
 daring his oppolition. For, I repeat it again ; we 
 can never fuppofe, without flying in the face of 
 
 recent 
 
C 72 ) 
 
 recent fa5fs, that Mr. M. would be only a filent 
 reviewer of our fentiments. Let the religious buf- 
 foonery, with which, xhoMgh. unprovoked, he late- 
 ly attacked Infant-Baptifm, and the dogmatic af- 
 furance, wherewith he exalted Anabaptilm, bear 
 witnefs, how far our produ6^ions would be likely 
 to receive a candid, modeji, or filent examination* 
 So that, I am fully convinced, (and the convic- 
 tion is founded on implicit proof) that, Mr. M, 
 did, either exprejjly, according to the information 
 of my friend, or tacitly, according to the face of 
 the attefted declaration, fay he would engage to 
 anfwer whatever lliould be urged by Poedobap- 
 tifts, 
 
 VI. And now, Sir, permit me to expoftulate 
 with you once more, upon a review of your con-i- 
 du61. Do you really think, that your late manner 
 of treating your differing brethren, is ftri6lly de- 
 fenlible? Is it coniirtent with decency, to fcatter 
 abroad your little ludicrous witticifms, when you 
 are engaged in the folemnities of public worlhiip ? 
 Does it betray any genuine modejiy, to deliver 
 yourfelf with fuch dogmatic confidence, on a fub- 
 je(5f, which you do not feem fufficiently to under- 
 itand ? And is it any mark of jelf-dificknce, to 
 conclude with fuch peremptorinefs, that Poedo- 
 baptifts " nei-cr have yet proved their pra^ice front 
 God's wordf" Are you a competent judge of the 
 merits of the controverfy, to be able to determine 
 a point, which Anabaptifts of much fuperior abi- 
 lities, have found fo very difficult to prove? Or 
 do you fuppofe that your mere affirmation is to 
 
 weigh 
 
,( 73 ) 
 
 weigh heavier, than the arguments of " ten men 
 that can render a reafon ?" If you mull: give 
 your opinion, refpe(5ling your own peculiarities; 
 can't you do this, without exhibiting the contrary 
 lide in all the parade of ludicrous declamation ? 
 Is the facred defk a proper place for fuch exhi- 
 bitions? Is the celebration of a folemn ordinance, 
 a tijne, proper for fuch levity ? And lliould a 
 promifcuous audience, conlifting perhaps of pro- 
 phane more than profefTors, be eye and ear-wit- 
 nelTes to fuch trifling irreverence ? Is it the part 
 of modtfty, candor, 'politenefs or moderation^ after 
 roundly averting, that Pocdobaptifls have failed in 
 all their attempted vindications of Infant-Baptifm, 
 to give them a virtual challenge to '"produce" fome- 
 thing for the vaunting challenger's perufal ? And, 
 is it any mark of ingenuity, or opennefs to con- 
 ^•i6iion, after a man has been called to an account 
 for giving a challenge from the pulpit, to fly to 
 the poor fubterfuge, of getting a few partial friends 
 to atteft a declaration, which only exculpates him 
 from uttering certain words, when it m.anifeflly 
 implies the Jhitiment, I have expofed ? 
 
 Suppofe, Sir, that I had been invited to Lvver^ 
 fool, as you have been lately, to Shreivfjury : That ail 
 the inhabitants oi Liverpool, (a few only excepted) 
 were Jnabaptijs ; and that FcEdobaptiJis there, like 
 your brethren in this town, were Dijjenters :-^ 
 That, upon accepting the invitation, I had taken 
 all opportunity of preaching, and of baptizing: — 
 That, in the courfe of my fermon, and at the time 
 of adminiftering the ordinance, I had availed my- 
 
 K felf 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 {elf of a double occafion, to ridicule the fcnti- 
 juents and ordinances of the eftablithment : — That 
 1. had, In ackifter of low fimlles, ridiculed the Ana- 
 baptlfls for making their " watery grave" cffentlal 
 baptlfm: — That I had, with a low fneer, afked, in 
 a public ordinance, whether the " wrapping their 
 pots " and cups in cloths, and then putting thera 
 " under water, would be a more probable mode 
 *' of cleaniing them, than by an affufion of 
 " water :" — That I had laughed at Anabaptifts, 
 for taking long journeys, to dip perfons in the 
 depth of winter, pregnant women not even except- 
 edj as if they deemed immerlion efiential to falva- 
 tion :— Suppofe I had proceeded farther, roundly 
 to affirm that " Anabaptlfts had never yet proved 
 their pra6llce from the word of God;" that I gave 
 them a virtual challenge to ''produce" fomething 
 from the prefs, and that I would take upon me to 
 anfwer the production : — Suppofe, Sir, 1 fay, that 
 I had conduced niyfelf thus, in the delivery of 
 my public difcourfes, and at the adminiftration 
 of the ordinance of baptifm j in what an unaml- 
 able light muft I have appeared, to the candid and 
 judicious, either as a. preacher or a.n aclminijlrator ! 
 What would the world have thought of me? 
 What! but that 1 went to Liverpool^ only to exhibit 
 a little pulpit-buffoonery, in order to make one 
 part of my hearers laugh : — What would the Pcedo- 
 baptids have thought of me? What! but that I 
 liad firangely forgot my exxand; that, inftead of 
 preaching Chrift and him crucified, I had only de- 
 figned to preach fdf; and that, inftead of urging 
 
 the 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 the' " one haptifm," I wanted to amufe them with a 
 little dry declamation on cold "jvater. — What would 
 theCLERGYof L/i'(?r/)Oo/ have thought? What! but 
 that I went there, as a fort of declaiming gladiator, 
 to give a virtual challenge to any who chofe to take 
 up the gauntlet : — What would the Anabaptijis 
 have thought ? What ! but that I meant to fill 
 their heads with doubts, their united aiTemblies 
 with confufion^ and their differing brethren v/itli 
 contemptible bigotry- — Yea, what would Mr. M. 
 himfelfhave thought? What! but that, relinqulih- 
 ing the catholicifm of the man of moderation, and 
 the pacific tendernefs of the chriftian, I had taken 
 a long journey to give him a virtual injult in his 
 own neighbourhood. 
 
 But even this mode of rcprefenting, mutatis 
 mutandis, the difingenuliy of Mr. M.'s condud, 
 does not take in all the fubfequent aggravations in 
 it. For, bcfides attempting a vindication, he has 
 now informed us, that we are totally miftaken in 
 the mode of adminiftering baptifm. Thus dogma- 
 tizes Mr. Medley. " I f^ill think, that none of the 
 " minifters in the ef^ablillied church, or among 
 " the diffenters, do admlnifler baptifm in a/crip- 
 "' tural manner." — If our Poedobaptift brethren 
 are affecled by this gentleman's thoughts, in the 
 lame manner with myfclf, they will deem them 
 as remote from truth, as they are from modejiy ; 
 and will naturally cxpe(5f annual viiits from the 
 thinker himfclf, fmce he holds fo very cheap all the 
 unjcriptural adminiftrators of baptifm, in Shrcwf- 
 bury. However, as fecond thoughts are bcft, and 
 K 2 as 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 4s the wifeft of men have feen the utility of them; 
 v/ho knows but Mr. M. may think differently in 
 the year 1777 ? At leaft, one would fondly hope, 
 that he would think, and preach, and write, a little 
 more modestly. For, if the fpace of feveral 
 mouths, and another expoftulation from the prefs, 
 do not produce fuch a delirable change, I know 
 what fomebody will think-, nji%: that bigotry is 
 a thick cloud impervious to every rayoflightj 
 that effrontery is a coat of mail impenetrable by 
 the kecneft arrows of argumentative reproof j and 
 that fome people's thoughts, like the reveries of one 
 in a dream, are deftitute of regularity, folidity, 
 and truth. 
 
 Yll. Not content with dogmatizing on Poedo- 
 baptifm, he abufes fome Fcedobaptifis, in a firain, 
 which by an imhappy fatality, involves the abufer 
 himfelf in a reverberating cenfure. Having in my 
 Letter to a Baptlji-Minifier , dropped the mol^ can- 
 did declaration, refpecting Dijfenters, an'd the hap- 
 py privileges they poffefs under the wing of a 
 '"' gracious toleration-,'' inflead of improving this 
 declaration to my honor, he, ori the contrary, 
 avails himfelf of an occafion to accoft me with an 
 addrefs, that contains in it fuch pcrfonality of 
 abufe, as characterizes neither the gentleman nor 
 the chriftian. Having in p. 8, advertifed the reader 
 of my '' advancement! to the Vicarage of St. Jlk- 
 mond's,," he renews and expatiates on the adver- 
 tifement in p. 10 j where, like the abulive counter- 
 part of his auxiliary in Salop, he thus inveighs. — 
 " The only difference between the Diffenters and 
 
 " the 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 ^' the Church of England, is, iliat the hitter Is" 
 ** eyidowed \\\i\\ fat livings, to! puiF up the ^r/W*? 
 ^' of certain Plcars, that! they may dcjpife. their 
 ** unendowed brethren. 1 think" (pray raind; 
 thefe are his thoughts for 1776; but perhaps he 
 may alter them, at fome future lucid Interval j) 
 ^' it muft naturally occur" (in confequence of a 
 tiatural bright thought) " to a dijcerning reader" 
 (but where fhall we find readers as dijcerning as the 
 THINKER?) "acquainted with all the circum- 
 *' flances" (a myllerious innuendo, Vvhich 1 hope 
 the thinker will explain) " of a certain author," 
 (whofe real name he has been fo polite as never to 
 mention but in his title-page) * " what an amazing 
 " contraft" (efpecially when exhibited by our 
 x\\\i\V.ti['s amazing pen) " the humble Curate of ShaW" 
 " bury was to the prie/rly" (an erratum for _proz.'(i) 
 " Vicar of St. Jlkmond'sl" 
 
 Here I might leave our amazing thinker, peace- 
 ably to enjoy his thoughts for the prefent A. D. 
 were it not thgt I think it pollible he may, even 
 before the prefent year is. elapfed, either change 
 his thoughts, or at leaf! the coarje phrafeology , that 
 cloathes them. For this reafpn I will fpend a ic\^ 
 ftridlures on a pafiage, which feems to be the re- 
 lult of profound cogitation, (i) When Mr. M^ 
 fays, that the " o^ly dilFcrence between Dhfent- 
 ers and the Churctvpf Englaiul, is, that the latter 
 is endowed;" does no\his cogibundity, here, take 
 a nod? For if that were^^ie only difference, I fliould 
 i^ot now be writing agalnxi him as an oppugner of 
 Infant-Baptlfm. (2) Though fome of the livings. 
 
 Ia 
 
 ' And the iiiitl'ils once, upon another occafion. 
 
( 78 ) 
 
 in :hr Church of England are ''fat," yet there 
 aiv iuuBbers of them very lean-, the incumbents 
 cf ' '■ ( h (LKiiire as great, if not much greater 
 hci'di :.^>s tlnin m.iny unendowed Anabaptifts. 
 (0 i h.4t large emokiments abufed '' puff up the 
 prlJe" of fo ne eccleliafiics, is too notorious to be 
 denied. But that our Church is endowed " to!" 
 a gment their pride, is juft as good fenfe and 
 found truth, as to fay, that " Anabaptifm is un- 
 endoived, to! enhance the humility of certain Anti- 
 pnedobaptilts." (4) That our Church is endowed 
 *' that! certain Vicars may defpife their unen- 
 dowed brethren," is an erid, which the original 
 endowers themfelves as much thought of, as that 
 our unendowed thinker would ever fabricate fucli 
 invidious nonfenfe. (5) When Mr. M would in- 
 iinuate, that certain ecclefiaftics on corpulent be- 
 nefices (which I'm fure, thus far, happens not to 
 be jny cafe) are puffed up with pride, and with 
 contempt of their brethren ; he fecms to form a 
 fort of connexion, in idea, between corpulency and 
 pride, as if they were homogeneous ; or, as if en- 
 dowment, pride and contempt, formed a kind of ec- 
 cleliaftical Cerberus, whofe triple mouth is opened 
 in hideous expaniion againft Dijjenters. But here 
 Mr. Ad.'s pencil draws a caricatun', which cxiffs 
 only In his frighted imagination. Ecclefiafiical en- 
 dowment is not the monfter, he would reprefent 
 it ; nor does It naturally engender thofe twin- 
 fifters, contempt and pride. There are many en- 
 dowed fons of our Church, whofe humility, and 
 refpec^ for differing brethren, are extremely con- 
 
 fpicuous. 
 
C 79 ) 
 
 fpicuous. ■* And, permit me to obfervc, that I 
 myfelf know fome miendowed individuals, who 
 allume a greater air of lelr-importance, defpotic 
 church-authority, vifibie elation of fpirit, and ap- 
 pearance of pomp, than'many whom Mr M. may 
 falfly accufe of -priejily pride, ^d alter os incujat, 
 oportet s-s. intueri. 
 
 Notwithftanding the multipUed fhifts, Mr. M. 
 has adopted, in order to elude the charges, I have 
 brought againft him, refpciilin-- his fevere and 
 ludicrous mode of attacking Infant-Baptifm j I am 
 glad, however, to meet with a conceffion, p. 38, 
 which implicitly admits the whole of thefe charg- 
 es, as well as pomts out the determinations of his 
 future conduifl. ** As to human traditions, &c. 
 " 1 confefs 1 have oftem made free with them," 
 (another mode of expreliion for having freely 
 abufed Infant-Baptilm) " and I will give neither 
 
 * I will not, however, take upon me, to promife that Mr. M, will 
 be the objedt of Tuch relpect, unlefs he lliould improve very rapidly 'u\ 
 a fcienee, with which he fecms at prefent to be perfedtly unacquainted. 
 When a man defcends to the fcurrilous mode of abufnig, without any 
 juft provocation, the Miniftcrs of the eftabliflied Church, upon a fup- 
 pofition, that the ecclcliaftical endowment which provides for their 
 maintenance, makes intentional provifion alio for their pride ; muft not 
 the fabricator of fuch impertinent infinuations fink in the cfreem of 
 every man of candor and good fcnie ? V/hen this Gentleman reprci'ents 
 " certain Vicars" as " puffed up vAlh pride,'" I fliould be glad to know, 
 •whether it be any proof of Ctt/- haughtinefs, that v^'e take any notice of 
 his low-lived imputations, or of his hiimiUty, that he coins them. Cer- 
 tain I am, this unendowed Anabaptifl is fo puffed up with a certain 
 diforder, that, if the gentle pundiure of a controvcrfi^I lancet does not 
 penetrate the bladder of pompolity, and give vent to its inflating con- 
 tents ; by the time he writes again, the tumor will probably have 
 arrived at fuch a prodigious degree of magnitude, as to render the poor 
 patient an almcft incurable pompofo : and, that he will then be a poffelTor 
 of a PLUMP ENDOWMENT, I believc there will be no occafion to adver- 
 lik tlie huriible reader. 
 
 " bond 
 
( ?.o ■} 
 
 ** bond nor prcmlie, that I may not happen, to 
 " do fo again before I die." But, this Gentleman, 
 who will not engage that he may not " happen' 
 to pour forth his abufe in future, drops his cafual 
 dialed, and gives us fair warning, in the following 
 tremendous intimation, which he has backed with 
 an explicit bond and promife. " If ever I am 
 " again called, to defend the ordinance and re- 
 *' commend the pra^lice of believer's baptifnij 
 " cither at Sh — -y or elfewhere i you may always 
 *' expecft to hear of me as a severe opposer of 
 " the human invention, &c." 
 
 Now, candid reader, 1 rcqueft you will pleafe 
 to keep in mind this prom ijfory note of our me- 
 nacing opponent; becaufe the recollection of it 
 will help you to judge, of what nature Mr. Tl^.'s 
 recent harangues at Shreiiifoury were; and whether 
 his own concefiion here has not fully juftified my 
 animadveriions upon them. As to his engaging, 
 by a promiflbry bond, to be a ''^ fever e oppofer" of 
 Infant-Baptifm, if you diveft his cppojztion of 3. mafs 
 of wordy tautology, overbearing confidence, mere 
 7pfe dixit, low abufe, &c. I affure you, there is 
 nothing in the " oppofer" which even a novitiate In 
 divinity need to dread : And, if Anabaptifm could 
 furnilli advocates, no more formidable than Mr. 
 M. 1 think the Anabaptifls themfelves would 
 tremble for their great Diana. — Should he favor 
 us with any more vilits, and reiterate his ^'- fever e 
 oppojitio?r In the flyle and manner, of which he 
 has given a late fpecimen; and fhould any Pcedb- 
 baptifts be ear-witnefies to the ludicrous and irre- 
 verent 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 verent icene ; inftead of fneering, probably they ^ 
 ** will fland pitying by." For my o\vn part, 
 I am forry to be under a neceffity of reminding 
 Mr. M. that an infpired apoftle mentions forne 
 bigoted cotemporaries of his day, who *' preached 
 Christ even oi ft rife and contention^ As I think 
 fuch a mode of preaching is fubverfive of peace, 
 and deftrudive to the real intcrefls of the gofpel, 
 I am extremely concerned, that there Ihould be 
 any apparent limilarity between Mr. 7l<f.'s fpirit 
 and that of the contentious declaimers in St. Paul's 
 days. And, if he Ihoald appear in this town 
 again, in the chara(5i:er of a " ftvere oppofer" tho' 
 I lliall rejoice, like the catholic apoftle, that 
 *' Chrlji will be preached," yet it will be an addi- 
 tional affliv5lion to me, that the preacher fliould be 
 a warm imitator of the fom ofjtrife. I have been 
 accufed by an Anabaptift, of being " not content 
 with my own watch and ward." But, whether a 
 man's taking a long journey in order to difturb 
 the neighbourhood of gofpel-minifters, in the for- 
 midable ftyle of a " fevere oppofer" does not come 
 under the above predicament, 1 leave the judici- 
 ous reader to determine. 
 
 L C H A P. 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Mr. M.*s dodlrine of the essentiality o/dlpping 
 expofed and refuted His explanatory vindica- 
 tions on that head incur additional abfurdity, and 
 
 glaring felf-contradidion Animadverftons on his 
 
 calling the Church of England the " daughter of 
 
 the mother of abominations." T'he defamatory 
 
 appellation, when transferred to the Minijiers of 
 ■cur Church, proved to be inconfi/lent either with 
 
 truth t or decency. Some q^'eries propofed to 
 
 jinahaptijis. 
 
 ^ B iHE unfcriptural ftrefs, which Anabaptifts 
 j|_ in general lay on dipping, induced me to 
 txprefs my fears on this head, to Mr. M. in par- 
 ticular. His manner of expatiating on the En- 
 Tiuch's baptifm, mentioned in A^s viii. 38, firfl: laid 
 the ground of my apprehenlionsj and his expla- 
 natory reply, fo far from removing, has only 
 tended to enhance them the more abundantly. 
 Indeed all this gentleman's explanations only thicken 
 m the clearing; and his felf-vindicatlons refemble 
 the efforts of a man fallen into a gravel-pit, and 
 flriving to rife ; but in vain 5 for the loofened foil 
 eludes the climber's grafp, and makes every at- 
 tempt to emerge from his cmbarraffcd lituation 
 produ6tive of a frefh and more confirmed fall. In 
 this fituation I often find Mr. Medley. His own 
 falfe reafoning is the pit of abfurdity into which 
 his precipitate zeal has hurried him, 1 fly, with 
 friendly eagernefs to the pit's mouth, and gently 
 
 propofc 
 
( ^ ) 
 
 propofe a fcrlptural ladder to help him out of his 
 embarrafTment. Enraged that I lliould detect hun 
 in fo humiliating a iituation, he ftorms from the 
 bottom at me, as if / had been the agent In his 
 fall: and, when I expoftulate with him on the 
 dirtinefs as well as danger of his Iituation, he rages 
 ilill more, and lays the whole charge agalnft what 
 he calls, my " daubs of the black-brulh j" p. 14, 
 whereas, the daubing, fo thick upon his garments, 
 is occafioned by the accumulated dirt he con- 
 trails in his repeated falls, and difappolnted at- 
 tempts to rife J which is ftill encreafed by the pro- 
 portionate ponderolity of the body that tumbles. 
 Take a remarkable inftance of this nature in the 
 following circumftance. 
 
 1. In p. 13, of my " Letter' I expreffed my 
 apprehenlions, that Mr. M. made the Eunuch's 
 baptifm the ground of his joy, either in whole or 
 in part, and that his mind had been legalized upon 
 a favorite occafion. Here I drew a bow at a ven- 
 ture-y and the fortuitous arrow has hit the mark: 
 the wounded Anabaptift, in his attempts to pull it 
 out, eventually drives it deeper, and enlarges the 
 wound : while the unextraiSed dart pierces bigot- 
 ry's coat of mail, enters the very heart of Ana- 
 baptifm, and makes its bigoted advocate fret pro- 
 digioufly. Upon my calmly hoping, that Mr. 7l<f. 
 could not think " the Eu7mch's joy was the truer 
 *' BECAUSE he was baptized," he propofes the fol- 
 lowing anfwer. " 1 do think the Eunuch's joy was 
 *' more truly Jlrengthened, more truly enlarge 
 ** ed, more truly heightened and brightened, and 
 L 2 " more 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 ** more truly feakd and confirmed in the expe- 
 *' rience of his foul in confcquence of the divine 
 *' blefling and prefence attending him, in his fub- 
 ** mifiion to the divinely inftituted ordinance; 
 " which fubmiilion was an ejjential part in the 
 " obedience of his faith." p. 14. 
 
 That *' the divine prefence and bleffing" can 
 ftrengthen, enlarge, and heighten a believer's joy, 
 js a truth not to be controverted : and, if 1 
 thought Mr. M.'s theological jargon was intended 
 fo inculcate nothing more, I iTiouId give him my 
 hearty concurrence in the obfervation. But he 
 makes this divine prefence and bleffing an infepa- 
 rable attendant on the outward ceremony of bap- 
 tifinj and a fubmiffion to that ordinance he re- 
 prefents as an efjnitial adjunct in the Eunuch's 
 obedience of faith. So that, although by afcribing 
 the enlargement of the Eunuch's joy to the divine 
 bleffing, he has craftily devifed a fort of cafaiflical 
 loop-hole, from whence to efcape the vigorous 
 attack of an opponent ; yet it is plain, that he 
 makes ihejirengthemng, enlarging, heightening, bright^ 
 ening, Jealing, and confirming of fpiritual joy, ulti- 
 mately to depend on his fubmiffion to baptifm ; 
 an inlinuation this, big with the very quinteffience 
 of legality, and calculated to putf up the pride of 
 Anabaptifts, as well as to Jirengt hen, enlarge, height- 
 en, brighten, feal, and confirm their bigoted attach- 
 ment to dipping. 
 
 But, that I may expofe the fallacy, abfurdity, 
 and error, couched with plaulible artifice, under 
 this whole paiTage, I lay before the judicious 
 
 reader. 
 
( B5 ) 
 
 reader, the following obfervations. (i) When 
 Mr. M. aliens, that tbe Eunuch's ]oy was " MORfi 
 *' brightened 3.nd confirmed" upon his fubmlflion to 
 baptifm j does he not attribute inore to this iubmifi 
 five a(51:, than to the energy of the Ethiopian's an- 
 tecedent faith f Does he not thereby manifelily 
 exalt a creature-work, a mere non-elTcntial, not 
 into an equality with, but into an abiolute fuperi- 
 ority above that grace, without which it is impof- 
 fible to pleafe God ? The fcrlptures of truth fpeak 
 of '"joy in believing," Rom. xv. 13. of " the joy of 
 " faith," FhiL i. 25. And they continually inti- 
 mate, that as believers owe the commencement of 
 divine joy to the lively exertion of faith, fo they 
 do likcwlfe the continicance diud firength of every 
 inward confolatlon, to the fame powerful grace. 
 And, becaufe It is the fclf-abaiing peculiarity of 
 faith, to reft only upon the Lord Jtfus Chriji for 
 pardon and acceptance, and to eye him as the 
 fountain and foundation of every bleiling In time 
 and eternity, in contradiftinction to the proud 
 claims of pharifaifm and hypocriiyj therefore the 
 the true believer's joy is called '* a joy in Gcd, a 
 ■ ' rejoicing m Chriji Jcfu^," Rom. v. 1 1. Phil. iii. 3. 
 But how does this fcriptural reprefentatlon of the 
 matter comport with Mr. M.'s views? He makes 
 the enlargement and confirmation of fpiriiualy^jr 
 to refult from a fubmiilion to an outward ceremo- 
 ny 5 yea, he afferts that it is '^ more" enlarged 
 thereby. Well, for my own part, it feems evident 
 to me, as well from fcripture as matter of fa<5l, 
 that, where fuch an undue ftrefs is placed on ex- 
 ternals. 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 tcrnals, the foul, inftead of being enlarged, be- 
 comes the fubject of legal contradion ; and the 
 joy, inftead of being Jirengthened, fufFers an enfee- 
 bling damp. 
 
 (2) But, Mr. 71//. alTerts that \htEunucKs]oy was 
 more truly ftrengthened, &c. And left v/e lliould 
 overlook the emphatic word, he repeats his " tk\j- 
 'Ly" fix times. By the addition of this fmall dilTyla- 
 ble, the error is ftill more truly Jirengthened, enlarg- 
 ed, heighteiied, brightened, Jealed and confirmed. For, 
 here is an explicit infinuatlon, that there was fome 
 defeat in the truth as well as the firength of the 
 EunucKs>]oy, 'till he was baptized. Now, as Mr. M. 
 is profellcdly an advocate for dipping as the ejfential 
 mode of baptizing, and for adult-dipping as ejfeji- 
 tial to the obedince of faith ; and as he propofes 
 the Eunuch as an example for both elTentials; he 
 confequently muft think., (yea he implicitly de- 
 clares) that the Joy of U7idlpped believers is neither 
 fo true nor {ojirong, as that of thofe, who fubmit, 
 to what he is pleafed to call, " a divinely inftitut- 
 " ed ordinance." And, the plain Englijh of this 
 unfcriptural inlinuation is, that the joy of Anabap- 
 tifts, and of them alone, is truly Jirong 3.nd bright. 
 Had I not reafon then, in my letter, to afk Mr. M, 
 if he thought " the Eunuch's, ]oy was the truer, be- 
 *' caufe he was baptized f And has he not now 
 given me fuch an anfwer, as abundantly confirms 
 my former apprehenlions refpe(?ling the legality oi 
 our author's fentiments ? I confefs this is a bright- 
 ening of the fubje<5l, that I never expected from an 
 evangelical ^en, A.nd I am not in the leaft fur- 
 
 prifed. 
 
( Sy ) 
 
 prifed, that thofe who fit under fuch tenets, and 
 fiibmit to dipping, from an imbibed fuppofition, 
 that their fubmiilion to this ceremony will " more 
 " truly ft raigthnr their joy ; I am not furprifed, 
 I {zcj, that fuch perfons iTiould place their joy in 
 dipping, rather than in believing'^ that, from a de- 
 lufory dependence on a mere opus operatum, they 
 lliould millake the Ihadow for the fubftancej and 
 that they Ihould live and die utter Grangers to the 
 power of godlinefs. Nor am I in the leaft fur- 
 prifed, if fame Anabaptifts, fliould be hereby fo 
 fwoln with fpiritual pride, as to look with con- 
 tempt on their brethren, and to fancy themfelves 
 the only pofTeflbrs of the *' truth, Joy, and e/Jence of 
 *' obedient faith." — Suppofe a happy Poedobaptift, 
 rejoicing in God his Savior, and triumphing in 
 the vi61orious faith of his ele»ff, were to meet with 
 one of Mr. Af.'s hearers, and from tlie overflow- 
 ing abundance of his heart were to declare the 
 great things God had done for his foul. Accord- 
 ing to our author's dodrine, the Anabaptifl lliould 
 make the following anfwer. '* Well, but you have 
 not been dipped. As you have not fubmitted to 
 the divimly inftitutcd ordinance of immerfion, yoii 
 -have not obeyed the command of Chrift, There- 
 fore, though you may poffefs a degree of Joy, yet I 
 cannot pronounce it quite genuine. For I have 
 the authority of my own minifter to declare, that 
 if you are dipped, your joy will be more ftrcngthen- 
 4d, enlarged, heightened, brightened -, and more truly 
 fo too. And I have been fo fully convinced, from 
 Mr. ilf.'s teaching, that immerfion is ejfential to 
 
 the 
 
C B3 ) 
 
 the truth as well as frength of divine joy, that I 
 look, upon mine to be now fealed and co?2firmed ; 
 but cannot think this of you or any other P(£do- 
 baptlft." 
 
 To this declaration, founded on our author's 
 legal do6lrlne, 1 can conceive the happy Poedo- 
 baptlft making the foUowmg bold, yet humble, 
 reply. — '" As for dipping, I do not think it ejfential 
 to the mode of baptizing; and fmce I And Infant- 
 Baptifm not forbidden by any exprefs prohibition, 
 1 rather think it virtually enjoined by the very 
 Jilence of fcripture, fince Infant-Circumciiion was 
 an initituted mode of initiating Into the church 
 the feed of Ifrael under the law; Vvhich fl^cramen- 
 tal initiation is now loft, if Infant-Baptifm be abo- 
 lilhed. But I lay not the leaft ftrefs on externals' 
 of this nature. ^In Chrij^ J^i^^^ neither Infant- ' 
 Eaptifm nor Adult-Immeriion availeth anything, : 
 but a mw creature. The Lord has made me a \ 
 partaker of the one elTential baptifm, and I am ; 
 therefore perfectly eafy about any modes of wait- 
 ing away tht jiHh cf the fiejii. 1 am a iinn'iir, jufti- s 
 lied from all things, freely by grace. My faith is I 
 fixed upon the rock of ages. My whole depen- I 
 dence is on the blood and righteoufnefs of Chriji, t 
 In him I fland completely juftiiied, pardoned, ac- 
 cepted. My confclcnce echoes to the voice of his . 
 word, which fays, Ike re is no condemnation to them : 
 that are in Chriii Jefus. through him I have peace I 
 with God, and peace in my confcience : by him I f 
 am kept from falling : from him I derive all my f 
 blooming expectations of grace and glory : and in \ 
 
 him i 
 
( ^9 ) 
 
 I him I have all tWo^efreJJi and never-failing fpringi 
 i of light, life, confolation, liberty, flrength, ho- 
 I jinefs, which refrelh my fpirit, and make the 
 / wildernefs within to bloflbm as the rofe, and flo- 
 i rilTi as the garden of God. My joy is in belinrng, 
 and flows from the fountain of life and falvation 
 £ in Chri^ Jefusk As for M\\ M's alTertions refped- 
 ing the virtue of <i//)p/«^, it matters not what he 
 or any other man fays, whenfcripture, experi- 
 ences and fa6ls, are contradided. I Nothing can 
 enlarge or brighten my joy, but an enlargement 
 and increafe of faith. And the joy, which often 
 refults from a legal reflexion on feme creature* 
 work, is as difterent from that which fprings from 
 a limple dependence on the fulnefs of Chrifi, as 
 the tranflent glimmering of a meteor is, from the 
 vivid and genial irradiations of the fun. The one 
 may give a flalh of light, and guft of fuperficial 
 comfort : but only the other can adminifler that 
 joy in the Holy Ghoft, which is unfpeakable and 
 full of glory. Multitudes of Fcedobabtifts are now 
 partakers of this joy. Several of the excellent of 
 the earth, who never were dipped, have lived and 
 died confeflbrs of the truth as in yefus-^ while 
 numbers of llluftrious martyrs, who were flrcnu- 
 ous advocates for Infant-Baptifm, have had the 
 joy of the Lord {oflrengthened, enlarged, heightened, 
 brightened, feaied and confirmed in the experience of 
 their fouls, as to go chearfully to the flake; to 
 clap their hands triumphant in the flames; and to 
 rejoice, exulting, in the very jaws of death. With 
 fuch as thefe may I be numbered here, and here- 
 after!" M (3) I 
 
( 9« ) 
 
 (3) I wllh that this prefumptlve remonft ranee 
 could fuffice to anfwer, and expofe, the poor 
 legal inlinuatioiis of our author. But the enlarge- 
 ment of his miftakes neceffitates me to enlarge in 
 my ftri(5i:ures. Not content with reprefenting the 
 Eunuch's fuboniffion to baptifm as the ground of 
 *' more truly ftrengthening" his joy, he finifhes 
 the whole, by making it *' an cjferdial part in the 
 obedience of his faith." This is the higheft flep, 
 in which Mr. M.'s erroneous gradation on this 
 fubjed generally terminates. Notwithftanding I 
 have already, upon a former occalion, fufficiently 
 cxpofed his falfe doilrine of the ejfejitiality of dip- 
 ping : though I have rcafon to believe, that fome 
 of his own brethren wifh, he had not carried his 
 alTertions to fuch an unfcriptural length : and 
 though he feems a little apprehenfive himfelf, 
 that neither reafon nor fcrlpture will warrant his 
 afcribing the ejjence of ohcdicnt faith to his favorite 
 ceremony ; yet, as he once dropt the irrevocabile 
 verbum, he feems, at all events, determined to abide 
 by it. Only, here, he feems to fofien the offenlive 
 expreffion a little, by calling it an " efftntlal pari." 
 But will this gentleman, who is fo very fond of 
 diftin(?i:Ions and refinements, be fo kind to inform 
 us, of how many ejjential parts obedient faith con- 
 lifteth; and under which of thofe ejfentlal divifions 
 we are to rank dippingf Does he imagine, that 
 the ejfence of faith will admit of being divided, 
 fubdivided, and re-fubdivided, like the circumlo- 
 cutory jumble of certain tedious harangues? Wc 
 think dipping an abfolute ?20«-effential even in 
 
 thofc. 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 tliolc, who think It their duty to fubmit to it; 
 becaufe the ejfence of obedient faith can and does 
 fubfift in thoufands who never were dipt; and 
 becaufe many who have been immerfed, were 
 never partakers of the one elfential baptifm of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 II. This part of the fubje6l naturally leads me 
 to p. ii6, — 1 1 8, of your pamphlet, where you 
 refume your do6lrine of eUentiality^ and vent a 
 great deal of abufive rage at the manner, in 
 which I have expofed and refuted it. Indeed, 
 this is our author's invariable method. When 
 argument fails him, he flies to abufe ; in which 
 he feems to pofTefs not a little fertility of inven- 
 tion. However, I have not fo great reafon to 
 complain, when I refletl, that he has treated with 
 fliil groller illiberality, the whole body of the 
 primitive Fathers-, and attacked our eftablifhed 
 Church with all the effrontery of open invcilive, 
 and with all the fcurrility of ironical fneer. For 
 this piece of moft confuinmate indecency 1 fhall 
 referve a few animadverlions, in their proper 
 place. — But to return ; 
 
 In p. 132, of my Letter to a Baptijl-Minifier, 
 1 have prefdfited Mr. M, with five arguments, 
 to prove that dipping is " not ejjential to the 
 obedience of faith." Thcfe he never once touch- 
 es. Indeed, why fliould he? lince they were 
 likely to burn his fingers. I have alfo endeavored 
 to throw fome light into the Babel of his confufed 
 do61rine, by laying before him two appolite illuf- 
 trations in p. 134, 135. Thefe alfo he has thought 
 M 2 proper 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 proper to pafs over, for reafons beft known to 
 himfelf. Thus, argument and illuftration are as 
 much loft upon this gentleman, as the moft de- 
 licious and falutary food is, upon the depraved 
 appetite of a lick man. Our author is fo full of 
 himfelf, and fo conftantly affe(5i:ed with a.fuper- 
 cilious naufea, that he rejeds, with fqueamilh in- 
 difference, and haughty difdain, every illuftrative 
 and argumentative mode of ftating truth; calling 
 it fometimes '* egregious nonjenfe," at other times, 
 *' maglfterial bomhaji.'* This evalive and cavalier 
 method of treating an author's arguments, is well 
 expofed and reprobated by a great writer. ** It 
 ufaally happens, that this confidence does but be- 
 tray men's ignorance, and fliew, that many make 
 that up in pajfion, which they want in rf^/o7Z; zea- 
 loufly condemning what they little underftand. 
 And, I have obferved it is the trick of fome, 
 that can fcarce give a reafon for any controverted 
 part of their creed." 
 
 But, let us fee how Mr. Af. extricates himfelf 
 from the force of my arguments, and from the 
 embarraffment in which an invincible attachment 
 to abfurdity has involved him. I charge him, 
 ■upon information, with faying that, '* adult-dip- 
 *' ping is ejfential to the obedience of faith, though 
 *' not to falvation." This he denies in the fol- 
 lowing terms. *' I did not exprefs myfelf in 
 ** Juch words, nor in words which had fuch a 
 *' meaning" p. ii6. No! Let us compare notes, 
 and proceed to a fair examination. That you 
 liave repeatedly acknowledged the negative part 
 
 of 
 
C 93 ) 
 of my charge (" dipping Is not ejfential to fal- 
 ** vation") you will not deny. It is the affirmative 
 part therefore that remains to be proved. You 
 declare that you never did exprefs in fuch words 
 or in words carrying fuch a meaning, that " adult- 
 ** dipping is ejfential to the obedience of faith.'* 
 I fay you did; and I prove it from the declara- 
 tions of your own pen. P. ii6, thefe are your 
 very words : " I faid that a fubmiffion to the 
 ** ordinance, zvas, in thofe, who were proper 
 ** fubje«fts of it, ESSENTIAL to the obedience of 
 " their faith." Again, in p. 117, you fay, " It 
 ** is to all thofe, who are convinced of its being 
 ** a duty, ESSENTIAL to the obedience of th'ir 
 *' faith." You repeat it a third time in p. 118, 
 *' J fubmiffion to it is essential," — Now that 
 the reader may have a fair opportunity of judg- 
 ing between us, I fhall in the following columns, 
 compare Mr. Medley with himfelf. 
 
 Mr, M negative. 
 
 " I did NOT exprefs myfelf in 
 fuch words, nor in words which 
 had fuch a meaning,^' viz. That 
 adult -dipping is cllential to the 
 *bedieoce of faith, p. ii6. 
 
 Mr. M. affirmative. 
 
 " I SAID that a fubmiffion to 
 the ordinance (of adult-dipping) 
 WAS, in thofe, who were proper 
 fubjeAs of it', -ESSENTIAL to the ok' 
 dience of their faith," p. ii6. — " It 
 IS, to all thofe, who are convinced 
 of its being a duty, essential to 
 the obedience of their faith." Ibid.-— 
 " A fubmiffion to it is essentf- 
 AL." p. 118. — « You arc mofl 
 heartily welcome, to publiffi it, 
 from Dan to Beerfieha, that I, Sam. 
 Medley, do from tny heart, think, 
 believe, and fay, that believer's 
 baptifm, is essential to the ohedi- 
 dieiice of faith." Mr. M.'i private 
 letter to the author. 
 
 The 
 
C 91 > 
 
 The foregoing columns exhibit Mr. M.felf-com- 
 pared, felf-contra/ied, and J elf -condemned. '1 he co- 
 lumn on the left lide introduces Mr. M 2is denying 
 that he faid ** adult-dipping is ejjential to the obe- 
 *' dience of faith." Yet in the right the very 
 identical denier, once, twice, thrice, four times 
 {{ffiimi it. Which of thefe Meffrs. Medley and Co, 
 are we to credit? The negative, or the affirmative 
 one? For my own part, I have a three-fold rea- 
 fon to bclive the latter ; becaufe in the mouth of 
 three witnelles, viz. Mr. M. from the pulpit^ Mr. 
 M. from the prefs, and Mr. M. from his Jiudy, 
 yet identically one, every ivord of my charge is 
 ejiablijhed. And 1 leave the reader to judge, whe- 
 ther the natural infcription on the above columns, 
 ought not to be Logica Medle'ienjis! 
 
 But our author has devifed a few loop-holes for 
 himfelf. Let us fee, whether in his attempts to 
 flip through them, they do not clofe the tighter 
 on the neck of his evaiive Ihifts. (i) P. ii8, he 
 fays, dipping is " ejfential to all thofc who are 
 *' convinced of its being a duty." Then, if the re- 
 flriclive clofe of this fentence has any meaning, 
 it muft imply, that dipping is no duty to thofe 
 who are not convinced it is. The Pcedobaptifts 
 are much obliged to our candid ejfentialiji for this 
 conceffion. May we not hope for a ftili fironger 
 one in fome future publication ? But, what a cu- 
 rious ejfential has Mr. M. contrived for us! fuch 
 as varies its application and importance, accord- 
 ing as the wind of convi6iion blows! So that, to 
 thofe, who are convinced of it, as a duty, dipping 
 
 is 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 IS an ejftntial', but to thofe who arc yiot^ It is a non- 
 effential. Ah! Sir, this lingle conceirion, diftinc- 
 tlon, or call it what you pleale, as loudly pro- 
 claims the non-ejentiality of dipping, as the felf- 
 contrafted columns do their author's glaring fclf- 
 contradicftions. 
 
 (2) Another explanatory fhift, which our au- 
 thor gives us, is couched in the following words. 
 *' I faid, it is ejfcntial to the obedience of faith, in 
 ** oppofition to indifference in religion ; and I fay 
 ** fo i-lill." p. 116. This is an inlinuation, which, 
 together with the exceptionable dodrlne that 
 ulhers it in, I hope Mr. M» will, at foine future 
 lucid interval, publicly retra6l. If a non-fubniif- 
 iion to dipping be a mark of " indiff^erence in 
 *' religion," then, by a parity of reafon, fubmif- 
 lion to it mufi: characilerize religious fervor. And, 
 if Mr. M. abides by his own principle, he mufl 
 fet dipping upon an equahty with a moral pre- 
 cept J -f yea with the general fpirit of vital chrif- 
 
 f Dr. Stennett, in the preface to the firft part of his Rcmarhs on Mr. 
 Addingtoii' s Treatife, drops the following candid acknowledgement. 
 " It is polTible the zeal of Baptifts may exceed. This is the cafe, whea 
 " zn undue fire fs is laid upon baptifm. Now, it is certain th.7it they lay 
 *' an undue ftrefs upon this facred rite, Avho maintain that it is necel- 
 *' fary to falvation, or place it in the finte point of vitw, witli a noral 
 " precept. But, if there are any Baptifls who do this, I profefs I do 
 
 " not knew them." On this conccffion I bc-g leave to obferve, that 
 
 I Mr. M. feems indirectly to make dipping ncceflary to falvation, by 
 maintaining it is ejjential to the obedience of faith ; unlefs fome perfon 
 be fo ingenious as to find out adiilin^tion between what conftitutes the 
 ejfenci of obedient faitJi, and wliat is necefiary to falvation ; which I 
 confcfs is not my cafe. 2 That Mr. M. places dipping " in the ir;me 
 •' point of view with a moral precept" is plain, from his oppofing a 
 fubniiffion to this ceremony to " indijferejice in religion." So that, 3 I 
 leave it to the Doctor's candor to determine, whether Mr. M 's zeal 
 has not " exceeded'' here the bounds of truth ; and, whether, if he never 
 knew one of his brethren before, who laid an " undue ftrefi" on dipping, 
 ■|ic does not know tne now ? tiailitV. 
 
( 9^ ) 
 
 tianlty. A principle this, which will bring after" 
 it a train of abfurd and dangerous inferences. 
 For if" indifference in religim" is to be determined 
 by a fubmiffion to dipping as a ftanding criterion; 
 •then, according to Mr. M.'s own principle, he 
 ought to entertain a very indifferent idea of the 
 religion of his Poedobaptift brethren, and to have 
 a very exalted opinion of the piety of profelytes 
 to his own perfuafion. A difcrimination this, 
 naturally refulting from his aiTertion ; which too 
 manifeftly tends to infpire certain perfons with a 
 fond conceit of the height of their religion ; tho* 
 perhaps, it has, too often, nothing for its foun- 
 dation, but a mere fubmiiTion to an outward cere- 
 mony. 'Till therefore, Mr..ikf. can give us argu- 
 ments to evince the indifference and lukewarm- 
 nefs, of thofe who are not profelyted to dipping, 
 Wronger than his inconclulive ipfe dixit, he will 
 give us leave to look upon this and every fuch 
 uncandid infinuation, as refuted by ilubborn 
 matter of facft. 
 
 III. Our author, as If apprehenlive, that his 
 crude unfcriptural affertions had involved him in 
 inextricable abfurdity, endeavors to prove myfelf, 
 and the Church of England to be equally blended 
 in the fame unfortunate predicament j in order 
 probably that with fome company he may be kept 
 in countenance a little. But his attempts here 
 are as void of demonftration, as his manner is 
 defiitute of decorum. Thus he exprefTes himfelf. 
 
 *' Were it {o, that I had even inlifted that bap- 
 *' tifiu is eflential to falva^tion, 1 Ibould have faid 
 
 " no 
 
( 97 ) 
 «* no more, than the Mother cf abominations has 
 *' tranfmitted to her Daughter, and. ihc to her Son, 
 *' the Ficar of St. Alkmond's ; for your excellent 
 " Church (in her 9th Article) plainly infinuates, 
 '' that baptifm is ejfential to falvation, by making 
 " It (as well as faith) a pre-requifJs to deliverance 
 ** from condemnation." p. ^17* 
 
 1 am heartily concerned to fee fach an extra- 
 vagant fally of groundlefs abufe from Mr. M's 
 pen; and can only account for it, upon a fuppo- 
 lition, that his mind was previoufiy thrown into 
 a violent perturbation; which fecms to have been 
 heightened, in proportion to the difficulty he 
 found, in difengaging himfelf from the tramels 
 of a grofs abfurdity. The truth is, our author 
 leems to make a retreat from the force of argu- 
 ment, and he endeavors to do it with as good sl 
 grace as poffible, left his flight, lliould appear al- 
 together inglorious : for, as he flies, like a true 
 Parthian, he levels an arrow of retaliating cenfure 
 at the Church oi England; but, the misfortune is, 
 inftead of doing any execution, it recoils with a 
 double reverberation on the fugitive markfman 
 himfelf. (i) He quotes the 9th Article, to prove 
 that our Church makes " baptifm eiTential to 
 falvatlon." The Article, to which Mr. M. refers, 
 treats oi original Jin; the infecrion of which it fup- 
 pofes, in fome degree to remain even In the rege- 
 nerate; one of whofe grand blelTmgs Is defcribed 
 in the following words. " There is no condem- 
 *' nation for them that believe and are baptized." 
 This is the pafTage, which he thinks fo ftrongly 
 
 N favors 
 
( 9^ ) 
 
 favors his do6^rine of efTentiality, But it is wide 
 of the mark. Our Church adhering to the letter 
 offcripture, does not fay more, than our Lord 
 does in Mark xvi. i6. " He that believeth and is 
 baptized fhall hefaved." Indeed the Article does 
 not fay fo much j for, whereas, a being delivered 
 from condemnation, exprelTes only the negative, the 
 term '^Jliall be saved," comprehends all the 
 negative and pofitive parts of falvation. So that, if 
 we argue from Mr. M.'s abfurd premifTes, it may 
 be proved, that our Lord himfelf fufpends the 
 attaining cverlafting falvation on a fubmiffion to 
 baptifm. Let us fee then how Mr. M.'s reafon- 
 ing will look, when reduced to a fylloglftic form, 
 and when applied to our Lord's words. 
 
 Mr. M.*s Logic Methodised. 
 I. 
 That church, which fays ** there Is no condem- 
 nation to them that believe and are baptized," 
 makes baptifm ejfential to falvation: 
 
 But the Church of England in her 9th Article 
 fays, &c. 
 
 Therefore the Church of England makes bap- 
 tifm effential to falvation. 
 
 Extended. 
 
 II. 
 If the terms " there is no condemation'* and '^ jhall 
 he faved" are upon the whole, equivalent and 
 convertible, then our Lord, as well as theChurch 
 of England, fays that baptifm is effential to falva- 
 tion : But 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 But thofe terms are equivalent and convertible. 
 Therefore, according to Mr. M, our Lord 
 makes baptifm elTential to falvation. 
 
 Retorted and Refuted. 
 
 III. 
 
 If it be abfurd and fallacious, to infer, that our 
 Lord makes baptifm ejfential to falvation, becaufe 
 he faith " He that believeth and is baptized, Ihall 
 be faved ;" then it is equally fo to draw a fimilar 
 inference from the words of the Church of England 
 in her 9th Article: 
 
 But it is abfurd and fallacious to draw an infe- 
 rence in the former cafe ; 
 
 Therefore it is equally abfurd and fallacious to 
 draw a limilar inference in the latter cafe, viz : to 
 infer, that the 9th Article makes baptifm eiTential 
 to falvation, becaufe it alTerts " there is no con- 
 demnation to them that believe and are baptized." 
 
 q. e. d. So that, although fome exceptionable 
 
 modes of expreffion may occur in other parts of 
 our Church-fervice, yet here, I am certain our 
 author has no ground of complaint, unlefs he will 
 dare to arraign the language of infpiration itfelf. 
 And, when he iniinuates, that the fcriptural ex- 
 preffion 1 have defended, contains an error, " tranf- 
 *' mitted from the Mother of abominations-," his in- 
 linuation throws a groundlefs reflexion on the 
 eftabhlhed Church, and borders on indirecSt blaf- 
 phemy. What ! Sir, will you, upon cool delibe- 
 ration, maintain that an expreffion tantamount to 
 the declarations of Truth itfelf, is the otFspring of 
 N 2 the 
 
( ICO ) 
 
 the mother of ervGneous abominations f Surely you 
 will not. Therefore / wot tfiat through ignorance 
 and precipitancy, you Ihot this unguarded bolt. 
 
 (2) When ycu iniinuate, that the Church of 
 England \s " a daughter of the mother of abominations," 
 do you think, that either decency or trufh will 
 fupport the audacious inlinuation? And, when 
 you reprefent me as allied to the fame abominable 
 parent of errors, by only one intervening remove, 
 do you liot throw out fuch an oblique reflexion 
 en the Gofpel-Minifters of the Church oi England^ 
 as they by no means deferve r According to your 
 Logic, our Church is the daughter oi Rome, be- 
 caufe iht is reformed t'l-cm thole errors, which 
 once overfprcad the kingdom. So that, it feems, 
 the light of a glorious Rrformation has not cut off 
 the relation between Rome -a-nd England : and altho' 
 the pcnetratin,^: rays of truth have difcovered and 
 difpelled the darknefs of Popilli «rror, yet the 
 aifmity between the mother of abcminaticns and our 
 reformed Eftabliihmcnt, ftill fubfifts. But, before 
 you can demonflrate this relation, you ihould firft 
 propofe a reconciliation between Chrift and Belial, 
 a-coalition between truth and error, and a compa- 
 tibiiity between light and darknefs. 'Till you can 
 reconcile thefe irreconcilable oppoiites, your ob- 
 fervation as much fails in argument, as it teems 
 with abufe.— According to your mode of ftating 
 ecclefiaitical genealogies, becaufe I am a Minifter 
 of the Church' of England, therefore I am a Grandfon 
 of the Mother of abomnations. This refined com- 
 plim4cnt deligned for the Jlcar of St. Alkmond's^ 
 
 ijeceflarily 
 
( loi ) 
 
 ncceflarlly affects all and every of his evangelical- 
 brethren in the prefent day j and I refer it to . 
 th^ir conlideration, whether our Anabaptift can 
 entertain any real regard for perfons, v^'hoiii he 
 publicly ftigmatizes as the offspring of the moth.r cf 
 harlots; and whether, the man, who has the face 
 to charailerize us by fuch an infamous fligma, is 
 not equally an objed of pity and contempt. — But 
 our author's defamation does not flop here. His 
 genealogical afperiion involves all that ever were 
 Miniflers in our reformed Church ; and confe- 
 quently all thofe venerable names I have mention- 
 ed, in p. 121, of my Letter to a Boptijt-Minifler. 
 So that, now, befides reprefenting them and us as 
 ^' BLIND in part" he has thrown an additional 
 fhade into our chara6ler3, by giving us the impli- 
 cit title of " Grandfons of the Mother cf ahomina- 
 " tions" 
 
 Sic fdfis FALSA reinfect ! 
 
 As a Minifter of (he Church oi England, and a 
 fubfcrlber to her doctrinal artic'es, 1 believe and 
 preach that evangelical fyflem, which was repro- 
 bated under the Marian perfecidion^ but emerged 
 from its temporary eclipfe during the aufpici- 
 ous reign of the iiluflrlous Elizabeth, I profefs 
 therefore to hold no other do61rines, but thofe of 
 the reforming Deborah and of her reforming 
 Bifkops; doctrines, which in their very nature are 
 diametrically oppofue to Popery, and which confti- 
 tute the very glory oi Protejiantifm. But, notwith- 
 flanding this, I am flill a Minilier of the Church . 
 oi England i and this is the crime, on account of 
 
 which 
 
C 102 ) 
 
 which I am held forth to public view, as nearly 
 aUied to the Mother of abominations. 
 
 If then, a man be a defcendent of an antichrif- 
 tian Church, merely becaufe he is the fon of a 
 national eftablilhment, which founds its reforma- 
 tion and departure from the errors of that Church 
 on the truth of God; am I not kept in counte- 
 nance by an iliuftrious train of venerable Reform- 
 ers? And yet, muft not they, and all that noble 
 army of Martyrs, who bled to death for their 
 invincible oppofition to Popery, in the reign of 
 Queen Mary, be one vaft martyred family of the 
 Mother of abominations ? See then, whither Mr. M/s 
 reflei^lion tends. By calling the Church oi England 
 the " daughter" of Rome, he ftigmatizes our Re- 
 formers, Martyrs, Minifters, &c. as fo many "grand- 
 fons of the mother of abominations." 
 
 Hoping, that our author will, in fome future 
 cool interval, retra(?i: fuch indecent afperfions; 
 and wifhing that he may learn to fpeak of our 
 Church, in language a little more decent; I fhall 
 lay before him the declaration of one, who, tho' 
 neither a minifter nor member of the Church of 
 England, yet bore a refpecflful teftimony to the 
 truth of her doctrines and the purity of her wor- 
 fliip. The perfon I mean is Beza, whom Mr. 
 Toplady diftinguifhes by the title of " illu/irious" 
 and whom he calls " Calvin's learned colleague 
 and fucceflbr." As the declaration is very re- 
 markable, in order that it may appear to the 
 utmoft advantage, I will tranfcribe Mr. Toplady's 
 
 remarks. 
 
( 103 ) 
 
 remarks as well as the hiftorical introduction of 
 the impartial Strype which ulher it in. 
 
 *' Toward the decline of Queen Elizabeth's 
 reign" lays Mr. Toplady, *' when oppoiition ran 
 high againft the outworks of the church; the op- 
 pofers aff'tdt'd to give out, that their objedions 
 were authorized, and their mealures countenanc- 
 ed, by the moft learned foreign Froteltants : and, 
 efpecially, by Beza. This being loon known at 
 Geneva, that great man thought it his duty, to 
 exculpate himfelf from a charge lo ungenerous 
 and unjuft : which he took care to do, in a letter 
 to JVhitgift, then ArchbilTiop oi Canterbury. While 
 the Archbilhop" fays Strype "was endeavoring io 
 fupprefs the male-contenls againif Kpijcopacy and 
 the Church of England in its prelent eliabhlhment; 
 he receiveth, March 8th, (1,9,) a letter from 
 Theodore Beza, the Chief Minilter of Geneva, 
 WHEREIN HE, by owning, with all rejped, the 
 Archbifhop, and the reft of the Englijti Bilhops, 
 and their government of this church, gave a 
 NOTABLE CHECK to thcfc ncw Reformers, who 
 bore out themfelves much with his [Beza's) autho- 
 rity. It feemed to have been written by him, in 
 anfwer to one from the Archbilhop, blaming 
 him, for his (fuppofed) meddling with the Church 
 and State of England, without any lawful com- 
 miffion. In defence of himfelf, he iJBeza) return- 
 ed an anfwer; part whereof was, as lolloweth : 
 That whereas his Lordjhip thought it meet, in his 
 letters, to move them, (^that is, to move the Geneva 
 Divines) to think well of this Kingdom, and of the 
 
 Church 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 Church herCy and the Gov irnml^t thereof ; it 
 troubled both him and Sad eel (another of the 
 Minifters of Geneva) in fome fort : as being greatly 
 afraid, kfl fome fmljlcr rumors were brought to him 
 (the Archbilhop) concerning them; or, left what they 
 had written, concerning Church- government , {pro- 
 perly again/i the /Intichrijiian tyranny of the Roman 
 Church,) as necejfity required, might be taken, by 
 fome, in that fenfe, as though they ever meant to 
 compel, to their order, thofe Churches, that thought 
 other wife, — That fuch arrogancy was far from 
 them : for, (added Bezd) who gave us authority over 
 any Church f And that they by no means thought, fo 
 SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS wcrc kept, that there 
 ought nothing to be granted to antiquity, nothing to 
 cujiom, nothing to the circumjiances of places, times, 
 and perfons." So wrote Beza : or, to ufe Mr. 
 Strype's own words on the occalion, " Thus did 
 Be%a and Sadeel, In the name of their Church, 
 profefs to the Archbilhop, their respect, honor, 
 and approbation of the Church of Eng- 
 land." * 
 
 What a contraft is the venerable Beza to our 
 Anabaptift! The former owns " with all refpe^l'* 
 both the Minifters and Government of the Church 
 oi England: the latter treats both the one and the 
 other, with all the difrefpeft, that petulance and 
 ill-breeding can fuggeft. — The former, according 
 to Strype, " profeffed his refpeSf, honor, and appro^ 
 bat ion oi the Church of England :" the latter, with- 
 out the fmalleft ceremony, makes her of Popi/h 
 
 * See the Rev. Mr. Toplady's Hijforic Proof of the Docirhial Calv'w'ifm of 
 the Church of England. P. 378 and 9. 
 
 extra<^ion. 
 
( 105 ) 
 
 'cxtra6llon, and roundly ftyles her the '' daughter 
 '^-of the Mother of ahominatio7u." — The former 
 thought it downright " arroga?icy" to judge, med- 
 dle with, or condemn a national Church, in 
 which " SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS" wcrc pre- 
 fer vcd : but the latter, although he is confcious, 
 that the fuhjiance of glorious Gofpel-triith is re- 
 tained in our Church, neverthelefs abufes her, as 
 if her whole fyttem was nothing but wood, hay and 
 Jiuhble. And, what heightens the contraft between 
 the learned and venerable Minifter of Geneva and 
 the Anabaptift of Liverpool, is, that the former 
 bears fo honorable a teftimony to the epijcopal 
 Church oi England, though he himfelf was Mem- 
 ber of a Church, whofe government was Frejhy- 
 terian. Mark the difference between the fenfible 
 and pious eifulions of candor, and the indignant 
 overflowings of ^/^o^ry / What would Be%a have 
 thought of our Anabaptift, had he heard him 
 ftyle our Church the " Daughter oi Rome,'* and 
 her Minifters the offspring of that " Mother of 
 abominations?" What! but that the defamation 
 originated from the moft ungrateful and wanton 
 abufe of that religious liberty, which the defamer 
 himfelf enjoys in a country, whofe eccleliaflical 
 eilablilhment is interwoven with her civil conf^i- 
 tution! * 
 
 O Thus 
 
 * Our national church-eftablilliment is fo blended with the civil 
 ^onftitution of the realm, that any material injury done to the forriier, 
 has ahvays in fome degree afFedted the latter ; while the prelervation 
 of both, is like guarding the heart and hnigs, thofe two principal parts 
 in the animal a-conomy. An awful inftance in the former cafe this 
 kingdom beheld, during its convulfed ftate in Croimvcll'i ufurpation ; an 
 
 inftance 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 Thus have I plainly analyfed Mr. Af.'s divinity 
 on his favorite topic : and, I believe, to every 
 perfon of difcernment, the analyfis has demon- 
 iirated, that the component parts, in the heteroge- 
 neous jumble, are bigotry, felf-contradldion, lega- 
 lity, and abfurdity. And thus have I alfo, with fome 
 pains, endeavored to remove the illiberal abufe 
 with which his language is encrufted. In doing 
 this, I have been obliged to hear a peal or two of 
 harmlefs thunder, burfting from the angry cloud 
 of our author's awakened furyagainft the Church 
 of England and her fons. The reader will proba- 
 bly not be furprifed at the noife of all this defa- 
 
 inftance of the latter kind we now fee in the defenfive oppofition made 
 to the independent claims of revolting America. Without the ftnalleft 
 pretenlicns to prophetic impulfe, I may venture to affirm, that monarchy 
 and epifcopflcy, will always ftand or fall together in England. If ever 
 therefore our ecclefiaftical eflablifliment fliould undergo a radical altera- 
 tion, fo will, in all probability, our civil conflitution, too; and vice verfa. 
 For, hitherto, every attempt made to abolifli monarchy, hath aimed a 
 confequent blow at the eradication of epifcopacj; and this affords one 
 reaibn, among many others^ why myftlf, and the fons of our happy 
 eftablifliment in general, fo \\'armly difapprove oi America's bold ftrides 
 to a total independence. If Mr. M. therefore, will but calmly confider, 
 that the King, who is the firft of the three eftates of Parliament, is alfo 
 acknowledged Head of our national Church ; that the epifcopal Gover- 
 nors of our Church conftitute a part of one branch of the Icgiflature { 
 that King, l.ords and Commons, unite in fupporting our ecclefiaftical 
 as well as civil eftablifliment ; and that Church and State are blended in 
 one important coalition ; he will not be furprifed that I charge him with 
 " throwing out -u/anton ■witticif?ns" 3.nd wanton faljlioods too , againft the 
 higher pojvcrs, from whence his privileges, as a Diffenter, originate. For, 
 if according to Mr. M. the Church of England be the daughter oi Rome, 
 {hen his Majefly muft be the royal Patron of Antichriftian error; tbe 
 Bifliops and fubordinate Clergy ar<." abettors of Popery ; and the three 
 eftates of Parliament join in eftablitbing the decrees of the mother of abc- 
 viinationS. All this is naturally implied in vourfliameful infinuatiou : 
 and, whether it does not come under the predicament of abufmg the 
 poxuers that be, and of /peaking evil of dignities^ I leave it to your cooler 
 reflexions to detenuine. 
 
 matory 
 
( loy ) 
 
 matory thunder, if he recollecfi: the obfervatlon 
 that introduced this chapter. Mr. M. is in the 
 very bottom oi the pit: and, two or three difap- 
 pointed eiforts to rife, have thrown him fo effec- 
 tually on his back, that there he lies, bluftering, 
 and bellowing at the Church of England and me. 
 
 IV. However, notwithftanding this abulive roar, 
 I am willing to Hand at the pit's mouth flill, and 
 to offer a fcheme for his deliverance. In fhort. 
 Sir, I would advife you to give up your falfe 
 dodrine of the ejfentiality of dipping. You have 
 got into a labyrinth : and, by attempting to ef- 
 cape through the fame way that you firft entered, 
 you only get farther and farther into the intricate 
 mazes of error. In order that you may facilitate 
 your efcape, 1 propofe to you the following clue. 
 You have afferted again and again, that adult- 
 dipping Is ejfmtial to obedient faith: but, you do 
 not conlider, that what is the ejjhice of any thing, 
 conftitutes its being or exijience. Thus the ejfential 
 difference between a man and a brute is, that the 
 one reafons, but the other does not. If a perfoii 
 were to affert, that, becaufe a man has a reafon 
 why he eats and drinks, that therefore eating and 
 drinking are effential to his reajbning faculty; he 
 would maintain an abfurdity, in much the fame 
 fiyle with yourfelf, when you affert, that becaufe 
 you have your own private reafons, for urging a 
 fubmiffion to dipping, as a declarative obedience to 
 the injunctions of Anabaptifi: communion ^ there- 
 fore dipping muft be ejfential to the obedience of 
 faith* But it is no more effential to it, than meats 
 O 2 and 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 and drinks conftitute the kingdom of God. The 
 ejfcnce of obedient faith is a fnbmijjion to the righte- 
 oufnefs of God, and a uniform obedience to the moral 
 precepts of his law. 
 
 This is the clue I propofe to you, for your 
 efcape out of the labyrinth of legality. 'Till you 
 are pleafed to accept of it, you know what I 
 have a toleration from yourfelf to publifh to all 
 the world, in a remarkable pallage of your pri- 
 vate letter. 
 
 " You are moft heartily welcome, to publifli 
 " it from Dan to EeerJJieba, that 1, Samuel Medley, 
 " do from my heart, think, believe, and fay, 
 ** that believer's baptifm is effential to the obedi- 
 *' GncQ of faith!" 
 
 But, as I am not altogether without hopes, that 
 you will, in fome future period, fend forth your 
 retraBations', who knows but 1 may yet receive a 
 commiilion from the author of the above declara- 
 tion, empowering me to publifh to all the world 
 his fecond thoughts f viz. *' That baptifm is not 
 " ejfejjtial to obedient faith." 'Till that happy 
 change takes place, do coniider. Sir, what you 
 
 have virtually authorized me to promulge. 
 
 (i) That you aggrandize dipping mto an essExN- 
 tial: (2) That you make it the \ cry being of 
 obedient faith : (3) That you hereby confound 
 eiTentials with non-effentials : (4) That you fully 
 the glory of the gofpel, by attributing that to an 
 unimportant ceremony, which enters into the 
 very nature of evangelical obedience : (5) That, 
 like the judaizing teachers in Galatia, you legalize 
 
 the 
 
C 109 ) 
 
 the evangelical fyflem : (6) That you are deter- 
 mined, wherever you go, to recommend this 
 Galatian leaven: (7) That conil'quently you are 
 refolved by a bigoted attachment to dipping, to 
 difturb the peace, and embarrals the minds of the 
 Lord's people: (8) That you mean hereby to 
 be the bearer viva voce of your own abfurditics : 
 (9) That you have denied what you have acknow- 
 ledged, and acknowledged what you have denied, 
 by t!ie moft vifible felf-contradidion of Mr. M. 
 ■negative and Mr. M. affirmative: -^ (10) That you 
 have afierted, what you cannot prove; and have 
 attempted to prove, what has neither fcripture 
 nor logic for its foundation: (11) That in your 
 extraordinary efforts of this nature, you have dif- 
 covered the impotence of your arguments, in 
 the very profuiion of railery that clothes them : 
 (12) That your manner of preffing the Church 
 of England and me into your fervice, is a poor, 
 evaiive Ihift : and that the abominable epithets, 
 you affix to both, favor more of impotent indig- 
 nation, than of charity or truth. 
 
 This, Sir, is the round dozen of abfurdities 
 and miftakes, wrapt up in the declaration, which 
 you have tolerated me to publilh : and I am 
 heartily forry, for your own fake, that neceffity 
 is laid upon me to expofe the inconiiftcnt author, 
 
 V. But, now, even admitting, that you main- 
 tain baptifm is not effential to falvacion; how does; 
 your conftant pra6lice correfpond with this re- 
 ceived principle ? If you do not think fubmiffion 
 
 * Sec the contrafted columns, p. 93. 
 
 to 
 
( no ) 
 
 to dipping, a part, or condition of falvation; why 
 do you prefs it with fuch earneltnels on thofe, 
 who are already complete in Cliriji, through be- 
 lieving? It is a generally - eftablilhed maxim 
 throughout your churches, to prohibit your mem- 
 bers from all communion with thofe that do not 
 make dipping effentiai to the ordinance of bap- 
 tilm : and, it is notorious, that perfons, for no 
 other crime, fave that oi communicating with other 
 chriftlan churches, have been expelled from your 
 communion. Inftances of this nature are not in- 
 frequent. Now the Apoftle faith. We are all the 
 children of God by faith //z Chrift Jfus. Gal. iii. 26. 
 You will not deny, but thoufands of fuch believ- 
 ing children are to be met with among Fcedohap- 
 tifts: you will alfo admit, that they are, by faith, 
 united to their living Head : that they are, by vir- 
 tue of fuch union, real members of his myftical 
 body: that they ar^e, in confequence of this myflic 
 fellowlhip, cemented together in a fpiritual com- 
 munion, as the feveral members of the body are 
 united to the head and to each other, in an har- 
 monious connexion and fubordination : that they 
 are " by one Spirit i^and not by one particular 
 mode of difpeniing an ordinance) baptized into 
 ONE body:" 1 Cor. xii. 13. And that they are in- 
 vefted, through their living Head, with all the 
 bleffings of the new and everlafting covenant. — 
 Now if you grant this, (and deny it you cannot, 
 without flying in the face of revealed truth j) 
 upon what principle, do you exclude from exter- 
 jaais^ thofe, who are joint-partakers with you of 
 
 the 
 
( III ) 
 
 the eJfentiaU of (rue chriftlanlty ? If you do not 
 look upon dipping as an effential part of falvation; 
 why do you publicly difavow all church-commu- 
 nion with thofe, who are " the bodyofChrift" 
 as well as you " and members in particular?" 
 I Cor, xii. 27. If living faith in the Son of God, 
 and unfeigned love to the brethren, be tiie two 
 effential bonds in the communion of jalnls -, why do 
 you virtually break thefe facred ties, and fpoil 
 the harmony of this divine fellowlhip, by expell- 
 ing from your communion, thofe, who differ 
 from ydu on a point of allowed unimportance? 
 Is it cold water or the Hving baptifm of the Spirit, 
 that conftitutes the bond of your communion ? 
 If the former j then who would envy a church 
 fuch 2i frigid cement? ii the latter ^ why rejecSt 
 your brethren, who Ihare in the bleliings of that 
 effential fellowlhip? 
 
 VI. The reader will not be furprifed, that I 
 put thefe ferious interrogatories to our Anabap- 
 tift, when I lay before him the faid AnabaptilVs 
 explicit declarations, in p. 46, of his pamphlet. 
 Thefe are his words : " Wc muft declare, that we do 
 " not look upon them" (all the chriftian churches 
 of Poedobaptifts in the world) " as churches 
 *' conftituted, with all that regularity, which God 
 " has ordained; which will befi: conlift with the 
 *' beauty of gofpel-worfhip; which will diftin- 
 *' guilii the church from the world; and redound 
 *' moil: to the edification of the body of Chrift." 
 
 Here our An^hdi'^tvik f peaks cut: like a man, 
 determined to exalt the church; to aggrandize its 
 
 fuperior 
 
( 112 ) 
 
 faperlor dignity above all its rivals; and to make 
 Anabaptifm the glory of the whole earth. To the 
 above curious paragraph, I muft naturally join 
 his and Dr. G/7/'s^prophecy. '•' I Rrmly believe 
 ' with Dr. G. that, when the church of Chrijl is 
 ' purged from her remaining drofs, thefe corrup- 
 * tiom will alfo be done away ; and that the time 
 ' zviil come, when infant -fpr inkling will be no more 
 ' pra6iifcd in the world." Whether this remarka- 
 ble prophecy was uttered by the Do6ior, tanquam 
 ex tripode, upon the commencement of, what his 
 echo is pleafed to call " an i?i/ight into baptifm;" 
 or whether it was cygnea cantio, the fwan-fong, that 
 clofed his prognoftications and his life ; 1 fancy, 
 it is not very material to inquire. As the Do6ior 
 has not fixed the precife period, wherein his pro- 
 phecy will be accomplilhed; and as his echo hath 
 thrown no additional light, upon this circum- 
 flance; we are left at an abfolate uncertainty, as 
 to the time when, the manner how, and the perfons, 
 by whom, this important event is to take place. 
 For my own part, I think, that Anabaptifm flood 
 the faireil chance of being the E/iablifnme7it, under 
 the friendly aufpices of the Ufurper, when dipping 
 was even made the high-road to military prefer- 
 ment : and that, iince it loft the day then, by the 
 happy re-eftablllliment of monarchy and epifco- 
 pacy, it will never be likely to arife at the fummit 
 of Its expecfled glory, unlefs a more glorious 
 reign of the Rump Ihould be ref^ored; unlefs ano- 
 ther fet of enthuiiaf^ic regicides be raifed up, to 
 fcour the land ; and unlefs another prophetic phceno- 
 
 menon, 
 
( 113 ) 
 menon like 'thomas Muncer, or another redoubtable 
 monarch, hke yolm of Leyden, in rebelUous coali- 
 tion, Hiould go forth, to reftore the anarchy and 
 confuiion of the famous German Mxd., m 1525; 
 and unlefs Anabaptifm Ihould be more fuccefsful 
 in its projeds, than it has hitherto been, under 
 the foftering influence of Britijli or German nfurpa^ 
 tion. Unlefs fuch national convuliions as thefe 
 iLould be revived, and the ftandard of rebellious 
 bigotry, ihould attra(5l more numerous adherents, 
 1 think Anabaptifm ftands but a poor chance j 
 and that Infant-baptifm will not meet with fo uni- 
 verfal an abolition, as might be wilhed. If, there- 
 fore, after two fuch prophets as Dr. G. and Mr. M, 
 I may be permitted to otfer my opinion ; 1 really 
 believe the preditliion of this prophetic Duumvirate 
 will be accomplilhed, — ad Gracas cakndas. But, 
 when that will be, I leave to the chronological 
 difquilitions of the furviving prophet to find out. 
 — But, I will venture to prophefy myfelf, viz. 
 that, when the church of Chriji is purged from 
 her remaining drofs of party-fpirit ; inflead of 
 furious debates about comparative trifles, the 
 general contention will refpe6t the faith, once 
 delivered to the faints : inftead of quarrelling 
 about modes and forms, which are but the Ihadow, 
 we fhall be eagerly in the purfait after truth and 
 righteoufnefs, which are the fubftance of chrif^i- 
 anity : that the manifold breaches, occafioned by 
 the feparating hand of fchifm, will be healed thro* 
 the mediation of brotherly-kindnefs j that bigotry 
 Ihall flop her mouth, benig flruck mute by the 
 P more 
 
( iH ) 
 
 more melodious voice of pacific love : that the 
 ruder blafts of party-zeal, which agitate the trees 
 in the garden of God, Ihall die away into the 
 gentle breezes of tendernefs, charity and modera- 
 tion j that profeffors will no more feparate from 
 each other, becaufe of thofe trivial differences, 
 that at prefent diftrad the church : that Anabap- 
 tifts will drop their intemperate zeal for dipping: 
 that the bond of church-communion will be no 
 longer made to confift in a particular mode of 
 wafhing away the filth of the flelhi : and that 
 Mr. M. himfelf, were he to live in thofe halcyon- 
 days of the church, would fufpend his warmth 
 for cold water, and exhauft all his zeal in preffing 
 the ** one baptifm;" that he would then ceafe to 
 be the narrow-minded devotee of bigotry, and 
 commence the generous patron of unbounded 
 catholic ifm. 
 
 'Till this happy Hate of things arrives, let us 
 examine our author's fentiments refpeding the 
 prefent fituation of the church ; of which he ex- 
 hibits a bigoted. and partial reprefentation. As 
 no compUments, poured on his own party, are 
 too high : fo no ftyle can be too depreciating, 
 when he fpeaks of his differing brethren. He is 
 always in the unfortunate extreme of fulfome pa- 
 negyric or degrading invective. Having fmiled 
 at the joint prognoftication of the two Anabap- 
 tifts, refpe<?ting the future glory and univerfal 
 eftablilTiment of Anabaptifm, let us analyfe our au- 
 thor's opinion concerning the reformed churches 
 that pradife Infant- baptifm. Of thefe he declares, 
 
 that 
 
( 115 ) 
 
 that *' he does not look upon them as churches 
 '* confiituted with all that regularity which God 
 ** has ordained." It is of no fort of confequence 
 in what light he looh upon them, lince it is mani- 
 feft, his eye is jaundiced by bigotry j a dilbrder 
 this, that prevents him, as well from difcovering 
 the defers of his own, as from obferving the ex- 
 cellencies of another party. And as to the irre- 
 gularity he implicitly charges on all religious com- 
 munities, but his own ; I can only fay, I wifh 
 our author would look at home. For, if frequent 
 divilions, religious animolities, flrifes, contenti- 
 ons, be any proof of eccleliaftical irregularity, I 
 know not a profelfing body of people, whom the 
 charge fo juftly fuits : and, if I were even to 
 make this an argumcntum ad hominem, I fancy I 
 fhould not be very wide of my mark. 
 
 But, let us examine, wherein the boafted regU' 
 larity which is the glory of Anabaptifm, confifteth. 
 (i) It is fuch as " beft confifts with the beauty of 
 *' gofpel-worlhip." As I had always conceived 
 not the moft favorable idea of Anabaptifm, 1 
 acknowledge I ite\ the lefs difpofed to admit this 
 reprefentation of its beauty : Nor can the eulo- 
 gium of our panegyrift eradicate my prepofleffi- 
 ons on this head. I acknowledge, that the publi- 
 cation of pure evangelical truth, conftitutes the 
 ejfential beauty of gofpel-worlhip; and that a 
 variation in external modes can never deftroy this 
 elfential, as long as the truth is preached and re- 
 ceived: fo that thus far, we are not relu(?tant in 
 admitting the claims of fome Anabaptifts to the 
 P 2 beauty 
 
( ii6 ) 
 
 beauty of gofpel-worfhip. Eat, I afk, what be- 
 comes of this ''beauty" when a congregation of 
 Anabaptifts are curled with a falfe prophet? when 
 the errors of the minifter are transfufed through 
 the whole fervice? and wdien the unfortunate 
 flock hear not the truth either in the fermon, the 
 prayer ^ or the hymn? That this is the cafe in 
 leveral inftances, you will acknowledge. What be- 
 comes then of the *' beauty" of gofpel-worfiMp ? 
 Is it preferved becaufe the man preaches, prays, or 
 fometimes dr'ps? If you think it is; then you 
 inake the ej/ence of evangelical beauty to coniift 
 merely in preaching, praying, dipping, &e. So that, 
 according to fuch an abfurd notion, the moft 
 hideous deformity of damnable herefy and the beauty 
 of gofpel-worfliip, may fublift together m one and 
 the fame congregation. But if you deny this con- 
 fequence, as well as the pre'miiTes, from whence it 
 is deduced ; then you mufl grant, that if the truth 
 be not preached, the eflcntial beauty of gofpel- 
 worfliip is effaced j the glory of the Lord is de- 
 parted j and that Ichabod ihoM\d be written upon 
 the door of the meeting. And if you grant me this, 
 then I will eafily demonftrate, that the Church, of 
 which I have the honor to be a Minifler, pofTeffes 
 a fuperior advantage, above you and all the Ana- 
 baptifls in the world. For wherever the fervice 
 of the Church ci England is performed, although 
 the pulpit and reading- defk often clalh prodigi- 
 ouflyj yet the congregation are fure always to 
 hear the truth as in jefus notwithflanding j firji, 
 in the fcriptures of the old and new Teftament, the 
 
 reading 
 
( u? ) 
 
 reading of which is never omitted in our church- 
 fervice ; and fecondly. In the found liturgy, evan- 
 gelical creeds, and fcrlptural collets, which run 
 through our pubhc worlhip like a woof of gold, 
 or guard it, againfi: error, as a fyfiematic barrier. 
 Whereas, when a pongregation are left folely to 
 the difcretionary effulions of the preacher him- 
 felfj how often are they put off with a rotten fer- 
 mon, a rotten prayer, and a rotten hymn too ? So that 
 perhaps they are difmlffed without hearing the 
 fmalleft portion of truth, fave in the Ungle fen- 
 tence that compofes the text; which, in the hand 
 of error, is fo perverted, and aduUerated, as to 
 look no longer like itfelf. But this can never be 
 altogether the fate of members of the eftabhfned 
 church. Though error, for about twenty mi- 
 nutes, be publilhed from the pulpit, yet the read- 
 ing-defk, for a full hour, is guarding the hearers 
 agalnft the lliort-Iived declamation : and we hope 
 there are multitudes, who arc judicious enough 
 to difcern the glaring contraft, and reap advan- 
 tage from our church-fervice, though they may 
 go away filled with difappointment and chagrin at 
 the heterodox fermon. — So much for " the beauty 
 of gofpel-worllilp." Proceed we now to con- 
 fider the fecond particular in our author's boafted 
 ch u Ych-regularity. 
 
 (2) He aflerts, that the religious focieties of 
 Poedobaptifts are not conftltuted, with that regu- 
 larity " which will (N. B.) dlftlnguini the church 
 from the world I" Here our author, is fo blinded 
 by his rapid driving in the old caufc, that he can 
 
 difcover 
 
( ii8 ) 
 
 difcover no other obje«f^ but Anabaptifm, arrayed 
 in all the beauty and glory of the earthly Jeruja- 
 Urn. The Anabaptifts are " the church;" they 
 monopolize church-regularity ; and fuch is the ec- 
 clcliaftical irregularity of Poedobaptifts, that they 
 delcrve no higher tifle than that of *' the world -J* 
 and the world, you know, ** lieth in the wicked 
 one." As I have no hope, that our Anabaptift 
 Fervldus, will view his brethren through the me- 
 dium of candor, 'till he abate fomewhat of the 
 velocity of his furious driving ; I therefore leave 
 him peaceably to enjoy the dream of his dijiin- 
 guijhing imrgination. 1 beg only, that the reader 
 would carefully fmell this little fprig of Medkian 
 divinity; and judge, whether, initead of the odors 
 oi charity, it does not emit the bitter effluvia of 
 the wormwood of Jchifm. Sorry fhould I be, if 
 the reader carried the bitter /prig in his bofcm. 
 Therefore I advife him, after he has difcovered 
 its nature by its [cent, to drop it inftantancouily, 
 and to regale his fenfes with the reviving fra- 
 grance of the Rofe of Sharon. This will prove an 
 effe<5lual antidote againli every peftilential vapor, 
 that exhales from the fungus of bigotry ; and lave 
 too, from thofe noxious damps, arifmg from cold 
 tvater, which chill the conftitutional warmth of 
 the healthy and the l^rong. 
 
 (3^ The third and laft puff is, that the regula- 
 rity aforefaid will " redound moft to the edifica- 
 tion of the body of Chrift." This is the finilhing 
 ftroke to that pompoiity of language which dif- 
 linguilhes all our author's commendations of his 
 
 favorite 
 
( 119 ) 
 
 favorite mode. How dipping can contribute to 
 the edification of the body of Chrift, I muft own, 
 I am not able to find out : nor indeed can I per- 
 ceive the fmallefi: connexion between dipping and 
 edifying; except in the jin;3^Ung termination of the 
 words. The whole of our author's lucal.ratiori 
 upon this fubje6t refembles " a fun-beam and 
 cloud conneded with bands of fiuoke." If the 
 reader chufe to fee, how widely his fentimeats 
 differ from thofe of fcripture, 1 beg he would 
 confult Col. ii. I2; being fully perfuaded, that the 
 ifiue of this fcrutiny will terminate in a full con- 
 viction, that the ellentiality of dipping contributes 
 to the edification of the body of Chrift, juft as 
 much as Mr. M.'s thoughts on the fubjed are 
 allied to truth and fenfe. 
 
 From the preceding obfervations, I am natu- 
 rally led to propofe the following queries. 
 
 (i) h it not the great defign of the Head of the 
 church, thfit " there fliould be no Jchifm in the 
 body?" and do not the influences of the Spirit 
 and the work of the miniftry co-operate to this 
 great and important end? 
 
 (^) Are not the reception of evangelical truth 
 and the exercife of brotherly love the two effen- 
 tial bonds of communion, by which all the mem- 
 bers of Chrift are joined together in the fame 
 body ? 
 
 (3) As thcfe bonds of communion derive their 
 effence, exertion, and continuance, from the 
 Spirit of Chrift, by whofe divine agency the 
 whole body of the church is animated and en- 
 livened ; 
 
( 120 ; 
 
 ^ livened ; are not therefore all the children of God, 
 of every denomination under Heaven, fharers 
 in this general fellowliiip ? 
 
 (4) Do not the different degrees of honor and 
 iifefulnefs, vi^hich the members refpedlively poffefs 
 in the human body, and the union fublifting be- 
 tween tliem, illuftrate that diverlity of official 
 honor between particular members of Chrift's 
 myfiical body, and the harmonious connexion, 
 by which they are blended together in one ? 
 i (5) Is this communion any more deflroyed by 
 fj the various differences hi non-ejfentials among chrif- 
 i tian denominations, than the union in the human 
 body, is interrupted by the different 7?zf, pofition, 
 or clothing of its feveral members ? 
 
 (6) When the Lord's people agree in effential 
 truth; is it not contrary, to fcriptujje, and repug- 
 nant to common fenfe, that brethren fhould 
 wrangle, and unchurch one-another, about fuch 
 trifling caufes of contention, as, whether we fhould 
 be dipt or fprinkled with water in baptifm; v/he- 
 ther we fhould receive the Lord's fupper, land- 
 ing or kneeling ; or whether we ought to pray 
 
 ^^^ y with a forn^ or without one ? 
 
 jLgA*^{^^ Jtf^ Since the innumerable infirmities, connedl- 
 ed with man's prefent flate of imperfedion, ren- 
 der it impoffible that there Ihould be a perfecf^ 
 and univerfal agreement in matters of doubtful dif- 
 putation ; do not thofe, who feparate from, and 
 judge their differing brethren, by that very 2iSt of 
 reparation, lay a virtual claim to infallibility ? 
 
 (8) Since 
 
C 12t ) 
 
 -f8-) Since neither an agreement In externals 
 will fave, nor a difference in them, deftroy a mani 
 fhould not profefTors of every denomination re- 
 folve to think and let think, on thofe dlfputablc 
 non-ellentials ? 
 
 -^) Where profeflbrs differ about the externals 
 of an ordinance, or the particular mode of dif- 
 peniing itj fhould this be any reafonable bar to 
 Chrijiian communion? 
 
 (*©-) If God himfelf vouchfafe to admit his peo- 
 ple to fellowfhip with him, notwithftanding their 
 numerous failings and Imperfedions; ought not 
 profellbrs to imitate his gracious condefcenlion? 
 And, fhould not thofe, who will fit down together 
 at the marriage-fuppcr of the Lamb, unite upon, 
 earth, in a facramental prellbation of that eternal 
 feaft of love ? ^^^^^^^.^jj,,,^ 
 
 (ir) Since Anabaptrfla make dipping fuck a n 
 
 ^Jj^afimportant afClr -, as to renounce communion with 
 
 thofe, who do nor think it eifentlal m the cicfa ii~ 
 
 i^jf^vof^nr^ of Vinpfi-Tn-, . ^lo thev uot hereby vilibly 
 
 difown the excellent of the earth, and reje6i thofe 
 whom Chrift hath received r 
 
 (12) When fttrh-rucomparative triilg|can make 
 men ftand aloof from their brethren ; are the prin- 
 ciples, which fupport fuch conduct!, likely to pro- 
 mote the glory of God, or the peace of the 
 church ? r^ 
 
 (i 3 ) Since t^erefeire Anabaptifm manifeftly tends 
 
 to nurture diviftpns ; to interrupt the harmony of 
 
 God's united people; to unchurch every Poedobap- 
 
 tift community of Chriftians upon earth; and to 
 
 ■ \CL deftroy 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 deflroy that fellowfhip, which fubfifts between 
 the members of Chrift's myftical body : is it any 
 breach of truth, or deviation from charity, to 
 pronounce Anabaptifm a main pillar of bigotry f 
 
 (14) Do not Anabaptifts, who feparate from, 
 and unchurch their brethren, for that, which is 
 neither in whole nor in part necelTary to falvation j 
 give a fad proof, that they are fo far acftuated by 
 the narrow fpirit of a party, and not by the gene- 
 rous motives of candor and brotherly love f 
 
 (i^) Although, by thofe plaufible infinuations 
 and low artifices, peculiar to a party -fpirit, ihey 
 may gain over profelytes to dipping ; is it proba- 
 ble, that a profelytifra founded on fuch a watery 
 hafts, will promote the glory of God, or contri- 
 bute to the fpiritual welfare of the inveigled profe- 
 lytes themfelves ? 1 trow not. 
 
 (16) Is it to be wondered, that the very famer 
 fpirit of fchlfm which urges a feparation from all. 
 other Chriftians upon earth, fhould operate ilrong- 
 ly among the Anabaptifts themfelves ; and lay the 
 foundation of thofe inteftine diviiions, for which 
 they, as a people, are moft remarkable? 
 
 (17) While therefore they lay claim to a fupe- 
 rior degree of purity, both in dofirine and difci- 
 pline, above all their brethren ; how comes it to 
 pafs, that they agree fo little among themfelves? 
 Have they not reafon to fufpedl, that the bigotry, 
 which they exercife towards others, lies deeply at 
 the bottom of thofe jealoulies, which diftra6t and 
 divide fome of their own congregations ? Does not; 
 this leaven need to be purged out from among them? 
 
 (18) Have 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 li^) Have A-nabaptifts a fcriptural right, any 
 more to confine their members, than to monopolize 
 ** the church :" Are not the children of God, in 
 more fenfes than one, freemen of Chrifi Jejus, and 
 members of his church at large? Are they not at 
 liberty to attend the ordinances, wherever they 
 think proper ? And have bigoted difcipllnarians 
 any right to bind them with a cord of church- 
 authority, to this or the other congregation ? 
 Does not fuch uncatholic difcipHne come under 
 the predicament of lording it over the confciences 
 of God's people J and of exerciling clomijiion over 
 their faith? 
 
 (19) Though, by dilingenuous means juftly de- 
 teftable by every generous mind, the Anabaptifts 
 may increafe the number of their profelytcsj yet is 
 this any proof that their church is the more truly 
 
 florijhingf Rather, as their fentiments are big with 
 legality, and a contempt of their brethren ; is it 
 not to be feared, that fuch as imbibe them are 
 under the power of that bitter zeal, which, like a 
 gangrene, eats into the very vitals of living Chrif- 
 tianity ? And that, if fome of the warm advocates 
 for Anabaptifm, v/ere divefted of their attach^ 
 raent to cold water, they would be flript of their 
 great all? 
 
 (20) Since Mr. M. has now aggrandized dip- 
 ping fo highly, as to make it "essential t<y 
 the obedience of faith/' Iliould he not either in- 
 form us, whether the reji of his brethren are of the 
 fame mind ? or elfe, upon a declaration of their 
 dijfent, and a convidion of his error, fhould he 
 
 0^2 noj 
 
( 124 ) 
 
 not adopt the mortifying alternative of publifhing 
 his recantation of the exceptionable expreffion, 
 and of the falfe do61:rine couched under it ? He 
 cannot reafonably obje6l to this propofal, lincL% 
 in the attefted chalknge, he has himfeh" proclaimed 
 his readinefs to recant ; and that publicly too, 
 whenever his errors fliould appear to him, re- 
 futed by fcripture. 
 
 ^21) But if our author, through the predomi- 
 nancy of ignorance, prejudice and legahty, fliould 
 ilill perfevere in maintaining the ejfentiality of 
 dipping; ought not his brethren, to refcue Ana- 
 baptifm from the juft cenfure, it has incurred 
 through his blundering pen? and to en-ter a 
 PROTEST againft his legal fentiments? But if 
 Mr. M, cannot be prevailed upon palinodiam 
 canere ; and if his brethren coincide with him in 
 his novel tenets : is it not high time for the mi- 
 nifters of Chri/i to cry aloud to profellbrs, in the 
 cautionary language of St. Faul. "Beware of 
 (catabaptifw) the concision?" Phil.iiu 2. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 CHAP. ill. 
 
 Some ftriSlures en Dr. Stennctl'i confining the idea of 
 
 dipping to the word baptize. His I'irtual charge 
 
 of our " departing from the authority i/Chrift, and 
 *' opening the door to a thoufa7id innovations^ of 
 
 " dangerous con feque?ice," retorted and refuted. 
 
 Mr. M.'s fnode of RIDICULING his brethren, 
 expofcd; and his attempts to evade the force of my 
 former firiSlures on that head, proved to he deflituie 
 
 of truth and fair reprefentation. Some prelimi- 
 
 7iaries fiatcd, refpeding the mode of baptifm, 
 
 S my addrefs to Mr. M. upon a furmer 
 occafion, was intended principally to con- 
 lider the fubje^s of baptifm; I therefore fpent the 
 iefs time in vindicating the mode of that inftitii- 
 tion. Having never feen any formal treatife, 
 upon this inferior part of the controverfy, either 
 pro or con ; my obfervations were the concifc and 
 natural refult of fcrlpture-inquiry. Since my late 
 publication, however, I have had an opportunity 
 of reviewing the fentiments of other Foedobaptifts; 
 as well as of examining the opinions of fome of 
 the moft renowned advocates for the cffentialltv 
 of dipping : and, upon an impartial examination of 
 the arguments on both fides of the queftion, I am 
 more confirmed, than ever, in my former fenti- 
 ments. I have carefully perufed the recent con- 
 troverfy between the Rev. Mr. Addington and 
 Dr. Stennett : and, I muft fay, that however I may 
 refped the latter of thefe two gentlemen, as a 
 
 per font 
 
( 126 ) 
 
 perfon of piety and learning ; yet, his arguments, 
 particularly in favor of immerfion, appear to favor 
 more of the plaufibility of fmooth addrefs, than 
 of the folidity of conclufive reafoning; and, when 
 he is pleafed to flyle our mode of adminiftering 
 the ordinance by fprinkling or pouring of water, 
 a " fuppofititious kind of baptifin, *" we think 
 the Doiftor's Iniinuation equally deftitute of can- 
 dor and truth. 
 
 I. If Anabaptifls v/cre content with maintain- 
 ing their particular mode, only as the favoi'ite 
 badge of their party, without inlilting on it as the 
 effe?:ce of the facrament; our controvcrfy would be 
 jnftantaneoufly at an end. But, when Dr. 5". echo- 
 ing the fentiments of his brethren, does not fcru- 
 ple to affirm, that the word baptize, ^'properly and 
 *' c?dy fign'ifics dipphig :Y' ^nd thcit " his impo/f^bk 
 *' for any one, to give it a different meaning ; X'"* 
 we are of opinio:!, that fuch fentiments have a 
 direcft tendency to fupport the interefis of that 
 bigotry, whiclh is too predominant amonglf Ana- 
 baptifis already ; and which, inflcad of receiving 
 an additional fpur from the Do6ior's pen, flands 
 manifeftly in need of a refiraining curb. Without 
 liaying to conlider how far thefe infinuations 
 compliment the a/?/7/Y/a of Poedobaptifts, who, in 
 criticifm^ as well as divinity, are not a whit behind 
 the chiefefi of Anabaptifls ; I cannot help taking 
 notice, that, if according to the Doffor, " it be 
 ** impojjibk" to give the word baptize, any other 
 
 * See tlie Docftor's Remarks, &:c. P. 144. 
 
 meaning 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 meaning but that of *' dipping," then undoubteet- 
 \y myfelf and others have undertaken a very ar- 
 duous taikj for, is it not more than Herculean 
 labor, to encounter an impojjibility f or to attempt 
 the proof of a point, which, it is infinuate.i, has 
 nothing to authenticate or recommend it, but 
 *' corrupt pradiccf" However, notwithftanding 
 the Do<51or's bold affertions, and the formidable 
 appearance, which 146 dole pages, exhaufted in 
 vindication of dipping, may carry in the eye of 
 an inconfiderate reader ; I will, for once, adven- 
 ture a bold affertion, in the Dodor's categorical 
 ftylej and fay, that the word baptize does rM lig- 
 nify dipping only, and that it is not impoffible to 
 prove, it has a ditferent fignification. Yea, and I 
 will even venture, not only to allert, but to clemon- 
 Jlrate this; if fcripture-authority 5 the criticifms 
 of lexicographers; the opinion of eminent divines^ 
 the conceihons of even fome Anabaptifts ; the fen- 
 timents of primitive fathers and eminent reform- 
 ers ; and the ufage of Proteftant churches, can be 
 fuppofed to furnilli any folid materials for fuch 
 undertaken demonfi ration. 
 
 II. In the apology, which Dr. 5. makes for his 
 invincible attachment to the peculiarities of his 
 party, one would almofi: infer, from the folemnity 
 of his fiyle, that he thought thcfe peculiarities 
 were of the highefl: importance. Thefe are his 
 words, " I know not Iiow v/e can depart from it'' 
 (dipping,) " without affronting the authority of 
 " Chriil:, and opening the door to a thoufand in- 
 *' novations of very dangerous confcquence." * 
 * Pa-e 35. Ho\r 
 
( 128 ) 
 
 How the relinqullliing an unlniportant mode 
 Ihould be prodU'5live of " innovations ,' — '* thou- 
 ^' fandi" of innovations, — and of " very dangerous 
 " confequcHce," I mufi: acknowledge, I am not in- 
 genious enough to find out. 1 can very ealily 
 conceive hovv' an intemperate zeal for dipping, 
 and a rigid determination to fupport the caufe 
 of Anabaptifm, may open a door to dangerous 
 innovations; becaufe, of this, hillory affords an 
 evident proof. Whence fprung the troubles in 
 Germany, in the beginning of the iixteenth centu- 
 ry ? What was the origin of thcfe dangerous 
 " innovations" both of a civil and religious nnture, 
 Vv'hich fpread terror and depopulation through a 
 great part of the continent, and difturbed Luther 
 and his pious alibciates in the work of reforma- 
 tion? Did they not originate from Anabaptifm? 
 Was it not a fi^ry zeal for a particular mode, that 
 induced Bernard Rotman, the mad declaimer, yohn 
 of Ley den, the infatuated monarch, Muncer^ Knip- 
 perdoiing, and all the other ringleaders of a de- 
 luded feet; to adopt this wild poiition, viz. " that 
 " all ivho were not re-b apti zed were to be accoimt- 
 '' cd Pagans and Infidels?" and to extend it 
 itill firther, by publicly dechiring, that all fuch 
 "■ were to be killed?" * Who fees not, that it 
 v/as through the " door' of a rigid attachment 
 to Anabaptifm, that a formidable train of thcfe 
 moft dreadful Innovations entered ? And who fees 
 not alfo, from thefe flubborn fai^s, that bigotry 
 
 * See Dr. Fcitly's " IJ'ayjih.'i for Fn^laiu^ in the famous liiflory of 
 " X.\\fi j;;iiit'iC yinalapt'ifis ; tlieir v.-lld pi-cuching-, and prafticcs in Cer- 
 « man^r P. iij. ' " 
 
 ia 
 
in non-effentials Is the natural parent of innova- 
 tions. When the breaft Is enflamed by an inor- 
 dinate zeal for the dilVingui/hing badge of a party, 
 the inflammation often increafes to fuch a degree, 
 as to precipitate the unhappy zealot into the moft 
 violent meafures. Zeal in fuch a cafe, operates 
 on the inflammable conftltutions of bigots, as the 
 paroxyfm of a malignant fever, does, upon the 
 body. The human mind is wrought up to a pitch 
 of frantic delirium, in the one cafe, as well as the 
 other : and, it is not therefore, to be wondered, 
 that bigots, daring the paroxyfm of their fiery 
 zeal, fhould difcover fymptoms of madnefs, re- 
 fembling thofe, which attack perfons in a burn- 
 ing fever, and prompt them to commit fuch def- 
 perate a6is, the very idea of which In the coolnefs 
 of a healthy conflitutlon, would flrike them with 
 horror. This feems to have been literally the 
 cafe of the German Anabaptijis, A high fever for 
 re-baptizing, drove them to the mofl uncharitable 
 fentiments, refpe6ling fuch as differed from themj 
 v/hom they called Vagam and Infidels. Here the 
 paroxyfm commenced. This uncharitablenefs pro- 
 ceeded from words to deeds. Their party mufl be 
 fupported vi & armis. What they could not ef- 
 itdi by argume?it, they are determined to accom- 
 plilh by the fword. Furor arma minijirat. The 
 firong deluflon fuggefled the neceffity of el^ablilh- 
 ing a fpiritual regency j and a bloody flag ought 
 to have been the proper enflgn of thefe fanguinary 
 faints. Dreams and viflons were the revelation, by 
 which they pretended to have a commiflion from 
 R God, 
 
( ISO ) 
 
 God, appointing John of Leyden, the Dutch Taylor^ 
 *' to the government of the whole world," and 
 declaring " that with mighty forces, he was to go 
 " out and deftroy all kings and princes whatever ; 
 *' to the end that the godly alone may reign and 
 *' rule in the world." * 
 
 From hence we may eafily perceive, how fre- 
 quent is the tranlition from one fpecies of fiery 
 zeal to another ; and with how ill a grace, any 
 cautions refpe6^ing innovations come from the 
 mouth or pen of Anabaptifts. Although 1 verily 
 believe, that there fubfifts a great contraft between 
 the political and religious fentiments of the German 
 and 5nV//7z Anabaptifts; yet methinks, a retrofpe6l 
 to thofe fcenes of blood, which originated from 
 an unhallowed zeal for Anabaptifm, ought to make 
 its modern advocates a little more cautious in 
 preffing their peculiarities with fuch warmth, as 
 to unchurch all the world but themfelves ; and to 
 reprefent their brethren in no better a ftate, as to 
 facramental communion, than unbaptized Pagans. 
 We think too, that when Dr. 5". reprefents " a de- 
 ** parture from dipping, as affronting the authority 
 " of Chrift," he throws out an impotent cenfure 
 againft us, which is telum imbellefine iBii^ a feeble 
 weapon, that does no execution. We can allure 
 this gentleman, that we are as jealous for " the au- 
 ** thority of Chrift" as himfelf, or any Anabaptift 
 upon earth ; nor would we, in the fmalleft pundi- 
 lio, wilh to deviate from any exprefs inftitution of 
 ©ur Common Legiilator. But, we cannot think 
 
 * Dr. Fcatl/i " Comparative Hiftorv," &c. P. 227. 
 
 that 
 
( 13^ ) 
 
 that the Dov5\or's implicit charge of " affronting'^ 
 the divine authority, has any thing really to do 
 with our adminiflering the ordinance of baptifm 
 in"" another mode, different from that of dipping. 
 Could the Do61or, or any of his brethren, prove, 
 that the riie can be adminiftered with fignificant 
 refemblance only by immerlion; and that the words 
 baptize and baptifm can be accommodated to no 
 other idea, but that of dipping: in that cafe, we 
 fliould fafped the validity of our mode of admi- 
 niftration by fprinkling or pouring of water. But 
 we defy the Dodor to do this : and, under a full 
 perfualion, that neither he, nor his fubaltern of 
 Liverpool, who fights with his borrowed weapons, 
 have hitherto done it, I fliall proceed to a conlide- 
 ration of their refpe6live arguments. 
 
 III. Before I do this, I cannot avoid taking no- 
 tice of a fulfome encomium, Mr. M. pafTes on 
 Dr. Stennett's anfwer to Mr. Addington, in a note, 
 p. 16. " One would have hoped," fays he, " that 
 " that excellent performance, had lilenced the 
 ** advocates for fprinkling, for a while at leaft; 
 *' cfpecially as Mr. A. has not thought proper to 
 " reply to the Doc%r." — Why Mr. A. has not 
 thought proper to do this, I cannot poffibly de- 
 termine. This however, I will venture to afTert, 
 that he is not iilejit, becaufe not able to encounter 
 the Dodor. For there is nothing fo really tremen- 
 dous in the Dodor's treatifes, as to intimidate 
 any judicious Poedobaptift from coniidering them 
 fidly-y much lefs one of Mr. yf.'s profeffional know- 
 ledge, as a fcholar and a divine. If Mr. A.'i 
 R 2 other 
 
( 132 ) 
 
 other more Important avocations did not abridge 
 Lis leifure moments, we might, probably, be fa- 
 vored with fuch a reply, as would be more than a 
 match for the Dodor's '* excellent perforn'iance." 
 Eut, perhaps indeed, Mr. A. is lilent, from a full 
 perfualion that it is not opera pretium to maintain 
 a controverfy with men, who fcem to admit it as 
 the declarative maxim of their party, that, whether 
 they have the beft of the argument or not, they 
 will have the lafi word. — M.Y. A.\ filence, at the 
 fame time that it furnilhes Mr. M. with an impli- 
 cit but groundlefs argument of inability, feems to 
 fill him with a proportionable degree of aftonilh- 
 ment, that I Ihould prejume to olfer any ftridures 
 on a fubjcvfl:, which he thinks his oracle has dif- 
 cufTed with unanfwerable argument already ; and 
 he adopts a fuppoiition, " that I have only read one 
 *^ fide of the queftion;" otherwife I fliould not 
 haveadvanced, v/hat others have contradicled. But 
 here he happens to be altogether miftaken. For, 
 antecedently to my late publication, I neither faw 
 nor read either iide of the queflion: and 1 hope 
 the fequel will demonftrate, that I have attended 
 to Mr. M.'s maxim, which, from the prodigious 
 depth of his learning, he has been fo kind to con- 
 Jirue for me, viz. " Audi alteram partem, that is, 
 *' hear the other fide.'' — As to the " mortification," 
 which he inlinuates muft arife to me, from a pe- 
 rufal of the Do61or's *' excellent perform^ancej" I 
 affure him he is here likcvvife mifiaken. Inftead of 
 being mortified, I am amufed. And my amufe- 
 ment is not a little heightened by Mr. M.'s aiTam- 
 
 in? 
 
( 133 ) 
 
 ing the " office of exhibiting me." If indeed the 
 exhibiter had either truth, raodcfiy, or learning, 
 wherewith to grace his exhibitions, he might pahn 
 them upon the public, as res fpkndidas. But, la- 
 boring, as they manlfeftly do, under every fpccies 
 of difadvantage, they exhibit a jumble of confum- 
 mate ignorance and audacity ; and, like the pro- 
 phet's marred girdle, are good for nothing, but to 
 be hiffed oif the flage of controverfy, with a Fro- 
 cul ejie, naga profoma ! 
 
 IV. In my animadverlions on the inconclufive- 
 nefs of Mr. M.'s pulpit-declamations, I took no- 
 tice of his laying, that thofe, who adminifier 
 baptifm by pouring or fprinkling of water, " only 
 *' baptize the ends of their fingers." This obferva- 
 tion 1 faid * favored more of ''vulgarity than of 
 folidity;' and I now reiterate the charge. In order 
 to apologize for the obnoxious phrafe, Mr. A'f. 
 informs us^ that it was borrowed from Mr. Selden, 
 But furely the mere ipfe dixit, or precipitate 
 " thought" of this gentleman, furnlflies no argu- 
 ment againft our modej nor does the name of 
 Mr. 5". or Mr. any-body-elfe, give fuch a fan61ion 
 to an unguarded expreffion, as that It fliould drop 
 its exceptionable import, merely becaufe a great 
 man efpoufes it. A 'vulgarity is a vulgarity f^ill, 
 whether it proceed from the pen of Mr. Selden^ 
 or from his borrower Mr. M. And a vulgar 
 expreffion, fo far from being weakened, is rather 
 additionally ofFenfive, in proportion to the great- 
 nefs of the name that dignifies it. Thus a vulgar 
 expreffion from Parnunas, is not fo vulgar as froni 
 
 Mr. 
 
( 134 ) 
 
 Mr. M becaufe lie (Mr. M.) is a much greater 
 7r.an. However, though Mr. Seldm might be ex* 
 culed in dropping a vulgar thought in his liudy, 
 •end even in publilhing it afterwards from the 
 prefs ; yet, lurely this will by no means jaftify his 
 borrower in throwing out the wanton witticifm 
 from ihc pulpit. When the facred defk is difgrac- 
 ed by fuch declamatory petulance; is not the fo- 
 Icmnity of a public ordinance deftroycd? Does 
 not I he declaimer bid farewell to the dictates of 
 decency and candor ? And does not fuch an illi- 
 beral mode of attacking us, imply, that cur mo- 
 deft opponent m.eant, either to laugh 'his hearers 
 out of their veneration for Foedobaptiil, or to dra- 
 £0G7i them into a compliance with his inconcluiive 
 dogmas? Is fuch pompous felf-fufficicncy a likely 
 way, to engage an audience in favor of the preach- 
 er or his fentiments? Would not a fenlible man 
 avoid this hackneyed fpecies of vulgarizing to a 
 promifcuous audience r when he conliders, that 
 fome prefent might be fliarp-fighted enough, to 
 fee that fuch witty declamation was a poor fubf^i- 
 tute for argument ; and indicated the weakncfs of 
 the caufe he intended to fupport. 
 
 Whether 1 had not rcafon to cliarge Mr. M, 
 with publicly ridiculing his brethren, who do not 
 pradife immerfion, let the adopted quotation from 
 Leiden tef^ify. Yet this gentleman has the face to 
 think hlmfelf prodigioufly injured and evi:njlan- 
 dercd; and attempts to exculpate himfelf. "As to 
 *' your charge of ridiculing my brethren, I do fo- 
 ** icmnly declare, that I am falily accufed. Is it 
 
 " not 
 
c 135 ) 
 
 *' not cruel to be thus publicly vilified and flan'-- 
 ** dered r" * How a man can thus fix a Jolcnm 
 declaration to a notorious miftake fculking under 
 a prevaricating quibble, is to me aftonilhing. — > 
 What ! is it not '-' ricUcuk" to reprefent us before 
 a public auditory, as " only baptizers of tin; end of 
 '* our fingers?" confequently to exhibit us as dif- 
 penling a mock-ordinance j yea, no ordinance at 
 all ? Does not that jullily merit the name of " r/- 
 dicule" which ungenerouily fneers at our minifte- 
 lial capacity ? When we pour or fpriiikle water on 
 the fubjed in the name of the blelied Trinity, we 
 think that the facred ceremony is, to all intents,^ 
 performed. Yet Mr. M. publicly declares, v/e 
 baptize only the ends of our fingers. Does he noc 
 by fuch a Ibamelefs inlinuation, render the minif- 
 ters who diifer from him, and tlieir mode of admi- 
 niftration, at once contemptible ? And, by doing 
 this on a folemn public occasion, is not his con- 
 dud marked v/ith a lingular aggravation? Will 
 he evade the force of our juft reprehenlion by 
 urging, that he ridiculed none of his minifterial 
 brethren, becaufe he mentioned none of their 
 names f Or does he think it any extenuation of 
 his mifdemeanor, that his ridicule was borrowed? 
 Did he not by a public quotation, fet his appro- 
 batory feal to it, and thereby make it his own? 
 All thefe circumftances conlidered, I fubmit the 
 matter to the decilion of any impartial umpire, 
 whether the charge of ridiculing his brethren, is not 
 juftly and firmly fixt upon Mr. M, Whether, when 
 he " folemnly declares that he is faljly accujed," he 
 * Page 37. does 
 
( n^ ) 
 
 dots not dignify an obvious untruth, with a fo- 
 lemn declaration: and, whether he ought not in 
 the moft exprefs and humiliating terms, aik par- 
 don of his Poedobaptift brethren, for the contemp- 
 tuous ridicule he has repeatedly poured on their 
 folemn miniftrations ; and of God, for folemnly 
 declaring, what is not true. 
 
 He attempts, indeed, to keep his ridicule and 
 himfelf in countenance a little, by alledging, 
 " that no one ridicules pra61ices, they! fuppofe 
 *' abfurd, more than I do." But here his re- 
 prefentation of me is as void of jufl: coloring, as 
 his borrowed fneer at his brethren has been proved 
 to be deftitute of candor, decency, and truth. 
 By " practices, which 1 fuppofe abfurd," he means 
 dipping, &c. But I am not confcious of " ridicu- 
 ^mg" this pra6lice, as a mode of baptizing. I only 
 expofe, perhaps fometimes with a little " mild iro- 
 ny," the abfurdity of laying fuch an unfcriptural 
 Jirefs on immerfion, as to make it ejjential to the 
 obedience of faith. Papijis pervert the intent of 
 baptifm, when they maintain that, the ordinance 
 confers grace ex opere operato. This abfurd per- 
 verlion of a divine inftitution we expofe, and de- 
 teft. But, becaufe we think the abufe of an ordi- 
 nance an object of jutl ridicule, we do not there- 
 fore ridicule the ordinance itfelf. Anabaptifts main- 
 tain, that dipping head-over-cars is ejjential to 
 baptifnii and that the adminiftration of the ordi- 
 nance by pouring or fprinkling of water is no 
 baptifm. We fmile therefore at an abufe of their 
 pradicc to the purpofes of bigotry, though we ac- 
 knowledge 
 
 ■^0^ 
 
 ^ 
 
( ^37 ) 
 
 knowledge the practice itfelf to be a mode of bap- 
 tizing. If any fet of people were to adopt it as 
 a peculiarity, that, in order to a due celebration 
 of the Lord's fupper, and the only proper repre- 
 fentation of the fulnefs of Chrifl, each communi- 
 cant fhould eat a loaf of breads if they thus re- 
 ftridled the ejfeiice of the facrament to their mode^ 
 and aflerted, that thofe who difpenfed the elements 
 in fmaller quantities, did thereby deftroy the na- 
 ture of the ordinance, and make it no euchariji -, 
 would not their peculiarity be an object of juft 
 ridicule ? We think the bigoted flrefs, which Ana- 
 baptifts place in the quantity of the water, in fome 
 meafure refembles the peculiarity, I have juft ex- 
 pofed: and we are of opinion that the validity of 
 baptifm is no more abfolutely determined by the 
 quantity of the element, than the reality of the 
 eucharift is afcertalr^ed by that of the bread and 
 wine. So that, when a body of people can, for 
 fuch a comparative trifle, feparate from their 
 brethren, and reprefent them as unbaptized; we 
 are fbrry for the bigotry that lies at the root of 
 fuch feparation, and cannot help fmlling at the 
 poor arguments, on which they ground their un- 
 charitable fchifm. But even fuppoling, I had 
 
 indulged a degree of ridicule, from the prefs, 
 v/hen expofing the abfurd claims of bigotry ; yet 
 how does this admit a parallel with the conduct 
 of Mr. Mf who vents his ridiculous failles of wit 
 in a folemn ordinance? Whatever may be my 
 private fentiments, or however I might avail my- 
 felf of a few of thofe liberties generally allowed 
 S the 
 
( 13^ ) 
 
 the pen of controvcrtifts ; yet I defy any peiTon 
 living to prove, that I ever threw out the fmalleft 
 ungenerous reflexion againft Anabaptifts or their 
 fentiments from the pulpit; * even though a fecond 
 viiit from Mr. M. repeated not long after the 
 former, and condu(5^ed with the fame fpirit of 
 dogmatic afTurance, afforded ground for fufficient 
 provocation. But, I hope my mind is imprefled 
 with too deep a fenfe of the importance of my mi- 
 nifterial work ; the folemnity of pubHc ordinances; 
 the weight of the fundamental truths of the gof- 
 pel ; the awful capacity of an embaflador oiChrij}; 
 the reverential gravity that fhould run through all 
 our miniflrations; and of the value of immortal 
 fouls ; ever to call off the attention of mv hearers 
 irom truths of infinite importance to comparative 
 trifles ; to amufe them with laughable fallies of 
 vulgar wittlcifms, at theexpence, perhaps of truth, 
 
 * I the rather mention this, becaufe one of the tiuin-difputants has in- 
 sinuated, in his wonderful piece of clajpcal patch-ivork, that I have, in my 
 public difcourfes, thrown out as fevere things on the fubjedl of Infant- 
 baptifm, as Mr. M. did, on that of dipping. I beg to know whether 
 this reverend patch-maker's inllnuation be founded on ear-witnefs or 
 mere information. If on the latter, which I am pretty fure mufl be the 
 cafe, then he is guilty of the very crime, for which he has abufed me 
 in " immenfe (lores of claffical" rhodomontadc ; only with this eflential 
 difference, that mj charge of fevere ridicule, brouglit againfl: Mr. M. is 
 founded on flubborn fad: ; hh (the patch-nwkcf'i) information, refpeAing 
 me, on notorious falfliood. To the beft of my recolledlion, I never, 
 fince I came to this place, faid any thing on the fubjctSt of baptifm, but 
 on two occafions ; once, only en pajfant, in a dilcourfe on Ifa. lii ; and 
 once in an evening expofition of I Cor. x. On both occafions, I fimply 
 and very concifely delivered my fentiments, as a Miniflcr of the Church 
 of England ; without offering any controverfial attack upon thole, who 
 might differ from me. And as to anv 7-idkiild, it Avas as far from my 
 thoughts, or my manner of delivering them, as Mr. M.'s declamations 
 were from decency and candor, For the truth of this, I appeal to all 
 who attend riiy miniftry. 
 
 as 
 
( 139 ) 
 
 as w-ell as decorum ; and much lefs to iniift on. 
 what Dr. Stennett very properly calls *' Invidious 
 " topics of argument," calculated to fcatter abroad 
 the fparks of uphallowed zeal, and to convert the 
 facred deilc into a roftrum of ridicule, as well as 
 the whole ordinance, into a fort of pantomime en« 
 tertainment. 
 
 V. Before I adually begin the debate on the 
 mode of baptlfm, It will be neceflary to ftate a few 
 preliminaries, (i) The controverfy between us 
 and the Anabaptifts, refpedlng the mode, turns on 
 the following point ; viz. Whether the * idea of 
 dipping Is ejjejttially or only included in the words 
 QixTfji^co and ^a-ifjia-^^^i or whether their fignifica- 
 tion comprehends other modes of applying the 
 baptifmal water. The Anabaptifts, in afferting the 
 former, conlequently deny the latter. (2) It is 
 readily allowed, that dipping is on; of the included 
 ideas of the original word; but, not the only one. 
 And we are bold to declare, that * to attribute the 
 idea of dipping only, to the word baptize, is to 
 mifinterpret the oracles of God, to fet fcripture 
 againfl: itfelf, to be wife above that which is writ- 
 ten, and grollly to overlook, the real import of 
 the original, merely for eftablllhing a favorite but 
 unimportant ceremony.' -j" (3) It is allowed, that 
 baptlfm has often been admlniftered, in former 
 S 2 times, 
 
 •f- This declaration which I made in p. ao, of my Letter to a Baptifi-^ 
 mimjier, Mr. M. quotes no lefs than four tim.es in the cpmpafs of a few 
 pages. His manifeft dcfign in vaporing away on this paflage, is, t6 
 exhibit me as afferting, what fecms to contradidl the fentiments of the 
 Church of England. But if this difuigenuous q_uoter and his demi-reve- 
 
 xcnA 
 
( HO ) 
 
 times, by iramerfion. But as this mode of admi- 
 niftration was adopted, according to the nature of 
 the climate, the age, or flate of the fubjed, &cc. it 
 was, on the fame principle, altered and varied, 
 as circumftantials fuggefied. And, even in warm 
 countries, where the objetilion to dipping had lefs 
 force, than in our northern climates, yet it was 
 thought neceffary frequently to deviate from this 
 modcj nor was fuch deviation ever fuppofed to 
 weaken, much lefs to deftroy, the ejfence of the 
 facrament. The appolite conceffion of Tilenus 
 is moft 'remarkable. "Although immerfion might 
 " have been formerly more" (not altogether) " ufu- 
 ** al, efpecially in yudea and other warm coun- 
 
 rend fuoaltern in Salop, who joins with him in a fimilar flraifi of criti- 
 cifm, had but candidly compared me with myfelf ; tliey might have at 
 once difcovered the injuftice and futility of their obfervations. I faid, 
 10 p. 17 of my Letter, that ' the idea of dipping is not eJJentiaUy connecSled 
 ' with the word baptize.' Did not that manifcftly imply a conceffion, 
 that the idea is fimetiriies connected with it ? And did not my very quo- 
 tation from Leigh's Critica Sacra imply fo much ? So that, to any inge- 
 nuous perfon, my laying that ' to attribute the idea of dipping to the 
 ' word baptize, is to mifinterpret the oracles of God,' would imply no 
 more, than that the confuilrig the word to that idea only, comes under the 
 charge of inch miiinterpretion. However, if Mr. -A'l. flill thinks, I 
 have faid any thing derogatory to the fentimcnts of the Church of 
 England, which needs a rcprehenfion from my diocefan, he is heartily 
 welcome to tranfmit liis complaints, as foon, and as particularly as 
 poffible. But the frequent honorable mention I have made of our 
 Church, as well as the refpedful teflimony I have borne to her difci- 
 pline and ecclefiaftical governors, will lb effectually confront the flan- 
 dercus imputation of my falfe accufcr ; that if he were even to go in 
 propria perjlnd , with his complaint about what he impertinently calls 
 " wy fneer," \ might exped; fuch a candid hearing from my diocefan as 
 would juftify my fentiments, and put the officious Anabaptift to fliame. 
 If ever he accolts me again, with a piece of fimilar impertinence, I re- 
 queft he would look into the Preface of Mf. De Coetlogon's Sermons ; 
 ■where he will fee another candid thought rcfpecling the la-wn-Jleeves ; 
 and then he may link us both together in a charge of fncering, and pro- 
 pofe our being " called to anfwer for it," 
 
 '■' tries, 
 
C 141 ) 
 
 ** tries, than afperfion ; yet, fince this clrcum- 
 *' ftance" (viz. of dipping) *' does not pertain to 
 ** the fubfiance of baptifm ; the analogy of the 
 *' facrament may be preferved, no less hy fprink- 
 ** ling, than by dipping^ * (4) It is a fad not to 
 be denied, that the Church of England admits 
 dipping as one mode of adminifiering baptifm; 
 but, contrary to the bigotry of Anabaptifm, fhe 
 acknowledges other modes of adminiitration as 
 equally valid; doubtlefs for the judicious reafon 
 ailigned by Dr. Lightfoot. " The application of 
 " water is neceflary, as to the ejjence of baptifm ; 
 " but, the application, by this or the other mode, 
 '■* expreffes the circumjiance." § (5) The Anabap- 
 tlfts in this kingdom, who conftantly immerfe 
 their candidates, in order to argue conliftently 
 with their pra(?l:ice, are obliged firenuoufly to 
 maintain, that neither the original, nor any analo- 
 gical reafoning from correfpondcnt fcriptures, nor 
 any precedent, nor the differences of climates, nor 
 the lituation oi invalids or pregnant wo/nen, warrant 
 the difpenling of baptifm by pouring or fprinkling 
 of water. As this is not the proper place to un- 
 dertake a refutation of fuch a wild politlon, 1 
 fhall therefore difmifs it, with only obferving, tha| 
 the Anabaptifis in Holland diffent from their bre- 
 
 * ^lamvh autem immerfio ufitatior olim fmrit, prccferltin in Jitdieu & alii^ 
 regionibus calidlorlhin, qttam afperjio; tamen, cum ncque ad haptifmi suestant- 
 TiAM pertinent htcc circumjiantia ; nec minus in aspersione, quam in 
 immerfione, facramenti anahgia fcrvctur. Tilen. Dijp. i. de haptifmo. Tl:ef.s.v. 
 P. 886. 
 
 § Applicatio aqu.c necejfaria eft dc elTcntia laftifini ; <?/? applicatio hoc ve.1 
 ilh mcdo circumii^ntid^mfon^t. Dr. Lightfoot. Hor, Heira. in Matth. in. 6., 
 ?• SO. 
 
 thren 
 
C 142 ) 
 
 tliren in tliis kingdom, and relax the rein of bi- 
 gotry fo far, as to pradice affafion. (6) The Ana- 
 baptifts infift that the word baptize always lignifies 
 to dip. But they are obliged, if they would be con- 
 iiftent, to go farther, and allert that It Implies 
 fuch dipping, as fuppofes the party to be wholly 
 buried undtY thQ water. For, if one fcrlpture-in- 
 ilance can be produced, where a partial Immerfion 
 is called a baptifin, or where a perfon or thing is 
 faid to be baptized, when only a part has been 
 waflied with water ^ then all their arguments for a 
 total immerlion fall to the ground. Many fuch 
 inftances I hope to produce from the word of God; 
 and fliall ftrengthen my obfervations on this head, 
 by the conceffions of Dr. Gale. (7) Though it be 
 acknowledged that fome Pcedobaptifts have grant- 
 ed the propriety of baptizing by immerlion 3 yet 
 furely this will not ferve the caufe of Anabaptifm, 
 unlefs it could be demonftrated to be the opinion 
 of the majority. Befides, will Anabapdrls, who 
 applaud the candid fentiments of fome Puedobap- 
 tifts refpe(^ing the imde, admit their tcillmony on 
 the fubjed oi Infant -b apt ijm? Would they aft thus 
 fairly by fome of the authorities they quote, I 
 know of none whofe fentiments are more exprefs 
 or formidable againlt Anti-pcedobaptlfm, than 
 their favorite Dr. J-Fhithyi (8) When Anabaptifis 
 quote paflages from authors, on the mode of bap- 
 tizing, and the fignification of the original word, 
 they either fo manifeftly curtail the parages they 
 quote, or keep wholly out of fight the real fenti- 
 ments of the author, as to make him appear an 
 
 advocate: 
 
( 143 ) 
 
 advocate for total immerlion, as the ejjence of the 
 facrament. A few charges of this kind, I promife 
 to make good againft Dr. Stcmiett, in his quota- 
 tions from Calvin, Eeza, Vojjius, &c. (9) I beg the 
 judicious reader, once for all, to remember, that 
 when Anabaptifts produce iniiances, where ^oiTpjiQo 
 fignifies to dip, they take pains to prove, what we 
 never denied ; viz. tliat dipping is not exduded from 
 the lignification of the original wordj and, many- 
 voluminous treatifes they have thrown away upon 
 this needlefs fubje61. But, if they intend that their 
 reafoning fhould amount to conclufive argument, 
 and that their fentiments Ihould keep pace with 
 their avowed pra6\ice, they ought to prove, that the 
 controverted word lignifies to dip only j and by a 
 total immeriion : that the facrament is invalidated 
 by every other mode of applying the baptifmal 
 water: that fcripture furnifhes not a fingle in- 
 flance of the ufe of the word baptize or baptifm, 
 where a wajhing in part 'Is implied: and that the 
 authors, they produce as countenancing their fen- 
 timents, never acknowledge, that other modes of 
 facramental wafhing, are equally valid with that of 
 dipping. — 'Till they prove thefe particulars, they 
 prove nothing : and that they never have proved 
 them, it ihall be my bufinefs to demonftrate, in 
 the following flieets. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
( 144 ) 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Analogical reafoning from the effufion of the Spirit to 
 the mode of adminiftering baptifm, by pouring or 
 fprlnkling of water, fupported by argument, and 
 
 the authorities of Voffius and Chemnitius. A 
 
 remarkable correfpondent te/iimony from Orlgen. — 
 Dr. Stennett'^ and Mr. M.V arguments, in favor 
 c/" total immerfion, drawn from the ufe of the word 
 f^aTrJM and the Hebrew tebel, proved to be weak 
 
 and fallacious. Memorable concessions 
 
 from Dr. Gale conjidered. 
 
 IN the management of controverfy, there are 
 certain rules of argumentation, which contro- 
 vertifts are refpe(?lively to obferve, in order to 
 keep up both the decorum and perfpicuity of lo- 
 gical reafoning. One of thefe eftablilhed rules, is. 
 Neuter difputantium alterius partes fufcipiat; neque 
 cpponens in partem refpondcntis involet, aut contra. X 
 Whether my redoubtable antagonift is in the leaft 
 acquainted with this rule, or the requifition it en- 
 joins, the following fpecimen of his controverlial 
 abiUties, will abundantly indicate. In p. 15, he 
 maintains that " baptifm always fignifies dipping.'^ 
 And how do you think, reader, he fets about 
 ^rox^zTZ^ this unguarded politlon? Why thus. " This 
 ** I moji certainly do, 'till the idea is proved erro- 
 " neous. Tio you prove it if you can." So here our 
 wonderful logician, firft, gives us his pofitive afler- 
 
 \ Neither of the difputants fliould take up the other's fide; nor 
 fliould the oppownt cncronch on the part of the refpondcnt, or vice verfa. 
 
 tion ',. 
 
( 145 ) 
 
 tion; and, when the buiinefs of ^roi7;7^ manifeftly 
 devolves on hhn as the opponent, he rerinquillics his 
 proper fide of the difputatlon, and calls upon me to 
 prove the negative; not knowuig that the /^roc/' lies 
 not on the rejpondeiit, but upon the opponejii, who is 
 the ajferter : according to the well-known maxim in 
 argumentation, Negantis non eft probare : yljftrenti 
 incumbit prohatio. From this curious fpecimen of 
 our author's controverfia! decorum, the reader 
 may judge, whether it is not an unpleafing ta/k 
 to face a difputant, whofe undemonitratcd ailer- 
 tions are often made to reft upon the nugatory 
 foundation of a " moji certainly -," and by whofe 
 palpable ignorance of the laws of difputatlon, 
 I am affigned the double office of proving the 
 pq/itive of my own alTertions, and the negative 
 of his. Indeed, it is not becaufe I deem our au- 
 thor himfelf, an object worth contending with, 
 that I beftow a little labor in expoling his notori- 
 ous difqualitication for controverly ; but becaufe 
 I hereby polFcfs a favorable opportunity at the 
 lame time, of attacking, through his fides, the 
 monfter bigotry, and the great Dia?ia of Anabap- 
 tifm, in which it is enlhrincd. — But our author is 
 no lefs fallacious In the mode, than he is deficient 
 in the matter of difputatlon. A fiight attention to a 
 ftw of his arguments on dipping, will difcover this. 
 I. In order to afcertani the fignificatlon of cer- 
 tain ^jvords, or phrafes, occurring in facred writ, it 
 is necefiary to compare fcripture with fcrlpture, 
 and hereby to make the word of God its own in- 
 terpreter. This mode of interpreting fcripture 
 T i'Af^ 
 
( 146 ) 
 
 felf-compareJ, I have adopted, in inveftigating 
 the import of the word baptize; that I might there- 
 by demonftrate, how futile and ill-grounded are 
 the fentiments of Anabaptifts, who would infinu- 
 ate, that it always implies a total immerjion, and 
 that any other mode of difpenling baptifm is un- 
 fcriptural. In order to point out the various ufe 
 of the controverted word, I laid before Mr. M. 
 m p. i6, 17, of my Letter ^ eight texts of fcripture, 
 whofe refpeftive correfpondence with each other, 
 proVes, that the terms baptizing and fprinklingy 
 pouring out, and even falling upon, are uftd fynony- 
 mouily in fcripture. Let us fee, what our author 
 has to fay againft this. 
 
 I. " Your quotation and comparifon of feveral 
 '* fcrlptures, which next folloiv^ is! * very weak, 
 *' and proves nothing fo much, as your peculiar 
 *' dexterity, in confounding one thing with ano- 
 " ther." p. 16. How my " comparifon of feveral 
 *' fcriptures" Ihould be *' very weak," and never- 
 thelefs indicate " peculiar dexterity," appears to me 
 rather paradoxical; if not felf-contradiflory. And- 
 whether a comparing of fcripture with fcripture 
 be a likely way to confound one thing with another, 
 I leave the judicious reader to determine. 
 
 2 But let our author go on. " You have con- 
 " founded and mixed together" {crambe repetita) 
 *' the fprinkling of the blood of Chrift, the bap- 
 ** tifm of the Holy Ghoft, and water-baptifm." 
 
 * Whut graTnmar! This is the genticman, that has afFedled to critklfi 
 upon otliers. Whether he, and his corrector of the prefs, under whole 
 banner he Horiflies away, have any juft claim to criticifm, let the above 
 icntence teflify. But inftances of this nature, are quite common from 
 the accurate pens of the irUlcal duumvirate, Mr. M. and Mr. J. 
 
 Thatv 
 
( HI ) 
 
 That I have reafoned analogically from the one 
 to the other, and drawn a natural inference, as to 
 the validity of fprinkling and pouring of water in 
 baptifm, is certain; but I am not confcious of 
 having mixed or confou?ided the one with the other, 
 and I hope the candid reader will acquit me from 
 the charge. — " You tell us indeed that iiriTriifjoo 
 ** and ^^MTfjt^M are fynonymous." I do not. What 
 1 fay, is, * that baptizing and falling upon are ufed 
 * fynonymoufly.' There is a manifeft difference 
 between faying, that certain words are used JynO'^ 
 nymoujly ', and that they ab.e fynonymous . My mode 
 of expreffion implies, that, though the words are 
 contrary quoad termifios, as to the terms, yet they 
 are fynonymous quoad analogiam, as to their analo- 
 gical ufe in fcripture. You argue analogically, in 
 favor of immerlion, from the Apoftle's faying, 
 ** Ye are buried with him by baptifm, &c." Tho' 
 a burial and a baptifm are terms not ftri(5lly fyno- 
 nymous, yet I fuppofe you would not fcruple to 
 affert that thefe words are ufed fynonymoufly. In 
 like manner do I argue refpe6^ing the mode of 
 baptifm by pouring of water. As the apoftle Feter 
 fays that the Gentiles v/ere baptized when the Holy 
 Ghoft/f// 072 them; {o, we affert, that w^iier poured 
 out or falling upon the perfon to be baptized, con- 
 ftitutes a real baptifm ; and that the terms there- 
 fore admit a fynonymous analogy : And the fame 
 mode of analogical reafoning we adopt, from the 
 words of the prophet Joel ii. 28, quoted by Peter 
 m Ads ii. and compared with verfe 33 of that 
 T 2 chapter. 
 
( 150 ) 
 
 to the very fcriptures, in Joel and the A5ls^ on 
 which I ground my obfervations refpe6^1ng the 
 validity of baptifm by pouring of water. (2) It is 
 equally manifefl:, that they adopt the fame mode 
 of reafoning analogically from the manner of the 
 Spirit's effufion, to the correfpondent mode of ad- 
 miniftering baptifm. And furely the teftimony 
 of two fuch great men to the propriety of fuch 
 analogical reafoning, is of much greater weight, than 
 the pitiful criticifms of Mr. M, or of his oracle. 
 Dr. Stcnnett. (3) According to the fame learned 
 men, baptifm fignifies wajhing ; of which there are 
 various modes; and that a.s pouring of water is one, 
 it is confequently a iignificant mode of adminifter- 
 ing baptifm ; for it exhibits an emblematical re- 
 prefentation of the pouring-out of the Spirit, and 
 of the wanting of regeneration. (4) In oppoiitlon 
 to the fentlments of Anabaptifts in general, and 
 of Dr. Stennctt in particular, Chemnitiiis fays, " dip- 
 " ping under water is not necejfarily requiiite to 
 *' wajliing;'' confequently not ejjential to the mode 
 of difpenling baptifm. For, as Dominicus Sotus 
 fays. *' In baptifm, fomething concerns the ef- 
 *' fence, as wafhing^ according to that in Rphef v. 
 *' where the apoftle calls baptifm the wafhing of 
 " water: but fomething is accidental; as whether 
 *' the wafhing be performed by this or the other 
 •' mode" 'f 
 
 f In haptifmo aVtiid ejl de efTentia, tit ablatio, juxta ilhd ad Ephef. 5, 
 tib'i afoftolus laptifmum appellat lavacrum aquse : sliiid vera accidentarium ; 
 nempe ut ahlutio hoc vel illo Mopo fiat. Dominic. Sot. Dijiinc. 3. qti. un. 
 
 Art. 7. Thefe words are qaoted by Voffms, in confirmation of his 
 
 own fentiments, refpetfbing the fignilication of the word hcptifm, and the 
 riwdss of wafliing it implies. jt T5,,f. 
 
( 151 ) 
 
 II. But let us now fee, what Mr. M. has to fay 
 in favor of immerfion, from the fuppofed analogy 
 between the baptifm of the Spirit and kis favorite 
 mode of baptizing. " The baptifm of the Holy 
 *' Ghoft (by the way) does not at all favor your 
 ** notion of fprinkling ; with much greater pro- 
 " priety, the difciples might be faid to be im- 
 •' merged or overiuhelmed in it !" If Mr. M. in- 
 tends baptifm as the antecedent to it, I need not 
 advertife the judicious reader, that as baptifm with 
 Mr. 7l<f. always fignifies immer/ion, to fay, the dif- 
 ciples were overwhelmed or immerged in immerjion, 
 favors a little of what he is pleafed to call a " cri- 
 tical error." * But if the Holy Ghoji Is intended as 
 the antecedent to it; furely, to fay " the difci- 
 ** pies were immerged in the Holy Ghojiy' is an 
 extremely harlh and uncouth phrafe. 
 
 But ht us fee, how he attempts to fupport his 
 analogy.—" For it filled, not only all the houfe 
 " where they were fitting, but each of their hearts 
 " alfo J they were covered without and filled with- 
 ** in. Well might they be faid to be baptized 
 *' with the Holy Ghoii. But In all this, there Is 
 •' not one word of what you contend for." If by 
 " all this" Mr. M, means, all this curious reafon- 
 ing of his 5 I grant that there Is '* not one word 
 in if of rational argument, well-fupported ana- 
 logy, or folld fenfe — the things, for which at 
 
 * By a " critical error" I fuppofe Mr. M. means an error in criticifm ; 
 as I, by a "■ facramental error" intend an error refpeBiiig the facratnent of 
 baptifm. If the latter be an exprellion " peculiarly my own ;" fo, by a 
 parity of rcafoning, the former is an expreilion " peculiarly Mr. M.'s o-wn. 
 Thus the mighty critic keeps me in countenance, by adopting the very 
 mode of " critical ei-ror" which he blames. 
 
 prefent 
 
( 150 ) 
 
 to the very fcriptures, in Joel and the ASis^ on 
 which I ground my obfervations refpe6ling the 
 vahdity of baptifm hy pouring of water. (2) It is 
 equally manifeft, that they adopt the fame mode 
 of reafoning analogically from the manner of the 
 Spirit's effufion, to the correfpondent mode of ad- 
 miniftering baptifm. And furely the teftimony 
 of two fuch great men to the propriety of fuch 
 analogical reafoning, is ofmuch greater weight, than 
 the pitiful criticlfms of Mr. iW. or of his oracle. 
 Dr. Stennett. (3) According to the fame learned 
 men, baptifm lignifies wajhing ; of which there are 
 various modes; and that a.s pouring of water is one. 
 It is confequently a fignificant mode of adminifter- 
 ing baptifm ; for it exhibits an emblematical re- 
 prefentation of the pouring-out of the Sph'i:;, and 
 of the wafhing of regeneration. (4) In oppolition 
 to the fentiment§ of Anabaptifts in general, and 
 of Dr. Stennett in particular, Chemnitiiis fays, " dip- 
 " ping under water is not necejfarily requlfite to 
 " wajliing" confequently not e£ential to the mode 
 of difpenling baptifm. For, as Dominicus Sotus 
 fays, *' In baptifm, fomething concerns the ef- 
 " fence, as wajhing; according to that in Ephef v. 
 *' where the apoftle calls baptifm the wajhing of 
 " water: but fomething is accidental; as whether 
 *' the wafhing be performed by this or the other 
 •* mode" -f- 
 
 f In haptifmo alitid eji de effentla, ttt ablatio, jnxta Uhd ad Ephef. 5, 
 vU apofiolus haptifmum appellat lavacrum aquae : miud vera accidentarium ; 
 nempe ut abhit'io hoc vel illo Mopo fiat. Dominic. Sot. DljVinc. 3. qu. un. 
 
 Art. 7. Thcfe words are qaoted by Vojfius, in confirmation of his 
 
 own fentiments, refpeifling the fignification of the word Icpt'tfm, and the 
 nodes of wafliing it implies. jy p ^,. 
 
( 151 ) 
 
 II. But let us now fee, what Mr. M. has to fay 
 In favor of immerfion, from the fuppofcd analogy 
 between the baptifm of the Spirit and kis favorite 
 mode of baptizing. *' The baptifm of the Holy 
 *' Ghofi: (by the way) does not at all favor your 
 *' notion of fprinkling j with much greater pro- 
 " priety, the difciples might be faid to be im- 
 *' merged or overwhelmed in it !" If Mr. M. in- 
 tends baptifm as the antecedent to it, I need not 
 advertife the judicious reader, that as baptifm with 
 Mr. M. always lignifies immerfion^ to fay, the dif- 
 ciples were overwhelmed or immerged in immerjion, 
 favors a little of what he is pleafed to call a " cri- 
 tical error.'' * But if the Holy Ghoft is intended as 
 the antecedent to it; furely, to fay *' the difci- 
 *' pies were immerged in the Holy Ghoji," is an 
 extremely harlh and uncouth phrafe. 
 
 But kt us fee, how he attempts to fupport his 
 analogy.—" For it filled, not only all the houfe 
 *' where they were fitting, but each of their hearts 
 *' alfo 5 they were covered without 3.nd filled with- 
 ** in. Well might they be faid to be baptized 
 " with the Holy Ghoft. But in all this, there is 
 *' not one word of what you contend for." If by 
 *' all this" Mr. IvL means, all this curious reafon- 
 ingof hisj I grant that there is '* not one word 
 in it" of rational argument, well-fupported ana- 
 logy, or folid fenfe — the things, for which at 
 
 * By a " critical error" I fuppofe Mr. M. means an error in criticifm ; 
 as I, by a " facramental error" intend an error refpcd.ing the facrament of 
 baptifm. If the latter be an exprellion " peculiarly my own ;" fo, by a 
 parity of reafoning, the former is an exprellion " peculiarly Mr. M.'s otxin. 
 Thus the mighty critic keeps me in countenance, by adopting the very 
 juode of " critical eiror" which he blames. 
 
 prefent 
 
( ^52 ) 
 
 prefent " I contend." But if by " all tliis' he 
 mean, all the circumftances attendujg the elTafioii 
 of the Spirit on the day of Pentecoft, as recorded 
 in Aois ii. I will venture to affert, that there is not 
 only " one tvord" but more than one argument^ 
 in that remarkable paffage, on which to ground 
 an allulion in favor of baptizing by pouring or 
 fprinkling of water. Of this 1 hope the reader 
 has received fome degree of fatisfa6iory proof 
 already : and I promife him a little additional 
 evidence in a few more flridures on the fubjed:. 
 Not to urge, that the baptifm of the Spirit, ac- 
 cording to the joint teflimonies of an apojtle and 
 a prophet, is mentioned in the very term poumig 
 cut; I aik by what authority, does Mr. M. ac- 
 commodate the word " covering' to the circum- 
 fl:ances of that event? May I not juftly adopt his 
 own phrafeology, and fay, " In all this" palfage, 
 ** there is not one zvord" about covering, nor any 
 appolite analogy, between filling 2.nd dipping f In 
 order to detect the fallacious abfurdity of Mr. 
 il-^.'s reafoning on this head, proceed we to a 
 fair examination. 
 
 I Mr. M. fays, the difclplcs were " covered 
 " without and filled within," and therefore that 
 *' they might with great propriety be faid, to 
 '* be immcrged or overivhelmed in the Holy Ghofi." 
 According to Mr. M.'s clumfy method of bating 
 his analogical reafoning, drawn from the effufion 
 of the Spirit, the reader v/ould be apt to fuppofc, 
 (if he had not Ills Bihk to confult,) that the dif- 
 ciples were filled within, in the fime way that 
 
 they 
 
( 153 ) 
 
 they were covered without, and vice verfa. But 
 this firange confuiion of circumftances is only 
 the refult of Mr. M.'s muddled imagination* 
 for the fcripture account is, that when the d;f- 
 ciples were alTembled together, there " came a 
 " found from heaven, as of a. rufhing mighty 
 " wind; and it filled all the houfe; where they 
 *' were fitting; and there appeared unto them 
 *' cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it fit upon 
 " each of them." From hence it appears, that 
 it was the wind, which filled the houfe; how, from 
 the entrance of a rulhing wind, the difciples 
 might be faid to be covered without, and how 
 this covering of wijid can poflibly illufirate a bap- 
 tifm by water, appears to me the moft far-fetched 
 illuftration I ever met with. But " they were 
 " filled within." With what ? Surely not with 
 the wind. And yet, from our author's confufed 
 method of blending together the words, and in 
 them, ideas, perfetlly heterogeneous, one would 
 imagine, he thought the difciples were filled with- 
 in as well as covered without with wind. But 
 what analogy can fubfift between filling within 
 and dipping? And yet, if his illaitntive ima- 
 gination did not fancy fome luch analogy ; why 
 did he conneil: the filling of the difciples' hearts 
 by the influences of the Spirit, with, what he 
 calls, the external " covering" of the wind? in. 
 order that, from this commixture of ideas, he 
 might form a far-fetched illuftration of dipping? 
 And if he argue fairly from his own analogy ; 
 then baptifm lliould be adminiftered, not only 
 
 U by 
 
( 354 ) 
 
 by an external covering, but alfo by an internal 
 filling with water ; and that the praSfice of the 
 dipper himfelf does not correfpond with this 
 branch of his analogical reafoning, I need not 
 obferve. 
 
 2 But, behold, reader, the amazing force of 
 prejudice. The circumftance, which was intend- 
 ed principally to reprefent the eifulion of the 
 Spirit, viz. The defcent and illapfe of the Holy Ghoji 
 in the appearance oi fire, Mr M. keeps wholly 
 out of fight. His reafon for fo doing is ob- 
 vious. This emblem v/ould manifeftly mihtate 
 with his favorite idea of csvering all over; and 
 he would find it difficult to evade the force of 
 the analogy between the pouring cut of water in 
 baptifm, and the pouring out of the Spirit in 
 the form of cloven tongues, which fat upon the 
 apoflles. I afk then any candid reader, ivhofe 
 pra61:Ice is beft fupported by analogical argu- 
 ment, drawn from the eifulion of the Spirit, 
 jTientioned in yf^j- ii? The Anabaptifts, in or- 
 der to give fome color of reafon for their fa- 
 vorite dipping, are driven to the neceffity of 
 confounding together the operation of the ivind, 
 which filled the houfe, where the apoftles were 
 allembled, and of the influences of the Spirit, 
 which filled their hearts. From this inappofite 
 combination of ideas they infer, what is appa- 
 rently foreign from the fimilitude, and which 
 nothing but an extravagant imagination, render- 
 ed ftill more fo by the violent impetus of bi- 
 gotry, could poifibly fuggeft. We, on the con- 
 
 trarv. 
 
( ^56 ) 
 trary, adhering to the very words of fcripture ; 
 guided by the correfpondent teftimony of a pro- 
 phet and an apo/ile; and fupported by the con- 
 fonant opinion of two great men, Voffiiis and 
 Chemnitius ; maintain, that as the baptifm of the 
 Holy Ghoft, on the day of PentecoJI^ is repre- 
 fented under the phrafe which countenances our 
 mode of baptizing; or as the apolHes were faid 
 to be baptized, by the pouring out of the Spirit j 
 therefore a baptifm of water, performed by ^o^^r- 
 ing out of the facrarnentary element, is, to every 
 purpofe of fcripture analogy, and emblematic 
 reprefentation, valid : according to thofe appoiite 
 paffages of fcripture; " I will pour water upon 
 ** him that is thirfty — I will pour my Spirit upon 
 *' thy feed — I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
 *' flelli — He hath s^i%si poured out this, which ye 
 *' now fee and hear." Ifa. xliv. 3. joel ii. 2^. 
 ^^s ii. 33. 
 
 3 And now, as an additional evidence for the 
 validity of adminiftering baptifm by pouring of 
 water ; and as a proof that the pretenders to cri- 
 ticifm, are miftaken, when they afTert that €a7r7/^ 
 always lignifies to baptize by dipping; I will lay 
 before them a palTage from an author which bids 
 defiance to the abilities of Mr. M.'s oracle, or 
 even to the prodigious critical pov/ers of his re- 
 verend and accurate corredor of the prefs. The 
 author is Orige?i, And the paffage is the follow- 
 ing. " How came you (Fharifees) to believe, 
 *' that Rlias, when he iliould come, would bap- 
 *' tize : who did not in Ahab's time, baptize the 
 U 2 wood 
 
( 156 ) 
 
 " wood on the altar, which required a wafhing, 
 " before it was burned by the Lord's appear- 
 " ing in fire? but he orders the priefts to do 
 " that. — He therefore that did not himfelf bap- 
 *' tize them, but alfigned that work (viz. of 
 ** baptizing) to others, how was he Hkely to bap- 
 ** tize, when he, according to Adalacfus prophe- 
 •* cy, ihould come ?" -f- 
 
 The text to which Origen refers, and on which 
 he founds the above expoftulation with the Pha- 
 rifees, is i Kings, xviii. ^^3. Ihe words of which 
 are, " Fill four barrels of water and pour it 
 *^ ON the burnt-Jacrifice, and on the wood." This 
 POURING ON of water, Origen calls a baptism 
 of the wood and facrifice. An evident demoii- 
 ftration this, that the controverted word does 
 not always iignify to dip-, and that, according to 
 Origen, a perfon may be faid to baptize, when 
 he only prjurs water on the fubjedi. 
 
 111. Our author, whofe reafoning is as deful- 
 tory, as his imagination is excurfive, in order to 
 invalidate, as he fuppofes, my analogical argu- 
 ment founded on the circumftances of the bap- 
 tifm of the Spirit, makes an unexpe6i:ed transition 
 from the meaning of the word ScivrJ/^oj, to that 
 of ^oiTrjoo, This fudden digreliion from the deri- 
 vative to the primitive is the more extraordinary, 
 
 ^ot. BTTi TS Bvs-iUfi^m It'Aa, z«.1« Ta; ts Ky(u.a!l ^foj/Hq, ho^ivcc 
 
 ?\e'jel»i yccp raij Upivcn Tiilo 'moirjaat, &C, o roivvv [/.■/> uvloi; 
 
 ^oafliaoti; rem ciKK ilt^oK; ra t^ya Tragap^w^vjcra;, vaq xala tx. 
 ytco TB M«Aap(^t8 hiyo^uivu. i'K\,^n^r,aa.i; /saTrlii^siv t[>.iKki ; Origen. 
 Comment, in Joann. Tom. 7. p. 116. ed. Roiom. i658. 
 
 as 
 
( '57 ) 
 
 as it is the former word only, that is ufed In the 
 paflage, we have been juft confidering. Proba- 
 bly fo fudden a leap, which is quite in the re- 
 trograde flyle too, might be occafioned by fome 
 fecret apprehenlion, that as the arguments drawn 
 from the application of the one word, failed in 
 conclufivenefs, thofe founded on the other might 
 help our author out, at a dead lift. But, he is 
 not aware that to argue promifcuoufly from So47z7<w 
 to ^oiT^i^w, is to confound together two words, 
 in the application of which, the fcriptures ob- 
 ferve a manifeft diftlnvflion : for, whatever be the 
 meaning of ^ccTfjoCf it is certain that it is never 
 once ufed, to exprefs the a61: of adminiftering 
 baptifm ; the derivative always occurs. But, if 
 ^ofTfji^oo, fignitied always to clip as the Anabap- 
 tifts aflert its primitive invariably does; would 
 not the infpircd writers have ufed the one and 
 the other indiiferently ? This they nave not done. 
 No word but the derivative ever occurs, where 
 baptifm is mentioned j and if it did not carry a 
 peculiar acceptation, why Ihould the fcriptures 
 always adopt ^octtI^lcJc} What occalion for mak- 
 ing a derivative, when according to Anabaptifls, 
 the primitive is intirely of the fame ligniiication ? 
 I But, however, as Mr. M. fancies his great- 
 efl: ftrength lies in the arguments taken from the 
 lignihcation of the primitive, it is fit I Ihould 
 let him have full fcope. The palTage he has cho- 
 fen for that purpofe is Dan. iv. 33 j where the 
 prophet fays, " Nebuchadnezzar was wet s^a'p.] 
 '' with the dew of heaven," On this Mr. M 
 
 obferves, 
 
( 158 ) 
 
 obferves, " the Greek word is the original of 
 " &uvilt(^J' And what then? Why, nothing. He 
 has drawn no inference from his premiires. But 
 his meaning is, that, as the primitive is ufed to 
 exprefs a ^vetting, fo muft the derivative ; and lb 
 far we have no obje6^ion to his conclufion. Nor 
 can we have lefs to the conceiFion, which follows. 
 *' Now we all admit that the dew did fall down 
 " from heaven upon him." And in admitting 
 this, you grant all we want, and manifeftly give 
 up the point. For if Nebuchadnezzar was wet or 
 baptized by the dew failiiig doivn upon him, (I 
 fay baptized; for you know you con^antly affert 
 that ^oiTfjoo and ^y/ir'iillc are the fame) then, a per- 
 fon may receive a valid baptifm by the facramen- 
 tal water falling doivn upon himj and if this il- 
 luftration does not, from the concellions of our 
 dipper's own pen, juftify our mode of baptifm 
 by pouring, wherein the water falls down upon the 
 fubjeifi J neither conceffions nor illuftrations have 
 any meaning. So that, reader, I leav^e you to 
 conlider, whether or not Mr. M.'s acknowledg- 
 ment here, does not corroborate all my preced- 
 ing obfervations on this part of the fuBjetfi:, and 
 overturn his own favorite hypotheiis. 
 
 2 But, after admitting, what indeed he could 
 not but admit, he foon flies off, and attempts an 
 interpretation, favorable, as he fuppofes, to his 
 idea of immerfion. " But this was not intended 
 " to be intimated by the aforefaid Greek word." 
 What! Was not the wetting of Nebuchadnezzar's 
 body by the dew falling doivn upon it, ** intended 
 
 " to 
 
c 159 ) 
 
 ** to be intimated" by the Greek word sSoj^^j? 
 Will Mr. M. be fo kind to inform us wiiat was 
 *' intended to be intimated by ii?" He fays; 
 *' the idea of his being ovcrwkeimcd in the dew." 
 But the feptuagint verlion dire6lly militates againft 
 this idea ; for, it renders the words ociro ryjg ^(^00-^, 
 from or by the dew. ' Had the exprelnon been 
 iig rr,v ^^ccrcv, or iv r/j }iooo-oc, it might have in fome 
 meafure countenanced Mr. M.'s idea of over- 
 whelming : but to fay, that Nebuchadnezzar was 
 dipt (ZTTo from the dew, founds extremely harlTi. 
 Beiides all the Latin verlions, coinciding with the 
 Septuagint, are againft Mr. M.'s favorite idea. 
 The Latin vulgate renders it, rore cceli corpus ejus 
 infedum erat; his body was dyedorjiainedwith the 
 dew of heaven. Th.it. of Iremeilius and JuniuSy 
 Ro7'e cxU, corpus ejus iniinSium ejl ; and Montanus's 
 interlineary veriion, de rore ccelorum corpus ejus tin- 
 gebatur ; his body was ti'iged or wet with the dew. 
 From thefe unanimous interpretations of tranf- 
 lators, the reader is to judge, whether they in 
 the leaft correfpond with the idea of overwhelm.ng ; 
 efpecially when he remembers that not one of 
 them here renders the word ^c/^tFI'm by immergo, 
 and that the emphatic prepofition in ihQ feptua- 
 gint, on which the Latin verlions are founded, is, 
 not Itg or Ivy but aTro. Were this the proper place, 
 1 might prove from various inftances, exclulive 
 of the argument taken from the natural meaning 
 of the prepofition a-nro, that even the primitive 
 ^oiTrjoo does not always fignify to dip, and even 
 when it does, that it cannot imply a total immer- 
 
 fion. 
 
C i6o ) 
 
 iion. One inftance however, I cannot omit. In 
 the command given by Mofes, refpefl:ing the 
 paflbver he fays, " Ye Ihali take a bnnch of hyf^ 
 fop and dip it /?/ the blood, &c. but the feptua- 
 gint Greek is, ^w^a-vjig utto vd aiyMJ'^, dying or 
 fmearing'a ivltk the blood. Exod. xi'i. 22. The Laii?i 
 vulgate accordingly renders it, not immergite in 
 fanguinem^ imraerfe it in the blood, but tingite. 
 Janguine, dye it with the blood. In this paffagc, as 
 in that refpeding Nebuchadnezzar s wetting from 
 the dew, we meet with the fame primitive word 
 i^uTfjoo, and the fame prepofitlon c/.ttc. If the fig- 
 nificatlon in the one Inftance cannot imply a total 
 immerfion, or any immerlion at all ; why may we 
 not fairly infer a negative, in the other? Even 
 fuppofing the bunch of hylTop was dipt, yet it 
 could not be dipt all over in the blood : * to fup- 
 pofe that, would be ridiculous ; confidering that 
 one end of it was to be in the hand that ufed it. 
 And, as the prepolition cctto never, that I recoil 
 le6i, ligniiies in-, to tranflate f^cc\l'avjcg cctto t^ aijxoc. 
 T®-", *' overwhelming in the blood," would incur 
 an abfurd interpretation founded on a double mif- 
 take : and yet, that this fhould be the interpreta- 
 tion according to Mr. M.'s overivhelming ideas, is 
 manifeft. 
 
 3 But he is ready with an objc(51:ion to all this. 
 He fays " this idea is explained by Nebuchadnez- 
 
 * Even Dr. Gale ftren^thens tin's obfervation, by a remarkable con- 
 cefiion, which he drops in p. 146, of his reflexions on Jf'dU's hiflory of 
 infant-baptifm — a conccffion, which indeed he was obliged to make ; 
 and which I beg the reader never to lofe fight of. " The word is 
 €«4'-*i 3"'' pl^i"b' f'g'"'i^^s ^^ '''?•>■ though it was not dipped all over." 
 
 *' zar 
 
** zdr being fpoken of, as to have ! his lodging in 
 *' the dew." p. i8. That is, reader, our author, 
 if he knew how to cloathe his ideas in logical ar- 
 gument and in the plain drefs of common gram- 
 mar, would fay, * it is recorded, that N, had his 
 lodging in the dew: therefore he v/as overwhelmed 
 in it.' And, what is quite extraordinary, he rea- 
 fons by analogical inference from the ftate of N.'s 
 body to the baptifm of the Spirit j faying, "So 
 " in this baptifm of the H. G. it was not intended 
 *' to intimate, by this word, the Spirit's falling 
 " upon thefe converts, but that they were filled, 
 *' and as tho' ! covered and overwhelmed with the 
 •* Spirit." Now, if there be any argument, il- 
 luftration or analogy in this almoft unintelligible 
 jargon, the following feems to be our author'5 
 meaning, q. d. Nebuchadnezzar was overwhelmed 
 by the dew falling down upon him : fo the apoftles 
 were filled and as tho' covered and overivhelmed 
 with the Spirit falling on them. Here our author 
 has fhot a bolt, which it would be to his advan- 
 tage, if practicable, to recal. If the apoftles were 
 *' covered and overwhelmed with the Spirit" when 
 it was poured out and refted on only 2. part of 
 the body in the form of cloven tongues of fire, 
 (for, thefe conftituted the appofite emblem of 
 the Spirit's effufion and influence on the day 
 of Pe?itcco/i i) then, according to our candid ana- 
 logift, a perfon may be faid to be overwhelmed 
 in baptifm, when the water is only poured on a 
 part of the body. Nor will the circumftance of 
 their being filed zvithin, invalidate, in the leafl, 
 
 X this 
 
( l62 ) 
 
 this conclulion; unlefs Mr. M will afTert, that 
 perfons cannot be as completely filled with the 
 influences of the Spirit in their hearts, who have« 
 been partakers of only an effufion of the baptifmal 
 water, as thofe who are immerged all over in it. 
 And, if he reafon indifferently, as he has done,. 
 from the baptifm of the Spirit to the wetting of 
 N/s body by the dew ; then it as naturally fol- 
 lows, that in the latter cafe there was a partial 
 wetting, as in the former, there was a partial effu- 
 fion. And yet, in order to preferve a f^ri^f re- 
 femblance between the one and the other, found- 
 ed, as Mr. M. afferts, on the invariable fignification' 
 of ^(/.Tfjoo and l^oivfji^ooy Nebuchadnezzar ought tO' 
 have been filled within, as well as covered without 
 by the dew ; otherwife he could not be faid, with 
 fl:ri6l: propriety, to be overwhelmed, according to 
 the amazing profundity of Mr. M.'s overwhelm- 
 ing imagination. — -See then, with what inextrica- 
 ble abfurdity, glaring felf-contradic^ion, and even 
 palpable nonfenfe, his reafoning is embarraflcd. 
 
 4 But Mr. M. is of opinion, that he is fur- 
 nifhed wi:h a formidable argument, in favor of 
 immerfion, becaufe it is faid, that N. fliould. 
 have his lodging uvXia-^-i^o-srca in the dew. And if 
 I were difpofed to argue in the lame filly ftyle, 
 I might infer, that, as our Lord is faid to have 
 *' lodged IN the mountain," yjvKiQro ag to o^(^, 
 Luke XXI. 37, therefcfre he muft have been over- 
 whelmed or covered with the mountain. — O but 
 the " Chakhe word ahvays fignifies to be over- 
 " whelmed." I deny the affertionj and, as Mr. M. 
 
 has 
 
( i63 ) 
 
 has offered no proof, my limple negative might, 
 according to the laws of difputation, be allowed 
 as a fufficient anfwer. Neverthelefs, I will attempt 
 to prove the negative j viz. that the Ckaldee word 
 does not always Hgnify to be overwhelmed. Dr. 
 Stennett fays, the word in the Hebrew^ by which 
 the Jerufakm 'Targum renders the Chaldee, is tcbel. 
 If then an inftance can be produced, where the 
 Hebrew does not lignify overwhelming, Mr. M.'s 
 argument necelfarily fills to the ground. A re- 
 markable inftance occurs. Gen, xxxvii. 31, where 
 yofeph's brethren are faid to have '•' dipped his 
 coat in the blood" of the kid. The Hebrew word 
 there is formed from tebel, which is the very 
 Y/ord that according to Dr. 6". agrees with that in 
 Dan. iv. 33. Yet the Septuagint does not render 
 it i^a.-'ljo'.v but ''iiMoXvvMV Tov y^nocvoc too uijxcij!, inquind- 
 runt, they Jlained or hejmeared the garment, &c. 
 Belides, indeed, reafon concurs in eftabhlhing this 
 tranflation; for, furely, it is not to be fuppofed, 
 that Jofeph's brethren would immerge or overwhelm 
 his garment in the blood; iince that very circum- 
 ftance would manifeftly tend to dete6l their crime, 
 and to make their ftory about yofeph's being de- 
 flroyed by a wild bead, to wear the appearance 
 not only of improbabihty, but of palpable falf- 
 hood. The moft natural fuppofition, is, that they 
 Ji-ained fome parts of the garment with the blood, 
 fo as to prevent fufpicion; and that this could be 
 done without any immerlion at all, is as certain, 
 ^s, that the garment was not overwhelmed in, or ^- 
 ?oered over with blood, (i) That the controverted 
 X 2 word 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 word does not always Hgnify either to dip or to 
 overwhelm, is evident, from the Hgnification of the 
 root itfelf, and foine of its branches. J/I^V is the 
 Hebrew for a Hyana; and is a participle from 
 yyi; which participle, Uroramius, in his Greek 
 Concordance, under the word ^Toclv/j, (Vol. ii. 
 P. 567,) renders " coloratus-J' and that he did 
 not mean an univerfal coloring occalioned by a 
 total dipping, or indeed by any dipping at all, in 
 the prefent application of the Wcrd, is evident; 
 becaufe he immediately quotes the Dutch tranfia- 
 tors, faying, '* Belg. befprincklet." i, e. eesprin- 
 KLED. So that, according to Trommius, the word 
 implies a coloring, performed by fpr inkling ; and 
 from this idea, is applied to Jpotted animals. So 
 Schindler, by a periphralis, makes it the name of 
 an Owl. Feriphrafis noSiua, qua rubi'is maculis 
 dijiindla eft. * And Leigh fays, '' it is rightly 
 *' explained by Hieronymus^ as lignifying dyed, 
 " tinged or difcolored; and by Kimc hi us, that which 
 *' is of various colors." 'f The word is therefore ap- 
 plicable to any thing that is dyed, even where there 
 is no dipping at all; as fuppofe, in the manner 
 of coloring printed linen-, or to any living Jpotted by 
 nature, as in the cafe of fome animals. And, whe- 
 ther this interpretation, authenticated by Trom- 
 mius, the Dutch Tranjlators, Leigh, Schindler, Hiero- 
 nymus and Kimchius, does not overturn the over- 
 
 * And it is very remarkable, that our Tranflators call the Greek 
 iainj?, which is the Septuagint word for the Hebrew, in Jcr. xii. 9. a 
 fPECLED bird, 
 
 f ReBe igitur ab HieronjTTio exponitur, tindlum vel difcolor : eodemque 
 ',mdo a Kymchio, (^iiod variorum tji colorum. Critica Sacra. 
 
 whelming 
 
{ 1^5 ) 
 
 whelmiJig ^^cn'ions of Mr. M. for which he is in- 
 debted to Dr. 5". and his oracle to Dr. Gale, I leave 
 the critical reader to judge. (2) Becaufe the 
 noun ynifi^ lignifies a finger, it is therefore ap- 
 plied to birds or prey, who as Leigk fays, ars 
 uncis unguibus dig it at i : Junius and TrcmcUius 
 accordingly traniiate the feptuagint Greek 'vonr/i^ 
 digitatum avem, in Jer, xil. 9 ; and our EngliJJt 
 translation, abiding by the Hebrew, renders it 
 fpeckled. The only diihcuky here, is to afcertain 
 the analogy or corrcfpondence between the He- 
 breiv root, and its branch; and between both, and 
 the Greek, Latin and Eiiglijh tranilations. The 
 moft natur^il interpretation feems to be this. — 
 The Hebrew word iignlfies d. finger or talon : and 
 becaufe animals armed with talons, or as Leigk 
 fays, U7icis unguibus digitata, fiain themfelves 
 with the blood of their prey, therefore tlTe>Jtprd is 
 defcriptive of carnivorous animals, * /petted either 
 by nature or by accident. Hence the fame judi- 
 cious lexicographer gives us the following appo- 
 lite criticifm ; Reule fortciffis reddatur rubefaila, 
 fcilicet, feu /anguine in/ecjia vel cruentata, feu cruenta 
 ^ carnivora animalia. And the judicious Fccle 
 fays, in his Annotations, *' The word in the heb, 
 fignifics to dye or color-, and interpreters are here 
 divided, whether to interpret it of a bird colored 
 by nature (fo our tramlators underftood it, and 
 therefore have tranflatcd li /peckled) or by accident, 
 as ravenous birds," (or be.^I^s) '*are colored by the 
 
 * Digitata, hoc ejl rapax, tinds vi^uihus in fritdam tnvdaiu. Euxtorf. 
 Fuller. Milcd. Sac. 
 
 blood 
 
( i66 ) 
 
 l:)lood of other birds killed by them."j: It feems 
 to me, however, that, if we are to argue natu- 
 rally from the root to the branch, or from 
 the caufe to the efFe(5l; becaufe birds or beafts 
 unci- unguibus digitata, -color themfelves with the 
 blood of their prey, therefore the Hebrew word 
 is transferred to any animals fpeckled by nature as 
 \wc\\ ^s fpotted ihrough. accident. And, if we apply 
 thcfe correfpondent criticlfms to the point in de- 
 batej is it not evident that, fmce the Hebrew word 
 is ufed for a thing fpotted or fpeckled, whether by 
 nature or accide7it, therefore it cannot poffibly be 
 confined to the idea oi dipping f and much lefs to 
 that of overwhelming F unlefs the Anabaptifts will 
 infifl: that iramerfion is effential to the fpotting or 
 fpeckling of any thing, or that it cannot be colored 
 without being dipt ? which furely they will not be 
 fo abfurd as to maintain, in the face of ftubborn 
 matter of fa61-. So that the critical reader may 
 judge, when Dr. 5. from Gale, and Mr. ilf. from 
 his oracle, triumphantly declare, that the Chaldee 
 word in Daniel always iignifies to dip or over- 
 whelm, whether their triumph is not that of an 
 unfupported ipfe dixit, rather than of truth and 
 folid criticifm. And the reader, is to judge, 
 whether he will be more fafe in taking up a fenti- 
 ment upon truft, becaufe politive men advance 
 it? or in adhering to the teftimony of fuch critics 
 and lexicographers, as I'rommius and Leigh F whofe 
 concurrent criticifms are founded on the analogy 
 of fcripture ? 
 
 t See Pook's Annotations on Jcr. xii. 0. 
 
 (3) That 
 
( i67 ) 
 
 (3) That the Hebrew word In Daniel cannot al- 
 ways iignify dipping is evident from the Latin 
 words, by which lexicographers tranllate It. Leigh 
 in his Critica Sacra, tranllates it by the v/ords 
 madefacio, colore i7ificio, coloro; to wei, /iain, color. 
 And whether a thing cannot be zvet, /iained or co- 
 lored, without dipping, I need not Inform the 
 reader. Trommius and Scapula and all the critics 
 in the world, tranflate It by tingo, as well as mergo; 
 and always fuppofe a difference between thele 
 two Lati?i words; to the former of which, Lyttkton 
 in his Latin Di6lionary, belide other fignifications, 
 gives that of *' fprinklirig." But of this, I pro- 
 pofe giving farther proof In another place. la 
 the mean time, the reader is to judge, how much 
 Mr. M, has got by his boafted i/iavang; a word 
 which he has borrowed, and fo fpoiled in borrow- 
 ing as to make nonfenfe of It. The next time he 
 publillies, I would advife him, to get Dr. S. In- 
 fiead of his critical aid-de-camp at IVrexham, to 
 corre6l the prefs for him. 
 
 5 As Mr. M. feems to have borrowed the prin- 
 cipal parts of his arguments and critlcifms on the 
 palTage in Dan. from Dr. 5". the abfurdity and 
 miftak.es which he has retailed, necelTarlly origi- 
 nate from his oracle. Confequently the argu- 
 ments, wherewith I have overthrown the critiques 
 of the former, equally Invalidate the force of the 
 following afTertlon from the latter. " Admitting 
 " that there Is a difficulty In this pailage (pi Dan.) 
 " It is to be obferved, that the word {^a.7fj^) in 
 ** moji other places, where the Septuagint ufe it, 
 
 " fa 
 
( i6i? ) 
 
 *' fo neceflarlly fignifies dipping, that It is impof^ 
 " Jit'le for our author or any one elfe, to give 
 " it a different meaning."* 1 am glad the Do61or 
 acknowledges there is Ibme " difficulty" in the 
 palTage he alludes toj and I hope when he more 
 maturely reviev/s the arguments of his opponents, 
 he will find there lies in the way of his ftrained 
 interpretation a greater difficulty ftill. When he 
 fays, that the word ^(xttIm fignifies dpping in " moji 
 ** other places" of the Septuagint; he compara- 
 tively fays nothing: becaufe, unlefs he can prove, 
 that it has that fignification in all other places, he 
 does not prove his point ; for, a Jingle inftance, 
 v/herein it fignifies a wetting by effiifion or ajper^ 
 fion of water, or even a partial immerfion, over- 
 turns all his arguments ; fince the Do6lor, and 
 every advocate for total immerfion, as the ejfence 
 of the mode, are obliged, if they would not incur 
 the charge of inconfiftency, to maintain that both 
 QoiTriM and ^octtJi^oo fignlfy to dip — that they always 
 have that fignification — and both the one and the 
 other always fignify to dip by a total immerfion. 
 
 6 However, if the tefiimony of other critics 
 and divines may be fuppofed of equal weight with 
 that of Dr. 5. or his borro\\ er in Liverpool, I beg 
 leave to lay before the reader the concurrent opi- 
 nion of two perfons^ who manifeftly differ from 
 the two Anabaptiils. The firfi: of thefe two great 
 men, is, the learned Dr. Focock. Refpeding the 
 fignification of the Hebrew tcbel, he fays, after ac- 
 knowledging it fignifies to dip, yet adds, *' it 
 
 ' Remarks : P. 44. 
 
 '•' does 
 
( i69 ) 
 
 •* does not necejjarily point out a dipping of the 
 •* whole body." The other is Schindler^ who ren- 
 ders the Hebrew word iinxit, intinxity and further 
 adds, '* Ita]lavltt ut res non mundetur, fed tantum 
 ATTiNGAT humorenty vel t»td, vel ex parte." 
 
 III. From the foregoing obfervations, I hope, 
 it has been made appear, how fallacious and incon- 
 clufive is Mr. M.*s reafoning about the neceflity 
 of prefer ving the idea of covering or overwhelming 
 all over, in order to keep up a proper analogy 
 between the pouring out of the Spirit on the 
 apoftles, and that of the dew on Nebuchadnezzar, 
 And here I cannot help expreffing my aftonilh- 
 mcnt, that Mr. M or Dr. 5". or any other Anabap- 
 tift Ihould fo ftrenuoufly contend for a total im- 
 merlion in baptifm, lince they themfelves are 
 reduced to the inevitable neceflity of acknowledg- 
 ing, with Dr. Gale, " that the word (baptize) 
 " does not always necejfarily imply a total immer- 
 " lion, or dipping the whole thing fpoken of all 
 " overj which (adds the Dod^or) I readily allow. 
 " For, what is true of any otiE part, may be f aid 
 " of the WHOLE complexly*** But the Dodor 
 drops another ftill more remarkable conceffion, 
 in p. 117, of his Anfwer to fVall. " The word 
 " ^aTTJi^cA), does not fo neccflarily exprefs the 
 '* a^ion of putting under waterj as in general, a 
 ** thing's being in that condition, no matter how 
 '* it comes foj whether it is put into the water or 
 •* the water comes over it." Whether this gen- 
 tleman has not by thcfe unfortunate declarations 
 
 * See GaU't Reflexions on ^aZ/'s Hiftory, page i 39. 
 
 Y given 
 
( 170 ) 
 
 given up the whole matter at once ; betrayed the- 
 caiife of Anabaptlfni ; and rendered a great part 
 of his voluminous Anfwer to Mr. IFall nugatory 
 and fuperfluous, I leave the reader to judge. 
 And that our mode of adminiftering baptifm by 
 pouring or Jprinkling of water, is flri6ily juftifiable, 
 even our opponents themfelves being judges, I 
 hope to make evident, in a few obfervations on 
 the above 
 
 MEMORABLE CONCESSIONS, 
 Of Dr. Gale, the Anabaptift. 
 
 - I. As to the meaning of the Greek word ^utFJi^C'J^ 
 the Doficr confeffes, that, " it does not fo necel- 
 '* farily exprefs the allien of putting under water, 
 *? as in general, a thing's being in that condition^' 
 and he exemplifies this declaration, by the ftate 
 of a fea-coafi:,. which, according to AriJIotk, was 
 not baptized, at low water j fo that as the coaft 
 was not put into the water,, but the water came in 
 upon the coaft, it is on this circumftance, that he 
 founds his ingenious conceffion. If then, accord- 
 ing to ihe Dodor, 6i);7r7/(w does not exprefs the 
 aolion o{ putting under water, it certainly is appli- 
 caple to the lituation of a perfon, upon whom 
 water is poured; and fuch a perfon may be faid 
 to he .baptized : 
 
 . 11. If it be urged, that dipping, not pouring or 
 Jprinkling, is necelTary to baptifm ; 1 anfwer, that 
 cannot be, according to Dr. Gale: for, he de- 
 clares, that " a thing" may be baptized, if it be 
 7indcr water, " no matter how it comes so." 
 
 And 
 
( J?! ) 
 
 And furely, a perfon may be under water, when 
 It falls upon- him in the diftillations of the rairiror 
 dtw ; as in the cafe of Nebuchadnezzar, So that, 
 as it. is •' no matter how" the water comes over 
 him; confequently, if the perfon to be baptized, is 
 under the droppings of the baptifmal water, ad- 
 rainiftered either by effufion or afperfion,. his bap- 
 tifm is valid. 
 
 III. But it v/ill be infifted, that, admitting the 
 "IndifFerence of the mode, by which a perfon may 
 be faid to be under water, yet that, there Ihould 
 be a fufficiency of the element to cover him all 
 over. But this requilition is iriconliiient wi^li 
 Dr. G.'s conceffions : for, even when he is fo felf- 
 contradi(?lory, as to inlitf on dipping, as ejftntial 
 to the due adminiftration of the ordinance, yet 
 he allows that a total immerlion is not neceflary ; 
 and, as his own conceffions juftify the baptifm 
 of an individual, when he is not put under water, 
 but when the vv^ater comes over him, *' no matter 
 how-," therefore, if an immerglng only 3. part may, 
 according to the Dodor, be called a valid bap- 
 tifm of the whole perfon; fo may, by a parity of 
 reafoning, a pouring or fprinkling of water on a 
 ^art, be termed a baptifm of the whole man ; ac- 
 cording to a favorite maxim of the Do6lor, " M'^hat 
 " is true of any one part, may be faid of the 
 " WHOLE complexly." 
 
 IV. What becomes then of all the arguments 
 of Anabaptlfts, in favor of total immerfion. Are 
 they not all rendered futile and nugatory ? Yea, 
 are they not perfectly annihilated by the fol- 
 lowing never-to-be-forgotten concefTion of their 
 
 y 2 champion 
 
( »72 ) 
 
 champion Dr. Gale, which crowns the whole? 
 " 1 readily allow, that the word (baptize) does 
 ** not necejfarily imply a total immerfion." Yea, 
 he fo far juftifies the validity of a partial im- 
 merfion, as to declare the thing or perfon dip- 
 ped, when only a part of either is immerfed. 
 This conceffion he illuftrates by the example of 
 the hyjfop mentioned Exod, xii. 22, and that of 
 a pen. Refpeding the former, he acknowledges, 
 that the hyjfop itjelf might be faid to be dipt, 
 •* though not dipt all over.*' And as to the ftate 
 of a pen dipt he fays, •* Though the whole pen 
 ** is not dipt all over-, yet the pen may be 
 ** TRULY SAID TO BE DIPT according to that 
 ** known rule: What is true of any one part, may 
 ** be faid of the whole complexly." 
 
 V. When Dr. G. fays, p. 168. " U the word 
 " does but fignify to dip, let it relate to the 
 ** whole body, or a part of it only, I ask no 
 " MOREi" does he not aik much lefs than will 
 fuit the caufe of Anabaptifm, or give the leaft 
 color of rational argument to the whole of his 
 tedious animadverfions on JVallf And what has 
 the verbofe refle^er been contending for? that 
 ^oiTTJoo and ^ocTfji^co fignify to dipP Alas! he might 
 have fpared all his unmeaning verbofity ; for that 
 his antagonift never denied. Had his proofs been 
 at all to the purpofe, they fhould have demon- 
 firated, that the Greek words are perfe(5tly the 
 fame, ii^d always fignify to dip ; or that their fig- 
 nification will admit of no other valid mode of 
 applying the baptifmal water, but by immerfion. 
 
 Has 
 
( '73 ) 
 
 Has he proved this? No ; his own conceflions 11- 
 luftrated by the ftate of Nebuchadnezzar's body, as 
 well as that of the fea-coaft in Ariftotley are plump 
 againft him; and particularly his appolite maxim, 
 that a perfon or thing is baptized, if it be under 
 the water, " no matter how it comes fo-, whether it 
 ** be put into the water, or whether the water 
 ** comes over it." — Has he proved that a total im- 
 merlion is ejfential to the mode of baptifm? No; 
 that he has abfolutely given up. By acknow- 
 ledging, vv hen a part only of the hyjfop was dipt 
 in the blood, and the nib of the pen only is dipt 
 in the ink, that both the hyjfop and pen might 
 neverthelefs, be faid to have been dipt, he ma- 
 nifeftly allows a partial dipping in baptifm. For, 
 if his maxim, " IVhat is true of any one part, is 
 ** true of the whole complexly," be applicable to 
 the cafe of the hyjfop and pen ; it is confequently 
 of force in refpe6l to baptifm; and fo indeed the 
 " deeply-learned Do«5lor" as the twin -difput ant 
 ftyles him, acknowledges ; " Let the word relate 
 " to the whole body or a part of it, I ojk no more." 
 And we " afk no more" to prove, that the can- 
 did Do6lor feems to have not fufficiently weighed 
 the confequence of his own declarations. — We 
 " afk no more" to prove, that his conceflions 
 fully juflify the modes of baptizing by pouring, 
 fprinkling ; and that the dipping any part of the 
 body is as valid a baptifm, even in the Dodor's 
 own eftimation, as an immerlion of the whole. — 
 We " afk no more" to prove, that the " deeply- 
 learned" Dod^or has amafled together a prodi- 
 gious 
 
( 174 ) 
 
 gious cargo of quotations from authors facred 
 and profane, to nopurpofe; iince ten.thoufand 
 inftances, wherein ^^o^jfjiCoo fignifies to dip^ are of 
 no fervice to the caufe ; unlefs they excluded 
 €very other lignification, and proved that it inva- 
 riably fignified to dip all over. — And " we afk 
 no more" to prove, that, when the Anabaptifts 
 of the day, always and in every cafe, practife a 
 total dipping; they aft with that unrelaxlng ftiif- 
 nefs, which is a peculiar chara6i:eri{lic of down- 
 right bigotry J and, that when fo trivial a cir- 
 cumflance, as a non-agreement with them re- 
 fpe(51ing the quantity of water or the ?}iode of appli- 
 cation, will induce them to ftand aloof from *their 
 brethren J they too manifeftly clafs with thofe 
 who make the kingdom of God to coniift as 
 much in meat and drink, as in righteoi/.fnefsy peace, 
 and joy in the Holy Ghoft ; and are real objects of 
 pity, if conlidered as under the unhappy influ- 
 ence of that bigotry, which prompts them to 
 contend for what is abfolutely indefenfible even 
 upon the declarations of the literary Goliah of 
 their caufe. 
 
 C HAP. 
 
( ^IB ) 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Baptismal ASPERSION an emblematical reprefen-- 
 tation of our jujiification by the blood, and of our 
 fanciification by the Spirit 0/ Christ. — The objec- 
 tions of Mr. M. and his oracle on this head, con- 
 fronted ivith fcripture, reafon, . and the firiking, 
 
 • tejiimonies of Calvin, Beza, Tilenus, Voffius, 
 Lightfoot, ^c. — Dr. S.'s criticijm on the liocpo^oig 
 ^oivfjia-^cig divers baptifrns, menti07ied in Heb, ix. 
 ^o ; as well as his wondtrful doSlrine of genus and 
 ipecies, by ivhich it is fupported, proved to be 
 equally fallaeions and abfurd. 
 
 AS we argue analogically from the pouring 
 out of the Spirit to the correfpondent mode 
 of baptizing by pouring of water ; fo we think 
 that the fame kind of reafoning is of force, m 
 order to warrant the adminiftering of the ordi- 
 nance by fprinkling. As our fandification by 
 the Spirit, and our juftlfication by the blood of 
 Christ, are frequently mentioned under that 
 term ; and as both are emblematically reprefent- 
 ed in baptlfmj we therefore maintain, that the 
 ordinance, founded on this natural analogy is 
 duly adminiftered by afper/ion. Mr. M. there- 
 fore, when in his ufual cavalier ftyle he afks, 
 p. 18, " What becomes of your fprinklirig many 
 " nations, fprinkUyig clean water, and pouri?ig out 
 " of the Spirit, which are all figurative .?" inftead 
 of invalidating, in the leaft, thofe arguments, 
 
 whicli. 
 
( 176 ) 
 
 which I laid before him on a former occafion; 
 rather fuggefts a hint, which corroborates mine, 
 and enervates the force of his own reafoning: 
 for, when he acknowledges the above expreflions 
 are ^* figurative,'* he manifeftly grants they con- 
 tain a ^^«r^ of fomething ; which, I fuppofe, he 
 will acknowledge to be that of a linner's juftifi- 
 cation by the fprinkling of the Redeemer's blood ; 
 and of his renewal, by the fprinkling of his Spirit, 
 under the emblem of clean water. If then, the 
 fprinkling of blood, the fprinkling of water, and the 
 pouring out of fire, are lignificantly *' figurative" 
 of our juftification and fan6^Ification ; why may 
 not the fprinkling or pouring out of water, be a 
 proper figure of thefe two bleilings, in the admi- 
 niftration of baptifm ? and confequently, why 
 may not the ordinance, repiefenting fuch ^ figure, 
 be properly difpenfed in either mode ? Had the 
 fcriptures, alluded to, been couched in the fol- 
 lowing terms, " He lliall dip many nations — I 
 ** will wafk you in clean water, — the baptifm of 
 " the blood of Christ, &c. how readily would 
 ** our adverfaries have urged their ftrong allulion 
 " to dipping! But, becaufe the terms manifeftly 
 countenance the contrary mode ; therefore their 
 allulive analogy in f?iV or of fprinkling, &c. is quite 
 inadmilfible; and, any attempt to argue analogi- 
 cally from the fprinkling of the blood of Christ 
 to the validity of baptizing by a correfpondent 
 afperfion of water, only furnilhes them with a 
 frelb opportunity of difcovcring their (what Dr. 
 5. calls) •* bitter antipathy* to allufions and ana- 
 logy ; 
 
■ ( '77 ) 
 
 logy J for the ufe of which, at other convenient 
 feafons they manifefl the moft partial veneration. 
 Belides, if, becaufe exprelnons are ''figurative^'' 
 they therefore " give no direofion for water- bap- 
 tifm," as Mr. Tlf.'s ckimfy diilion aiTerts ; what 
 then will become of all the mighty arguments 
 he deduces from the expreffion, '* Ye are buried 
 with him by baptifm into death r" Whether, 
 therefore, our author's reafoning, here, favors 
 more oi real or figurative nonjenfe, I leave to the 
 judgment of the difcerning reader. 
 
 As Mr. M. has fimply hinted an objeclion or 
 two againft my allufive reafoning, without con- 
 lidering one of the argujJients, by which it is fup- 
 ported ; I lliall therefore take my leave of him 
 for a moment, and face his oracle. Proceed we 
 then to coniider the ground of the Do61:or's cavils 
 againft what we think the analogy between our 
 mode of baptifm by afperfion, and 
 
 I. The fprinkling of the blood of Christ. 
 Againft this he fays, " This mode of adminif- 
 " tering the ordinance as an emblematical repre- 
 *' fentation of our juftification hath no foundation 
 *' in the word of God."* In this afftrtion, 
 equally bold as falfe, the Do6lor denies two things; 
 firfl, that the baptifmal wallilng is an emblem of 
 our juftification through the blood of Christ; 
 fecondly; and confequently, that the mode of ad- 
 miniftering baptifm, founded on the luppofed 
 analogy, is unfcriptural. From one of Dr. S.'s 
 profefled veneration for fcripture and logic, one 
 
 * Remarks, P. 120. 
 
 Z would 
 
^ 
 
 ( 178 ) 
 
 would not have expe<51ed fo rafh a declaration 9: 
 at leaft, we might have cxpeded it couched in> 
 more diffident and modeft language. But, what 
 are the arguments^ on which he grounds his ne- 
 gative ? (i) He fays, " ckanfing is much better 
 '* effeif^ed by dipping than fprinkling." But, as 
 the quel^lon, is not, whether *' ckanfing is much 
 '* better effeded by dipping than fprinkling," buc 
 whether it is effeded at all by the latter; in order 
 to give conclulivenefs and confiftency to his af- 
 fertion, he fhould have roundly declared, that 
 " cleanhng is never effe61ed by fprinkling, but 
 " always by dipping;" and then, tho* he would 
 have uttered a glaring miftake, he would never- 
 thelefs have kept pace with the principle he is. 
 obliged, as an advocate for the elTentiality of dip- 
 ping, to maintain. His qualifying phrafe, " muck 
 hettery" therefore, gives up the point, and proves 
 his inconliflency. But when the Do<5ior iniinu- 
 ates, that, becaufe the body is much better walhed' 
 by dipping than fprinkling of water, therefore 
 baptifm is much better adminiftered by immerfion- 
 than afperfion; does he not implicitly grant, that 
 baptizing by the latter mode is a good one? only, 
 that the former Is much- better? And does not his 
 own declaration juftify, in fome degree, the pro- 
 priety of a baptifm by fprinkling f When he 
 founds an argument, againft baptifmal ajperfion^ 
 on the quantity and particular mode of applying 
 water, requifite to walhing the body-, is he not 
 aware, that, by demanding fuch exail: corref- 
 pondencc between the ftgn and thing fignifiedy he 
 
 furnifhes 
 
c 179 ) 
 
 ^furnillics us with an argument, not only againfi: 
 immerfion, but even againft every other mode 
 ,of baptizing whatever. For, if dipping be a muck 
 better way of cleanjing, than fprinkhng; then a 
 walhing with foap, and in a large river, is a muck 
 better mode of cleanfing the body, than either; 
 and according to our author's dodrine of re- 
 ftridlive analogy, ought to be pra(?lifed, in bap- 
 tifm. And, as the Dodor acknowledges, (p. 122) 
 *' that the wovdfprinkling is ufed to exprefs clean- 
 *' J^^E>" ^^ '^ ^he cafe of the leper under the law ; 
 yet, to be conliftent, he ihould have maintained, 
 that the cleanjing of the leper would have been 
 " much better' elfeded by his being dipt all over 
 in the typical blood, than by being only fprinkled 
 with it. See! in what abfard trifling this mode 
 ■of reafoning terminates ! But, that the Do61or 
 may be alhamed of fuch trifling, and not afhamed. 
 to give it up, upon the teflimony of a great 
 author, 1 will lay before him a part of C>;/)nWs 
 letter to Magnus. " In the facrament (of bap- 
 *' tifm) the contagion of fin is not walhed away, 
 " as the filth of the body is in a carnal bath, as that 
 ** there fliould be any need of 2. feat to lit upon, 
 *' of foap, and 2.fijli-p07id, which are generally re- 
 ■** quifite to cleanfe the body. The breafl of a 
 •' believer is wafl:ied in a different manner. 
 ■** To thofe that believe, the divine abridgment 
 **' divina compendia conveys the whole benefit." f* 
 
 ■f In ficramento, mn deliBorum contagia, iii in lavacro carnali fordes corporis 
 (ihluuntiir, ut aphronilrh, & Jblio & pifcina opus fit, qiiihus ohhd corpujiulum 
 ,pojp.t. Aliter peBiis credentis abiuitur. ToTUM credentihus conferunt bivina 
 '.coMi'ENDiA. Cypr, Epift. 76. P. S49- 
 
 Z 2 By 
 
( iBo ) 
 
 By the divina compendia, Cyprian means the com- 
 pendious mode of baptizing by ^rM//«^; which 
 he confirms and illuftrates by the appolite fcrip- 
 tures, Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26. Num.xix. 19, 20, and 
 chap. viil. 6, 7. 
 
 (2) The Doilor thinks he is furnillied with a 
 formidable argument againft the fcriptural vali- 
 dity of baptizing by ofperjion, becaufe, though 
 a fprinkUng under the law, was called a ckanfing^ 
 yet it was a fprinkling by blood; and he thinks 
 this diiference in the matter totally invalidates the 
 analogy. Thus he argues againft Mr. Addington: 
 *' Nor lliould I have much wondered, if he had 
 " added, that it feeras to be moft properly ad- 
 *' miniftered, not only by Jpr inkling, but by 
 ** fprinkling blood inftead of water."* This is 
 extremely fpecious, and favors not a little of 
 plaulible fophiftry. But the weaknefs and falla- 
 cy of fuch pitiable argumentation, may be ealily 
 difcovercd by any one, who is converfant in the 
 nature of fcripture-alluiions, and is, in any to- 
 lerable degree acquainted with the method of 
 reafoning, our author himfelf adepts upon other 
 occaiions. The Do6ior's objc(51:ion, founded on 
 the difference between blood and zvater, equally 
 invalidates and overthrows fome of his own fa- 
 vorite alluiions. For, if no analogy can be drawn 
 from the manner of cleanfing by the fprinkling 
 cf blood, to a correfpondent mode of adminif- 
 tering baptifm by v/ater, becaufe a fprinkling 
 of blood is not a fprinkUng by water -, then, the 
 
 * H-emarks, ibidc;!:. 
 
 fame 
 
( 18I ) 
 
 fame obje^^ion Is of etjnal, if not greater force, 
 againft the Doiftor's darling analogy from the 
 baptifni of the Spirit under the emblem of fire, 
 to that of baptifm by an immerlion In zvater -, 
 because fire and ivater are elements diametrically 
 oppolite. So that, when the Do6ior, by a ftrain- 
 ed limilitude, reprefents and recommends immer- 
 lion under the figure of metal " laid under the 
 '•' refiner's fire;" if 1 were difpofed to turn the 
 edge of his reafoning agalnii: himfelf, and to 
 dete6l the weaknefs and fophlftry of his objec- 
 tions to our allufive arguments in favor of fprink- 
 ling, I might, mutatis mutandis, fay; *' Nor Ihould 
 *' i have much wondered, if the Do6for had 
 *' added, that baptifm feems to be moft pro- 
 *' perly adminiftered by an immerfion in fire 
 ** inftead of ivater." And, by adopting the fame 
 mode of addrefs which concludes p. 120, of his 
 Remarks on Mr. Addingtons, Treatife, I might 
 alfo with juft retaliation of language, borrow 
 his own words, and fay, " Let imagination have 
 *' its full fcope: and then the queftion will be, 
 " which has the happieft invention, our author, 
 •' or thofe who pradifed a mock-baptifm, by 
 firer 
 
 (3J From the following conceffion in p. 122, 
 one would be almoft inclined to think the Do(51or 
 was in a meafure reconciled to our alluHon in 
 favor of fprinkling ; at leaft that he intended 
 meeting us halfway. " What Baptift, Sir, is fo 
 '' grievoully offended with the word fprinkling, 
 ^' as not to allow It is ever ufcd to exprefs puri- 
 
( l82 ) 
 
 *' /'% or cleanfwgf J anfvver, Dr. 5". is tke 
 *' Baptiff who is thus " grievoujly offended {" 
 orherwife, wherefore doth he fuppofe that our 
 alluiive arguments are the refult of an imagina- 
 tion, giving itfeif full fcope, like that of Peters 
 Juccejjcr at Rome? But, notwithftanding the above 
 concefiion, he fays (p. 120) "nor hath the phrafe 
 " of the blood of fpr inkling any the leaft reference 
 " to baptifm." 1 hat is, Dr. S.Jays fo, and there- 
 fore to be fure, it muft be fo. But, has not bap- 
 tifm the leaft reference to the blood of fpr inkling? 
 Yes, moft certainly, the Doclor himfelf being 
 witnefs : For he acknowledges that " the word 
 •' fprinkling is ufed to exprefs clean/ing," But 
 cleanling is ufed to exprefs baptifm as a wajliing 
 with water. And as v/^ are liiid to be cleanfed 
 by the blood of fprinkling; yea, to be wajhed in it; 
 Rev. I. 5; confequently the fprinkling of water in 
 baptifm is an appolite, fignificant, and fcriptural 
 reprefentation of our juftification by the blood 
 of Christ. So that, as we are faid to be wajhed 
 and cleanfed by the blood of fprinkling ; why may 
 we not be faid to be facramentally walhed by a 
 haptifm of fprinkling. Is not the validity of this 
 mode eftablifhed by the ceremonial cleanlings by 
 ijfperjion under the law, and the antitypical clean- 
 ling under the gofpel by the fprinkling of the 
 blood of Christ? And has the Dodor urged 
 one folid argument againft this natural reprefen- 
 tation of the matter? Ratlier, has not his own 
 conceftion, that " fprinkling is ufed to exprefs 
 ** cleanfing" fully eftablifhed the very fentimenl: 
 
 he 
 
( i83 ) 
 
 he intended to oppofe ? And, to prove that the 
 argument, thus far has the fan61ion of an emi- 
 nent lexicographer's concurring opinion, I need, 
 only quote Leigh's Critica Sacra. Under the Greek 
 word As/pov he fays, *' In the facred fcriptures it 
 " is fpoken oibaptijmi Ephef, v, and in the epift. 
 " to Tit. chap. iii. It is metaphorically fpoken of 
 ** the blood of Christ, by which, our fouls are 
 ** wa/hcdsind cleanfed from the filth of lin."* 
 
 (4) Having thus far coniidered, and I hope 
 refuted too, the principal obje<?lions o. the Do6lor 
 (for, arguments 1 cannot call themj) let us look 
 back to his pofitive allertion in p. 120; where he 
 fays, " this mode of adminiftering the ordinance 
 ** as an emblematical reprefentation of our juf- 
 " tification hath no foun lation in the word of 
 *' Goi>," I hope the reader has received fome 
 fatisfa(51:ory evidence, that the Doctor's zeal here 
 hath precipitated him into a manifeft miftake : 
 and, that the allulion contended for, has received 
 not a little fupport from his own pen. He has 
 acknowledged that " the word fprinkli?ig is ufed 
 ** for cleanjing i" and that there is an allufion to- 
 baptifm in the term wajhing of regeneration. Now, 
 if a thing fprinkled is faid to be cleanfed, it may 
 be with equal propriety faid to be wafhed; lince 
 the former is an c&tt and confequence of the 
 latter : and fo indeed, what the apoftle Paul calls 
 " having the heart fprinkled from an evil con- 
 
 * In facr'is Uteris dicitur de baptifmo ; ut Ephef. 5, ir in eplji. adT'iixim, 
 (ap. 3. Metaphorke dicitur de fangine Chrifti, quo atiimte nojtrx a peccatifir- 
 d'Aui ahlmmtur & purgantur, Critica Sacra. P. 160. 
 
 ** fcience," 
 
( iH ) 
 
 *' fclence," St. Join terms being " wajhed in his 
 *' blood," and "■ dcanfed" by it from fm. Rev.i. 5. 
 I 'john i. 7. But the term waJJilng and the idea 
 it implies is transfered to baptifm j confequently 
 the fcriptures reprefent it as an emblem of a 
 fpiritual cleanling ; elfe, why do they ufe the 
 phrafes " ivaJJihig of regeneration; wajliing of wa- 
 *' ter by the word; baptifm doth novo fave us, noi the 
 '* wajhing away the filth of the fielh, but the an- 
 *' fwer of a good confcience," rendered io, by 
 the wafliing of the blood and Spirit of Christ ? 
 If therefore baptifm be an emblem of a fpiritual 
 wafhing, (which the Do6lor cannot deny, without 
 flying in the face of God's wordj) and if that 
 fpiritual wafliing be reprefented in fcripture as 
 the caufe of our juftification, or indeed the thing 
 itfelf : then baptifm, by the moft fair and inevi- 
 table confequence, is an emblematical reprefen- 
 tation of our juftification: which is a refutation 
 of the firji part of the Doftor's falfe pofition. But 
 the fpiritual wafliing of the confcience in jufti- 
 fication is reprefented under the term fprinkling: 
 therefore, if that term be applicable to the thing 
 fignified, by every law of fcripture analogy, it is 
 applicable to the fign, and points out the analo- 
 gous mode of adminiftering it: which was the 
 fecond point to be proved. 
 
 (5) And now, that I may convince the Do61or, 
 that my reafoning on this head is not altogether 
 fmgular; but that it fiands fupported by the tef- 
 timony of fome very great men : And that 1 
 may at once expofe the novelty and futility of all 
 
 his 
 
( i85 ) 
 
 ills boafted objedlons, I will prefent lilm with a 
 few venerable names, whofe authority is unquef- 
 tionably as great as that of any or all the Ana- 
 baptifls in the world. I lliall begin with Calvinj 
 whom Dr. Featly calls " the bright burning ta- 
 " per of Geneva." Speaking of baptifm as an 
 emblematical reprefentation of our juftification, 
 he fays; " In the water, as in a glass, 
 " Christ represents to us his elood, 
 ** that we may feek our purification from it : 
 ** and lince he teaches us, that we are formed 
 ** again by his Spirit, that being dead unto fin, 
 ** we Ihould live unto righteoufnefs; it is certain 
 " that we want nothing which can make for 
 *' the fuhftance of baptifm." % — Next to Calvin I 
 bring the teftimony of Beza; " The main 
 '" thing, or res ipfa the very thing in baptifm, is 
 " the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
 *' Christ for the remiffion of fins and imputa- 
 ** tion of his righteoufnefs ; which are as it were 
 " fet forth before our eyes extern^e asper- 
 ** sionis Jigno by the fign of outward sprin- 
 " kling" in baptifm. •f Tilenus Is equally 
 ftrong and exprefs In favor of the emblematical 
 reprefentation. " — The analogy of the facra- 
 
 \ In aqua, vehit in fpectih sanguinem noils fiittm Chrifliis reprxfeiitaf^ 
 Ui munditian inde nojlram petamus : qmm docet nos Spir'ttu fito refing't, ut inortui 
 fcccato juftitix vivamus, nilnl quod ad hapt'ifmi fuhftdntiam faciat, deejjc nolii 
 (atum eft. Calvin, in A<St Apoft.. viii. 38. P. «24. 
 
 t Res ipfa haptifmi eft aspersio sanguinis Jefu Chrifti in reimftiouem 
 fecc/ttoriim & imputatimem juftitix ipfius, qu.t velut ocnlis noftris ftibjiciimlur 
 e:.ter,ix AsiTRSiuNig siuno. Theod. Bez. Tra<a. Thcolog. Vol. i. de S. 
 1Sp. Ch. iv. k\ ;S, 
 
 A a *' ment 
 
( i86 ) 
 
 "*' ment may be preferved no less In fprinklin^ 
 '• than in dipping : for, in the purifications un- 
 *' der the law fpr inklings 'o(ySlia-iJLCi were fuifici- 
 
 *' ent."* Vossius is not lefs fo. ** Baptifm 
 
 " is a facrament inftituted by Cnpasx, that by 
 " it we might be grafted into the church; with 
 " this promile, that no lefs certainly than we 
 " are oidivardly wajlud with water, we are in- 
 " wardly wajlud by the blood and Spirit of 
 ** Christ." And again. — " Our inward wafh- 
 ** ing from fin by the to(i and Spirit of Christ 
 *' is clearly Jignified and furely feakd to us" in 
 baptifm. — And ftill more particularly : " Why 
 *' did Jesus command this facrament (of bap- 
 •■* tifm) to be performed by water wafhing away 
 *' the filth of the body ? Becaufc there Is ccvoCkoyioi, 
 " an ANALOGY between the oidiuard wafliing 
 ** with WATER, and the inward cleanfing by the 
 
 *' ELOOD and Spirit of Christ. "-f To the 
 
 above tefflmonies permit me to add that of Dr. 
 LiGHTFOOT. ** To denote this wafhing by a 
 ** facramental lign, a Jprinkling of water is as 
 " SUFFICIENT as an immerjion-, lince the one 
 
 * — Nec minus in aspersione g!(am in hnmerftone, facr.inienti analogia 
 fcrvetur J f.quickm in Icgalihis pirificcitiomkis fnfficicbaat ^awti7//,6(. Tilen, 
 Difp. i. de bapt. ThefT. xv. 
 
 •j- Baptismus eji facranientum a Chrifto inftitutiutt, ut per illiid ecckjia in.- 
 feramiir ; cum hacfromijfwne, quod non minus ccrto quam aquil extrinfecus lavamur, 
 
 etiam intrinfecus a peccatis ahluimur per fanguinem & Spirittim Chrifti. 
 
 Jntrinfcca per fang. & Spir. Chrifti ablutio a peccalis ix dare nobis ftgnetur 
 
 ir ccrto ohfignetur de Bapt. Cur vera liqiiore, corporis Jbrdes abluente, fa- 
 
 erar.jcntiim hoc perfici mandavit Jefus ? In caufa s * PivaAoyta inter ahlutio- 
 r.cm externum qua aqii^^ Jit, & intcrnam qux fit fartg^i/ine & Spiritu Clirifti. 
 Voir. De Bapt. Difp. i. Thcf. i. P. z^z.—Ihid. P. 345.— Z^i</. Thef. iv. 
 P. 347- 
 
 ** really 
 
( iSy ) 
 
 *' really argues a wajhlng^ as well as the 
 
 ** other, "-f '* Efpecially," fays Keckerman, 
 
 " fince ccvoih.oyLoc the analogy of ligniiicalion re- 
 ** mains, and our pollution may be waflied away 
 
 *' by that aspersion.''^ 1 Ihall clofe thefe 
 
 firiking quotations with the teftJmony of VVALis- 
 us. " Which rite (that is afperfion) the word 
 ** ^oivjicr^oi favors; which is ufcd concerning the 
 " blood of Christ. Heb. ix. 14." § 
 
 From the unanimous teftimony of thefe refpe61:- 
 able Critics, it muft at firft fight appear evident 
 to any reader, that they concur in eftablifhing 
 the fentiment which Dr. 5*. treats with much con- 
 tempt; and in eftablifhing it too on fcripture- 
 grounds. So that, according to them, it is plain, 
 (i) That baptifm is an emblem of fpiritual walh- 
 ing by the blood of Christ; and confequently, 
 of our juftificatlon. (2) That there is not only 
 an analogy between the external wafhing with 
 water, and the Internal purification oi the heart 
 by the blood of Christ, in general; but that 
 this analogy fubfifts between this internal purifi- 
 cation and baptlfmal aspersion, in particular. 
 (3) And therefore that fprinkling, thus founded 
 
 f Ad banc abluthneiu. sacramentajli signo, denotanchvt satis est 
 ASPERSio aqu£, leque ac in aquam 'immerfio / cum revera ahht'ioiicm ac purifi- 
 cattoiicm kcc arguat >EquE ac ifta. Dr. Lightfoot. Hora: HebraicJE ht 
 Matth. iii. 6. P. 49. 
 
 \ Prsferlim cum ctvccXoytx fignif.catwn'is mancat, ir aspersione tllj fir- 
 dcs dbhiiwtur. Keckerman. Syftem Theolog. L. iii. C. viii. P. 452. 
 
 § Cm riiui (ic. aspersioni) favet & vox ^aWto-jttoi ; quie de sangvine 
 Chrifri uf.irpatur, Heb. iv. 14. Walaeus. Synops. Pur. Theolog. Difp. xHv. 
 Ti!iefr. xix. P. 606. 
 
 A a 2 on 
 
( i88 ) 
 
 on fcrlpture-analogy is a very Hgn'ificant mode 
 of adminiftering baptifm ; becaufe it exhibits an 
 emblematical reprefentation of our juftification 
 by the blood of Christ. (4) That the applicaT 
 tion of this analogy to baptifm is not only war- 
 ranted by fcripture, but is farther authenticated 
 by the coiicurrent opinions of fuch venerable 
 names, as thofe of, Calvin, Beza, Tilenus, VoJJiuSf 
 
 Light/cot, Keckerman, and JValaiis- With fuch 
 
 refpeiSlable authorities to countenance our fenti- 
 ments, we feel but fmall difcompofure at the 
 oppolition of Dr. S. or any other Anabaptift in 
 the world. And f fancy there is no occafion tq 
 advertife the pious reader, that fome at leaft of 
 thofe, whofe names I have produced, were as 
 likely to know the mind of the Holy Ghoji in his 
 word ; to underftand the do6^rine of fcrlpture- 
 analogy; and to fix the laws of facred criticifm, 
 as all the Anabaptifls that ever lived : and there^ 
 fore, that their evidence gives fuch a fandion 
 to the analogy in debate, as will not leave the 
 reader to hefitate for a moment, on which fide 
 of the queftion to give his fentence of approba- 
 tion. 
 
 II. The fame mode of reafoning, by which wc 
 maintain the fcriptural propriety of baptizing by 
 afperfion, drawn from the analogy it bears to 
 our juftification by the fprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ, is equally forcible, when applied to the 
 fcripture -reprefentations of our renewal by his 
 Spirit, Or, in other words; as we ground the 
 validity qf baptifmal afperfion on the phrafes — 
 
 the 
 
( l^ ) 
 
 the blood of sprinkling — washed in his blood— ^ 
 it CLE AN SET H from all Jin f &c. — on the applica- 
 tion of a lirailar phrafeology to the purifications 
 under the law j on the manifeft convertibiUty of 
 the terms fpr inkling, ckanjing, waJJiing ; and on 
 the natural and well-fupported analogy between the 
 hsLptifm^l Jign and the thing Jigmfied:f fo we af- 
 fert, that as the influences of the Spirit are pro- 
 mifed in the terms of ^^ fpr inkling clean water;" 
 and as baptifm is a lign of tliofe influences, and 
 an emblematical repreltntation of their ckanfmg 
 eifecSl; therefore the mode of adminiftering bap- 
 tifm by fprinkling is farther fupported by this fu- 
 peradded analogy. — But let us fee what Dr. S, has 
 to fay againft this. 
 
 I Upon that text " I zv ill fpr inkle clean watet' 
 " uponyoUy and ye Jliall be clean," E-ztk. xxxvi. 25; 
 he fays, p. 122. *' The leper might be fprinkled, 
 *' and thereupon pronounced clean." But the 
 leper not only " might he" but aftually W(25 fprin- 
 kled, and pronounced a(51:ually clean.* And if a 
 leper was legally cleanfed hy fprinkling ; why may 
 not a perfon be facramentally cleanfed by a cor- 
 
 \ N. B. That there is fuch tin analogy, Mr. i\f, himfcli acknowledge* 
 in page 20, in the following words. " Baptiihi is a lively emblem of 
 
 " INWARD WASHING." 
 
 * " And he (the priefl:) fliall sprinkle upon him that is to be 
 *' cleanfed from the leproly, feven times, and fliall pronounce him 
 " CLEAN." Levit. xiv. 7. This was the main part of the leper's puri- 
 fication. The wafliing of his flefli, fubfequent upon that, was prepara- 
 tory to his introduction to the camp, and to his tent. And, ivhereas 
 the DocftDr fuppofes, that this wafiing was by imracrfion, he fliould re- 
 member that the Hebrew word ufed ver. 9, is not tebel ; and therefore 
 that this waHiing was not fpcciScally by dipping, much lefs a dipping 
 ©f the whole body. 
 
 refpondent 
 
refponclent mode In baptifm? As the leper's pu- 
 rification was not fufpended on the quantity of 
 the blood: fo neither does the reality of bapt if ni 
 depend on that circumftance, in the application 
 of water. And the validity of the inftitution in 
 the one cafe, fully vindicates the facramental 
 validity in the other. But agalnft this he ar- 
 gues, *' The prophet might fay in reference to 
 *' that ceremony, 7 ivill fpmikle clean water, &c." 
 But this is an egregious blunder; and I can no 
 otherwife account for the Dodlor's making it, 
 than upon a fuppolition, that either he was igno- 
 rant of the proper reference of the above text; 
 or, which is not improbable, that he was un- 
 zvilUng to point it out ; becaufe it would effedlu- 
 ally overturn all his labored arguments againft 
 us. Nor can I better obviate the abfurdity of 
 his reference, than by taking up his own words, 
 ** It is to be remembered, that the leper was not 
 " fprinkled with clean water, but with blood" 
 Befides, how can the Dodor poflibly fuppofe the 
 prophet to make any allulion to the legal purifi- 
 cation by blood f when the cleanling promifed in 
 Ezekiel, is to be efFec5^ed by clean water P and when 
 this very gentleman's principal argument againll 
 our analogy, drawn from the cleanfing the leper 
 by fprinkling of blood to a correfpondent mode of 
 adminiftering the baptifmal ivater, is founded on 
 the difference of the matter of thefe refpe^five 
 inftitutions ? If Indeed there were no mode of 
 purification by the fprinkling of water under the 
 law, his reference might carry fome air of plau- 
 
 fibility. 
 
( 191 ) 
 
 libillty. But this is not the cafe. A remarkabfe 
 mode g( this nature is recorded in Num. viii. 6, 7. 
 *' Take the Levites from among the children of 
 " Ifrael, and cleanje them. And thus Ihalt thou 
 *' do unto them to cleanfe them : Sprinkle 
 *' water of purifying upon them ; and let them 
 *' fliave all their flelh j and let them walli all 
 ** their clothes; and /o make themfelves clean." 
 
 However the garments of the Levites were to 
 have been cleanfed, it is undeniably plain, that 
 in the prefent infiance, the purification of their 
 perfons was to be efFe(?led through the fpriiikling 
 of water. A mode this, repeatedly enjoined in 
 Num. xix. If any perfon touched a dead body 
 and did not purify himfelf, according to the di- 
 vine inftitution ; that perfon was to be cut oiF 
 from Ifrael: the reafon of which fevere proce- 
 dure is mentioned in Ver. 13. '* That foul Ihiall 
 *' be cut off from Ifrael, becaufe the water offepa- 
 " ration was not sprinkled upon him." And 
 fo very Untl and circumftantial was this mode 
 of purification to have been; that not only the 
 perfon, defiled by the touch of a dead body, but 
 alfo the tent, all the vefjels, and all the perfons pre- 
 fent, were to undergo a general cleanfing; which 
 was to be performed thus. " For an unclean per- 
 " fon they fhall take of the alhes of the burnt 
 " heifer of purification for fin, and running wa- 
 " ter lliall be put thereto in a vefiTcl : and a clean 
 " perfon fhall take hyfibp, and dip it in the water, 
 *' and SPRINKLE it upon the tent, and upon all 
 " the veffels," he, Ver. 17, 18. And of thofe wha 
 
 neglected 
 
( 19^ ) 
 
 negle6^ed ' this mode of purification, it is again 
 faid, " That foul Iliall be cut off from among the 
 *' congregation becaufe he hath defiled the fanc- 
 " tuary of the Lord j the water of feparation hath 
 *' not been sprinkled upon him." Ver. 20. •f' 
 
 Now that this fprinkUng of the water of purifi- 
 cation was a legal baptijm or wajhing, appears 
 evident from the reference of the Son of Syrach to 
 this very mode of purification, and from his ap- 
 plication of the word ^oc'jflillc, *' He that is wafhed 
 " Qa.ifjiQiiJ.zvcg uvro vsk^h; or, he that is baptized, 
 ** after touching of a dead body and toucheth it 
 " again ; what availeth his wall:iingr" Eccluf xxiv. 
 26. — The touching of a dead body is the parti- 
 cular defilement mentioned in Niwi. xix. The 
 mode of purification enjoined was by fprinkUng 
 of water. But this fprinkling, an apocryphal wri- 
 ter calls a being baptized. Therefore a legal fprin- 
 kling was a baptifmj and fo may an evangelical 
 one. 
 
 It is manifefily therefore in reference to this 
 mode of purification, that the Lord fays by 
 E%ekiel, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, 
 ** and ye lliall be clean." And becaufe the legal 
 
 •|- The circumftances of this very mode of purification under the law, 
 are urged by Cyprian in his letter to Magitas, in order to demon- 
 ftrate the validity of baptiiinal fpnuiling. And the very fcriptures I 
 have refered to, are quoted in that famous Cyprlanic epiftle. — " Item 
 in Numeris, & homo qui fuer'U immundui ufqiie ad vefpcram, hie pttrificahitur 
 Jie iertlo, &c. fi aiitem non fuerit furificatus, cxtcrnnr.aVttur anima ilia it 
 Ifrael, qiwniam At^uA aspersionis non eji super aim sparsa. Et iterum, 
 Dominits ad Moyfen, dicens, Accipe Levitas, & pttrificaiis eos ; & ita facirr, 
 ch puttficntionim, ciacuMSPARGEs eos aqua purificatioms ; & iterum, Aqi'A, 
 .\.si'r.Rfio.Nis purijiiatio ej}." Enid. Ixxvi. P. 250. 
 
 eeremony 
 
( 193 ) 
 
 ceremony was typical of an evangelical purifica- 
 tion ; therefore the fpirltual meaning of the one 
 is transferee! to the bleffings of the other. And, 
 as baptifm Is a lively fymbol of the Influences of 
 the Spirit, operating In our fandificatlon ; and 
 as a puriiicatlon under the law, and a cleaniing 
 under the gofpel, are both reprefented under 
 ihc term fprinklhig of water ', the Inferential argu- 
 ment Is, that a baptifmal afperfion, being a cor- 
 refpondent emblem of both, Is therefore valid, by 
 the force of a double analogy. Nor has Dr. 5". 
 urged a iingle obferv^ation, capable of invalidat- 
 ing this analogical inference. Rather, all that he 
 has objeiSled to It, is either plaulible evafion, or 
 mere ipfe dixit. 
 
 And that our analogical reafoning here has 
 the fan6lIon of orthodox antiquity, there is no 
 need to inform the reader, when he recolle(5^s 
 the venerable authorities I have already laid be- 
 fore him, refpe6ilng the analogy between the 
 fprinkling of the blood of Christ and baptifmal 
 afperfion.* For, the teftlmonies, which authenti- 
 cate In that cafe, are equally conclulive in this. 
 However, It may not be amifs to quote a few, 
 immediately applicable to the prefent analogy. — 
 Cyprian quotes the very paflage on which we 
 ground the analogy, and applies it to baptifm. 
 " Let no one think it ftrange, that the lick, 
 *' when they are baptized, have water only poured 
 " or SPRINKLED ou them ; iince the Scrip- 
 ture fays by the prophet Ez-ek. xxxvi. 25; / 
 
 * See p. 185, 186, 187. 
 
 B b " ivill 
 
 (( 
 
( 194 ) 
 
 *' will SPRINKLE clean water, &c."* — Tilenus 
 is of the fame opinion refpec^ting baptifm, as an. 
 emblem of the inward walhing of regeneration. 
 •' There are here (in baptifm) efpecially propof- 
 *' ed to us, the remiffion of iins by the blood of 
 '* Christ, and our faniHification by his Spi- 
 '" rit." X This teftimony of tilenus is the more 
 vakiable, inafmuch as it ettabliilies the two-fold 
 e;mblem, on which we ground our analogical 
 reafoning. — Peter Martyr no lefs corrobo- 
 races the propriety of the emblematical reprefen- 
 tation. Speaking of baptifm as the fy mbol of 
 our inward purification by the blood and Spirit 
 of Christ, he adds, *' But this purification, 
 *' whether we be dipt, or have water poured or 
 ■ * -SPRINKLED on US, or by whatever mode we 
 *' are wajhed with water, is moji appcjltely repre- 
 ** fented in baptifm." -f 
 
 Once more, therefore, I call upon the judici- 
 ous reader to weigh, in the ballance of candor, 
 jthefe and the preceding teftimonies^ againfl: the 
 objcdions of Dr. 5". and the cavils of Mr. M. 
 And I leave him to determine, on which fide 
 truth is moft likely to preponderate. Had we 
 neither fcripture nor antiquity to countenance 
 
 * Ncc qjienqiiam tnovere dehct, quod afpergi vel perfundi vldeaiitur legri ; 
 qucindo Scriptiira SanHa per Ezechielem prophctam liquitur. Afpergam fiiper 
 'vos aquam mundam, &:c. Cyprian. Epift. Ixxvi. 
 
 \ Sped.itwi ■vera h'lc proponitur nobis ramjfio peccatorum In ipfius fiuguine, 
 ^&. firiBiJicatio ia ipjius Spiritu. 'lilen. Syntag. de. Bapt. i Thef. x. P. 887. 
 
 ■f Hitc a;:tem repurgat'ta, five mergamur, five perfundamur,, five asper- 
 ;cAMua, aiit quocimque niodo aquis abluarnur, in haptifmo nppoft'ijfnnt demotiflra- 
 iur. Pet. Martyr, in i Cor. x, Fol. 141. 
 
 our 
 
( 195 ) 
 
 our fentlnients; they might, In that cafe, be equal- 
 ly fufpeded of error and novehy. But, when it 
 be conlidtred, that a purification under the law, 
 was etlcded by a sprinkling, and a fprinkling 
 of WATER too (a clrcumftance which repels the 
 force of Dr. S.'s capital obje6^ions to one branch 
 of our analogy, founded on the difference in 
 matter, between the element In baptlfm, and that 
 ufed in fome legal purifications') ; — that an In- 
 fpired prophet makes a manifeft allufion to that 
 mode of purification, as figurative of our inward 
 cleanfing by the Spirit of Christ; — That the 
 allufive promlfe In Ezekiel Is quoted by Cyprian, 
 and applied to a vindication of the mode of bap- 
 tifmal alperfion ; — that the analogy is farther fup- 
 ported by the correfpondent fentiments of Tilenus 
 and Feter Martyr-, as well as by the unanimous 
 authority of thofe venerable names I mentioned 
 before; — 1 fay, thefe things confidered, I leave 
 the reader to judge, whether fcripture, antiquity, 
 reajon, and facred criticijm do not unite, in con- 
 firming the '^Jalidity of adminijiering baptifm by 
 SPRINKLING as cii " emblematical reprefenta- 
 *' tion" of our juftification by the blood, and of 
 our fandlification, by the Spirit (/Christ? 
 
 III. Nor Is the force of this reafoning weaken- 
 ed, or the natural Inference from It Invalidated, 
 by Dr. S.'s criticifm on the ufe of the word X8m, 
 in p. 125. For, although It Is not denied, that 
 the application of that word In fome Infianccs 
 fuppofes an immerlion ; yet It cannot poffibly 
 admit of that fignificatlon in every ufe of it; un- 
 B b 2 lefs 
 
( 196 ) 
 
 lefs the Do6tor will maintain the abfurdity of 
 fuppoling, that a thing can never be wallied, un- 
 lefs it be immerged. Befides, it ought to be re- 
 membered, that the flridnefs of the mode of 
 ordinary waihing is not to be made the ftandard 
 of /jcr<2/7?t7?/fl/ purification; becaufe, ifimmerlion 
 had been efTential to walhiing or cleanfing, in a 
 facramental point of view ; in order to preferve 
 an exail iimilarity, all the purifications under 
 the law, both by blood and water, Ihould have 
 been performed by a total plunging in the facra- 
 mentary element. And the phrafeology of fcrip- 
 ture-alluiions fhould have been couched in terms, 
 correfpondent with the unalterable ftri<5lnefs of 
 the mode. So that, wherever mention was made 
 of any wafhings, cleanlings, or purifications, whe- 
 ther legal or evangelical, dipping ought to have 
 been the invariable term. And fo, according to 
 the fentiments of Anabaptifts, the ^ or As fpr inkling, 
 pouring, &c. ought to have no place in the Bible. 
 When therefore Dr. S. is infifting on immerfion 
 as '* necejfarily' requifite to ordinary wafhing, I 
 willi he would recoiled the judicious obfervation 
 of Cyprian; Aliter pe^ us credent is abluitur. The 
 breaft of a believer is wafhed In a different manner. 
 Nothing, therefore, can be more futile or falla- 
 cious, than than that kind of reafoning which 
 concludes abfolutely from the ufage of things 
 human, to divine inftitutions. 
 
 In order to overturn the Doctor's inference 
 from his fuppofed ufe of the word Khm, I would 
 ebferve, (O That if a thing or perfon may be 
 
 faid 
 
( ^91 ) 
 
 laid to be ckanfed as an effc6l of wq/Jiing ; then 
 if that is called a cleanjing, which is performed 
 only by fprinkling^ an afpcrjion may be properly 
 ftyled a ivajliing. But, we have already leen, in 
 that remarkable cafe mentioned in Num. viii. and 
 chap, xix ; that a man defiled was clcavftd by the 
 SPRINKLING of the Water of feparaiion; confe- 
 he was wajhed by it. From whence it is plain, 
 that a facramental purification performed by 
 fprinkling, is, according to fcripture, a facra- 
 mental wajhing. And the argument, therefore, 
 which the Doclor would draw from the term 
 *' waJJiing of regeneration," retorts on himfelf; 
 when it is conlidered, that the work of regene- 
 ration is manifeftly reprefented under the phrafes 
 of *' the SPRINKLING of ckan water,'" and the 
 *' blood of SPRINKLING." And 1 hope he will 
 acknowledge that when a regenerate linner Is 
 faid to be fprinkled with water, (the emblem of 
 the Spirit,) and with the blood of Christ,, he 
 may alfo be faid to be ivaJJied in both, Other- 
 wife, according to the Dodor's idea there might 
 be fuppofed forne incompletenefs in our Spiritual 
 purification. (2) The application of the word 
 ?^iioc in fcripture, proves, that the idea of immerli- 
 on is not necelTarlly implied in it. Christ is faid 
 Rev. i. 5, to have wajhed us ?^'dj-civj. in his blood. 
 But furely it would be extremely abfurd, to argue 
 from hence, that an immerfion in his blood necella- 
 rily entered into the idea of our fplritual cleanfing; 
 efpeclally when It is remembered, that the puriii.^ 
 cations by typical blood under the law were ef- 
 
 feaed. 
 
( 19^ ) 
 
 fc61ed by fprinkling ; and that our antityplcal pu- 
 rliicztion by the Redeemer's blood is almoft 
 always mentioned under that term. (3) It is laid 
 in A6Is xvi. 33, that the converted jailor took 
 Faul and iSilas and " wajhed their Jiripes" ihar^r 
 But it would be abfuni to fappoie, that either 
 their j'jf?"/:,7j were totally immerged, or (h^'vc Jiripes 
 dipt, in the procels of this walhing. It is rather 
 probable, that the jailor poured iomc water, or 
 fome medicinal fluid on the apoilles' ilripes j and 
 that this was the mode ofwalliing on that occa- 
 lion. Yet the word is y^ax, (4) The Lord com- 
 manded Mofes to make a laver of brafs X^a^o, 
 ''yicOwdJ for the priefts to ivajli thereat. But how 
 was this walliing to be performed? By a /o/a/ im- 
 merfion ? No : for they were commanded only 
 to waih their /<ff^ and hands. But were not thefe 
 dipt f No : for they were to be waOied not sig iriy 
 but .-|' oiQ'd out of it. Fijiulas multas habebat. (fays 
 Poole, in his Sy nop/is in Loc.) per quas emittebatur 
 aqua : It had fever al pipes, by "which the water 
 was let out. So that, howfoever a total waihing 
 by Immeiiion might have b'ecn enjoined on. other 
 occalions, it is manifell:, that in the prefent cafe, 
 the prieiis were walhed in the laver {7^^[ri^, from 
 /.y:-.',) without any irnmcrlion at all. (5) Dr. S, 
 quotes Hcdcricus's Lexicon, as giving us the fol- 
 lowing etymology of the v/ord. " Ai^jo lavo, Cff 
 qiiidem proprie corpus." 'f But the lexicographer 
 does not mean, as the Docior would iniinuate, 
 that the Greek word, and the correfpondent Latin 
 
 t Rcmrak?, P. 125. 
 
 lavOf 
 
( 199 ) 
 
 lavo, lignify to wafli the whole body fpcclfically; 
 but to walli THE body or any part of it, in contra- 
 diftin^lion to the mode of wafhing garments. 
 And with this natural interpretation agrees the 
 appolite obfervation of Athanajius, Hag ya^ d- 
 xoiSoi^r:^ iXasjo 'v^c^i, sttKvvsJo h ra. iixoijicy.' Every 
 •unclean per/on was washed with water, but his 
 garments ivere plunged.* Here is a manifeft 
 diftin6\ion, founded on the di(5i:in61: fignification 
 of two Greek, words, differently applied, between 
 the modes of walliing unclean perfons and their 
 garments. As the former were wallied by va- 
 rious modes, of which we have alreeady feen 
 that fprinkling was one ; Athanajius ufes ^hm as a 
 word of latitude, to comprehend thofe feveral 
 modes. But as the garments were plunged, he 
 ufes TrKwor:, a word of determinate fignification : 
 a plain proof this, that Athanajius did by no 
 means reflridl the idea of plunging to A^^', but 
 the more general one of wajliing ; and that he 
 fuppofed that Greek word might be ufed even 
 in contradif^indion to plunging, VVhofe opinion, 
 therefore, is the more decifive, that of Athana- 
 najius or Dr. 5". I fancy the reader will eafiiy 
 determine. (6) He Intimates that Xi^oo and ^ocnfji^oo 
 are ufed promifcuoufly, the one for the other, 
 p. 125. But, if the one lignifies to wajh without 
 Tiecejfarily implying an immerfion, as has already 
 been proved ; fo mufl the other. And a lingle 
 inflance, if fuch could be produced, where either 
 lignified to wafli by dipping, would avail nothing, 
 
 * P. Athanas. riff, is- McrpiU farai. S. S. Tom.ii. P. 426. 
 
 unlefs 
 
f 200 ) 
 
 imlcfs it could be demonfLrated, that it never 
 included any other ligniiication. But to prove 
 that this is not the cafe, let us hear the criticifm of 
 Pak.^ius : " Baptifni among the Greeks is an^ 
 ** KIND of walhing or cleaniing, Vvhether it be 
 " performed by immerjion or sprinkling." * 
 (7) I Ihall clofe this part of the fubje6l with a re- 
 markable pafTage from Jujiin Martyr. Having,- 
 among other arguments, alleged that fcripture 
 Wash ye, makt you clean, as a ground for keep- 
 ing up an emblematical reprefentation of the great 
 trutli it contains, by a baptifmal waiting ; he 
 declares, that the very heathens to KeI^ov ci>Li^<roi-^sg 
 having heard of this walhing in "baptifm, intro- 
 duced a reprefentation of it into their rituals 
 For, fays he, their daemons " made it a cuftom, 
 ** that all their worlliipers, when they approach" 
 *' ed their temples, were about to addrefs their 
 *' prayers, or to offer facrifices, lliould ^cKvjii^;iy 
 " ioi-vj-dg SPRINKLE themfelves/'f- Confonant with 
 which reference of yiijVin Martyr to the rites of 
 the heathens is the obfervation of GiiUelmus Du- 
 rantus. '*' And it is to be noted, that the heathens 
 *' or gentiles ufed to build their temples round 
 *' fprings, or at leaft had always water in them 
 *' (their temples) by the sprinkling of which 
 
 ^ Battismus Gritcts <^u;evis efl lot 10 feu ahhtlio, five Immerfwne five 
 ASPLRsioNE fiat. Par. in Heb. ix. 10. 
 
 iTTiprc/AvoviCCi k) v^^canvai avion; fjATO^onuq, Mt^a.^ »tj •/.•Jt7~0(,i an'olsXav' 
 T«f. j-'Jf. Miirfyr. /tpcl. 3. 
 
 '* per- 
 
( 20I ) 
 
 " per cujus aspersionem they believed tliey wete 
 ** purified : and fo they made a figurative re- 
 *' ference to baptifm." -j- From hence it evi- 
 dently appears that afperfton of water was a mode 
 of puriiication among the heathens ; that they 
 borrowed this pra61ice from the chriftians ; and 
 confequently that baptifmal fprinkling is authen- 
 ticated by the ufage of primitive chrirtianlty. So 
 that what the heathens pra6^ifed by fprinkling 
 water of purification, jfufiin Martyr calls K^^ov a 
 wajliing^ But if to this it Ihould be objected, 
 that probably he meant to blame the heathens* 
 mode of purification as a piece of mimicry, or an 
 abufe of baptifmal walhing ; fuch an obje6lion is 
 efledually precluded by confidering the very In- 
 tent of the apologiji. For as Jufiin was prefent^ 
 Ing an apology ioi the rites of his brethren, of 
 which baptifm was one ; he furely could never 
 have fupported this branch of his apology, i£ 
 the chriftians had always pra61ifed immerjion, when 
 fprinkling was the ceremony among the heathens. 
 For how could he make the pradice of afperjion 
 a fufficient juftification of fo contrary a mode 
 as that of dipping ? The baptifmal wafliing, there- 
 fore, which the heathens heard of from the clirlf- 
 tians, Jiiftin calls Ay^^oy. But the heathens kept 
 ■Up ail imitation of this walhing by fprinkling of 
 water; and from this circumfiance of fimilarity, 
 the apologift juf^ified the pradice of his bre- 
 
 f Et eft ?iotandiim, quod pagan'i five gentiles circa fontes templa fua facers 
 folehant, out filtem ih'i femper aquam habebant, per cujus afperjwnem purtficari 
 credebant : ir ita quodammodo figuraUter ad baptifmnm tendehant. Gul. Durant. 
 P.atiorial. Divin. Officior. L. 6. Fol. 247. Col. I. 
 
 C e thren. 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 thren. A proof this, that afperjion is a valid 
 mode of baptifmal wqfliing ; and is neither of fa 
 recent, nor erroneous date, as the dippers would 
 inlinuate. 
 
 IV. I am now naturally brought, from the con- 
 nexion which one part of the fubje«5i; has with 
 another, to confider the divers wajliings or J/«'?/c^o/$- 
 ^rATfjiTiMcig different baptifms mentioned in Heb ix. lu. 
 Thefe wajhings under the law, were executed 
 by various modes of applying water, Jprinklin^ 
 not excluded. And, as the apoftle calls thefe 
 feveral modes of purification, baptifms i we there- 
 fore argue, from this various ufe of the term, 
 that an application of the iacramental water by 
 pouring or fpr inkling, is, according to the language 
 of infpiration itfelf, a valid baptifm. Againft this 
 Mr. M. does not even attempt to urge a lingle 
 argument : he only fays, that " he does not re- 
 ** member that the Mofaic JprinkUngs are called 
 *' ivq/Jiings." But, 1 am of opinion that his can- 
 dor fails here, rather than his memory. However 
 that I may whet the latter a little, I would afk him, 
 if he remembers, that the mode of purification 
 enjoined to one under a legal pollution, v\ as to 
 be performed by a ^^ fpr inkling the water of fepa- 
 ** ration" upon him; and that the perfon thus 
 Jprinkled was faid to be madi clean. Is not that 
 therefore a mode of wajhing, which is manifeflly 
 a mode of cleanjing f I afk him too if he remem^ 
 hers, that upon the fprinkling of blood on the 
 leper [even times (a circumftance implying ferfeSf 
 puriiiGation) he was " pronounced clean f" And,. 
 
 as- 
 
( 203 ) 
 
 ss: this w:is antecedent to the wal"hlng his body 
 with water and therefore apparently the leading 
 part in the ceremony ; whether it was not con- 
 fequently the principal circumftance in his legal 
 wajhing? 1 aik him farther, in additional confir- 
 mation of the propriety of calling fprinkling a 
 fcriptural mode of ivajhing^ if he remembers, that 
 what St. yohn ftyles being '* wajhed and cleanjed' 
 by the blood of Christ, St. Faul terms " having 
 " the heart fprinkkdf If therefore the Holy 
 Ghoft, in his word, calls that in one place wajh- 
 ing or clcanfing, which in another, he HjIgs fprin- 
 kling'y I afk, whether he remembers that evangeli- 
 cal fpr'mkUngs are called wajhings and vice verfa f 
 and whether thefe convertible terms in the New 
 I'eftament do not bear a manifeft reference to 
 the accommodation of them undei the Old ? If a 
 perfon, therefore, who is Jprijikled, with the blood 
 ofCpiRisT, is alfo faid in fcripture to be zvajlied 
 in it J why may not one who is fprinkled in bap- 
 tifm, as emblematical of his fpiritual purification, 
 be alfo faid to be waJJied with the facramental 
 water, and therefore to be partaker of a valid 
 baptijm f U Jprinkling is called wajliing in the thing 
 fgnijitd; why not in the jignF A natural inference 
 this, founded on fcripture-analogy j and againft 
 which, I defy Mr. M. to advance any thing that 
 has the leaft appearance of argument. 
 
 Indeed he feems fo fully confcious, that his own 
 
 abilities are infufficient to combat with our rea- 
 
 foning on this head, that, he very honeftly refers 
 
 us to his oracle Dr. S, whofe defence, of the cri- 
 
 C c 2 ticifm 
 
( 204 ) 
 
 ticlfm on tieh. ix. lo, is therefore to be efleemed d, 
 fupplj for Mr. M's lack of fervlce. Indeed, when 
 I reflect on our author's notorious deficiency in 
 the critical department, and his manifeft difqua- 
 lification for controverfy altogether ; 1 am lur^ 
 prifed he did not refign up the principal manage- 
 nient of the prefent difpute to fome-body elfe ; 
 and thus fight by proxy, rather than expofe his 
 weaknefs in propria perfond. According therefore 
 to his reference, I turn from the faint echo to 
 the oracle. 
 
 Dr. 5". fets out with faying, p, 54. " We infift 
 ** that the proper meaning of the word ^^oiTfuo-jj^zi 
 " is bathings or dippings." And fo, after begging 
 4iie queftion in this infijfing ftyle, he proceeds to 
 prove, that " the various plungings of priefts, 
 ** levites and people, for defilement, he. are the 
 ** different y^faV^ of the genus dippings." Thus, 
 according to the Do61or, dppings are the different 
 fpecies of the genus dippings. And whether this 
 is not a fpecies of that kind of nonfenfe and gla- 
 ring embarraffment, which attends his reafoning 
 on this head, I leave the reader to judge. Small 
 as my acquaintance is v/ith the dotSirine of genus 
 and fpecies, yet I know there is between the ieve- 
 2*al fpecies contained in the genus, what logicians 
 call differentia. Thus a man and a brute are dif- 
 ferent [pedes of the genus animal; and that which 
 conftitutes the difference between thefe fpecies is 
 rationality. But where is the logical differentia be- 
 tween plungings and dippings? unlets the Dodor 
 "^ill contend that a variation in terms makes it. 
 
 Indeed 
 
C 205 ) 
 
 Indeed he feemed aware that to affirm, dippings 
 are fpecies oi dippings, would incur manifeft ab- 
 furdity, and therefore he artfully varied hXt 
 phrafeology. But fuch little artifices as thefe 
 are calily leen through, and help to dete(?l: the 
 fallacy and evafion which frequently lurk under 
 them. But the Do6lor makes his difference be- 
 tween the fpecies and genus, to coniift in the 
 variety of the ferfons to be plunged. He fays, 
 the priejis were dipped, the levites dipped, and the 
 people dipped. So that it is all dipping ftili with- 
 out any difference. He quotes Spencer and Grotius^ 
 as faying there was " one wafhing of the priefts, 
 *' another of the Levites, and another of the peo- 
 *' pie." And what then? Who denies that ? But 
 does the Dodor conlider that the difference im- 
 plied in liocpc^oig refpe6ls not the pcrfons, but 
 '^ocTfjiTij.oig the mode^ or fpecies of wajhing. Had 
 the Greek word been nvolOKOiq divers in number^ 
 the Dodor might have eftablilhed his favorite 
 interpretation. But the word the apoftle ufes, 
 lignifies a diverlity in hind. Whereas that diver- 
 fity is loft, where we have nothing but dippings 
 and dippings. 
 
 Let us fee how he applies his reafoning to the 
 ufe of the word in Rom. xii. 6. Mention is made 
 there of differing gifts ^:a."po^oi •xpc-^io-pa'loi. And 
 thofe gifts are fpecitied ; fuch as prophecy, exhor^ 
 tation, ruling, &c. Upon this the Docftor argues 
 thus, " We might with good reafon argue ana- 
 ^' logically from this other paiTage in Romans, 
 ?* and fay, that as prophecy^ ruling, &c. are the 
 
 " different 
 
( 206 ) 
 
 ** different fpecies of the genus gifts ; (o the va- 
 ** rious plunglngs are, &c." But, according to 
 our author's mode of reafoning, the analogy is 
 deftroyed, For when he fays, p. ^^, that the 
 Greek word refers " to the various forts of per- 
 *' fons cleanfed ;" how can an analogy fublifl be- 
 tween the cleanfing of diiFerent perjons and the 
 difpeniing of diiferent ^///5.? when the genus and 
 fpecies are manifeftly confounded, and the latter 
 does not by a lim'dar analogy arife out of the 
 former ? If according to the Doctor, ^:a.-pcfOi 
 ^oiTfj 10-1^0 1 fignify cleanfing of dilFerent perfons ; then 
 in order to preferve a juft analogy, lia^po^ci 
 y^aoicrixa^cy. ought likewife to mean gifts difpenfed 
 to different perfons. But the abfurdity of infer- 
 ence in the latter cafe, clearly expofes the fal- 
 lacy of conclufion in the former, X<?i^.'cr^7^ gifts 
 are the genus -, whofe fpecies are, prophecy, ruling, &c. 
 Each of thefe is a fpecies; each is different from 
 the other ; and both are contained in the genus. 
 But according to our author's dodrlne of genus 
 and fpecies, if only one of thefe (prophecy for in- 
 llance) had been given *' to various perfons," to 
 the paftors, deacons, peoplej fiill xa^ia-y.ixjcy. gifts 
 would have been the genus, and one of thefe 
 gifts confered on various perfons, would have been 
 the fpecies : and thus prophecies would bave been 
 the fpecies of prophecies, without any difference 
 whatever; for the difference would refpe^f, the 
 perfons on whom they were beftowed, and not the 
 things given. See to what uncommon abfurdity 
 the Dodor's reafoning here leads ! 
 
 Another 
 
( 207 ) 
 
 Anoflier inflance will expofe it filll more. In 
 LeV' xix. 1 9, the 1-ord commands his people 
 not to fow their fields with mingled feed, y x:^o:,(r7rcyiiq 
 hotl^prj, di'Verfo femine, (Latin. Vulg.) The Greek 
 word is the fame here as in Hebrews and Romans, 
 and iignifies a difference in the fpecics of feed ; 
 a mingling of which was prohibited under the law. 
 But, by our author's mode of accommodating the 
 do6^rine of genus and fpecies, though the Jews 
 had ufed one unmingled feed, yet if they depolit- 
 ed it in various ^t'/c/j: or upon various " occafiom^* 
 they would have equally violated the divine in- 
 jun6iion ; becaufe, although there was not the 
 leaft difference between the pure feed fown in one 
 piece of ground, and the jame depolited in ano- 
 ther; yet, according to the Do61:or's idea, there 
 would have fublifted a difference between thefe 
 fpecies of feeds, only becaufe of the different 
 fields to v/hich they had been committed. After 
 the fame abfurd manner, does he reafon about 
 the divers baptifms under the law. The priefts, 
 he fays, were dipped in water, the Levites were 
 dipped, and the people were dipped. And where 
 is the difference between dipping in water and 
 dipping in water I* " O but different^fr/ow/ were 
 dipped !" But how does a difference in the perfom 
 conftitute a difference in the thing? when the 
 mode of applying the water was the very fame to 
 prieffs Levites and people ? I need noc inform 
 the judicious reader, that the whole of the Do61:or's 
 reafoning, which feems perfe(511y new, amounts- 
 to this, viz. that a genus may have different fpe- 
 cies i 
 
( 208 ) 
 
 clesj and that there may be 7io real difference a"f 
 all between thefe different fpecies (which is a 
 contradiction in terms) no more than between 
 plungings and plungings. * 
 
 How much more natural is our interpretation ! 
 That there were purifications by walhing under 
 the law } and that the different fpecies of the 
 genus wajlzings conlifted in the different modes- 
 of purification by fprinkUng, dippi??g^ &c. and that 
 therefore fprinklings were a fpecies of thofe legal 
 baptifms. And with this accords the opinion of the 
 judicious Poole, in his Annotations In Loc. " Which 
 " (baptifms) were many for the priefts in their fer-* 
 ** vices, and for others in performing theirs by 
 *' them; fome by sprinkling with blood, 
 *' Exod. xxix. 20, 21 ; with ivater. Num. viii. 7.. 
 " Some by wafhing at the brazen laver" (which 
 we have before proved not to have been perform- 
 ed by immerfion) " as the priefts, Exod. xxix. 4, 
 " and XXX. 17 — 22 j fo the sprinkling of 
 " healed lepers^ Lev. xiv. 4 — 9 ; and the purifi- 
 '* cation of the unclean." From the teftimony 
 of this great commentator, and from my antece- 
 dent flri^tures on the Doctor's analogical reafon- 
 ing from one genus and fpecies to another, and 
 the vifible embarraffment which attends his com- 
 
 ' * Dr. Stenneffs Grandfather, in his " Remarks" on Ri'Jfcn, (p. 24), 
 charges his opponent with the abfurdity of aflerting, that " luaflnng 
 " is the fpecies of the genus vafilig." But the Granlbn has adopted a 
 fimilar abuirdity, in maintaining, that " pUingings are the fpecies of the 
 genus plungings." And my charge againft the Grandfon refpecls the 
 fame obvious miftake which the Grandfather noted in Rujfen. We'll 
 leave the Grandfather and Grandfon, therefore, to adjufl this matter 
 between them. 
 
 ment 
 
( 209 ) 
 
 ment on Heb. Ix. lo. I leave the reader to judge, 
 whether his friend in Liverpool is miflaken or not,, 
 when he compliments his oracle by laying, that, 
 the abfurd *' fenfe" he gives us of the pallage, 
 is ** well-defended " For my own part, I think, 
 all that he has faid on the fubjcd is 720 dt fence at 
 ally and if to the word fcnfi Mr. M. would fuper- 
 add that fignificant monofyllable 32022^ he would 
 certainly form a word, exadJy defcriptive of the 
 nature of his oracle's criticilinj and particularly 
 expreffive of that lumber, with which his own 
 elaborate book is overloaded. 
 
 V. Having eftabliihcd the validity of admi- 
 niftering baptifm by fprinkling, from the analogy 
 between that mode and one fpecies of purification 
 under the law; and having refuted the whole of 
 Dr. iS.'s criticifms, by an appeal to the common 
 rules of genus and fpecies, as well as to the tefli- 
 mony of a great commentator ; I proceed now, 
 to the conlideration of a point, the difcuffion of 
 which, though not of very great importance, will 
 neverthelefs affift me in deteding the fallacy and 
 weaknefs, under which Mr. M. fcreens fome of 
 his boafted arguments. 
 
 In p. 34, he prefents us with an elaborate 
 note, which ends no fooner, than in p. 36 j and 
 which for delicacy of fentiment, {ironice loquor) 
 chaftity of di(5lion, and force of argument, is quite 
 an originah The fabricator of this elegant note, 
 will 1 hope, excufe me, if I decline a minute con- 
 lideration of the interiora of its delicate contents ; 
 becaufe I feel equally reluclant to offend my 
 D d reader's 
 
( 210 ) 
 
 reader's car with the turpe diJiu, or to follow the 
 polite note-maker through the path of indecent 
 illuftration. — The whole of the weighty argumen- 
 tation it is intended to eftablilh, amounts to this ; 
 that lince Poedobaptifts maintain there is an ana- 
 logy between circumcifion and baptifm, as to the 
 fuhjcSis, the fame analogy fhould be ft richly ob- 
 ferved in an application of the one as v/ell as the 
 other. The fallacy of this pitiable argument 
 confifts in a fuppolition, that an analogy cannot 
 be fupported, unlefs there be a ftrid refemblance 
 In every circumftantial. Suppofe we apply this 
 mode of arguing to the analogy which the Ana- 
 baptifts maintain between a burial and a baptifm. 
 In the aft of interment, the zvhole body is at once 
 laid in the earth. Bat is the ceremony of the 
 dippers exa6^1y correfpondent with this circum- 
 itance? when the perfon to be baptized walks 
 into the water, and the adminiftrator buries little 
 more than the head and Jliouldcrs in his *' ivafery 
 grai'ef" Now, according to our curious analo- 
 gift's reafoning on another occaiion, a failure in 
 this lingle circumftance deftroys the analogy be- 
 tween a burial and an immerlionj arid, by his own 
 principle, totally invalidates his favorite ceremo- 
 ny ; and confequently renders his arguing pal- 
 pably foolilb. — Suppofe we transfer this mode of 
 reafoning to the refemblance between the paiTover 
 and the Lord's fupper. That there is a ftriking 
 analogy, between the emblematical commemo- 
 ration of the Redeemer's death in the one ordi- 
 nance and the other, I fuppofe you will not deny ; 
 
 and 
 
( 211 ) 
 
 and that therefore we may with propriety call 
 the latter our chrijiian pajjover. Now, if, becaufe 
 we ftyle baptiftn our ckri/iian circumcifioriy and 
 under that term imply a refemblance between the 
 old teftament rite and its fuccedaneum under the 
 gofpel, you think, we are neceffitated, in order 
 to keep up the analogy, to obferve a particular 
 circumftance in the mode of application if other- 
 wife that the refemblance is deftroyed : then, ac- 
 cording to the fame analogical reafoning, we 
 cannot properly receive the Lord's fupper, un- 
 lefs with our loins literally girded, a ftaff in our 
 hand, &c. For if the one ordinance be 2i fucceda- 
 neum to the other, and a refemblance cannot be 
 kept up, without an obfervance of every circum- 
 l^antial ; confequently, the particulars enjoined in 
 the one cafe, are a landing rule of imitation in 
 the other. So that by the note-maker's analogical 
 nonfenfe, all the facraments are equally invalidated. 
 
 Again. The Anabaptifts argue analogically 
 
 from the wq/hings under the law to the propriety 
 of immerfion in baptifm. But according to our 
 author's mode of ttating- analogies, if he would 
 keep up a ftrift refemblance, between the one 
 and the other, which the failure in a lingle cir- 
 cumftance would deftroy ; then his candidates 
 ought to have water of purifying fprinkled on them, 
 
 f If the opinion of a fenfible and pious writer can have any -weight 
 with the' author of a certain immodeft note, 1 beg leave to prefent him 
 with the foiloT/ing. " It is fuiiicient, that the head be f^rinkkd, or have 
 " water poured on it, or, as being the principal part, if it be dipped. 
 " Stifficit quod caput al}erg:!tur, vel Jltper caput aqua efundatur, vel in aquarn 
 
 " mctgatiir, taiiquam pan prir.cipdior . Lynwcod- Conftitu. L. iii. Dc 
 
 '♦ Japtifino." 
 
 D d 2 to 
 
( 212 ) 
 
 ^to Avafh their fejk,' to Jhave all their ftejh, to wajh 
 their chathes, kc. For thefe were concomitant 
 ci'rcuni fiances infeparably conneded with the legal 
 wq/kings. But that the dippers will not chufe to 
 extend their analogical realoning thus far (which 
 however they ought to do according to our ana- 
 iogift) I fancy there is little fear. 
 
 Eut that 1 may as foon as poffible difmlfs a 
 •fubje6i, which leads to fuch endlefs trifling, I 
 would obferve, that if analogies cannot fublift, 
 iinlefs there be a precife refemblance in every 
 punctilio, and a literal correfpondence in every 
 
 "circumftantial (which is the do6irine of the note- 
 maker;) there is not then, according to him, a 
 fair analogy to be met with, perhaps in the whole 
 Bible : and the fame mode of analogizing would 
 equally invalidate the correfpondence between 
 types and their antitypes. For, as it would be 
 im poffible to find an inftance, where the one an- 
 fwered to the other, in univerjal rejemblance j con- 
 fequently, the typical analogy mult be deftroyed. 
 And fo, if a perfon were to draw inferences re- 
 fpc(5ting the types, as Mr. M. has argued, or ra- 
 ther blundered about baptifmal fprinkling, he 
 might argue, that the firft /idam was not a type of 
 the fecond, becaufe, though there was a ftriking 
 correfpondence between them in fame particulars, 
 
 . yet there was not an analogy in all. 
 
 So much for the decent note and the mighty 
 arguments it contains. As Mr. M. informs us 
 that *' he is obliged to a friend" for another in 
 
 'the fame elaborate ftyle, p. 30, it is not impro- 
 bable 
 
( 213 ) 
 
 bable that he is under a iimilar obligation to 
 the fame note-making '* frimd" for that we have 
 been juft canvaifing. If fo; what a pity ! he did 
 not favor us with the name of the gentleman, to 
 whom he acknowledges himfelf fo prodigioully 
 indebted ! Then myfelf and the public might 
 have united in tranfmitting our joint thanks to 
 Mr. M.'s note-making auxiliary, for favoring us 
 with fuch an elegant compound of decency and 
 argumentation, through the convenient channel 
 of his pamphlet. However, as it feems not quite 
 clear, whether the aforefaid note originated from 
 PFrexham or Liverpool-, 'till a future publication 
 afcertains its origin, let thefe two places mutually 
 contend with each other for the honor of pro- 
 ducing fuch a birth ; like the cities that difputed 
 their refpedtive claims to the nativity of Homer, 
 And as foon as the point of moment is determined, 
 and it is made manifeft, to whom the public are 
 under fuch vaft obligations, whether to Mr. y, 
 or Mr. M. let the fpot, where fuch important 
 notes are fabricated, be deemed peculiarly facrcd 
 for prodigies ; and let the fabricator himfelf, qui 
 mifcuit utile dulci, receive the merited palm as 
 note-maker general. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
( 214 ) 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Mr. M.'j irreverence and abufe farther expofed. 
 
 his arguments in favor of immerjion, taken from 
 the fuperjiitious wajhings of the Pharifees and all 
 
 the Jews, invalidated. Beza, Dr. Pocock and 
 
 Wall, unite in fuppojing that to be only a wq/hing of 
 the hands, which the apojile calls a being baptized. 
 
 T'he application of the word ^aTfji^oo to tlie 
 
 bloody baptifm c/" Christ, and to the baptifm in 
 the cloud, ^c. not necejjarily including the idea of 
 
 immerjion. Examples of baptifms infcripture con- 
 
 Jidered. rthe note-maker'^ tranjlation of a paf- 
 
 fage from Witfius, and his indire^ charge againji 
 us of blafphemous reafoning, Jiript of the coloring of 
 faljhood, chicayiery, and Jophijiry. 
 
 OF the many arguments, by which we de- 
 monftrate the abfurdity of making immer- 
 lion ejjential to the mode of adminiftering baptifm, 
 not a few are taken from the various ufe and 
 extenfive application of the Greek word ^^tt//^. 
 That this word has not the confined fignification, 
 which Anabaptifts affix to it, I intimated in a quo- 
 tation from Leigh's Critica Sacra. But as Mr. M. 
 has infinuated that I have quoted that author 
 neither *^ fairly" nor " honejily" I will prefent 
 the reader with that part of the lexicographer's 
 opinion, which immediately follows the pafTage \ 
 quoted from him in my Letter, p. 17. — " Christ 
 •* no where requlrcth dippijig^ but only baptizing : 
 
 " which 
 
( 2Ig ) 
 
 ff which word (as Hefychius, Stephamis, Scapula aixl 
 *' Budceus the great mafters of the Greek tongue, 
 'f make good by very mariy i?i/Ia?ices and allegations 
 f out of claiiic writers) importtth ?io ir.crc than 
 " ablution or wajhing. BuvfjiCuj (fay they in their 
 *' Lexicons and Commentaries) lavo ; !^o:7fiio-[xa. 
 " lavatio, ablutio; which may be done vjithout 
 ** dipping." — It is true, after this there follow the 
 pplnions of feveral other authors, one of which 
 Mr. Ad. produces, as a contraft to mine. If 
 therefore the paiTage I quoted, is found in Leigh 
 as well as that which favors Mr. M'^ idea of 
 dipping ; have I not exacfily an equal caufe to 
 bring the charge of " dijhoneji" and " unfair* 
 (quotation againft him ? efpecially as he maiigles 
 the lexicographer much more than I have done. 
 Belides, the extract I gave the reader from Leigh^ 
 I called the author's own " obfervatlon." And 
 that my quotation contains the lexicographer's 
 own opinion, in preference to thofe which follow 
 it, feems evident j becaufe it is ih^firfi, the longcft^ 
 and the moft particular critique of all the reft. 
 What theiefore, but the moft glaring want of can- 
 dor, could induce our author to reprefent me 
 as a6\ing " dilhoneftly" in my quotation from 
 Leigh f efpecially when he imitates the very thing, 
 which he fo indecently reprehends in me? But 
 this is our author's way. He hardly ever omits 
 a lingle opportunity, whether juft or otherwife, 
 of abufmg us, if a fentiment is dropped that mili- 
 tates with his pre-conceived ideas. Take a re- 
 markable 
 
( 2l6 ) 
 
 markable Ipechnen of his abu/iz'e faculty in thtf 
 following inftance. 
 
 Among the argumentative witticifms, which 
 were levelled at baptifmal afperfion, in our au- 
 thor's late memorable harangue at Shreui/hiiry, 
 One was, his appeal to the audience, *' whether 
 " the fpr ink ling their pots and cups would cleavfe 
 *' them } This wonderful argumentum ad ancillary 
 which, to be fure, would appear extremely de- 
 cifive to all the Jervants that attended ; a judicious 
 hearer faw through; and, in order to weaken 
 the force of an obfervation, which tended to re- 
 prefent immeriion in baptifm as more favorable . 
 to the idea of inward purification than fprinkling, 
 he retorted the coarfe illuftration upon him ; 
 by obferving " that the pots and cups would not 
 *' probably be more cleanfed, if wrapt in cloths 
 " and drawn fuddenly through the water, than 
 " if they had been fprinkled." As this was an 
 obfervation in Mr. M.'s own ftyle, and exadly 
 fuited to his method of reafoning; he therefore 
 lets about attacking it, with full as much feriouf- 
 nefs as Don^ixot encountered the puppets; and the 
 iflue of that tremendous rencounter between the 
 ligna mohilia and the romantic hero, is not alto^ 
 gether unUke the overflowings of our author's 
 indignation againft a harmlefs limile ; which hap- 
 pens to be nothing more than an exa61 tranfcript 
 of a puppet formed in his own brain, and fuf- 
 pended from his roftrum by the deceptive wire 
 of a little low-lived fophiftry. After going all 
 the way to Bath^ !^Quthampton, &c, for illuftrative 
 
 artillery 
 
( 21? ) 
 
 artillery Ovhich is all nothing to the purpofe^ 
 unlefs it was the caftom for thofe who bathed in 
 yeftments at thofe places, jufl: to pop under water, 
 and inftantaneoufly to be taken out again he 
 then makes a fudden tranlition to the Dunciad. 
 Having ranfacked that inexhauftible fund of fa- 
 tire, for fomething adapted to the fwellings of 
 his indignation, he at laft lights upon two lines, 
 as he thinks, full to his purpofe. With this bor- 
 rowed diftich he fallies forth, as with a formida- 
 ble weapon; and with two fevere blows, brings 
 a charge of dulnefs and pertnefs j intended for my 
 friend or me ; perhaps for both. How great are 
 our obligations to this modeft gentleman for ho- 
 noring us with a place in the dunciad^ I will not 
 mention; and 1 have no reafon to be greatly 
 chagrined at the coarfe compliment, when I con- 
 lider that I am not alone in its applicationi For, 
 you know, reader, 
 
 Soldmen miferii socios hahuijfe doloris. 
 
 Were I difpofed to obferve the lex talionis, 
 how eafily might I accoft this ranfacker of the 
 dunciad with a retaliating quotation from Hudi- 
 hras I — As to the charge of dulnefs, I feel quite 
 indifpofed to vindicate myfelf. But though I de- 
 tline the taik of vindication in favor of ** the 
 Vicar;" that is no reafon why I may not vindi- 
 cate his friend. I alTure thee, then, reader, the 
 double charge of dulnefs and pertnefs no more 
 fuits him, than a panegyric on modejiy a.nd polite* 
 nefsi would decypher the Anabaptift champion (^f 
 E e Liverpool, 
 
( 2l8 ) 
 
 Liver pool. The friend I allude to, is not one whit 
 tnferlor to Mr. M. m jiidicioufnefs ; at the fame 
 time that he is viuch his fuperior in genuine piety. 
 And if his obfervation on Mr. M's vulgarifm 
 merits the appellation of " pertnejs •" let it be 
 remembered, that it was only pertnefs in private 
 converfation. Whereas Mr. M's was " pertnefs'* 
 from the pulpit; ^'pertnefs' in 2. folemn ordinance-, 
 " pertnefs" before a numerous congregation ; 
 *' pertnefs" devoid of decency and argument; 
 and " pertnefs" that afFefled the pra6^ice of a 
 body of minifters, numbers of whom are as much 
 above him in point of learning and piety, as he 
 is beneath them by the vulgarity and petulance of 
 his condu(51. And howfoever Mr. M. might think 
 the charge oi dulnefs is applicable to me; I affure 
 him, I am not fo dull but I can fee the very 
 f^riking accommodation of the following lines to 
 his flyle of writing. 
 
 *' Immodeft worJs admit of no defence, 
 *' For, want of decency is want oi fcnfe." 
 
 1 am extremely forry to divert the reader from 
 the principal fubjecl in debate, by drawing off 
 his attention for a moment to the abufive digrcf- 
 iions of Mr. M. But, where fuch rubbilh lies 
 in our way, it is Ibmetimes necelTary to remove 
 it ; although the tafk is very unplealing, 1 mutt 
 own. Without digreffing any more for the prc- 
 fent, I will proceed to coniider the applications of 
 the word S^Tr/zc^ in fcripture : and I doubt in the 
 examination of thefe paffages with Mr. M.'s cu- 
 
 rioiie 
 
( 219 ) 
 
 rious flrivilures on them, it will be difficult to 
 (JcUermine, whether his criticifras qr inve61ives 
 contain the more real rubbilh, either for (quantity 
 or quality. 
 
 The Greek word adapted In fcripture to ex- 
 prefs the ordinance of baptifm, is applied in fe- 
 veral other inftances, where the idea of immcrlioii 
 is not implied; confcquently that idea cannot be 
 always transfei'ed to a fixed mode of baptifm by 
 dipping, 
 
 1. " The pharifees and all the Jews except they 
 *' wafh their hands oft, eat not ; and when they 
 " come from market, except they wafh {f^aTfjia-ocfjc^i 
 " baptize themfelves) they eat not." Mark vii^ 
 3, 4. Upon this paffage he obferves, p. 195 
 " So flric\ a fecif as the pharifees would have 
 ** made but little of the inconveniency" of im- 
 merfion every day before dinner. But I fancy 
 ALL THE Jews would not " have made but 
 ** little' of this inconveniency. For obferve, read- 
 er, the Apofile fays, that not only the pharifees 
 but likewife '* all the Jews" walhed before din- 
 ner. That therefore an immerfion — of the whok 
 body — every day before dinner — was pradficabl^ 
 for all the Jews as well as for all the pharifees, 
 I fancy a perlon of unbounded credulity will 
 hardly fuppofe ; without admitting the equally 
 incredible hypothelis that this univerfal immer- 
 fion muft have been carried on by uninterrupted 
 miracle. But it is plain that the wajliing which 
 the Apoftle fays all the Jews pradifed, was no- 
 thing more than that of their hands : for, in the 
 E e 2 verfp 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 vcrfc immediately preceding the pafTage I have 
 juft quoted from Mark vii. the apoftle informs us 
 that what the pharifees blamed the difciples for, 
 was their eating bread with yj^<riv ayivfjoig iinwqflien 
 hands; and their queftion in ver. 5, is founded 
 on the fame circumftance and couched in the 
 x'ery fame words, " Why walk not thy difciples 
 " according to the tradition of the elders, but 
 " eat bread with uviTfjotg %s^(nv unwajhen hands?'* 
 Now if the thing which the pharifees blamed in 
 the difciples was a not wajhing their hands ; was 
 not that the very thing which they pra<5lifed 
 themfelves? To blame the difciples for not wafh- 
 ing their hands when their own cuftom was a 
 bathing of the whole body, would have been ridi- 
 culoufly inconliftent. And yet this unavoidable 
 abfurdity attends the criticifms of Anabaptifts on 
 this pafiage. However, to put the queftion be- 
 yond difpute, let us conlider that appofite paf- 
 fage in Luke xi. 38. A pharifee having invited 
 pur Lord to dine with him *' marvelled that he 
 *' had not firft ivajlitd a ttj^xtcv c[2cc7fJ>Bi^ was not 
 " firft baptized before dinner." Now compare 
 this text with Matth. xv. 2, 20, and with Mark vii. 
 2, 4, 5, and you will find in thefe parallel paf- 
 fages, that all the pharifees expeded of our Lord 
 or his difciples was, that they lliould have wafh- 
 ed their hands. Yet this was called a being bap- 
 tized. So that from hence it is plain, 2. partial 
 wajhing is according to fcripture 2i baptifm of the 
 perfon. And indeed Mr. M himfelf feems aware 
 of the force of this mofl evident demonftration ; 
 
 and 
 
( 221 ) 
 
 and endeavors to evade It by a conceiTion, which 
 for his fide of the queftion happens to be rather 
 unfortunate. " Suppofe they did not (dip their 
 ** whole bodies), flill they dipped that part they 
 " did walh; and all that ive are contending for, is 
 '* that ^ciTfli(^cc lignlties to dip." Is this indeed 
 
 '* ALL THAT HE IS CONTENDING FOR?" Then 
 
 from this day forward, Mr. M. lliould never more 
 *' contend'' for a total imnurfion as ejjential to bap- 
 tifm. Becaufe, if our Lord and his difctples 
 were faid to be baptized, v/hen they only waihed 
 their hands ; and " all that" our author " co7itends 
 *' for, is that the Greek word iignifies to dip ;" 
 then fuppofing -even that they dipt their hands 
 ;n order to walh them (which J will prove not to 
 have been the cafe), according to Mr. M. hlm- 
 felf, a dipping of a part is a baptifm of the whole 
 man : according to the celebrated maxim of Dr. 
 Qale, ** PP^hat is true of any one part feparatcly, 
 *' is true of the whole complexly.'' And fo, here 
 pur tv/o Anabaptifts unite in giving up a total 
 immerlion as efTential to baptifm, and in efta- 
 blilhing a partial wajhing, as equally valid. And, 
 in order to keep our author in his prefent fenti- 
 ments, as well as to convince him that others 
 have commented on the wafliings of the phari- 
 fees, as we have done, 1 beg he would coniider 
 the following opinion of 'Tilenus. *' Baptifm, if we 
 " refpe(?t the etymology of the word, Iignifies dlp- 
 *' ping, a?id likewij'e sprinkling, in which fenfe 
 ** it is ufed. Mar. vii. 4; and confequently wafh- 
 *' ing." And again. *' Baptifm in general lig- 
 
 *' nifies. 
 
( 222 ) 
 
 " nifies, immerfion, or wajhing, or sprinkling ."-f 
 From this appoliie note of the etymologiil T'ilenus, 
 which I beg our author to ruminate upon, 1 pafs 
 to his 
 
 Next argument, fuch as it is. He contends 
 that the manner the pharifees walhed their hands 
 was by immevlion. And luppoling we grant that, 
 il is not very material ; lince it would not invali- 
 date the argument agdinrt the neceriity of a total 
 immerfion in baptifm. However there is intima- 
 tion in fcripture that the Jews walhed their hands 
 by pouring water on them : for it is written, that 
 ** Rtijha poured water on the hands of Elijah." 
 Dr. Gale indeed, and from him DwStennett, fay, it 
 Ijhould be, " FOR the hands of Elijah-," contrary 
 to the Latin super and the feptuagint Greeks 
 which renders it 'vvr-j yji^sic. Beiides, Dr. I'Fally 
 in p. 109, and iii, of his Defence, quotes the 
 learned Dr. Focock, as proving from Maimonidts 
 and other Rabbis, that the ordinary mode of 
 walhing hands before meals, was by water run- 
 ning or poured out of a veflel or fmall ciftern, 
 called by Eujiathius yj^vi'^ov, and by the Evangelift 
 VLTi'lvi^; from which the water ran out by a cock 
 for that purpofe; of which there feems to be an 
 intimation in that expreffion 'u^w^ stt/ 7[-o^(/^g ijlh, 
 Luke vii. 44. 
 
 f Baptifmus, fi etv'Mon vcch fpenoiws, immerfionem fignificat, atque 
 ^tiam ASPERsi-iNEM, quo fenfu tifurpatur Mar. vii. 4, & a coiifegueiiti -dhlui- 
 tionem. — Baptifttms in genet e, vel merfionem f.gnificat, vel ablutionem m/t 
 TERFUsioNEM. Til, Dc Bapt. Difp. I. Thef. ii. P. 88?, & Theolog. SyO. 
 P, 1077. 
 
 In 
 
( 223 ) 
 
 In order to juftify his tranilating the Greek 
 word in Mark vii. 4, bathe'. Dr. 5". quotes Beza as 
 favoring his Interpretation. But the very fame 
 Beza, howfoevtr on that pafiage he drop acriticifm 
 that countenances the Dodor's Icntiment, gives 
 us an Interpretation of the fame word ^o^ttJi^m, 
 which direolly militates with the Doctor's idea. 
 This is evident from the following words of Dr. 
 iVall. " Dr. Focock both fays himfelf, and quotes 
 *' Beza SAYING the same, that '^oi.Tvj'/^-BotL here 
 ** in St. Luke, means the fame as KkiBoa and 
 " yj^vnfj-iv, to ivajh, or to wajk the hands. And 
 ** that fince that wajhing of the hands might be done, 
 " either by putting them in the water, or by pouring 
 *' water on them-, there is (in the text of St. Luke) 
 *' a word uftd s(3ay7f]iByi which comprehends both the 
 *' one and the other." ■f For, fays the Dr. (Pocock) 
 " that it is not ufed only for that (dipping) / thijik 
 ** is plain from that %vtiich we read in Luke xi. 38. 
 ** The pharifee mari'elled that a tt^ooJov sfSocn^i^ri," 
 Not. Mifcell. C. ix. P. 397. 
 
 So that from hence it follows, (i) that Eeza's 
 opinion refpe6^ing Mark vii, 4, does not altoge- 
 ther fuit the Do(?i:or's purpofe ; fince it does not 
 conclude abfolutely againft us ; (2) that Beza's 
 interpretation on one palTage, manifeftly favors 
 the very arguments we urge refpe£ling the mode 
 of the Jewiih walljings from another j (3) that 
 Dr. Pocock and Bcza were unanimous in calling 
 that a baptifm, which was only a walhing of the 
 hands I and {^) that ^aTfjii^oo, according to thefe 
 
 t irall againfi Gale, P. III. 
 
 two 
 
( 224 ) 
 
 two great critics, fignifies the fame as aj^^ and 
 yj^viTTTu:. A proof this, by the bye, they did not 
 think as Dr. 5. does, that Aj;?:*; always implies the 
 idea of wafhing the whole body. 
 
 II. The fecond application of the word refpe<fls 
 their manner of walhing their cups, pots, brazen 
 vejels and yJ^Mccv beds or tables. On this branch 
 of the Jewilh walkings Mr. M. alks, '* Who ever 
 " wafhed pots or cups without putting them into 
 " water r" This is our author's only argument 
 to prove the Jews always immerfed thefe articles; 
 even the mention of which is fufficient to its 
 refutation. As to the cups, there is an intimation: 
 in fcripture that contradi6^s the fuppolition of 
 their having been overwhelmed; for our Lord 
 charges the pharifees with making clean to 'i't^ocBsv 
 'jroiYj^ia only the outfide of the cup. Mattk. i. 23, 25. 
 How therefore only the outfide couli be cleanfed, 
 if the whole was immerfed, I leave to our pro- 
 found difquifitor to determine : for to me it 
 would feem a manoeuvre in the walliing-way 
 quite paradoxical, if not downright legerdemain. 
 — Whether it is ufual to clean pots by plunging 
 them in water, and never by pouring water on 
 them, Mr. M.'s fervant could have told hirfi. — 
 Is it probable that their brazen TeJJ'els were ever 
 immerfed? when it is conlidered that they were 
 often fo large as to contain a fort of refervoir 
 for the purpofe of walhing other furniture ? W'^ho 
 would think of plunging a furnace into water 
 in order to wafli it? — Were their beds walhcd by 
 immerlion ? O but Mr. Af. thinks the word' 
 
 may 
 
( 225 ) 
 
 «iay as properly fignify tables. I think not. f- 
 KA/v;? is derived from kXivoo reclino, and is the 
 name of thofe couches on which they reclined 
 thcmfelves at dinner. Beiides it is tranflated bed 
 i-n Matth. ix. 2. But fuppoiing it to lignify a 
 fabk, he fays, " Surely there is no difficulty to 
 " put a table into water." As for the difficulty 
 of doing this, it depends principally on the want 
 of depth or convenience of water. How there- 
 fore every family among the Jews could be con- 
 flantly provided with a fufficiency, to plunge 
 their tables in ; or why that iliould be their in- 
 variable mode of wafliing them ; appears to me 
 among thofe huge incredibilities, which common 
 fenfe cannot digeft; and yet which with paity- 
 prejudice go down as glib as abfolute certain- 
 ties. If Dr. 5.'s maxim ** that what was moft 
 " natural was probably moft ufual" be juft ; we 
 need only appeal to modern practice, in order 
 to inveftigate the moft natural mode which the 
 Jews adopted in wafhing their tables. 
 
 But in farther fupport of his fuppofition (for proof 
 is no component part of our author's criticifms) 
 that the articles juft mentioned were wafhed by 
 immerfion ; he fays, " Nor would It be any won- 
 ** der, 'if even frequently we are not told how 
 " often," (nay, we are not told it at all that) 
 
 f Perfons baptized in theii' Icds, wei-e called in Latin clinki, a word 
 derived from ^Air-:, a hcd. But when our author tranllates the Creek 
 word a table; then, according to him and his oraele, the cliiiiei were 
 perfons baptized on tables. — See what nonfenfe refults from an unwillinT* 
 nefs to yield up the moft plain interpretation, when it dailies with the 
 iatcrefts of bigotry ! 
 
 F i" " they 
 
( 226 ) 
 
 ** they put their beds and couches into water, 
 " efpecially as the law of Mojes enjoined, that 
 " every thing deemed unclean, whether it was a 
 *' vellel of wood, ox raiment, ox Jkin, ox Jack, it 
 '• muft* be put into water." This illuftration, 
 which he borrows from his oracle, is in his opi- 
 nion decilive. But it happens to be nothing at 
 all to the purpofe. For (i) What in the name 
 of wonder has a divine injun6lion to do with the 
 fuperflitious cuftoms of the Jews ; which were 
 a manifell corruption of, yea a departure from, 
 the command of God? For fo our Lord repre- 
 fents them, faying, *' For, laying ofide the com- 
 *' mandment of God, ye hold the tradition of 
 ** men; as the baptifms of pots, &c." Markwn. 7, 8. 
 (2) What God enjoined in Lev. xi. 31, refpeded 
 the legal defilement of any veffel, &c. by the car- 
 cafe of a moufe or any other unclean animal 
 falling into it. But the wafhings pradifed by the 
 Jews, were the refult of their own fuperftition : 
 for they feem to have been performed (as it ap- 
 pears from the context) as often as the vefTels 
 were to have been ufed at any meal. (3) If the 
 Jews made any reference in this praflice to the 
 command in Leviticus, they fiill dcftroyed it by 
 their traditions and fuperftitions; otherwife our 
 Lord would not have blamed them. And as 
 their walliing the butfide of the cup, &c. was one 
 of the corruptions he blamed ; does not that cir- 
 cumftance imply that they did not plunge them ? 
 (4) Befidcs, we are informed Num. xxxi. 23 ; that 
 
 * ^' Every thing deemed unclean — it! mufti" — Attic tafte ! 
 
 every 
 
( 227 ) 
 
 every vefTel that would abide the fire, of hrafs^ 
 iron, tin, &c. was to go through the fire and to be 
 purified by the water of feparation-, which was by 
 SPRINKLING. Chap. vii. 13. So that brazen 
 veffels, pots and cups, were not commanded to be 
 put into the water at all. Here therefore Mr. M, 
 and his oracle argue againft themfelves ; and here 
 I Ihall leave them in felf-contradiftory coalition, 
 for a moment, while I prefent the reader with 
 the opinion of the great Dr. Lightfoot. " Which 
 " word (/. e, ^a.7flia-{ji(^) when applied to the 
 *' following things" (the cups, pots, &c.) *' does 
 " rot always lignify dipping or plunging, but 
 *' fometimes wajhing only, or even sprinkling, 
 " (as Maimonides obferves) efpecially of the cup of 
 " blelfingr * 
 
 III. No fooner does Mr. M. bring the charge 
 of pertnefs and dulnefs againft my friend and me, 
 than he makes an inftantaneous tranfition from 
 
 his abulive difiich to the fufferings of Christ* 
 
 This fudden change from the fatire and jocula- 
 rity of the dunciad to the fad folemnities of Geth- 
 femane-, or from the levity of Po/)^ to the bloody 
 baptifm of the Son of God; carries with it fuch 
 a profane mixture of irreverence, and contains 
 fuch a prepofterous blending of the tragi-comic, 
 as I am fure will offend the delicacy of every 
 pious reader. But this is a way quite familiar to 
 
 * ^i£ -VOX ad fcquent'ta appltcata non femper tind:ionem aut imracrfio- 
 nem, fed interdum lotionein tantum, -vd etiam aspersionem denotat, ut 
 nctat Maimon, prxcipue pocull benedidtionis. Lightfoot. Vid. Pool. 
 Synops. in Loc. 
 
 F f 2 our 
 
( 228 ) 
 
 our author. He has acquired fuch an irreverent 
 mode of introducing head-and-lhoulders the moft 
 folernn fubjeds after the moli trifling witticifms, 
 that the heterogeneous commixture frequently 
 occurs. One moft memorable inftance of this 
 unhallowed levity foon follows in the very page 
 With the quotation from the dunciad. After laying 
 that the Redeemer's " foul was overwhelmed with 
 " forrow ;" in the parcnthefls which immediately 
 follows thefe folemn words, he ufhers in a jocular 
 Jneer at me for defcribing the effeds of Christ's 
 baptifm by the terms " the falling of his blood 
 ** in grumous clots to the ground," Thus he 
 feems to fympathize with Christ and to laugh at 
 me in one and the fame breath. And if 1 may 
 be allowed to form a parody on a line in 
 Alartial, I would fay concerning fuch want of 
 ferioufnefs, 
 
 Rifu PROF A NO profanius nihil ejl. 
 
 But confider we now our irreverent jefler's 
 argumaits. He fays I have " confined the idea of 
 " Christ's fuiferings to the material f blood of 
 *' his body." But here our author miftakes and 
 
 f Mr. M. has Avrlttcn the word material in italics, and by fo doing 
 has given it a mark of cniphafis and difcriinination. According to him 
 therefore, it fliould lecm that " //'m/jtm/ blood" is one particuhir il//?rf, 
 and vmmtertal, another. Now, as he blames me for having " confined 
 " the idea of Chriift's iiifFerings to the material" fpecies of his blood ; 1 
 ■wi'Ax he would tell us what idea he has of the immateriality of that iiuid. 
 But, as I would hope he is not fo profane as to phiioibphize, where 
 neither pbiloibphy, divinity, nor common fenfe will fupport his dll- 
 tinctions ; I would only luggeft, that the term Ji\,lcrial blood Is equivalent 
 to material matter, and fuppofes a difUniSlIon of ipccies, where there is 
 9one ; aud therefore incurs material nonfenfc, 
 
 mlf- 
 
( 229 ) 
 
 mlfreprefents in a breath. When T faid that 
 Christ was baptized in his blood, I meant that 
 this outward ftate of his body bedewed with 
 blood, as the etfed of the internal iu^Ferings of 
 his foul, fuggeiled the idea of afpiirfion. I hope 
 my view of " the attending agonies of Christ" 
 is not a whit more " crampt" than that of Mr. M, 
 himfelf ; nor do I think, that any impartial perfon 
 would fuppofe I intended " to diminilh the great- 
 *' nels and weight of the fufferings" of his foul, 
 becaufe I labored to paint in proper colors the 
 effe^ of thefe fufferings on his body. And thougli 
 1 am not reluctant m acknowledging, that the 
 univerfal agony that feized all the powers of his 
 human foul might very properly luggeft the idea 
 of overwhelming, which the reference to Ff. Ixix. 2, 
 naturally illulf rates; yet iurely it does not mi- 
 litate with this idea, tliat the ttate of his body 
 fuggefts the diliinc^l idea of afperjion, efpeclally 
 as an infpired prophet accommodates the very- 
 term fpr inkling to the ettec?!: of the Redeemer's 
 fuiferings and conquefts, alluded to in If. Ixiii. 
 And that I am not fingular in this idea, I will 
 prove from the teftimony of three great men. — 
 Gregory Nazianzen fays, " I know alfo of 
 '* a fourth baptifm, that of martyrdom and 
 *' blood '00 7L^ uvj.^ Xp/f^ sfoocTqia-oiTo With which 
 *' Christ himfelf was baptized."* — The vene- 
 rable Bede confirms the idea of afperlion. For, 
 commenting on the very words of Christ in. 
 Luke xii. 50, he makes him fay, " I have" fays 
 
 Creg. Naz. Orat. xxiij. Tom. i, P. 634, 
 
 he, 
 
( ^3o ) 
 
 he (a baptlfm to be baptized with, /. e.) " to be 
 ** SPRINKLED with the bedewing or dying of 
 ** my own bIood."f — Scultetus in his lermon 
 on I/. Ixiii, which he intltles I'riumphus Dei habi- 
 tu cruentato ex acie rcdiuntis; paraphraiing on ver. i 
 fays, ** To come from Edom is to walk in a red 
 ** vefiment ; and with dyed garments from Bozrah 
 ** is to have garments sprinkled with new wine. 
 " — 7 have trod the wine-prefs, that is the grapes 
 *'' in the prefs. And from hence I wear gar- 
 ** ments sprinkled with the blood of mine ene- 
 *' raies."! 
 
 IV. The next application of the word, where 
 the idea of baptifmal immerlion is not necefTarily 
 implied, occurs in i. Cor. x. 2. The account 
 given us of the pallagc of the children of Ifrael 
 thro' the Red fea, fecms naturally to favor the idea 
 of afperiion. But againft this Mr. 71/. fays, that 
 *' the Ifraelites went through the cavity of the 
 " fea on dry land" and therefore they could 
 not have been fprinkkd with fome detached par- 
 ticles of the fea. What wonderful logic ! As if 
 a perfon may not be fprlnkled with rain and 
 walk on dry lind at the fime time. O but " they 
 " were in the cloud and in the fea ; and this 
 ** furely favors immerjion" p. 22. Obfcrve reader, 
 to what fallacy and abfurdity the Anabaptift is 
 
 f Sanguinis ii:qult proprii thShne l.\;h-o perfundi. Bed. in Luc. xii. 50. 
 
 \ Venirp ab Edom ejl- ruheo rcftUu Inccc'ere ; & venire tinclis veAibiis de 
 Bozra, cjl habere vejlhr.enta mviio ukspeusa. Torcu'ar calcavi, i.e. uvas 
 ifl torculan. At que hlnc veftcs hfthim .Juugulnc kespeksas gero. .Scultct. 
 in Loc. 
 
 driven / 
 
( 231 ) 
 
 driven! He fays the liVaelltcs went on dry land: 
 he will not allow that they were wet with the 
 dtw from the fea or the cloud : and yet he fays 
 they were immerfed in both. But the apoftle fays 
 they were baptized upon this occalion. Accord- 
 ing therefore to our author, here was a baptifm 
 without any application of w-ater. An erroneous 
 criticifni this, that would juftlfy the mod unjuf- 
 tifiable mode of baptizing. For, if the courfe 
 of a ftreara could be divided or turned from its 
 natural channel by an intervening wall on the 
 right hand and on the left, and a perfon was let 
 down into this artificial aperture or " cavity" of 
 the water; in fuch a iituation, although he ihould 
 be *' on dry land," yet with a cloud over his head, 
 and the watera around him, he might be faid to 
 be in both, and to be baptized in both, without 
 the application of a fingle drop of water. And 
 yet flupidly abfurd and invalid as fuch a mode of 
 baptifm would be ; it is neverthelefs authenticated 
 by Mr. Ad.'s dry criticifm. But that he may learn 
 to criticife a little better on this paffage, in future, 
 I beg he would keep in mind the fenlible maxim 
 of Dr. Lightfoot. " The application of water is 
 " necejfary as to the essence of baptifm : but the 
 " application of it by this or the other mode 
 " expreffes the circumftance" -[" 
 
 And here I cannot help applying to the pre- 
 fent criticifm a wonderful argument of our au- 
 thor's, which occurs p. 28. hi order to prove 
 
 f Api'Licatio j\.q}Tm. Mcccjfaria eji Je eflcatia huptiffni : ajl applicatio hoc 
 v(l ilk MOEO ciraimjfaiitii!';: Jonat. Hor. Heh. ht Muttii. iii. 6. 
 
 (according 
 
( ^32 ) 
 
 (according to his uncommon method of dcmon- 
 ftration) that the multitude mentioned in Matth. lii. 
 5, were all im.merfcd in the water of jGrdan ; he 
 fays, " I have no doubt of it, or elfe they had no 
 ** bulinefs in Jordan." But, the force of this 
 huge rcafoning founded on the word iru is intircly 
 enervated by what he fays above. For, the Jf- 
 raelites were in the cloud and in the fea and not 
 wet with the ivater of cither ; confequently the 
 multitude that attended ycfm's baptifm might 
 have been in fome dry part of the ' channel in 
 which Jordan flowed, and be baptized, without 
 any application of water at ail. But, if, as was 
 certainly the cafe, the Jfraelites were baptized 
 in the Red fea by the afperfion of water; why 
 might ^ot the multitude attending Johns bap- 
 tifm, be faid to have been baptized in Jordan, 
 and yet have water only poured or fprinkled on 
 them ? even though they ftood '' on dry land?" 
 To infer always a plunging of the whole body 
 in water, becaufe the word in occurs in the nar- 
 rative, would in many inflances be equally falfe 
 as abfurd. For inftance; our Lord commands 
 the young man born blind to " wafli in the pool 
 *' of Siloam." Now to accommodate Mr. M.'s 
 logic to this inftance, would be to infer that he 
 was plunged all overj '* or elfe he had no bulinefs 
 '* 772" Siloam. But, that the blind man was not 
 immerfed, and yet had very important " bulinefs" 
 at the pool, is evident ; for, the curing his blind- 
 nefs depended on his walhing there. But that his 
 whole body was not immerfed in it is plain ; be- 
 caufe 
 
( 233 ) 
 
 caufe only his eyes were aife^led, and only this part 
 was to have been walhed ; in doing which, there was 
 ho immerfion at all : belides, the Greek word, ufed 
 to defcribe the walhing, is in yohn ix. 7, wj/oj/ 
 from v/7r/:c', which is always applied to a partial 
 walhing only. What becomes then of the mighty- 
 arguments our author founds on the force of the 
 word in? ■!• 
 
 But, to prove, that others thought as w^II as 
 myfelf, that there was fome analogy between the 
 fiate of the Ifraelites when fprinkkd by the cloud 
 and fea, and that of a perfon baptized by af- 
 perjio?!, I need only quote IVala'is. " Which rite^ 
 " (that is, sprinklimg) the b.ptlfm in the cloud 
 " and fea alfo favors; of which Paul treats in 
 " I Cor. X." * 
 
 V. We urge that no argument deciiive in fa- 
 vor of total immerlion as thf^ efjence of bap^ifm, 
 can be drawn from the examples recorded in fcrip- 
 ture; but, on the contrary, if we are permitted 
 'to draw natural inferences froai rauonal premilfes, 
 we conclude that the baptiims mentioned there, 
 
 f Even Dr. 5". overthrows our author's wonderful logic, founded a 
 the ufe of the monofyllable in, by the following couci-llion. '' What 
 '• Baptift ever said or thought that perlbus canno; go into the 
 " water, without being plunged in it ? or that the exprelTion of 
 *' i'^'''S '^own into water necefiarily includes dipping in it ?" Keinarks, p. 8i, 
 
 1 hope it will be allowed, that a perioii wiio " goes it^to water** 
 
 itiny confequently be laid to be in it. And, if ace jrdiug to Dr. S. the 
 application of the former exprelhon docs not '' necef.arily include 
 " dipping;" neither does that of the latter. The uijpute thus, far, is, 
 therefore, between Mr. M. and his oracle. 
 
 * Cut ritui (fc. aspersioni) qmqiie favci '•npliftnus in nule <ir mari ; de 
 fuo Paulus, I Cor. x, agit. Walrus, Synops. t'ur. -Thcolog. Difp. xliv. 
 
 G g Were 
 
( 234 ) 
 
 were performed by fprinkling or pouring of wa- 
 ter. Coniider we then, i The multitudes bap- 
 tized by 'john the Baptift, Matth. iii. 5, and by the 
 apoftles, A^s ii. 41.— That " Jerufalem and all 
 *' Judea, and all the region round about Jordan'* 
 in the one inftance ; and three thou/and perfons 
 in the other; could not have been baptized by 
 a total immerlion, is implicitly evident; (i) be- 
 caufe, in the former cafe, the Baptift's time and 
 /irength would have been inadequate to the work ; 
 and the fame circumftances of impracticability 
 operate ftrongly in the latter. Dr. S. indeed, in 
 order to evade the force of this argument, divides 
 the multitude baptized on the day of Pentecoft, 
 not only among the apoftles, but among thefeventy 
 alfo; though this gentleman* who lays fo great 
 a ftrefs on the letter of fcripture, as necefTary to 
 authenticate pra(5\ices on other occalions, here 
 departs from his own favorite maxim ; for, as the 
 context does not intimate, that the Jeventy affifted 
 upon this occalion, have we not as good a right 
 to urge the Jilence of fcripture againft the Dodor 
 here, as he does the very fame circumflance 
 againft us in other inflances, though with not 
 equal plaufibility of argument? He urges indeed, 
 *' that the text does not Jay they were baptized 
 " in one day only." p. 116. That is, the words 
 me and only are not mentioned in the text ; and 
 therefore the text does not " jay"" it. What 
 trifling ! But does it not fay, that the very three 
 thoufand who had " received the word gladly, 
 ** were baptized, and 7>? ''it^^^f't in ikai day were 
 
 " added 
 
( 235 ) 
 
 " added to the church ?" A6is\i. 41. Were not 
 the perfons added to the church, the fame, that 
 in the former part of the text are faid to have 
 received the word and to have been baptised? 
 And does not the text therefore fay, that their 
 reception of the word, their addition to the 
 church, and their confequent baptifm, were cir- 
 cumftances that took place in the fame day? 
 Is it therefore to be fuppofed (without fuppoling 
 what is improbable and impra61icable) that the 
 multitude awakened under Peter's fermon were 
 all im merged? And even if the difficulty upon 
 this occalion was alleviated by the number of ad- 
 mlniftrators; yet how will the fame fuppolition 
 apply to the Bapti/i ? Surely the ingenious Dr. S, 
 cannot, without a prodigious knack at invention, 
 attempt to demonftrate, that John had the affift- 
 ance of eighty two joint-adminiftrators in difpen- 
 ling the ordinance. We think he would find it 
 difficult to prove, he had one affiftant. And yet 
 his number of fubje6ts feems to have been much 
 greater, than that, which demanded the help of 
 the twelve apoftles and feventy difciplesj if we 
 coniider that he baptized " all Judea and all 
 " Jerufalem and all trhe region, &c." which I 
 Ihould imagine, though ^not implying all and 
 every of the inhabitants of thofe places, yet to 
 include a number fuperior to three thoufand. How, 
 therefore, owf adminiftrator couXd plunge head-over- 
 ears fuch an immenfe and promifcuous multitude 
 of profelytes, is one of thofe monftrous incre- 
 dibilities, which feem quite credible to men of 
 G g 2 our 
 
r 236 ) V 
 
 our author's kidney ; but which will ever, to 
 candur and common fenfe, appear either as ab- 
 folute miracle or romance. But fuppofe yohn 
 to have baptized by pouring or fprinkling of 
 water; then the incredible and ahjurd vanifh to- 
 gether. (2) We think, that the conlideration of 
 modt/iy would lay a confiderable bar againft im- 
 merging fuch vaft multitudes. For, as it would 
 reflect a charge of indecency on the adminiftra- 
 tors and the perfons baptized, to fuppofe, that 
 any had been dipt naked; fo it is extremely im- 
 probaMe, that either John's profelytes, or thofe 
 a.vakened under Peter's fermon, coniifting prin- 
 cipally of the poor, could be provided with change 
 of raiment; and i: they were, that even in that 
 cafe, the tlifpenfers of the ordinance would pro- 
 pofe an univerfal immeriion, to a promifcuous 
 multitude of men and women; when their un- 
 drejjing and changing their ivet garments, muft have 
 been attended with a group of circumftances 
 equally inconvenient and indelicate. For, how- 
 foever a few perfons in a private haptifiery, pre- 
 vioufly accommodated with change of raiment, 
 might be dipt, with a degree of comparative de- 
 cency and convenience ; yet the baptifm of a 
 vaft multitude; in a^z^^//c place; before a number 
 of JptSiatori ; at a dijlance from their refpe6^ive 
 habitations; and either unprovided with or unable 
 to procure, change of laiment ; — I fay, a baptifm, 
 attended with fo many infuperable difficulties, 
 could never have been adminiftered by a total 
 Irnmerlion ; efpecially when it is confidered, that 
 
 an 
 
( ^37 ) 
 
 an almoft ■unavoidable infringement of the laws 
 of decency, muft have been the confequencc. And 
 indeed I cannot help faying, that, although the 
 mode of baptizing, pra^lifed by modern Anabap- 
 tifts, is not liable to an equal degree of immodefty 
 and inconvenience; yet that /ow^ degree of both 
 is hardly avoidable. — It is the defign of the great 
 Head of the church, that every thing in it 
 Ihould be conduced sva-yj^i/^ovoog with decency. And 
 I can never fuppofc, that he would have en- 
 joined immerlion, as effential to baptlfm, when 
 fuch an inftitution would be fubje(?i:, in many 
 inflances, to much indecorum. It is well known, 
 that there were fome, fo invincibly ftrenuous in 
 their attachment to dipping, as to make it ne- 
 ceffary to the due adminiftration of the ordinance, 
 that the candidates fhould enter the baptiftery 
 quite naked ; in order to preferve a drained re- 
 femblance to our fpiritual nakednefs, as well as 
 to keep up a fuppofed reprefentation of their 
 *' putting off the old man ;" or as VoJJius fays, 
 ^afi non minus nudi baptizare?2tur quam Adam 
 fuerit in paradifo. Several Ihanieful incidents re- 
 fulting from this mofl indecent mode, brought 
 it into gradual difrepute among the Adamites 
 themfelves (for fo fome of thefe naked dippers 
 were called), and at laft into univerfal difufe. 
 Upon this mode the Anabaptifls have confidera- 
 bly improved, by rejecSling this fpecies of inde- 
 cency, altogether, and by requiring all their can- 
 didates to be dipped in garments. But, although 
 ^hey are to be commended, for thus far obferving 
 ^ the 
 
( 238 ) 
 
 the laws of decency; yet I cannot think, that 
 Dr. S.'s argument, in favor of the Hrlci modefty 
 of his mode, taken from the promlfcuous bathings 
 at our modern watering-places, is of any force; 
 unlefs he could prove, that fach a modern cuftom 
 were ftridly defenfibU, or that perfons there dipped 
 one a?wther. And even if men and women may 
 bathe promifcuoufly, and modeftly too, perhaps. 
 In a modern bath ; yet, furely, this will not admit 
 a parallel with the prailicc of the Anabaptifts -, 
 where womtUy appareled in a fingle garment, in a 
 public place, and before feveral fpidators, are 
 taken by a man, and plunged head-over-ears ; ef- 
 pecially, when it is a notorious faci, that fome 
 niodeft adminlftrators thus immerge womm far 
 advanced in their pregnancy: and, this latter cir- 
 cumliance, from which Mr. ilf.'s condu6t is not 
 exempt, I dare pronounce lery indecent, as well 
 as extremely dangerous ; ■f ■ and nothing but the 
 moft unconquerable refolution to fupport the 
 
 caufe 
 
 f In my Letter to Mr. M. p. 23, 24; T advanced an argument againft 
 the neccility of baptifmal immerfion, founded on the manifefl: danger 
 that would attend fuch a mode; and I inftanced in the cafe of psegnant 
 WOMEN ; llippofing at the fame time the danger to be flill fartlicr en- 
 hanced, if perfons in a flate of pregnancy fliould be immerfed in the 
 DEPTH OF WINTER. Thls being argtimcutum ad hominem ; and the fadl 
 I condemned, having been a literal tranfcript of Mr. M.'s condudl, when 
 in Shrew/iury ; either he himfelf, or probably, his note-makiag friend 
 ioii him, attempts to invalidate my argument in a. note, p. 28, by 
 afierting " that cold bathing is recommended by the faculty to pregnant 
 " women ; and that fprinkling or pouring of water would be dange- 
 " rous as well as going into the water." In oppofition to this evalive 
 ftuiF, 1 anfwer, (i) That the AipT^er's medical doBrine feems to be found- 
 ed more upon empiricism, than upon the principles of phyftc ; and 
 tliat it exactly comports with the fyftem of " the faculty" of the 
 Quacks; which is fo famous for accelerating the departure of people 
 
 eut 
 
C 239 ) 
 
 caufe of bigotry, and to keep up the fchifm at 
 all events, could ever fuggeft this branch of a 
 mode, to invalidate which, the laws of decency, 
 humanity y^Tid common fenfe, powerfully concur. Be- 
 iides, it is not a little extraordinary, that they 
 ihould, in every inftance, invariably pracSlIce a 
 ^o/a/ immerlion J when they are conftralned, them- 
 felves, to acknowledge, that a thing or a per/on 
 may be faid to be dipped, when only a part is 
 put under water -, which Dr. Gale exemplifies In 
 the cafe of the hyjfop dipped in blood, and that 
 of the nib of a pen dipped in inkj and which he 
 
 out of the world : and fince Mr. M. fo cordially embraces their prin- 
 ciples, fliould not that learned body prefent him with a diploma, as a 
 bright graduate in the fyftem of JEjluJapim? and advance him to the 
 ftill higher honor of being profesgor. of ciuackery ? (a) Suppofing, 
 that in fome inftances,. bathing might be recommended to pregnant 
 ■women ; yet, would any perfon in his fenfcs, recommend it as medicinal 
 in the rigorous month of December ? and not long before their 
 decionliturc ? Not to urge how inuelicate an appearance a pregnant 
 woman muft make, before a number oi fpeiStators, at a public batei- 
 I afk, whether the man, who could be the admimjirator upon fuch an 
 occafion, muft not be loft to every tender fcnfation, and reiemble in his 
 fpirit, the unfeeling apathy of a Stoie, rather than the tendernefs and 
 delicacy of a ChriJIian? If there be an object upon earth, calculated 
 to excite the niceft fenfations of tendei'nel's and fympathy, it is cer-- 
 tainly that of a woman, far advanced in her pregnancy. But what are all 
 thefe tender fenfations, and the circumftances that miglit naturally 
 fuggeft them, to Analaptifts ? The fchifm must be kept up, at the 
 hazard of health and life. And, though instant death might be 
 the confequencc of an immerlion of pregnant women in the depth of 
 winter ; yet what is all this to the heroism of bigotry, and our author's 
 fyftem of quackery? (3) When the note-maker (whether Mr. Jenkins 
 or Mr. M. I cannot tell) fays, that " fpriiikliiig of water would" (in 
 cafes of ficknefs) " be dangerous as well as going into water;" I 
 need make not a fingle obfervation to prove, that his wild pofition 
 is equally fupported by inhumanity and falflicod. For, as one juftly ob- 
 fcrves, " There is a time, when a fcrious writer would not trouole 
 " himfelf to confute or fet a wrangler right. And 'tis fuch a one as 
 " this, where the perverfjty i» fo great, as to become an infult upon 
 " common fenfe." 
 
 corroborates 
 
( 240 ) 
 
 Corroborates by his memorable maxim " What U 
 *' true of any one part feparately, is true of the 
 ** ivkole complexly :" and when Mr. M. himfclf 
 " contends for no more, than that ^cctiJi^m fignifies 
 J' to dip i" without fiippoiing, It always implies a 
 total immerlion. Conlidering, therefore, the natu- 
 ral tendency of thefe conceiiions, to weaken the 
 force of the Anabaptifts' own pratftice; how fhall 
 we accont for their notorious deviation from their 
 own un-extorted acknowledgments ? Dr. IVall 
 fuggefts a very probable reafon, for their incon- 
 iiftenc}^ on this head. If, fays he, they were to 
 give up dipping all over, in any one inftance, 
 *' then ths ft hifm would be at an end; and that, 
 " you know, would be a dreadful thing." 
 
 That others fuppofed baptifmal afperfion was 
 more confident with niodefty, than immerlion, is 
 evident, from the following teftimony of Vossius. 
 " Befides thofe other four reafons, which Thomas 
 '* (Aquinas) has brought (in favor oi fpr inkling), 
 *' fome add a fifth, that is, modesty; on ac- 
 *' count of which it is more decent, to sprinkle 
 ** or pour water, on adult s.^'X — And with him 
 concurs Chamier. " The ufe of aspersion 
 " is certainly more proper or convenient, both 
 " in regard to the inclemency of the weather, 
 " and in refpeil of modesty. "j^ And, the fame 
 laft-mentioned author fuppofes it improbable, that 
 
 \ Prxtcr vero qualnor ifir.s quas Thomas cttulit catipis, etiam quhitam aliqil . 
 addiint, hoiieftateni ; -propter quam dfcentius eft adultos aspkrgere vd 
 rcKFUNDERE. Vou. Dc Bapt. Difp. i. P. 36c. 
 
 f Ccvte co)n;ncd'ior aspersionis iijhs, & proptsr Icmpeftatmn iiicoriimda & 
 ^nptcr rruoRTM. Cham. Contract. L. v. 
 
 " the 
 
( 241 ) 
 
 " the three thoufand could be baptized, by a 
 '* few apoftles, in one day, if they were all im- 
 " merfed."* — So does Bonaventure. " It is pre- 
 •* famed, that the apoftlcs baptized by sprin- 
 " KLiNG : and that caftom is flill obferved in 
 ** many churches. And well obferved it may be, 
 *' lince therein, the reafon or intent of the facra- 
 
 *' ment, is kept ititire."^ And of the faiiae 
 
 opinion was Nicholaus de Orbdlis, who lived Ann, 
 Dom. 1452. " It is not likely, when three thou- 
 " fand were baptized on the day of Pentecoft, 
 ** that every perfon had his whole body wallied 
 ** in water ; but precifely with as much as would 
 '* SPRINKLE the face, or admit of its being 
 *' poured on the head."'f' — To which, give me 
 leave to add that of Dr. Lynwood. ^' It is very 
 " probable that the apoftle Peter, did not bap- 
 " tize by immerlion, but by aspersion.":!: — ■ 
 And that jfohn baptized by pouring or JprinkUng 
 of water on the fubjecSl, and not by immerfion, 
 was the opinion of Faulinus, Bilhop of Nola, a co- 
 temporary with St. Auguftin; as appears from thd 
 
 * Videtur 3000 um die a paitcis Apoftolh non potnij/e laptiznrl fi fingiil: 
 merft faiflnt^ Cham. Itid. 
 
 § Prafimitur quod ApofloVt haptizuvcnait aspergendo; <&• nios ilk ferva- 
 tur adhiic in pluribits ecclefiis : fervarl atitem poteji propter hoc, quod ihi cjl 
 Integra ratio Jacramenti. Bonavent. L. iv. Dift. 3, 
 
 f Non cnim efl vcrijimi'e quod in die Pentecoftss qumido haptizati [tint trid 
 ■miltia, quod quilihet hvaretur quantum ad totum corpus fuum in aquu : fed pr£- 
 cifi quantum ad faciem aspergendo, vel quantum ad caput perfundendo. 
 STicoI. Dc Orbellis. in 4 Senlent. Difl:. 4, 9, i. De Baptifmo. 
 
 \ Vcriftin'ile efl quod non per modum immerfwnis fed aspersionis Icptiza- 
 'Verit ApofiJlu! Pctruf. Lynvvood. Conftit. L, ni. De Baptifmo. 
 
 H h two 
 
( 242 ) 
 
 two following lines. Speaking of the Baptiji, Itc 
 %s, 
 
 " D'lluit INFUSIS credentum cnnvna LYMPHIS, 
 " Jbfolvitque metus bominum^ panajque remiithy f 
 
 Thus have I expatiated the m(3re largely on 
 the probable mode, by which John and Fder 
 baptized ; becaufe our. politive Anabaptift, Is fo 
 peremptory In the oppolite fuppolition ; and yet 
 has not urged a Ungle argument to fupport it. 
 All he fays, in p^ 28, 29, is low fneer, * con- 
 temptible irony, and down-right abufe. As to 
 thofe commentators, who cannot digeft impro- 
 babilities fo eafily as our author, and therefore 
 conclude, the baptifms of John and Veter could 
 not have been performed by immerfion ; of all 
 fuch he fays, " 1 think" (but thinking and proving 
 
 t " Ke waflie^ away the fins of believers by -water poured on 
 ■' them, &c." PauTiH. Ep. Kohn ; up Eignlt. Not. in Tcrtul. P. 70. 
 
 * I wiib, Iiowever, when our ajLtthor is in one of liis ftieering-moods, 
 that he would take care to fneer grammatically. Having, in p. 29, fug- 
 gtftetl an ironical hint refpedling the mode of Johns baptifm, he con- 
 cludes by faying, " The water would have tTTETTEC-E fell on them." 
 I Iboukl be glad to know from our author, who feems better acquainted 
 with fneering-moods than with moods of grammar, whether *' would 
 " HAVE FELL!" be intended as a fpeeimcn of hii profound gramma- 
 tical difpuifitions, or of his good ^'■friend" at Wrexham; who hath 
 helped him to fo many valuable " hints" in the note-making ftyk, 
 which he hath further clarified by his correBions of the prcjs. Now. as 
 our n.uthor has fo modcRly declined the ollice of a " liturgy-mender," 
 ;>5 being " a poor mean employment;" I fliould be glad to know, 
 whether that cf a fyntax-mcnder be not full as f)ieaii? efpeciallv as our 
 profound emendator hath likewifc thought proper to tranllate iTrajriffi 
 " wuuLU have fill," And, fuice v/e have been already favored with 
 fume fiqiilaff^jcciinens of Air. M.'s genius in mending and Mr. y.'s in 
 orrecVwg : arc they not mod happily blended together as a ynending 
 iuuiii-tiircte ? 
 
 arc 
 
( 243 ) 
 
 are two things'), " all thofe commentators may 
 " be called Bible-menders." Whether it be cha- 
 raderiftic of genuine modtjly, for a man of his 
 notorious ignorance, to ict him.f.'lf up as a judge 
 of commentators, and to decide upon their ra- 
 tional criticifms, without making one effort of 
 argumenc to overthrow them ; 1 leave to the 
 judgment of the candid reader. As to his charge 
 againif us, of attempting to mend or piece out 
 (his own phrafe) our Bibles ; 1 lliould be glad 
 to know, who are mofl: likely to fail under this 
 imputation? they who bring reajon and argument 
 with them in their earneft refearches? or the men, 
 who feem determined to make the Bible fpeak 
 their meaning, even though embarrafled with the 
 greateft improbabilities, and contradided by the 
 natural fuggeflions of common jen/eF 
 
 VI. The next example, on which our Anabap- 
 tlft triumphs, under the wing of an anonymous 
 friend, is that of the jailor. In order to fupport 
 the idea of his having been baptized by Immer- 
 lion, he is obliged to have recourfe to the fol- 
 lowing fuppolitions, viz. that the jailor " had a 
 *' refervoir of water In the prifon j" or that he 
 was dipt In an adjacent river. And yet this is 
 the gentleman, who charges us with refting all 
 our opinions refpecJling the baptifms mentioned 
 in fcripture, on fuppojitions, probabilities, &c. But 
 in the prefent inftance, his charge manifeftiy 
 recoils on himfelf. For, his fuppolition that therq 
 was a little pond of water or well, In the prifon. 
 Is not fuppofablej ^nd his pro.babil.ity, that the, 
 H h 2 jailor 
 
( 244 ) 
 
 jailor was plunged in the riveri- is improbable j 
 if we conlider, that the baptifm was performed 
 at midnight; and that the adminiftrator, whofc 
 body was galled with ftripes, could not, with- 
 out manifeft peril, enter a river or even a do- 
 jTiefiic refervoir of water, at fuch an unfeafon- 
 able hour of the night. Belides, if immerfion 
 had been the mode, the inconv^niencies and dan- 
 ger, might have been in fome meafure obviated, 
 by poftponing it to tire enfuing morning. Yet 
 we are told, that " the jailor and all his were 
 " baptized Jiraightivay." A6ls. xvi. 33. So that, 
 as there is not the leali intimation in the hiflory, 
 that they went out to any river-, confidering the 
 time of night, the unhealed ftate of the Apoftles* 
 ikipes, as well as the improbable circumftance of 
 there being a quantity of water in the prifon, 
 fufficient for an immerlion of the whole body ; is it 
 not more rational to fuppofe, the ordinance to have 
 been adminiftered by an atfulion of water? And 
 with this fuppofition correfponds the opinion of 
 Chamier. " Nor was there at hand within the 
 *' prifon, as much water as would be neceflary 
 *' for immerfion." \ 
 
 But, in a note, p. 32, we are confronted with 
 a quotation from Witftus ; v^hich, according to 
 the note-maker's tranjiatio/i, feems, at firft light, 
 to militate with our fuppofition ; but, which upon 
 a nearer examination, will be found not fo much 
 to our author's purpofe. Speaking of the Jailor's 
 
 + Nee intra carccrcm fti]ffet ad manum tantiim iujiix qtiaftum niergendo opus 
 rrat. Chain. ContracSl. L. v. C. i. 
 
 baptifm. 
 
( 245 ) 
 
 baptifin, IVitfuis fays, Sacr'n lymphis tin^us chrijii- 
 aiiifmi myjurih initiatusjit. I'hcfe words, Mr. M. 
 or his good " /nV?/c/ that has fuggeiied" the 
 important " hint" in the note, tranlLitcs " Being 
 ** dipped in the lacred Jiream, &c." But this 
 tranllation is palpably falle, in more refpe^ls than 
 one. For (i) it contradicls the hiilory, by fup- 
 poling, that the jailor went out of his houi'e to 
 fome neighboring //rcfa;?! of water to be baptized j- 
 which flream, our author fuppofes to be the 
 river mentioned in Ai^i xvi. 13. But, it is plain 
 /rom the apoiUe's narrative, that the baptifm was 
 performed within a part of the prifon : for it is; 
 ;I'aid that " lie brought Paul and Silas out^" " the 
 •" meaning of which is" fays Dr. Stemiett^ (Re- 
 marks, p, 113), " that he brought them out of 
 *' the inner prifon, into which he had before 
 " thruft thenii" and (p. 114), " before he led 
 •" them into his houfe." And the Doctor fuppofes 
 there was " a pool within the bounds of the 
 ^*' prifon;" and that therein the jailor was dipped. 
 .So that Mr. IvL's travjlation at once contradicts 
 both the fcripture and his own oracle. (2) But I 
 am apprehenlive it does not exprefs the meaning 
 Qi Witfius himfelf. For, as I think he was full 
 as great an expoiitor and critic as Mr. M, 1 can 
 never conceive him capable of contradidiiig a 
 plain hiftorical narrative, and therefore not in- 
 tending ^ifiream by the word lymphis j the natural 
 iignilication of which is water. (3) Nor can it 
 be proved from his ufmg the word tin^us, that 
 he luppofed a total immerlion to have been the 
 
 mode. 
 
( 246 ) 
 
 mode. For, tl;at tin^o and immergo are not 
 convertible terms, is apparent, from the dif- 
 tindlon of the great T>v. JVhitaker. Tinctione 
 content/, quam fuficen putdrunt. immersionem 
 non dtjiderabant. * Dr. Holdfivorth, obferves the 
 famediftlndion. " Baprifm in fome churches is 
 " ufed by immcrfion-f in others, by fprinkl'nig le- 
 . " n:emque tinctionem and a partial dipping.''-^" 
 This is farther warranted by that remarkable 
 ufe of the word tingo. in Martial, 
 
 " , Pete vlna, rofas cape, TIN GERE nardo.''* 
 
 No one furely was ever iinmerfed in fpikenard. 
 horace intimates it was pound on the head, when 
 he fays, JcJianiaiia perfundi nardo, and, — Per- 
 rusus liquidis urgtt odoribus, — Cicero, fpeaking of 
 an indifferent fcholar, calls him Uteris tinctus. 
 But if our ai thor was to have brougiit his over- 
 whelming dodtrine to thcfe words, he^, would pro- 
 bably have tranflated them, " all immerfed in 
 " letters." And then, though the literary immer- 
 fion would not have been charaderiftical of our 
 author's profundity of learning, yet it would 
 have been perfectly correfpondent with his accu- 
 racy, as a iranjlator. — Lyttletcn, in his Di(Sltonary, 
 tranllates tirMus, baptized. Yet he renders tingo, 
 from whence it is derived, to fprinkle. From 
 thefe inftances of the ufe of the word, it is appa- 
 rent it lignifies to ti7ige, to dip 2. part, io fprinkle, 
 
 * •• Being content with a flight tf:pphtg, vvliich they thought fiiffi- 
 •' cient, thty did not deiire unmerfion." Whiiaker. Pid. Dc Sacratn. 
 Sap. ix. I. P. 216. 
 
 f Dr. Richiird HiL'/ivorlb. Lc<!lio xxii. P. 687. 
 
 to 
 
( 247 > 
 
 to pour-, and Is In general acknow^i^ed, by 
 critics facred and profane, to imply lomethjig 
 different from immcrgo. A imitting this, 1 tiiink. 
 it more than probable, that IVitJi-us did not mean 
 io inlinuate by the terms i)mjjfi:s tindu', that the 
 jailor was baptized either in a Jirtam, or by a 
 total immerfton. And the fame argumeiUs which 
 expofe our author's blundering tratJlition of 
 IVitJius, are equally conciulive againil: the infer- 
 ences which he and his oracle draw from the 
 words ^^ocTfjco 3.nd 'Za.%}L(^c,j, in favor o( dipfing. For, 
 iince critics, commentators, lexicogrcip,icrs, and 
 divines, all unite, in rendering thele two words 
 by the Latin tingo and lai'0;X. and fince neither 
 the one nor the other ntcejjarily Jmpli^.s immerlion, 
 or dipping at all, but freq . ent y f^r nkUng, pour- 
 ing, h.c. confequently, the iignilic.ition of the 
 Greek words and of their correfpondent Latin 
 concludes nothing ablolutely in favor of immer- 
 lion, and manifeftly countenances the oppolite 
 modes of baptifmal afperlion and etiulion. — Thus, 
 I hope it has appe?.r'.ni how little caufe our author 
 had to triumph from the " hinf' his ''friend'* 
 gave him of Introducing an appofite quotation 
 from JVitfms : and that as CzVao defcribes ay/)r/«- 
 kling of literature under the terms Uteris tindus; 
 fo by a parallel tranllation, lymphis tindus may 
 very properly lignify a being fyrinkkd with wa^ 
 ter, 
 
 \ The criticifm of Zarchius confinns this. Verlmm hoc tarn fignifcat 
 
 TiNCERE, & Jiwplkttcr LAVARE, fww wwict^cie. Zanch. Dc cultu Dsi 
 cxterno. C. xvi. 
 
 yil. I pro- 
 
( 248 ) 
 
 VII. I pfocede, now, to coniidcr a charge, 
 brought againft us, by the faggefter of the "' hi7it" 
 in the note, p. 30; which he thinks, fo tremen- 
 dous, as to hang like a huge milrtone about the 
 neck of our reafoniiig. This heavy charge is no 
 lefs, than that there is an " exadi refemblance" be- 
 tween our reafoning on the examples of baptifm, 
 mentioned in fcripture, and that, by which IVool-^ 
 Jion^ and other deiftical writers, labor to invalidate 
 the hiftory of our Lord's miracles. That is, 
 reader, Deifts blafpheme the hiftory of the Savior's 
 miracles, by their manner of commenting upoa 
 them : and Mr. M. or his note-maker, fays, there 
 is an *' exa^ refemblance" between their mode of 
 reafoning and curs; infomuch that, what he i^ig- 
 matizes as " cavil*' in the Deifts, he accommo- 
 dates to us, as adopting " the fame kind of 
 " wretched cavil:" confequently an tndiredl charge 
 of blajphemy lies againft us. But, furely our au- 
 thor, before he reprefented our conducft, as a 
 blafphemous imitation of the Deifts, Ibould have 
 weighed the awful imputation, in the balance of 
 candor and truth. For, if, upon a fair exami- 
 nation, it Ihould appear, that he has moft fl:iame-' 
 fully mifreprefented us ; I fancy he v/ill find it 
 diffficult to exculpate himfelf from the charge 
 of a glaring violation of the ninth command- 
 ment. 
 
 I'hc whole of his plaufible fophiftry Is dete(5t:' 
 ed and refuted, by the following conftderations^ 
 (i) His comparifon between our reafoning, and 
 JVeoIfions, fails, in one obviou-s inftance. The 
 
 Deifts 
 
( 249 ) 
 
 Deift^s blafphemous arguments, concern a mlra-' 
 tki our reafoning, refpecrts only an ordinary bap- 
 iijhti in the dilpeniing of which, there was not 
 Gtic miraculous circumftance. If the three thou- 
 fand had been all immerfed by an extraordinary 
 z&; no perfon, who reverences the Bible, would 
 for a moment helitate, to admit the authenticity 
 of the fa6^. But, when a prodigious multitude 
 are faid to have been baptized by John^ or by a 
 few Apoftles, without any intervention oi miracle t, 
 and when the facred hittory is lilent as to the 
 mode and circumflances of an ordinance admi- 
 niftered to fo great a number : are we not left 
 to confider on which fide reafon preponderates, 
 and to draw our conclufions accordingly ? In 
 every narrative, where fcripture obferves a total 
 ftlence refpeding circumftantials ; we are to deter- 
 mine where there is the greateft degree of proba- 
 bility : and when one lide of the queftion is 
 inadmiflible, but upon the implication of miracle, 
 where however nothing miraculous is recorded ; 
 We are to rejed that, and to embrace the fide, 
 which appears unembarraffed w'ith difficulties and 
 improbabiUties ; and this may be done, confift- 
 ently with the deepeft fubmiffion to revelation, 
 and the higheft revereqce for truth. Apply this 
 in the prefent inftance. — The hiftory of the New 
 Teftament records baptifms, adminiftered to vaft 
 multitudes, by one or a few adminifirators; 
 without relating the fpecific mode. Suppofe thefe 
 baptifms to have been performed miraculoujly -, the 
 immerfton of thoufands m a day, is credible. But 
 I i remove 
 
( 25® ) 
 
 remove that fuppofition of an extraordinary clr- 
 cumflance; and the fa61: is embarrafled with nu- 
 merous incredibilities. Whereas, if you fuppofe 
 the mode on thofe occalions to have been fprinkling 
 or pouring of water; the narrative is immediately 
 difencumbered from feveral difficult and impro- 
 bable circumftances, which would otherwife give 
 it the appearance of miracle, or fi61ion. 
 
 (g) The Deift, by his impious fophlftry, would 
 
 mvalidare the hiftory of our Lord's miracles 
 
 altogether. But furely Mr. M. muft know in his 
 
 confcier.ce, that the fcope of our reafoning does 
 
 not aiil'ct the hijiory itfelf, but a particular eir- 
 
 cuni/iance, which Anabaptifts annex to it, and 
 
 which is founded on incredible abfurdity. IFool- 
 
 Jion blafphemoufly concludes his chain of fophlf- 
 
 try, by faying, " the whole hijiory (of the miracles) 
 
 ** is monltroully abfurd." But we affert, that 
 
 the whole Jiijiory Qj( the bapllfms recorded in fcrip- 
 
 turc, is founded on truth, and warranted by the 
 
 mofl credible fads. Our difpute, therefore, with 
 
 Anabaptifls, does rot rcfped the hijiory of bap^ 
 
 tiims; but the more probable mode by which they 
 
 were adminil^ered. So that, if Mr. M, is not lofl- 
 
 to every generous feeling of candor and modefty; 
 
 muft not a blulh cover his face, and a fenfation 
 
 of guilt flrike his confcierice, for daring to afiert 
 
 \ before the public, " that there is an exa6i refem- 
 
 " blance bctvv^een our mode of reafoning on the 
 
 " laptijms, and that of Delfts on the miracles, 
 
 «* recorded in fcripturc? 
 
 (4) Our 
 
( 251 ) 
 
 (4) Our author fecms not a little fkllled in the 
 arts of low fophiftry: and, by his fophiftical leger- 
 demain, he blinds the eyes of the reader, and 
 gives an air of plaulibility to the moft fallacious 
 reafoning. Take the following inftance. — In or- 
 der to point out, what he injurloufly ftyles, the 
 " txaul nfembianct" between our reafoning, and 
 the blaipheniy of JVcrA/t'm^ he introduces us as 
 quaerying, ** iiow could fo many be baptized m 
 " {o Ihort a time?" But, reader, if you .will 
 only wipe off the varnilli of this gentleman's fo^ 
 philtry, you will eaiiiy deted the glaring fellhood, 
 ^ that fkulks under this difingenuo us coloring. We 
 do not afk " how could fo many be baptized?" 
 but how could fo many be plunged in fo Jliort 
 a time f That fo many were baptized, we have net 
 the fmalleft doubt : and that they were baptized, 
 by pouring or fpr inkling of water, we have all the 
 reafon In the world, to believe; lince the con- 
 trary fuppofition is manifeftly clogged with a va- 
 riety of incredible circumifances. When therefore 
 the note-maker fays, *' It will lliew them (p. 32) 
 *' that by this method of talking, a man may 
 " prove quodlibet ex qiwUbet, and to! take heed, -^ 
 *' left by reafoning in this manner, they do inad- 
 *' vertently put weapons into the hands of in- 
 " lidels i" he manifefttly drops a double hint 
 that reverberates on himfelf. For, when a man 
 will prove, that three thoufand perfons were all 
 immerjed by a fezv apoftles m one day, under a 
 
 f Will the note-maker be fo kind to point out the grammatical cow 
 zi£.\ioit of tlicfo two I'ciitences ? 
 
 I i 2 Variety 
 
C 252 ) 
 
 variety of inconvenient and impradlcable clrcum- 
 fiances ; I alk, whether an adept in fuch hugfj 
 logic, might not, on the fame principle, attempt 
 to prove any thing from any thing? And, I aik 
 again, who are moft likely " to put weapons 
 " into the hands of infidels?" they, who feem to 
 difcard reafon in the inveftigation of truth? or 
 they, whofe refearches are founded on her moft 
 vigorous exertions, and moft rational decifions? — ■ 
 They, whofe prcraifles are full of the marvellous ^ 
 and whofe conclufions are fraught with abfurdity?^ 
 Or they, who in the examination of the implicit 
 or ambiguous parts of a narrative, argue with 
 precilion, and decide on the part of credibility ? 
 ■ — They, who make fcripture bow to their pre- 
 conceived notions, in diretSt oppolition to the 
 didates of reafon and common fenfe ? Or they, 
 whofe arguments are founded on a coalition of 
 fcripture and right reafon ? 
 
 Vlil. As to the other baptifms, nientioned in 
 fcripture, viz. thofe of the Apoftle Faul^ the Eu- 
 nuch, Cornelius and the other Gentile converts, &c. 
 there is no abfolute proof that they were admi- 
 niftered, in any of thcfe inftances, by immerlion. 
 There is implicit proof to the contrary^ if we 
 may be allowed to reafon on thefe pafTagcs. The 
 cafe of the Eunuch, we have ah^eady coniidered. 
 As to that of Faul; if we coniidcr the previous 
 weak ftate of his health, rendered fo by his faft- 
 ing three days; and the improbability oi Judas* s 
 having a baptijiery in his houfe : there is evident 
 intimation that he was not plunged. — And, as to 
 
 Cornelius 
 
( ^53 ) 
 Cornelius and the other Gentile converts; the very 
 words of the narrative manifcftly imply, that they 
 were baptized by an attulion of" water brought 
 into the houfe for that purpofe. " Can any 
 ** man forbid water, that tHcfe lliould not be 
 *' baptized." A^s x. 47. On which pafiage Dr. 
 Doddridge obferves, " It feems rnoft natural to 
 " undcrltand it, as Dr. IVhitby does, JVlio can 
 " forbid that vjater Jhould be brought ? Jn which 
 *' view of the claufe one would naturally con- 
 *' elude, (N. B.) they were baptized by pouring 
 *' v/ater on them, r a thee, than by plunging 
 '* them in it." * 
 
 IValaui obferves, fpeaking of the validity of 
 baptifmai afperfion, Exempla adfperjionis in Jcriptu-' 
 ris pqUint deprehendi-, Examples of sprinkling 
 iiiay be found in fcripture. And that Aiirelius 
 FruderJius thought the Baptift's mode was that 
 of fprinkling or pouring of water, is evident 
 from that remarkable line, 
 
 *^ PbrfUiVDIT Jiuvio pajius Baptif,a iocufiis.''* f 
 
 However, as the Anabaptlfts lay a prodigi- 
 ous flrefs on the baptlfpa of our Savior, fuppo- 
 ling the mode to have been immcrjion ; I will 
 conlider the hiftory of that circumitance a little' 
 
 more particularly. The Evaiigelift informs us 
 
 that " Jesus when he was baptized, went up 
 
 * See the Fainily Espoiitcr and Ifhitb/s Annotations on ^'fff :;. 47. 
 
 •f- The humble Eaptift. who on locufts fed, "^ 
 
 Each profelyte to Jordan's current led, > 
 
 Aiiil roi r'h the iiailovcJ -water on his head. 3 
 
 Frudcnt. EnchinJ. 
 
 " ftraight- 
 
( 254 ) 
 
 •* ftraightway out of the water." Maith. ili. 6. 
 In order to invalidate the arguments urged In 
 favor of total immerlion as tlie mode, upon this 
 occaiion, I would obferve (i) That no abfolute 
 concluiion can be drawn from the original of 
 the word baptize; iince we have before proved, 
 that it does not necejj'arily fignify to dip. (2) Nor 
 can the expreliion, out of the water, decide in 
 favor of immerlion; although we Ihould fuppofe 
 that our Lord was in Jordan. According to 
 Dr. S.'s conceliion ' p. 77.) " 1 know not who 
 " fays, that his coming out of the water, necef- 
 *' farily infers his being plunged in it." And yet 
 the Do6for in the very next fentence, manifelHy 
 contradicts himfelf. For he adds, " If he was 
 *' in it, it muft have been for the purpofe of his 
 *' being immerjed in it." And he inlifts too, 
 " that his coming cut of it, proves he was in 
 '' it." Now, reader, review this wonderful logic. 
 He acknowledges, that " his coming cut of the 
 '* water does not necellarily infer his being plung- 
 " ed in it." Yet he argues-, that " -his coming 
 ** out of it proves he was in it; and that if he was 
 *' in it, it mull have been for the purpofe of his 
 ** being immerfed in it." So that the Dodor 
 grants, that our Lord's coming cut of the water 
 is no proof that he was plunged in it; and yet in 
 the very fame breath, he argues that it was. His 
 rpafoning therefore equally concludes, for and 
 againji us, as well as /or and againft himself; 
 and is equally and doubly feif-contradidory. 
 
 (3) Nor 
 
C 255 ) 
 
 (3) Nor does the exprelFion ivent up out of the 
 water, prove that he was in it, or that he was 
 immerfed. For a,->i%'.i he went up, dtlcribes his af- 
 cent to the higher ground about Jordan; and o.tto 
 lignifies away from : He might be laid therefore . 
 to have gone away from Jordan, without necclTa- 
 rily luppoling that he was immerfed in it. (4) But 
 admitting that he was in-, docs that ntct ffarily 
 infer his having been plunged f No, Dr. 6". him- 
 felf being judge. Do not we fay of a perfon 
 ftanding only up to the ancles in a river, that he 
 is in it, without neccliarily including the idea of 
 an immerlion in it ? No one would be fo abfurd 
 as to fay he flood out of it, only becaufe 2i part 
 of the body was wet. 
 
 Since, therefore, neither the hlftory of the paf- 
 fage, nor any criticifms upon it, demonflrate that 
 our Lord was baptized by immerlion ; have we 
 not good right to infer the mode to have been 
 an eifulion of water ? ,For my own part, it fe-^ms 
 a natural fuppofition, that our Lord, taking off 
 his fandals, walked into Jordan, and that ohn 
 poured water on his head. This circumflance 
 would bear a correfpondent reference to the pour- 
 ing on Aarons head, the facred oil that ran down 
 to the Ikirts of his garments; which prefigured 
 the out-pouring of the gifts and graces of the 
 Spirit on the Son of God; of which an effufion 
 of baptifmal water would alfo be a lively emblem. 
 So that as the pouring of the lacred oil on Aaron 
 denoted his initiation to the prieflhoodj in Uke 
 
 manner. 
 
( 256 ) 
 
 manner, an effufion of water in baptlfm, Hgnifiea 
 at once, the pouring out of the Spirit on the Re- 
 deemer, and his folemn inauguration to the high 
 offices of prophet, priert, and king. To authen- 
 ticate this natural fappoiition, the following quo- 
 tation from St. Bernard, may be deemed fufficienf. 
 — " The angels defcend, and all the troops of 
 ** heaven run with reverence to their Creator. 
 ■' The creature pours water hifundit aquaiii on 
 ** the bead of his Creator j and a mortal han- 
 *" dies the head of him v/ho was his God." -f 
 
 \ t>cfcendunt angel't, & dcloruni ognnna tola reverently curruni ad Creatcrcm. 
 Infundit aquam caftii Crealorh creatiira, & i>ei vertkem mortalis dexffj 
 eontreBat ir cont'ingit. D. Beinai'd. Senn. de. S. jo. Eaptiihi. Tom. ii. 
 Col. 400. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
( 257 ) 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 7'hofe pajfages in the Old Teftament and Apocrypha, 
 where the word ^a.Tfji^oo occurs, confidered. — Its 
 Jignific at ion farther af cert ained from Critics^ Lexi- 
 cographers, and Divines. — The force of Dr. S.'^ 
 quotations from Calvin, Beza, Voffius, repelled \ 
 and the difingenuity of them deteded. — Some addi^ 
 tional tejii monies from antiquity in favor- of bap- 
 tifmal afperlion. — The debate refumed with the 
 
 *' fevere oppofer." A feiv heads of advice 
 
 propofed to his ferious confideration. 
 
 IN order to fupport their pradice, the Ana- 
 baptifts are obliged to maintain that the 
 Greek word ^octtJl^oo always iignifies to dip^ as 
 Well as its primitive ^avfjoo; and they are under 
 an unavoidable neceffity of declaring iikewife, 
 that, where either of thefe words is applied, it 
 includes the idea of a total immerfion, necelTa- 
 rily. But they are neceflitated to prove this to 
 be the cafe, in eVery inftance. For if a fingle 
 exception can be produced from fcripture, or 
 from the pureft Critics and Lexicographers; it 
 invalidates all their arguments, and points out 
 at once the bigotry and abfurdity interwoven 
 with their invariable prac^lice of total immerfion. 
 Many fuch exceptions I have already produced, 
 and hope to produce a few more. Before I be- 
 gin the examination of this part of the fubjedl:, 
 1 beg the reader to keep in mind the opinion of 
 K k that 
 
( 258 ) 
 
 that .accurate critic Leigh. Speaking of the con- 
 troverted word, he fays, " Which word (as He- 
 ** Jychiui, Stephanusy Scapula and Bud^eus, the great 
 •' mafters of the Greek tongue make good by 
 ■** very many injiances and allegations out of claffic 
 ** writers) importeth no more than ablution or 
 *' wajliing. Bcy.ifjiiU) (fay they in their Lexicons 
 *' and Commentaries) /<2i'o J ^(XTf]i<riJ.a lavatio, which 
 " may be done without dipping." 
 
 I. As it is !^oi7r]i(u}, and not ^avfloo, that is al- 
 ways appropriated to the ordinance of baptifm j 
 our bulinefs at prefent will be to inveftigate the 
 meaning of this derivative, as it is ufed in the 
 Old Teliament. It occurs about four times in 
 the Septuagint Verlion and the Apocrypha. That 
 in If. xxi. 4, is a figurative exprelfion; and there- 
 fore nothing to the purpofe. The account of 
 Naamans walking himfelf, mentioned in ii. Kings, v. 
 affords no abfolute proof that he was immerfed. 
 A^'jo is thrice ufed to exprefs his walhing, and 
 ^(zt!]iQ>j once; a proof this, that thefe two words 
 are ufed promifcuoully for each other. And as 
 we have already feen in more inftances than one, 
 that 'Asm, does not neceffarily imply a wafhing 
 of the whole body; conlequently no deciiive ar- 
 gument can be brought to prove, that ^czTfjiQA), 
 in the prefent cafe, ligniiies immerlion. Belides, 
 it does not appear that Naaman was leprous all 
 over ; fmce it is faid, he thought that the prophet 
 would come out *' and flrike his hand over the 
 *^ place." Ver. ii. Suppofmg therefore, a part 
 only to been affeiled with the leprofy; what need 
 
 is 
 
( 259 ) 
 
 is there to fuppofe an immerfion of his whole 
 body? any more than In the cafe of the young 
 man mentioned in yohn ix. who is faid to have 
 walhed in Siloain, although he did no more than 
 
 walh his eycsf Of the two in the Apocrypha, 
 
 the one refpe61s Juclith's walhing herfclf. The paf- 
 fage m Jud. xii. 7, runs thus, nou ^fz.oiTfjilsjo iTvi 7:% 
 7r;77'4? Ti? vocciog' She baptized or walked herfelf at, 
 not in, a fpring of water, in the camp. And 
 it appears tliat the fprings in the camp were 
 guarded with foldiers. So that here is no proof 
 •that llie walhed her whole body. — The other is in 
 Eceluf. xxiv. 26. *o (^cx,7vli<:jj^-%^ ccttq vsti^^h' " He 
 " that is walhpd" or baptized, " from" or after 
 touching ,-'• a dead body," &c. This is the paf- 
 fage that frighted Dr. Gak fo prodigioufly j upon 
 his finding that in Num. xix. 18, perfons under a 
 defilement after touching a dead body, were to 
 be purified by a sprinkling of the. water of 
 feparation ; which the fon of Syrach calls a bein^ 
 baptized, A paffage this, fo clear agalnfi the 
 tflentiality of dipping, that I wonder the Do6\or"s 
 fright did not arrive at fuch a degree, as to in- 
 timidate him from ever maintaining that Sc.TfJi^C'j 
 never fignifies any thing but to dip.— Dr. Stenmtt, 
 refers us to a'pallage in ii. Mac, i. 21, for which 
 1 am much obliged to him ; becaufe it effectually 
 overthrows all the arguments he has ever urged, 
 or can urge, for the indifpenfable ncceiTity of 
 immerlion, drawn from the fignification of the 
 Greek, word. The Do61or has paffed over the 
 reference very flightly ; but I Ihall confider it 
 K k 2 par- 
 
( 26o ) 
 
 particularly. — The Apocryphal palTage alhided to 
 rcfpects an intended facrifice to have been perform- 
 ed by lire, which the priefts had hid in a hollow- 
 pit j upon fearching which, inftead of fire, they 
 found 'v^oo^Trayjj thick zvaier. This water NeemiaSy 
 it is faid, commanded them to draw, (N. B.) aTic- 
 Qoi-]^(zvz(zg, wetting the altar, &c. with it. But 
 how was this to be performed ? The clofe of the 
 twenty-firfi: verfe informs us. " Neemias com- 
 ^* manded the priefls (N. B.) to sprinkle'* 
 iTTipfoiVMi to EHANTizE *' the wood with the 
 ** water, &c." So that here was a baptifm of 
 the wood, &c. executed by fprinkUng. And 
 what is not a little remarkable, even the primi- 
 tive Q>oi'7f]cfj is ufed fynonymoufly with ^ocrMjo. And 
 this one inflance, cuts up every argument of 
 Dr. 5. even though cmbellifhed with all the ad- 
 vantageous coloring of his plaulible pen. 
 
 II. Lexicographers, Critics, and Divines in 
 general, give ^c.Tfji^O'j the lignification of xvajhing^ 
 Scapula, Hede'ricm, Trommius, Fajor^ Leigh, are all 
 unanimous in tranflating it lavo, abluo. Suidas, 
 belides the fpecial lignification of dipping, gives 
 it the general one of wetting, wajhing, clean- 
 Jing, and therefore tranflates it madefacio, lavo, 
 
 abluo, purgo, &c. The learned Piscator, 
 
 ^fter acknowledging that immerlion might have 
 been the mode in the antient church, imme- 
 diately adds, " Yet the word <^<z7f]i^sBoii fignilies 
 ^' not only to be dipped, biit likewife to be 
 ^' fprinkled, wajhed, or cleanfed, quavis alia 
 
 ^' RATIONS, 
 
( 26l ) 
 
 " RATioNE, after any other manner.'''^' — Zan- 
 CHius, whofe opinion Is worth a thoufand others, 
 fays, " This word iignllies to tifige or fprinkk, 
 " and fimply to zvajh as well as to d!p."f — Peter 
 Martyr, harmonizing with the foregoing au- 
 thors, fays, " Nor does the Greek word fignifv 
 ** to be dipped only, but to be tinged or dyed 
 " after any mode."j: — Keckerm an is ftill Wronger, 
 even in his criticifm on the primitive. '* But 
 ** SoiTfjuj fignifies not to dip only, but likewife 
 
 " to SPRINKLE." § Pareus, defines " bap- 
 
 " tifm to be any kind of walhing or clean- 
 " ling, whether by immerlion, or by sprin- 
 " KLiNG."|| — And TiLENus iliall conclude the 
 lift. '' Baptifm, if we refped the etymology oi the 
 *' word, fignifies imrnerfton, and likewife asper- 
 
 ^' SION."^ 
 
 From thefe tefiimonies, fo full to the point, I 
 l.eave the reader to judge, if the matter is to be 
 decided by the authority of the moft eminent 
 
 * Tamen verhum ^MTrlt^Soa non filum mergi, fid eliam quuv'is alia, ra- 
 iioiic tingi nut lavari, abluive figmftc:t. Pifcator. Com. Loc. de. Bapt. 
 Aphor. i. P. 157. 
 
 f Verlitm atttem hoc tarn fign'tficat tingere, ir fimpUchcr lavare qiiam im- 
 mergere. Zanch. L. i. De cultu Dei externo. C. xvi. 
 
 \ Neque verhum grscwn tantum fignificat mergi: fid quoquo .modo tjngi. 
 Pet. Mart, in Rom. x. 
 
 § BaTrlw mitcin non tantum immcrgerc, fed & aspergere fign'tficat. Keck. 
 Sya. Theol. L. iil. P. 452. 
 
 II Baptismus Grxcis qiixvts eft lotto ficu ahhiiio, five immerfione five as- 
 PERsioNE fiat. Par. in Heb. ix. 10. 
 
 ^ Baptismu?, 7? etymon vocis fpcBcmus^ imvaexfioncm fiignifi'cat, atque 
 efiam aspersionem, 'I'ilcn, De Bapt. Di(p. I. Thefi, ii. P. £83. 
 
 Critics, 
 
( 262 ) 
 
 Critics, whether our lide of the quefllon has not 
 the advan'^ag'e of a conliJerable majority : And, 
 when Dr. 6'. wouiJ inliauate, that the Greek 
 word " only fij;nliies dipj3ingi'^ and attempts to. 
 ground this undcmonftrated aiTertion on the fen- 
 ti.intnfs of Lexicographers and Divines ; whether 
 his iniinuation does not favor more of the plau- 
 iibiUty of fmooth language, than the conckiiive- 
 nefs of folld argumentation. h\ order " fatisfac- 
 *' torily to prove his airertion," he ihould have 
 demonl^irated that it is fupported by the opinions 
 of ail the eminent Critics, or at leaif of the ma- 
 jority. But he has not demonftrated either the 
 one or the other j and confequently, on this 
 head, has proved nothing. Rather, the quota- 
 tions, wherewith 1 have confronted liis, prove the 
 very reverfe of all his inliauations. 
 
 III. But I am under a promiirory obligation 
 of coniidering the force of fome quotations which- 
 the Dodor has taken from Calvin^ Beza, and 
 VoJJius. Which I the rather do, becaufe I fhail 
 at once be enabled to produce fome additional 
 teflimonles from thefe great men, to the validity 
 of baptifmal afperfion or etfufion, and to detect 
 that plauiible fallacy by which Dr. 5". would in- 
 iinuate they were ftrenuous advocates for his fide 
 of the argument, only, — (i) To begin with Calvin. 
 In a note, p. 59, of the Doctor's Remarks, the 
 reader is prefented with a quotation from the 
 Inflitutes of that great Reformer ; in which he 
 acknowledges that the word baptize fignifies to 
 dip, and that dipping was fometimes pra^^ifed in 
 
 the 
 
' •■( 263 ) 
 
 the antient church; r(fpt6iing both which par- 
 ticulars, we pcrfedly coinciJe with Cahin. But 
 docs this eminent cafaill mean, that to di^ is, 
 the ONLY lignification o( ihc word? or tltat 
 baptifm Ihould be adminiftered only by Iinmcr- 
 lion ? Quite the contrary. For, in the very 
 pafiage which the D<.).%r has noto ioully, and I 
 Ihould imagine, dcfignedly too, curtailed^ the be- 
 ginning of the fentence, of which his cxtrad is 
 the conclufion, directly overthrows the Doctor's 
 iniin nation. Ihefe are Calvin's words. " But 
 *' whether he that is dipt, be iminerfed once 
 ** or thrice i or whether he be only sprin- 
 " kled with water poured on him, it 
 " IS not material. "f- — And that the prefcrib- 
 ed form of admiriliration compofed by Calvin, 
 for the church of Gentva, evidently corref ponded 
 with thefe fentiments, is undeniably plain from 
 the following parage in another part of his wri- 
 tings. *' I'hen the minifter pours water on the 
 " infant, faying, N. I baptize thee, hc."X — I aik 
 then, in the name of candor and common fenfe, 
 what advantage can Dr. S, or any of his brethren 
 reap from the telVimony of Calvin f Or rather 
 indeed, I Ihould alk, whether the opinion of 
 that great Reformer dues not directly militate 
 againtt the hypothesis, which the Anabaptifts in 
 general, and Dr. 5'. in particular, labor to efta- 
 blilh ? And for what purpofe could the Doctor 
 
 f Cxterum niergaturne tolas gut thigitiir, idque ter an femel, an iufufa tmiium 
 aqua afpergatur niinimum refert. Calv. Inflit. Lib. iv. Cap. xv. SeiSl. I9. 
 
 \ Turn ill cum aqucm baptifmi miii'iftcr effundit, inquiens, N. baptize 
 te, &c. Tra(ft. Theclog. De Baptilino. P; 45, 
 
 produce 
 
( 264 ) 
 
 produce this mangled quotation? He mforms iw 
 indeed, p. 5B, in words, which are the more ex- 
 tiMordinary, becaule they ullier in the extract 
 from Calvin, thnt " he would add conceliions 
 " from fome learned Paedobaptilb, as to the 
 *' TRUE and proper meaning of the word." But 
 furely, either Calvin is cont radioed by himfelf, 
 or mifreprefented by his quoier. The latter I 
 fuppofe to be the true flate of the cafe. For, 
 if Calvin thought, accoiding to the Doctor's af- 
 fertion, that to dip was the only " true and 
 *' proper fenfe of the word" baptize; he never 
 furely would have faid, that it was ** immate- 
 " rial whether the fubjeft was fprinkled or dip- 
 ** ped;" nor would he have prefcribed a form 
 of adminiftration as confonant with that fcntiment, 
 if he had not efteemed it " a true and proper 
 " one," founded on the " true and proper" mean- 
 ing of the word. From hence, therefore, it is 
 plain, that the Doi\or, by difmembering the 
 quotation from Calvin, has kept the whole of his 
 real fentiments out of view ; that by fo doing, 
 he has attempted to put upon the " bright taper 
 *' of Geneva," a temporary extinguilhcr, called 
 difingenuity; or rather, has raifed a little duft of 
 plaufibility, before the reader's eyes, whereby he 
 might prevent him from feeing his true meaning; 
 and that by claiTing the extrad from Calvin with 
 the opinion of Grotius, he intended to reprefcnt 
 the form.er as partial in fivor of dipping, as the 
 latter ; which Dr. S. himfelf is confcious not to 
 have been the cafe. It is the part of ingenuity, 
 
 in 
 
C 265 ) 
 
 in making quotations, to prefent the whole of the 
 paffage to the reader, that he may be able to form 
 a judgment of the original author's real opinion. 
 Becaufe, if it be produced in a ftate of difmem- 
 berment, an author may be made to fpeak for 
 and againji the fame fubje61;. It happens very 
 frequently, as in the prefent remarkable inftance^ 
 that the former part of a fentence is declarative 
 of an author's decilive judgment, while the latter 
 contains only ' a qualifying conceffion ; or vice 
 lerjd. Would it be candid to take the detached 
 conceffion, and hold it forth to the public, as con- 
 taining the fum of the author's opinion ? Calvin's 
 conceffion, is what Dr. 5. has laid before the pub- 
 lic J his genuine fentiments, what I have refcued 
 from their fiate of artful concealment. Calvin 
 acknowledges that ^^aTfji^oo lignifies to dip. But 
 does he declare it carries that lignification only ^ 
 No ; Dr. S. is confcious he alTerts the contrary 
 in the portion of the fentence, which he has 
 omitted. Calvin confelTes that baptifm was ad- 
 miniftered by immerlion in the antient church. 
 But does he declare it to have been the only mode 
 then, or the only proper mode to be adopted noiv? 
 No ; that Reformer's fentiments and pra6lice 
 prove the contrary. Therefore, for the fame 
 reafon that Dr. 5. has brought a mangled paf- 
 fage from Calvin, as ** a conceffion to the true 
 ^* and proper meaning of the word" baptize-, he 
 might with equal juftice quote me; becaufe, tho' 
 1 grant with the Geneva Reformer, that the word 
 fignifies to dip, and that the ordinance might 
 
 L I have 
 
( 266 ) 
 
 have been admlniflcred by immerlion in the an- 
 tknt church ; yet 1 join ifiue with the fame 
 perfon in his own memorable words, which 
 Dr. S. prudently kept out of. light j C^terum 
 Tiiergaturne tot us qui tingitur, idque ter an feme!, an 
 INFUSA aqua ASPERGATUR mmimum refert. 
 
 (2) The Do6ior has produced two quotations 
 from Beza, mentioned, the one, p. 51, and the 
 other, p. 59, of his Remarks. The former of 
 thefe paffages refpeds the meaning of Soi7r7.'^', in 
 A'fark vii. 4;. which in that particular place, Beza 
 makes to Isgnify more than xii^viTfjoc. But admit- 
 ting this, it concludes nothing abfolutely in favor 
 of the Docior's argument. For, although Beza 
 gave it as his opinion, that the word in Mark 
 5iignified to dip all over ; yet, it is plain, hj did 
 not fuppofe that to be its only fignilication ; which 
 the reftri(?i:ive words (" hoc in loco') indeed mani- 
 feftly intimate. Belides, 1 have produced the 
 joint authorities of Dr. Wall and Dr. Pocock, f 
 as agreeing that the baptijm or zvaJJiing mentioned 
 in Luke xi. 38, was nothing more than a walhing 
 of the hands, and as quoting Beza " faying the 
 " fame." So that, although Beza acknowledg- 
 ed that Q,o:7fii(^siv fignified rnore than yjovivfjciv in 
 in Adark vii. 4, yet he declared they were of the 
 fame fignihcation in Luke. A wafliing of the 
 hands therefore, according to Beza, or a partial 
 walhing of the body, Is a baptlfm. And from 
 hence it Is evident, that Dr. 6^. has, fo far, 
 
 f Turn back to page 223. 
 
 gainpd 
 
( 267 ) 
 
 gained nothing abiblutely by his quotation froni 
 Jjcfza. 
 
 In the other paOage, the Doctor reprefents 
 Beza as acknowledging, that ^c/jjPilQjo fignliies to 
 dip, and to walh, by confequence. But, did he 
 mean hereby to exclude every lignification from 
 th€ word, but that of immerlion ? or to confine 
 the adminiitration of baptifin to that mode only ? 
 Quite the reverfe. Let Bezas own words teftify. 
 ** Are they therefore Improperly baptized, who 
 ** may be sprinkled with water anly caft on 
 ** them ? No : What is merely ejfential in that 
 *' action (to wit, the waihing of water), is rightly 
 *' obferved by the Church."* From thefe re- 
 markable words of Beza, it Is evident he thought 
 (i) That a waihing with water is the ejfential 
 in baptifm : (2) That this waihing may be per- 
 formed by fpr inkling, as well as any other mode 5 
 and that walliing and fprinkling are therefore 
 convertible terms, when appropriated to the or- 
 dinance : (3) That afperlion is a valid mode of 
 baptifm. From whence it follows, (4) That 
 thofe perfons, whom Dr. 5". reprefents as partak- 
 ers only of " a fuppofititious baptifm," Beza 
 efteemed '* properly bapti%ed." And with what 
 grace therefore Dr. 5". can quote this great man, 
 as making conceilions really advantageous to his 
 fide of the queftlon, I leave the reader t« 
 judge. 
 
 * Nu7n ig\ittr male lapthanUir, qui aqnu tanhim InjcBi affergantur? Itnp 
 quod eft in ilU aBione mere ftihftantiale (nempe aqu£ ahlut'wj recie ohfervatum 
 eft ab ecckfiu. Beza. Trad. Theolog. Vol. iii. P. I9J. 
 
 Li 2 (3) r#i^f 
 
( 268 ) 
 
 Cs) ^offius Is quoted with the fame defign as 
 the other authors. But his authority is of no 
 more real fervice to the caufe. For, that he 
 did not mean to Hmit the fignification of the 
 word to the idea of immerlion only-^ and confe- 
 quently did not fuppofe that baptifm would be 
 invalidated by any other mode ; is evident from 
 that paffage which I have already quoted from 
 him: and as it is a very remarkable one, and 
 particularly appolite here, I will tranllate and 
 
 tranfcrlbe it a fecond time. '* But from the 
 
 " other opinion, by which i^aTfji^siv lignifies to 
 ^' wajli, it is transfered to the gift of the Holy 
 " Spirit ; to wit, becaufe that he may cleanfe 
 *' the foul, he is poured out on it, Yikt water : 
 ■' as ^oel faith, &c." -f From thefe words it is 
 apparent (i) That VoJJim fuppofed a fcriptural 
 analogy between the baptifmal water and the 
 wafhing of regeneration: (2) That this analogy 
 was transfered from the one to the other, becaufe 
 pf the comprehenlive lignificatlon of the Greek 
 word: (3) That <^oi7fji^siv fignified to waJJi in ge- 
 neral; and to pour out, as well as dip in particular: 
 (4) That the pouring out of water in baptifm was 
 an emblematic reprefentation of thc'eifufion of 
 the Spirit; and the validity of that mode was 
 warranted as well by the ftriking analogy between 
 the fign and thing fignified, as by the extenfive 
 meaning of the Greek word. 
 
 f Ao altera rtro not'wnc, qua ^ccTrli^nv abluerc fignificat transferttir ad 
 donatmem SfiriuU Sar.Bi; ncmpc quoniam hlc, ut ammam ahlmt, aqux. injiar, 
 
 'in cam EFFUNDiTua : front loquitur Joel, o-c. Vofl'. De Bapt. Difp. i. 
 
 P- 344- ^„, 
 
 Whatever 
 
( 269 ) 
 
 Whatever concefTions therefore. Dr. S. may 
 have taken from VqlJiu.^, refpcdlng the lignifica- 
 tion of the Greek word, and the niode it pointed 
 out; the above paiTage, which exhibits his opi- 
 nion at large, demonftrates, that he did not coin- 
 cide with Anabaptifls in their unw^arranted and 
 bigoted condemnation of every other mode, ex- 
 cept that of dipping : but that, on the contrary, 
 he efteemed an effufion of the baptifmal water, as 
 lignincant and vaHd, as immerlion. So that from 
 hence it is undeniably plain, that Dr. 5. fails, in 
 the principal intent of his quotations from Calvin^ 
 Beza and Vojflus : fince not one of this learned 
 Triumvirate favors his do6lrine of the ejfentiality 
 of dipping. And to produce fuch teftimonies, 
 under the difingenuous form of difmembered quo- 
 tation, is to throw dufl in the reader's eyes. Yet 
 this mode is common with Anabaptlfts: And I 
 am forry to have an opportunity of bringing the 
 charge againfi: Dr. S. But that his conduit me- 
 rits it, is evident. Whenever, therefore, Ana- 
 baptifts produce extracts from authors, I would 
 have the reader to keep in mind the obfervations 
 I have dropped on the diiingenuity of exhibiting 
 only 072^ fide of an author's fentiments, and of 
 conceaUng that, which is immediately to the 
 point.:]: When Anabaptifts v/ant to recommend 
 
 their 
 
 I A remarkable inftance of this nature juft occurs to my minil. 
 Mr. Sandys in his wonderful decad of horroived qjfertions, which he has 
 miftaken for fo many proofs, has exa(3;Iy imitated the condudh of Dr. S. 
 This pooreft of all poer hackney-retailers of quotation, probably af- 
 ter digging into the voluminous mafs of Daiivcrs or Tombes, brings forth 
 l^me tcflimonies, with which he vapors prodigioufly- They contain 
 
( 270 ) 
 
 their favorite mode, they generally exhibit a firing 
 of quotations from fome P^edobaptii-ls refpeding 
 the lignification of the word ^.-tt/z^j. A fuper- 
 ficial reader, upon feeing a Uft of venerable names, 
 ■acknowledging that the word fignifies to dip, 
 and that immerfion was pradtifed in the antient 
 
 the opinion of feme Pardobaptiil':, reTnecEling the meaning of the word 
 fiuTrli^ui. An inconiideratert viewer ol tiiisqiioter's borrowed decad, would 
 be apt at firft fight to conclude, that the twin-aifputant had availed 
 himfelf of authonties, exceedingly advant;ige'.Ms to the badge of his 
 party, viz. the eJJ'cnlwUtj of dipping. But fallacy is marked in legible 
 chara(Sters on the vehicle of thefe borrowed goods. The authors he 
 mentions, acknowledge the Greek word fignifies to dip. And who de- 
 ities that? But do they fay, that is its only fignification ? or that bap- 
 tifin cannot be adinmiftered with propriety in any ether mode ? I fliould 
 imao^ine the quoter himfelf mufl: be confcious they do not. As to 
 Calvin, who heads his lift, I have faid enough, to prove from the 
 "verv words of the Reformer himfelf, that he juftified both in princi- 
 ple and praAice, the validity of fprinkling or pouring Avater in bap- 
 tifin. In order to detect the fallacy that lurks under the whole firing 
 of this man's quotations, proceed we from the iirft to the lafi hut one; 
 becaufe it is a ftriking inflance. It contains a Jaconic extraift from 
 Foole. This judicious commentator, in a note on I\latt. xx. 22, ac- 
 knowledges, (what we never denied), that to baptize in fome appli- 
 cations of the word, fignifies to dip; and that under that particular 
 iio-nification of the word, it is fometimes accommodated to the idea 
 of complicated fufFcrings, in which a perfon may be faid to be over- 
 ■whehned But did Poole mean, by this concelfion, to reftriB the figni- 
 fication of the word, or the validity of the ordinance to that idea only? 
 The quotation infinuates he did; otherwife it is nothing to the quo- 
 ter's purpofe. But that the commentator did Mt, let his own, words 
 ,on Matt. iii. 6, and jiBs viii. 38, teftify. " From hence it will not 
 M follow, that dipping is essential to baptifm : the wafliing of the 
 " blood of Christ (the thing fignified in baptifm) being exprefled by 
 
 *' sprinkling or PouaiNG of water, as well as by dipping. Sprin- 
 
 " KLiNO is as effectual as wafliing (all over), and as fignificative 
 " alfo, reprcfcnting the sprinkling of the blood of the Pafchal Lamb, 
 " which prefignined the fprinkling of the blood of Jesos. It is not 
 "the MORE or the less of the outward clement, which makes the ia- 
 *' craments effectual ; but they are effe<5tual only, as they are God's 
 ?* appointment." — From this fpecimen, the reader may judge how far 
 Anabaptifts are to be truft^d. when they make quotations. 
 
 church. 
 
( 2)1 ) 
 
 church, would be ready to conclude from this 
 plaufible reprefentation, that the authors quoted 
 were abfolute fautors of the pecuharlties of Ana- 
 baptifm. But, in every inliance of this nature, 
 the reader mufl: be careful to inquire, whether the 
 authorities are fairly exhibited j whether they 
 mean to insinuate, that the word has no other iig- 
 nification than that of dipping ; and that baptifm 
 can be admlniftered w ith icriptural propriety in 
 that mode only. This limple inquiry will inftan- 
 taneoully diflblve the charm, and dete61: the no- 
 torious fallacy of the dilingenuous reprefentation. 
 Suppofe, for inftance, the reader is prefented 
 with extrac?ls from Calvin and Be%a, acknowledg- 
 ing, that ^ccTvli^oo iignifies to dip. It would cer- 
 tainly be to the advantage of an Anabaptifl, that 
 thefe two great men fhould give it as their opi- 
 nion, that this was the only fignification of the 
 word, and that baptifm was invalidated by any 
 other mode. But, the reader upon examining 
 into the whole of their fentiments, would find they 
 aflerted the very revcrfe of the Anabaptift's in- 
 linuation : confequently he would perceive, that 
 to produce them in detached portions, was pal- 
 pably collulive J efpecially as fuch a partial re- 
 prefentation of them was intended to infinuate a 
 perfedl coincidence in opinion with the quoter. 
 Suppofe, in the feveral extrads I have m.ade from 
 diiferent authors, who give to the Greek word 
 €i^7r7/(^j the general lignihcation of wajliing, and 
 who affert the validity of adminiftering the or- 
 dinance by pouring or fprinkling of water; 1 had 
 
 fludioufly 
 
^^ 
 
 ( 272 ) 
 
 Utidioufly omitted their featiments concerning th* 
 propriety of iinmerfion, with a defign to make 
 my readers believe, that they did not fuppofe the 
 Greek word fignif^ed to dip, or that immerlion 
 was a mode of baptizing: by fuch unfair repre- 
 fentation, although 1 lliould have given a glaring- 
 fpecimen of dilingenuity, I Ihould neverthelefs 
 have exactly imitated the condu6t of Dr. 5". and 
 forae of his brethren. As therefore I have riot 
 intended in my quotations from authors, to in- 
 iinuate, that they exclude from the word <^oi7fji^oo 
 the idea of immerlion, or from baptifm, the 
 correfpondent mode: fo Dr. S. when he quoted 
 Calvin, Beza, &c. lliould have obferved a limilar 
 difplay of ingenuous conceilion j and the rather, 
 becaufe fome readers might fuppofe thefe great 
 men thought dipping ejftntial to baptifm ; which 
 Pr. iS. is confcious not to have been the cafe, 
 Belides, though it is fufficient for our fide of the 
 argument, that they acknowledge afperlion to be 
 a valid mode of adminiftration, while they admit 
 dipping too; yet the DoiRor's fentiments and prac- 
 tice require, that the authors he quotes, ihould 
 be advocates for immerlion, and for that only, as 
 the ejfencs of baptilm. But, fmce his quotations 
 fail in this circumftance, they prove nothing to 
 the Do61or's purpofe. 
 
 IV. As Anabaptilis inlinuate, that the adminif- 
 tering baptifm by afperlion, is not only of fpu- 
 rious, but likewife of modern date ; I propofe 
 laying before the reader a few extra6^s, which 
 may convince him that this mode, however abufed 
 
 and- 
 
( 273 ) 
 
 and ridiculed under the fneering epithet of rte- 
 ■tifm, ftands recommended by the fandion of 
 orthodoxy and the pradice of antiquicy. Even 
 Bilhop ^/aylor, whom the Anabaptifts are fo fond 
 of quoting, becaufe of his ifrong conceffions in 
 favor of dipping, yet acknowledges in his Dui^or 
 dubitantium, B. iii. Ch. iv. Ru. 15, that, with re^ 
 fped to the oppoiite mode of fprinkling, " the 
 " Church of England does not want fome good 
 ** EXAMPLES in the purest times to counte- 
 ■** nance the permilVion" of it, 
 
 I Ihall not repeat that remarkable paffage from 
 yuftin Martyr's fecond Apology, which intimates 
 that fo early as the middle of the fecond century, 
 the heathens introduced a mode of purification 
 hy fprinkling into their ceremonies, in imitation of 
 a corrtfpondent mode of baptifm, previoufly 
 adopted by the Chriftians of that e=arly period. 
 If the reader will turn back to p. 200, he will 
 fee the paiTage in the original, together with the 
 ufe I have made of it, in its proper connexion 
 
 with a particular branch of the fubjed. 1 Ter- 
 
 tullian, notwithftanding the veneration which Ana- 
 baptifts profels for his teftimony, and the prodi- 
 gious ftrefs they lay upon it, drops a hint however, 
 which contains a manifeft reference to the ufe of 
 baptifmal afperlion in his days. Speaking to an 
 impenitent peiibn, he fays, " ^lis enirn tarn infida^ 
 penitent ic£ viro asp erg in em unam cujujlibct aqua' 
 commodabit ? To a man, in whofe repentance fo 
 little confidence can be placed, who will give one 
 M m SPRiN- 
 
( 274 ) 
 
 SPRINKLING of any water?"* That 'Tertullian, 
 m thefe remarkable words, refered to water in 
 baptijm, from the fprinkling of which he pro- 
 hibited an impenitent hypocrite, appears obvious 
 from the preceding part of the paflage. And the 
 teftimony is fo exprefs to the ufage of baptifmal 
 afperlion in ^ertullians days, that, in my opinion, 
 nothing really forcible can be faid againft it. 
 
 2 LaSfantius, who lived about the clofe of the 
 third century, is a no lefs authentic witnefs. 
 His fly ling baptifm the *' sprinkling of the 
 ^' purifying dew,'^ is an evident proof that he 
 thought this cxpreffion defcriptive, not only of 
 our Savior's baptifm, the mention of which it 
 immediately follows, but likewife of a valid mode 
 of adminiftration, which was pra6lifed in his own 
 time. 
 
 3 Athanaftus, that illuftrious light of the fourth 
 century, in his third Oration againft the Arians, 
 whom he juftly charges with equivocating on 
 the form of baptifm, fays that others imitated 
 their horrid collulion : and that, while their men- 
 tal refervaiions concerning the perfons in the 
 Godhead clafhed with their verbal profeffions, 
 the ordinance was to them upon that account 
 totally invalidated J infomuch that " He who was 
 ^' SPRINKLED ^avjiQ^ij^syo-j rhaiitized by them, was 
 *' through their impiety" (not through any defeat 
 in the mode) *' rather defiled than wafJiedi"f fo 
 
 * TcrtuU. L. De Paenit. C. vl. 
 po-tfeEia hUT^QVO'^ai' Athanas. Tom. i. P. 413. 
 
 I tranf- 
 
( 275 ) 
 
 1 tranflate Aur^s^cr-S-o:/, which probably, in order' to 
 keep up the antithelis in the fentence, ought to 
 
 have been written KnT^aa-^ai, Since therefore, 
 
 Athanajius does not fay any thing againft the 
 mode of baptifm, pra6^ifed among the Arians, but 
 againft their blafphemous collulions refpe(?i:ing the 
 names of the bleffed Trinity mentioned in the 
 form-, is it not plain, that fpriTikling was efteemed 
 valid in the adminiftration of baptifm, and was 
 accordingly pradifed in that remarkable sera of 
 the church. 
 
 4 In the ninth century florifhed TValafridui 
 Strabo, " the Anabaptifts' grand patron" as one: 
 calls him^ Speaking of the baptifm of Lucillus, 
 which, according to Bilhop Taylor, St. Laurence 
 adminiftered to him in a prifon, by pouring water* 
 on him ; he (Wal. Strabo) adds, *' It is to be 
 *' noted" (Note it then, ye advocates for the 
 ejfentiality of dipping) " that many have been 
 *' baptized, and flill may be baptized, not only 
 " by dipping, but alfo by pouring water on 
 *' ther^."* 
 
 5 One of Calvin's learned and pious cotempo- 
 raries was Martin Eucer-, who florifhed A.D. 1520^ 
 He fays, that " God hath given unto men fuch a 
 " rite {i.e. baptifm), that either by a dipping in^ 
 *' or walliing, or sprinkling of water, they 
 *' might receive remiiTion of fins." f 
 
 * NoTANDUM, non fohm mergendo, fed et'iam defuper fundendo viuU 
 tos br.ptizatos fuiffi, & adhuc pojfe baptizari. TValafrld, Strabo. De Rebus 
 Ecclef. C. xxvi. P. 415. 
 
 f ^od Dens cjiifmodi rltitm homhiihiis commendaint , tit aqua vel tindlionc, 
 
 Tf! ablutione,. aiit aspersione pcccatonim a fc ahhitionem acciperent. 
 
 AI. Biiccr. Enarrat. Ep. Pa::H ad Rom. C. vi. P. 389. 
 
 Mm 2 6 About 
 
( 276 ) 
 
 6 About the middle of the fixteenth ccntiiry 
 lived the learned, the venerable, the modeft Muf- 
 mlus; virhofe book intitled Loci Communes Sacra 
 l^heologi^, contains a rich treafury of pure divi- 
 nity. In that part of it, wherein he conliders the 
 nature of the facraments in general, and of bap- 
 tifm in particular, he fays, refpeding the mode, 
 " As to the dipping of infants, we judge that 
 *' this is not fo ej/tntial, as that the church may 
 *' not be free to baptize either by immerlion or 
 " SPRINKLING. That this liberty was obferved 
 ** in the churches, you may fee in Aagujiin De 
 '' Ecckfiaflkis Dogmatibus, Cap. Ixxiv. The per/on 
 *' to be baptized, fays he {Augujiin'), confejfes his 
 ** faith, &c. and after confejjion, he is either sprin- 
 " KLED with water, or dipped in it. And Cyprian, 
 " Book iv. Epift 7, to Magnus, defends the ufe 
 *' of SPRINKLING in baptifm."* — In this memo- 
 rable paflage three things muft naturally ftrike 
 the attentive reader, (i) Mu/culus difcards the 
 rjfentiality of dipping, and equally admits fprin- 
 kling. (2) He carries up his appeal to antiquity 
 in vindication of this mode, as far as to the fifth 
 century. (3) Mufculuss quotation from Augufiin, 
 and reference to the opinion of Cyprian, demon- 
 £rate, that fprinkiing with water in baptifm was 
 pradifed in the church, .and particularly vindi- 
 
 * ^.od immtrfwnem laptizandi bifaiitis attinet judkamus banc non Jic ejfe ne- 
 cejpmum, ut no;i fit i'denmi ecclefiis hiiptizare vcl mcrgendo, x't/ asprrgendo. 
 Lilur talon haiic Jervatam cffe in ccchftls, vldcrc efi hi Auguftino dc cccUficfii- 
 ch dognwiihus. Cap. Ixxiv. Baptizandus inqiiit, confitetur ficlem ruam, 8cc. 
 Sc pofl: confelTionem ycl asi'ercjtur aqua, vel intingitur. Et Cypri- 
 anus, Lib. iv. Epiji. vii. ad Magnum ufioii asplrgendi in laptijhate dc- 
 fs/ii/fi.—Wolfgangi Mulculi. Lad Comm. dc Baptifnio. P. 2iZ9- 
 
 Gated 
 
( 277 ) 
 
 catcd by thefe two great men. And, I fhould 
 imagine, to every perfon of judgment and candor, 
 the unanimous opinion of this venerable trium- 
 virate would carry as mucli weight, as the ob- 
 jedions of all the Anabaptifts in the world. 
 
 Thus have I laid before the reader, a few out 
 of the many extra6ls that might be made from 
 antiquity, to prove that other modes of difpenling 
 baptifm, befides that of dipping, are neither fo 
 mocjern, nor fo fpurious as our opponents would 
 infinuate. If it be coniidered, as a prefumptive 
 argument added to that taken from the fan61:ioii 
 of antiquity, that the pureft reformed churches, 
 in the prefent day, admit fprinkling or pouring 
 of water as a valid mode of adminiftration;— and 
 that its validity is founded on the extenlive lig- 
 nification of the word Qaifji^M ; — on the applica- 
 tion of it in various inftances, where the fuppo- 
 lition of immerlion would incur the grollefl: 
 abfurdity ; — on the opinions of the moft eminent 
 Critics, Lexicographers, and Divines; — on the 
 analogy between baptifmal afperlion or efFufion,. 
 and the fprinkling of the blood and Spirit of 
 Christ in our juftification and fancflification ; — 
 on the various teftimonies which vindicate this 
 analogical reafoning ; — on the memorable concef- 
 lions of Dr. Gale j — and that the Dutch Anabap- 
 
 tilts themfelves pradife affulion : 1 fay, if thefe 
 
 things be candidly and impartially coniidered, the 
 reader will ealily perceive, with what degree of / 
 truth or candor Dr. 5'. can affirm, that " in con- 
 " tending for immerfion, he contends, not for a 
 
 *' par- 
 
( 278 ) 
 
 " particular mode, bat for baptifm itfelf." A 
 contention this, however honeftly intended, which 
 is declarative of the fpirit of a party, and muft be 
 carried on by the united interells of bigotry and 
 fchifm. — A contention, which will ever chara6le- 
 rize the unamiable fpirit of Anabaptifm, and 
 fprcad difcord through the united alfcmblies of 
 God's people. — A contention, not likely to re- 
 dound to the honor of God ; not calculated to 
 keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peaces 
 nor to adminlfter to the fpirit ual profperity of 
 the contenders themfelves. — A contention more 
 v/orthy of the fons of firife, or the narrow bi- 
 gots, that dilTeminatcd the tares of judaifm and 
 legality in the church oi Galatia, than of perfons 
 profeiiing a veneration for the gofpel of peace. — ' 
 And a contention, which we defy its maintainers 
 to fupport by truth, and fair criticifm. 
 
 The Anabaptiiis infift much on the refem- 
 blance between immerfion :\nd. the burial oi Chrit ; 
 which they found upon the figurative language of 
 the ApolUe in Rom. vi. 3, 4. * Suppojing that 
 
 pafTage 
 
 * A Mr. SaiiJys, w'acm I have had occafion to introduce, now and 
 then, in conjunelion -vvitli his twin-brother in controverlVj Parmcnas 
 the Deacon ; in p. 44, of his bit of iitk-^r^c nmnicry, confronts us with 
 a few authorities in favor of dipping. The firfl: is tliat of Pifcutor. 
 Whether cur author's tranflation of the pallage from that learned man^ 
 is taken iminediatelj from. Pifcator's original work; or whether he lias 
 Iwrrowed it from fome of his brethren; it is impoffible for me to de- 
 termine. This, however, almoft any reader, who will Confidt the 
 pafiage, may detenTiine ; viz. that the tranjlator, has given us a fentence 
 wiihoiU a pnrct^cl verb, which makes Pifcntor fpeak fuch nonfenfe, as 
 even in a illiool-boT, v.'ould defervc the lafli. Nor is he more accu- 
 rate in jiis tranilation from GniUts; when he informs us, that the antienl 
 practice of immerfio". appe nr.; from " the plr.ccs chose for its admi- 
 
 * '• niftratlon," 
 
( 279 ) 
 
 paiTage does allade to their peculiar mode ; our 
 pradice is fupported by a no lefs lignificant ana- 
 logy. For the pouring of water Is emblematical 
 of the effulion of the Redeemer's blood, and the 
 pouring out of his foul In death : the head, the 
 principal part of the fubje6t, is put under water, 
 when the element is poured on it: and the taking 
 up and delivering the child to his parents or 
 offerers, is figurative of Christ's refurredion. 
 And the allufion of circumftances in this mode of 
 baptlfm. Is as lignificant, and commemorative to 
 all the purpofes of a facrament, as the breaking 
 of bread and pouring out of wine is fymbolical 
 of the facrificed body and blood of Christ. 
 The principal ditFerence betvi een us and the Ana- 
 baptifts, is ; they baptize the head and flioulders, 
 and we the face ; they afcribe ejjentiality to their 
 
 " niflration." P. 45. — - — But he cannot quote a paflage, made corrciSt 
 to Ins hand, without blundering. In p. 44, he ufes, and introduces me 
 as ufiiig, the term " lileral crucificTion," and again, " Utcral cniclficT'ion." 
 Now, if fuch a word as cntcificrion can be found in any part of my 
 pamphlet refered to, I will even fubmit to have the whole configned 
 to the flames ; or, if fuch a word can be produced from any lexico- 
 grapher antient or modern, our quoter's warrant forufingit, fliall be 
 admitted. Indeed, it feems fome imall alleviation of Mr. S.'s blunder, 
 that the Jiihjiantive in quefl:ion, does not occur- in his Bible. But furely 
 it does, in his fpelling-diB'wnary. And, if he think it beneath him to 
 confult that ; yet he might know that there is a wide difference be- 
 tween ficTion and fixion. And, if this obvious difl:indlion be not fuf- 
 ficicnt to aid his " critical acumen," I would advife him to look into 
 his Z,(7/!/?-di(Sionary for the words fuigo zndfgo; and to mark the par- 
 ticiples arifing refpeclively from each. And if tliis mode of invelligat- 
 ing the import of Englijlj derivatives be not fufficient to fix his ftan- 
 dard of orthography, and to help him to write better in future, I 
 give him up, as an incorrigible ignoramus ; that afecls to be conver- 
 fant in the branches of literature, and yet abounds in folcccifms, when 
 iie makes patch-work in EngUjIt, as well as in Latin and Creek. 
 
 mode; 
 
( 2^0 ) 
 
 Tnode ; but we efteem either mode effe£iual, tho' 
 neither, ejfentlal. 
 
 Having loft fight of Mr. M, for feveral pages 
 back, it is fir I Ihould face him again, before I 
 give him a valedidory falutation. i would fondly 
 hope, that, upon a calm review of the arguments 
 and authorities bid before hini in the preceding 
 flieets, he will not in future, decide fo perempto- 
 rily or fo haftily again, upon a fubjecT:, which I 
 am perfuaded, he has not maturely confidered ; 
 and which his very fuperficial acquaintance with 
 literature by no means qualifies him accurately 
 to difcufs. If a Gill, a Stennett, a Gifford, or a 
 Rylandf were to declare from the pulpit " that 
 *' Paedobaptifts never have yet proved their prac- 
 *' tice from the word of God j" though we lliould 
 efteem the declaration neither the more candid, 
 nor the truer, for the fan^lion of thefe refpedable 
 names ; vet it would come with fome tolerable 
 grace from men converfant in the branches of 
 literature, and would therefore abate confiderably 
 of its offenfivenefs. But when we confider that 
 the perfon, who ifiued out the attefied dogma, is — 
 Mr. Medley; our difguft is excited in proportion 
 to the views we have of the circumfcribed abilities 
 of the dogmatift himfelf. That he is, as Cicero 
 fays, Uteris tin^us; — has a fpri?ikling of learning; 
 we acknowledge. But a man who can exhibit 
 criticifms, and give challenges, ought to be Uteris 
 immerfus, buried in the depths of fcience. And 
 then, if amidft his profound difquifitions, he fhould 
 at any time Ihoot an unguarded bolt, as Dr. GiU 
 
 did. 
 
( 28i ) 
 
 did, when he called Infant-baptirm " a pillar of 
 " Fopcry-y* we fhould be difpofed to make ail 
 proper allowance for the exprefHons of human 
 frailty, even in the greateft men ; upon the fame 
 principle that the. Roman Satirifl winked, when 
 Homer nodded. 
 
 ^andoque bonus dormitat Homerus ! 
 
 But when an author polTefTes only a literary 
 tin6iion; to fubftitute mere affirmation for argu- 
 ment, and to palm upon the public a few trite 
 and incoherent itridures as fo many appeals to 
 the laws of fair criticifm i is abfolutely inexcu- 
 
 fable in Mr. Medley. 
 
 If I might be permitted to give Mr. M. a little 
 advice, I would propofe it under the following 
 heads, (i) As a preacher , I would earneftly re- 
 commend to him modejiy and gravity. The one 
 will infpire his miniftrations with a becoming 
 felf-diffidence, which is a moft amiable endow- 
 ment in a public fpeaker : and the other will in- 
 ftil into his mind that folemnity, which when 
 carried into an ordinance, will folemnize the 
 hearers, and give to every means of grace the 
 appearance of an awful intercourfe with heaven : 
 while the happy blending of both will be no fmall 
 recommendation of the fentiments he wilhes to 
 inculcate. (2) Whenever Mr. M. finds himfelf 
 difpofed to rally what he falily calls a " human 
 *' invention -y" and to fneer at Paedobaptifts, as 
 only *' baptizers of the ends of their fingers -" in 
 order to check the current of his irreverent and 
 N n jocular 
 
( 282 ) 
 
 jocular Ideas, I would advife him previoufly to 
 conlider three things; viz. Firji ; What he is 
 himfelf; — a fallible man, liable to err; and there- 
 fore under an obligation of making the moft can- 
 did and modeft allowance for the fallibility of 
 others. Secondly-, before whom he is to fpeak;— - 
 not only before a promifcuous auditory in which 
 there may be fome, who would feel fenlible dif- 
 guft at every degree of levity, which tends to 
 the profanation of an ordinance ; but likewife 
 before that God, who muft be ferved with fear, 
 and before whom, we fhould even rejoice with 
 reverence. Thirdly ; of whom he is to fpeak ; — of 
 thofe, who are his brethren, and therefore to be 
 treated with tendernefs; — of the pureft reformed 
 churches upon earth, and therefore to be men- 
 tioned with deference; — of thoufands of illuftrious 
 minifters, martyrs, &c. who have moft extenlively 
 difleminated the gofpel of Christ, and fealed 
 the truth with their blood, and yet were advo- 
 cates for what our Anabaptlft calls a *' human 
 ** invention; — and of multitudes, who, for learning 
 and piety are as much our author's fuperiors, as 
 a cedar of Lebanon out-ftrips a bramble. (3) As 
 Mr. M. has given us a promiflbry note, that, if 
 ever he comes to Shrewjlury again, he will exhibit 
 in the charailer of '* a fevere oppofer-," let me 
 requeft him to take care, that his oppolition is 
 conduced with that meeknefs, folemnity and 
 moderation, which characterize a man, influenced 
 more by a zeal for the glory of God, than by a 
 party-fpirit : and that his ^' fever ity* is that of 
 
 folid 
 
( 283 ) 
 
 folid argument, and not of low witticifm. For if 
 Mr, M. is '' fever e" in the ftyle he lately adopted, 
 he muft exped that others will level at him the 
 fevcrity of retaliating cenfure, if not, of cutting 
 farcafm. (4) If he appears again in quality of an 
 author; I would advife him not to indulge thofe 
 abufive fallies that have decorated his late per- 
 formance ; particularly, that he would fpeak a 
 little more honorably of the Church of England. 
 (5) That he would not liften to the invitations 
 of the twin-difputants, Ibould they folicit his at- 
 't-endance at a future baptization ; but infift upon 
 their making humble application on that head 
 to their brother in difgrace. Why fhould Mr. M. 
 be accefTary to the fomenting a divilion, which, it 
 feems, principally originated from the touchinefs 
 of poor Parmenasy and which muft be kept up 
 to gratify the pomp and whim of this inflammable 
 Deacon ? I know it is written " the fpirit of the 
 " prophets is fubje6l to the prophets :" but I never 
 remember it recorded in any part of facred writ, 
 that ** the fpirit of the prophets is fubje(5t to dea- 
 *' cons,'- Do then. Sir, if you would a<5t the part 
 of impartiality, infift, that the Deacon fhould 
 make fome overtures towards a reconciliation. 
 As you leem to have confiderable weight with, 
 his fide of the queftion, propofe the modej and 
 who knows, how far your earneft and impar- 
 tial interference may fucceed in producing a laft- 
 ing coalition between your divided brethren ? 
 I really am ferious : infomuch that if no other 
 end is anfwered by this pamphlet, I lliall think 
 
 N n 2 it 
 
( 284 ) 
 
 it a compenfation, in a great meafurd, for the 
 pains I have taken in this reiterated remonftrance. 
 But, I repeat it again, you fhould begin with 
 Tarmenas, As he has been a primum- mobile in the 
 divifion ; fo he fhould, in the healing of it. Set 
 him a going, therefore; and probably you will 
 fucqeed. I am perfuaded, a politive injunction 
 tranfmitted to him on this head, will do him 
 good : but an acflual fubmiffion to it, much 
 more. He can write addrejfes. Suppofe he were 
 to pen a conciliatory addrefi upon the prefent oc- 
 cafion. For, if he could fuppofe that his late 
 one, would engage the fentiments and determine 
 the condu6^ of the " Baptiji-churchy meeting in 
 ** High-ftreet, Shrewjhury ;" is there not equal 
 ground for a fuppolition, that a reconciliation 
 propofed and begun by the Deacon, would be 
 punctually attended to, and literally imitated, by 
 the feyeral members arranged under his Deacon- 
 Jhipf If he can be prevailed on to write this 
 conciliatory addrefs; and to take the other ne- 
 ceflary ftep, which 1 have already fuggefted ; I 
 fhall entertain a more favorable opinion of him, 
 than hitherto. (6) If you lliould make another 
 vilit to this town j inftead of exhibiting as a 
 *' fevere oppofer" of diofe, who merit no fuch 
 illiberal oppofition at your hands ; I would ad- 
 vife you to come with a rod to your own party, 
 and rebuke them Jharply for that unhappy fpirit of 
 fchifm, which has occalioned, and ftill keeps up, 
 a rent in their communion. And pray, remem- 
 ber, that Parmenas will require not the gentlefl 
 
 ilrokes 
 
( 285 ) 
 
 firokes of your minifterlal rod. Level your 
 firji rebuke at him from the former claufe of 
 Rom.w'u 17 i the fecond ivova i.Tim. v. i; your third 
 from i.'Thejf.v. 14; your fourth from Col. iii. 25; 
 and fo on, according as you may fee fit to ac- 
 commodate your textuary chajiifements to the par- 
 ticular branches of his mifdemeanor. And, if 
 you fhouid think it neceirary to give him forty 
 Jiripes fave one-y remember, I prefcribe no other 
 flripes, but a few plain texts of fcripture, urged 
 in well-adapted application. I have been fo un- 
 fuccefsful in my addreffes to P. upon all fubje(5ls, 
 that I now give him up ; and therefore wilh to 
 confign this incorrigible pupil to the care of 
 Mr. M. as to that of a more able difciplinarian, 
 1 heartily wilTi he may improve under his pafto- 
 ral rod : becaufe, as for his more immediate 
 teacher, and auxiliary, Mr. S. he only encou- 
 rages him in his follies; reads his fplenetic and 
 filly addrefs in a public ordinance; helps him 
 to quote authors he never read ; puffs him oif 
 in his *' immenfe ftores of claffical treafure ;** 
 joins with him in his dilingenuities; and even 
 decorates his blunders and paralogifms with glit- 
 tering encomiums. Since therefore, this Ana^ 
 baptift probationer is not hkely to be of any 
 real fervicc to the Deacon, but rather, to admi- 
 nifter oil to the peculiar inflammability of P.'s 
 difpolition ; I wilh Mr. M. would conne6l them 
 both in a little falutary difcipline ; and thereby 
 point out to them fuch condud as is worthy of 
 
 their 
 
. ( 286 ) 
 
 their refpe6i:Ive fun61ions.* And, in order to 
 complete your e.irneft efforts for peace, addrefs 
 the divided parties, as Paul did the contentious 
 nlalecontents of Corinth; " Ye are yet carnal: 
 ** for whereas there is among you envying and 
 ** ftrife, and dlvijiom^ are ye not carnal, and walk 
 **" as men ?" i. Cor. iii. 3. Surely, Sir, before 
 you arraign your Psedobaptift brethren, and con- 
 demn their principles under the falfe epithet of 
 *' human invention;" you Ihould iirfi: labor to 
 " purge out from among" your own party " the 
 " ka'DiTi' of strife: and if you come hither 
 to any purpofe, it Ihould be as a " fevere 
 *' oppofer" of that "juijdom which is from beneath; 
 which difcovers its deviliih nature as much in 
 bitter contentions, as in earth ly-mindednefs and 
 grofs fenfuality. Men may profefs evangelical 
 principles, and yet poffefs carnal hearts. They 
 may moft dreadfully deceive themfelves under' a 
 fpecious profeffion of a fyftem; and, while they 
 name the name of Christ, may not depart from 
 
 * It would not be amifs, likewifc, particularly to recommend it to 
 Mr. Sandys, that in the next edition of his late wonderful piece of patch- 
 vork, he would oblige his unlearned readers with a tranjlat'ion cf his 
 *' hnmcnfe Jiorcs of chjfical trcajhre;" or elfe publiili them with an index 
 expurgatorius: that inftead of writing, as if he brought his literary patches 
 from the magazine of mottos in the Spcffators, Tatlers, 8cc. he would 
 content himfelf with his own mother-tongue, with which I am fure 
 he is befl acquainted : and at leaft, whenever he fays again, that he 
 " meant not to be tedious," or " was going to be ferious," we requeft, 
 he would not tell us fuch trifles in heroic vcrfi. Ordinary readers will 
 never be able to follow him in fuch literary foarings ; unlcfs he in- 
 dulge them with the fame liappy wings, that elevate his own genius, 
 Gr rather, with the fame borrovjcd flri.i^, by which his paper-kite has 
 been fu/pcnded in the air, fo high. 
 
 iniquity. 
 
( 287 ) 
 
 iniquity. T dare not affirm that this is abfolutely 
 the cafe with your brethren in this town : but, 
 as a wife phyfician, would fufpe6l fome dange- 
 rous malady lurking in the conftitution, from 
 certain unfavorable fymptoms in the pulfe, &c. 
 and would adapt his prefcriptions accordingly: 
 fo, Sir, I would advife you, as a fkilful and im- 
 partial phylician, to fufped that all is not quite 
 right, where the pulfe of paffion beats fo high, 
 and the fever of contention fuggefts pra6^ices, 
 diametrically oppofite to the mild and pacific 
 genius of true chniiianity. If you would make 
 a radical cure, flrike at the rooi of bitternefs : 
 and though the operation may give the patients 
 pain, yet fpare not. Remember Paul's words, 
 *' If 1 yet pleafed men I fliould not be the fer- 
 " vant of Christ." GaL i. 10. Make them 
 feel the keen deep fearchings of the fcripture- 
 probe, from that awful paffage in Alat. xviii. 
 34, 35. And, fo after the latent gangrene is 
 difcovered, is probed, and is radically healed ; 
 they will blefs the hand of the operator, though 
 it gave them pain : for " he that reproveth a 
 " man, fhall afterwards find more favor, than he 
 *' that flattereth with his lips." 
 
 And now. Sir, count me not an enemy, bc- 
 caufe I tell you the truth. You came to Shreivf- 
 bury, as a ** fevere oppofer" of Paedobaptifm. 
 But you miftook your errand. You fhould have 
 come as a " fevere oppofer" of the firife and 
 bigotry of your brethren : And before you caft a 
 
 ftone 
 
( 288 ) 
 
 flone at another church, you Ihould have healed 
 the fcandalous divifions of your own. To dif- 
 cover the mote in the eye of others, and to over- 
 look the beam in that of your brethren, is fuch 
 an inftance of partial connivance, . as can only 
 be accounted for, on a fuppofition of prejudice 
 groflly mifapplied. Think not thefe hints pro- 
 ceed from any indignant pique at you, or your 
 brethren. Indeed they do not. If I know any 
 thing of my own heart, 1 would not entertain 
 any thing towards the worft among them, but 
 benevolence and love. And even, while I am 
 this moment expoling the impropriety of your 
 own minifterial conduc^t, and telling you plainly 
 of the many aggravations wherewith it is marked; 
 my heart meditates the lincerell: affedion for you, 
 and every man of your denomination upon earth, 
 that preaches the gofpel of Christ : and in 
 that view, as far as you publilh it without legal 
 adulterations, exhibitions of felf, and mixture of 
 irreverent and uncharitable bigotry, you have my 
 repeated willies for abundant fuccefs. 
 
 Whilft 
 
( 2^9 ) 
 
 " Whilft with miflaken zeal dull bio-ots burn. 
 Let REASON for a moment take her turn." 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 The fever al extraordinary fpeci mens of Mr. Turner *5 
 
 MANNER, CHARITY, and LOGICAL REASON- 
 ING, confidered, — The falfliood, futility, and mak" 
 roknce of all his Remarks, expo/ed. — His criticifms, 
 refpeding the mode and fubje6^s of haptifmi 
 proved to be nugatory and inconclujive. — The injiances 
 of uncharitable judging, fcattered through his pam- 
 phlet, declarative of the true fpirit of a red-hot 
 Anabaptift. 
 
 I Am not in the leaft furprifed, that the author 
 of " Remarks on a Letter to a Baptift-Minijier,'* 
 ihould lay a politive injuncf^ion on his printer^ 
 to keep his name a profound fecret, as well from 
 the friends, as foes of Anabaptifm; that he fhould 
 fupprefs his very initials -, and that, in order to 
 preclude the poffibility of conjedure, he Ihould 
 not even favor us with any epijlolary date, by the 
 locality of which, we might at leaft know our 
 anonymous author's place of abode.— I fay, I am 
 not furprifed, the remarker lliould adopt fuch a 
 variety of well-guarded modes oi felf-co7icealment^ 
 For, as he might entertain fome fecret mif- 
 givings, that his pamphlet was calculated to 
 brfjig upon him the cenfure of the candid and 
 O o judicious. 
 
( 290 ) 
 
 judicious, as well as expofe him to a mortifying 
 reply from his opponent j timid prudence might 
 fuggeft the neceffity of eluding, as much as 
 pollible, the force of both, by taking refuge In 
 the dark cells of Jtcrecy. From hence, fhould 
 he fend forth any arrows pointed with malevo- 
 lence, and Ihould an antagonift wllh to take up 
 the gauntlet; the occult iituation of the remarker 
 would fcreen him from a perfonal attack, and 
 enable him to fleep in a whole fl;in, behind his 
 anonymous rampart as — no-body. 
 
 However, notwithflanding the printer's invio- 
 late fidelity to the remarker s injun6^ions, and 
 notwithftanding the fiudied privacy, wherewith 
 the anonymous publication hath ftole upon the 
 public ; yet, fach are its diftinguilhing features, 
 that fome pofitively affirm, they chara6lerize a 
 wavm Anabaptift ; and that that Anabaptift is 
 Mr. "burner, of Birmingham. I am informed (for 
 I have no perfonal knowledge of Mr. T.) that 
 there is a great peculiarity in the fpirit and manner 
 of that gentleman, with which the contents of 
 the " Re?narks" exa6lly correfpond; fo that, as 
 the correfpondent features of the prochvfiGn de- 
 cypher the pare?2t; it is from this homogeneous 
 aiiinity, that my friends iinanimoufly agree in 
 covfirmig the li'kenefs to Mr. T. though indeed it 
 might, as to its general outlines, be accommo- 
 dated to others of his brethren. 
 
 When 1 firfl: read ovTr My. ''burners " Remarks'* 
 I almort defpaired of being ever able to make 
 any reply; not bcCaufr they contain any invin- 
 cible 
 
( 291 ) 
 
 ciblc arguments, or exhibit any unanfwerable 
 critlcifnis ; but becaufe, the author, bcfides ob- 
 ferving very Httle decency, has paid no fort of 
 attention to order. His thoughts are {o loofc, 
 defultory, and unconneded throughout, that to 
 reduce them to any methodical arrangement. Is, 
 like collecting together the fcattered oracular 
 leaves of the Sybil, alnioft next to an impoffibi- 
 llty. Mr. -T. has indeed ingenuoully acknow- 
 ledged, p. 22; that, *' he has obferved very 
 " little order." But this acknowledgment will 
 by no means atone for the prodigious trouble 
 he has given me, in methodizing his difordcrly 
 performance ; nor will the public be Inclined to 
 accept of it, as a fufficient apology for fuch gla- 
 ring deviations from the rules of authorJJiip. A 
 great reafoner has o]:)ferved, that " incohseren- 
 " cles in matter, and fuppofulons without proofs, 
 *' put handfcmely together, are apt to pafs for ftrong 
 *' reafon." But the " Runarks," belides abound- 
 ing with incoharencies, and fuppojitions devoid of 
 proof, poflefs the additional dlfadvantage of being 
 put UNHANDSOMELY together. The remarker at- 
 tempts, indeed, a itw manoeuvres as a contro- 
 vertift ; but they are all random-fiiots. Like the 
 evolutions of undifcipUned recruits, they do no 
 execution ; but refemble more the feeble efforts 
 of the pop-gun, than the methodical volley of 
 well-regulated ordnance. — Sometimes the remark- 
 er, with vaft parade, ere^is his battery, and pre- 
 pares for a ferious cannonading : but, as if con^ 
 icious that his artillery was inadequate to the 
 O o 2 impor- 
 
( 292 ) 
 
 Important work, he unexpectedly delifts, and fliesv 
 off to foine frelh manoeuvre. He Jiarts an ar- 
 gument, without tvtYjiating it. — At other times, 
 he iLouts victory, without fo much as founding 
 a prekide to the battle : his imaginary triumphs 
 are generally founded on the ufe of a certain 
 piece of eafy artillery, peculiar to the felf-con- 
 fident clogmatift, and very well known by the 
 name of — ipje dixit. And fuch are, at all times, 
 his fuddcn tranlitions, volatile remarks, nugatory 
 aiguments, incohaerent ftri6iures, and inconclu-? 
 iive logic ; that, if I were to purfue the fame 
 track, I ihould look upon myfelf as writing, 
 with a delign to amufe, not edify. And when 
 I conlider, how I am obliged to follow the re-' 
 Viarker throi4gh his various immethodical fhift- 
 ings, I am naturally reminded of an excellent 
 obfervation of Mr. Addifon. " The anfwering of 
 *' an immethodical authoi' is like the hunting of a 
 " duck : when you have him full in your fight, 
 ** he gives you the flip, and becomes invilible." 
 
 However, if the want of methodical arrange- 
 ment were the only blemllli in the remarkers 
 pamphlet, my complaints might be reduced to 
 a comparatively fmall compafs. But, belides be- 
 ing more immethodical than any author, I ever 
 read, he almolf conftantly tranfgreffes the laws 
 of candor, and chriftian decorum; while a total 
 want of temper often betrays him into very inde- 
 cent language, and extremely uncharitable fenti- 
 ments. For my own part, fo little has Mr. T. 
 appeared to me, to v/rite like a perfon calmly 
 
 invef-^ 
 
( ^93 ) 
 
 inveftlgatlng truth ; that his v/hole performance 
 fecms rather to relemble the angry etiufions of 
 a reader, giving vent to his indignation in fuch 
 terms, as the paroxyfm of his padion might fii^- 
 gefl; while the incohaerency of the whole would 
 almofl: incline one to fuppofe, that fome lliort- 
 hand writer, took, down, and publilhed the re- 
 marker s thoughts, juft as they dropped fx tcmpon 
 
 from his lips, riidis iiidigejiaque moles. But that 
 
 the candid reader may fee, I do not mifreprcfent 
 Mr. T. I will lay before hijii the ground of ray- 
 charges, in thofe fpecimens, Mr. T. has given us 
 of his manner^ modejiy, charity, and logical rea- 
 foning, 
 
 I. I As to Mr. 'Tls manner, the judicious reader 
 will eafily percieve it runs through his whole 
 performance, and gives it a very diftinguilliable 
 call: J whereby our author might be known from 
 a thoufand others. As a fpecimen of his manner, 
 in fabricating delicate fimiles, we need look no 
 farther than page i j where our curious fimilift 
 compares the controverfy about baptifm to " the 
 *' vain jangling of porters over a pot of beer." 
 I acknowledge this is a nioii porter ly comparifouj 
 and may, with great propriety, be accommo- 
 dated to the diale61: of the coarfe tribe, whofc 
 language fwells, aad whofe ideas are refined, in 
 proportion to the quantity of liquor they imbibe, 
 But how fuch very lusty diale6l Ihould be 
 adopted by one, who, I am fur e, ismt a porter -, 
 and by one too, who wiflies to correct the un- 
 couth current of our ideas j appears to me rather 
 myfterious, 2 Another 
 
( 294 ) 
 
 2. Another flimple of the remarhrs extraor- 
 dinary dehcacy in applying fimiles, and framing 
 comparifons, may be i'ecn in page 9. After Part- 
 ing an hypothelis, which has nothing for its 
 fupport, bat h-is roimd affiimotion ; he draws a 
 dogmatical conclulion, and fuggefls the following 
 brilHant comparifon ; " Has it not been fliid, 
 *' that the greateft thief will cry thief firil ?" 
 How extremely delicate ! Vvh(m Mr. 'Turner, 
 compared us to porters, I thought his iimile def- 
 cendcd as low, as even vulgarity itself 
 could fink it. But, behold the amazing fertility 
 of his imagmation ! The comparifon drops us 
 flill lower; till, by the magical power of the re- 
 marker's invention, what was before the jangling 
 of a porter, now terminates in the knavery of a 
 thief. Well, I do allure Mr. T, that, although he 
 has reprefented me as the " greateft thief;" there 
 are two things which I deiire never \o fteal from 
 Kim-, and thefe are, his spirit and method 
 of writing. I cannot help adopting a wilh, that 
 the remarker himfelf would, Deucalion-like , fleal a 
 little fire of folid argument from the writings of 
 the judicious friends of truth. For, till he has 
 committed fome innocent depredation of this 
 kind, the genius of his prodaclions will only 
 remind me of the Gracian ftatuary ; who, after 
 finilhing and reviewing an image of flone, 
 thus addrefled the unanimated figure, " Ai/ li n 
 *' s'.h-^ ciycy.i.''' * The want of conclulive argu- 
 ment, appofite illuftration, and fpirited didion, 
 
 * There's fomething wanting wixniN, 
 
( 295 ) 
 Is an effential deficiency in writing, which all 
 the little fimiles, or low ru/garifms in the world, 
 will never fupply. And, how Mr. T. Ihould 
 imagine that the latter would be a fatisfaclory 
 fubrtitute for the former, " is" (to life his own 
 words) *' beyond meafure wonderful !" 
 
 g. It Is no fmall peculiarity in our author's 
 manner, that it is overloaded, with a prodigious 
 number, though with no very great variety, of 
 po/aive ajjeriicns, void of dtmoniiration. This 
 mode of writing, however, is juft as convenient, 
 
 as it is fuperficial; for, it faves trouble of 
 
 reafoning. And I muft do Mr. T. the juftice, to 
 acknowledge, that he feems perfedly converfant 
 in this kind of dogmatic phrafeology. Sometimes 
 the reader's expedations are railed, as if the 
 remarker would purfue a chain of folid argumen- 
 tation, and eftablilh his point by fcripture and 
 reafon: when lo ! all of a fudden, our hopes 
 are blafted, and nothing decides the controverfy, 
 but fuch lacil logic as, " I verily believe-1 
 " nay 1 will go farther and roundly affirm, 
 '' that I am sure of it— I believe 1 might lafely 
 
 TAKE MY OATH of It — UNDOUBTEDLY infant- 
 
 baptifm cannot be right. Surely behev- 
 '' ers' baptifm must be right.— Not a fyllable, 
 " jot, or tittle, is to be met with to their (the 
 '' Paedobaptifts') purpofe. Infant- baptifm can 
 
 never be proved, Your fplrit will un- 
 
 " DouBTEDLY give your readers an indifferent 
 
 idea of you. — I can assure you from vk- 
 " doubted authority, &c. — Something peculi- 
 arly 
 
( 296 ). 
 
 arly uncomiiion muft certainly have ftlrred 
 
 up ycur, &c. — I v/ill venture to fay, you 
 
 will wllh you never had done fo. I am po- . 
 
 siTivE there are a ferics of things before 
 
 you, &c." 
 
 Such are, very frequently, the modeft decla- 
 rations, and fuch the weighty arguments, which 
 ornament the remarkers tlioughts, refpeding the 
 prefent debate. And 1 humbly afk the candid 
 reader, if the picture, which the judicious Dr^ 
 /"Falls draws of the dogmatiji, does not, in fe- 
 veral of its features, correfpond with thofe of 
 the remarker. *' He (the dogmatift) believes all 
 his opinions with the fame alTurancc, that he 
 does a mathematical truth. He has fcarce any 
 mere probabilities that belong to him : every thing 
 
 with him, is certain and infallible. Perfons of 
 
 this temper are feldom to be convinced of any 
 mifiake." * 
 
 4 Bat I mufl not omit one inflance of the 
 remarker's politivity, which outlliines all the reft. 
 So fully perfuaded is he, that Christ, the 
 Apoftle of the Gentiles, and " all the minifters 
 ••' and churches of that glorious day" were Ana- 
 baptifts ; that he fays, " Do I utter forgeries and 
 *' fallities when I call St. Fad a Baptijl-minijier? 
 " No. I do not. If he was not ; what deno- 
 *' mination was he of? You can't fay he was a 
 
 *' Church oi-Eyigland minifter. Indeed Sir, it is 
 
 " in my power to fay (and behold before God I 
 " lye not!) that Jesus Christ himself was 
 " A Baptist-minister." 
 
 * Sec the Dcdlor's Logic. P. 2lo. ^ *^^S 
 
( ^91 ) 
 
 I beg leave to make a few remarks on this 
 curious pallage. (i) In order to prove that Faul 
 was an Anabaptiji, Mr. T. iLould have prevloufly 
 demonftrated, that he baptized adults only ; and 
 that he rebaptized fuch as had been baptized in 
 infancy. 'Till the remarker has given us fcrip- 
 tural proof for thefe two particulars, (which I 
 dtiy him to do) we Ihall only look upon his 
 attempt, to make Paul an Anabaptijr, as refem- 
 bling that of the Roman Catholic, v/ho aflerted, 
 that the apoftle was a Papiji- (2) When a mem- 
 ber of the Anabaptiil: denomination, wants to 
 make a monopoly of the chief of apoftles, to the 
 cxcluHon of the claim of other reformed churches, 
 which manifeftly adhere to Paul'?, form of found 
 words ; he gives us a moft fad fpecimen of his 
 total want of Catholicifm. (3) That " it is in 
 *' Mr. T'.'s power to fay, that Jesus Christ 
 " was a Baptift miniftcr" we readily allow. But, 
 how does this gentleman prove his aiT-^rtion? Why, 
 much in the fame manner, that he does his 
 other marvellous poUtions ; viz. *' Yes, my friend, 
 *' he MOST CERTAINLY was I" ThIs is the 
 argumentum palmariuni; this, the mighty engine, 
 which is to demolilh, at one firoke, all the ar- 
 gumentative batteries of Psedobaptifts. Who can 
 ibnd before Mr. T.'s most certainly ? This 
 is the judge that ends the ft rife j the grand in- 
 ftrument of decifion. 
 
 Equally unguarded and precipitate is the re- 
 
 marker, in faying, that *' I want to fix the date 
 
 *' of the origin of Baptifm and the Baptifts, a few 
 
 V p ** fcores 
 
C 298 ) 
 
 " fcores of years ago." This is a manifeft m'lC- 
 reprefenlation. Scriptural baptifm, 1 aiiert, is 
 .of apoftolic antiquity j but Anabaptijm is a mere 
 German novelty. The tenor of the debate, 
 therefore, does not fefped the origin of baptifm, 
 or Baptifts in general , but the rife of Anahap- 
 tijh, and the commencement of their unfcrip- 
 tural oppoHtion to infant-baptifm ; which was 
 lirft hatched by a fpurious KtSt of the Jlbigen- 
 fes ; was furioufly propagated by the German 
 Ranters ; received conliderable increafe under the 
 foftering hand of tyrannical ufurpaticn; and is 
 /lill carried on with vehement zeal by modern 
 Anabaptifts, in defiance of fcripture, rcafon, and 
 the general voice of antiquity. And, though 
 our author is pleafed, according to his delicate 
 l^yle, to call the Church of EnglaJid *' a new 
 " affair, 7iewly come up" yet 1 would beg leave 
 to inform him, that this fame " new affair," 
 is much older than Englijli Anabaptifm ; that it. 
 " came up" from the pit of Popiih darknefs to 
 the regions or light and liberty, without the 
 leaft helping hand from Anahaptifts ; that the 
 Reformers, the renowned inflruments in bringing 
 lip, and eiiablilhing, this " new affair," were, 
 to a man, advocates for Infant-baptifm ; and, 
 that the glorious fyftcm of the gofpel was efla- 
 biilhed in our excellent Church, long before 
 Anabaptifm had an exiftcnce in Britain. This 
 1 have endeavored to prove, in my Letter to a 
 Bafti/I'mi'fii/ier. Ltt the rcmarker difprove it, if 
 he can. 
 
 Thus 
 
( 299 ) 
 
 Thus have I gleaned together a few inftanccs 
 of Mr. 'T.'s manner. If I were to produce alt 
 the fpecuTiens of Hke fort, fcattered up and down 
 in the remarker's pamphlet, they would exhibit 
 a very plentiful crop indeed; luxuriant with de- 
 licate illuftrations, and brilliant fimiles, which 
 difplay the prodigious polilhing of our author's 
 flyle, and the extraordinary elegance of his fen- 
 timenr. And, if the reader thinks proper, to 
 take a little dogmatical efirontery for folid rea- 
 foning ; a few unmeaning appeals to heaven, as 
 a fubflitute for fcriptural demonftration ; and a 
 multitude of round affirmations, wiAoubtedlys, moji 
 certainlys, furelys. Sec. bcc. as equivalent to decifive 
 argumentation ; I can allure him, that England 
 cannot produce a more redoubtable logician, 
 than our remarkcr. But, if the judicious reader 
 has too much penetration, not to difcern the 
 weaknefs of the dilputant's caufe under the fal- 
 lacious mode he adopts; and too much fleadi- 
 nefs, to be frightened into Anahapti[m, even tho' 
 its warm abettor Ihould fay, " behold, before 
 *' God 1 lye not ;" Ihould he perceive, that fuch 
 folcmn affeverations, are only fo many poor apo- 
 logies for moft certain miftakes ; I beg the ju- 
 dicious obferver will pleafe to recolledi: the remark- 
 er's own words. " A bad caufe can never be 
 " defended with good arguments." 
 
 5 Although I may have fufficiently tried the 
 
 reader's patience already, by dwelling fo long 
 
 upon the inflances of Mr. 2".'s manner -, yet I 
 
 hope he will bear with me, while I engage his 
 
 P p 2 attention 
 
( 3^o ) 
 
 attention a little longer, to fo barren a fubjecf^. 
 The remarkcr feems to pofiefs an uncommon fond^ 
 nefs for introducing little y?or/V^, where he ihould 
 have favored his readers with arguments. Thcfe 
 fiories anfwer the fame important purpofe, that 
 his round affirmations do, upon other occa lions. — 
 They help him out at a dead lift. In p. 26, he 
 heaps together no lefs than three in a breath ; 
 all, in the fiory-teller's own eftimation, very 
 much to the purpofe, no doubt. One curious 
 anecdote, in particular, is concerning " a mi- 
 *' nifttr, who declared he would have lode his 
 *' horfe a hundred miles, to have found one text 
 *' of fcripture to prove Infant-baptlfm." The per- 
 fon, who labored under this great difficulty, was, 
 it feems, once *■ a rigid Pasdobaptift." With- 
 out contending, whether the rigidity of this gen- 
 tleman may not be as great, fjice he has com- 
 menced a profclyte to Anabaptifm, as before-, or 
 how f;ir it may have formerly kept pace with 
 his folidity : I cannot help expreliing my con- 
 cern that he Ibould propofe " doirig fome great 
 *' thing'' in order to remove his doubts ; when, 
 only a look into his Bible v/ould fave the man and 
 the poor beaft fuch a long journey, at any time. 
 The mofl cxtraordinary_/?or>' which the re marker 
 gives us, in p. 3^,* (For a story I can prove 
 
 * In order to fave appearances, this fliould have made the fourth 
 {lory* in the jiift-cited page z6. But I recoUech that Mr. Addifin fays, 
 " Anfwtring an imir.cthodicul v/riter is like hunting a duck." There- 
 fore, if the Reniarker, as a ftory-tellcr, pops under -ivatcr, and, like 
 an immerglng duck, becomes inviiible for a full dozen of pages ; I 
 hope the want of method Avill not be attributed to the hunter, but to 
 the hun'.eil. 
 
 it 
 
( 3^1 ) 
 
 "it to be) refpccls an Irijh I\'ob!em?.n ; vvhof^ 
 A'ery late dcceale has Tpread general concern 
 throughout tliC whole circle of his furviving 
 -friends. As oar Anabaptifl: leenis fond of nobility 
 ito give fanifUon to his peculiarities, he therefore 
 •is delighted with the prefent opportunity j lb 
 favorable, fince the fabje^l is incapable of an- 
 fwering for hinifelf. Accordingly he has the 
 confumniate modefly to aliert, that the late Lord 
 Kin/ale " vv'as a Baptlfl, and a member of a 
 ^* BaptlQ-church, in the South of Britain." But 
 againft this groundlefs piece of intelligence, I 
 have authority to declare, from one of his near- 
 eft furviving relatives, that the whole of this 
 flory is a fabrication of falihood and imperti- 
 nence. And even if his Lordihip had been '* a 
 " Baptifi", v/hat argument, in the name of won- 
 der, would our author deduce from that circum- 
 i^ance ? And I appeal to the judicious reader, 
 whether the lugging the name of a deceafed 
 Nobleman into our author's pamphlet, is not an 
 inftance of confummate ill-breeding and palpable 
 rudenefs. 
 
 6 One flory more, and I have done v/ith the 
 
 remarker, as a Jiory-teller. P. i, he informs us 
 
 of " a controverfy between RuJJhi and Stenndt j 
 " the former of whom, threw out iomz fcanda- 
 *' lous hints refpe(fling Mr. Reach's character ;" 
 from which he (Mr. Keach) v/as vindicated by 
 the teftimonium of fcveral perfons, who attefted 
 his innocence, and rcfcued his chara^fer from 
 the rude afperlions of Mr. Rujfen, The defign 
 
 of 
 
( 3°- ) 
 
 of Mr. Turner, In eiiibellllhlng the fiiTt p?.ge of 
 his Remarks with this mal-ap-opos iiory appears 
 from the ufe he makes of it in the following 
 M^ords. " 1 am forry to (cc fuch a 'fcmblance be- 
 *' tween David Rujjen's book and Mr. De Courcfs." 
 P. 2. As I was not confcious of having thrown 
 out any thing that defer ved in any degree to be 
 liy led " fcandalous hint" refpeding Mr. Mtdky, 
 or any other Anabaptifl ; I therefore purchafed 
 Mr. Stennett's Reply to Rujjtn, that I might fee 
 to what fpecies of imputation the remarker re- 
 fered under the term '^fcandalous hints." I M'as 
 not a little furprifed to find that Rujfais charge 
 
 againft Mr. Ktach, was that of unckanncjs! 
 
 How was my aftonilhment excited upon this dif- 
 covery ! when 1 conlidered that the remarker de- 
 clares from his " very foul that there is fuch a 
 *' 'fcmblance" between my book, and that which 
 contained the above fcandalous inlinuation ! — 
 What ! Sir, did I ever advance a charge of un- 
 cleannefs againfi: Mr. M? Does my pamphlet 
 contain the moft dirtant hint of any fuch impu- 
 tation? Have I not borne a favorable teftimony 
 to the chara(?i:er of my opponent, by ranking 
 him with his brethren, whom (in p. 37, of my 
 Letter to a Baptiji-minifter) , 1 have ftyled " a very 
 " refpedable body of Frotejlant-difjhiters f" Have 
 I not, in p. 7, of the fame pamphlet, declared 
 that " I efteem Mr. M. and other refpecfable 
 ^* perfons In his connexion, with the greateft 
 ^' Sincerity?" Would I fay this, if I did not 
 think him a man of piety ? whofe chara^^er as 4 
 
 niinifter 
 
c 303 ) 
 
 minlller of the gofpel, Is free from the fou? 
 rnildemeanor of which Rujfen injurioufly and 
 fallly accufed the pious Mr. Keach ? i appeal 
 to Mr. 'Turners confcience, therefore, whether 
 by declaring there is *' a 'femblance" between 
 Rufen's book and mine, and by fpecifying the 
 obnoxious particular which difgraced R.'s per- 
 formance, he (the rcmarker) has not virtually 
 charged me with " having thrown out fcandalous 
 *' hints, refpe<fting Mr. M,'s chara6^er :" and 
 thereby indiredly publillied to the world a moft 
 invidious and groundlefs fahhood. The reader 
 will perhaps candidly apologize for this inftance 
 of precipitancy in Mr. T. by attributing it to the 
 prodigious fondnefs he feems to difcover for jhry- 
 telling : an apology I am difpofed to admit, fup- 
 pofing that term to be equivocal. But, how 
 this gentleman, who, fo readily intitles the pro- 
 ductions of others, " defamatory ptrfor mane es^" will 
 be able to refcue his own from a *' 'femblance" 
 to defamation, in the prefent ftriking inliance, 
 I am at a lofs to find out. 
 
 But, perhaps Mr. T*. would infinuate that the 
 'femblance^ (as by an unmeaning apo/irophe he is 
 pleafed to call it) between Rufjcris book and 
 mine, appears in the general Jirain of both : and I 
 ihould not wonder if he fliould attempt in fu- 
 ture to elude the charge of mifreprefentation 
 ^nd fallTiood, by flying to this evalive fubterfuge. 
 But, if he fuppofed the femblance to refpeCf only 
 the fubjed of both in general-, why did he fo 
 induftrioully expatiate on the circumflance of 
 
 Ruffen's 
 
( S^4 ) 
 
 Ritffais " fcandalous hints" in particular ? Would 
 not any common reader conclude, after perufing 
 this anecdote of fcandal, and feeing a parallel 
 between the author of It and me immediately 
 followhig, that in my animadverlions on Mr. M.'s- 
 condutSt, 1 had exacfily imitated Rujjcns " fcan- 
 *' dalous hints?" And, as. he was confclous that 
 in this refpe<51: the 'fsmblance was no 'fembiance at 
 all ; why did he not honcftly undeceive his read- 
 ers? How could he confcientloully introduce an 
 anecdote, between the ailulion of which and the 
 contents of my pamphlet, there is as great a 
 'Jemhlance, as between the remarker and a man 
 of modeiiy and candor ? 
 
 But that there is not fo ftriking a llkenefs be- 
 tween Rujfais book and mine, as the remarker 
 would fallly insinuate, will appear, if we take a 
 curfory view of fome of RSs capital charges 
 agalnft Anabaptifts. (i) The firft is that of Ari^ 
 a7iijm, in the following rude terms. " Thefe 
 *' heretics divide the Trinity ; are in profeffion 
 " Arians." * Does my pamphlet contain any fucli 
 imputation as this ? (2) Speaking of their origin 
 the fame rude author fays, " Bafe-born brats love 
 " not to hear of their parentage." P. 8. (3) He 
 charged them with countenancing " Ihe-prophet- 
 *' elles," as he flryles female-preachers. P. 196. 
 (4) With admitting divorces, where the parties 
 differed refpecling Anbaptifm. P. 204. (5) He 
 reprefents them as " Manichees and Jefuits, in thst 
 
 * Sec r.Ir. S:c::i:cli':, Rclcsicr.':, p. r: ; from nln'tH my quotations 
 are' tal:cn. 
 
 *' they 
 
( 3^5 ) 
 
 " they Yt'jcdi magiftracy among Chrifllans." 
 P. 219. (6) The cha.r gG oi ^lakerifm is brought 
 againft them, as " difowning the adminiftration 
 " of oaths." Ibid. (7) He exhibits them as a 
 fet of uncharitable damners of their brethren, 
 and fays, " the black book of damnation is open- 
 ** ed againft all who are not of their way." P. 233. 
 (8) *' Anabaptifm" he deems " a mortal poijon," 
 Ibid. (9) He paints the Anabaptifts as fo many 
 bloody incendiaries; adding, "Good Lord de- 
 *' liver us from a drawn fword in the hand of 
 ** a rampant Anabaptift." P. 248. (10) Recalls 
 their minifters a fet of " illiterate fellows, who, 
 *' from mechanics of the loweft rank were made 
 " priefls of the high-places, before they knew 
 " whac z Lexicon Wcis." P. 115. (11) He charges 
 them with being Sabbatarians, or obfervers of the 
 abolilhcd fabbath of the Jews.* (12) He re- 
 prefents them as pra6\ifing the extreme undiion of 
 Papifts. " Let us look into their end" lays Rujfen, 
 '* and bring them to their grave : and here, like 
 " Papijis, at the lafl: hour they ufe extreme unc- 
 *' tion." -f P. 204. (13) He gives the finifliing 
 ftroke to all his accufations, by faying, " Satan 
 Q^q " has 
 
 * This charge, however, happens to be J!<J}, and ad homhtsm. For, 
 Mr. Steiiiiett, in page 228, of his Reflexions, not only admits it refpedt- 
 iug fome of his brethren, but alfo fays, " I do not fcruple to acknow- 
 " ledge MYSELF one of thofe" (faUatarians) " who account it" {tVje 
 feventh-day fabbath) " good." 
 
 f Mr. Stennctt fays, in the above-cited page of his Reflexions, " 'Tis 
 
 ' true, fome of them are of the mind, that this rule, Jmves v. is 
 
 " yet OBLIGATORY'" A ftrange notion of AtiabaptiUs this, to fup- 
 
 pofe a cuftom to be ftill in force, when the occafions of miracle, to 
 
 -which it refered, have ceafed. Let it be obferved, however, that 
 
( 3o6 ) 
 
 ^' has fcarce broached a herefy in the church 
 *' for thoie fevcnteen hundred years but fome of 
 *• them have licked it up." P. 211. And again; 
 *' Here is a goodly bead-roll of herelies, which if 
 *' 1 firung 'em upon an Anabaptiftical cat gut, 
 " are like to make a fine ornament for a Chrif- 
 " tian. P. 230. 
 
 Thus have I, not without a little trouble, col- 
 led^t-d together feveral fpecimens of Mr. RuJ/ens 
 phrafeology, as well as heavy accufations againft 
 the Anabaptilis of his day. My obvious deiign 
 in doing this, is, that the reader may determine, 
 with what degree of juiiice Mr. Turner of Bir- 
 mingham, has declared to the world, " there is 
 ** fuch a 'fcmblance between David Rujfen's book 
 ^' and mine," either as to the flyle of the former 
 in general, or the obnoxious anecdote which 
 ulhers in our 'Jemblance-maker^s comparifon in 
 particular. Had Mr. T. inlinuated this merely 
 •upon the ftrength of information^ in which cafe 
 there might be a degree of pardonable miftake, I 
 fhould have taken httle notice of his 'femblance, 
 or of the fabricator of it. But when 1 coniider, 
 that he had an opportunity of revifing both per- 
 formances, and mufi: have had ocular demon - 
 ftration of the evident contraft between both, (of 
 which 1 hope the reader has had fatisfa(5^ory evi- 
 dence); is not his condu(^ peculiarly aggravated? 
 
 Jiitffcii mifreprefented the pra(£tice of Anabaptifts, by charging them 
 •y'ith holding the extreme unHbn of the ^Papifts, when they only anoint- 
 ed their lick as a probable mean of their recovery. That they were 
 phargisable with an alifurdity, is evident; but not with fo flagrant a one 
 as HvJJen would infmuate. 
 
 and 
 
( 3®7 ) 
 
 and can hebefah-ly acquitted from the fin o^hear- 
 iTig falfe witnefs againii his neighbour f A to his 
 laying that " Rujjen received tlie thanks of the 
 " convocation for his defamatory performance," 
 this circLimftance is foifted into the narrative, 
 in order to fling a Httle dirt at our eccleliaftical 
 governors, as if they applauded Rujjens perfor- 
 mance, bci.aufe it was defamatory But the reader 
 is to remember that our author is teilmg a little 
 flory; in which he thinks {omc coiori?ig is allow- 
 able. However, if this branch of it does not 
 come from his pen, in future, authenticated by 
 better intelligence, than that of his mere affirma- 
 tion J I affure the re?narktr, we Ihall be ftrongly 
 tempted to point out " a Temblance" between 
 
 him and fomething which ihall be anonymous 
 
 for the prefent. 
 
 II. Having taken a view of our author's viavner^ 
 confider we next the effulions of his candor and 
 charity, 
 
 I I happened to Introduce in my Letter to a 
 Baptift'Minifier, a quotation from Mr. IVeJley^ 
 Notes on the New Teftament, refped^ing the 
 •probability of yohns baptizing his numerous pro- 
 felytes in Jordan, not by immerfion, but by pouring 
 of water. This circumftance, which to every 
 man of candor would appear perfe(?lly inoifen- 
 live, greatly offends Mr. T. The very name of 
 Mr. Wejley, throws him into luch a violent pa- 
 roxyfm of paffion, that he feems for a feafon to 
 lofe all command of temper; and this indignant 
 fit fo elfecSlually bereaves him of the calm exertion 
 Q^q 2 of 
 
( So8 ) 
 
 of reafon, that, Inftead of atteir.ptlng a refutation 
 of the palTage taken from Mr. IVeJley's notes, he 
 flies off tofuch rudenefs of perfonal invedive, as 
 may afford the reader a prefumptive demonftra- 
 tion of the weaknefs of the remarkers caufe. 
 Sallies of abufe, lugged thus prepofteroufly into 
 a controverfy, are our author's fubftitutes for 
 argument. After %ling Mr. JVeJley an " old, 
 *' artful fophijier,'* not content with this grofs 
 abufe, he pafTes fentence upon him, in terms 
 equally illiberal ; adding, " Surely never did a 
 " greater Jophijier handle a pen, or a Bible, or 
 " hung a head over a pulpit." According to the 
 feverai Heps of Mr. %'s abulive climax, Mr. IV. 
 is (i) Afophijhr. (2) An old fophiller. (3) An 
 artful old fophifter. (4) The greateji old artful 
 fophifler, that ever 'wrote, or preached. The read- 
 er will wonder whcit provocation NLr. IV. has given 
 the remarker^ that he Ihould accoft him in fuch 
 indecent language ? Why, he has only given his 
 opinion, in a rational comment on Matt. iii. that 
 the multitudes baptized by John were not im- 
 m'erfed; and I happened to tranfcribe the Com- 
 mentator's words. And is this all the injury, 
 that excited Mr. 2".'s indignation? Surely, if any 
 overflowing of paflion ever merited the title of 
 afperitas agrejiis ^ inconcinna, this does. And I 
 will not fcruple to declare, that I cannot difco- 
 ver -either the Chrijlian, the Gentleman, or the Lo- 
 gician, characterized by Mr. T'.'s animadverfion. 
 -^Not the Chri/iian', be^ilfc, jjvhatever may be 
 our differences on controvertible fubje(51s, the 
 
 geniu* 
 
( 3^^9 ) 
 genius of true chriftlanity inculcates benevolence 
 and charity towards the pcrfons of diflenticnt 
 brethren : while the infpired founders of it fup- 
 pofe, that " to judgi our brother is to judge 
 *' the law, and to fpeak evil of the law ;" and 
 conftrues every deciiion on the principle of his 
 conduft and the ftatc of his perfon, as equivalent 
 to the unhallowed attempt of ufurping the great 
 Legillator's tribunal, and of arrogating the di- 
 vine prerogative;, peculiar to the Searcher -of -hearts. 
 *' Who art thou, that judgcft another ?'| A ChriJ- 
 tian by profelTion? Then, remember, *' to his 
 *' own matter he flandcth or falleth." — Not the 
 Gentleman', becaufe it is by no means charac- 
 teriftic of fuch an one, to abufe any man in terms 
 fo grofs, and unpolite, as thofe the remarker has 
 applied to Mr. IV. and that too, without the 
 fmalieft provocation on the fide of the party abuf- 
 ed. — Not the Logician ; for, by what rule of logic, 
 •does Mr. T. demonifrate, that, becaufe Mr. W, 
 thinks the perfons mentioned in Mat. iii. were 
 not immerfed, he Is therefore '* an artful old fo- 
 " phi/ierf" Should not the remarker have firft 
 detected the fophifiry of the comment, by dint of 
 fair reafoning, before he arraigned the perfon of 
 the commentator and condemned him as an " old 
 " fophijier f* Since he has not even attempted 
 this ; docs his condu6f here exemphfy either the 
 calmnefs of the Chrijiian, the politenefs of the 
 Gentleman, or the endowments of the Scholar? 
 
 2 Mr. T. charges us " with taking liberties 
 *' with fcripture." That Is, in other words, he 
 
 ■blames 
 
* ( 3^0 ) 
 
 blames us for reafon'mg on It. What ! is fcrip- 
 ture contrary to reafon r Or do we wrong in 
 exerting that faculty, while we fearch for truth 
 in a facred volume, which is nothing but the 
 mind of Hiivi who is reason in infinite perfec- 
 tion ?— A narrative is laid before us, in which 
 fcripture is lilcrit as to fome circiimjtantials. How- 
 are we to be guided in our refeaVches in this cafe? 
 Certainly, by confidering on which lide there is 
 the greateft degree <>( probability j and by deter- 
 mining our rational inquiry accordingly. Thus, 
 truth is found, wh['ere reafon preponderates. Apply 
 this to the pi'dfent cafe, and it will appear, w'ith 
 how ill a grace the remarker charges us with 
 " taking liberties." And when he exclaims 
 
 " What a horrid fcene of things lliould we have 
 *' laid before us !" the horrid fcene exifts only in 
 his bev/ildered imagination ; the excurlions of 
 v/hich refemble more the chimerical filiie's of 
 a lick, mail's dreams, than the calm inveftigations 
 of truth and candor. People may fancy " hor- 
 " rid fccnes," like the philofopher who cried 
 out Vidcor mihi •vidcre,'^^c. but, only cure fuch 
 fanciful folks of the delirium of bigotry, or re- 
 move the jauhdiced medium of prejudice; and 
 all thofe fcenes inl^antly drop their horrHr, snd af- 
 fume the nioft amiable reprefentations. Belides, 
 we are of opinion that thofe who take matters 
 upon trufl, and are guided by the flights of iiiifigi- 
 nation, or the prcpoflenions of bigotry, are more 
 hkely to traverfe the " horrid fcenes" of wild 
 enthufiafrn and uncharltablenefs, than they whofe 
 
 fenti- 
 
( 311 ) 
 
 jnents are the refiilt of the cahn exertions of right 
 reafon.— But our remarker has ftill more '■ horric| 
 ** fcenes" preiented to his imagination; for his 
 ideas are (uU of the terrible. Hear him. " I^ 
 " feems to me" (videor mihi videre-, like the 
 dreaming philofopher aforefaid) " that men ar^ 
 ** determined, at all events, to contradic;!: the 
 ** great and holy God to his face!" P. 21. 
 Softly, good Sir. Bo?ia 'verba, qucejo ! This is 9, 
 tremendous charge, indeed ! Should not Mr. T. 
 be quite fure, that it is well-grounded ? <' To 
 " contradict God — the great and holy God — and 
 ** to his face;" is fuch a fpecies of atFr...nt to 
 the divine Majefty, as no perfon would wilh to 
 be guilty of, who has the fmalleft folicitude 
 about his eternal welfare. Yet, this horrid guilt 
 the remarker lays at the door of his brethren. 
 Wherefore? Why, if the reader will only exa- 
 mine the paiTage, with which the awful charge 
 \s connected, he will find, that it is brought 
 againft us, only becaufe we draw a rational in- 
 ference from the moft natural fuppofitlon. Or, 
 in other words, becaufe we cannot think, con- 
 liftently with the dictates of reafon and common 
 fenfe, that the vaft multitudes alluded to iti 
 Mat ill. were all immerjed by John the Baptift -, 
 therefore Mr. T. accufes us of being " deter- 
 " mined to contradid God to his face." Reader, 
 which do you think this man is mofi: remarkable 
 for ? His logic, or his charity f Perhaps you will 
 think with myfelf, that the fcale of his arguments 
 contains an equipoife of each j and that the com- 
 pound 
 
( 3^2 ) 
 
 pound of both Is lighter than vanity Itfelf. And, 
 as to the charge of *' contradi(5Ving God," we 
 muft attribute the mifappllcatlon of It, to the 
 terrific fcenes which Mr. T^.'s gloomy Imagina- 
 tion paints before his eycs; as well as to a 
 delire of frighkning his readers Into his pecu- 
 liarities. 
 
 3 The rcmarker Is very angry, becaufe I hap- 
 pened to drop a delicate difapprobatlon of the 
 proceedings of the Americam, as well as of thofe 
 publications which vindicate the principle of 
 their rebellious oppofitlon to the Mother-country. 
 As Mr. Fletcher has treated this fubjed with a 
 moft mafterly difcuffion, founded on fcrlpture, 
 reafon, and the nature of our conflitutlon, In his 
 Reply to Mr. Caleb Evans and Dr. Price ; and we 
 liappen to coincide in opinion refpe61Ing this 
 lubjecfl:; he therefore comes In for a good large 
 fliare of the remarkers abufe. But he pours it 
 forth In that mode of anonymous Innuendo, pe- 
 culiar to cowardly malevolence. He neither men- 
 tions his own name, nor that of the perfon whom 
 he abufes. Thus he Inveighs. '* Your end. Sir, In 
 ** thus doing, I am afraid was none of the beft. 
 ** Much the fame, I fuppofe, with that of a 
 ** flaming zealot^ a neighbor of your's, remarkable 
 ** for nothing that I know of, except it be for 
 ' ** tedious harangues, 6cc." P. 24. And docs 
 Mr. t. aiTert that Mr. Fletcher is *' remarkable 
 ** for nothing, except tedious harangues ?" But 
 I think he is remarkable for two particulars, for 
 which the remarker never was, and probably 
 
 never 
 
( 3^3 ) 
 
 never will be remarkable; viz. for deep thinking 
 and clofe reafonlng. As to the " end'' which 
 Mr. F. or myicK had in view, in our unani- 
 mous ttridures on the principles and pra61ice 
 oi American Male-contents ; the reader may ealily 
 perceive, our defign wa$ nothing more than to 
 bear a teiiimony agalnit the falle patriotifm of 
 the day, while we profcfs our chriftian love for 
 the milkken patriots themfelves. \s there any 
 harm in this ? Mr. "7". thinks there is. For, we 
 cannot ditt'er from our brethren in a punc^tilio, 
 either with refpeci to baptlfm or politics, but 
 the remarker is inftantaneoully filled with dreadful 
 fulpicions. His imagination feems to be preg- 
 nant with views of more '* horrid fcenes" ftill. 
 He even inlinuates, that we willi to have him 
 and his brethren treated with marks of ignominy 
 and perfecution, limilar to what the PapiJIs ex- 
 ercifed towards John Hufs. '* Happy is it for 
 *' us, that we are not afraid of any /// effe^s 
 *' from his pen or yours. Happy is it for us, that 
 " we fear not the San-benito." P. 24. I can an- 
 swer for myfelf, and fo I may for Mr. K that 
 we would not by word or deed contribute a lingle 
 mite towards the corporal puniihment of the 
 greateft heretic upon earth for confcience-fake j 
 and that any abridgment of the civil or religious 
 liberties of our chrirtian brethren, would fill our 
 hearts with emotions of fympathetic concern. 
 And v/hile we deteft the thought of feeing any 
 pious Proteftant habited in a San-benito -, we at the| 
 fame time earneilly recommend to the remarker^ 
 R r the 
 
( 314 ) 
 
 the lovely array of a ?neek and quiet fpirit : and 
 when to that he adds the clothing of humility, it 
 will effe61ually expel from his imagination all 
 thofe " horrid fcenes" of flames and devils y of 
 fire' and faggot, with which it teems; and repre- 
 fent to his mind the more pleaiing fcenes of 
 virtue and truth. — But he goes on. " Shame on 
 " that man who would wilh to fee our liberty 
 '■ abridged the breadth of an hair." Amen I And 
 lliame on the man who falfly inlinuates that we 
 wijh fuch an abridgment. — " I could not have 
 *' thought that Mr. D. would have thrown out 
 " fuch things, as my eyes have feen in his 
 *' letter." Such thijigs ! What things? In order, 
 once for all, to repel the force, and dete6l the 
 falfhood of the malevolent innuendo fculking un- 
 der the term "■fuch things;' and to expofe the 
 dilingenuity of the remarker, who would infinuate, 
 in the face of the moft candid declarations, that 
 we want the privileges of DilTenters abridged ; I 
 beg leave to quote a fcntiment I dropped, in 
 p. lo, of my Letter to a Bapti/i-minifier, which 
 will abundantly fatisfy the candid reader, that 
 there is no more truth in the remarker's injurious 
 inlinuations, than there is reality in the *' horrid 
 " fcenes" reprefented to his befrighted imagina- 
 tion. " You are fafely fcreened from the ftorm 
 *' of perfecution by the llielter of 3. gracious tolera- 
 
 ^* tion; AGAINST THE PRIVILEGES OF WHICH, 
 " 1 WOULD NOT FOR THE WORLD LEVEL A 
 
 f? SINGLE TLEA." Now, gentle reader, weigh 
 
 this declaration in the ballance of candor and 
 
 common 
 
( 3'5 ) 
 common fenfe ; and then judge, with what de^ 
 gree of juftice Mr. "T. can mlinuate, that we 
 intend, by our publications, either to have his 
 brethren deprived of their Hberties, or their per- 
 fons arrayed in Popiib San-benitos, And ihould 
 not a man, whofe inlinuations are confronted 
 by contradi(5"tory facets, blulh for his notorious 
 perverfion of truth ? — Indeed our author is fo 
 led away by the igfiis fatuus of his own imagi- 
 nation, and the delufory fcenes painted before 
 it, that I cannot help declaring he frequently 
 tranfgreffes the bounds of truth. For inftance. 
 In the fame page, he inlinuates that (i) " I was 
 " too ftiff to hear Mr. M" This inlinuation 
 contains a double J alj hood. (2) *' That 1 had ujed 
 " methodi to inform myfelf of his proceedings." 
 This is a fecond fallhood, equally notorious with 
 the firft. (3) " That I had interlarded my Let- 
 *' ter with every thing dif graceful to Mr. Mi's 
 " condui^t, and to that of his fe6l." Here is a 
 clufter of fallhoods, not inferior in magnitude, 
 and equal in aggravation, to any of the former 
 two J and if the remarker always pofTclTes fuch a 
 knack at invention^ as he difcovers in his late per- 
 formance, particularly in the few excerpta I have 
 juft taken from it^ we ma y ^' aff ure ourfelves he 
 will never be at a lofs for a fubje(?t to write 
 upon. 
 
 ni. But the moft illuftrious fpeclmens of our 
 author's modefty, candor, and charity, are yet 
 behind. As they concern me, they are therefore 
 Very plentifully exhibited. 
 
 R r 2 L,et 
 
( 31^ ) 
 
 Let us glean together the whole crop. 
 
 1 He compares me to a porter. " it looks 
 " more like the vain jangling of porters over a 
 *^ pot of beer." P. i. 
 
 2 Soon after I am transformed Into the greateft 
 Thief. " The greateft th'uf will cry thief 
 " iirft." P. 9. 
 
 3 Sacrilege and duplicity are laid at my 
 door. " Doft thou commit facr ikge ^-^Thh is 
 *' duplicity with a witnefs." P. 8. 
 
 4 I am firj^ in iniq^uity. " This is unfair 
 ** indeed. You are firft in iniquity." P. 9. 
 
 5 The charge of BLINDNESS is brought againft 
 me in terms equally explicit. " 1 wilh it may 
 '' pleafe Gop to open your eyes." P. 14. 
 
 6 I am reprefented as not baptized as a 
 Chri/iian, nor baptizing as a minifier of Chrifiy 
 confequentiy as pofTeffing no valid claim to the 
 character of either. " ^Tis your duty to he bap- 
 *' ti%ed, and^o baptize, as a Chrijiian, and a 
 " mini/ier of Chrijir Ibid. 
 
 7 The ftill more awful charge of being a zea- 
 lous OPPOSER OF THE TRUTH AS IN JeSUS, 
 
 is brought againft me. '* It is no new thing for 
 *' a zealous oppofer to become a zealous defendet 
 ** of the truth as it is iri Jefus." Ibid. 
 
 8 I am compared to *' Saul of Tarfus, burning 
 *' with horrid rage againft the poor Baptijis." P. 15. 
 
 9 He fays, I reject the counsel of God. 
 ** Let me caution you, that (like the phari- 
 ** fees and lawyers) you do not reje^ the counfel 
 ** of God, not being baptized." Ibid. 
 
 10 He 
 
( 317 ) 
 
 lo He implicitly ftyles mc a violater of 
 God's commands; an unscriptural inno- 
 vator; and a ridiculer and defamer of 
 a glorious ordinance. " Make iiafte and delay 
 *' not to keep this divine command. Renounce 
 " unfcriptural bmovatiom — and riand forth a de- 
 " fender of that glorious ordinance, which you 
 " have endeavored to ridicule and defame." P. i6. 
 
 Ill am a blasphemer. " Men are deter- 
 " mined to contradivSl the great and holy God 
 " to his face." P. 21. 
 
 12 A TRADITIONALIST. P. 22. 
 
 13 Almoft a MADMAN, that has raged at 
 an uncommon rate. " — But In the other, I had 
 
 ** almoft faid, the madman. You never could 
 
 *' have raged at the rate you have done." P. 29. 
 
 14 One that has put forth his hand agalnft 
 the Lord's ark. " Did the oxen lliake the ark? 
 " and did you put forth your hand?" Ibid. 
 
 15 I am accufed as an offender of God 
 and an abuser of men. ** — If your con- 
 ** fcience don't accufe you of offending God, as 
 •* well as of ahufing men." P. 30. 
 
 16 As one that fights against the truth; 
 ufes CARNAL WEAPONS; wrItes in the same 
 
 STYLE AND SPIRIT wlth ^aul the UNBELIEVER; 
 
 and is exceeding mad, breathing out threat- 
 NiNG, 6CC. ''-r- Should confclence tell you that 
 *' you have fought againji the truth; that the 
 *' weapons of your warfare are carnal; that you 
 *' have wrote agalnft baptlfm and the Baptii^s 
 ** in the same ftyle and fplrlt, Saul of Tarfus 
 
 " would 
 
( 3i2 ) 
 
 " would have done, before he believed thaf 
 
 *' you are exceeding mad againft them ; breathe cut 
 *' THREATEN I NGs, &c." ^i declare it is well our 
 author did not add ''/laughter' too) " iliould 
 " confcience remind you of thefe things; which 
 '* God grant!" P. 
 
 iD 
 
 31^ 
 
 17 I am reprefented as an unbeliever and 
 IGNORANT, " The time may come, when you 
 *' will confefs you did it ignoran'.ly in unbelief. 
 " Your being an unbeliever » &g." Ibid. 
 
 18 As a CARNAL Deist, or one destitute 
 OF THE GRACE OF GoD. *' If a poor camal 
 " Deift or any body deftitute of the grace of God, 
 " had wrote in fuch a fiyle, &c. It is language 
 *' EXACTLY AGREEING to a carnalh.Q:d.Y\.." p. 32^ 
 
 19 As a DELIBERATE AND PUBLIC SNEERER 
 
 at things [acred. " When I fee you dehberately 
 *' and publicly fneering things facred, &c." P. 33, 
 
 20 As an INFORMER. " Views conliftent with 
 *' the chara61er of an informer." P. 35. 
 
 21 As an " ASSASSINATOR of the charader 
 " of a body of people." Ibid. 
 
 22 He inlinuates that I wilh the Anabaptifts 
 either in hell or at the /take. " I hope you 
 *' don't grudge the Baptifts their watery grave^ 
 " and wilh them in a warmer climate." P. 37. 
 
 23 After all thofe heavy charges, our author, 
 in perfed conliftcncy with himfelf, inlinuates, 
 I am out of the way of ialvation. " That h 
 " may pleafe God to lead you into the good 
 *' gM I'viy." P. 39. 
 
 24 As 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 24 As if I had committed a crime of the moft 
 grievous n.iture, he fummons me to the judg- 
 ment-feat of Chri ?'. What my doom would i)c if 
 Mr. 'T. were appointed 2.i{ii{lo\' to the Judge, or 
 if the fentence were to be iliued in llriift cor- 
 refpondence with our author's charitable fyftem, 
 it is not my bulinefs to determine. The reader 
 may form what opinion he thinks moft naturally 
 deducible from the following dark hints. " Let 
 ** me tell you, Sir, flicred things are not to be 
 " trifled with. You and I muft furely and lliort- 
 *' ly liand before a high tribunal, and an im- 
 *' partial Judge. There muft we give up our 
 " accounts." — To the unbounded clemency of 
 that Judge, and to the impartial equity of his 
 tribunal, I moft readily make my humble appeal, 
 from the moft unhallowed zeal and flagrant un- 
 charitablenefs, that ever difgraced the chara(5ier 
 of one, who fuftains the office of a minifter of 
 the gofpel ; and who, as a poor finful worm, 
 muft himfelf hang upon that infinite mercy in 
 Ckrift J<^ju^-> to which he and his zealous brother 
 of Liverpool are fo charitable as to coniign vis. 
 Whatever fentiments thefe men entertain refpec^- 
 ing their Paedobaptift brother ; he begs leave 
 to allure them, that even in the face of fome 
 unfavorable fads, which fwerve from the royal 
 law of lovs by a moft notorious deviation, he 
 nevertheiels ftill retains the moft lincere bene- 
 volence towards their perfons ; defires to exer- 
 cife towards them that charity in its ampleft 
 extent, which hopeth all things and covereth all 
 
 things 5 
 
( 3^0 ) 
 
 things ; and wllhcs them no ether harm, than 
 that thry " may fiand perfect and complete in 
 *' all the will of God." 
 
 But let me now beg leave to prefent the reader 
 with one compendious view of the niodeft and 
 charitable epithets, contained in the foregoing 
 lift J with which the remarker has ornamented 
 
 his late production. " A porter — Th.t great- 
 
 ** eft THIEF — Chargeable with sacrilege and 
 
 *' DUPLiciT Y F < R s T in iniquity Bl i n d— 
 
 *' Neither baptized nox baptizing as a Christian 
 
 *' or a MINISTER OF Christ A zealous 
 
 *' opposER of the truth as in Jcfus. — A re- 
 " JECTER of the counfelofGoD — A violater 
 *' of God's commands; an unfcriptural inno- 
 ** VATOR ; a RiDicuLER and defamer of a 
 
 ** glorious ordinance A blasphemer A 
 
 *,* traditionalist — Almoft a madman — r- 
 •* One that has touched the ark — An of- 
 " FENDER of God and an abuser of men — 
 *' A fighter againft the truth; ufing carnal 
 *' weapons, and writing in the same ftjle and 
 
 ** and fpirit with Saul An unbeliever and 
 
 ** IGNORANT; exceeding mad againft the Bap-!< 
 *' tifts, and breathing out threatenings, &c« 
 ** — As a carnal Deist, or one destitute of 
 *' THE grace cf God — A deliberate and public 
 
 *' sneerer at things facred An informer 
 
 ** An ASSASSINATOR of thc character of a body of 
 *' people — 0\]T OY iht good old ivay.'* &c. &c. &c. 
 
 This is the goodly firing of mild appellations, 
 charitable fentiments, and gentle charges, fcat- 
 
 tered 
 
( 321 ) 
 
 tcrcd by the hand of bigotry throughout the 
 '' Remarks." The mild author of them, is the 
 identical perfon, who introduces his book with 
 a willi that " the dilputants about baptifin would 
 " govern their tempers^ and reafon with calmnefs." 
 But, if the remarkcr lerioully intended that his 
 vvilh Ihould be anfwered, he ought firft to have 
 exemplified his own calm fentiments. Whereas, 
 to name his precept, and inftantly to contradi6t 
 it by his pradice, is fuch glaring inconliftency, 
 as reminds me of the conduct}: of thofe Divines 
 who take a text, and fight agalnfi; it all the 
 fermon through. But I cannot difmifs this 
 curious collection of epithets without a few 
 ftridures. 
 
 I It is the obfervation of a fine writer, that 
 '* Fair honefty ufes, tho' a fliarp, yet an unfiaincd 
 " weapon j while bigotry flrikes with one em- 
 " poifoncd, though much duller." Apply this 
 fpirited fentiment to our remarker, and it will 
 be found to fuit him to a hair. The weapon he 
 ufes Is ftaincd with the venom of bigotry : A 
 polfon this, which Injures no hand fo efFe6fu- 
 ally, as that which holds it. With his fword, 
 which is manlfeflly fabricated from materials of 
 wood, he deals about his blows exceedingly thick: 
 fometimes rufliing with dreadful fury upon a 
 man of Jiraw of his own making; at other times, 
 with huge knight-errantry, encountering *' horrid 
 *' fcenes," which exift no where but in the Utopia 
 of his befrighted imaginatio?i ; often making moft 
 formidable attacks upon reafoti, againft whofe 
 S f impe-» 
 
( 322 ) 
 
 impenetrable fhield our author's wooden weapon 
 goes all to pieces ; almoft conftantly invading 
 the hallowed land of charity, whofe untainted 
 air neither generates nor agrees with bigots-, and 
 not feldom combating with common fenfe. Read- 
 er, pity me ! when you refledl that I am dragged 
 into the field of controverfy by fuch a wooden 
 artift ; who feems to miftake paiBon for argu- 
 ment, the firebrand of bigotry for chriftian zeal, 
 the dogmas of felf-fufficiency for folid reafon» 
 the thread-bare cant of a party-fpirit for ge- 
 nuine charity, and, who in fo many inftances 
 ftands 
 
 " Unaw'd by danger of offence, 
 ** The fatal enemy of sense." 
 
 2 Would not the reader naturally fuppofe, 
 when he takes a retrofpe(5^ive view of the pre- 
 ceding epithets, that the remarker had exhaufied 
 liis whole ftock ? efpecially when it is confidered 
 that he has ranfacked the vileft, and the moft 
 
 Jiorrid fimiles for ideas? from the vulgarity of 
 
 the porter, up to the villainy of the thief ; and 
 from the madman, down to the blindeft ignoramus? 
 ! — I fay, when we have been favored with fuch a 
 variety of thefe delicate wares j would not the 
 reader naturally conclude that our author would, 
 in future, turn bankrupt in comparifom, illuflra^ 
 tions, dogmas, anathemas and abufe f I'o obviate 
 fuch a conclufion, I will tell the reader a fecret. 
 Bigotry is ^ hat-bed, compofed of all thofe warm 
 jngredients, calculated to throw up every fpecies 
 q{ fundus. When one crop is gathered, another 
 
 as 
 
( 323 ) 
 
 as numerous and inftantaneous, fucceeds* As, 
 therefore, a copious defcent of rain occalions a 
 rapid growth of the fungous produce; fo the pro- 
 lific mind of a bigot receives additional fertili- 
 zation from a fmart Ihower of penetrating ar- 
 guments. And the ranker the foil, the richer 
 the crop. So that if our remarker's mind, amply 
 enriched with every compoft necefTary for the 
 produ6iion of fungufes, hath already fupplied us 
 with a good fpring-crop -, may we not expe6l a 
 Itill more luxuriant harveft in a future feafon ? 
 And if we may be permitted to judge of the 
 interiora of bigotry, as we do of a hot-bed, by 
 the fcent of its exhalations ; I think our author's 
 mind bids as fair for fending forth a goodly fa- 
 vor, as that of any inflammable zealot within the 
 confines of bigotry. But whether the hot-bed, 
 or the fleam that afcends from it, be likely to 
 give any additional perfume to the garden enclofed, 
 or to flock it with any other produce, fave thal^ 
 which Iboots from the fungus of bigotry ; I fancy 
 the pious reader will eafily judge. 
 
 3 When the remarktr, from flark charity, 
 brands me on the back with the gencle ftig- 
 mas of " an oppofer of the truth — a defame?- — 
 " almofl a madman-^-a. traditionaliji — neither bap- 
 •' ti%ed, nor baptizing as a Chrijiian — a rejeder 
 ** of the counfel of God — touching baptifm, an 
 '« unbeliever, &c. &c." I only regret, that he did 
 •not previoufly attempt to demonflra'te by dint 
 of argument, that thefe appellations were as jufi 
 as they are ahujive. But I beg this gentleman's 
 S f 2 pardon ; 
 
( 324 ) 
 
 pardon; argument Is not his province. What did 
 he write for, then? Did he think that a Httle 
 anonymous fquib, ftufFed with his fooHfh dogmas, 
 would be admitted by the pubUc as an anfwer 
 to a book, a lingle argument in which he has 
 Dot difculied, either as a Divine or a Logician ? 
 Did he expei^t that people of common fenfe, 
 would fvvallow his dogmatic pills, becaufe rolled 
 in the foft powder of his " iindoubtcdlys^ moji 
 " certainly s, round affirmatiomf Or did he fup- 
 pofe that ahuje and argument are terms conver- 
 tible? He fays, p. 32, ** that I have given room 
 *' for the moft //72^/,*i'^' recrimination." But with 
 what kind of fiing would he arm his recrimina- 
 tions? If with that of argument-, what a pity he 
 did not unl]ieath it, in all its terrific poignancy ! 
 Hitherto, I have felt nothing, half as formidabTe 
 as the filing of 2. gnat ; and i\\Q Jiingers abuse, 
 refembies the impotent buzz of that feeble in- 
 fe6f. A friend lately afiured me, that by com- 
 mencing a difpute with Anabaptifts, " I had 
 ** thrown myfelf into a neft of hornets." Thefc 
 are dreadful creatures, to be fure ; but the re- 
 tnarker is not one of them. He has loji his fiing; 
 or rather never had one; if I may infer from the 
 obtulenefs and dulnefs of his late performance. 
 And [{ he does not acquire a literary aculeus, by 
 the time he writes again, we Ihall only rank 
 him among the harmlefs and promifcuous wing- 
 ed multitudes, that baik unnoticed and unnum- 
 bered in the fummer-fan ; and which, after a 
 temporary cxiflcncc, buzz their laii, and are 
 
 buried 
 
( 3^5 > 
 
 burled in oblivion. But our "author can fling 
 
 dirt, though he cannot Jiing, And his recrimi- 
 nations look, as if they fprung from that fpuri- 
 ous fource. No wonder then, if they are as light 
 in their nature, as they are bafe in their origin. 
 Naturahrts inform us, that mud is prolific in flies-, 
 and therefore that multitudes of ihefe winged 
 infe6is come 
 
 ** In fqusiid legions from the tniid of Nile.'" 
 
 Our author's recriminations have hitherto pro- 
 ceded from a limilar muddy fource; and if his 
 future Jtings do not improve conliderably, they 
 will merit a re-confignment to their parent — 
 
 MUD ! 
 
 IV. Precede we now from the inflanccs of the 
 remarkers charity and candor, to the rare fpeci- 
 mens of his logic, (i) Speaking of his bre- 
 thren in this town, he pays me the following 
 huge compliment. " I fuppofe fome of them 
 '* were very fond of you, as a good man, and a 
 *' good preacher. But I am ready to think, 
 " you have pretty well cured them of tJiis." 
 So, according to our fuppofer, before I wrote in 
 defence of Infant-baptifm, 1 was " a good man 
 ** and a good preacher." But lince 1 committed 
 this unpardonable offence, all my goodnejs, either 
 as a man or a preacher, is evaporated. There's 
 a compound of charitable logic for you, reader! 
 
 (2) The follovsing fentence, — '* Give in their 
 " experience to the church," I introduced in 
 my Letter to a Baptijt-minijier j and without 
 
 makine: 
 
( 3^^ ) 
 
 making a fingle obfervation on It, marked It 
 with commas, as a quotation from the language 
 of Anabaptifts. This circuniftance, in itfelf fo 
 inoffenfive, awakens at once our author's in- 
 dignation and logic. For, he fays, " This you 
 *' mark with commas, in oeder io flab its re- 
 *' putation. P. 31." So, according to this won- 
 derful remarker, a quotation muft never be mark- 
 ed with commas ; for to his befrighted imagina- 
 tion, full of " horrid Jcenes" thefe innocent 
 marks prefixed and pojifixed, look like {o many 
 daggers, intended to Jtab the fentence through 
 and through. Well, 1 allure this gentleman, i^ 
 ever he palms upon the public, any more of his 
 nonfenlical Remarks, I am determined to wound 
 them with co?nmas, and fomething elfo a little 
 more pointed. 
 
 (3) P. 9, he fays, '* An apprehenfion that 
 " baptifm is eliential to falvation, gave rife to 
 " infant - fprinkling." So bold a declaration 
 ought to be fupported by a demonjiration equally 
 bold. So it is. En! argumentum palmariuml *' I 
 *' will go further, and roundly affirm that — I am 
 
 " SURE OF IT." There, reader; don't you 
 
 think this man ought to be dubbed Logician 
 Laureate for his huge and unparalleled knack at 
 argumentation ? 
 
 (4) P. 13, he affirms that ** believers' bap- 
 " tifm is fupported by precept and precedent," 
 .Bat how does he prove his affirmation ? Thus ! 
 — ' Surely it must v.v. right." — Rifum te- 
 ?ie.?tis, amici f 
 
 (5) Another 
 
( 327 ) 
 
 (5) Another more weighty argument ftill, oc- 
 curs ibid. " How do we know that Infint- 
 ** baptifm is an error? From the inlire filtnce 
 ** of fcripturc about it." That fcripture is not 
 intirdy lilent upon this important particular, 1 
 hppe to prove in its proper place. But 1 muft 
 let the remarhr go on. — In order to prove that, 
 men and ivomen are " the proper fubjeds of bap- 
 ** tifm," he quotes Jds v. 14. Upon which he 
 fays, *' the want of that one word (children) 
 ** mu{\ Jink your caufe for ever." Aye, doubtlefs; 
 when fuch a heavy milftone of an argument 
 bangs about its neck ; and fuch a heavy logician 
 
 ties the burden on. But, in order farther to 
 
 clarify and corroborate his ponderous logic, he 
 fays that " tranfubftantiation has fomething like 
 ^* proof in fcripture," (the Fapifis will thank the 
 remarker for his half-way conceifion); " for in- 
 *' ftancej Christ fays, T'liis is my body." However, 
 left we Ihould imagine he was a Roman Catholic 
 on this point, he fets about confuting it. " How 
 *' do we know that tranfubfiantiation is an error, 
 " and how do we ^?"ot;^ it? Wcjay" (is t\\d.t prov- 
 ing?) '* the words of Christ are to be iinder- 
 ** flood metaphorically." But might not a PapiJ} 
 very juftly reply in the fame flrain of arguing? 
 ** W'Q fay the words of Christ are not to be 
 *' underftood metaphorically." Alas ! for poor 
 Frotejlantifm! if it refted upon no firmer a bafis, 
 than that of the paultry logic of our remarhr { 
 I'm fure, if he was to engage in a controverfy 
 with a Jefuit jj^i i\iQ lowed clafs, our caufe in the 
 
 hands 
 
C 328 ) 
 
 bands of luch a fumbling logician, w^uld cut 
 but a poor %-urc. And if our author is no 
 more fkiiicd in the controverfy about baptifni, 
 than he fecn^s qualified for refuting the abUir- 
 dity of tranJiibJidntiatiGn ; I would advife hini 
 never again to ihew his ilice in the tield of this 
 controverfy ; unlefs he can, with phlegmatic pa- 
 tience, fubmit to the mortification of being 
 
 laughed at. Bat let us fee, how his method of 
 
 attacking a Popilh tenet will apply to baptifm. 
 He fays, that " the want of one word (children) 
 " in y^Jls V. 14, will link our caufe for. ever.'* 
 Then he quotes, (quite mat-apropos in my opi- 
 nion) the words of our Savior, on which the 
 Fapijh ground their favorite tenet ; which he re^ 
 futes by faying (for it is impoHible to call it 
 arguing) " that the words are to be underftood 
 " 'metaphorically." But might not the Papiji juftly 
 urge our author's own reafoning in favor of 
 adul'L-baptifm, againil: his logic about tranfub- 
 llantiation. q. d. " Mr. Rtmarker, you fay, that 
 " the omilhon of one word in Aols v. 14, links 
 " the caufe of the Paedobaptifts for ever. Yet 
 " in commenting upon our Savior's words, 
 " you fay we are to underfiand him as declar- 
 *' ing, "This is (metaphorically) ?ny body. 
 " But, Mr. Remarker, where is the word 7iieta- 
 *' pkorically written? Will not, (to adopt your 
 " ov/n argument and your own words) the want 
 " of that one word (metaphorically) Jink your caufe 
 ," for ever ? and lie a dead weight on your caufe, 
 *' when YOU, Mr. Remarker, are no moref 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 Thus our author's wonderful logic here, puts a 
 weapon into the hand of a Fapift, and difiinns 
 his own boafted I'eafoning, in favor of adiilt- 
 baptifm, of all its force. 
 
 (6) A hint I dropped, refpefting the utility 
 of a liturgical fervice, in order to guide a pub- 
 lic congregation in their addrefTes to God, fur- 
 niflies our author with a frelh opportunity of 
 difplaying his logic. According to cuftom he 
 tells a little Jiory, which he borrows froin one 
 whom he l^yles " a droll hand.'' P. 28. But it 
 contains fuch a mixture of profanity and drollery 
 together, that I will not recite it, even though 
 it comes authenticated from the pen of the pious 
 remarker himfelf. Indeed he feems fufpicious 
 that his borrowed ftory fails in argument as well 
 as decency: for he fays, " However, I will not 
 " difpute thefe points with you." But though he 
 . declines difputation on this head, yet he favors 
 us with his humble opinion. " My opinion is 
 *' that reading is neither praying nor preaching."'^ 
 
 T t And 
 
 * N. B. I beg leave l;o confidei- this unguarded aCertion of our au- 
 thor. 1. As to preaching: to prc-ich is prxdicaru' verbum Dei, to 
 
 pubUfli or declare the word of God. Whether this publication of 
 truth be performed ex-tempore, memoriter, or by notes, it is PRE.acHiNG: 
 becaufe the particular mode does not aiFedt the thing itfelf. And, the* 
 it is much to be wiflied, that {he ufe of notes were more out of fafli- 
 ion ; if for no other end but that of afcertaining the originality of the 
 preacher's nianufaftures : yet, to make preaching the abfolute mono- 
 poly of au ex'lempore mode, is at once to dspretlate a well-digefted 
 corapofition lecaufi it is read ; auJ to dignify with the undcfcrved titls 
 of preachings every the groflefl: piece of incoherence, merely becaufe it is 
 poured forth without notes; and perhaps without premeditation, ar- 
 ranger-icnt, or connexion, tjo far am I, therefore, ficoi, being a pro- 
 
 iclytc 
 
( 33^ ) 
 
 And then he adds " Let me take have of this 
 " point, by reminding you, that a bare com- 
 
 *' mendation 
 
 felyte to our author's doctrine on this head ; that, although I wifli 
 as much as poffible to difcouiitenance the ufe of thofe pulpit-crutches ' 
 yet, I had rather liften to the reading of a -vvell-conneAed difcourfe 
 at any time, than to declamatory eirufions delivered ex tempore, when 
 the matter and manner exhibit a difgufting mixture of aukward vo- 
 ciferation and immethodical rant. II. When the remarier fays, 
 
 " reading is not praying," he might have added, " nor is ex-tempore 
 *' eflulion, praying :" for, the ttiode is not the thing. Prayer in its 
 ejfence, is the fpiritual breathing of the heait GoD-ward; and may 
 therefore be performed without any verbal expreflion whatever. As 
 the mode of exprelfion does not necejfarily enter into the nature of the 
 duty; confequcntly the difference of the mode does not in the leaft 
 afFecl the thing. Words are but the clothing of our thoughts ; and the 
 manner in which the former are exprefied, cannot injure the exiflencs 
 of the latter. Would not any perlbn of common fenfe flare at that 
 man, who fliould argue, that a perfon cannot thinli, becaufe he nietho- 
 dizcs his thoughts, and cloathes them in a form of well-digefted f.v^rf/^ 
 fion ? or that reading an excellent compofition, which is the refult of 
 deep ftudy, is not thinking ? Equally abfurd is our remarker, who would 
 exclude praying from one mode, and confine it to another. But hit 
 abfurdity will appear flill more evident, if we coniider, (i) That if 
 none can be faid to pray but fuch as prefeiiit their addrelTes ex tempore/- 
 then this extemporaneous mode is ejfential to prayer. But this is con- 
 traditfted by matter of fadt. For, a man may by mere dint cf in- 
 genuity, vent his thoughts in prayer as well as in preaching, without 
 any premeditation, and yet be deflitute of any fpiritualiiy in cither. 
 Many a profcflbr of religion has acquired an aftonifliing volubility in 
 uttering wxtrds ex tempore in prayer; who notwithftanding has never 
 experienced the gift of praying -with the fpirit. Therefore an ex-tempore 
 efl'ufion no more conflitutes the effence of prayer, than a fimilar mode 
 is effential to deep thinking. (2) U readiiig a vfcll-digedcd form be not 
 prayir.gj then tliofe who pra<n:ice that mode of congregational devo- 
 tion, are wholly fliut out of all prctenlions to the eJlencc of a duty, 
 which enters into the very nature of true chrlflianity : and flnce the 
 difciples of our Lord prayed by a foryn prefcribed to them by their 
 great Mafter ; according to our author's logic, they did not pray at 
 all. (3) It is notorious,, that many minifters, who loudly exclaim 
 againfl a form, are guilty of equal formality with thofe, from whom 
 they differ. For, I myfelf have heard the fame prayers ufed without 
 the fmalleft variation, from the beginning to the end of the year; 
 only with this trifling difference, that iiiltead of being -written, they 
 
 were 
 
( 331 ) 
 
 *^ mendation of any thing, is no proof of the 
 
 *' legality or utility of it." And let me remind 
 
 T t 2 our 
 
 were delivered viemorliir. (4) Confidering how many are palpably dif- 
 tjualified for being the mouth of tlie people, in the folemn duty of 
 prayer ; and how frequently congregrations are obliged to liften to 
 efFufions, replete with irreverence, vain repetition, and gi-ofs impro- 
 priety of language ; to obviate luch dilagrceable incidents, as well as 
 to afford the congregation an opportunity of uniting equally with the 
 niinifter in their joint addrefies to the divine Majefty ; fcripture and 
 the very nature of things concur to prefcribe fuch a public form, as 
 may at once affifl the minifter, and edify the people. And fo fully 
 was the illuftrious Reformer of Geneva convinced of the great utility 
 of fuch a public foi-m, that Fr.lkr, in his Church-Hiftory, Book vii. 
 P. 426, faji-s, " Mafter Calvin is therein" {i.e. in his Letter to the 
 Protedor,) " very pofitive for a sett form: whofe words defervc 
 our trandation and obiervation. Formula m prccum (laith Calvin) & 
 rtt'Mim ecclejtafticorum valde frobo^ lit certs ilia cxtet ; a qua ne pujloribas dif- 
 cedere in funSione fuu liceat : I Vt confulatnr quorundam fimplicitali & impe- 
 rituc, 2 Vt cerliiis conjict omnium inter fe ecdefiarum confenfiis. 3 TJt ohxnam 
 incatttr defultorix quorundam Icvitati, qui novationes qtiafdam affedant. Sic igi- 
 tur Jlatum ejfc catechifmum oportet, JiUam facramentorum adminijirationcm, pub' 
 licam item precum formulam." That is : "I do highly approve that 
 there flrould be a certain form of prayer, and ecclefiaftical rites; 
 from which it fhould not be lav.-ful for the paftors themfelves to de- 
 part. I That provifion may be made for fome people's ignorance and 
 unikilfulnefo. a That tlie consent of all the churches among them- 
 felves may more plainly appear. 3 That order may be taken againfl 
 the unfcttled levity of fuch as delight in innovations. Thus there 
 ought to be an eflabliflied catechism, an eflablillied adminiftration of 
 SACRAMENTS, as alfo a public form of prayer." — See Mr. Toplady't 
 
 Ktftoric Proof, Sec. P. 370. This teftimony is the more valuable, as 
 
 it procedes not from a Churchman, who might be fjfpedted of undue 
 attachment to his own eccleliaftical rites, but from an impartial Pref- 
 hterian s whofe opinion is at once declarative both of his wifdom and 
 his candor; as well as decilive againft fome popular out-cries of 
 modern bigotry. (5) I mean not that either the Lord's miniftcrs or 
 people fliould be tied down -wholly to a form ; nor is it the original 
 defign of our church that they fliould ; and we hope, our brethren 
 that differ from us on this head, have full conviction, that Church-jnen 
 can occafionally drop their forms in every branch of their ppblic 
 miniftratlons, and appear to as great advantage as others. All we 
 (foatend for, is ; in order that a public congregation fliould n6t be 
 
 always 
 
( 332 ) 
 
 pur r,emarker, that his bare condemnation *' of any 
 *' thing" (efpecially when " bare" of argument, 
 
 of 
 
 always left at the mercy of extemporaneous (and often erroneous) efFii- 
 iions ; that the officiating miniiler fliould deliver himfelf, efpecially in 
 his petitionary addrelTcs to God, Avith truth and propriety ; and that 
 the congregation may be able to follow him through this important 
 branch of his public -work, with edification ; we think a liturgical 
 fervlce, on thefe accounts, of the highefl utility. I know it is often 
 urged, in the language of Mr. Benjamin JVallin, that our fervice is " a 
 " form of human invention." But how trifling is the obje(5lion ? If 
 Anabaptifls inveigh at our liturgy, becaufe it is a form ; the fame 
 ground of invective would lie againfl: the Lord's prayer, and the difci- 
 fies who ufed it. — But it is " a form of inveniion." And v.'hat then ? 
 If it be according to truth, is it invalidated, becaufe it js an inven- 
 tion ? " I NEVER thought" (fays Mr. Baxter, in his Plain Scriptiire- 
 Troof, P. ayi,) " all things of human iavention in God's worfliip, either 
 " will-worfhip, or unlawful. Many circumftantials mujl ie for the 
 *' fpecies of human determination or invention, which God hath de- 
 •' termined only ingenere': that is the doctrine of the old non- 
 
 *' CONFORMISTS." Why fliould not minilters, in praying as well as 
 
 preaching, flrive " to fnd cut acceptable words" ? Is not an invention, 
 which is the refult of deep- meditation and fcripture -inquiry, as 
 much calculated to edify, as an ex-tsmpcre one ? Or is a prayer, de- 
 livered ex-tempore, lefs an invention, than one Jludicd and read ? Has 
 not the latter the confiderable advantage of being a well-digefted 
 compofition ? while the former, being an extempqrancous invention, 
 IS frequently encumbered with repetition, and improper, not to fay 
 irreverent, e^tpreffion ? Why fliould not a minifter, under the infpi- 
 ration of the Almighty, with his Bible before him, and his heart 
 lifted up in prayer to the fountain of wiflom, fnd out and compofe 
 as edifying a prayer, as a man, v.'ho ftands up in a pulpit, and, with- 
 out any premeditation, pours forth his petitionary addreCes, in lan- 
 guage not always proper, and in a manner, fometimes perhaps def- 
 titute of reverence, as well as fenfe ? ' Why fliould the one be 
 condemned under the depretlating epithet of an " invention?" and 
 the other, not? Archbiflicp Cr^wMfr, for inflance, compofes in his 
 ftudy an excellent coilect, full of truth, and ' expreflive of the fotfl's 
 devout, breathing heaven-ward. Mr. JFallin, or Mr. Turner, or Mr. 
 Any-body-elfe, delivers his addrefles ex-tempore, in language unpre- 
 meditated and undigefled. We will fuppofe that Mr. W. or Mr. T. 
 fpeaks down-right nonfenfe, or utters palpable error, in his intercef- 
 fory elTufions. Shall the former be run down as an " invention," be- 
 caufe 
 
( 333 ) 
 
 jof candcr, and of decency) " is no proof" of the 
 
 illegality or ijiutility ox \t. Though he " takes 
 
 •' leave" of this pouit, yet with Itrange incon- 
 iiftency, he refumes it in the very next fentence; 
 and inveighs at our Lttut^gy, by an abulive coni- 
 parifon between it, and Diana, the abomination 
 of the Ephejians ; and between thofe who ufe our 
 Liturgy, and the heathen worihipers of that 
 
 caufe it is ftudied ; and the latter cried up, merely Iccai-fc it is an 
 invention, uuftudied and tindigefied? By this ftrange arguing, an inven- 
 tion of ex-tcmpore nonfcnfe or error, may be proved of fuperior lanc- 
 
 tity to the moft Iblid compolition, becauie it is read. But our 
 
 Liturgy, is " a form ot human invention." And is not an €x--1eiiipcre 
 prayer a "■ human^' invention? If Mr. IFalltn objects to our formu- 
 lary, becaufe fomething human enters into its compolition ; then all 
 his own ex-Umpore effuiions mult be — altogether divine : otherv/ife his 
 cbjeiflion has no force. But if he mean, that tlie prayers of our 
 church are abfolutcly " binnan" as containing nothing of God and 
 truth, but evciy thing of tmns frailty ; he is grofsly miftakcn. The 
 compilers of our JLiturgy, it is true, were me>7 ; and fo are their 
 modern objedlors. But they were inen — of eminent learning — of ge- 
 nuine piety and of deep acquaintance with the fcriptures. They 
 
 v/ere Reformers, Martyrs — men, who fealed the truth with their blood. 
 And, although their compofitions, as to their verbal clothing, are ha- 
 ruan : yet, as to their intrinlec worth, they are divine. For, if the 
 inherent gold of gofpel-truths may be laid to reader a prodmftiou 
 divine ; there is then as much of divinity in the Liturgical fervices of 
 our church, as in any or all the ex-tempore compofitions of Anabap- 
 tifts ; from the firft founder of that fedl, down to Mr. Beujamin Wallirt 
 aforefaid. And, as well to give a fandtion to our fentiments on this 
 fiibject, as to point out the divine original, from which we derive 
 the ufe of a form of prayer ; I preient the remarker with the foi- 
 lowing lines, which I would advile him to conlider maturclv. 
 " Kofea, Joel, and Jfaiah, 
 
 Were Jews, as well as Hezekiah, 
 
 Yet us'd and taught a. form of pray'' r ; 
 
 Their works fay how, and when, and wliere. 
 
 In after-times, the faints, we find, 
 
 Were taught by Him, whom all fliould mind ; 
 
 A certain form of pray'r to ufe, 
 
 fit or for Chriftians, or for Jews." 
 
 aboml- 
 
 « 
 
C 334 ) 
 
 abominable idol. To which piece of irrt-ligious 
 and inconclufive aiTimilation 1 cannot better re- 
 ply, than in our author's own words, which 
 imniediately follow, '* But what was all this to 
 " the purpofe ? Just nothing." — He is very 
 angry, bccaufe I have hinted at Mr. M's dif- 
 qiialitication for making any improvement in 
 Gur Liturgy ; and fays, " I think juft the contrary. 
 *' Did you ever fee a human performance that 
 " could not be improved?" Oh! the man's 
 logic ! I fay, Mr. Medley does not poflefs abilities 
 fufficient to fuggeft an improvement in our li- 
 turgical fervicc. Ergo, I fay it cannot be im- 
 proved at all. That is, according to our logician, 
 Mr. ilf. is every-body ; and to fay, a compoiition 
 cannot be improved by him, is to affirm it will 
 admit of no improvement at all! Excellent! — 
 He feems extremely happy in the fuppolition, 
 that he does not want a Liturgy. " I can tell you 
 *' of fome who do not need it." Whoever they 
 are, the remarker is not one of them. For, if I 
 may be permitted to form a judgment of his 
 abilides in the pulpit, by his late produc5tion 
 fi-om the prefs ; I'm fure he does " need" a Li- 
 turgy to affift him in his miniftrations: and as I 
 know of none fuperior to that ufed by the Church 
 qf Ejigland, 1 therefore moil: earnestly recommend 
 it to Mr. T.'s pious adoption : and if method, 
 argument, language, modefty, charity, and a proper 
 application oi fcripture- analogy, have any thing to 
 do in the delivery of public difcourfes j I mould 
 imagine the remarker, of all preachers living, ought 
 
 to 
 
( 335 > 
 to fludy thefe necefiary ingredients ; and to truft 
 rather to well-dlgefted notes, than either to his 
 memory or his invention. Thofe who cannot walk 
 without crutches, appear doubly lame, when they 
 affect to throw them away. 
 
 (7) More logic ftill ! He fays, p. 25. *' What 
 has a paffage in Genefis to do with baptlfm r" 
 The palfage he refers to, is that which i have 
 prefixed as the motto, to the title-page of my 
 Letter to a Baptift-Minifter ; and is the following. 
 / will be A God to the, and to thy seed after thee. 
 In an improvement of this covenant - promife, 
 made to Abraham and his jeed, of which . circum- 
 cifion under the law, was a confirming 7?^7Z and 
 Jeal, as baptijm is, under the gofptl ; I have ad- 
 vanced fome arguments, which, it is manlfeft, 
 our remarker knows not what to do with. Ac- 
 cording to his ufual method, he pafies thm. over 
 in perfect filence ; which his prudence judged 
 mofl: advifable. But on the fcripture-andlogy, which, 
 fupports thefe arguments he makes an indire<5l 
 attack ; by aiking fuch a queftion, as would in- 
 cline one to fufpe^l:, that he thought the Old 
 Teftament contrary to the New ; that it was un- 
 fcriptural to argue from the authority of the one, 
 to that of the other j or that a divine inftitution 
 imder the latter, can receive no fandion from 
 the records of the former. An infinuation this, 
 which, at the fame time that it loudly proclaims 
 our author's Ignorance of fcripture-analogy, has 
 a tendency to arm the hands of infidels with 
 weapons againft divine revelation. The grand 
 
 objedion. 
 
( 33« ) 
 
 objefllon, which our author makes to the fci'Ip- 
 tare from Genefis^ as well as to other corref- 
 ponJent palTages, both in tlie Old and New Tef-, 
 tament, is, that they are not ** plam texts of 
 *' fcripture." So he argues (p. 25 :) " There is 
 *' nothing like plain texts of fcripture for carry- 
 ing conviclion." Tliat is j the word baptijm is 
 not mentioned njerbatlm and literatim in the paf- 
 iagej and therefore it is not a ^^ plain text 5" and 
 cannot be admitted as an evidence in favor of 
 the fubje6l. But the objedor Jhould know, that 
 as the Old Teitament is an obfcure revelation 
 of the will of God, fome of the plaineft, as well 
 as moll important doctrines of chriftianity, lie 
 concealed therein, under the veil of myftery ; and 
 that the prophetic language which cloathes them, 
 is for the moft part, dark and myfterious. If 
 therefore, paff^ges, in that obfcure part of re- 
 velation, are inadmilTible as evidences to any par- 
 ticular truth, merely becaufe they are not Jyl- 
 labically '* plain j" I am afraid fuch reafoning will, 
 not only tend to invalidate the arguments, in 
 favor of revelation, founded on the divine con- 
 nexion between the writings of the prophets and 
 the apoftlesj but likewife to flrike at the autho- 
 rity of the whole Old Teftament. 
 
 Suppofe our author had been prefent, when our 
 Lord vindicated the dodrine of a future refur- 
 rcciion, againll the cavils of the Sadducfes; as 
 recorded in Matth. xxii. 31, 32. The fcripture 
 upon which Tesus founded his arguments on 
 that occafion, is a quotation from Exod. iii. 6. 
 
 " I am 
 
( 337 )'• 
 
 ^' I am the God of Abraham, and the God of 
 ** Ifaac,bscc," This fcrlpt are contains a covenant- 
 declaration, the fame In fubi^ance with that in 
 Gm. xvil. 7. If therefore the want of the word 
 baptifm, in the latter pailage, be a proof that ic 
 cannot have any reference to that JigTi of the co- 
 venaiit \ \.\\Q want of the word refurredion in the 
 former, muft, according to the fame mode of 
 arguing, be admitted as a demonftration, that 
 Exod» iii. 6, Cannot evince the rijihg of the dead. 
 And, if the remarker had made one among the 
 circle of the Sadducees juft mentioned, Ihould he 
 not have objected to our Lord's quotation from 
 Exodus, in the following manner, q. d. " Don't 
 *' tell me of your quotations from the Old Tefta- 
 *' ment. — There's nothing like plain texts of 
 *' fcripture to carry conviction. — What has a 
 *' text in Exodus to do with the refurredionf — ^ 
 " The want of that one word (refurredion) muft 
 *' link your caufe for ever." Thus the remark- 
 tr's wonderful logic Is retorted upon himfelf: 
 and the retort proves at once the profanity and 
 abfurdity of his reafoning; becaufe it Ihews, that, 
 as Gen. xvii. 7, is not a plain text, and therefore 
 according to him, not to be admitted in. favor 
 of baptifm ; for the fame reafon our Lord's 
 quotation from Exodus, not being a "plain text," 
 ought not to be allowed as decilive for the doc- 
 trine of the refurretlion : and, it is fubmitted 
 to the judgment of a reader of the fmallefl; dif- 
 cernment, whether, upon the fame principle that 
 the remarker is an oppugner of Infant-baptifm, 
 
 U u h2 
 
( S3^ ) 
 
 he ought not to commence a Sadducee. For, 
 if the want of what he ftyles plainnefs in one 
 palTage of fcripture frem the Old Teftament de- 
 termines him againft Infant- baptijm ; why ihould 
 not a limilar circum{lance, in another pafiage, 
 fix his determinations againft the do6\rine of a 
 future refurreSfion? — So much for the remarhers 
 thoughts on plain texts, and the plain abfurdity 
 which plainly attends his reafoning on them. 
 
 (8) In p. 1 8, the remarker aflfe61s the Critic. 
 He talks about *' the import of the Greek, — the 
 " joint authority of the beft writers, — the joint 
 *' teftimony of lexicographers, as fufficient to 
 ** fix the fenfe of a word, — of writers, both fa- 
 ** cred and profane, ancient and modern, &c." 
 When I firft dropped on this paffage, the ftyle 
 of which is fo extremely turgid, I thought, * Well, 
 now we may exped fomething greater than a few 
 undoubtedly s, round affirmations , moji certainlys, 6cc. 
 Surely our author is now going to enter upon a 
 ferious examination of his fubje6l, and will favor 
 us with fomething more conclufive than his mere 
 ipfe dixit.* But it was a mountain in labor^ and the 
 produdion difappointed my ex peculations. Our 
 remarker only talked about thefe '* numerous au- 
 *' thorities," — about theniy reader, and about them 
 
 for, lo! he has not produced one of them. 
 
 And, indeed, why Ihould I be farprifed at this 
 ridiculous iffue of fach a pompous exordium ? 
 when 1 hear him declare for his brethren, that 
 •* they pay no regard to church-hiftory, fa- 
 ♦* thers, fynods, criticijms on the Greek , he?' Ibid. 
 
 Yet, 
 
( 339 ) 
 
 Yet, after faying, he *' paid m regard to crl- 
 *' ticifms on the Greek," he, in the very next 
 fentence, fays, " However, let us pay a mo- 
 *' ment's atte?ition to the import of the Greek f* 
 Thus he fays and unfays 5 advances and retreats? 
 vindicates and contradids himfelf, in the fame 
 breath ! Rare mode of difputation! To what 
 end is it thus conduced ? *' For faJhiorCs fake'* 
 truly ! That is j the remarker " pays no regard 
 ■*' to critic ifras on the Greek," becaufe that is his 
 ** falhion :" but '* he does pay a moment's 
 ** attention to the import of the Greek," becaufe 
 it is our " falliion." Inimitable condefcenliont 
 Aftonilhing ingenuity of our critical fajhion ma- 
 ker ! Search the whole compafs of letters; ex- 
 amine the whole circle of the literati-, rummage 
 all the produi^ions of authors, facred or profane, 
 antlent or modern, in profe or verfe ; and I 
 dare fay fuch a '" fajhion" of criticizing and 
 commenting, as this of our author, was never 
 
 before introduced into the literary world ! 
 
 After, therefore, mentioning " the authority of 
 " the beft writers" without producing one : — - 
 after promifing *' to pay a moment's attention 
 *' to the import of the Greek," without fulfil- 
 ling his promiie : — after declaring *' it has been 
 *' proved to a demonfl:ration that ^oiirn^oo iig- 
 ** nifies to plunge or overwhelm, only," without 
 {o much as even attempting to ftumbic on fuch 
 proof: — after raifing our expedations to a prodi- 
 gious pitch, by talking of the " befl writers, 
 ** lexicographers, numerous authorities, writers 
 U u 2 " facred 
 
( 340 ) 
 
 *' facred and profane, &c. &c." what Is the up- 
 Ihot of all this puff? Reader, fummon up all 
 your gravity. For, if your rilible mufcles were 
 as rigid as even thofe of HeracUtus himfelf, I 
 am certain, what follows will make an irreliftible 
 fliock upon them. — " It muft he undoubtedly 
 " CERTAIN that ■plunging is baptizing-, and that 
 " Jprinkliiig is not baptizijig" P. 21. — This is our 
 author's "■ fajhion of paying attention to the im- 
 " port of the Greek /" Well, learned reader, 
 don't you think this fajhion perfe6ily new f And, 
 for the introdu6\ion of it, does not the author 
 bear away the palra from all the writers antient 
 and modern ? 
 
 Cedite Romanl fcriptores, cedite Grail ! 
 
 (9) Although I am well nigh tired out, with 
 previewing the extraordinary fpecimens of the re- 
 markers charity, candor and logic; yet I will take 
 the liberty to put my own and the reader's pa- 
 tience to the rack, a little longer. A limple 
 
 pircumftance — that of only mentioning, without 
 juaking a fingle comment on the Anabaptifts* 
 method of " giving in experiences"— has thrown 
 our author into fuch a rage, that he hardly 
 Jceeps up common decency in his language, or 
 common charity in his fentiments. If his ani- 
 madverfion which follows, favored only of the 
 abufive, at which the remarkcr has a fcurrilous 
 . adroitnefs ; I fhould probably pafs it over in 
 filence. But, as it teems with fallhood, and re- 
 fleds an undeferved afperfion on the Church of 
 
 England^ 
 
( 341 ) 
 
 England, I csLnnot help attempting, at leaft, to 
 wipe oif the dirt, which this Anabaptift zealot 
 flings at our yllma Mater. HarJi! how he falli- 
 fies and abufes, in a breath. *' There is no 
 -*' fuch cuftom in your church. The thief, the 
 " whore-monger , the blajphemer^ &c. may approach 
 " your communion-table, and no queliion aiked, 
 " or notice taken." P. 32. That the Church of 
 England does not require her members to give 
 in written accounts of their knowledge in re- 
 Hgion, is certain. But, that Ihe is, therefore^ 
 remifs and indifferent about thofe pre-requilites, 
 necelTary in an approach to her communion, is 
 equally faife. Let any perfon of candor only 
 perufe her fblemn exhortations preparatory to 
 the Lord's fupper; and the feveral branches 
 of falutary difcipline contained in her commu- 
 nion-fervice ; and then let him fay, whether our 
 church, as Mr. Turner lliamefully inlinuates, to- 
 lerates thofe beaftsofthe people ^'thieves, whore- 
 *' mongers and blafphemers," to approach the mo ft 
 facred ordinance in her ritual. So remote is her 
 difcipline from fuch horrid profanation, that fhe 
 arms herfelf with all the terrific denuntiations 
 of God's word, in order to prohibit the impi- 
 ous and ignorant from daring to touch the facred 
 fymbols of the Redeemer'?, body and blood. The 
 following are among the awful warnings ihe gives 
 to fuch. *' If any of you be a . blafphemer of 
 God, an hinder er or flanderer of his word, an 
 adulterer^ or be in malice or ewoy^ or in any 
 pther grievous crime j repent you of your lins, 
 
 or 
 
( 3I2 ) 
 
 or clfe come not to that holy table; left, aftet 
 taking of that holy facrament, the Devil enter 
 into you, and fill you full of all iniquities, and 
 bring you to deftrucftion both of body and foul."* 
 Nor does our ciiurch hold out thefe alarming 
 declarations merely in terrorsm, or put them in- 
 to the hands of her ecclcfiaftical fons only as 
 hrutum fulmeny but liie moreover, in ftri6t con- 
 formity to the facred fcriptures, urges upon her 
 Clergy the awful neceiTity, and invefts them 
 v/ith a canonical power, of guarding the holy 
 communion againft the unhallowed intrufion of 
 profanenefs and irreligion; giving them the ftri6l- 
 eft charge to expel and admit their communi- 
 cants, according as they adorn or difgrace, by 
 their conduft, the profeffion of chriftianity. Yea, 
 fo ftrid is the difcipline of oyr church in this 
 refpe(5t, that Ihe iilues out a prohibition againft 
 raikrs j and under that denomination of incon- 
 liftcnt profeffors, 1 am perfuaded, Ihe would in- 
 clude the remarker himfelf, and not admit him 
 to her table; according to that apoftolic injunc- 
 tion in i. Cor. v. 1 1 . 
 
 To all this, perhaps, it will be obje6^ed, that 
 fome Clergymen in the Church of England are fo 
 lax and indifcrlminate in the application of dif- 
 cipline, as to incur the charge which the re- 
 marker brings againft our church in general. 
 But, fuppoling fome minifteriai chara»flers juftly 
 chargeable with the horrid crime of admitting 
 to their table, the moft profane and irreligious; 
 
 * Preparatory Exhortation to the Communion. 
 
 by 
 
( 348 ) 
 
 by what rule of canHor or logic, is the inconiif!- 
 ency of fuch to bt^ fixed upon the church itfelf? 
 when her whole fcrvice makes the moft rigorous 
 provilion againft fuch profanation of her ordi- 
 nances? Befides, though it mult be confefied, 
 that there is a moft criminal relaxation of dif- 
 cipline in the prefent day, particularly refpe6bng 
 the due adminiftration of the LoixD's fupp-r; 
 yet there are, bieiTed be God ! fouie conlcien- 
 tious difciplinarians within the pale of the Church 
 of England^ who would as foon cut off their right 
 hands, as permit " the thief, the whoremonger, or 
 " the blajphemer to approach the communion- 
 *' table, without taking any notice j" as the re- 
 marker falfly infinuates. Yea, 1 will be bold to 
 fay, and can prove it by f^ubborn litis,, that the 
 excellent conflitution of our church, enables her 
 minilfers to a6l with as great boldnefs in the 
 delivery of do<?frines, or the exercife of difci- 
 pline, as any> in the circumflances of the re- 
 marker. 
 
 Thus, have I attended Mr. T. through the 
 principal branches of his Remarks; and cannot 
 but obferve, that fuch produ6^ions as his, fliould 
 always make their appearance, under fuch clr- 
 cumf^ances, as are beft calculated to conceal the 
 name of the author, and even that of their birth- 
 place : — circumftances, to which ih.t re marker hd.s, 
 hitherto indeed, paid the moft artful attention; 
 and for his fkllful management of which, he me- 
 rits the thanks of all the anonymous fcribbir.rs 
 of the day. But, as be has now given us a 
 
 fample 
 
( 344 ) 
 
 fample of his ftyle ; whether a fecond produc- 
 tion comes forth, with or without a name ; we 
 lliall be able to determine its origin, by com- 
 paring- the features of the one with the other 5 
 and to decypher the parent, by the correfpon- 
 dent likenefs of the offspring. Shou'd he think 
 proper to take up his pen a fecond time, and 
 favor me with more Remarks ; I have only to re- 
 queft, that he would think a little, before he 
 writes ; and that in writing, he would reafon. 
 His produdions, hitherto, have proved, that he 
 is extremely deficient in both : and, having ac- 
 quitted himfelf fo indifferently, here I leave him, 
 *' With all his hlufolng honors thick, upon him!" 
 
 while I prefent the intelligent reader with the 
 
 following 
 
 EXTPvACT from Dr. Watts's Sermon, intl- 
 tled '' .Chrijiian Baptifm" Matth. xxviii. 19. 
 (Which I the rather do, becaufe the fenti- 
 ments of this great man refpe6iing the mode, 
 at once corroborate and recapitulate fome ar- 
 guments urged in this treatife; as well as fliew, 
 how Ibamefully difmgenuous muft every at- 
 tempt be, to prefs this eminent Divine into the' 
 caufe of Anabaptifm.) 
 
 " I precede new," fays the Do6lor, •' to the 
 inquiry, IFhat is the manner of performing 
 
 this ceremony" of baptifm ? The Greek word 
 
 ^uifjiclj, fignifies to wajh any thing, properly by 
 water coining over it. Now there are feveral 
 ivays of fuch wallaing, viz: SFRI^^KL1NG water 
 
 on 
 
f 345 ) ' 
 
 on it Ifi fmall quantity; pouring water on it 
 in larger quantity ; or dipping it under water, 
 either in part or in whole. And, lince this feems 
 to be left undetentiined in fcripture to one par- 
 ticular mode; therefore, any of these ways 
 of wafhing may be fufficient to aufvver the pur- 
 pofe of this ordinance. Now, that the Greek 
 word lignifies waJJiing of a thing in general by 
 water coming over it, and not always by dippings 
 is argued by learned men, not only from antient 
 Greek authors, but from the Nezv T'e/iament it/elf^ 
 as, Luke xi. 38. " The Pharlfees marvelled that 
 *' Jesus had not firft wajhed before dinner;" in 
 Greek " was not firft baptized :" and can it be 
 fuppofed that they would have him dip hlmfelf 
 
 in water ? Mark vii. i\. " The Phari{ees, when 
 
 fhey come from the market, eat not, except they 
 are wafhed," /. e. baptized: furely it cannot mean, 
 except they were dipped. And, if this lliould 
 be reftrained to lignify wafhing their hands only^ 
 yet it does tiot neceflarily fignify dipping . them, 
 as " Elijha poured water on the hands of Elijah.'* 
 ii. Kings, viii. 11. — -Yet further, they pracftifed 
 the wafhing of tables (in Greei, of beds), as well 
 as cups and veffels. Now beds, could not ufually 
 
 be wallied by dipping. Heb. ix. 10. The Jews 
 
 had " divers walhings" (in Greek, baptifms) which 
 tvere sprinkling and pouring water on 
 things, as well as plunging them. — ^i. Cor. x. 2. 
 The children of " Ifrael were baptized unto Mofes ' 
 in the cloud and in the fea ;" not that they were 
 dipped in the water, but they were sprinkled 
 Xx by 
 
( 346 ) 
 
 by the clouds over their heads, and perhaps by 
 the water which flood up in heaps as they 
 pafTed by. 
 
 " Beiides, it is faid further on this head, 
 tha.t pouring or fprinkling more naturally re- 
 prefents moft of the fpiritual blejjings lignified by 
 baptifm; viz. the sprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ on the confcience, or the pouring out 
 of the Spirit on the perfon baptized; or sprin- 
 kling him with clean watery as an emblem of 
 the influence of the Spirit: all which are 
 the things signified in baptifm, as different 
 reprefentations of the cleanling of the guilt or 
 defilement of iin thereby." 
 
 P. S. As I am informed, Mr. M. employed 
 Mr. Jofeph Jenkins, of IVrcxhaniy to corre6l 
 the prefs for him, (which I fufpe6^ to have 
 been the cafe, from a fludied omijfion in the 
 title-page of Mr. JVf.'s pamphlet); and as that 
 gentleman hath helped Mr. M. to a note^ out 
 of his little ' Syftematic Creed,' and, probably, 
 hath ^^ fuggejied" fome more ^'hints'' in the 
 note-making way, to a convenient execution 
 of which his fuperintending the prefs quietly 
 contributed : I wifh M.X.M. would adopt fome 
 method of informing me, what notes were 
 fabricated by himfelf, and what, by Mr. jf; 
 that, in my future Rejoinder^ 1 may not con- 
 found together the fabricators themfelves. 
 
 'The End of the ift. Part of the Rejoinder, 
 
 CON- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE author exprcfles his unwilhngnefs to re- 
 engage in dilputationj and points out, how- 
 ever, the utility and end of controverfy, when 
 
 duly managed. Shews how far the debate 
 
 concerning Infant-baptifm is important ; and 
 for what reafons it is necefTary to oppofe Ana- 
 
 baptifm. Gives a Httle hiftoric fketch of the 
 
 commencement and progrefs of the prefent 
 controverfy ; and points out the malevolence 
 and ignorance of the twin difputants, Meflrs. 
 Sandys and Parmenas, P, 5 52. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The author vindicates himfelf and his friends, 
 from Mr. M,'s groundlefs charges and illibe-- 
 rality of low abufe. Proves that the decla- 
 
 . RATION, attefted by ten Anabaptifts, is tan- 
 tamount to an indirect challenge And 
 
 expoftulates with the " severe opposer" on 
 his irreverent mode of attacking Infant-baptifm 
 from the pulpit, and on his indelicate manner 
 of abufmg certain ''endowed'* ecclefiaftics from 
 the prefs. P. 53 8x. 
 
 X X 2 CHAP. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Mr. M.'s doflrlne of the ejjentiality of dipping 
 
 farther expofed and refuted. His explanar 
 
 iory vindications on that head, incur additional 
 abfurdity and glaring feIf-contradi6ti,on — Ani- 
 madveriions on his calling the Church of Eng- 
 land, the " daughter of the mother of abominations.'' 
 
 The defamatory appellation, when transfer- 
 
 ed to the minifters of our church, proved to 
 be inconliftent cither with truth or decency. 
 
 Some Queries propofed to Anabaptifts. 
 
 P. 82, 124. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 Some flri<?l:ures on Dr. Stennett's confining the 
 idea of dipping to the word baptize. His vir- 
 tual charge* of our ** departing from the au- 
 '* thority of Cjirist, and opening the door to 
 " a thoufand innovations of dangerous confe- 
 quence," retorted and refuted. — Mr. Ad.'s mode 
 
 of RIDICULING His BRETHREN, expofcd ; 
 
 and his attempts to evade the force of my for- 
 mer ftridurcs on that head, proved to be del- 
 
 titute of truth and fair reprefentatlon. Some 
 
 preliminaries ftatcd, refpeding the mode of 
 baptifm. P. 1 2 5-- — 144. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 Analogical reafoning from the effuHon of the 
 Spirit to the mode of admlniftering .baptifm, 
 by pouring or fpr inkling of water, fupported by 
 argument, and the authorities oi VoJJius and Chem- 
 ?2/.^//^:.—'-A remarkable correfpondent teftimony 
 
 from 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 •from Origen. T)r, Stennett's and Mr. M.'s ar- 
 guments. In favor of total immerlion drawn 
 from the ufe of the word 'C,o^rl^cAj and the Hebrevy 
 
 tebel, proved to be weak and fallacious. 
 
 Memorable Concessions from Dr. Gak con- 
 lidered. P. 144 174. , 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Baptismal aspersion, an emblematical lepre- 
 fentation of our jujiification by the blood, and 
 
 of our JanSiification by the Spirit of Chr-ist. 
 
 The objedions of Mr. M. and his Oracle on 
 this head, confronted with fcripture, reafon, 
 and the ftriking teftimonies of Calvin, Beza, 
 
 1'ilenus, FoJJius, hightfoot, Sec. Dr. S,'s criticifm 
 
 on the ^ia.<pc{Joig ^oc7fii<riJL0ig divers baptifms, men- 
 tioned in Heh. ix. 10 ; as well as his wonderful 
 dodrine of ge7iu$ and /pedes, by which it is 
 fupported, proved to be equally fallacious and 
 abfurd. P. 175 214. 
 
 CHAP. VI, 
 Mr. M.'s irreverence and abufe farther expofed. 
 — His arguments, in favor of immerlion, taken 
 from the fuperftitious waitings of the Pharifees 
 
 and all thejew^, invalidated. Beza, Dr. Pocock 
 
 and IVall, unite in fuppoling that to be only a 
 walhing of the hands, which the apoftie calls a 
 being baptized.- — The application of the word 
 ^(y.Tfji^co to the bloody baptifm of Christ, and 
 to the baptifm in the cloud, &c. not necelTarily 
 
 including the idea of immerjion. Examples of 
 
 baptifms in fcripture, conlidered The Note- 
 maker's 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 maker's tranflation of a pafiage from IVitfius^ 
 and his indired charge againft us, of blafphe- 
 mous reafoning, ftript of the coloring of fail- 
 hood, chicanery and fophiftry. P. 214 256. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Thofe paflages in the Old Tefiamcnt and Jpocrypha^ 
 
 where the word ^ocifji^M occurs, confidered. 
 
 Its lignification farther afcertained from Critics, 
 
 Lexicographers, and Divines The force of 
 
 Dr. S's quotations from Calvin, Beza, VoJJius^ 
 repelled; and the difingenuity of them, deteded. 
 
 Some additional teflimonies from antiquity 
 
 in favor of baptifmal afpcrjion. The debate re- 
 fumed with the ^' Jevere oppofer." A few 
 
 heads of advice propofed to his ferious confi- 
 deration. P. 257 288. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 The feveral extraordinary fpecimens of Mr. I'ur- 
 ners manner, charity, and logical 
 
 REASONING, conlidered. The fallhood, 
 
 futility, and malevolence of all his Remarks, ex- 
 
 pofed. His criticifms, refpeding the mode 
 
 zndi jubje^ls of baptifm, proved to be nugatory 
 and inconclulive. The inflances of unchari- 
 table judging, fcattered throughout his pam- 
 phlet, declarative of the true fpirit of a *' r.ed-^ 
 *' hot Jnabaptiji:' P. 289 344. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 A confirming teftimony, from Dr. PFatts, P. 344 
 
 346. 
 
 ER R A^ 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 P. 8. L. 4. for fuppojitioui read fuppojititious, — 
 P. 14. Penult, for dovotees r. devotees.—-?. 28. L. 26. 
 for pannic r. panic. — P. 35 L. 27. for //^^/^ r. likely, 
 
 — P. 62. L. 5. for exagerating r. exaggerating. 
 
 P. 107. L. 24. dele tliat. — P. 134. L. 14. for Pcedo- 
 haptiji r. Padohaptifls.—--?. 183. L. 2. in the Note, 
 ioY fangine y. foftiguine. — P. 230. L. 9 for trod r. 
 tr^n. — P. 246. L. 14. for achamenia r. achamenio. 
 — P. 255. L. 2. after the word Wuter, infert * as it 
 flands in the original.' — P. 274. L. 2. in the Note, 
 after ao-jSj/flj fupply 77. — P. 290. L. 15. forjioler, 
 Jiolen, — P. 291. L. 8. for Sybil r. Sibyl. — P. 294. 
 L. 22, for Deucalion r. Prometheus* 
 
Preparing for the Prefs, and will be PuhUJhed as Jbon 
 as the Author's other Avocations will permit ; 
 
 T PI E 
 
 REJOINDER: 
 
 O R, 
 
 Infant-Baptifm farther Vindicated 
 
 On the Ground of 
 
 Scripture, Reason and Antiqjjity: 
 
 Being a full Reply to the prinGlpal Objections 
 oi Anahaptijis in general, and of Dr. Stennett, and 
 Mr. Samuel Medley, in particular. 
 
 " CcnfueUido ccckftx in baptizaxdis parvulis nequaquain fpernenda ej}, 
 *' nee omnino crcdenda, nifi apostolica effct traditio." Augustin. 
 
 Part IL 
 
 Shrewjhury: Printed by T. Wood, Bookjeller, 
 
 Of whom may be had, 
 
 1 A Letter to a Baptifi-Minifler. Price is. 6do 
 
 2 A Reply to Parmenas. Price 6d. 
 
 3 yehus Looking-Glafs. Price 6d» 
 
'l^ii